Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]