to obscure things, credence to doubtful things, and to all things
naturalness!'

"The question which we have before us is old, but not
inveterate,--a question often argued, but whose decision is still
pending: Should a Judge decide according to the evidence, or
according to his conviction?"

Now he supported the second, but far less justifiable view, by
arguments taken from the Laws and the Canons, so forcible that,
while all were amazed, all were uncertain whether greater praise
should be given to the ornateness of the words or to the efficacy
of the arguments.[57]

The mode of lecturing on Roman Law at Bologna is thus described by
Odofredus (_c._ 1200-1265), a distinguished teacher:

First, I shall give you summaries of each title [i.e., each
chapter into which the books are divided] before I proceed to the
text; second, I shall give you as clear and explicit a statement
as I can of the purport of each Law (included in the title);
thirdly, I shall read the text with a view to correcting it;
fourthly, I shall briefly repeat the contents of the Law;
fifthly, I shall solve apparent contradictions, adding any
general principles of Law (to be extracted from the passage),
commonly called "Brocardica," and any distinctions or subtle and
useful problems (_quaestiones_) arising out of the Law, with
their solutions, as far as the Divine Providence shall enable me.
And if any Law shall seem deserving, by reason of its celebrity
or difficulty, of a Repetition, I shall reserve it for an evening