What do you think?
Rate this book
Breve storia del diritto in Europa. Dal diritto romano al diritto europeo
La storia del diritto tracciata in questo volume presenta due caratteristiche che la distinguono dalle trattazioni più tradizionali: delinea in parallelo la storia del diritto continentale (civil law) e quello inglese (common law) nel loro evolversi e saldamente originarsi dal diritto romano. Inoltre, considera l'interazione fra eventi storico-sociali e diritto anche negli imperi coloniali spagnoli e britannici, spiegando come quei domini non furono meri recettori delle tradizioni legali europee bensì incubatori di nuove idee, potenziandone la duttilità in contesti diversi e aprendo così la strada anche alle più recenti applicazioni globali. Il volume copre un arco temporale che spazia dal diritto romano sino alla fine dell'800, con un breve epilogo dedicato alla nascita dell'ordine giuridico europeo nel secondo dopoguerra.
336 pages, Paperback
Published February 2, 2024
About the author
Tamar Herzog
12 books4 followersTamar Herzog is Monroe Gutman Professor of Latin American Affairs and Radcliffe Alumnae Professor in the History Department at Harvard University, and Affiliated Faculty Member at Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 27, 2020
If you think that the English common law system is super distinctive, particularly compared to the continental system you've been ... pranked!
This is a short and sweet history of law, which shows that pretty much every system of law is a hodge-podge, just as much defined by the circumstances it is introduced to as by principles of law going back to Rome, William the Conqueror, the Magna Charta, or what have you. In the 1600s, due to the tensions with the king, the English jurists tried to retool the common law system to make it bear witness to the idea of representation and common consent of the governed, which did have an impact on America. At the same time America itself was also a pretty ad hoc situation, and it was only in the lead up to the revolution that they too tried to identify with the common law tradition. Herzog only briefly mentions the idea of case law, and it's definitely in the mix but again, legal systems used a lot of different pieces and at any moment a judge's discretion might change things. Precedent was important in some parts of England, for instance, and less so in others.
This was a really nice history and another rock in the wall that shows that the Western tradition is much more varied and much less uniform than we would think. We're losing a lot in recent times, but the idea of this uniform tradition of law is just about as mythical as the RC idea of tradition. The conservative idea of the English common law system is a fantasy.
This is a short and sweet history of law, which shows that pretty much every system of law is a hodge-podge, just as much defined by the circumstances it is introduced to as by principles of law going back to Rome, William the Conqueror, the Magna Charta, or what have you. In the 1600s, due to the tensions with the king, the English jurists tried to retool the common law system to make it bear witness to the idea of representation and common consent of the governed, which did have an impact on America. At the same time America itself was also a pretty ad hoc situation, and it was only in the lead up to the revolution that they too tried to identify with the common law tradition. Herzog only briefly mentions the idea of case law, and it's definitely in the mix but again, legal systems used a lot of different pieces and at any moment a judge's discretion might change things. Precedent was important in some parts of England, for instance, and less so in others.
This was a really nice history and another rock in the wall that shows that the Western tradition is much more varied and much less uniform than we would think. We're losing a lot in recent times, but the idea of this uniform tradition of law is just about as mythical as the RC idea of tradition. The conservative idea of the English common law system is a fantasy.
July 13, 2021
After much frustration in trying to figure out *exactly* how "Roman law" or "Continental law" regimes differ from "common law" regimes, I decided that I needed to turn to the history of these notions. This book provides a clear answer to how these notions differ: there is a difference, but the difference is not a stark or red-line one.
Instead of relying on dubious distinctions, Herzog briskly covers several themes in the history of European law. I read her survey through a philosophical lens: on what does the law's authority depend? In the late middle ages/ early modern period, it turns out that even in England, where many take "common law" and custom to be the historical basis of the law's authority, it was really the *monarchy's* own exercises of power (via the writing of writs) that grounded the law's authority. The idea that the law depended on custom or the "wisdom of generations" was a later invention, a narrative created to legitimize English law as it existed post-1600 (or so).
On the Continent, things are even more complicated: different legal regimes depended on different things at different times. Local custom/habit, Christian practice, the Pope, and judicial discretion and scholarship are among the different bases of the law throughout this period. Eventually, in the age of discovery and colonization, jurists turned to *reason* as the basis of the law's authority -- thereby enabling European law to be exported to non-European lands populated by people with reason, but who lacked European customs. Codification, and ultimately multi-national communities like the European Union, further transformed European law into the complicated set of norms that Europe has today.
