Reviews

Publication Date01 Jan 1965
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb01050.x
REVIEWS
LECTURES
ON
JURISPRUDENCE. By the late
H.
F.
JOLOWICZ, edited
by
J.
A.
JOLOWICZ. [University
of
London: The Athlone
Press. 1963.
391
pp.
50s.
net.]
SIR
JOHN
MILES once told me that an undergraduate at the end of the last
century had only one book on jurisprudence to read, and
that
was the whole
of Austin’s
Lectures.
Miles read them through in the last two days before
the exhmination. My generation were brought up on
Holland
(dull but
essential), supplemented by
,Yalmond, Pollock
and
Maine’* Ancient
Law.
We scarcely yet had Allen’s
Law
in
the Making,
though we were fortunate
to have
C.
K. Allen himself. In recent years the number of books on juris-
prudence has grown
so
much that
a
lecturer who has to draw
up
a
select
list of reading for his audience, actually has to select-especially
as
there
are two
or
three suitable American books, even if we count
Friedmann
as
English.
Now
Mr.
J.
A. Jolowicz, by editing his father’s lectures, has
presented another claimant for inclusion in
the
list.
It
may not have been well known outside London University that Professor
H.
F.
Jolowicz, the distinguished Roman lawyer, delivered the LL.B. course
of lectures on jurisprudence there for
a
quarter of
a
century. He left
manuscript notes which his son has been able to work up into book form,
omitting the part on the analysis
of
legal conceptions, but adding’ some new
material and revising the references. Professor Jolowics had little patience
with the attempt to classify different kinds
of
jurisprudence,
e.g.,
analytical,
historical and sociological jurisprudence. The answer seems to be that there
is one study
of
jurisprudence, but that various methods-analytical, historical,
sociological, etc.-may be used
or
emphasised.
Professor Jolowicz’s practice was to preface the historical account of
legal theories with an outline of Austin’s theory
of
law and sovereignty
so
as to give his students something to bite on from the
start,
some definite
criterion which they could keep at the back of their minds for testing the
various other theories. Personal experience shows that if one begins
with
Austin (the prevailing English doctrine down to recent times),
it
is
not
easy to induce students to take natural law seriously; whereas if one begins
with natural law and natural justice from Plato and Aristotle onwards,
students become impatient later with the narrow formalism
of
Austin.
Perhaps someone will carry out
a
controlled experiment with
two
halves of
the same class, to find out how far one group finish up
as
natural lawyers
and the other group as positivists.
The general impression left by this book is one of great clarity of
expression, which will justly appeal
to
students, and of common sense
in
judgment. Two gifts that Professor Jolowicz had in high degree,
a
profound
knowledge of Roman and Byzantine law and
a
proficiency in languages,
classical and modern, help to make him an illuminating expositor of the
leading European theories of law; and he is strong where English lawyers
tend to be weak, for example, in Greek law and the German philosophers,
Kant and Hegel. The part on theories of law will probably be found the
most useful, first, because this branch of the subject is the most difficult for
students; secondly, because the part on the Sources of Law necessarily c0Ver.s
ground that has been well cultivated by Allen, Goodhart,
Cross
and others;
and, thirdly, because the student‘s interest is not easily aroused by problems
of classification (Divisions of the Law). About the different meanings of
the expression
source
of
law,”
I
agree with Jolowicz against Allen. Actually,
112
JAN.
1965
REVIEW
9
113
the topics chosen for the part on Divisions of the Law are intrinsically
interesting,
e.g.,
constitutional and administrative law, criminal law, adjective
and substantive law.
If this work had been originally designed as
a
textbook, the learned author
would no doubt have given us some general discussion
of
his own view of
the purpose
of
Law, as distinct from the nature of Jurisprudence. Most
would presumably agree that the essential aims that Law seeks to achieve are
Order and Justice. Many AngleAmerican lawyers, who have inherited
centuries of internal security, regard Justice as the primary aim of Law.
But there can be no Justice unless we have Order. Indeed, without Order
there is neither Law nor Justice. Order without Justice, on the other hand,
may not be pleasant but it can be Law.
Mr. Jolowicz’s work
as
editor should by no means be overlooked.
It
amounts to much more than the bare demands of filial piety. His tactful
emendations
of
the text, as in
the
definition of crime, cannot often be
apparent; but
a
careful study of the footnotes shows that in numerous places
he draws to the reader’s attention, and if necessary explains, all the most
significant juristic literature written since his father last revised the
manuscript.
0.
HOOD
PHILLIPS.
JURIMETRICS.
Edited
by
H.
W.
BAADE.
[New
York
and London:
WHAT
is jurimetrics?
Is
it the hope of tomorrow, or the curse of today? At
least it is not the rehash
of
yesterday. In this collection of papers it covers
various attempts to apply modern research techniques
to
law. These attempts
are in three main areas. These are, legal information retrieval, behavioural
interpretation of judicial decisions, and the use of formal logic in legal
analysis. Some of the essays overlap
a
little, but it is convenient to deal
with each
of
these three areas separately.
The first five papers are mainly concerned with legal information retrieval.
Those by Loevinger and by Eldridge and Dennis survey the main projects in
this
area, and describe the authors’ own projects in rather more detail.
Loevinger is perhaps slightly the clearer in his analysis, particularly where
involved statistical technique such
as
the use of association factors is con-
cerned. Eldridge and Dennis, on the other hand, give
a
rather fuller
description of their own work for the American Bar Foundation in conjunction
with International Business Machines. The Temaining three papers in this
section are
of
a
more general nature. Dickerson gives the arguments for and
against mechanisation in
a
sober and realistic way. Kerimov, the only non-
American contributor, describes Soviet aspirations in this field. One would
like to hear
a
little less about aspirations and
a
little more ahout positive
achievements from the Russians by now. The last‘ contributor to this section
is Spengler.
His
paper is designed to warn of the dangers of mechanisation.
He
is
hardly
a
persuasive advocate.
His
tone
is
shrill, his terminology vague
and his assumptions breathtaking.
On
page
47
for example we are told that
case law is bettet adapted than codified law
to
respecting man’s social
existence, and promoting an effective and satisfactory life in common.
Spengler fears
for
the American way of life, and particularly freedom from
government restraint, if the mechanical retrieval of legal information is
instituted.
It
is hard to give serious credence to such arguments, particularly
when key premises, such
as
the conceptual inflexibility of computers, are
refuted by hoth survey papers.
The behavioural approach is represented by three protagonists, Schubert,
Kort and Ulmer, and one antagonist, Berns. The contributions of the
protagonists are mainly concerned with mathematical analyses of decisions
of
the Supreme Court. All three seem to have been somewhat disconcerted by
a
paper in which Rodell, not
a
behoviouralist, predicted with great success
Basic
Books,
Inc.
1963.
270
pp.
30s.
net.]

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT