Nature & Animals Quote by Frederick Pollock

The jab lands because it’s aimed at a professional vice: the temptation to confuse rigor with opacity. Pollock, a judge steeped in Victorian-era legal argument, isn’t merely complaining about bad writing. He’s warning that “crabbed and obscure definitions” function like private property. They fence off meaning, turning law (or philosophy, or any rule-bound discipline) into a gated garden where insiders trade passwords and outsiders are told they simply “don’t get it.”

His phrasing is slyly diagnostic. “Of no use beyond a narrow circle of students” suggests a definition that performs for the seminar room but fails in the world where stakes exist: courts, contracts, rights, liability. Pollock’s courtroom context matters here: judges live downstream from definitions. If a definition can’t travel beyond an academic clique, it can’t reliably guide behavior or justify coercive power. Precision isn’t the enemy; needless obscurity is, because it makes interpretation a contest of status rather than reason.

The punchline is the line about “pet” definitions. Pollock is mocking the narcissism of specialists: each student cherishes a bespoke formulation the way a collector cherishes a rare coin. That’s not scholarship so much as hobbyism with footnotes. Subtext: the proliferation of idiosyncratic definitions is a symptom of a field that rewards cleverness over clarity, novelty over usefulness. Pollock’s intent is reformist and slightly impatient: if your definition can’t be shared, tested, and applied, it’s not a tool. It’s a talisman.