means restricted tn Rome. I am w riting tor all the Lorenzos who, 1 am assured, are numerous, d'heir concerns are with toda\ 's world, and with tomorrow's, and w ith the law ot today and tomorrow. I feel j^assionateK' that know ledge of the past is \ ital for an understanding of today and tomorrow. Law is a nn sterious subject; it operates or should operate on the plane of practical realit)’, hut it dexelops on the level of human imagination. Imagination and reality do not always fit. One ma\- outstrip, or lag behind, the other. Law as imagination ma\' often he aspirational, not realistic. It is aspects of this dualit\' of law that 1 want to e.xplore. Of course, the hook is one-sided. Normally law as realit^■ is more important, hut it is o\ er-stressed. I lere 1 emphasize the prevalence -- too often oxerlooked -- of \ er\' substantial quirks in legal dexelopment due to too much or too little imagination. Without an awareness of how law has dexeloped, law as it is today and will he tomorrow cannot he understood. Lhe hook residts from m\' reflections on Lorenzo and on a meeting held at the Lnix ersity of Maastricht in .May 2000 on the development of a common law for the Luropean Union, d ims, the hook has two strands ofOrigin. I'irst, my reaction to Lorenzo that much of modern law is incomprehensible without a historical anahsis. Second, nu' response to Jan Smits' Maastricht meeting that legal history is a \ ital tool in emisaging a prix ate laxv for the Ixuropean Union, d hroughout the xvriting of this hook 1 haxe had the idea of a ins commune at the forefront of my mind. My hope is that this hook XX ill he a contribution to the dex elopment of this ius commiDic, showing hoxv an understanding of aspects t^f legal history max' indicate possible ax enues of dex elopment, possible pitfalls, the ease and consequences of horroxving, problems in understanding laxv in other 15
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=