The work of the lawyer vs. the work of the historian

The following passage, about the tension between the work of the lawyer and the work of the historian, which I just found, resonates with me: “In October 1888, Frederic William Maitland delivered his first lecture as Downing Professor at Cambridge University. Titled ‘Why the History of English Law Is Not Written,’ his speech was intended both to explain the undeveloped state of English legal history and to summon future scholars to the fray. Certainly Maitland (1850-1906) did not doubt the significance of his special field. ‘Legal documents . . .’ he said, ‘are the best, often the only evidence that we have for social and economic history, for the history of morality, for the history of practical religion.’ Yet, such documents, including reports of cases and other proceedings, were neglected by English historians in the 1800s just as similar American documents are underused by many historians today, all despite the fact that the common law nations are remarkable for their preservation and orderly arrangement of legal records. Lawyers, to be sure, will say their work involves a good deal of ferreting through old, even ancient, books searching for the legislative history of a statute or for ruling caselaw. Maitland conceded this point, but felt such research could not yield the ‘best’ types of history because of the fundamental difference between the objectives of a lawyer and the objectives of a historian. Maitland observed, ‘[w]hat the lawyer wants is authority and the newer the better . . . .’ Then he added,’what the historian wants is evidence and the older the better.’ The lawyer, in other words, is looking for results; the historian is looking to establish the context of past events. Successful lawyers are too busy to travel the many side paths that true historical research requires.” Paul Pruitt, Root and Branch: Contexts of Legal History in Alabama and the South, 17 J. S. Legal Hist. 121 (2009).