ABSTRACT
Why at all deviate from literal meaning in the law by appealing to analogy, to precedent instead of clear legal rules, to paradigm instead of principle, and to paradoxes of metaphor instead of literal meaning and truth?
However we understand absurdity, the textual approach gives priority to the language used in the text in its ordinary sense over other evidence of the author’s intention. The textual approach is sometimes attacked by critics, who call it ‘literalism’, going by the letter. But what is the point of putting a statute, contract, treaty, or will into words unless those words are to be treated as binding?
