基于关系视角的法律与文学研究
|
摘要
“法律与文学是什么”是法律与文学不断追问的核心问题,亦构成了法律与文学理论研究的根本性问题。作为一门新兴的跨学科研究,法律与文学首先要确证它自身的存在及其存在的合理性与独特价值,但目前的法律与文学还没有形成理论通说,乃至是否为学派都颇受争议,这不仅是法律与文学发展的最大理论障碍,成为法律与文学理论研究最急迫解决的理论问题,同时也是本文所试图回答的根本问题。
全文共分为7个章节。第1章导论部分介绍了选题的形成与问题的提出、国内外研究现状与存在的局限以及论文的逻辑结构与设计理由。法律与文学理论的特殊性与多面性决定了要采取不同于其他法学学派、法学思想的认识路径与方式,本文对法律与文学理论研究的基本定位设置在与其他相关法学学派的关系视角上。本文选取了四个关系视角,即法律与经济学、法律与社会学、后现代法学以及法学教育,形成四种法律与文学类型,即作为反法律与经济学的法律与文学、作为法律与社会学的法律与文学、作为后现代法学的法律与文学以及作为法学教育的法律与文学,以期回答“法律与文学是什么”这道难题。
第2章起始于对法律与文学学科史的概述：对从柏拉图到后现代法律与文学学术形态的起源、发展与流变进行梳理,展示法律与文学的动态发展过程,同时也是对不断回答法律和文学之间关系、回答“法律与文学是什么”的学术智识资源的总结,以文学中的法律与作为文学的法律二者的动态关系为审视视角来重塑法律与文学的发展史,将其分为发轫、确立与扩张的三个阶段。对法律与文学二分法的超越,必然建立在对二分法充分认识的前提之上,同时要破除法律与文学分裂宿命论的神话,进而形成对法律与文学的整合或一体化理解。通过对基于二分法视角的法律与文学学术史的梳理,本章集中展示出这一领域之分裂的趋势与整合的努力之间的矛盾与对抗,显示出法律与文学理论的多样性与复杂性,也为下文的讨论提供了理论背景,奠定了理论基调。
第3章重点探讨了第一个关系视角,即作为反法律与经济学的法律与文学。同为法学跨学科研究的法律与文学和法律与经济学之间存在同生相异关系上,法律与文学对经济人假设的不合理与负面效应的质疑与批判影响或催生了其对文学人理念的建构,具有移情能力的文学人集中反映出法律与文学的基本主张,为法律理论人的塑造提供了一种新的可能。文学人与经济人之间的巨大差异可最终归结于文学语言与经济学语言,或者更准确地说文学话语与经济学话语之间在本质上的矛盾,这又生动体现在文学话语的人文属性与经济学话语的科学属性之间的冲突上面。文学话语是对当代主流法理学形式的拒绝,文学话语的增长也为法律话语的建构提供了一种新的可能。
第4章探讨第二个关系视角,即作为法律与社会学的法律与文学。后现代史学观的助力突破了传统的法律与社会学获取信息资料的一般方式而将文学作品纳入到其考量范围之内。法律与社会学统摄下的法律与文学表现出来的工具性特征将法律与文学以工具形式整合进广义法律与社会学当中构成了最弱意义上的法律与文学。本文引入文本形态论来对其进行反思与评价,将笼统使用的文本概念区分出三种既彼此联系又相互区别的文本形态,即文学作品、拟制案件与真实案件,认为文学文本中的人文指向应当也必须得到承认与保留。
第5章探讨第三个关系视角,即作为后现代法学的法律与文学。理解后现代法学的一个重要手段就是把握后现代哲学思想的基本精神。法理学的后现代转向是在整体意义上的一个转向,后现代哲学与文学理论以及批判法学运动为法律与文学在新时期的发展提供了丰富的理论资源,法理学的后现代转向而使得后现代同法律与文学的联系愈加频繁与紧密。随后本文集中于解释学转向、想象阅读与讲故事即对应以文本为中心的解释、阅读与叙述三方面对法律与文学的后现代动向进行分析与说明。
第6章文章转向作为法学教育的法律与文学,将法律与文学的理论研究落脚于教育实践之中,以重申法律与文学的教育目的为基本方向,对法律与文学所产出的诸多理论产品进行归纳与总结。本文就法律与文学课进行了详尽的对比分析,对法律与文学课的形式与概况、法律与文学课的分类与主题、法律与文学课的教学目的以及法律与文学课的文本选择等方面进行了分析与阐述,并进一步指出在助力法律伦理教育、完善法学知识结构、更新课堂教学模式等三方面法律与文学课将有可能给国内的法学教育提供较为的新颖、可靠,同时又赋有启发性与创造性的教学模式。
第7章结语部分,本文对前文的研究进行了简要总结并展望了中国法律与文学的未来的发展前景。西方法律与文学的发展厘定了中国法律与文学研究的基本理论方向,中国社会转型期法治现代化的大背景决定了中国法律与文学研究的现实维度,法律与文学深厚的传统资源构成了中国法律与文学研究的超越维度。文章着重论述了四种法律与文学理论类型的内在关联,指出它们将会在某种程度上,以某种形式参与到中国未来的法律与文学的理论建构当中。随着我国法律与文学理论研究的深入与法学教育阵地的开拓,法律与文学将逐步走向发展的第二阶段,在准确理解与充分消化国外智识资源,缩短与西方学术界在思想观念以及前沿理论传播等差距的前提下,发掘中国法律与文学的丰富资源,法律与文学会在更广阔的空间里有所作为。
"What is Law and Literature" is the core issue that theorists continue to explore,but also constitute the fundamental problem of the Law and Literature theory research.As an emerging interdisciplinary research,first of all,Law and Literature needs to do is to prove its existence,and demonstrate its theoretical rationality and unique value.There are a lot of studies on Law and Literature,but still now there is not a generally acknowledged theoretic mode,or even whether it should be called a school which is still controversial in academic circles.This problem is not only one of the greatest theoretical barrier in the Law and Literature,but also the fundamental problem that attempts to answer in this paper.
The full text is divided into seven chapters.Chapter 1 Introduction to propose the question and introduce the research writing question posing,present research situation and limitations of domestic and foreign,as well as the paper's logical structure and design reason.Its specificity and multi-faceted character of the decision to take the understanding of the path and way different from other law school.Due to the particularity and the multi-faceted characteristics of Law and Literature,we should take the understanding of the way different from other law school.The basic orientation of theoretical research on Law and Literature is set on the perspective of the relationship with other relevant law school.In this article,I select four types of relationships perspective,law and economics,law and sociology postmodern jurisprudence and legal education, they constitute the types of four Law and Literature theory,that is Law and Literature as anti-law and economics,as law and sociology,as postmodern jurisprudence and legal education,in order to answer "What is Law and Literature"
Chapter 2 starts at an overview of the history of Law and Literature.Through the origin, development and change of Law and Literature,from Plato to postmodern period,this article shows the dynamic development process of the Law and Literature,but also continue to answer the relationship between law and literature.Reshape the development of Law and Literature,use of the dynamic relationship between "Law in Literature","Law as Literature",divided into three stages:Beginning,Establishment and Expansion.The transcendence of Law and Literature Dichotomy built on the premise that fully recognize to get rid of the myth of the Law and Literature division fatalism, and ultimately formation of the understanding of the integration of the Law and Literature.Through the analysis of Law and Literature academic history, this chapter focus on demonstrating the contradictions and confrontations between the division and integration of this area, showing the diversity and complexity of Law and literature theory,but also for the discussed below provides a theoretical background.
Chapter 3 focuses on the first relationship perspective,that is,Law and Literature as anti-Law and Economics.Law and literature threw doubt on the hypothesis of economic man and constructed the notion of literature man.Such literature man reflects the basic idea of Law and Literature,even shape a new possibility for legal theories.The different of economic man and literature man reflects the basic conflict between discourse of literature and economics.The rising of discourse of literature not only show the position that negative jurisprudence,but also provide a new possibility for legal discourse.
Chapter 4 discusses the second relationship perspective,that is, Law and Literature as Law and Sociology.The Post-Modern Historical View,as we have seen,broke through traditional Law and Sociology for general information,leaving the literary work into its scope. Unify ing under the Law and Sociology,Law and Literature with some kind of tool characteristics,which makes it to the form of tools integrated into the generalized Law and Sociology,which constitute the weakest sense of the Law and Literature.Authenticity is generally considered to be the only criterion for assessing the validity and effectiveness of a text in jurisprudential studies.Of literary works, fictional cases and real cases, authenticity might not be a valid or appropriate criterion for text form analysis. The three forms are different from one another, but are related to one another as well. The unique jurisprudential purpose, autognosis, task and meaning of each text form are expected to function and play a role in the respective systems.
Chapter 5 explores the third relationship perspective,Law and Literature,as postmodern jurisprudence.To understand postmodern jurisprudence,is to grasp the basic spirit of postmodern philosophy, to take a especial understanding.Postmodern turn of jurisprudence.Postmodern philosophy,literary theory,the Critical Legal Studies Movement provides a rich theoretical resources for Law and Literature in the new period of development,makes after the contact of the postmodern with the Law and Literature more frequent and close.Subsequently,in the rest of this chapter focused on hermeneutic turn,imaginative reading and storytelling,that is to say,interpretation,reading and narrative,this three postmodern trends of Law and Literature.
Chapter 6 turns to the last relationship perspective,Law and Literature,as legal education.This chapter settled Law and Literature theory in educational practice,to reiterate the educational purposes of the Law and Literature as the basic direction of induction and conclusion on the proposition of the many theories of Law and Literature.In the rest of this chapter makes a detailed comparative analysis of Law and Literature class.For example,the form and overview of the Law and Literature class,the classification and themes of Law and Literature class,Law and Literature class teaching purposes as well as Law and Literature class text selection and other aspects.This article further pointed out that help legal and ethical education,improve legal knowledge,update the mode of classroom teaching,Law and Literature class will be endowed with inspiring and creative teaching model to the domestic legal education.
Chapter 7 provides a brief summary of the above research and outlook of the future prospects for the development of the Law and Literature in China.The development of Western Law and Literature to fix the basic theory of the direction of China's Law and Literature studies, the background of the modernization of the Chinese society in transition,the background of the rule of law in modern Chinese society determine the realistic dimension of the Chinese Law and Literature studies,and the deep traditional resources of Law and Literature constitute transcendent dimension of the Chinese Law and Literature studies.In the final conclusion part focuses on the inherent correlation of the type of four Law and Literature theory, that they will to some extent, to some form of participation to the theoretical construction of Law and Literature in the future.With the deepening of China's Law and Literature theory and legal education positions open up, Law and Literature will be gradually moving towards the second phase of development.Law and Literature will play a huge influence and role in the broader space.
