These and other laws of domestic life were topics of bitter dispute in Selden’s day, with scholars like John Milton, John Lilburne, Gerrard Winstanley, and various Leveller and Radical pamphleteers strongly pushing for such legal reforms during the tumultuous Interregnum from 1642–1660 and the efforts to build a “biblical commonwealth” in England. Selden seemed to be sympathetic with at least some of these efforts. But, quite in contrast with his earlier strident efforts to protect the “natural rights and liberties of all Englishmen” which landed him in prison, he proceeded cautiously in his later efforts at family law reform. He offered erudite demonstrations of what “humane alternatives” the (biblical and Jewish) tradition had to offer, but
…show more content…
It was “summarily to relate, not to discuss opinions [or] to give a verdict of what he relates.” “I search not what indefinitely ought to be, but what was with us in England.” “I take pleasure in going back to studies of antiquity, and in looking behind me to our grand-sires better times.” But that was only the first step. Selden also warned against idle antiquarianism—or, as he put it, “the too studious affectation of bare and sterile antiquity, which is nothing else but to be exceeding[ly] busy about nothing.” The real job of the legal historian, he insisted, is to harvest “the fruitful and precious” and “useful part” of this history “which gives necessary light to the present, in matter of state, law, history, and understanding of good authors.” “Light to the practice and doubts of the present.” “Light, that is clear and necessary.” Certainly, in the realm of the family, Selden thought that Jewish law provided ample light that was “fruitful, precious, and useful”—not only to reform current English laws, but even more to discern what the laws of God and nature demanded for persons of all times and
It was “summarily to relate, not to discuss opinions [or] to give a verdict of what he relates.” “I search not what indefinitely ought to be, but what was with us in England.” “I take pleasure in going back to studies of antiquity, and in looking behind me to our grand-sires better times.” But that was only the first step. Selden also warned against idle antiquarianism—or, as he put it, “the too studious affectation of bare and sterile antiquity, which is nothing else but to be exceeding[ly] busy about nothing.” The real job of the legal historian, he insisted, is to harvest “the fruitful and precious” and “useful part” of this history “which gives necessary light to the present, in matter of state, law, history, and understanding of good authors.” “Light to the practice and doubts of the present.” “Light, that is clear and necessary.” Certainly, in the realm of the family, Selden thought that Jewish law provided ample light that was “fruitful, precious, and useful”—not only to reform current English laws, but even more to discern what the laws of God and nature demanded for persons of all times and