"Qui tacet consentire videtur": la importancia de una antigua regla canónica en el juicio contra Tomás Moro
This paper focusses on the legal adage invoked by Thomas More in his own defence against one of the charges contained in the indictment that brought him to trial. Although different accounts have been offered regarding the adage cited by More, a review of the sources in the process suggest that the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2011
|
| In: |
Ius canonicum
Year: 2011, Volume: 51, Issue: 101, Pages: 137-160 |
| IxTheo Classification: | SB Catholic Church law |
| Further subjects: | B
Law
B Legal regulation B Principle of law B England B More, Thomas (1478-1535) B Corpus iuris canonici B Middle Ages B Qui tacet consentire videtur B History |
| Summary: | This paper focusses on the legal adage invoked by Thomas More in his own defence against one of the charges contained in the indictment that brought him to trial. Although different accounts have been offered regarding the adage cited by More, a review of the sources in the process suggest that the claim was in fact made. An in-depth analysis of the history of the maxim discloses that it originated in Canon Law and was rendered canonical in the Sixth Book of the Decretals by Dino da Mugelano, who generalised a number of precednts contained in the Digest and reflected in ecclesiastical practice. The rule was later adopted in medieval civil law and old English law. Thus, different versions of the process may be regarded as correct even though they allude to different sources of the adage. More's invocation of the maxim was not merely a rhetorical strategy but a threefold juridical response. The claim made on the basis of the adage was effective: the charge regarding non-malicious silence was not retained by the accusers |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0021-325X |
| Contains: | In: Ius canonicum
|