全文共分为7个章节。第1章导论部分介绍了选题的形成与问题的提出、国内外研究现状与存在的局限以及论文的逻辑结构与设计理由。法律与文学理论的特殊性与多面性决定了要采取不同于其他法学学派、法学思想的认识路径与方式,本文对法律与文学理论研究的基本定位设置在与其他相关法学学派的关系视角上。本文选取了四个关系视角,即法律与经济学、法律与社会学、后现代法学以及法学教育,形成四种法律与文学类型,即作为反法律与经济学的法律与文学、作为法律与社会学的法律与文学、作为后现代法学的法律与文学以及作为法学教育的法律与文学,以期回答“法律与文学是什么”这道难题。
第2章起始于对法律与文学学科史的概述：对从柏拉图到后现代法律与文学学术形态的起源、发展与流变进行梳理,展示法律与文学的动态发展过程,同时也是对不断回答法律和文学之间关系、回答“法律与文学是什么”的学术智识资源的总结,以文学中的法律与作为文学的法律二者的动态关系为审视视角来重塑法律与文学的发展史,将其分为发轫、确立与扩张的三个阶段。对法律与文学二分法的超越,必然建立在对二分法充分认识的前提之上,同时要破除法律与文学分裂宿命论的神话,进而形成对法律与文学的整合或一体化理解。通过对基于二分法视角的法律与文学学术史的梳理,本章集中展示出这一领域之分裂的趋势与整合的努力之间的矛盾与对抗,显示出法律与文学理论的多样性与复杂性,也为下文的讨论提供了理论背景,奠定了理论基调。
第3章重点探讨了第一个关系视角,即作为反法律与经济学的法律与文学。同为法学跨学科研究的法律与文学和法律与经济学之间存在同生相异关系上,法律与文学对经济人假设的不合理与负面效应的质疑与批判影响或催生了其对文学人理念的建构,具有移情能力的文学人集中反映出法律与文学的基本主张,为法律理论人的塑造提供了一种新的可能。文学人与经济人之间的巨大差异可最终归结于文学语言与经济学语言,或者更准确地说文学话语与经济学话语之间在本质上的矛盾,这又生动体现在文学话语的人文属性与经济学话语的科学属性之间的冲突上面。文学话语是对当代主流法理学形式的拒绝,文学话语的增长也为法律话语的建构提供了一种新的可能。
第4章探讨第二个关系视角,即作为法律与社会学的法律与文学。后现代史学观的助力突破了传统的法律与社会学获取信息资料的一般方式而将文学作品纳入到其考量范围之内。法律与社会学统摄下的法律与文学表现出来的工具性特征将法律与文学以工具形式整合进广义法律与社会学当中构成了最弱意义上的法律与文学。本文引入文本形态论来对其进行反思与评价,将笼统使用的文本概念区分出三种既彼此联系又相互区别的文本形态,即文学作品、拟制案件与真实案件,认为文学文本中的人文指向应当也必须得到承认与保留。
第5章探讨第三个关系视角,即作为后现代法学的法律与文学。理解后现代法学的一个重要手段就是把握后现代哲学思想的基本精神。法理学的后现代转向是在整体意义上的一个转向,后现代哲学与文学理论以及批判法学运动为法律与文学在新时期的发展提供了丰富的理论资源,法理学的后现代转向而使得后现代同法律与文学的联系愈加频繁与紧密。随后本文集中于解释学转向、想象阅读与讲故事即对应以文本为中心的解释、阅读与叙述三方面对法律与文学的后现代动向进行分析与说明。
第6章文章转向作为法学教育的法律与文学,将法律与文学的理论研究落脚于教育实践之中,以重申法律与文学的教育目的为基本方向,对法律与文学所产出的诸多理论产品进行归纳与总结。本文就法律与文学课进行了详尽的对比分析,对法律与文学课的形式与概况、法律与文学课的分类与主题、法律与文学课的教学目的以及法律与文学课的文本选择等方面进行了分析与阐述,并进一步指出在助力法律伦理教育、完善法学知识结构、更新课堂教学模式等三方面法律与文学课将有可能给国内的法学教育提供较为的新颖、可靠,同时又赋有启发性与创造性的教学模式。
第7章结语部分,本文对前文的研究进行了简要总结并展望了中国法律与文学的未来的发展前景。西方法律与文学的发展厘定了中国法律与文学研究的基本理论方向,中国社会转型期法治现代化的大背景决定了中国法律与文学研究的现实维度,法律与文学深厚的传统资源构成了中国法律与文学研究的超越维度。文章着重论述了四种法律与文学理论类型的内在关联,指出它们将会在某种程度上,以某种形式参与到中国未来的法律与文学的理论建构当中。随着我国法律与文学理论研究的深入与法学教育阵地的开拓,法律与文学将逐步走向发展的第二阶段,在准确理解与充分消化国外智识资源,缩短与西方学术界在思想观念以及前沿理论传播等差距的前提下,发掘中国法律与文学的丰富资源,法律与文学会在更广阔的空间里有所作为。
"What is Law and Literature" is the core issue that theorists continue to explore,but also constitute the fundamental problem of the Law and Literature theory research.As an emerging interdisciplinary research,first of all,Law and Literature needs to do is to prove its existence,and demonstrate its theoretical rationality and unique value.There are a lot of studies on Law and Literature,but still now there is not a generally acknowledged theoretic mode,or even whether it should be called a school which is still controversial in academic circles.This problem is not only one of the greatest theoretical barrier in the Law and Literature,but also the fundamental problem that attempts to answer in this paper.
The full text is divided into seven chapters.Chapter 1 Introduction to propose the question and introduce the research writing question posing,present research situation and limitations of domestic and foreign,as well as the paper's logical structure and design reason.Its specificity and multi-faceted character of the decision to take the understanding of the path and way different from other law school.Due to the particularity and the multi-faceted characteristics of Law and Literature,we should take the understanding of the way different from other law school.The basic orientation of theoretical research on Law and Literature is set on the perspective of the relationship with other relevant law school.In this article,I select four types of relationships perspective,law and economics,law and sociology postmodern jurisprudence and legal education, they constitute the types of four Law and Literature theory,that is Law and Literature as anti-law and economics,as law and sociology,as postmodern jurisprudence and legal education,in order to answer "What is Law and Literature"
Chapter 2 starts at an overview of the history of Law and Literature.Through the origin, development and change of Law and Literature,from Plato to postmodern period,this article shows the dynamic development process of the Law and Literature,but also continue to answer the relationship between law and literature.Reshape the development of Law and Literature,use of the dynamic relationship between "Law in Literature","Law as Literature",divided into three stages:Beginning,Establishment and Expansion.The transcendence of Law and Literature Dichotomy built on the premise that fully recognize to get rid of the myth of the Law and Literature division fatalism, and ultimately formation of the understanding of the integration of the Law and Literature.Through the analysis of Law and Literature academic history, this chapter focus on demonstrating the contradictions and confrontations between the division and integration of this area, showing the diversity and complexity of Law and literature theory,but also for the discussed below provides a theoretical background.
Chapter 3 focuses on the first relationship perspective,that is,Law and Literature as anti-Law and Economics.Law and literature threw doubt on the hypothesis of economic man and constructed the notion of literature man.Such literature man reflects the basic idea of Law and Literature,even shape a new possibility for legal theories.The different of economic man and literature man reflects the basic conflict between discourse of literature and economics.The rising of discourse of literature not only show the position that negative jurisprudence,but also provide a new possibility for legal discourse.
Chapter 4 discusses the second relationship perspective,that is, Law and Literature as Law and Sociology.The Post-Modern Historical View,as we have seen,broke through traditional Law and Sociology for general information,leaving the literary work into its scope. Unify ing under the Law and Sociology,Law and Literature with some kind of tool characteristics,which makes it to the form of tools integrated into the generalized Law and Sociology,which constitute the weakest sense of the Law and Literature.Authenticity is generally considered to be the only criterion for assessing the validity and effectiveness of a text in jurisprudential studies.Of literary works, fictional cases and real cases, authenticity might not be a valid or appropriate criterion for text form analysis. The three forms are different from one another, but are related to one another as well. The unique jurisprudential purpose, autognosis, task and meaning of each text form are expected to function and play a role in the respective systems.
Chapter 5 explores the third relationship perspective,Law and Literature,as postmodern jurisprudence.To understand postmodern jurisprudence,is to grasp the basic spirit of postmodern philosophy, to take a especial understanding.Postmodern turn of jurisprudence.Postmodern philosophy,literary theory,the Critical Legal Studies Movement provides a rich theoretical resources for Law and Literature in the new period of development,makes after the contact of the postmodern with the Law and Literature more frequent and close.Subsequently,in the rest of this chapter focused on hermeneutic turn,imaginative reading and storytelling,that is to say,interpretation,reading and narrative,this three postmodern trends of Law and Literature.
Chapter 6 turns to the last relationship perspective,Law and Literature,as legal education.This chapter settled Law and Literature theory in educational practice,to reiterate the educational purposes of the Law and Literature as the basic direction of induction and conclusion on the proposition of the many theories of Law and Literature.In the rest of this chapter makes a detailed comparative analysis of Law and Literature class.For example,the form and overview of the Law and Literature class,the classification and themes of Law and Literature class,Law and Literature class teaching purposes as well as Law and Literature class text selection and other aspects.This article further pointed out that help legal and ethical education,improve legal knowledge,update the mode of classroom teaching,Law and Literature class will be endowed with inspiring and creative teaching model to the domestic legal education.
Chapter 7 provides a brief summary of the above research and outlook of the future prospects for the development of the Law and Literature in China.The development of Western Law and Literature to fix the basic theory of the direction of China's Law and Literature studies, the background of the modernization of the Chinese society in transition,the background of the rule of law in modern Chinese society determine the realistic dimension of the Chinese Law and Literature studies,and the deep traditional resources of Law and Literature constitute transcendent dimension of the Chinese Law and Literature studies.In the final conclusion part focuses on the inherent correlation of the type of four Law and Literature theory, that they will to some extent, to some form of participation to the theoretical construction of Law and Literature in the future.With the deepening of China's Law and Literature theory and legal education positions open up, Law and Literature will be gradually moving towards the second phase of development.Law and Literature will play a huge influence and role in the broader space.
引文
