[Digression] I first came across this maxim in the 1966 film, “A Man For All Seasons,” Robert Bolt’s brilliant historical drama about the conflict between Thomas More and Henry VIII. His refusal to sign the Oath of Supremacy, making Henry the “supreme head in earth of the church of England,” was widely recognised as a refusal to accept the king’s authority (which of course it was), but because he did not actually deny the oath, More hoped that he might escape the block.
From the script:
Thomas Cromwell: Is there a man in this court – is there a man in this country! – who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title? Yet how can that be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Thomas More: Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire.” The maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent.” If therefore you wish to construe what my silence ‘betokened,’ you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
Recently I was intrigued to discover that the maxim owes its origin to Pope Boniface VIII, and the massive five-volume compendium of Canon Law published under his name in 1298, the Liber Sextus Decretalium, which added to, encapsulated and completed the series of five books of Canon Law published previously. In Volume V, Titulus 12, De Regulis Iuris, Rule 43, which is actually about the recovery of a dowry if a marriage is dissolved, we find that the father of the bride may act alone, although both he and his daughter must work together, because unless she actually objects, qui tacet consentire videtur – s/he who keeps silent is assumed to consent.
[But I digress…]
Of course, one must pick one’s battles. There is a great deal of drivel about the Shroud on the internet, and one cannot query it all. Luckily, in most cases, simple ignorance is enough to override the maxim: one cannot consent to something one hasn’t even seen. But if one has seen, or heard or read, something contentious about a subject one is deeply involved in, and if it is known, or widely assumed, that one has seen it, then, if one doesn’t call it out, it might be assumed that one agreed with it.
My previous post was a case in point, responding to a podcast entitled “Refuting the Shroud Skeptics.” It was broadcast on a blog I am known to follow, on a subject I am known to be interested in, and claiming to refute a position I hold on that subject. Not to respond would have been tantamount to accepting its claims, if we follow the ‘qui tacet’ maxim. But then, it could be said, my response itself demanded a riposte, and the riposte demands a rejoinder, and so on until we run out of synonyms for ‘answer.’
A response to my response has been posted. It’s called ‘Shroud Wars: Hugh’s Hypocritical “Hit-Piece”‘ and I think it speaks for itself. Far from correcting the mistakes I pointed out, Dale Glover simply exaggerates them to the point of absurdity, justifies them entirely to his own satisfaction, insists that objecting to them is satanically inspired, and sporadically shouts at me. It’s untrue, it’s intemperate and occasionally unhinged. Well, good for him. No hard feelings. Shall it let it go? I’d like to, but would not want anybody to think I agree with anything he says there at all.
But then, maybe he’s playing a game? The banner advertising the podcast is this:
It’s a card game. Players are presented with three or four options by their fellows, and have to guess who is telling the truth, and who is a liar, or LIAR. Let’s see…
a) Alan Adler went to Turin for the ostentation in 1978.
b) Walter McCrone went to Turin for the ostentation in 1978.
c) John Heller went to Turin for the ostentation in 1978.
d) The Pope went to Turin for the ostentation in 1978.
Only one of these is true! Anybody who tells you anything else is a LIAR.
a) The Blue Quad Mosaic images are (mostly) blue.
b) The Blue Quad Mosaic images are mosaics.
c) There are four Blue Quad Mosaic images.
d) The Blue Quad Mosaic images were taken with colour film.
Only one of these is true! Anybody who tells you anything else is a LIAR.
a) The Shroud man is sometimes said to be 175cm tall.
b) Jewish male skeletons from first century Jericho averaged 175cm.
c) Jewish male skeletons from first century En-Gedi averaged 175cm.
d) Jewish male skeletons from first century Qumran averaged 175cm.
Only one of these is true! Anybody who tells you anything else is a LIAR.
What fun! Anyway, I’ll vacillate. Anybody who wants a detailed refutation of the refutation of the refutation – for there is one, mostly entirely for my personal satisfaction – can ask for it in the comments, and I’ll give them the password (The post is called Lasciate Ogni Speranza 1), but apart from saying that I am not tacit, and do not consent, that’s all I’ll do here.
p.s. They say all publicity is good publicity. More than twice as many people have watched Oakwood #4, Refuting the Skeptics, than have watched any of the other three lectures, and, bizarrely, more than twice as many people have watched Hugh’s Hypocritical Hit-List than Oakwood #4. I wonder what they thought it was about.
p.p.s. Another scurrilous rant has appeared on the Real Seekers YouTube channel, hopelessly failing to justify another clutch of errors in Refuting The Skeptics. It is covered in Lasciate Ogni Speranza 2.