The authors set the problem as one of connections between the ongoing internal dynamics of law and the effect of external shocks. Most historians, they argue, see the period as one of a revolution in legal structuring, based in particular in the effort it took to conduct wars in Scotland and France. Relying upon Stephen Jay Gould s concept of punctuated equilibrium, the authors instead want to call it a century of evolution. Second, they argue that to understand the period it is essential to attend not only to such large scale shocks as war and plague, but to attend to the ongoing practice of the law and the concerns of those who work in the courts daily. To use terms social scientists use but that these historians do not, they take a perspective in line with that of the new institutionalism.
Institutions have something of a life of their own, somewhat insulated from the social world.
To understand changes in the legal system even in the midst of the substantial transformations of the fourteenth century, it is important to understand the practical concerns and commitments of those working in law. Both yielded decisions that attempted to state principles according to the common law. The concern was that lawyers clients in court would become their favorites in parliament Justices sat in parliament. The line between legislation and judgment hadn t existed, but the new legislation contributed to making a distinction. Lawyers and judges, however, contributed to both.