11th, 12th and 13th March 2009:
Introduction to “Law and the Humanities”
and
18th, 19th and 20th March 2009:
"Law and Literature"
Dear all, don’t forget the first appointment with the Law and the Humanities course! Prof. David Skeel (University of Pennsylvania Law School) will introduce us to the Law and the Humanities movement. He warmly suggested to read the two articles below before his lectures. To receive the articles just write me: stefaniagialdroni@gmail.com.
I remind you that you have to register if you want to take part to the course. You just have to write me an e-mail with your name, surname and matriculation number.
Remeber also the timetable: Wed. 13: 45 - 15:45, Hall 3; Thur. and Fri. 10:00 - 11:45, Hall 4.
Prof. David A. Skeel C.V.:
David Skeel is the S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina (B.A. 1983) and the University of Virginia (J.D. 1987). His poems have appeared in Boulevard, Kansas Quarterly and elsewhere. He has written on law and literature or related issues for Columbia Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Legal Affairs, Wallace Stevens Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, and other publications; and he served as an advisory editor of Boulevard in the 1990s. He also is the author of Icarus in the Boardroom: The Fundamental Flaws in Corporate America and Where They Came From (Oxford, 2005) and Debt’s Dominion: A History of Bankruptcy Law in America (Princeton, 2001).
Brief Overview:
The first three classes will outline the three strands of Law and Literature and how they've developed. The second week will be dedicated to analyse the development of the Law and the Humanities field of study in the USA and to understand how their reception is affected by the nature of American law school education.
Suggested Readings:
- D. A. Skeel, Lawrence Joseph and Law and Literature (soon to be published in the University of Cincinnati Law Review).
- J.M. Balkin / S. Lavinson, Law and the Humanities: An Uneasy Relationship, in "Yale Law Journal of Law and the Humanities", 18 (2006), pp. 155-186 (On HeinOnline).
33 commenti:
When I think of an author who did in France in the 19th century something like what C.Dickens did in England, I do think of Victor Hugo and his "Les Misérables". It's a brilliant and perfectly-done critique to a Criminal Law system that used to prosecute innocent people because of their poverty: that is the sense of the title "Les Misérables", the poor become criminals in a society where they can't be neither helped nor redeemed and forgiven.
The novel is concrete but general (as Dickens' novels) because the main character, Jean Valjean, is a common peasant, a common man whose sad story begins when he decides to steal food for his family.
I think of Balzac as well, whose works deal with those fake and conflicting social-legal principles of equality coming from the French revolution, principles contrasting with the reality and the background of Ancièn Regime traditions (such as "Lost illusions").
G.Luciani
Dear Giulio,
I think you made a real good effort in trying to find another example of "law in literature" and Hugo is certainly a good one. I would just suggest you a few questions you and the other students could think about:
1) There are certainly some similarities between Dickens' and Hugo's approach to law: realism as a way to challenge institutionalized corruption, but...can you find important differences between the two writers? Are there differences in their approach to law that you can link to the different countries they lived in or to the slightly different period in which they wrote their books? And what about Balzac?
2) How do these writers look at the law? Is law a mean to solve people's conflicts or is it the mean powerful people use to oppress poor people? Is law just or unjust? What should be the aim of law? Do these novels reflect an unjust world that doesn't exist anymore or is their message still a living matter?
Let me know what do you think about that or suggest you new questions we can think about!
There is something different from a critic to an entire law system, but I could quote Emile Zola with his "J'Accuse". It is the title of the editorial written by Émile Zola in the form of an open letter to French President Félix Faure, published by the Socialist newspaper L'Aurore on 13 January 1898, in order to publicly denounce irregularities and alleging misconduct during the trial of Alfred Dreyfus, in the middle of one of the most famous affair of French history.
I repeat, this is not a critic against a system, but is somehow a critic against the other part of law: justice.
I am still reading it, also because it is interesting and not so long book :)
A.Festucci
Hi everybody.
I have been impressed by the philosophy of the course. Frequenting just one lesson as a traditional student of law made me consider again a lot of notions I've learned during this years.
Appears evident that now the pratical formulation of law definitevly took place on civil law as we intend in the history of law.
Professor Skeel said that in the U.S.A. the process of rationalization of law started approximately when law and universitarian study had been linked. Before the precedents were first of all tales about human people. This consideration made me ask to myself why in Italy, where law and university are connected to each other from a thousand years, the process of sclerotic rationalization of law started, more or less, not much more than one hundred years ago.
