Legal pluralism that wasn’t: State and the plurality of law in late medieval and early modern Europe

Summary Legal pluralism has seemingly become a new orthodoxy. Its core proposition is that law has no privileged relationship with the state. Students of legal history have reason for paying attention, as legal pluralism, a corollary of colonialism, has come to project back onto European history its cultural and social-scientific paradigm and arrogate to itself the role of explaining the evolution of normative orders in the continent’s past. This article argues that applying to European history a theory premised on a contest between legal monism and pluralism brings more confusion than clarity. The difference between historically grounded legal pluralism and the contemporary theory of legal pluralism revolves around the question of whether multiple legal orders existed as part of state law or state law was merely one among many legal orders. In late medieval and early modern Europe, law was foremost equated with jurisdictional power, that is, authority to rule. Various kinds of laws, including custom, Roman law, church law, and legislation, operated in a plurality of practices within the state-centered hierarchy, and it was on this framework of state law pluralism that the European countries, while remaining under the doctrinal unity of the jus commune , each followed a discrete path of legal development shaped by political and institutional changes. The history of Europe provides little support for the theory that an imposed Romanitas or state sovereignty displaced and distorted good old customary law. Modern legal pluralist views may be in need of reconsideration not just in light of what was happening in late medieval and early modern Europe but also in terms of how Europe’s ideas of legal order spread to the colonies in the late nineteenth century. Recent debates on legal pluralism serve as a reminder that history is distinct from an anemic version of the more theoretical social sciences. Still, the binary of unity and plurality in law can offer an unaccustomed yet useful direction in approaching the legal past.