Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Yale Law Journal

Abstract

This Note argues that the law-and-literature movement can shed light on the manner in which the Casey opinions treat precedent. Part I provides the theoretical background to a comparison of precedent in law and literature. First, it briefly situates this Note in the law-and-literature movement; second, it outlines two theories concerning the treatment of precedent, one from literature (Harold Bloom's "anxiety of influence") and one from law (stare decisis); finally, it describes a prior attempt by David Cole to apply the anxiety of influence to the legal field. Part II critiques Cole's theory and shows how the remainder of this Note provides a more precise synthesis of the literary and legal theories. Part III describes two of the subversive strategies developed by Bloom: apophrades and clinamen. Part IV applies these two strategies to two literary texts: Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and Aimé Césaire’s Une Tempête. Part V shows that both of these subversive strategies are applicable, with some qualifications, to the Casey opinions. Part VI contrasts the consequences of these strategies in the literary and legal fields.

First Page

471

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2307/797009

Volume

104

Publication Date

1994

Download

Share

COinS