LECTURE: Legal Pluralism: From History to Theory and Back – Otto von Gierke, Santi Romano, & Francesco Calasso on Medieval Institutions with Emanuele Conte (Law and History Workshop, 1 March 2022, ONLINE)

(Image source: Stanford Center for Law and History)

We learned that the next seminar of the Law and History Workshop organized by the Stanford Center for Law and History will be held on Tuesday, March 29, from 12:45-2:00 PM (Pacific) in Room 320D, Stanford Law School, and via Zoom. 

Emanuele Conte, Roma Tre University, will present, “Legal Pluralism: From History to Theory and Back – Otto von Gierke, Santi Romano, & Francesco Calasso on Medieval Institutions.”

The workshop will be a hybrid event held in-person (Room 320D) and via Zoom. As a reminder, we ask that you RSVP in advance so that we can circulate the paper, provide the Zoom link to the event, and for food ordering purposes for those of you who wish to join us in-person. Please read the paper in advance.

To RSVP, click here. Those who confirm their attendance will receive a separate email containing the paper and link to the event.

ABSTRACT

Three lectures delivered in three different languages in 1909 offer the starting point of this journey though European legal historiography and the connections between historical narratives about medieval Europe and Santi Romano’s legal doctrines of legal pluralism. Romano was manifestly influenced by the work of Otto von Gierke, a prominent historian of German law and an influential jurist who connected his historical narratives to his political vision. Romano did the same in his influential book, The Legal Order, first published in 1918, which has continued to be reprinted and translated until the present.

Santi Romano’s corporatist doctrines influenced in turn the historical reconstruction promoted by Francesco Calasso, although the two were on opposite political sides (Romano had embraced Fascism, while Calasso was an anti-fascist).

Calasso went on to draw his picture of a “common legal past” for Europe as a prototype of a working legal pluralism, in which learned law and legal practices cooperated to form a well-balanced pluralist system of autonomous communities.

More information can be found here.