①James Boyd White.The Legal Imagination:Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression.Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.pp.xxiv,xxv.①苏力：《孪生兄弟的不同命运——<法律与文学)代译序》,《比较法研究》2002年第2期。②Gary Minda.Law and Literature an Century's End.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature,Vol.9,1997.pp.245-246.①Guyora Binder,Robert Weisberg.Literary Criticisms of Law.New Jersey:Princeton University Press,2000.p.20.①苏力：《法律与文学的开拓与整合——冯象对法律与文学的贡献》,载苏力主编：《法律书评》第4期,北京大学出版社2006年版,第7页。②徐忠明：《法律与文学之间》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第28页。①当然,也涌现出一批杰出的法律与文学积极参与者,如James Boyd White、Richard Weisberg、Robert Cover、Martha Minow、Martha Nussbaum以及Robin West。See Willen J. Witteveen.Law and Literature:Expanding,Contracting,Emerging.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature,Vol.10,Tenth Anniverary Vol.Winter,1998.p.155.②另外,Ferguson指出,在法律和文学的抱负之间有一种明显的共生关系,律师在职业上也依赖于法律与文学融合。See Daniel J. Kornstein.Kill all the lawyers?:Shakespeare's legal appeal. Princeton University Press,1994.pp.10-11.③在Baron看来,法律与文学在一方面并不是充分的跨学科领域,或者更确切地说,其没有对跨学科十分深思熟虑；而同时,法律与文学又似乎因为过于跨学科而对从业律师的影响甚小,其并没有说出绝大多数律师所关心的法律学说——Baron认为这种看上去矛盾的对法律与文学基本观点,其实并不矛盾。See Jane B. Baron.Law,Literature,and the Problems of Interdisciplinarity.The Yale Law Journal,Vol.108,1999,pp.1060-1061.④如波斯纳宣称：“……这个领域充满了错误的命题、带有偏见的解释、肤浅的论证、轻率的概括以及表面化的理解。”See Richard Posner.Law and Literature.Harvard University Press,1998.p.5.⑤法律与文学的重要论者罗宾·维斯特也承认,同法律与经济学相比较起来,无论以何种客观指标作为标准来评定,法律与文学只是一个边缘运动See Robin West. Caring for Justice.New York University Press,1997.p.180.①See Peters Julie Stone. Law, Literature, and the Vanishing Real:On the Future of an Interdisciplinary Illusion. PMLA,Vol.120,2005,p.448.②See David Ray Papke. Problems with an Uninvited Guest:Richard A. Posner and the Law and Literature Movement. Boston University Law Review,69,1989.p.1067.③See Gary Minda. Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York University Press,1995.pp.159-166.④波斯纳就曾明确地指出,法律与文学是“一个难以被组织起来的学科”。See Richard Posner.Law and Literature:A Misunderstood Relation.Harvard University Press,1988.p.1.⑤需要注意的是,这种分裂同时也正是造成对法律与文学形成如此彼此尖锐冲突的评价或观念的、最关键的内在原因之一。更为重要的是,分裂在某种程度上构成了中国在接受法律与文学的一个(也许是最主要的)障碍。⑥See Michael Pantazakos. "Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7,1995, pp.37-38.①正在这个意义上,法律与文学明显地表现出它是其支持者与批评者(甚至是苛刻的否决者)所合力推动的。这一点也有别于其他法学跨学科领域的基本情况,在我看来亦构成法律与文学发展史的一个重要特点。②[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集·第2卷》,王晓朝译,人民出版社2003年版,第363-364页。③当然,在这里需要注意柏拉图时代的诗歌与现代意义上的文学含义并不相同,而城邦也并非是法律的直接比喻。④See Judith Schenck Koffler. Forged Alliance:Law and Literature. Columbia Law Review,Vol.89,1989.p.1377.①[美]N.帕帕斯：《柏拉图与<理想国)》,朱清华译,广西师范大学出版社2007年版,第78页。帕帕斯注意到在第二、三卷与第十卷对反诗歌论证方面的区别,他指出：“第二卷和第三卷将许多错误归于诗歌,但他不是指责诗歌自身……第十卷希望所有的模仿都消失,似乎模仿在本质上就是为了追求这些坏的榜样,似乎对好人的模仿是怪癖。”参见[美]N.帕帕斯：《柏拉图与理想国》,朱清华译,广西师范大学出版社2007年版,第240-245页。②典型的如《申辩篇》、《伊安篇》、《普罗泰格拉篇》、《费德罗篇》以及《法篇》等。③See Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005,p.1839.④参见[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集·第2卷》,王晓朝译,人民出版社2003年版,第356-364页。⑤“(书面文字)只能用老一套来回答你。一件事情一旦被文字写下来,无论写成什么样,就到处流传,传到能看懂它的人手里,也传到看不懂它的人的手里,还传到与它无关的人手里。它不知该如何对好人说话,也不知该如何对坏人说话。如果受到曲解和虐待,它总是要它的作者来救援,自己却无力为自己辩护,也无力保卫自己。”参见[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集·第2卷》,王晓朝译,人民出版社2003年版,第198-202页。关于柏拉图对书面文字批判的分析参见[德]托马斯·A.斯勒扎克：《读柏拉图》,程炜译,译林出版社2009年版,第47-55页。⑥See Judith Koffler.The Assimilation of Law and Literature:An Approach to Metanoia.ALSA Forum,Vol3,1978.p.6.①See Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005,p.1839.②应当说,对法律和文学之间关系的探讨始终存在,如梅特兰就曾指出：“只要法律是不成文的,它就必定被戏剧化和表演。正义必须呈现出生动形象的外表,否则人们就看不见她。”[美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼：《法律与革命——西方法律传统的形成》,贺卫方等译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第69页。事实上,十九世纪早期英国律师们便已经开始着手研究莎士比亚与狄更斯的法律背景了。See Richard Posner.Law and Literature:A Misunderstood Relation.Harvard University Press,1988.p.12但是,他们的探讨一般并不作为法律与文学前史部分来看待。罗伯特·维斯伯格明确地将传统的基于历史的文学研究排除在法律与文学探讨的范围之内,他指出：“我将那些并不具备有意识的‘跨学科’研究所主张的那种特别的批判性或者创新性的研究撇开。……(因为)它并没有必要的自我意识来反应作为话语形式或者作为智识学科的法律和文学的交叉。”See Robert Weisberg.The Law-Literature Enterprise.Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol.1,1988,p.2另外值得注意的是,二十世纪七十年代末,特别是八十年代的法律与文学的发展常被论者称为“复兴”；“复兴”通常是指对上世纪初威格摩尔和卡多佐研究的重新认识与回应,然而在我看来“复兴”也意味着对柏拉图(包括其后的西塞罗)所厘定的法律和文学关系基本模式的回归与发展。①See John H. Wigmore.A List of One Hundred Legal Novels.17 Illinois.Law Review.1922.p.26.②See John H.Wigmore.Introduction.in John Marshall Gest.The Lawyer in Literature.Boston:The Boston Book Company,1913.p.ix.③在学者们开列出新的不同版本的法律小说或法律与文学的阅读书单时,他们都一致将这项具有重要意义工作的开创尤其归功于威格摩尔。See Richard H. Weisberg. Wigmore's Legal Novels Revisited:New Resources for the Expansive Lawyer. Northwestern University Law Review.Vol.71,1976.David R. Papke.Law and Literature: A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works. Law Libary Journal Vol.73,1980. Patricia Harris O'Connor, Samuel Pyeatt Menefee. Law and Literature Brought to Book:A Provisional Bibliography of Bibliographical Sources. Law Library Journal,Vol.86,1994对法律与文学阅读清单的进一步分析,将在后面章节中集中讨论。①J.C.S.,Law and Literature,194St. James Magazine(September,1865),reprinted in The Catholic World:A Monthly Magazine of General Literature and Science,January,1866.pp.560-561.②[美]本杰明·N·卡多佐：《演讲录法律与文学》,董炯、彭冰译,中国法制出版社2005年版,第113页。③See Louis Auchincloss.Life,Law and Letters.Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co.,1979.p.50.①See Richard H. Weisberg.Law,Literature and Cardozo's Judicial Poetics. Cardozo Law Review,Vol.l,1979.p.283.②See Richard H. Weisberg.Wigmore and the Law and Literature Movement.Law and Literature, Vol.21,2009. p.130.③《法律的世界》两卷本的副标题是：“有关法律的伟大作品宝库——短篇小说、戏剧、散文、报告、书信、专家意见、辩护辞、笔录证词——从圣经时代到现在”。See Ephraim London.The World of Law.New York:Simon & Schuster,1960.①闵达详细地分析并指出怀特这个基本主张与其个人经历密切相关。See Gary Minda. Cool Jazz but Not so Hot Literary Text in Lawyerland:James Boyd White's Improvisations of Law as Literature. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.13,2001,pp.157-191.②See Ian Ward. Law and Literature:Possibilities and Perspectives.Cambridge University Press,1995.p.15.③See Richard H. Weisberg. The Failure of the Word:The Protagonist as Lawyer in Modern Fiction.New Haven:Yale University Press.1984.④See Richard H. Weisberg. Poethics,and Other Strategies of Law and Literature.New York:Columbia University Press,1992.①See Richard H. Weisberg. Coming of Age Some More:"Law and Literature" Beyond The Cradle. Nova Law Review,Vol.13,1988.p.111.②如Sanford Levinson、Owen Fiss、Stanley Fish以及Ronald Dworkin等学者专注于作为文学的法律一方的研究,在很大程度上与文学中的法律一方的研究无涉。这跟法律与文学发展早期更多的是“亦此亦彼”学者的基本情况的形成了较为鲜明的对比。③See Robert Weisberg.The Law-Literature Enterprise. Yale Journal of Law&The Humanities,1988.p.1.①See Robert M. Cover. Justice Accused:Antislavery and the Judicial Process. New Haven:Yale UniversityPress,1975.pp.1-7.②See Gary Minda.Law and Literature an Century's End.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.9,1997.pp.245-246.③See Gary Minda. Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York:New York University Press,1995.pp.155-157.①See Guyora Binder,Robert Weisberg.Literary Criticisms of Law.Princeton University Press,2000.p.20.②See Gary Minda. Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York:New York University Press,1995.pp.159-160尤其是注释87。①See Richard A. Posner.Law and Literature:A Misunderstood Relation.Harvard University Press,1988.pp.1-9.②在英语世界里并没有将叙事法理学称为"law through literature"的说法,甚至也没有学者使用"law through literature"这一“专有名词”③国内对法律与文学的讨论几乎没有超出四分法范式,有关四分法的典型表达见苏力：《法律与文学的开拓与整合——冯象对法律与文学的贡献》,载《法律书评》(第4期),北京大学出版社2006年版；苏力：①这种研究方式典型的例证请参见沈明：《法律与文学：可能性及其限度》,《中外法学》2006年第3期。②See Michael Pantazakos. "Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7,1995, pp.38-39.③See Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005,p.1837.①See David Ray Papke.Neo-Marxists,Nietzscheans,and New Critics:The Voices of the Contemporary Law and Literature Discourse.American Bar Foundation Research Journal,Vol.10,1985,p.885.②See Timothy J. Reiss. The Meaning of Literature. Cornell University Press,1992.p.230.③See Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005,p.1837.①刘星显：《法律与文学的关联模式论》,《社会科学战线》2011年第2期。②See Gary Minda.Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York:New York University Press,1995.p.152.③See David Ray Papke. Problems with an Uninvited Guest:Richard A. Posner and the Law and Literature Movement. Boston University Law Review,69,1989.④See James Boyd White. Heracles' Bow:Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of Law.The University of Wisconsin Press,1985.p.ⅹⅱ.①[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第5页。②关于法律与文学同法律与经济学的对比,参见苏力：《孪生兄弟的不同命运(代译序)》,载[美]波斯纳：《法律与文学》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。以及Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review,39,1988.pp.867-878.Brook Thomas.Reflections on the Law and Literature Revival.Critical Inquiry,Vol.17,1991.pp.510-539.③See Michael Pantazakos. "Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7,1995, p.40.④对“后现代精神”的解读请参见大卫·格里芬、乔·霍兰德的相关论述。参见[美]格里芬编：《后现代精神》,王成兵译,中央编译出版社1998年版,第21-36页,第72-85页。显然,本文的目的不在于对后现代的精神或特征的揭示与分析,而针对后现代这一问题没有一致认同的观点是显而易见的,如菲尔德曼将后现代归为八个主题,王治河总结了十一个层次等,甚至针锋相对的论争或截然相反的观点成为在探讨后现代时的常态。参见[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版；王治河：《后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)》,北京大学出版社2006年版。①信春鹰：《后现代法学：为法治探索未来》,《中国社会科学》2000年第5期。②[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第294-295页。①国内一般将法律与文学视为后现代法学的重要组成部分,在对其进行分析与评价时,往往是在后现代的框架之内进行的,也就是说,将法律与文学单纯地作为后现代及后现代法学的产物予以对待——这不仅忽视了法律与文学的历史传统以及其独特性,也许更重要的是简单化了法律与文学。国内的典型观点,参见孙国华、冯玉军：《后现代主义法学理论述评》,《现代法学》2001年第2期；吕世伦、张德淼：《后现代法学思潮的缺陷与现代法学的价值合理性》,《法商研究》2003年第3期等。②See Michael Pantazakos. "Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7,1995, p.42.③丹尼尔·科恩斯坦认为,法律所处理的是与人类相关的重大主题,而文学同样要处理那些随时间推移而永恒不变的事物,保持对人类状况及其特征的持续关心。于是,借由文学作品而建立起法律和文学之间的关系便是自然而然的了。See Daniel J. Kornstein. Kill all the lawyers?:Shakespeare's legal appeal.Princeton University Press.1994.pp.4-5.①如沈明认为,狭义的“作为文学的法律”所主要包含的两类研究即解释学与修辞学进路,前者在美国本土就遭遇到了失败,后者则无法克服遭遇“国情”后的水土不服。参见沈明：《法律与文学：可能性及其限度》,《中外法学》2006年第3期。实际上,对“作为文学的法律”(无论广义抑或狭义)理论引进之局限性探讨学者们大多延续了苏力的基本观点,“美国法律与文学运动的双股剑还没出手,‘作为文学的法律’这一柄就在中国卷了口,剩下的一柄是‘文学中的法律’”。参见苏力：《在中国思考法律与文学》,载《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第1012,1926页。②学界一般对“文学中的法律”在中国的发展前景持较为乐观态度。③实际上,在“文学中的法律”一系研究中较之于成果斐然的直接使用文学作品作为法学分析对象的研究成果,仍然缺乏较为系统与完整的对牵扯其中的诸多相关理论性问题的探讨与澄清,梳理与总结。④理查德·维斯伯格便明确指出,将法律与文学分为文学中的法律与作为文学的法律的二分法已经“不再当道”了。See Richard H. Weisberg.Family Feud:A Response to Robert H. Weisberg on Law and Literature, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Vol.1,1988.p.71.①See Michael Pantazakos."Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement,Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7, (Spring-Summer,1995), p.39.①西蒙斯是第一位在法学院执教的经济学家,也是第一位被法学院终身聘任的经济学家(1945年)See Mercuro & Medema.Economics and the Law, Princeton University Press,1997.p.52,其后同样被聘任到法学院授课的经济学家艾伦·迪雷克特则被认为是法律与经济学的奠基者。②威格摩尔和卡多佐分别开创了两条将法律和文学彼此进行联系的不同进路,即文学中的法律与作为文学的法律(Law in/as Literature)。对威格摩尔在理论前史中地位及贡献的确认和评估的工作很大程度上是由理查德·维斯伯格完成的。See Richard H Weisberg,Wigmore and the Law and Literature Movement,Law and Literature;Spring 2009;21,l;pp.129-145.③See David L. Sreeves.A novel approach to the law:The case for an expanded study of Canadian law and literature,Dalhousie University,2009.p.7.④参见[英]约瑟夫·熊彼特：《经济分析史》(第一卷),朱泱等译,商务印书馆1991年版,第87-92页。其后的亚里士多德所涉及的政治法律与经济的关系方面的探讨要更为明显。⑤See Judith Koffler.The Assimilation of Law and Literature:An Approach to Metanoia.ALSA Forum,Vol3,1978.⑥参见苏力：《孪生兄弟的不同命运——<法律与文学)代译序》,《比较法研究》2002年第2期。①See Gary Minda.Cool Jazz but Not so Hot Literary Text in Lawyerland:James Boyd White's Improvisations of Law as Literature. