Because of its encyclopedia-like quality (and price), the principal consumer of this text will no doubt be libraries, who will add it to reference collections on either women or law. The volume is reminiscent of other books such as James David Barber and Barbara Kellerman's WOMEN LEADERS IN AMERICAN POLITICS and, like such books, its essays have a cheerleader quality. A second audience for the book, however, which may be overlooked given its format, are students in classes on women's biography, and either undergraduate courses in Women's Studies (particularly Women and the Law) or graduate courses such as the one I recently co-taught at the University of Minnesota entitled "Women in the Legal Profession." The scholar who seeks to theorize about women's life course, the relationship of women to paid work, and women's leadership will find the breadth of the book stimulating at the same time she may be frustrated by the brevity of its essays. Some essays in the book might also be useful in a course on comparative law or law and society that take a comparative perspective on the legal profession.

As one who works in this area, I was astonished at how much I learned from reading the entire book. I knew of only thirteen women of the forty-three. I do recommend, however, reading it over many sittings rather than few so that the chapters do not all run together in one's mind. The overall effect of reading all 43 essays is to leave you with a profound appreciation of women's contribution to legal and social change cross-culturally. The volume implicitly refutes the assumption that women's entry into the legal profession has been too soon to show any meaningful effects, answering the legal equivalent of "why are there no women artists?" A further virtue of its historical span (particularly Volcansek and DeWitt's essay on Helene Stöcker [1869-1943]) is that it dispels the notion that radical ideas about ending women's oppression have been the monopoly of second-wave feminists. Women activists and scholars have long challenged, not only women's exclusion from the professions, but women's oppression in marriage, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the disabilities imposed on non-marital children. We are not alone.

Obtaining biographical information about legal professionals (especially judges rather than activists or prolific writers) is difficult, and women's lives may be less well documented than men's. The essays vary enormously in the amount of biographical information they include--either details about the subject's youth and family life, or glimmers of her personality and inner life. One (Cleary's essay on Takako Doi) includes an account of her standing up to schoolyard bullies in her youth, while other essays read almost like a narrative version of a vita (Jackson's on Brenda Marjorie Hale and Beer's on Cecilia Muñoz Palma). Some of the biographical detail borders on silly or excessive while other chapters are nothing short of riveting. The essays vary enormously, too, in their assessment of the legal philosophy of the women. Salokar and Wilson's essay on Sandra Day O'Connor, for example, says little about her legal philosophy, particularly the development of the undue burden standard in fundamental rights cases, such as abortion (WEBSTER, CASEY). The philosophical section in Callaghan's essay on Mary Robinson, too, lacks depth. Tate's chapter on Flerida Ruth P. Romero focuses mainly on her confirmation battle. Others, such as Salokar's essay on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are especially good and succeed in balancing the person/biographical with the occupational and philosophical/ideological. John McLaren's essay on Emily Ferguson Murphy does a superb job of putting her philosophy in an historical and theoretical context. Epstein's chapter on Beverly Blair Cook, too, is particularly well balanced, researched, and written.

The essays are especially good about explaining unfamiliar legal terms and in explaining how different legal and political systems work without appearing to digress. Jackson's essay on Rosalyn Higgins, for example, explains to us what the significance is of being a Queen's Counsel and a bencher. Similarly Kommers explains how members of the German Constitutional Court are chosen in his essays on Wiltrault Rupp-von Brünneck and Helga Seibert. The chapter on Leonilde Iotti manages to convey an enormous amount about the Italian Communist Party and postwar history in a small number of pages. Whether summarizing the Intifida, the Irish presidency, or apartheid in South Africa, many of the essays convey the richness of the political context within which activists struggle. The book is thus accessible to students and scholars alike.

This sourcebook is truly path breaking, like many of the women it describes, in focusing on women in law and in reaching beyond the United States. I know of no comparable work, and the collection is thus an important contribution. Yet the structure and design of the book as a reference work limits its impact. The essays left me hungry for more. For those women I did know about, and knew that much had been written about them, I craved a more critical analysis. For example, the essay on Sandra Day O'Connor does not take a position in the debate over whether she judges "with a different voice." In celebrating the women's achievements, there is little room for a critical approach. I am not proposing that the authors should have searched for faults in exemplary lives, but rather than they should seek to understand the whole person in her historical location. I would have also liked to know more about what Volcansek concluded about the how biographical project applied to women in the legal realm. (I'm still not sure what bio-bibliographical means.) She has clearly engaged the relevant material of feminist scholars: Carol Sanger's important article on Myra Bradwell and the work of the Personal Narratives Group. I would have liked a longer introduction and/or a conclusion.

Another limitation of the design is that a series of short essays of individuals does not add up to a picture of the whole. I was never really clear on how the women were chosen and how representative they were. Do we have included all the women who have ever served on the U.S. Supreme Court (yes), the German Constitutional Court, and the Philippines Supreme Court? Was the first principle of selection that the woman hold high judicial office and do we have all or just some of those women in the collection? Not all of the subjects are judges. How did the advisory board decide on which activists to include? Some of the women are legislators and political leaders, although they are clearly interesting and important and have had an impact on the law (Leonilde Iotti, Sylvie Kanigi, Helen Suzman). Were the women chosen because they were the first or only? I have no quarrel with the inclusion of any of the women, but I would like to know to what

extent they stand alone or whether there are other women beside or right behind them. (Kommers, like some of the authors, situates his subject, Helga Seibert, in a footnote, and I would have liked all of the authors to have done that.)

Compensatory history is clearly an essential first step. Until we identify and celebrate the women "firsts," our predecessors, we cannot conduct broader historical, comparative, and theoretical analyses of their lives. This book marvelously executes that first step and hopefully, will inspire others to take the work further.

Reference

James David Barber and Barbara Kellerman WOMEN LEADERS IN AMERICAN POLITICS (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986)
***************************************************************************

Copyright by the author.