I
At Substack, the political scientist Emmett Macfarlane reports on his new edited collection with Kate Puddister, Disciplinary Divides In The Study of Law And Politics, on the subject of how differently lawyers and political scientists look at questions of law and politics and the constitution and federalism and the Charter and all that. It's a set of academic essays by law profs and polisci profs who work on the contested territory between them.
Having written a bit about both constitutional politics and legal history, I'm tempted to read in it. I can certainly believe in the difference in perspectives. I'd be even more interested in a book about how differently historians and political scientists think about these things. Or about how differently historians and lawyers do.
I suspect too few historians care about such theoretical matters to engage the way the political scientists and the law profs actually do. Come to think of it, there are not that many who even engage with, say, confederation any more.
But I do sometimes reflect that a lot of political scientists say "in the time of Jean Chretien" (or the older ones "the time of Pierre Trudeau") to mean what other people mean when they say "in the mists of antiquity." A historical sense does not always seem to be a prerequisite.
II
John Boyko is launching a new biography of Sandford Fleming, In Pursuit of Tomorrow. I recall a previous Fleming biography, Time Lord by the Canadian-American novelist Clarke Blaise, an original and idiosyncratic appreciation. It was very much focussed on Fleming's role in establishing global time zones and, beyond, on the very nature of time and how it was changing in the 19th century. I remember liking it quite a lot.
I have not yet read Boyko's but it is clear this seeks to be a complete and straightforward biography of the man and all his diverse accomplishments (and some failures too, maybe). More comments may follow, as Sutherland House publishers has kindly send me a copy to peruse.
