A Life of H.L.A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream

Melbourne University Law Review, April, 2005 by G. Edward White

Elsewhere, I have argued that historical writing is a process in which the author is engaged by the subject for reasons that mainly concern the author's current experience. Yet they must also seek to maintain detachment towards their subject if they are to avoid excessive projection or anachronistic descriptions of the past. (16) An authorised (or even semi-authorised) biography of a historical figure raises particularly acute issues of detachment. Not only is the author being commissioned by someone particularly close to the subject of the biography, the commission itself presupposes that the author must be sympathetic not only to the subject but also to the people authorising the work. (17)

Many people believe that sympathy with the subject is a necessary prerequisite for a successful biographer. I think the matter is more complicated. Undoubtedly, if the biographer does not engage with their subject in some fashion, the result is likely to be tedious. However, antipathy can also be a form of engagement. Engagement can occur where a biographer greatly admires their subject, but also where they are appalled by the life of a subject: the biographer should feed off the energy created by that admiration or antipathy but not let that energy overwhelm their treatment--especially when the subject lived in a different time period.

In assessing how A Life of H L A Hart fares against this standard, one need ask how Lacey's special access to Hart and his circle of family, close friends and acquaintances affected her ability to balance engagement with detachment. This question must be central to any assessment of Lacey's work, for the implicit claim her book makes is that--given Lacey's special access--her portrait of Hart should be regarded as definitive.

If one places this burden of definitiveness upon Lacey--perhaps an unfair one because this status in biography is nearly impossible to attain--A Life of H L A Hart may be described as only partially meeting the burden. In some respects Lacey's special access merges with her strengths as a biographer to produce highly illuminating analyses of Hart's professional and personal experiences. As she puts it, her effort was to elucidate 'the different levels of meaning which might be given ... to his life', (18) and at times she performs that task with lucidity and insight. At other times, however, her particular form of engagement with Hart and his family seems to push her in less fruitful directions. Though Lacey's book makes a strong case for a biography by persons with special access to the subject, it is not an overwhelming one.

II

The bare outline of Hart's life suggests that he would not be an ideal subject for a trade biography. He spent much of his adult life in a university setting, and was best known for his scholarship. That scholarship, although it touched upon issues of public policy--such as the law's response to homosexuality or to the punishment of crimes--featured close reasoning, precise language, and the sort of technical documentation associated with work primarily directed to academic audiences. In short, Hart's work, although exceptionally well-regarded by many academics, remained largely inaccessible to mainstream readers--even highly educated ones. Further, Hart's life outside his work was, on the whole, not overly dramatic. Lacey therefore takes advantage of Hart's diaries and personal letters to reveal some intimate details of Hart's private life. However, it seems fair to say that these details assume interest primarily because of Hart's great public stature as a scholar.