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.13, No.1 (Spring,2001).②Gary Minda.Cool Jazz but Not so Hot Literary Text in Lawyerland:James Boyd White's Improvisations of Law as Literature. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.13, No.1 (Spring,2001), p.171闵达指出,在怀特来到芝加哥法学院之时正处于两种智识传统的十字路口,其一就是芝加哥学派传统或芝加哥学派的法律与经济学,其二则是势微的法律过程学派。后者在某种意义上可被视为怀特的支持者或同盟者,其与怀特的法律与文学研究(更确切地说是“作为文学的法律”研究)共享了某些共同的理念,但却不意味着它倾向与法律与经济学相敌对。③Gary Minda.Cool Jazz but Not so Hot Literary Text in Lawyerland:James Boyd White's Improvisations of Law as Literature. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.13, No.1 (Spring,2001), p.173.④Richard A. Epstein,Gary S. Becker,Ronald H. Coase,Merton H. Miller,Richard A.Posner.The Roundtable Discussion.The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.64,1997.p.1146.①See Richard Posner.The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline:1962-1987.Harvard. Law Review, vol.100(1987).pp.761-780.更准确地说,波斯纳仅承认文学与司法写作的风格问题有些许关联。②Teresa Godwin Phelps.Posner's Protest and Perplexities.The Review of Politics, Vol.51, No.3 (Summer,1989), p.472.③不过,就国内目前的研究情况来看,尚缺乏在反法律与经济学维度之下来理解法律与文学的研究,对法律与文学的认识基本上仍停留在后现代这一单一维度之上,而对法律与文学更完整的认识与理解势必需要来自多维度的考量。需要指明,本章的目的并非是在法律与文学和法律与经济学之间进行通常的比较,“作为反法律与经济学的法律与文学”中偏正关系表明了本文将自身的任务或重心限定在以反法律与经济学为切入点对法律与文学基本理论予以展示、分析与探讨,同时也是某种理论澄清或重塑,于是也便意味着在某种程度上的法律与经济学的自我辩解的缺席——其实,单是法律与文学所塑造的法律与经济学形象本身就值得探讨。④在严格意义上,“法律与经济学”中的“经济学”特指经济学的一个分支,即新古典微观经济学,尤其是芝加哥学派。怀特特别强调了这一点。See James Boyd White.Justice as Translation:An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism,The University of Chicago Press,1990.pp.46-47.①例如,波斯纳的法律与文学跨学科研究就是将三个基本学科即法律、文学和经济学组合在了一起。蒂乔特认为,波斯纳组合了这三门学科批判性视角来处理法律与文学问题。颇具有讽刺意味的是,波斯纳所谓的“跨学科”方法,就是把文学作品“翻译”成为当代学科术语,尤其是当代的法律以及经济学术语,但这种“翻译”却削弱了这些作品并且扭曲了它们的含义。See Peter Read Teachout.Lapse of Judgment,California Law Review,Vol.77, No.5 (Oct.,1989),pp.1259-1295经济学使用文学文本,或者更进一步的“经济学与文学”,以法学角度而视之,其实就是某种形式的“法律与文学”,甚至就是“法律与经济学”本身。因为芝加哥学派的方法就是把微观经济学理论直接应用到法律的研究中去,从而在“法律”与“经济学”上划上等号,而“文学”则完全变成对其“有用”的文本。其实,经济学使用文学文本早已不是什么罕有的事情了,See Michael Watts.How Economists Use Literature and Drama, The Journal of Economic Education, Vol.33,(2002).pp.377-386.显然如此形式的“法律与文学”同我们在本文中所着重讨论的法律与文学有着天壤之别。②法律与经济学的基本假设基本上可以分为两大类,即初始条件假设和辅助条件假设。后者是指针对主体间及其与环境之间的关系网络的假设,前者是对主体的行为及行为动机的一系列假设。应当说,两方面都以经济人作为其核心假设,理性最大化的经济人也是现代经济理论的基石所在。参见冯玉军：《法经济学范式》,清华大学出版社2009年版,第174-196页。③[美]波斯纳：《法律的经济分析》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第3页。④[美]麦考罗、曼德姆：《经济学与法律——从波斯纳到后现代》,朱慧等译,法律出版社2005年版,第73页。①James Boyd White.Economics and Law:Two Cultures in Tension.54 Tennessee Law Review (1987).pp.167-168.②John M. Levy.Essential Microeconomics of Public Policy Analysis.Praeger Paperback,1995.p.9.③Richard Posner.The Economics of Justice.Harvard University Press,1981.④James Boyd White.Economics and Law:Two Cultures in Tension,54 Tennessee Law Review (1987).p.169.①Robin West, Authority, Autonomy, and Choice:The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner,Harvard Law Review, Vol.99, (1985), pp.387-388.①[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第35页。②[美]波斯纳：《法律的经济分析》,蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第20-21页。③Geoffrey Brennan&James Buchanan.The Reason of Rules,Cambridge University Press,1985.p.53.④James Boyd White.Economics and Law:Two Cultures in Tension,54 Tennessee Law Review (1987).pp.170-171.①即在遭受针对经济人假设非真实性,特别是自利特征如何妥善解释利他行为的质疑时,许多经济学家认为可以通过“效用函数”假定来解决这个问题。See John M. Levy.Essential Microeconomics of Public Policy Analy sis,Praeger Paperback,1995.p.13.②John M. Levy.Essential Microeconomics of Public Policy Analysis,Praeger Paperback,1995.pp.13-14.③See James Boyd White.Economics and Law:Two Cultures in Tension,54 Tennessee Law Review (1987).pp.169-170.④Brook Thomas.Reflections on the Law and Literature Revival,Critical Inquiry, Vol.17, (1991), p.512.⑤“不,”神父说,“倒不必承认他讲的每一句话都是真的,只需把这一切当作必然的而予以接受。”“这真是一个可悲的结论,”K说,“这是把谎言变成了普遍原则。”参见[奥]卡夫卡：《诉讼》,孙坤荣译,上海译文出版社2008年版,第253页。(《审判》又译《诉讼》)①Robin West. Authority, Autonomy, and Choice:The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner. Harvard Law Review, Vol.99,(1985), p.425.②[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第43-44页。③[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第38-48页。④参见[日]筱田节子：《斋藤家的核弹头》,陆求实译,上海文艺出版社2010年版。①See Jane B. Baron.Law,Literature,and the Problems of Interdisciplinarity.The Yale Law Journal, Vol.108,1999.p.1061.②Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review 39(1988).③对文学人的理论探讨在国内的法律与文学研究中还鲜有涉及,这与法律与文学在国内学术界尚处于一般性理论的介绍或普及阶段的基本情况相符合。在美国的法律与文学理论界,对文学人的理解与建构这一命题还存在诸多争议,应当说是一个正处于不断发展与变化过程中的研究领域；由于法律与文学研究的特殊性等原因,对文学人的理解还远未达到形成某种“通说”的标准。所以,在这里对文学人的分析与探讨具有一定的笼统性,倾向于宏观上的理论界说或者说基本框架的设定,尤其是着重在反经济人层面上对文学人进行分析与解读。另外也由于对文学人的探讨势必将牵扯进大量的法律与文学领域的专有用语以及复杂的知识背景,囿于主题与篇幅所限故在一些地方仅作提示性处理。①Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review 39(1988),pp.869-870.①See Robin WestAuthority, Autonomy, and Choice:The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner. Harvard Law Review, Vol.99,(1985).②Peter J. Hammond.Interpersonal comparisons of utility:Why and how they are and should be made. In J. Elster and J. Roemer, editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being.Cambridge University Press, London,1991.p.200-202.③See Robin West.Taking Preferences Seriously,Tulane Law Review,Vol.64,1990.pp.665-669.①Lynne N.Henderson.Legality and Empathy,Michigan Law Review,Vol.85,1987.p.1579.②See Robin West.Taking Preferences Seriously,Tulane Law Review,vol.64,1990.pp.685-688.①Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review 39(1988),p.872.②Robin West.Taking Preferences Seriously,Tulane Law Review,Vol.64,1990.p.664.③347 U.S.483 (1954).④Lynne N. Henderson.Legality and Empathy,Michigan Law Review,Vol.85,1987.pp.1579-.⑤参见[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第117-171页。⑥[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第171页。①Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review 39(1988).pp.873-874.①See Marty Monteiro.Model of Man:Mind & Matter-Mind & Morality,Eloquent Books,2009.②参见宋永平：《“经济人”与“道德人”之价值冲突》,《人文杂志》1997年第1期。①Robin West.Narrative,authority,and law,The University of Michigan Press,1993.pp.259-260,261-262.②James Boyd White."Law and Literature":No Manifesto,in James Boyd White,From Expectation to Experience:Essays on Law and Legal Education,The University of Michigan Press,1999.p.55.①See Marcel Danesi,Andrea Rocci.Global Linguistics:An Introduction,Mouton de Gruyter,2009.p.55.Ron Scollon, Suzanne Wong Scollon.Intercultural Communication:A Discourse Approach,Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2001.p.5.②Stuart Hall(ed.).Representation:Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices,Sage Publications & Open University,1997,p.6.③参见李旭东：《法律话语的概念及其意义》,载葛洪义主编：《法律方法与法律思维》(第五辑),法律出版社2008年版,第86-87页。④这里的司法话语范式或模式(paradigms or models of judicial discourse)不仅是理论意义上的认识论,同时也是司法实践中(如司法推理)所实际运用的论辩方法。⑤See Dellapenna & Farrell.Modes of Judicial Discourse:The Search for Argument Fields,in F.H.van Eemeren ect.eds.Argumentation:Analysis and Practices, Foris Publications,1987.pp.97-101.①Joseph W. Dellapenna and Kathleen Farrell.Law and the Language of Community:On the Contributions of James Boyd White,Rhetoric Society Quarterly,Vol.21, (1991).p.47.②See James Boyd White.Justice as Translation:An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism,The University of Chicago Press,1990.pp.84-90.①James Boyd White.How Should We Talk about Corporations? The Languages of Economics and of Citizenship,The Yale Law Journal, Vol.94, (1985).pp.1423-1424.②Brook Thomas.Reflections on the Law and Literature Revival,Critical Inquiry, Vol.17, (1991), p.525.③Kieran Dolin.A Critical Introduction to Law and Literature,Cambridge University Press,p.20.①James Boyd White.The Legal Imagination:Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression,Little Brown, 1973.②James Boyd White.When Word Lose Their Meaning:Constitutions and Reconstitutions of Language,Character and Community,University of Chicago Press,1984.p.273.③Bruce R. Smith.Homosexual desire in Shakespeare's England:a cultural poetics,The University of Chicago Press,1994.p.17.①胡水君：《法律与文学》,张文显、李步云主编：《法理学论丛》(第3卷),法律出版社2002年版,第11-12页。②See Learned Hand.Sources of Tolerance,University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 79,(1930), pp.1-14.③Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law, lOHarvard Law Review.(1897).p.469.①Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast.Mercer Law Review 39(1988).p.874.①Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005,p.1896.②根据中国知网“中国学术文献网络出版总库”统计(www.cnki.net)。①Robin West.Literature,Culture,and Law at Duke University in Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature.Modern Language Association,2011.p.100.①参见苏力：《法治及其本土资源》,北京：中国政法大学出版社1996年版,第39-42页。②参见邓正来：《中国法学向何处去(下)——对苏力“本土资源论”的批判》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2005年第3期。③如秋菊要讨的“说法”与在正式的法律制度中要村长承担“赔礼道歉”的民事责任之间没有本质差别,参见桑本谦：《“秋菊的困惑”：一个巧妙的修辞》,《博览群书》2005年第12期。④参见刘大生：《从“本土资源”到“本土法治”——苏力本土资源理论之学术解构》,《山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2001年第3期。⑤如“不管是依靠着怎样的表达技巧或者法律论证,不同的‘秋菊’形象和使用都催生于不同的法律观念和立场中,似乎都是由‘早已接受’的某种姿态决定的产物。换句话说,并不存在‘秋菊’本身的形象所隐含的法律结论是什么,而是说从‘秋菊’形象中可以挖掘出什么,并且这种挖掘,就是自身法律观念和立场的阐发。”参见张笑宇：《法律观念中的“政治性判断”——以不同的“秋菊”形象为载体》,《河北法学》2010年第1期。①是否“正确”解读文本或者说忠实于文本目的或原意,不仅可以理解成真实问题的一个必然的延伸,其实也可以理解为一个广义的“真实问题”本身所具有的向度——因为无论是考察文本是否符合真实或现实,还是关注解读阐释文本是否遵从创作者的真意或目的,实质都是设置了“真”之客观存在的前提。②即《历史中的行动者——从梁祝的悲剧说起》,载苏力：《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第二章。③苏力：《这是一篇史学论文?——有关<梁祝)一文的反思》,载苏力：《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第305页。④苏力：《这是一篇史学论文?——有关<梁祝)一文的反思》,载苏力：《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第308页。⑤苏力：《这是一篇史学论文?——有关<梁祝)一文的反思》,载苏力：《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第321页。①在这里受主题必要的约束,我对后现代史学的阐述与分析是基于本章的目的(即建构法律与社会学之下的法律与文学之存在形式)而有所侧重的(包括侧重某一学说),对后现代抑或后现代史学视为一个整体来予以处理。②[俄]别林斯基：《论俄国中篇小说和果戈理君的中篇小说》,载《别林斯基选集》(第1卷),人民文学出版社1959年版。①参见余宗其：《外国文学与外国法律》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第10-13页。②[美]布洛克：《现代艺术哲学》,滕守尧译,四川人民出版社1998年版,第43页。③[美]莫里斯·迪克斯坦：《途中的镜子：文学与现实世界》,刘玉宇译,上海三联书店2008年版,第1页。④有史学家很简明地表达出传统史学观的基本立场：“事实、事实、事实(facts)本身即带有教训与哲学,真相(truth,或译“真实”),所有的真相,除此无他。”黄进兴：《后现代主义与史学研究》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2008年版,第134页。①[美]海登·怀特：《话语的转义——文化批评文集》,董立河译,大象出版社,北京出版社2011年版,第130页。②[美]海登·怀特：《话语的转义——文化批评文集》,董立河译,大象出版社,北京出版社2011年版,第133页。