Classic Legal Theory

Classic legal texts, which might also be called foundational, key, canonical, or core works, have been influential in shaping legal theory and the study of law. Identifying which texts are considered classics is often challenging for researchers for a number of reasons:

• What is considered classic is subjective. For instance, what is considered "classic" in the Hart-Dworkin debate may depend on which legal scholar is writing about it.
• Scholarship can be cyclical or come in waves, with ideas presented in classic texts being picked up by later authors, often in a new or "neo" understanding
• The canon changes over time as it develops. For instance, reading the work of Thomas Aquinas today is very different than reading it in the 13th century when it was written, both because our socio-cultural world has changed immensely and because we now read it with the benefit of 100s of years of criticism.

In order to identify which texts are considered classics, researchers can:

• read introductory works, handbooks, and the relevant sections of treatises. This guide highlights several introductions to legal theory.
• look for critical overviews of theorists or specific theories. These can help you identify what authors and works are important and to see them in context. For instance, if you are reading key works by Dworkin, commentary about Dworkin can help you understand the socio-political context in which he was writing
• pay attention to citations. If a work is highly referenced by leading scholars work may be considered influential or important. Remember that citations can be critical or negative. For instance, the work of Sigmund Freud is highly criticized today, but this does not diminish that his works are foundational within the field of psychology.

The School of Athens is a concept mapping tool for understanding the relationships between theorists that connects them back all the way to ancient philosophers. To use the School of Athens click on a circle, which represents a theorist; this will highlight how this theorists connects to others. You can explore this tool to find short bibliographies such as the biography of J.L. Austin shown below. As you read foundational legal texts, especially works written in response to one another it can be useful to practice your own concept mapping, for instance writing notes on how positivist theorists connect to natural law theorists.

Citation chaining refers to the research strategy of tracing the citations used in a resource and the citations to that resource in order to determine how it fits within the discipline as a whole. A number of resources exist to support citation chaining.

Google Scholar lists the citations for a resource under the title of it. For instance, in this screenshot the article "Objectivity and Interpretation" has been cited 1423 times within Google Scholar Resources. It is possible to click on the citations and search within them.

HeinOnline Law Journal Library lists the citations for a resource to the right of the title. For instance, in this screenshot the article "Objectivity and Interpretation" has been cited 761 times within HeinOnline, and the author Fiss has been cited 6809 times. It is possible to click on the author or article citations and search within them.

As the different citation counts from Google Scholar and HeinOnline show it is challenging to obtain an accurate list of all citations for a resource, especially for classic texts that are older due to challenges with duplicate records and non-indexed resources. However, high citation counts do indicate impact.