Letter and spirit of the law

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, he is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the "intent" of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, he is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used against an oppressive government.

Pro and con

Following the spirit of the law but not the letter is generally viewed more favorably than following the letter but not the spirit. In a court of law, judges usually review the intent of the players involved.

Authoritarians tend to view "following the spirit" negatively as disobeying the law. The reason is that the actual intent of the law may be ambiguous, and allowing anyone to follow his own interpretation of the law may result in anarchy.

Shakespeare

William Shakespeare wrote numerous plays dealing with the letter v. spirit debate, almost always coming down on the side of "spirit", often forcing villains (who always sided with the letter-based arguments) to have their letter-based interpretations turned against them. For example, see The Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure.

However, in many of Shakespeare's history plays, the heroes often base their actions on letter-based arguments. See Henry V (Henry's basis for invading France), Richard II (the arguments for deposing Richard) or Richard III (Henry VII argument for fighting Richard).

U.S. Constitutional Law

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the "Letter v. Spirit" debate. For example, at the founding, the Federalist Party argued for a looser interpretation of the Constitution, granting Congress broad powers in keeping with the spirit of the broader purpose of some founders (notably including the Federalist founders' purposes). The Federalists would have represented the "spirit" aspect. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, who favored a limited federal government, argued for the strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government was granted only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing not explicitly stated; they represented the "letter" interpretation.

Modern Constitutional interpretation also divides on these lines. Currently, "liberal" or "progressive" scholars advocate a "spirit"-esque interpretative strategy, although one grounded in a spirit that reflects broad powers. "Originalist" or "Textualists" advocate a more "letter"-based approach, arguing that the Amendment process of the Constitution necessarily forecloses broader interpretations that can be accomplished simply by passing an amendment.

Pharisees

In the New Testament, Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6). Thus, "Pharisee" has entered the language as a pejorative for one who does so; the Oxford English Dictionary defines "Pharisee" with one of the meanings as "A person of the spirit or character commonly attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament; a legalist or formalist". This negative view of the historical Pharisees is disputed by non-Christians, and generally considered antisemitic.

It is to be noted that the phrases "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law" are not found in the Bible. Some might connect 2 Corinthians 3:6 with such an idea, but that passage talks about "the letter" versus "the Spirit", where "the letter" refers to the Old Covenant and its rules, while "the Spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit (and the New Covenant).

Gaming the system

Gaming the system, also called "rules lawyering", is related to following the letter but not the spirit of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules.

References

See also

* "The Spirit of the Laws", the 1748 political theory treatise by Montesquieu
* Rules lawyer
* Positive law & Natural law
* Malicious compliance & Work-to-rule
* Expounding of the Law

Other uses

* "The Letter of the Law", 1936 short story by Wodehouse
* "", 1996 interactive comic