③张伟兵：《文学作为史料：探索社会真实的另一种路径》,《华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2007年第1期。④参见黄进兴：《后现代主义与史学研究》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2008年版,第137148页。①Diana Laurenson, Alan Swingewood.The Sociology of Literature,Schocken Books,1972.p.20.①刘晗：《超越“法律与文学”》,《读书》2006年第12期。②方鹏：《原来法律也可以这般“戏说”——评<法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料>》,《法律书评》(第5辑),北京大学出版社2007年版,第29-30页。③刘晗：《超越“法律与文学”》,《读书》2006年第12期。①在这一点上,菲尔德曼给出了相当精彩且令人信服的论证。参见[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第308-312页。②这道问题其实隐含着许多理论前提预设,后现代主义者正是对这些预设(元命题)提出质疑与挑战。在此,我保留或认可这种预设的合法性,另一方面则竭力揭示其理论内部的困难与局限,目的是在寻找现代与后现代之间的平衡点,或者是一个能将二者最大限度予以统合的平台。在此意义上,建设性后现代主义的标签可能是恰当的,而事实上没有受到后现代思想影响的现代主义者微乎其微,使用后现代工具的西方现代主义法律学者更为常见,如史蒂文·D·史密斯。有关思想史中亚阶段的基本特征请参见[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第346页以后。由于篇幅及本文的目的所限,我并不准备对“文本”之定义这个极为复杂的问题作出理论上的澄清或规定,显然这应当是另文专述的宏大议题。在一般意义上,我认可格雷西亚所提出的“文本”定义,即“一个文本就是一组用作符号的实体(entities),这些符号在一定的语境中被作者选择、排列并赋予某种意向,以此向读者传达某种特定的意义(specific meaning)。"参见[美]乔治·J.E.格雷西亚：《文本性理论：逻辑与认识论》,汪信砚等译,人民出版社2009年版,第16页。①参见[美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼：《法律与革命：西方法律传统的形成》,贺卫方等译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版；[美]泰格、利维：《法律与资本主义的兴起》,纪琨译,学林出版社1996年版。②参见苏力：《法治及其本土资源》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版,第287-295页。③“……从某种意义上说,这就是现代主义的困窘。”参见苏亦工：《译者引言》,载[美]戴维·鲁本：《法律现代主义》,苏亦工译,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第9页。④任何划分都具有韦伯意义上的“理想型”的特征,在本文中我对文本形态的划分亦不例外。我不想给出对这三者的明确的概念,而下文对它们的界定是描述性的,也就是建立在一般观念之上。⑤为了更明显地体现这种区分,见下面所提供的表格。需要说明的是,我并不以表格所列出的顺序来进行说明与论证,所以这个表格便具有某种提示功能。①“文学的本质最清楚地显现于文学所涉猎的范畴中。文学艺术的中心显然是在抒情诗、史诗和戏剧等传统的文学类型上。它们处理的都是一个虚构的世界、想象的世界……即便看起来是最现实主义的一部小说,甚至就是自然主义人生的片段,都不过是根据某些艺术成规虚构成的。”参见[美]韦勒克、沃伦：《文学理论》,刘象愚等译,江苏教育出版社2005年版,第15页。“不管是再现的作品还是表现的作品,它们都是由作家所创造的另一个世界,这个世界既不同于现实世界,也不同于主观世界,可谓‘第三世界’以纯粹的客观眼光和以纯粹的主观眼光来看这个世界,都是对艺术的误解与贬低。”参见博道彬、于弗：《文学是什么》,北京大学出版社2002年版,第30页。②至少现代的读者们已不会相信亚里士多德对文学(诗)的判断(或类似判断)：“诗比历史更具有哲学性,意义更重大,因为诗所陈述的事具有普遍性,而历史则陈述特殊的事。”亚里士多德：《诗学》,载[英]塞尔登编：《文学批评理论：从柏拉图到现在》,刘象愚等译,北京大学出版社2000年版,第4344页。③波斯纳便认为“文学作家和法律写作者的目标压根就不一样,将卡夫卡的《审判》看做是法律文本是不恰当的,因为它对理解‘奥匈帝国的刑事审判程序’并没有太大帮助,而且,卡夫卡的目的也不在于介绍这??套程序……法律在小说中完全是补助性的,小说主要想说明的并不是法律,因此,必须把‘具体的法律问题’与小说对‘人类处境’的关怀区分开。”参见胡水君：《法律与文学》,载胡水君：《法律的政治分析》,北京：北京大学出版社2005年版,第253页。另见[美]波斯纳：《法律与文学》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第四章。①如对狄更斯的《荒凉山庄》的批判。参见[英]霍尔兹沃斯：《作为法律史学家的狄更斯》,何帆译,上海三联书店2009年版。②[美]彼得·盖伊：《历史学家的三堂小说课》,刘森尧译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第13页。③如被认为是法律与文学代表人物的波斯纳应当说是以批判法律与文学而确立其在该领域研究的地位的；众所周知,波斯纳本人属于法律经济学的领军人物。另外,我想指出的是,各种纷繁复杂的文学理论在某种程度上构成了对法律与文学基本理论问题的讨论始终处于未决状态的重要原因之一,如“实用主义”者波斯纳在反对“文学对法律道德教育有益”(即他所言称的“法律学术中的教益学派”)而提出理由时却明确宣称自己信奉唯美主义(代表人物王尔德),并用这种“为艺术而艺术”的极端的(而且也可能是“过时”的)文学观为依据来为自己的反对观点进行辩护。这多少是令人匪夷所思的。④邓正来在对“本土资源论”的批判时首先便瞄准了这个属于“前提性”的问题,即作为分析文本的两部电影反映当下中国现实的有效性问题。参见邓正来：《中国法学向何处去(下)——对苏力“本土资源论”的批判》,《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2005年第3期。其他的“法律与文学”论者要么回避了这个问题,要么认为这个问题存在的本身就是“法律与文学”有其难以或不可逾越的限度的明证,参见沈明：《法律与文学：可能性及其限度》,《中外法学》2006年第3期。⑤如苏力：《这是一篇史学论文?——有关<梁祝)一文的反思》,载苏力：《法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料》,生活·读书·新知三联书店2006年版,第303322页。①尽管苏力认为冯象“不自觉地”创新并重构了法律与文学领域,并为中国未来的“法律与文学”研究“提供了一个(并非唯一的)新的(尽管并非‘真正的’)整合框架。但是这个框架的基础不是文学,甚至也不是法学,而是一种广义的社会学或法律社会学。”但应当注意的是这种观点存有很大争议,最为关键是它有可能“误解”了冯象,也“错意”了法律与文学,参见李斯特：《评“苏力评冯象”》,载苏力主编：《法律书评》第5期,北京大学出版社2007年版。实际上,对于把文学作品简单地视为某种“史料”予以对待的做法,早已遭到了批评。参见[美]彼得·盖伊：《历史学家的三堂小说课》,刘森尧译,北京大学出版社2006年版,序曲。②参见刘星显：《“法律与文学”的后现代之维》,黑龙江大学法学院2009年硕士论文,第二、三章。①参见郭云忠：《法律实证研究方法及其地点选择》,《环球法律评论》2009年第4期；任岳鹏：《法的社会实证研究之能与不能》,《政治与法律》2009年,第8期。②参见王晓升：《阿多诺对于实证主义社会理论的三个基本命题的批判》,《江海学刊》2005年第3期。③[美]艾利克森：《后现代主义的承诺与危险》,叶丽贤译,北京大学出版社2006年版,第229-230页。①[美]波兹曼：《娱乐至死·童年的消逝》,章艳等译,广西师范大学出版社2009年版,第21-22,23页。②参见[法]鲍德里亚：《象征交换与死亡》,车槿山译,译林出版社2006年版。③苏力：《送法下乡：中国基层司法制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第18页。④苏力：《送法下乡：中国基层司法制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第427、440、442页。①从反面来说,任何对它的违反都会遭到“惩罚”,即引来对真实性的“有理”怀疑,进而质疑“合法性”②参见[美]萨伯：《洞穴奇案》,陈福勇、张世泰译,生活·读书·新知三联书店2009年版,第1-13页。③富勒的另一桩著名的拟制案件见[美]富勒：《怨毒告密者的难题》,载富勒：《法律的道德性》,郑戈译,商务印书馆2005年版,第282-291页。①苏力：《法律规避和法律多元》,载苏力：《法治及其本土资源》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版,第43-61页。②通常的案例呈现方式,都是一种拟制案件文本形式；或者努力将真实案件转化为拟制案件形式。③苏力：《送法下乡：中国基层司法制度研究》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第199页。①参见张书友：《前言》,载[奥]凯尔森：《纯粹法理论》,张书友译,中国法制出版社2008年版,第23-34页。②在笔者看来,对文本形态的有意区分或建构之最主要目的是明确其各自的功能与限度,更深入一点讲,则是对未经认真审视的文本问题的一种理解与反思的尝试。在某种意义上笔者甚至承认对文本形态问题的提出可能是虚假的,对文本形态的界定与划分可能是虚妄的,而据以对诸文本形态整合的思考可能也是一厢情愿的。即是说,以上的论说包含了一种理论上的风险,即便接受了文本的隐喻这个前提,那么就其内部??而言,笔者没有也无法总结归纳出所有的文本形态,而所提供的划分方式依然是较为粗糙与笼统的；就其外部而言,它所描述勾画出来的关乎法学研究的图景亦未必真实,甚至可能存在着说明力与涵盖性等诸多问题。但是在另一方面,我们需承认若想对事物进行较深入的发现与认识,就必须依靠某种理论的建构,凭借对某种模式的把握与理解；在此意义上,我们未必会是某种理论的信徒,却应是为寻求心中的那个“真”而不断进行批判与解构,反思与重构的试错者。①Susan Haack.The Unity of Truths and the Plurality of Truths.Principia9 (1-2),Florianopolis, June/December,2005.②See M. Gagarin.Early Greek Law.University of California Press,1986,pp.26-34,41-42;D.M. MacDowell.The Law in Classical Athens.Thames and Hudson Ltd.,1978,pp.17-21,27.③Pamela Barmash.The Narrative Quandary:Cases of Law in Literature.Vetus Testamentum,Vol.54, Fasc.1(Jan., 2004),pp.4-5.①Richard Weisberg.Poethics, and Other Strategies of Law and Literature.Columbia University Press,1992.pp.4-35.②See Alyce Miller.The Legal and Literary Animal.in Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature.Modern Language Association,2011.pp.206-216.①参见[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳、斯蒂文·贝斯特：《后现代理论——批判性的质疑》,张志斌译,中央编译出版社2001年版,第7页；[英]佩里·安德森：《后现代性的起源》,紫辰、合章译,中国社会科学出版社2008年版,第1章。②See Andreas Huyssen.Mapping the Postmodern.New German Critique, No.33, Modernity and Postmodernity (Autumn,1984), pp.5-52③[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔：《后现代状况：关于知识的报告》,岛子译,湖南美术出版社1999年版,第34页。①See Douglas Litowitz.In Defense of Postmodernism.The Green Bag Inc, Fall (2000) pp.41-45.②参见王光荣：《后现代之“后”——后现代概念的意义探索》,《北方论丛》2001年第1期。③高宣扬：《后现代论》,人民大学出版社2005年版,第18页。④佟立：《西方后现代主义哲学思潮研究》,天津人民出版社2003年版,第21页。①后现代的激进性在某种程度上决定了人们对其理解与认识的主要方式依然是现代的。若以后现代的方式来解说后现代则很可能造成巨大的认识障碍,一个典型的例子如丹尼斯·阿罗的《后现代呓语》。See Dennis W. Arrow. Pomobabble:Postmodern Newspeak and Constitutional "Meaning" for the Uninitiated. Michigan Law Review, Vol.96, No.3,1997.pp.461-690连后现代法学学者李特维茨都抱怨“这篇文章令人绝望的混乱”。See Douglas Litowitz. Postmodernism without the "Pomobabble".2Florida Coastal Law Journal,2000.p.41.②如福柯所言：“我们不应将现代性仅仅视为位于日历上的处于前现代与后现代之间的一个时代,而更应将现代性视为一种态度,一种与今日现实相关的态度,是一些人的自愿选择,一种思考和感受的方式,一种活动和行为的方式。”参见王治河：《后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第7页。③这将在下一部分展开论述。④这可能与法学被“理性化”或规范化的历史相当久远的情况有关。①See Douglas Litowitz. Postmodernism without the "Pomobabble".2Florida Coastal Law Journal,2000.pp.69-73,.②[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想——一次思想航行》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第347,348页。③[美]菲尔德曼：《从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想——一次思想航行》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版,第353页。④参见沈宗灵：《现代西方法理学》,北京大学出版社1992年版,第21-22页。①Gary Minda.Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York University Press,1995.pp.2-3国内的研究虽然对后现代法学的构成存有不同程度的争论,但一般都基本上延续了闵达的分类法。②参见朱景文：《当前美国法理学的后现代转向》,载朱景文编：《当代西方后现代法学》,法律出版社2002年版。③王治河：《后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第8页。①Sue Chaplin.Fictions of Origin:Law,Abjection,Difference.Law and Critique, Vol.16, No.2,2005.pp.161-180. Sue Chaplin.The Gothic and the Rule of Law. Palgrave Macmillan,2007.②Patrick Glen.The Deconstruction and Reification of Law in Franz Kafka's Before the Law and The Trial. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal,Vol.17,No.1,2007.pp.23-66.③Terry Threadgold.Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice:Critical and Cultural Difference. Law,Text, Culture. Vol.1.pp.140-148.④David Miller.Discipline in Different Voices:Bureaucracy,Police,Family and Bleak House,Representations, Vol.1,1983.pp.59-89.⑤Peter Hutchings.The Criminal Spectre in Law,Literature and Aesthetics:Incrimination Subjects.Routledge,2001.①参见徐亚文主编：《西方法理学新论——解释的视角》,武汉大学出版社2010年版,第196-197页。②See Douglas Litowitz. Postmodernism without the "Pomobabble".2Florida Coastal Law Journal,2000.pp.50-62.③参见[法]米歇尔·福柯：《规训与惩罚：监狱的诞生》,刘北成、杨远婴译,生活·读书·新知三联书店2003年版。①See Douglas Litowitz.Postmodern Philosophy and Law.University Press of Kansas,1997.②See Douglas Litowitz. Postmodernism without the "Pomobabble".2Florida Coastal Law Journal,2000.p.74.③参见信春鹰：《后现代法学：为法治探索未来》,《中国社会科学》2000年第5期。④实际上,以这两点为切入点,可以扩展并串联起后现代主义的一些重要观点,如反基础主义、反宏大叙事、反一元真理观等等,划分成若干方面只不过是为了分析的便利。①周世中：《论后现代主义法学的主体观》,载朱景文编：《当代西方后现代法学》,法律出版社2002年版,第76页。②Ferry and Renaut.French.Philosophy of the Sixties.University of Massachusetts Press 1990. pp.66-67.①Michele Goodwin.The Black Woman in the Attic:Law,Metaphor and Madness in Jane Eyre.Rutgers Law Journa130,1999.pp.597-682.②Alison Young.The Waste Land of the Law:The Wordless Song of the Rape Victim.Melbourne University Law Review22,1998.pp.442-465.③参见王治河：《后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第169-188页。①关于这一点,下文将承接此处继续展开。③参见刘星：《西方法学中的“解构”运动》,载刘星：《语境中的法学与法律——民主的一个叙事立场》,法律出版社2001年版,第136-182页。①See James Boyd White.The Legal Imagination(Abridged Edition).The University of Chicago Press,1985.②Arthur Austin. The Postmodern Infiltration of Legal Scholarship. Michigan Law Review, Vol.98, No.6, 2000.p.1515.③James Boyd White.Law as Language:Reading Law and Reading Literature.60 Texas Law Review,1982.④James Boyd White. Justice as Translation:An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism.The University of Chicago Press,1990.pp.257-269.⑤See Gary Minda.Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York University Press,1995.pp.159--166以下将基本上按闵达的思路来展开论述,国内学者一般也遵循这种方式。如胡水君：《法律与文学》,载张文显、李步云编：《法理学论丛》(第3卷),法律出版社2002年版,第19-42页；明辉、李霞：《西方法律与文学运动的形成、发展与转向》,《国外社会科学》2011年第3期。①See Rosemary J. Coombe.Same As It Ever Was:Rethinking the Politics of Legal Interpretation.34 McGill L.J. 1989.pp.603-652.②[美]斯坦利·费什：《读者反应批评：理论与实践》,文楚安译,中国社会科学出版社1998年版,第46页。①See Robin West,Authority, Autonomy, and Choice:The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner,Harvard Law Review, Vol.99, (1985), pp.384-428.②See Sandra Berns.Concise Jurisprudence.The Federation Press,1993.pp.150-151.③See Fischer.Reading Literature/Reading Law:Is There a Literary Jurisprudence?Texas Law Review, Vol.72,1993.p.156.④Gary Minda.Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End.New York University Press,1995.p.312.⑤[美]保罗·卡恩：《当法律遇见爱》,付瑶译,法律出版社2008年版,第6-7页。