Smith argues that there is an ontological gap between prevalent legal theories and legal practice. He is concerned that the realist and pragmatic approaches of Holmes, Llewellyn, Fuller, and, later, Posner refuse to acknowledge the metaphysical component of law. He proceeds to demonstrate persuasively that words, statutes, and judicial decisions alone cannot account for common assumptions and behavior in the everyday practice of law. He concludes that efforts to 'squirm' out of 'the Law' as a metaphysical force have failed. Having illustrated the continuing gap between practice and theory, the author examines how meaning might be attributed to the law. He rejects the idea that meaning is created by the interpreter or reader. There are various ways of positing the author of a law, but a law's meaning flows from the intentions of its enactor, however conceived. Smith concludes that the classical belief in a metaphysical presence behind the law remains alive, although circumspectly submerged, in the practice of law today.