C>hapter 6 Foreign Legal Thinking William IWvald asks the almost fundamental question for legal history and comparative law: "What was it like to try a rat?'" llis claim is that an understanding of a foreign legal swstem cannot he obtained simply h\’ heaping up nuggets of information. 1 agree. The crucial point for him is that one needs to know how the lawyers of that system think. .Again, 1 agree. This leads him to his question. I le shows that sophisticated hnwers and thinkers were involved in trials of animals. What did the\' think the\’ were about? But IWvald seems not to answer his own question. I'or his purposes he has no need to. .ActualK, the c]uestion so phrased b\' IWvald is not tpiite right, d’he fundamental question shoidd be: "What was it like to tr\’ the ruts}" d'he difference in the questions is all-important. Iwen an e.xceptionalK’ skilled comparatist can make mistakes. And lAvald's 'Comparative jurisprudence (i): What Was It Like to Try a Rat?' 143 U. Pennsylvania LawReview {1995). PP- i889ff. 123
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=