①See Robert L. Hayman, Jr.& Nancy Levit. The Tales of White Folk:Doctrine,Narrative and the Reconstruction of Racial Reality. California Law Review, Vol.84,No.2,1996.②如德里克·贝尔的文章。See Derrick Bell. The Final Report:Harvard's Affirmative Action Allegory. Michigan Law Review. Vol.87, No.8, Legal Storytelling,1989.pp.2382-2410.③Patricia J. Williams.The Alchemy of Race and Rights:Diary of a Law Professor. Harvard University Press,1991.④See Toni M. Massaro. Empathy, Legal Storytelling, and the Rule of Law:New Words, Old Wounds?. Michigan Law Review,Vol.87,No.8,Legal Storytelling,1989.pp.2099-2127①Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry.Telling Stories out of School:An Essay on Legal Narratives. Stanford Law Review, Vol.45,No.4,1993.p.808.②Catharine A. MacKinnon.Law's Stories as Reality and Politics, in Law's Stories:Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law 232 (Peter Brooks & Paul Gewirtz eds),Yale University Press,1996.pp.232-237③Ngaire Naffine.In Praise of Legal Feminism.Legal Studies,Vol.22.2002.pp.73-82.④Nancy Levit.The Theory and the Practice:Reflective Writing Across the Curriculum.The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute,Vol.15.2009.p.257.⑤后现代法学家通常依据不同的角度而把“主流的法理学”(传统的或现代主义的法理学)看成是科学主义的、西方的、白人的、男性的,乃至异性恋的产物；突出表现在女性主义法学、种族批判法学以及同性恋法学当中的“局外人的法理学”则带有明显的“局外人”的基于“身份”的标签,是控诉与反压迫的；而所谓的“全民的法理学”则是面向与属于所有人的,同时也是更积极的,总体性的,朝向众声喧哗与众生狂欢。如同伊安·沃德所说：“……超越了法律人为法律人所写的文本,走向了所有人为所有人所写的文本当中。”See Ian Ward.Introducion to Critical Legal Theory.Cavendish Publishing Limited,2004.p.164.①参见[美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼：《法律与革命——西方法律传统的形成》,贺卫方等译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版,第39-49页。①See Ian Ward. From Literature to Ethics:The Strategies and Ambitions of Law and Literature. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.14, No.3 (Autumn,1994), pp.399-400.②See Richard A. Posner. Law and Literature. Harvard University Press,2009.p.546.③Ian Ward.Law and Literature:Possibilities and Perspectives.Cambridge University Press,1995.p.23.①See John H. Wigmore.A List of One Hundred Legal Novels.17 Illinois.Law Review.1922.①Ephraim London ed.The World of Law.Ⅱ.Law as Literature.Simon and Schuster,1960.p.725②William H. Davenport.A Bibliography:Readings in Legal Literature.41American Bar Association Journal,1955.③Harvey C. Couch. Law and Literature:A Comment.17Vanderbilt Law Review,1964.④See C.R.B.Dunlop.Literature Studies in Law Schools.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature,Vol.3,No.1 (Spring-Summer,1991).①See Nancy Cook.Shakespeare Comes to the Law School Classroom.68Denver University Law Review,1988.②按照帕普克的观点,当代的教育家将文学纳入到法学教育与研究当中主要遵循两种思路：其一是兴起于麻省大学受新马克思主义理论家霍克海默和阿多诺影响的“大学新生法学研究运动”(ascent undergraduate legal studies movement),其二是以怀特及其教科书《法律想象》为中心而展开的法学教育运动。这两种思路都力图将法律和文学结合起来形成法律与文学课,并为法律与文学的功能与作用进行辩护,尽管它们的对法律与文学的法学教育定位、功能及意义等方面的立场的大相径庭。See David R. Papke.Law and Literature:A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works.73Law Library Journal,1980.pp.423-425; David R. Papke.Neo-Marxists, Nietzscheans, and New Critics:The Voices of the Contemporary Lawand Literature Discourse.American Bar Foundation Research Journal,Vol.10,No.4,1985.pp.888-890.③Richard A. Posner. Law and Literature. Harvard University Press,2009.pp.546-547.④Ian Ward.The Educative Ambition of Law and Literature.13Legal Studies,1993.pp.330-331.⑤Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:An Unnecessarily Suspect Class in the Liberal Arts Component of the Law School Curriculum,23.Val.U.L.Rev.1989.p.268.①Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:Joining the Class Action.29 Val. U. L. Rev.1995.p.666.②如澳大利亚的迪肯大学、墨尔本大学；英国的纽卡斯尔大学；美国的瑞奇蒙大学,等。③Richard A. Posner. Law and Literature. Harvard University Press,2009.p.ⅹⅵ.①See Jayme Anne Powell. Criminal Justice in Literature:a Teaching Curriculum.California State University,2010.pp.46-65.http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10211.9/854/Criminal%20Justice%20in%20Literature%20Final%20Pro duct.doc?sequence=2,2011年1月11日。②参见张万洪：《法律与文学初论》,《珞珈法学论坛》(第6卷),武汉大学出版社2007年版。①See Alyce Miller.The Legal and Literary Animal.in Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature.Modern Language Association,2011.pp.206-216.①对女性主义视角下的法律与文学特别是文学中的法律一系研究可参见塔米·佩提诺的总结。See Tammy R. Pettinato.An Annotated Bibliography of Law Review Articles Addressing Feminist Perspectives on "Law in Literature".Law Library Journal,Vol.99.2007.pp.55-72.②See Carolyn Heilbrun and Judith Resnik.Convergence:Law,Literature,and Feminism.Jacqueline St. Joan,Annette Bennington McElhiney eds. Beyond Portia:Women, Law, and Literature in the United States.Northeastern University Press,1997.pp.11-52.①See William T. Braithwaite.Why, and How, Judges Should Study Poetry.19Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal,1988.pp.809-826.②See Deborah Luyster.Lawyering Skills in Law and Literature.81 Michigan Bar Journal,2002.pp.56-57.③See Desmond Manderson."As If "-the Court of Shakespeare and the Relationships of Law and Literature.Law, Culture and the Humanities,Vol.4,2008.pp.52-68.①See Christine Bell.Teaching Law as Kafkaesque.in Tall Stories? Reading Law and Literature,John Morison and Christine Bell ed..Dartmouth Press,1996.②[美]博西格诺等：《法律之门：法律过程导论》,邓子滨译,华夏出版社2002年版,第9页。③See Douglas E. Litowitz.Franz Kafka's Outsider Jurisprudence.Law & Social Inquiry, Vol.27, No.1 (Winter,2002), pp.103-137.④http://www.fps.chuo-u.ac.jp/-cyberian/Franz_Kafka.html,2011年11月13日。⑤[美]德肖维茨：《法律的创世纪：从圣经故事寻找法律的起源》,林为正译,法律出版社2011年版,第14-15,第210页。①[美]波斯纳：《法律与文学》,李国庆译,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第23-24页。①See Richard Weisberg.Wigmore and the Law and Literature Movement.Law and Literature, Vol.21,Spring 2009.pp.131-132.②See Richard Weisberg. Wigmore's "Legal Novels"Revisited:New Resources For the Expansive Lawyer.17Northwestern University Law Review,1976.③See Richard Weisberg.Poethics,and other Strategies of Law and Literature.Columbia University Press,1992.p.121.①C.R.B.Dunlop.Literature Studies in Law Schools.Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature,Vol.3,No.1 (Spring-Summer,1991).p.94.②See R. Delgado and J. Stefancic.Norms and Narratives:Can Judges Avoid Serious Moral Error?69 Texas Law Review,1991.①See David R, Papke.Law and Literature:A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works.73Law Library Journal,1980.②Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:Joining the Class Action.29 Val. U. L. Rev.1995.pp.686-687.①See Lenora Ledwon.Ten Kinds of Law and Literature Texts You Haven't Read.in Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature.Modern Language Association,2011.pp.425-435.②Shulamit Almog.Windows and "Windows":Reflections on Law and Literature in the Digital Age.University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.57,2007.①Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:Joining the Class Action.29 Val. U. L. Rev.1995.p.690.②孙晓楼：《法律教育》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第9页。③孙晓楼：《法律教育》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第33-34页。①黄文艺：《法律职业共同体具相同伦理精神》,《中国社会科学报》2010年10月26日,第010版。②王允武：《法律职业伦理培养——不应忽视的法学素质教育》,《法学家》2003年第6期。③张志铭：《中国法学院的法律职业伦理教育问题》,“中国人民大学法学院法学文献与法律信息网”http://www.linklaw.com.cn/article.asp?id=1364④何美欢：《论当代中国的普通法教育》,中国政法大学出版社2011年版,第144页。⑤ACLEC.First Report on Legal Education and Training,1996.1.19.①Richard O'Dair:《法律伦理教程(导读本)》,朱力宇、袁钢编注,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第11页。②因篇幅与目的所限,在本部分中将不特别加以区分地使用道德、伦理、法律道德、司法伦理或职业伦理等相关概念,而将之视为一个整体的或笼统的“德育”进行考量。③参见张万洪：《法律与文学初论》,《珞珈法学论坛》第6卷,武汉大学出版社2007年版。④Richard Weisberg.Poethics,and other Strategies of Law and Literature.Columbia University Press,1992.p.4.⑤Richard Weisberg.Poethics,and other Strategies of Law and Literature.Columbia University Press,1992.p.5.④徐显明：《中国法学教育的发展趋势》,《法制日报》2009年12月16日。①徐显明：《法学教育的基础矛盾与根本性缺陷》,《法学家》2003年第6期。②Martha C. Nussbaum.Cultivating Humanity in Legal Education.The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70, No.1,Centennial Tribute Essays(Winter,2003),pp.270-271.③Martha C. Nussbaum.Cultivating Humanity in Legal Education.The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70, No.1,Centennial Tribute Essays(Winter,2003),p.278.①[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第7页。②[美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆：《诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活》,丁晓东译,北京大学出版社2010年版,第69-70页。③http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/en/courses/courses/cml-3318-law-and-literature.html?contact_id=41④Julian Webb.Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education.Journal of Law and Society, Vol.25,No.1,Transformative Visions of Legal Education(Mar.,1998).p.148.⑤《法律与文学结案报告》,elaw.ccu.edu.tw/html/downloads/project/law_lec.pdf,第2页。⑥如果说医生所挽救的是一个人的“物质上的”生命的话,那么律师所挽救的则是一个公民在社会上、法律上的“生命”。特别在西方世界,医生和律师都是高度职业化的典型代表。对专业技术的强调同十分薄弱的职业伦理教育之间所存在的巨大反差则成为这两门学科基础教育的基本问题之①[美]霍姆斯：《普通法》,冉昊、姚中秋译,中国政法大学出版社2006年版,第1页。②参见贺卫方：《法官的博学或无知》,载贺卫方：《法边馀墨》,法律出版社1998年版,第43-45页。③贺卫方：《法律教育向JM教育的转向》,《人民法院报》2002年5月10日第3版。①方流芳：《中国法学教育观察》,载贺卫方编：《中国法律教育之路》,中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第43页。①See Kathy Williams.The Case of the Purloined Pagoda.Management Accounting 19 (December 1988).②徐忠明：《法律的历史叙事与文学叙事(上)——阅读中国古代法律的视野开拓》,《中西法律传统》(第二卷),中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第2页。①[美]多尔：《后现代课程观》,王红宇译,教育科学出版社2000年版,第250-251页。②黄文艺：《论中国特色社会主义法律发展道路》,《法制与社会发展》2007年第6期。③感谢中国政法大学的刘星、滕彪所反馈的“法律与文学课在各大法学院开展情况调查问卷”,同时也要感谢其他从事法律与文学一线教学工作的教师所提供的相应信息。①参见张文显、黄文艺：《高校法学理论教学存在的问题与改革思路》,《中国大学教学》2004年第1期。①有关法律和文学的关联性、法律与文学的关联模式研究,参见刘星显：《法律与文学的关联模式论》《社会科学战线》2011年第2期。②如布莱恩就是以文学文本和真实事件的对比分析来对Hossack案进行研究的。See Patricia L. Bryan.Stories in Fiction and in Fact:Susan Glaspell's "A Jury of Her Peers" and the 1901 Murder Trial of Margaret Hossack.Stanford Law Review,Vol.49,No.6(Jul.,1997),pp.1293-1363.③国内最早的一批法律与文学学术作品就是属于(法)社会学意义的,而后引起较大关注,引发理论争鸣的也同样是作为法律与社会学的法律与文学。①[德]古德塔夫·拉德布鲁赫：《法律智慧警句集》,舒国滢译,中国法制出版社,第14页。[1][古希腊]柏拉图.柏拉图全集·第2卷[M].王晓朝译.北京：人民出版社,2003.[2][美]N.帕帕斯.柏拉图与理想国[M].朱清华译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2007.[3][德]托马斯·A.斯勒扎克.读柏拉图[M].程炜译.南京：译林出版社,2009.[4][美]本杰明·N·卡多佐.演讲录法律与文学[M].董炯,彭冰译.北京：中国法制出版社,2005.[5][美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆.诗性正义：文学想象与公共生活[M].丁晓东译.北京：北京大学出版社,2010.[6][美]玛莎·努斯鲍姆.告别功利：人文教育忧思录[M].肖聿译.北京：新华出版社,2010.[7][美]菲尔德曼.从前现代主义到后现代主义的美国法律思想[M].李国庆译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.