Karl Llewellyn once said, referring to Roscoe Pound's work m jurisprudence, that it was difficult to tell on what level the writing proceeded: sometimes it seemed to be little more than bedtime stones for a tired bar; at other tunes it appeared to be on the level of the after-dinner speech or a thought provoking essay, neither of which were quite the "considered and buttressed scholarly discussion" that one expected to find. Llewellyn's complaint serves as a warning, though a somewhat ambiguous one, to those who give lectures on jurisprudence.
On the one hand, I do not plan to present the oral equivalent of Pound's multi-volume treatise on the subject and so may, perhaps, be permitted to proceed on the level of the after-dinner speech. On the other hand, Llewellyn's remark suggests that the subject of Jurisprudence IS never suited to anything less than the ''buttressed" scholarly discussion that is to be found m dusty tomes and that an after-dinner speech imitates only at the risk of losing or boring one's audience.
Soper, E. Philip. "Making Sense of Modern Jurisprudence: The Paradox of Positivism and the Challenge for Natural Law." Creighton Law Review 22 (1988): 67-88.