The Position and Method of Legal History

Abstract

The author of this article is a Japanese legal historian. In his view, it is clear that legal history is a branch of legal science: it is from the field of law. It was generated by the historical school in the 19 th century Germany. Indeed it has changed a great deal since then, but it has been a member of legal science. Historically and logically, it is obvious that legal history is a discipline which belongs to legal science.He, therefore, defines it as this: legal history is a branch of legal science and it makes a historical research/study of law.However, many legal historians in Japan-in particular Japanese legal historians-have not thought so. They have lost the conviction that legal history is a legal science. They seem to have lost their academic identity though many of them work for the faculty of law and teach the subject. In other words, they can hardly make clear the qualities of their research/study. This has some historical reasons. One is that their antecedents-ISHII Ryosuke is among them, for instance, and he has had a great influence on this field in Japan, especially on Japanese legal history-have advocated that the discipline belongs both to history and to legal science. Many legal historians have accepted this assertion with little careful examination. Their careless acceptance of the view has caused the present situation that they have lost their academic identity. So the author re-confirms that legal history is a legal science.Moreover, he makes a reference to the characteristics of legal history and continues to put forward his theoretical model which is based upon the relations of politics, law and economy and which interprets history, in particular Japanese history. He also establishes a new periodization in Japanese history according to his model. He points out this too: kinsei (_??__??_) in Japanese history should be translated into ‘the latter half of the medieval times’ in the light of three aspects-politics, law and economy-though it is often put into ‘early modern times.’In the conclusion he lays emphasis on the necessity of the innovation in legal history of Japan-whether the object of its study or research is the West or the East.