Pool_2

sure, but eventually pulled in Plato and the big bang came with the rediscovery of the texts of Justinian law that survived the pagan sacking of Rome. That law was poured over and transcribed ad infinitum in the monasteries - especially in Bologna, which grew up around the first university - a place dedicated to reading aloud and discussing these Justinian texts. Roman law was a major find - as it was detailed and it was FAIR. It stood in huge contrast to the German tribal shit that, basically, depressed even the German chieftains. It was an easy sell. These texts of Justinian, however, lacked by careful design, generalities. There were endless lists of case specifics, drawn- to be sure- from previous cases, with judgements, but never stated in a general way. Always specific. Never abstracted. The Romans, whose special forte was their fair legal structure, felt that justice was at risk if entrusted to specific words and letters. Words could be exploited to undermine reason. Letters of the law - so to speak - in Justinian law were illegal. Courts derived sense from prior case specifics, requiring consistency, like our common law, but always in the light of current context. Decisions had to be fair in the context of the case at hand. Decisions had to make sense and had to be fair. However, translations of the texts yielded to summaries. Summaries yielded to reorganizations and then on to generalizations, the very thing Roman law avoided. To the populace, at large, the church, local monks, abbots, and clergy in general, were the law, although not enforcers. Any deal between simple farmers required seeking out clergy for two main reasons. First, the clergy were just about the only ones who could write, and later on, read what they wrote. Second they were impartial. Any detail not earlier considered would be determined by them. A contract essentially set up the