Austin's Theory of General and Particular Jurisprudence: Holland and Salmond Viewpoints

 John Austin divided jurisprudence into General Jurisprudence (the science concerned with the exposition of principles, notions, and distinctions common to mature systems of law) and Particular Jurisprudence (the science of any single actual system of law, or any portion of it).

Both Sir Thomas Erskine Holland and Sir John Salmond rejected Austin’s classification, though they did so for very different theoretical reasons.

1. Holland’s Standpoint: Complete Rejection on Scientific Grounds

Holland strongly disagreed with Austin’s division and rejected the very existence of "Particular Jurisprudence" as a contradiction in terms.

• Jurisprudence as a Universal Science: Because Holland defined jurisprudence as the "formal science of positive law," he argued that a true science must deal with universal principles, not localized rules. Just as there is no such thing as "English Geology" or "French Chemistry" (though geological formations or chemical reactions can be observed in England or France), there cannot be a "Particular Jurisprudence."
  
  
• Form vs. Matter: According to Holland, if a jurist studies the specific rules of a single country (like English law or Indian law), they are studying the matter (substantive content) of that legal system—which is simply legal exposition or municipal law, not jurisprudence. Jurisprudence deals strictly with the form (the underlying structural concepts common to all mature legal systems).
  
  
• Conclusion on Holland: Holland accepted only what Austin called General Jurisprudence, insisting that jurisprudence is inherently general and cannot be divided into general and particular branches.
  
  

2. Salmond’s Standpoint: Rejection in Favor of a Threefold Division

Salmond disagreed with Austin’s terminology and framework, criticizing Austin for confusing the science of legal principles with the practical study of a specific legal system.

• Critique of Austin’s "Particular Jurisprudence": Salmond pointed out that what Austin termed "particular jurisprudence" is not a separate branch of philosophical science at all—it is merely the study of the actual rules of a specific national legal system (e.g., English law or Roman law).
  
  
• Critique of Austin’s "General Jurisprudence": Salmond also objected to Austin’s assumption that general jurisprudence only studies concepts common to all mature legal systems. Salmond argued that a fundamental legal concept (such as trust, equity, or possession) remains worthy of jurisprudential study even if it exists in only one advanced legal system and not in others.
  
  
• Salmond’s Alternative Classification: Instead of dividing jurisprudence into General and Particular, Salmond divided Civil Jurisprudence (the science of the first principles of the civil law of a single state) into three distinct branches based on methodology:
  
  
  1. Analytical (Expository) Jurisprudence: Deals with the systematic analysis of the first principles of an actual legal system as it exists today.
     
     
  2. Historical Jurisprudence: Examines the historical origin and evolution of those fundamental legal principles.
     
     
  3. Ethical Jurisprudence: Evaluates the purpose of law and the adequacy of legal principles in achieving justice (law as it ought to be).
     
     

3. Comparative Summary

Jurist	View on "General vs. Particular" Jurisprudence	Core Reasoning
John Austin	Accepts both	General jurisprudence studies principles common to mature systems; Particular studies a single nation's legal system.
T.E. Holland	Rejects "Particular"; accepts only "General"	A science must be universal; studying one country's rules is mere legal exposition, not a formal science.
John Salmond	Rejects both categories as framed by Austin	Replaces the division with Analytical, Historical, and Ethical jurisprudence; argues jurisprudence examines the first principles of a specific civil law system rather than only universal commonalities.

In essence, Holland stripped away "Particular Jurisprudence" to preserve jurisprudence as a pure, universal science, whereas Salmond dismantled Austin’s binary altogether to refocus jurisprudence on the analytical, historical, and ethical first principles of a state's legal system.