And the solution probably have been said during the lession: because we lost the classic values that in civil law is foundamental because of his derivation from roman right and culture.
From the german Pandettistic movement probably started the scientification of law, we decided to reinterpretate the principles of roman right as a mathematic theorem and throw away everything was tought about law in the passed centuries. It has not been a case that in middle age the university for excellence was the university of law. Universitatian studies contibuted so much to the rebirth of culture.
Digesto, I think, was a literarian book with his classic style first of all. We have only to rediscover us humanists.
Francesco Mambrini
I think Dickens and Hugo had basically the same purpose and the same approach to law: they thought law is a powerful mean used by few people to oppress the others and they aimed to change, even by a revolution if necessary, the "status quo". What is mainly different are the historical events which France and England passed through: Hugo's country survived to a fierce revolution and then fell within the attempts to create a new "empire" of Napoleon I and Napoleon III (who deleted every new "revolutionary" conquest; Hugo lived in exile because of the strict policy of the last Napoleon); England, on the other hand, was characterized in the 18th and 19th centuries by an extraordinary industrial progress. That's why Hugo stressed out and criticized the political status (and criminal law is the strongest way to oppress people!), whereas Dickens was deeply interested in a specific reform of Labour Law, to improve the lives of the new huge working class (Dickens himself worked in a factory in his youth).
So I think the differences of their own countries influenced and justified their literary activity (Hugo was a politician too).
G.Luciani
Good Night!
I would like underline the relationship between law and literature in Italy.
Yesterday Prof. Conte spoke about Italy before 1968, and he saw that the relation between Law and Literature was so natural, because lawyers were “humanist” from classic high school. Often they were fond of greek and latin literature and had a big philological skill. After 1968, Law Faculty’s doors were opened to all; many students joined in this faculty, especially students from accountancy school. So, now we can find good lawyers, but sometime not very good “humanist”. But it isn’t always true, because sometime we can find good lawyers and great humanists coming from technical and scientific school. It’s possible. Whatever , yesterday Prof. Conte has made the example of Filippo Vassalli, a lawyer who wrote our civil code in 1942; he was also humanist.
But we are more example! Before Vassalli, a great professor of Roman Law and “Pandette”, Contardo Ferrini (died in 1902), was an excellent expert of Aramaic and Syrian languages. And it’s very important to quote his law graduation’s dissertation: the topic was “the Omero and Esiodo’s influence on Roman Criminal Law” (it was written completely in latin!). I think that Ferrini’s a great example of harmony between Law and Literature in first part of twentieth century.
Actually, an other example of lawyer and humanist is Franco Cordero, professor of Criminal Procedure. He’s written about History, Politics, and more ( he wrote a long Girolamo Savonarola’s biography). His handbook of Criminal Procedure is full of episodes of “Promessi Sposi”, using to explain procedure’s arguments. He uses during the treatment a high philological language.
Cordero speak about the relationship of Law and Language and describes the style of italian judgement. In this arguments he doesn’t have a positive view. He quotes Giovanni Battista De Luca, an Italian lawyer lived in seventeenth century. In the treatise “Dello Stile Legale”, De Luca wrote that italian judgements were complicated, long and full of ornaments; Italian judges used an elegant language, but they “put smoke” on judgement’s motivation. And actually, we have the same problems explained by De Luca. Judges use elegant and complicated language, because they have “corporative interests”: “when judges are writing the judgement’s motivation, they desire the promotion”, because they hope member of promotion’s judicial board will read their judgments. So, a judgement’s motivation full of smart ornament could be showed as a high qualification. But its are incomprehensible, and the “ratio” is so darkness!!
This example emphasize the style of Italian judgment as a reflection of relationship between law and literature. Judgements full of quotations and ornaments are the example which underline the judge’s bad habit. Can we pass this problems? Can we re-establish a good balance between Law & Language? We can pass this problems when judges will use a different writing method: laconic, clear, simple. For example the French style: the “phrase unique”( "preceded that…that…that…").
See you tomorrow! Good night!!
G.Cacciotti
Zola and the others naturalists generally prefered more to see anda analyze the society with the scientist's eye than criticize it. Anyway we can see some tracks of critic in some important naturalist novels. For exemple in the famous Zola's "Human beast" we can see a strict critic of the french society in the XIXth century. The society is the hypocrite context where the human pulses rise. And is the same society that try to snuff out these pulses. In particular is important the character of the judge Denizet that charges an innocent for homicide. In a theatrical perfomance that I've seen this side was underlined very well. The judge was paint like a clown ande the process seemed like a farce (at the moment of the decision all the characters begane to dance a popular dance), the farce is try to snuff out pulses that (although terrible) are natural for us. And the paradox is that judgment is entrusted to a simple man, a simple man that has the same terribles pulses of all the others.
