The author doesn’t complain about the “detailed” nature of modern theories of jurisprudence.

Supported, because the author believes modern academic theories ignore the fact common law is a constantly evolving phenomenon rooted in history. The essential dimension is the historical aspect of law. The author thinks modern theories rarely include this aspect of law. If modern theories don’t include something essential, it’s reasonable to think the author finds modern theories less accurate than they otherwise could be.

The author never complains about modern theories’ focus on the practical over the theoretical. The author doesn’t want modern theories to focus more on theoretical issues. She wants them to include the historical aspect of law. If anything, she wants modern theories to include more about the practical contemporary significance of history.

Although the author thinks modern theories ignore the historical aspect of common law, this doesn’t mean she thinks they ignore the study of important legal disputes. Students might study famous past lawsuits. What they don’t study is how modern law is rooted in medieval history and how those historical roots influence modern law.

This isn’t what the author complains about. The concept of law as an art comes in with Goodrich’s view in P3. But the author doesn’t say anything about art in P2.