Following is the criticism on the definitions of jurisprudence given by different jurists.
1. Criticism on Austin’s Definition of jurisprudence:
a. Salmond’s Criticism
The error in Austin’s idea of general jurisprudence lies in the fact that he assumes that unless a legal principle is common to many legal systems, it cannot be dealt within general jurisprudence. There may be many schools of jurisprudence but not different kinds of it.
b. Holland’s Criticism:
Holland points out that it is only the material which is particular and not the science itself.
2. Criticism on Holland’s Definition of jurisprudence:
a. By Gray:
The real relation of jurisprudence to law depends upon not what law is treated by how law is treated.
b. By Dr. Jenks:
He observed that jurist can only recognize a law by its for, for it is the form which causes the manifold matter of the phenomena to be perceived but having got the form as it were, on the operating table, has to dissect it and ascertain its meaning. Jurisprudence is concerned with means rather than with ends, though some of its means are ends in themselves.
3. Criticism on Salmond’s Definition of Jurisprudence:
It is submitted that Salmond had failed to give an accurate and scientific definition and also the divisions made by him of jurisprudence into general and particular raises a great deal of criticism as the Holland observes that these expressions should be discarded as the science should be treated as incapable of being divided into these two branches.