[8][美]波斯纳.法律的经济分析[M].蒋兆康译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1997.[9][美]波斯纳.法律与文学[M].李国庆译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.[10][美]麦考罗,曼德姆.经济学与法律——从波斯纳到后现代[M].朱慧等译.北京：法律出版社,2005.[11][美]莫里斯·迪克斯坦.途中的镜子：文学与现实世界[M].刘玉宇译.上海：上海三联书店,2008.[12][美]海登·怀特.话语的转义——文化批评文集[M].董立河译.北京：大象出版社,北京出版社,2011.[13][美]乔治·J.E.格雷西亚.文本性理论：逻辑与认识论[M].汪信砚等译.北京：人民出版社,2009.[14][美]哈罗德·J·伯尔曼.法律与革命：西方法律传统的形成[M].贺卫方等译.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1993.[15][美]泰格,利维.法律与资本主义的兴起[M].纪琨译.北京：学林出版社,1996.[16][英]霍尔兹沃斯.作为法律史学家的狄更斯[M].何帆译.上海：上海三联书店,2009.[17][英]塞尔登编.文学批评理论：从柏拉图到现在[M].刘象愚等译.北京：北京大学出版社,2000.[18][美]韦勒克,沃伦.文学理论[M].刘象愚等译.南京：江苏教育出版社,2005.[19][美]戴维·鲁本.法律现代主义[M].苏亦工译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.[20][美]彼得·盖伊.历史学家的三堂小说课[M].刘森尧译.北京：北京大学出版社,2006.[21][美]艾利克森.后现代主义的承诺与危险[M].叶丽贤译.北京：北京大学出版社,2006.[22][美]波兹曼.娱乐至死·童年的消逝[M].章艳等译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2009.[23][美]萨伯.洞穴奇案[M].陈福勇,张世泰译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2009.[24][美]富勒.法律的道德性[M].郑戈译.北京：商务印书馆,2005.[25][奥]凯尔森.纯粹法理论[M].张书友译.北京：中国法制出版社,2008.[26][法]鲍德里亚.象征交换与死亡[M].车槿山译.南京：译林出版社,2006.[27][美]博西格诺等.法律之门：法律过程导论[M].邓子滨译.北京：华夏出版社,2002.[28][美]保罗·卡恩.当法律遇见爱[M].付瑶译.北京：法律出版社,2008.[29][美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论——批判性的质疑[M].张志斌译.北京：中央编译出版社,2001.[30][英]佩里·安德森.后现代性的起源[M].紫辰,合章译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008.[31][法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔.后现代状态：关于知识的报告[M].车槿山译.南京：南京大学出版社,2011.[32][法]米歇尔·福柯.规训与惩罚：监狱的诞生[M].刘北成,杨远婴译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2003.[33][美]斯坦利·费什.读者反应批评：理论与实践[M].文楚安译.北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.[34][美]德肖维茨.法律的创世纪：从圣经故事寻找法律的起源[M].林为正译.北京：法律出版社,2011.[35][美]海登·怀特.话语的转义——文化批评文集[M].董立河译.北京：大象出版社,北京出版社,2011.[36][美]乔治·J.E.格雷西亚.文本性理论：逻辑与认识论[M].汪信砚等译.北京：人民出版社,2009.[37][美]戴维·鲁本.法律现代主义[M].苏亦工译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.[38][美]格里芬编.后现代科学——科学魅力的再现[M].马季方译.北京：中央编译出版社,1995.[39][美]霍姆斯.普通法[M].冉昊,姚中秋译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006.[40][美]多尔.后现代课程观[M].王红宇译.北京：教育科学出版社,2000.[1]王治河.后现代哲学思潮研究(增补本)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006.[2]冯玉军.法经济学范式[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2009.[3]苏力.法律与文学：以中国传统戏剧为材料[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2006.[4]苏力.法治及其本土资源[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1996.[5]苏力.送法下乡：中国基层司法制度研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2000.[6]高中.后现代法学思潮[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.[7]高宣扬.后现代论[M].北京：人民大学出版社,2005.[8]沈宗灵.现代西方法理学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1992.[9]余宗其.外国文学与外国法律[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003.[10]孙晓楼.法律教育[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.[11]何美欢.论当代中国的普通法教育[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2011.[12]刘星.语境中的法学与法律——民主的一个叙事立场[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.[13]黄进兴.后现代主义与史学研究[M].北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2008.[14]舒国滢.在法律的边缘[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000.[15]苏力主编.法律书评.第5期[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.[16]贺卫方编.中国法律教育之路[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.[17]朱景文编.当代西方后现代法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.[18]徐亚文主编.西方法理学新论——解释的视角[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2010.[19]胡水君.法律与文学[A].张文显,李步云主编.法理学论丛.第3卷[C].北京：法律出版社,2002.[20]张万洪.法律与文学初论[A].珞珈法学论坛.第6卷[C].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007.[1]张文显,黄文艺.高校法学理论教学存在的问题与改革思路[J].中国大学教学,2004,(1).[2]黄文艺.中国法理学30年发展与反思[J].法制与社会发展,2009,(1).[3]信春鹰.后现代法学：为法治探索未来[J].中国社会科学,2000,(5)[4]沈明.法律与文学：可能性及其限度[J].中外法学,2006,(3).[5]张伟兵.文学作为史料：探索社会真实的另一种路径[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007,(1).[6]刘晗.超越“法律与文学”[J].读书,2006,(12).[1]Gary Minda. Postmodern Legal Movements:Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End[M].New York:New York University Press,1995.[2]Louis Auchincloss.Life,Law and Letters[M].Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co.,1979.[3]James Boyd White.The Legal Imagination:Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1973.[4]James Boyd White.Justice as Translation:An Essay in Cultural and Legal Criticism[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1990.[5]James Boyd White. Heracles' Bow:Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of Law[M].Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1985.[6]James Boyd White,From Expectation to Experience:Essays on Law and Legal Education[M].Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press,1999.[7]James Boyd White.When Word Lose Their Meaning:Constitutions and Reconstitutions of Language,Character and Community[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1984.[8]Ian Ward.Law and Literature:Possibilities and Perspectives[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Cambridge University Press,1995.[9]Ian Ward.Introducion to Critical Legal Theory[M].Sydney:Cavendish Publishing Limited,2004.[10]Richard H. Weisberg. The Failure of the Word:The Protagonist as Lawyer in Modern Fiction[M].New Haven:Yale University Press.1984.[11]Richard H. Weisberg. Poethics,and Other Strategies of Law and Literature[M].New York:Columbia University Press,1992.[12]Robert M. Cover. Justice Accused:Antislavery and the Judicial Process[M].New Haven:Yale UniversityPress,1975.[13]Guyora Binder,Robert Weisberg.Literary Criticisms of Law[M].Princton, N.J. Princeton University Press,2000.[14]Richard A. Posner. Law and Literature[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2009.[15]Mercuro,Medema.Economics and the Law[M].Princton, N.J.:Princeton University Press,1997.[16]John M. Levy.Essential Microeconomics of Public Policy Analysis[M].New York:Praeger Paperback,1995.[17]Richard Posner.The Economics of Justice[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1981.[18]Marty Monteiro.Model of Man:Mind & Matter-Mind & Morality [M].Durham:Eloquent Books,2009.[19]Marcel Danesi,Andrea Rocci.Global Linguistics:An Introduction[M].Berlin; Boston:Mouton de Gruyter,2009.[20]Ron Scollon,Suzanne Wong Scollon.Intercultural Communication:A Discourse Approach[M].Chester, West Sussex, UK:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2001.[21]Stuart Hall(ed.).Representation:Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices[M].London:Sage Publications & Open University,1997.[22]Kieran Dolin.A Critical Introduction to Law and Literature[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Cambridge University Press,2007.[23]Bruce R. Smith.Homosexual desire in Shakespeare's England:a cultural poetics[M].Chicago; London:The University of Chicago Press,1994.[24]Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature[M].New York:Modern Language Association,2011.[25]Diana Laurenson,Alan Swingewood.The Sociology of Literature[M].New York:Schocken Books,1972.[26]M. Gagarin.Early Greek Law[M].Berkeley:University of California Press,1986.[27]D.M. MacDowell.The Law in Classical Athens[M].Sydney:Thames and Hudson Ltd.,1978.[28]Douglas Litowitz.Postmodern Philosophy and Law[M].Lawrence, Kan.:University Press of Kansas,1997.[29]Sandra Berns.Concise Jurisprudence[M].Annandale, N.S.W.:The Federation Press,1993.[30]Richard A. Posner. Law and Literature[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2009.[31]Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature[M].New York:Modern Language Association,2011.[32]Diana Laurenson,Alan Swingewood.The Sociology of Literature[M].New York: Schocken Books,1972.[33]Patricia J. Williams.The Alchemy of Race and Rights:Diary of a Law Professor[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,1991.[34]Sandra Berns.Concise Jurisprudence[M].Annandale, N.S.W.:The Federation Press,1993.[35]Geoffrey Brennan&James Buchanan.The Reason of Rules[M].Cambridge, Mass.:Cambridge University Press,1985.[36]Timothy J. Reiss. The Meaning of Literature[M].Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1992.[37]Ephraim London.The World of Law[M].New York:Simon & Schuster,1960.[1]John H.Wigmore.Introduction[A].in John Marshall Gest.The Lawyer in Literature[C].Boston:The Boston Book Company,1913.[2]Dellapenna,Farrell.Modes of Judicial Discourse:The Search for Argument Fields[A].in F.H.van Eemeren ect.eds.Argumentation:Analysis and Practices[C].New York:Foris Publications,1987.[3]Peter J. Hammond.Interpersonal comparisons of utility:Why and how they are and should be made[A]. In J. Elster and J. Roemer, editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being[C].London:Cambridge University Press,1991.[4]Catharine A. MacKinnon.Law's Stories as Reality and Politics[A]. in Peter Brooks,Paul Gewirtz eds.Law's Stories:Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law [C].New Haven:Yale University Press,1996.[5]Alyce Miller.The Legal and Literary Animal[A].in Austin Sarat,Cathrine O. Frank,Matthew Daniel Anderson ed.Teaching Law and Literature[C].New York:Modern Language Association,2011.[6]Carolyn Heilbrun,Judith Resnik.Convergence:Law,Literature,and Feminism[A] Jacqueline St. Joan,Annette Bennington McElhiney eds. Beyond Portia:Women, Law, and Literature in the United States[C].Boston, Mass.:Northeastern University Press,1997.[7]Christine Bell.Teaching Law as Kafkaesque[A].in John Morison,Christine Bell ed.Tall Stories? Reading Law and Literature [C]. Alder shot, England; Brookfield, Vt.:Dartmouth Publishing Company,1996.[1]Willen J. Witteveen.Law and Literature:Expanding,Contracting,Emerging[J].Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature.Tenth Anniverary Vol.10.Winter,1998.[2]Jane B. Baron.Law,Literature,and the Problems of Interdisciplinarity[J].The Yale Law Journal,Vol.108,1999.[3]Peters Julie Stone. Law, Literature, and the Vanishing Real:On the Future of an Interdisciplinary Illusion[J]. PMLA,Vol.120,2005.[4]David Ray Papke. Problems with an Uninvited Guest:Richard A. Posner and the Law and Literature Movement[J]. Boston University Law Review,69,1989.[5]Michael Pantazakos. "Ad Humanitatem Pertinent":A Personal Reflection on the History and Purpose of the Law and Literature Movement[J]. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.7,1995.[6]Judith Schenck Koffler. Forged Alliance:Law and Literature[J]. Columbia Law Review,Vol.89,1989.