Introduction Opportunities for Law’s Intellectual History, 64 Buff. L. Rev. i (2016)

Intellectual historians conventionally focus on what exists in archives and published materials, but Schlegel argues that studying absences in legal scholarship reveals important blindspots. Historians must examine what did not happen or what was overlooked by examining disciplinary norms that prevent certain questions from being asked. The article observes that intellectual historians often find interesting archives and build projects around them, but overlook the absence of obvious scholarly lines. Schlegel illustrates how historical examination of what did not occur—such as the failure of certain legal doctrines to develop—can illuminate broader patterns in legal thought. By studying absences rather than presences, scholars can uncover how disciplinary values and methodological constraints shape what legal knowledge is produced. The article reflects on how his own research on Buffalo's post-war economy required extensive reading to understand what historians had overlooked. Schlegel argues that recognizing disciplinary limitations helps explain why certain legal developments did not happen and what assumptions prevented scholars from pursuing particular inquiries.

Topics: Legal History · Legal Theory

Keywords: intellectual history · legal doctrine · disciplinary methods · historical absences · legal scholarship · methodological constraints