Luca La Mantia matr. 221407
Mail: lullo82@alice.it
hi!
I'm not used to write in a blog...I hope to do it well!
Zola is the author of the " Rougon-Macquart ", a series about a family and its failure. in one of the book, (I don't remebrer wich one, sorry), the main character works in a mine and takes part to a strike. In this book we can find the fight for workers' rights.
I haven't read " les Misérables " but i think that " notre dame de paris" can be a good example too because there is esmeralda's trial and Hugo talks about the asylum right. I think that the way esmeralda and Gringoire get married is very interesting.
Talking about UK: what do you think about Orwell? I find that the critique of dictatorship in "1984" and " animal farm " is a good way to show us how law can be cruel.
Bye
V. Russotto
During today's lecture our Professor was asking us to think about some critics to the novelists..
I could express an opinion, not a critic, which could be only a personal question.
How will those novelist write of each case, how will they solve each legal issue, if they don't have the knowledge of a lawyer?
I mean that when Mrs P.Williams was talking about her personal story, she was able to talk about one of the general and huge issues that may occur in the world, or that are the basis of international laws, such as the problem of racism, or economic issues such as terrorism.
That could rapresent a good legal start.
But I am not so sure that there will be solved all the legal problems, or either all the legal arguments will be discussed into their novels.
Tha doesn't mean it has to be excluded, because like we talked about, it is a strong and direct language which allows us to understand deeply the behavior of the people and the reading is much more interesting. In this way the novelists go directly to the point, hitting the hearts of ordinary people.
But at the end of all, legal problems are solved for the most part by courts of justice.
So, maybe because I don't know american law education at all, I am writing like this.
By the way my impression as italian law student is that opinions fall into technical issues, if they won't be written by people knowing that.
Can you please answer and clarify this doubt, please?
Thank you
Best regards
A.Festucci
Hi. I'd like to be enrole for the class and to receive the material too. I've found very intersting the topic "Law and Literature" cause I think that actually in Italy jurists are more simlar to scientists than to humanists. We spend a lot of time to memorize thh law, but we have lost the analysis ability. Bye
Luca La Mantia, matr. 221407 mail: lullo82@alice.it
Morning!!!
I read professor Skeel's article and i think it's very good and useful to remember what we've talked about in the class.
I needed to search the meaning of some words but the article is easy to read.
I really like the poems because i have never thought that someone can talk about law in this way!!!
Have you read the article? I think that is very usefult to do it!!!
Have a nice day!!!
V. Russotto
Hi everybody,
with regard to the lectures about relationships between law and literature I was particularly concerned by the two main theories about the interpretation of law expounded by professor Skill.
The first theory is supported by Langdellian Legal Science, which focus on "mechanical jurisprudence".
This theory asserts the crystallization of the legal system, the theorization of law as a science (the case method of instruction), and attempts to reduce differences to unity in law.
The second theory is instead supported by Sociological Jurisprudence and Legal Realism.
In my opinion Sociological Jurisprudence, talking about law in action rather than abstract content of law and stressing on the importance of economics and political science to understand law, and Legal Realism, that focus on why a court decides a particular case in a certain way, have been the determining factors of an important and needful development in the study of law.
Is only through these ideas that we can now analyze law in more perspectives!
Langdell's mechanical jurisprudence was born instead for different reasons resulting by the historical framework of the period shocked by the recent civil war: therefore Langdell's legal formalism well suit the requirements of stability and security; until the paradox that Certainty of law was considered most important then justice of law!
In my opinion today, without these historical reasons, a similar approach can't be absolutely shared...
Pierluigi Oddone
253046
It seems as though the only author brought up during the discussion of Literature as Empathy is Zola. I wanted to add another option to give the discussion a little variety: Chekov, specifically in the "Cherry Orchard". In the novel he critiques Russian property laws which restricted property ownership to the boyar classes, leaving millions in servitude. However, even the boyars were restricted from conveying their property as it pleased them, or of working the land proper, and so faced mounting economic weakness which the merchant class was exploiting in Chekov's novel to take over the boyar's swathes of land. This seems to me a scathing legal and social criticism of the laws in pre-Lenninist Russia.
Mark del Piero
Valeria Ferri and Mark Del Piero: please register!
Hi!
