I bought this book by radical lawyer Michael Tigar, expecting it to be a typical critique of liberal interpretations of law in the past two centuries, of the kind so well summarized by Anatole France's famous statement that the majestic equality of the law forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges, beg, and steal bread. However, this turned out not to be the case. Instead, the book is an engrossing and fascinating look into the development of bourgeois law and legal ideology from the late feudal period (roughly 13th century) to the French Revolution. In this way, "Law and the Rise of Capitalism" is rather a chronological prequel to those many critiques.

Although hampered by the lack of footnotes, the historical overview, especially of the medieval period, is very thorough and well done. It is extremely informative and once again reaffirms the degree to which the popular view of the middle ages as a time of nothing but chaos and barbarism is incorrect. Heavily relying on medieval scholars of law like Beaumanoir, Michael Tigar shows how the development of merchant capital and the independence of the towns created the opportunity for law merchant to be created, which in turn could become the basis, combined with certain Roman law principles, for a modern legal system based on property and free contracts rather than custom and commons. For each period of time he demonstrates how this development continued and was framed in legal terms, at least as regards the societies of England and France (he barely mentions anything else, except Italian banking).

Tigar develops some well-argued theses on the transition from feudalism to capitalist society via merchant capital, and locates the start of this transition (initially with a false start crushed by recession and the Plague) much earlier than is usually done. He also refutes the popular idea of law after the French Revolution being utterly different from that before, instead emphasizing the way the French Revolution was the expression of a change long coming. Equally, he argues against the conception of English common law as a gradual building of the same basic pattern, showing instead how common law underwent changes towards a capitalist law system just as much as the more formal codes of France.

The concluding chapters give some leftist criticism of modern theories of law and restate Tigar's purpose in writing this book. Most of this is superficial and rather pointless. In fact, the book would probably have been stronger when formed as simply a book on the history of law, then with some radical contemporary critique tacked on. But nevertheless, this book is much worth reading.