Summary The question, what constitutes the methodology of the legal history research, is answered in different ways. One is that it is the same as for general history: writing on history according to a set of rules which constitute its methodology, because in the end all research on history is just creating a text. It follows from this that legal history is a variation of history and belongs to history faculties, since there is no connection with legal methodology. It is maintained in this article that this view is based on too simple a view of history as science: there is not one methodology but various methodologies (‘discourses’, not only in history but in science in general), each with its own conditions and requirements. Legal history’s discourse has a particular distinguishing element, viz. legal analysis and methodology, which sets it apart from history in general. Its natural place is consequently in law faculties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boudewijn Sirks (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: