In the polemics of legal theory, the question of what law in itself means as opposed to what social or empirical facts happen to accompany it in any given instance depends upon the definition of law one chooses to accept. Substantive conclusions about the meaning of law are often defended by pointing to an appropriate definition. In this Comment, Professor Mermin discusses the various concepts of "definition" and then examines Professor Lon Fuller's conclusions about law to see upon which theory of definition Fuller is relying. Fuller's failure to commit himself on a definitional theory, according to Professor Mermin, weakens the effect of his conclusions on the "meaning" of law.
