to separate theoretical and, thus, good comparative law from un-theoretical and, thus, bad comparative law. Should we renounce the dichotomous epistemology and accompanying crude distinction between theory and practice we might also become more open to seeing the different shades of grey instead of seeing everything in black-or-white only. As I seek to demonstrate, the dichotomy between theory and practice does not seem to hold water if it is scrutinised in more detail. If one were to read academic comparative law literature at all, one would more than likely find certain theoretical themes in it. However, undoubtedly one of the most wide-spread grand theoretical themes concerns the division of legal systems into larger packages which are called by different names (famille de droit, Rechtskreis, legal culture, legal tradition etc.). Further, so-called legal families are most likely to be the most theoretical material of all.This could be called “comparative law’s theory of the theory”. Many scholarly comparatists consider that the question concerning the division of different macro-level legal spheres is crucial to comparative law if it wishes to become a “comparative legal science”.23 Scientia type conceptualisations such as “morphology of law” are being used in this context, paralleling the comparative study of law with scientific disciplines. In accord, it is interesting to discover if this kind of macrocomparative law is genuinely purely theoretical or whether it also has some practical consequences for studying law comparatively.24 This is done in order to place the separation between theory and practice (as it appears in scholarly comparative law literature) under scrutiny: Does it hold water? re cht swi s s e n scha f t al s j ur i st i sch e dok t r i n 112 22 These concepts are from Mark Van Hoecke, “Deep Level Comparative Law”, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law, edited by MarkVan Hoecke (Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland 2004) pp. 165-195, especially pp. 172-174. 23 See Helmut Heiss,“Hierarchische Rechtskreiseinteilung:Von der Rechtskreislehre zurTypologie der Rechtskulturen?”100Zeitschrift fürVergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (2001) 396-424, pp. 398-399 (stresses the importance of developing comparative law into Wissenschaftsdisziplin and vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft). 24 Macro-comparative means “l’étude globale des systèmes juridiques”, as defined by Beatrice Jaluzot,“Méthodologie du droit comparé – bilan et prospective”,57Revue internationale de droit comparé (2005) 29-48, at 46. 3. about th e d i f f i culty of uphol d i ng th e g reat d i v i de b etwe e n th e ory and p rac t i c e
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=