I've read the material that Dr. Gialdroni has sent us. I particolarly focused on Balkin and Levinson article. The most interesting chapter is the one about the differences between internalism and externalism. Even the diagram portraid in page 163 is very useful to know our positions in this debate. I think i can belong to box number 3, because i have an internal approach to law but i use material and skills external to the traditional practice of law to study legal questions. This position is a good compromise: i think that the point of departure must be law, in every legal question. Only in a second time we can use other sciences, like history, literature and philosphy. I know that the objective for a law and literature professor is to make his students reaching the box 4 (externalist attitude and external skills), but for me this approach can be very difficult.
About prof. Skills article, i appreciated the quotes of Lawrence Joseph's works. I like very much the abstract from "Theories of Poetry, Theories of Law", expecially when the author says that "writing can be seen as a way og being more intensely involved in the world, as the concentriation and focusing of thought, word and deed". I totally agree with this point of view.
See you tomorrow in the new class!
Andrea Severini
Hi everyone!
In today’s lecture,which refered to Shakespear’s merchant of Venice, in my opinion one of the many remarks that one can comment on is the evolution of the idea of obligation. In Roman law and ancient legal systems in fact, there was a “personal concept of obligation”. In other words the debtor either paid spontaneously or negative consequences were not produced on his properties but on his person (for example being arrested).Now,however, in all modern legal systems there is a “patrimonial concept of obligation”. The debtor has a patrimonial responsibility for his debts. For example art. 2740 of the Italian civil code says that the debtor answers to fulfill his obligations with all his present and future goods.
See you tomorrow!!
Massimo Manzo
Hi everybody,
today we have spoken about the “Merchant of Venice” that is a shakespearean comedy, written between 1596 and 1598.In this book wove together two ancient folk tales, one involving a vengeful, greedy creditor trying to exact a pound of flesh, the other involving a marriage suitor’s choice among three chests and thereby winning his (or her) mate. Shakespeare’s treatment of the first standard plot scheme centers around the villain of Merchant, the Jewish moneylender Shylock ,who seeks a literal pound of flesh from his Christian opposite, the generous faithful Antonio. Shakespeare ‘s version of the chest-choosing device revolves around the play’s Christian heroine Portia, who steers her lover Bassanio toward the correct humble casket and then successfully defends his bosom friend Antonio from Shylock’s horrid legal suit.
In the modern , post-Holocaust readings of “Merchant, the problem of anti-Semitism in the play has loomed large. A close reading of the text must acknowledge that Shylock is a stereotypical caricature of cruel, money-obsessed medieval Jew, but it also suggests that Shakespeare’s intentions in Merchant were not primarily anti-Semitic. Indeed, the dominant thematic complex in this book is much more universal than specific religious or racial hatred; it spins around the polarity between the surface attractiveness of gold and the Christian qualities of mercy and compassion that lie beneath the flesh.
I have noticed also a similarity with Pirandello especially in the first act when Antonio said to Graziano :”I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano, a stage where every man must play a part, and mine a sad one” or when Porzia describes one of her suitors and she said:”is everyman in no man”, the Italian translation is “Uno,nessuno ,centomila” that is also the title of one of the works of Pirandello.
A.Colorizio
Reading the MOV,i dwell upon what Shakespeare thinks about law.
I guess that his opinion is explained in the Bassanio's speech,act III,second scene,when he has to choose between the differents caskets.In fact he says:"In law,what plea so tainted and currupt,but being season'd whit a gracious voice,obscures the show of evil?".In my opinion he doesn't trust the judicial system,in general,that can be manipulated by lawyers.And it's true and it's real at the end of the story.In the trial there is a contrast between laws of the state of Venice and the rules stipulated in contract that can be used for cruel propose(which is Shylock's idea) but they are also capable of producing good when used by the right people.And this is what's happened:Porzia's deception produces an happy ending.Shakespeare wants to show how the law can be misused,whitout the proper guidance,the law can be used to do orrible things.
I've been thinking about some good lessons that the MOV might have for italian law and I've found out 4 points:
1)Portia's decision gives us the chance to compare her reasoning with italian means of interpretation of law and contracts. As every good Private law professor teachs, interpretation is that complicate process to make a rule of law applicable and it's a duty any judge is called to comply with.
When a judge has to apply a rule of law, his complete duty is not only to give relevance to its literal meaning but to look at the whole system as well. And it's exactly what Portia (I think) did, as she refered to the "Laws of Venice".
2) What she didn't was an equal treatment of Antonio and Shylock. Her attitude was clearly "pro" Antonio. It would be in our system (and now in every legal system) a breach of impartiality and fairness that any judge has to respect (it's even in the Constitution,art.111)
3)As regards usurer interests, of course they are forbidden in italian civil code: interests in obligations cannot exceed a certain rate.
4)Finally "equity": it's not a usual mean for applying law or interpreting contracts in our system because it's provided as a "remaining mean" (in the sense that it's used only when expressly provided by rules of law, then when it's really necessary). Unlike our civil law system, Venice had a very peculiar legal framework. It had 3 main sources of law (as I learned during the course of "Storia del diritto medievale e moderno"): local statutes,customary law and EQUITY. So, maybe, that is why Shakespeare could set his play in Venice: equity was known and applied as it happened in London thanks to the Chancery Court.
Giulio Luciani
Hi all,
This week we told about “ The Merchant of Venice”. I think that the characters of Shylock and Portia are very interesting.
In particular Shylock is a Jew, he is characterized by his avarice. So that, when his daughter gets away whit Lorenzo, Shylock is only afraid to lose his money. Besides Shylock represents a person which wants a justice: he wants a just application of the law, in particular he wants the payment of penaly.(a pound of flesh of Antonio); while Portia is the equity, she gives the solution to issue between Shylock and Antonio through law and equity.
Some people think that the character of Portia is a symbol of woman lawyer, because she appeals to mercy. But they forget that she interprets the law in strict sense. In my opinion is a mistake to limit to mercy the role of women lawyers. No necessarily the women are more lenient, indeed if they are lawyers ,they apply the law as men. The mercy is a feeling that characterized any person. For me Shakespeare connects the mercy to Portia ,because he wants to point out Christian feelings and to set up them against avarice of Shylock.
See you tomorrow!!
Vanessa Malizia
Hi everybody!
When prof Skeel introduced us merchant of Venice I was very happy . I want run on the paradox about money vs love in Shylock ( although the play includes many tensions that are rilevant tolaw).
In the 16th century Jews were discriminated especially in England and Venice. Christians believed that the Jewish race was inferior to them and that Jews should not be accepted into their society . In Shakespeare's ‘The Merchant of Venice’ Shylock ,a Jewish money lender, is hated by Antonio (the merchant of Venice) firstly because of his religion, and secondly because of his profession. In some ways, Shylock is presented as a victim of the anti-Semitic residents of Venice
( Scene 1 of Act III ) Shylock is in court demanding that the penalty of his loan to Antonio be paid . On the other hand, Shylock is very much a villain in the play. He treats his daughter harshly by over-protecting her. He loans money to Christians at high interest rates. For this reason, he is despised among the Christians of Venice, who see this as sinful .
See you soon.
federica pischedda
Hello,
in these two days we have spoken about "The Merchant of Venice" and in my opinion is an opera much interesting because Shakespeare to portray the human nature and the world clearly divided in the goods and the wickeds, in guiltys and fragilitys.
Is a book that make to reflect and is incredibly present, in a time of hards and dramatics culturals and religious clashes: is a hymn to tolerance and to mutual acceptance.
Emblematic, as for me, is the beat pronounced by Shylock in the third act:he hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same desease, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?
Like this cries Shylock to a public of Christians dull-minded and supportings of absolute priority of their own reasons.Also in front of law.
D'Antona V.
Hi all,
Today I realized that is very impressive the juridical conscience of Shakespeare on the problems carried in the play.
In particularly, in The Merchant of Venice, the pact of the pound of meat of Shylock, his declaration of the slavery like contemporary practice of the Christians, express all a reflexion on the property and on the human body, connected with the new emergent concepts of economy and of justice, whose involvement seems more evident to a modern look that take in consideration the problems that we have still nowdays.
This argument, about the available of own body didn’t take in consideration during the lesson, but I think that is an important point to reflexion, in particular now, in this historical moment.
Every day public opinion and jurisprudence are in front of important questions, about the life and his sister the die, in particular I mean about euthanasia.
I think that the play show us how the problem about the property of the human body was a problem very hard and how is difficult for the law his regulation, and now we can understand and accept that this is an lawless problematic, every rules in this way will be just… how the same will be unjust !!
I hope that everyone take in consideration this reflexion for this course discussion but in particular for your jurist future!
Antonio C.
For Giulia who wrote: "Reading the MOV,i dwell upon what Shakespeare thinks about law..."
Which Giulia are you? Your surname!
I regret Stefania but i read your post just now.My surname is Giacomini.Sorry for the late!
Posta un commento