[7]Kenji Yoshino. The City and the Poet[J]. The Yale Law Journal,Vol.114,2005.[8]Judith Koffler.The Assimilation of Law and Literature:An Approach to Metanoia[J].ALSA Forum,Vol.3,1978.[9]Robert Weisberg.The Law-Literature Enterprise[J].Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities,Vol.1,1988.[10]John H. Wigmore.A List of One Hundred Legal Novels [J].Illinois Law Review,Vol.17,1922.[11]Richard H. Weisberg. Wigmore's Legal Novels Revisited:New Resources for the Expansive Lawyer[J]. Northwestern University Law Review.Vol.71,1976.[12]David R. Papke.Law and Literature:A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works[J]. Law Libary Journal Vol.73,1980.[13]Patricia Harris O'Connor, Samuel Pyeatt Menefee. Law and Literature Brought to Book:A Provisional Bibliography of Bibliographical Sources[J]. Law Library Journal,Vol.86,1994.[14]J.C.S..Law and Literature[J].St. James Magazine,Vol.194,September,1865.reprinted in The Catholic World:A Monthly Magazine of General Literature and Science,January,1866.[15]Richard H. Weisberg.Law,Literature and Cardozo's Judicial Poetics[J]. Cardozo Law Review,Vol.1,1979.[16]Richard H. Weisberg.Wigmore and the Law and Literature Movement[J].Law and Literature,Vol.21,2009.[17]Gary Minda. Cool Jazz but Not so Hot Literary Text in Lawyerland:James Boyd White's Improvisations of Law as Literature [J]. Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.13,2001.[18]Gary Minda.Law and Literature an Century's End[J].Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature,Vol.9,1997.[19]David Ray Papke.Neo-Marxists,Nietzscheans,and New Critics:The Voices of the Contemporary Law and Literature Discourse[J].American Bar Foundation Research Journal,Vol.10,1985.[20]David Ray Papke. Problems with an Uninvited Guest:Richard A. Posner and the Law and Literature Movement[J]. Boston University Law Review,69,1989.[21]Robin West.Economic Man and Literary Woman:One Contrast[J].Mercer Law Review,Vol.39,1988.[22]Brook Thomas.Reflections on the Law and Literature Revival[J].Critical Inquiry,Vol.17,1991.[23]Richard H. Weisberg.Family Feud:A Response to Robert H. Weisberg on Law and Literature[J].Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities,Vol.1,1988.[24]Richard H Weisberg.Wigmore and the Law and Literature Movement[J].Law and Literature,Spring 2009.[25]Marc Galanter and Mark Alan Edwards.Introduction:The Path of the Law Ands[J].Wisconsin Law Review,Vol.3,1997.[26]Richard A. Epstein,Gary S. Becker,Ronald H. Coase,Merton H. Miller,Richard A.Posner. The Roundtable Discussion[J]. The University of Chicago Law Review,Vol.64,1997.[27]Richard Posner.The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline:1962-1987[J].Harvard Law Review,Vol.100,1987.[28]Teresa Godwin Phelps.Posner's Protest and Perplexities[J].The Review of Politics,Vol.51,No.3,1989.[29]Peter Read Teachout.Lapse of Judgment[J].California Law Review,Vol.77, No.5,1989.[30]Michael Watts.How Economists Use Literature and Drama[J].The Journal of Economic Education,Vol.33,2002.[31]James Boyd White.Economics and Law:Two Cultures in Tension[J]. Tennessee Law Review,Vol.54,1987.[32]Robin West.Authority,Autonomy,and Choice:The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner[J].Harvard Law Review,Vol.99,1985.[33]Brook Thomas.Reflections on the Law and Literature Revival[J].Critical Inquiry,Vol.17,1991.[34]Jane B. Baron.Law,Literature,and the Problems of Interdisciplinarity[J].The Yale Law Journal,Vol.108,1999.[35]Robin West.Taking Preferences Seriously[J].Tulane Law Review,Vol.64,1990.[36]Lynne N. Henderson.Legality and Empathy[J].Michigan Law Review,Vol.85,1987.[37]Joseph W. Dellapenna,Kathleen Farrell.Law and the Language of Community:On the Contributions of James Boyd White[J].Rhetoric Society Quarterly,Vol.21,1991.[38]James Boyd White.How Should We Talk about Corporations? The Languages of Economics and of Citizenship[J].The Yale Law Journal,Vol.94,1985.[39]Learned Hand.Sources of Tolerance[J].University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register,Vol.79,1930.[40]Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law [J].Harvard Law Review,Vol.10,1897.[41]Pamela Barmash.The Narrative Quandary:Cases of Law in Literature[J].Vetus Testamentum,Vol.54,2004.[42]James Boyd White.Is Cultural Criticism Possible?[J].Michigan Law Review, Vol.84,No.7,1986.[43]Andreas Huyssen.Mapping the Postmodern[J].New German Critique,, Modernity and Postmodernity,Vol.33,1984.[44]Douglas Litowitz.In Defense of Postmodernism[J].The Green Bag Inc,Fall,2000.[45]Dennis W. Arrow.Pomobabble:Postmodern Newspeak and Constitutional "Meaning" for the Uninitiated[J].Michigan Law Review,Vol.96,No.3,1997.[46]Douglas Litowitz.Postmodernism without the "Pomobabble" [J].Florida Coastal Law Journal,Vol.2,2000.[47]Arthur Austin. The Postmodern Infiltration of Legal Scholarship[J]. Michigan Law Review,Vol.98,No.6,2000.[48]Fischer.Reading Literature/Reading Law:Is There a Literary Jurisprudence?[J].Texas Law Review,Vol.72,1993.[49]Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry.Telling Stories out of School:An Essay on Legal Narratives[J].Stanford Law Review,Vol.45,No.4,1993.[50]Nancy Levit.The Theory and the Practice:Reflective Writing Across the Curriculum[J].The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute,Vol.15.2009.[51]Ian Ward. From Literature to Ethics:The Strategies and Ambitions of Law and Literature[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,Vol.14,No.3,1994.[52]Harvey C. Couch. Law and Literature:A Comment[J].Vanderbilt Law Review,Vol.17,1964.[53]C.R.B.Dunlop.Literature Studies in Law Schools[J].Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Vol.3,No.1,1991.[54]Ian Ward.The Educative Ambition of Law and Literature [J]. Legal Studies, Vol.13,1993.[55]Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:An Unnecessarily Suspect Class in the Liberal Arts Component of the Law School Curriculum[J],Val.U.L.Rev.,Vol.23,1989.[56]Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette.Law and Literature:Joining the Class Action[J].Val.U.L.Rev.,Vol.29,1995.[57]Tammy R. Pettinato.An Annotated Bibliography of Law Review Articles Addressing Feminist Perspectives on "Law in Literature"[J].Law Library Journal,Vol.99.2007.[58]William T. Braithwaite.Why, and How, Judges Should Study Poetry [J].Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal,Vol.19,1988.[59]Deborah Luyster.Lawyering Skills in Law and Literature [J]. Michigan Bar Journal,Vol.81,2002.[60]Desmond Manderson."As If'-the Court of Shakespeare and the Relationships of Law and Literature[J].Law, Culture and the Humanities,Vol.4,2008.[61]Douglas E. Litowitz.Franz Kafka's Outsider Jurisprudence[J].Law & Social Inquiry,Vol.27,No.1,2002.[62]Richard Weisberg.Wigmore's "Legal Novels"Revisited:New Resources For the Expansive Lawyer[J].Northwestern University Law Review,Vol.17,1976.[63]David R, Papke.Law and Literature:A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works[J].Law Library Journal,Vol.73,1980.[64]Shulamit Almog.Windows and "Windows":Reflections on Law and Literature in the Digital Age[J].University of Toronto Law Journal,Vol.57,2007.[65]Martha C. Nussbaum.Cultivating Humanity in Legal Education[J].The University of Chicago Law Review,Vol.70,No.1,2003.[66]Pamela Barmash.The Narrative Quandary:Cases of Law in Literature[J].Vetus Testamentum,Vol.54,2004.[67]Robert L. Hayman,Jr.,Nancy Levit.The Tales of White Folk:Doctrine,Narrative and the Reconstruction of Racial Reality [J]. California Law Review,Vol.84,No.2,1996.[68]Toni M. Massaro. Empathy, Legal Storytelling, and the Rule of Law:New Words, Old Wounds?[J].Michigan Law Review,Vol.87,No.8,Legal Storytelling,1989.[69]Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry.Telling Stories out of School:An Essay on Legal Narratives [J]. Stanford Law Review,Vol.45,No.4,1993.[70]Ngaire Naffine.In Praise of Legal Feminism[J].Legal Studies,Vol.22.2002.[71]Nancy Levit.The Theory and the Practice:Reflective Writing Across the Curriculum[J].The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute,Vol.15.2009.[72]Rosemary J. Coombe.Same As It Ever Was:Rethinking the Politics of Legal Interpretation[J].McGill L.J.,Vol.34,1989.[73]William H. Davenport.A Bibliography:Readings in Legal Literature[J].American Bar Association Journal,Vol.41,1955.[74]Nancy Cook.Shakespeare Comes to the Law School Classroom[J].Denver University Law Review,Vol.68,1988.[75]David R. Papke.Law and Literature:A Comment and Bibliography of Secondary Works[J].Law Library Journal,Vol.73,1980.[76]David R. Papke.Neo-Marxists, Nietzscheans, and New Critics:The Voices of the Contemporary Lawand Literature Discourse[J].American Bar Foundation Research Journal,Vol.10,No.4,1985.[77]Deborah Luyster.Lawyering Skills in Law and Literature[J].Michigan Bar Journal, Vol.81,2002.[78]R. Delgado,J. Stefancic.Norms and Narratives:Can Judges Avoid Serious Moral Error?[J].Texas Law Review,Vol.69,1991.[79]Julian Webb.Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education[J] Journal of Law and Society,Vol.25,No.1,1998.[80]Richard H. Weisberg. Coming of Age Some More:"Law and Literature" Beyond The Cradle[J].Nova Law Review.Vol.13,1988.[81]Nancy Cook.Shakespeare Comes to the Law School Classroom[J].Denver University Law Review,Vol.68,1988.[1]Jayme Anne Powell. Criminal Justice in Literature:a Teaching Curriculum[D].California State University,2010.[2]David L. Steeves.A Novel Approach to the Law:the Case for an Expanded Study of Canadian Law and Literature[D].LLM.Thesis,Dalhousie University,2009.[1]莎士比亚全集[M].朱生豪等译.南京：译林出版社,1998.[2]加缪全集(小说卷)[M].陆鸣九等译.上海：上海译文出版社,2010.[3][奥]弗兰茨·卡夫卡.诉讼[M].孙坤荣译.上海：上海译文出版社,2008.[4][俄]陀思妥耶夫斯基.卡拉马佐夫兄弟[M].荣如德译.上海：上海译文出版社,2004.[5][美]赫尔曼·麦尔维尔.水手比利·巴德[M].许志强译.北京：人民文学出版社,2010.[6][英]狄更斯.艰难时世[M].全增嘏等译.上海：上海译文出版社,2008.[7][美]哈珀·李.杀死一只反舌鸟[M].高红梅译.南京：译林出版社,2009.[8][日]筱田节子.斋藤家的核弹头[M].陆求实译.上海：上海文艺出版社,2010.[9]Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette, ed. Law in Literature:Legal Themes in Drama[M]. Troy, NY:Whitston Publ.,1995.[10]Elizabeth Villiers Gemmette, ed. Law in Literature:Legal Themes in Short Stories[M]. Troy, NY:Whitston Publ.,1995.[11]Elizabeth Villiers, Gemmette, ed. Law in Literature:Legal Themes in Novellas[M]. Troy, NY:Whitston Publ.,1996.[12]David Kader,Michael Stanford(ed.),Poetry of the Law:From Chaucer to the Present[M].Iowa City:University of Iowa Press,2010.