Posner, though, does a great job in editing the letters and pasting the relevant sections into easily digestible sections loosely related to the chapter's 'theme.' Posner's goal, to be sure, is to focus more on Holmes the philosopher, and i'm sure law students (who may know Holmes the Justice best) will thrill at the chance to really see how his philosophy - sympathetic with American pragmatism - extends into his thoughts on law. About the first half of the book is devoted to Holmes's philosophy on everything from metaphysics to the 'life struggle' and 'social struggle.' The second half segues the more theoretical sections into Holmes's views on statutory and common law, the interpretative 'theory' of both, and Holmes's ever contreversial and confusing views on individual liberty.

As the reader will find (or may already know) Holmes's social, ethical, and metaphysical philosophy is something of an individualistic relativism. Dreams of any final theory are suspect, and the social order is not much more than each person operating in self-interest, clashing with other people (doing the same) in something of a never-ending Darwinian struggle. From this (and the fact that Holmes believed all morality to be local and relative to context), law should not be seen as being gotten from some 'natural law'-like moral order, but should be disconnected from morality; rather, it should be seen as humankind's way of deriving regularity from the clashes of human interest in a neat little fiat. The law, then, is simply what the soveriegn says it is.

This (among other things) has made Holmes out to be something of a bad guy. To be sure, he can come off as crass and 'pre-post-modern.' But Holmes is also refreshingly real (at least to my eyes, as I am a philosophic ptragmatist through and through). It is becasue Holmes saw that there is no universal standard of 'natural law' or other such 'free-floating' fictions that he was such a believer in judicial restraint - holding to the constitution even when he personally disagreed. Many of those cases (Lochner, etc.) are included in this volume.

The only two things I was disappointed did not get more time was Holmes's first amendment views which are notoriously hard to decipher, and the conflict between his simultenous support of a 'living constitution' and his belief in judicial restraint. Both are conflicts that even the best of scholars wade through confusedly (never able to resolve their tensions), and it would have been nice to see a bit more focus on these two areas.

Of course, Posner is not at fault as this is an edited collection which can only provide what Holmes said; maybe he simply never resolved these two views.