摘 要

《异乡人》这部中篇小说，不仅是加缪的著名小说，同时也是存在主义文学的杰出代表作品。通过这部作品，读者能够了解到当时的法律现状，如审判规则，审判程序，证据来源以及法官是如何给嫌疑犯定罪量刑。此外，这也是一部反应法律与文学相联系的巨著。一方面，将法学思想引入到文学写作和文学鉴赏中，可以为文学创作提供一个新的创作角度。另一方面，文学作品的文学性与法律的精准性的结合也是一个不错的尝试。本篇文章主要是从审判规则的角度分析《异乡人》中的法律悖论，包括其中的审判过程、审判程序、证据来源以及罪名判断等。此外，本篇文章也将会探讨法律对文学的影响以及文学对法律的作用。通过本文，读者能够对《异乡人》中的法律悖论有一个很好的认识，也能对主人公的一些特殊表现如对任何人、任何事都是一副无所谓的态度，有更进一步的理解。

关键词：异乡人；法律悖论；法律现象；审判；审判程序

Abstract

The novelette, The Stranger,is not only Camus’s famous work, but also the masterpiece of the existence literature, considered as the representative work of absurd novel. Moreover, this work enables readers to know the legal phenomena at that time, such as the trail process, the contentious procedure and the source of evidence, etc. It is a magnum opus that reveals the relationship between the law and literature. For one thing, adding the thoughts of law to the writing and studying of literature can provide a new perspective for the literary creation. For another, the combination between literary features of the literature discourse and the conscientiousness of the law is a good try. This paper aims to explore the law paradox from the opinion of the rule of adjudication.

Key Words:The Stranger Legal paradoxes; Adjudication; Legal phenomena; Trail process;

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Introduction of the Relationship between Law and Literature 2

2.1 Origins 2

2.2 The Development 2

3 Law Paradoxes and the Law Thoughts 4

3.1Rules of Adjudication 4

3.2 The Proceeding 5
3.3The Sources of Evidence 6
3.4The Judgment of Charge 7

4 Analysis of the Relationship between Law and Literature 9

4.1 The Influence of Literature on the Law 9
4.1.1The Influence on Legal Language 10
4.1.2The Significance on the Writing of Legal Documents 10

4.2 The Influence of the Law on the Literature 11

5 Conclusion 13

References 14

Acknowledgements 15

On the Law Paradox of the Strangerfrom the view of Rules of Adjudication

1 Introduction

For a long time most of scholars emphasizes much more on the absurd subject ofThe Stranger, or explore the characteristics of the main character--Meursaul^[1], while they ignored the law thoughts, law rules, law practice, the legal phenomenon at that time.Meursaul showed an indifferent attitude toward everything including his mother's death. However, this homicide casewas strongly relevant with his mother's death. And the magistrate made the judgment from the aspect of the morality rather than from the law.

This paper aims to explore the law paradoxes from the opinion of the rule of adjudication. Trying to have a further study about this work, instead of studying the absurd subject, try to talkabout the background of this book, introduce the social phenomenon at that time. With the help of the preceding, then analyze the relationship between the law and the literature. In order to understand this work more comprehensively, this paper will attach much importance to the law subjects in this work including the law paradoxes, illustrating the law thoughts embodied in this work, followed by paying attention to explore the significance of this paper. At the end of the paper, the paper will put forward some suggestions to the further studying of this work andpoint out the limitation of essay writing. Methods as consulting documents in ChinaNational Knowledge Internet, asking supervisor's advice and making comparison with the foreign thesis about this subject will be applied in this paper.

2Introduction of the relationship between law and literature

2.1 Origins

As we all know, the literature is originated from the reality but higher than the reality. Hence, the literature has close relation with the imagination. However, the law is the summary of the reality experience but higher than the present. Therefore, the law is strictly conform to the reality. The literature pays much attention to the human beings; and the law puts emphasis on the human rights. Both of them attach much importance to the human and social life. There are a strong relation between law and literature. In 1988, Richard A. Posner published Law and Literature: A Misunderstood Relation, in which he advocated to use the real cases to analyze the literary works. In his opinion, the literary works and some theorists who supported the sport of law and literature, all of these made a little bit of contribution to the legal practice. Because he believed people could not learn some meaningful knowledge about the daily operation of legal system from the fictional literature, even though these works described the adjudication or other activities of legal system. After a few years, the sport of law an literature was prevalent in Chinese law field through the translation of a series of Posner's works.

