REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 May 1980 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1980.tb01597.x |
| Date | 01 May 1980 |
REVIEWS
INTRODUCTION
TO
JURISPRUDENCE.
Fourth
edition.
By
LORD LLOYC
OF
HAMPSTEAD.
[London: Stevens, 1979, xxxvi and
1002
pp.
(inc. indices). Hardback: €18.75; Paperback: €13-50.1
READERS
of
the Review will be familiar with this established student textbook
T
student of jurisprudence with a textbook which will enable him to become
acquainted with the theories, attitudes, and insights of leading jurists
.
.
,
[and secondly] to afford him
a
coherent picture
of
the subject
. .
.”
(p.
ix).
This book endeavours
also
to encourage
“
the serious student to range beyond
the covers
of
his
. . .
textbook”
(ibid.).
In
so
far as getting acquainted with
the theories and building up
a
coherent picture are elements of a critical
activity then the aims of
Lloyd
seem to me to be unobjectionable. Sadly
however I do not think that the book as presently constituted has any chance
of
fulfilling its own aims. This is particularly unfortunate given the obvious
industry that has gone into the preparation
of
this much rcvised edition.
My pessimism hinges on my assumptions about “the law student” for
whom this book is written. First, while
I
do not suppose that the student
is
only going to turn to
Lloyd
after a draining day
of
company and revenue law,
the student nonetheless will have only a fraction of his time earmarked for
jurisprudence. Secondly, the balance of the student’s time will be devoted tc
doctrinal legal studies, that is, straightforward substantive law. Thirdly, the
student’s
a
priori
interest in jurisprudcnce will be low, maybe even hostile
And finally the studcnt will be
a
complete novice in matters theoretical.
On
this view an introductory text in jurisprudence has to be highly sensitive tc
the student’s needs and capabilities. There has to be an immediate spark.
With
lo00
pages in prospect the student has to
find
the book a riveting read
from the very first sentcnce. It follows therefore that the main tasks
for
thc
opening chapters are:
(1)
to outline the major directions
of
juristic inquiry:
(2)
to establish the relationship between legal theory and practice;
(3)
tc
familiarise the student with the ground rules
of
juristic debate;
(4)
to outlinc
the ground rules of critical appraisal; and
(5)
to capture the student’s attentior
and commitment. Of the preliminary tasks
I
would rank the last
as
the mosi
important.
Now, how do the first two chapters of
Lloyd
stand against my criteria?
Above all they secm to me to lack any organising thread; such
a
desultorq
structure makes it difficult
if
not impossible for the student to summarise the
contents
of
either chapter. This lack of direction is compounded by a number
of
other features: frantic footnoting; compression of immensely difficull
philosophical points (see especially the
‘‘
is/ought
”
section at pp.
11-12):
gratuitous name-dropping (cspecially in respect of Austin and Kelsen); con.
fusing digressions; absurd expectations about student comprehension
(e.g.
a1
p.
16:
“
All the same it is clear that Hall’s primary objective is to provide an
epistemology
of
law which will accommodato his long-standing concern tc
integrate law and morals. Thus the new matrix
of
law-as-action criables thir
linkage to be established, without assailing the logical gap between ‘is’ and
‘ought,’ by introducing
a
frame
of
reference
. . .
which entails choices
01
decisions by reference to purposes and values and hence assimilating positive
law with moral values.”); puzzling switches
(e.g.
at p.
48
from definition
to
rule, and at pp.
52
and
54
on the tenets of Positivism); and opportunities
losl
where crucial rudimentary points could and should have been drilled home.
My judgment on this is that the student will do well to survive let alone be
spurred on to further reading.
Consider the lost opportunities in these two chapters. There is a chance
to
349
To continue reading
Request your trial