The renaissance in Europe, understood as the rebirth of classical culture, is a social construction, rather than an historical truth. The concept was first used in Italy to manifest an artistic break from the previous gothic art style.

In law, this process has been defined as the Reception, which is the adoption of Roman law by the European Kingdoms.

The Reception can also be conceived as a social construction, rather than a historical fact. During the sixteenth century, there is an undoubted academic interest in the Justinian Civil Code,.

This great codification of written laws caught the attention of many kingdoms. However, rather than enacting roman laws as laws of the kingdom, the new absolutism movements took their centralized, written and rational characteristic.

For this reason in Spain and Germany, for example, we can find great codifications and creations of centralized systems of courts and laws.

In the case of England, the new absolutism of the Tudors already had a centuries-old centralized written courts system, which kept written records. Also, the English lawyers did not have a formal academic background, given that their “University” was the courts inn, where they studied common law, as opposed to Justinian Civil law, as was studied by lawyers in other European Kingdoms.

Therefore, it is possible to state that the reception in Europe had a very limited effect, in particular in England, which already had a centralized court system, and a class of lawyers trained in Common Law. Conversely, the Justinian civil law did not present the crown with many advantages. So, it limited influence.

-- IgnacioMenchaca - 07 Nov 2014

Certain legal scholars have claimed that there exists evidence of the Renaissance’s influence on the English legal system. Maitland claimed that there was a “Reception” of Roman Law during the reign of King Henry VIII. Although certain changes to the English law did occur during the Renaissance period, there is scant evidence to attribute such changes to the any sort of “reception” of Roman law. After Henry VIII enacted the Acts of Supremacy, making his word law supreme in church and state, he prohibited the academic study of canon law, and encouraged the study of the civil law (by founding professorships at Oxbridge). “There was a pleasant reading in the Byzantine Code for a king who wished to be monarch in church as well as state: pleasanter reading than could be found in our ancient English law-books.” Whatever embrace of the Roman Law there was in England was merely a small part of Henry’s plan to rid the Catholic church of its influence in England so that he could become leader of both the church and state.

-- JulianAzran - 05 Nov 2014

I agree, I think that this wiki article is something we could work with.

-- JulianAzran - 05 Nov 2014

In Social History of English Law (1966, repr. ed. 1973), by A. Harding, the author states that certain ideas attributed to Reception, such as the inquisitorial role or the judge (key characteristic of Civil Law), where already present in English Common Law before the Renascence. The carefully inspection of the witnesses by the judge was an aspect of the common law procedure, which was performed locally by the knights of the shire and presented in writing to the court.

Nevertheless, the author describe the direct use by English courts of Roman substantive and procedure law.

-- IgnacioMenchaca - 30 Oct 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Renaissance#Criticism_of_the_idea_of_the_English_Renaissance

This wiki article could be subject to review. I think it is possible to complement such idea with our investigation regarding Common and Civil Law.

-- IgnacioMenchaca - 30 Oct 2014

Why does Plucknet claim that the Common law courts were impermeable to foreign influence? What mechanism in the courts led him to this belief?

Regarding Henry VIII's motivations, Maitland claims on page 14 that the Byzantine Code provided better justification or authority "for a King who wished to be monarch in church as well as state ... than could be found in our ancient English law-books".

According to the Wikipedia page on Henry VIII, he separated the Church of England from the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Henry's first Act of Supremacy granted himself Royal Supremacy, which meant that he was the supreme head of the Church of England. It seems as though these acts were done for political rather than religious reasons, since "he remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings, even after his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church".

Perhaps Prof. Moglen was right. The Reception never happened. Whatever embrace of the Roman Law there was in England was merely a small part of Henry’s plan to rid the Catholic church of its influence in England so that he could become leader of both the church and state. This had nothing to do with the merits of a Roman or English legal system.

-- JulianAzran - 24 Oct 2014