This research focuses on the so-called historical, subjective or genetic interpretative canon. Its first section defines its basic features and demands. The second one claims a descriptive thesis: despite the quantity and substantial weight of the obtained criticisms, this canon survives in our legal practice; its use by our courts is not rare or uncommon, and it preserves influence and even predominance in some European countries. Far from being able to complete here an exhaustive investigation, the work aspires to gather sufficient evidence to support this thesis. The third section reveals the theoretical mistakes on which the method relies and suggests that its role should be reduced to a corroborative or ex abundantia argument. Criticisms are distributed in three groups: a) those which, although not interested in the philosophical rightness of the tool, sustain that it is inapplicable; b) those which warn us about the undesirable practical consequences of the application, either in some concrete branches of law or in the whole legal system; c) those which report about the wrong assumptions on legal theory that underlie its use. Some of these criticisms are relatively contextual: we can mention the problems of combining the subjective canon with legal systems that, nowadays, are principled and framed by moral and political values; secondly, we must consider the difficulties involved in making together this canon with the principle of popular sovereignty. Finally, we must deal with the most devastating problem: legal interpreters must undertake the work of unifying and organizing a body of legislation, but to apply this canon turns the meaning of a set of norms into a cacophony of voices. This work concludes with some considerations on who is and what is the role of whomever we distinguish as << legislator >>.
