Professor of Law and Legal History Robert W. Gordon, a professor at Yale University and a former Newsweek journalist, spoke Monday night at Russell House. His lecture, entitled “The Past as Authority, Inspiration and Nightmare: Visions of History in Legal Argument,” was part of the Spring Lecture Series organized by the Center for the Humanities.

“The authority of law depends on its fidelity and continuation with the narratives of the past,” Gordon said.

Unlike Nietzsche, who believed that one must forget the past to continue with life, lawyers and judges constantly revert back to historical narratives to construct legal arguments in the present.

Although historical narratives are used widely in the American judiciary system, Gordon said these past legal narratives have limited repertoires. The most prominent ones are the narratives of recovery and progressive narratives.

“The narrative of recovery seeks to recover the original function and purity of law,” he said.

He then provided various cases where past narratives had been used. First, Gordon showed how liberals defended the spontaneous evolution of the legal system. He cited the argument of Justice O.W. Holmes, Jr. in the 1920 case of Missouri v. Holland.

“The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago,” Gordon said.

On the other hand, argued Gordon, U.S Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict believer of textualism, would insist that the constitution has to be understood by the generation that ratified it.

Eventually Gordon did submit to the possibility of various interpretations of the constitution. He did, however, contend that the danger of interpretation lies in its application.

“The quarrel is not with those who interpret past constitutions by [their] original intention, but with those who deem [that original intention] to be the exclusive mode of interpretation,” he said.

He also stressed the versatility of this nostalgic traditionalism.

“Progress toward recovery of the past is the narrative that is common to liberals and conservatives alike,” Gordon said. “This nostalgic traditionalism appealed to everyone who thinks that the world today is out of control. The temptation is too strong to not look to the old world that was stronger and sturdier.”

According to Gordon, past memories also serve as ties to our past relationships. This was especially important for American judiciary system, which wanted to maintain ties with the British judicial past. The system disfavored revolutionary changes and preferred gradual transformation. He illustrated this using the distaste of the early Americans toward the radical transformation brought about by the French Revolution.

“America symbolized the virtues of society that gradually modernize,” Gordon said.

He also warned against historical narratives being mistaken for nostalgic traditionalism that emphasizes the re-implementation of past practices. He thinks that people use the past to influence popular opinions.

“Lincoln’s imagined past that was perfect is a myth, but an extremely powerful and useful myth,” Gordon said. “History doesn’t solve any problems, [it] merely opens a new field and complicates scholarly contentiousness.”