ABSTRACT
This chapter asks why Legal History has become marginalised and ghettoised. It contends that the way in which historical scholarship in Law Schools has developed provides at least part of the answer. Adistinction can be drawn between the traditional approach to Legal History which explores the ‘internal’ development of the common law and the approach taken by many legal scholars who often would not call themselves legal historians who examine the ‘external’ interplay over time between law and society. The chapter outlines the characteristics of the two forms of Legal History in turn,which for convenience will be referred to as Internal Legal History and External Legal History. It explores how these two camps have developed in isolation from and in opposition to one another and will suggest that this has led to the marginalisation of Legal History. The chapter concludes by contending that this is misguided and will explore the reasons why both approaches complement one another and why both are required.