The story is complicated, but Herzog's prose is not. The story she tells is lucid, and it manages to be memorable despite all of the false starts and twists in the history itself. Highly recommended.
Instead of relying on dubious distinctions, Herzog briskly covers several themes in the history of European law. I read her survey through a philosophical lens: on what does the law's authority depend? In the late middle ages/ early modern period, it turns out that even in England, where many take "common law" and custom to be the historical basis of the law's authority, it was really the *monarchy's* own exercises of power (via the writing of writs) that grounded the law's authority. The idea that the law depended on custom or the "wisdom of generations" was a later invention, a narrative created to legitimize English law as it existed post-1600 (or so).
On the Continent, things are even more complicated: different legal regimes depended on different things at different times. Local custom/habit, Christian practice, the Pope, and judicial discretion and scholarship are among the different bases of the law throughout this period. Eventually, in the age of discovery and colonization, jurists turned to *reason* as the basis of the law's authority -- thereby enabling European law to be exported to non-European lands populated by people with reason, but who lacked European customs. Codification, and ultimately multi-national communities like the European Union, further transformed European law into the complicated set of norms that Europe has today.
The story is complicated, but Herzog's prose is not. The story she tells is lucid, and it manages to be memorable despite all of the false starts and twists in the history itself. Highly recommended.
March 24, 2024
Of all the fields I am going to be examined on in about a month, I am most concerned for my European Legal History field, as I feel as though I am the least well-versed in the actual history as well as the historiography. I am so grateful to Tamar Herzog for writing what is probably the single most useful book in that field for me. Both in teaching me about legal history before the French Revolution (a whole stretch of time I feel as though I know nothing about) and also the legal aspect of the 19th and 20th centuries, with which I am most familiar with. Of the former, it is amazing how she absolutely clarified in my head at least the breakdown of historical time periods.
I do have to lament that she does not properly delve into the 20th century. Perhaps this is a function of me now actually knowing more about the 20th century and can see how generalized her approach is (which is the only way to really cover “two and a half millennia!”) But there is absolutely no mention of any of the wars, and most especially the totalitarian regimes that ruled in the middle of the century. There is also no mention of communism, and communist law – which set up an entirely different legal system in half of the continent! But I suppose that is what one should expect from a book that returns time and again to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Still, my qualms are not too great, because this book is simply too useful for me at this very moment to argue against.
I do have to lament that she does not properly delve into the 20th century. Perhaps this is a function of me now actually knowing more about the 20th century and can see how generalized her approach is (which is the only way to really cover “two and a half millennia!”) But there is absolutely no mention of any of the wars, and most especially the totalitarian regimes that ruled in the middle of the century. There is also no mention of communism, and communist law – which set up an entirely different legal system in half of the continent! But I suppose that is what one should expect from a book that returns time and again to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Still, my qualms are not too great, because this book is simply too useful for me at this very moment to argue against.
February 17, 2023
It's a huge task to summarize the entire history of European law in ~250 pages, from Rome to the European Union, but Herzog does it. She unavoidably shortens and generalizes everything, giving (for example) only two chapters to all developments between 1790 and 1950. I'm sure that other scholars from elsewhere in Europe might also disagree with her emphases. For example, she devotes one chapter to English common law, without similar chapters on any other country. She argues that English common law was unusual in historically-important ways, and on one level I find that easy to believe, but on another level I wonder whether there're similarly-unique properties in other countries' law that I just don't know about.
Regardless, Herzog gives a well-written summary of over two thousand years of law. There're a lot of new concepts I learned about, such as the Roman "law of nations"; and a lot of concepts I understand a lot better, such as the codification movement.
Regardless, Herzog gives a well-written summary of over two thousand years of law. There're a lot of new concepts I learned about, such as the Roman "law of nations"; and a lot of concepts I understand a lot better, such as the codification movement.
October 17, 2020
This is not a history of European laws, but European law--the structure and character of the law as a unit, how it evolved and why it varied from region to region. Extremely worth reading, concise, and with an amazing bibliography.
March 29, 2026
A discussion of the original nature of juridical procedures with origins of Roman Law and the many successive adaptions and permutations of these procedures in Canon Law, Germanic Law, English Law, Natural Law, and modern European and Anglo-American Law.
August 17, 2023
Also read this book for school
June 23, 2024
What’s most fascinating about this book is that it shows that the history of law in Europe is effectively the history of Europe. Treaties, wars, technology, borders, marriages, culture, etc.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews