Право и литература

If we view literature and law as different spheres of language usage or classify them as different “language games” (Ludwig Wittgenstein), we would probably jump to the conclusion that they cannot explain each other. Despite the different conventions of law and literature, however, the two have been inextricably linked since ancient times and sometimes in complex and mediated ways. Poetry and legal proceedings have common rhetorical roots from a time when both were public attractions. Law and literature have been opposed in social and historical aspect multiple times. A number of lawsuits have been organized against certain literary works; lists of “banned books“ were prepared. There are also literary representations of fictional trials and laws, of fictional states with sinister or absurd legislation. The field of critical theory also contains both oppositions and examples of agreement between the two fields. The issue of the journal is being prepared in partnership with the seminar "Literature and Law" of the "Ethical Studies Section", Institute of Philosophy and Sociology at BAS and the "Faculty of Slavic Studies", Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski".

The article addresses two main issues. The first one relates to the narrative techniques of “outsideness” (Bachtin’s вненаходимость/vnenakhodimost’) and the ability of literature to penetrate the characters’ otherwise inscrutable inner meaning and make it accessible to comprehension. The second analyzed question brings attention to the “opaque” modern institutions and the institutional roles into which they place individuals. The study argues that, in the Bulgarian context, literary representations of institutional roles remain populist and simplistic. Furthermore, it highlights how emerging Bulgarian literature cannot cope with the formalized meaning of the modern institutional system in the country. The examples are literary depictions of the court, the judicial system, and the judicial roles from the period 1880 – 1905.

The article aims to clarify the relationship between the social functions of the Casus and the Сomedy. The former arises at that stage of human development when fixed norms of social behavior emerge, carrying with them the ideas of justice and personal responsibility. Its social function is to problematize assessments of existence, contrasting several norms against which life events are evaluated. The task of the comedy is very similar, as it seeks a way to restore correctness and justice, exposing the falsehood of the values in which people sometimes believe. Thus, a casus becomes a structural foundation of comedic action. The analysis of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” provides a clear example of the mechanism for implementing the interaction between a Casus and a comedic plot.

The article analyses the theme of return and the figure of the circle in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice,” showing that through them the author describes both the play itself and the principle at work at the basis of law. The plot with the three caskets is interpreted as a form of self-modelling of the literary work, where the silver casket with its inscription (“Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves”) serves as an allegory of the compositional choices made in the comedy. The article also focuses on the question of the doubles, which is in contrast with the logic of return. In the study, two kinds of doubling are distinguished. On the one hand, doubling is interpreted in the sense of redoubling and splitting. On the other hand, it is understood as an element introducing non-coincidence and non-identity of the circle with itself.

The article focuses on the provocative thematization of forgiveness in Shakespeare’s final completed play. Interpreting the fractures and tensions of the main character, the study employs some of Jacques Derrida’s key ideas on the problem of forgiveness. The close reading of Prospero’s position within the economy of power and desire in “The Tempest” also outlines a conceptual field where legal theory, literature, and Lacanian psychoanalysis are intertwined. Their productive encounter discloses certain (non)written structures that regulate and direct a subject’s desire and social relations. In light of modern-day collapse of these matrices and their symbolic order, the article is a conceptual wager to resist their disappearance, albeit from a seemingly distant point of view.

The article is a critique of the Bulgarian translation of the novel “Apostoloff”, focusing on its deviations that significantly distort the original text. The consequences of this distortion are examined. Moreover, the question is raised of what responsibility the translator might bear. The public convention of transparent translation is problematized as well.