Historic textualism (Themiclesia)

Historic textualism or uniform textualism is the main school of statutory interpretation in Themiclesia up to around 1950, in the tradition of legalism in that country. This school, formalized by theorists in the 6th century, asserts that statutes must be interpreted purely on the words that make up the statute, independently of the legislative intent, purpose, or historic context; however, it also assumes that one word can only have one interpretation, consistent across all statutes, passed in any time (hence uniform textualism). The challenge in interpretation, therefore, is stipulating a definition for a word that does not generate unacceptable results when applied to other statutes; if a definition is self-contradicting or produces results unacceptable to the jurist proposing it applied to other statute, the definition is considered unacceptable. Scholars of this school typically have extensive training in philology and phonology, in order to posit an justifiable and accurate (some scholars contend, obsessively) definition of a word that "fits" all known statutes. Legislatively, it also means that a word can never be redefined, regardless of how actual language has evolved, to avoid introducing contradictions to the corpus of statutes; this didactic adherence necessitated a large body of jurists called tribunes that compare bills to existing statutes and advise the house on any conflicts that they find.