the use of another discipline's knowledge and the use of its theories and methodology 28 Thus, there are multiple senses in which scholarship can be interdisciplinary III. English Legal History and Indisciplinarity While some might characterize English legal history as interdisciplinary, it seems different than the numerous"law ands that populate the intellectual landscape. There is a difference between"legal history and"law and history? First, it is not clear that there is any"boundary"(a favorite commentator word) between the two different fields, in this case law and history In thinking about legal history scholarship the use of the typical terms, "inside"and"""(of law) seems inappropriate. First, the various types of legal history and history scholarship are not totally isolated from each other. Scholars of different orientations work together and use each other's work. Second. although the focus of much of the scholarship has internal characteristics, which some consider myopic, good scholarship cannot ignore contemporary mores, customs, and context. Also the nonlaw aspects of some scholarship are not really exogenous as they are part of a broader fabric in which law is woven, sometimes in primary colors English legal history also seems dissimilar from the"law and"phenomena as the notion of the decline of laws autonomy seem irrelevant to legal history. Richard Posner identified several reasons for the decline- the dissolution of political consensus within the legal academy, a boom in disciplines complementary to law, diminished confidence in the efficacy of law as a solution to systemic problems, the restlessness of scholars, the increased prestige of science and other exact modes of inquiry, and the ncreasing importance of statutes as opposed to judge made law as a source of law. but none of these factors seems relevant to the attractions of legal history scholarship The endeavors of legal historians are not the product of any dissatisfaction or dysfunction relating to law as an independent discipline nor of its unfashionability A final reason for not characterizing English legal history as a " law and"is that most of the current criticisms of legal interdisciplinarity scholarship seem inapplicable. Such criticisms characterize the latter as 28. I am grateful to Daniel Klerman for pointing out this distinction to me 29. See. eg, Clive Holmes, Book Review, 118 Eng. Hist. Rev. 206(2003 reviewing J.H. Baker, The Laws Two Bodies)28. I am grateful to Daniel Klerman for pointing out this distinction to me. 29. See, e.g., Clive Holmes, Book Review, 118 Eng. Hist. Rev. 206 (2003)(reviewing J.H. Baker, The Law’s Two Bodies). 6 the use of another discipline’s knowledge and the use of its theories and methodology.28 Thus, there are multiple senses in which scholarship can be interdisciplinary. III. English Legal History and Indisciplinarity While some might characterize English legal history as interdisciplinary, it seems different than the numerous “lawands”that populate the intellectual landscape. There is a difference between“legalhistory” and “law and history?” First, it is not clear that there is any “boundary” (a favorite commentator word) between the two different fields, in this case lawand history. Inthinking about legalhistoryscholarship, the use of the typical terms, “inside” and “outside” (of law) seems inappropriate. First, the various types of legal history and history scholarship are not totally isolated from each other. Scholars of different orientations work together and use each other’s work. Second, although the focus of much of the scholarship has internal characteristics, which some consider myopic,29 good scholarship cannot ignore contemporarymores, customs, and context. Also the “nonlaw” aspects of some scholarship are notreally exogenous as they are part of a broader fabric in which law is woven, sometimes in primary colors. English legal history also seems dissimilar from the “law and” phenomena as the notion of the decline of law’s autonomy seem irrelevant to legal history. Richard Posner identified several reasons for the decline - the dissolution of political consensus within the legal academy, a boom in disciplines complementaryto law, diminished confidence inthe efficacyof law as a solution to systemic problems, the restlessness of scholars, the increased prestige of science and other exact modes of inquiry, and the increasing importance of statutes as opposed to judge made law as a source of law. But none of these factors seems relevant to the attractions of legal history scholarship. The endeavors of legal historians are not the product of any dissatisfaction or dysfunction relating to law as an independent discipline nor of its unfashionability. A final reason for not characterizing English legal history as a “lawand”isthat most of the current criticisms oflegalinterdisciplinarity scholarship seem inapplicable. Suchcriticisms characterize the latter as