2.2Developments

With the appearance of tribe or country, the embryo of law emerged as people needed rules to regulate their behavior, to lead their ideals, which was easier for the governors to take control. But the literature had occurred before the appearance of law.
In the feudal states forming and mature period, the relationship between and literature became more and more closely. An increasing number of works about the subject of law and literature was sprung up. Take the Spring and Autumn Annals as an example, it is not only literary masterpiece, but it also can be considered as a legal work since it include numerous legal rules like agree on a three-point law, conviction according to one's heart, conviction and sentencing.
In the period of modern society transformation, a large number of scholars analyzed the literary works from the prospect of law and literature. Shakespeare wrote some famous legal drama, such as the Venice Businessman. Besides, a great deal of distinguished litterateurs had legal education background, such as Goethe^[2], Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy^[3]and Xuzhimo^[4], Gustave Flaubert learned in the law school. So it is not strange to understand why more and more literary works will provide some legal thoughts, describe the legal phenomena at the special time. We can not only analyze The Stranger from the literary prospect, but we can also make some researches from the legal point, studying the trail process, the contentious procedure and the source of evidence, etc. Law and literature are compatible not opposite.

3Law Paradoxes and the Law Thoughts

3.1The Rules of Adjudication

During the process of the judgment, Meursaul became a real “stranger” who never took part in his own trail, which was quiet ridiculous. There are several reasons for why the adjudication was absurd. First of all, just like Meursaul said: in a way, they seemed to be arguing the case as if it had nothing to do with me. Everything was happening without my participation. My fate was being decided without anyone so much as asking my opinion.” From beginning to the end, Meursaul was a totally “stranger” since he had never took participate in the adjudication. Not only he was a “stranger” in his own life, but he was also a “stranger” of the adjudication.
Meursaul was excluded from the adjudication. It was not because the judge did not allow him to express his ideas or to defend himself, but because he never wanted to say what should be said in the adjudication. When the lawyer asked him if he could say that day he held back his natural feelings, Meursaul said it was not true and he would not say like that. However, it was wrong to consider that Meursaul did not want to defend himself. It was just because there were many differences between the law in reality and the law in Meursaul's opinions. Just like his lawyer said: it was obvious Meursaul had never had any dealings with the law. He was live in an ideal world. He did not know the rules of the law in reality. Therefore, he was totally removed from his own adjudication.
Secondly, Meursaul was not only judged by the jury and the prosecutors, but he was also judged by himself. One day when the guard told him that he had been in for five months. At that day, after the guard left, He looked at himself in his tin plate. His reflection seemed to remain serious even though he was trying to smile at it. Then he moved the plate around in front of him. He moved closer to the window, and in the last light of day he gazed at his reflection one more time. At the same time, and for the first time in months, he distinctly heard the sound of his own voice. Besides, when he was executed, he imagined he was free and he saw Meursaul was executed as a onlooker. Thus Meursaul saw Meursaul was executed. All of this shows that Meursaul had begun to reflect and judge himself, including his thoughts, his attitude to other people and his behavior.
Thirdly, the content of this adjudication is nonsensical as well. During the trail, the judge paid much more attention to his mother's funeral than the case itself. It was quiet ridiculous that the judge would link Meursaul's killing case with his mother's funeral. Besides, the examining

judge made much emphasis on Meursaul's character, his behavior in his mother's funeral and his attitude toward his mother. The presiding judge asked why Meursaul had not cried once, not saw his mother's last face, but drank coffee, smoked in his mother's funeral and left right after the funeral without paying his last respects at his mother's grave. The prosecutor concluded that when a stranger offer a cup of coffee, beside the body of the one who brought him into the world, the son should have refused it, rather than drinking it. And when the examining judge asked whether Meursaul believed in the God, Meursaul said he thought the God was unimportant for him. He did not think the God could help him because he did not want anybody's help. According to the prosecutor, human justice was nothing and divine justice was everything. Everybody should believe in the God. However, in Meursaul's opinion, it just wasted his time on God. There was a lot said about his behavior and his attitude to his mother's funeral, instead of about his crime.

3.2The Proceeding

Meursaul's basic rights were restricted during the proceeding. Firstly, Meursaul's right to speak was suppressed. The prosecutor proclaimed Meursaul's guilt without any explanation. When Meursaul wanted to provide an explanation, the prosecutor just interrupted him and his lawyer told him to keep quiet because the lawyer thought the explanation would not do Meursaul's case any good. It seemed to Meursaul that it was not his own case, but the prosecutor and the lawyer. Everything was happening without Meursaul's participation. Meursaul did not know who is accused of.
Secondly, the judge acclaimed one guilty at the basis of his morality and his behavior during the criminal proceeding. As we all know, the judge cannot sentence a criminal just according to his morality or his behavior. We cannot say one is a murderer just because he or she enjoys playing the Murder Game. However, the judge at that time did not think so. Just like Meursaul's lawyer said: “come now, is my client on trail for burying his mother or for killing a man.” The procedure thought the same man who the day after his mother died was indulging in the most shameful debauchery killed a man for the most trivial of the reasons and did so in order to settle an affair of unspeakable vice. It was really ridiculous to sentence a suspect according to his behavior and his morality. Thirdly, the right to appeal was not
Albert Camus, The Stranger, translated from the French by Matthew Ward, 1988, Page 91.
Albert Camus, The Stranger, translated from the French by Matthew Ward, 1988, Page 96.