Definition
A gold mine. In civil law and early English law, *aurifodina* denotes a mine yielding gold. The term appears in both Roman law sources and in early English legal writing in the context of property rights over mineral wealth, particularly as regards the claims of the crown or sovereign over precious metal deposits found in land.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research significance of *aurifodina* lies in its connection to the doctrine of royal mines — the principle, developed in English law, that mines of gold and silver belong to the crown by prerogative rather than to the owner of the surface land. Researchers tracing this doctrine will encounter *aurifodina* in medieval and early modern sources as a term of art for the specific subject matter of that prerogative claim.
The term is essentially archaic and does not appear in modern statutory or case law under this Latin form. Researchers working in post-seventeenth-century materials should expect to find the concept expressed in English as "gold mine" or addressed within the broader framework of mining law and mineral rights. The Latin form survives longest in treatise literature and in scholarly discussions of Bracton and the Digest.
Corpus connections: researchers following the royal mines doctrine forward from Bracton will find the argument crystallized in later English proceedings over whether a mine containing gold or silver ore, even in small quantities, falls within the prerogative. The aurifodina concept sits at the origin point of that chain of authority. Researchers following it backward will find the Digest passage (Dig. 3.4.1) addressing the legal status of mines under Roman law — a distinct doctrinal context that should not be read as directly continuous with English prerogative doctrine, even though English jurists drew on it.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the core entry: "In civil and old English law. A gold mine," citing the Digest at 3.4.1 and Bracton at folio 222b. This is the standard treatment — brief, accurate, and essentially complete for a term with so narrow a footprint.
Bracton's reference at folio 222b places *aurifodina* in his discussion of things belonging to the crown by prerogative, grouping gold mines with silver mines (*argentifodina*) and other royal properties. This pairing is important: English legal writers consistently treated gold and silver mines together as the core subject of the prerogative, and *aurifodina* should be read alongside *argentifodina* whenever it appears.
The Digest reference reflects Roman law's treatment of mines as a matter of public or imperial interest, though the Roman framework differs structurally from English prerogative doctrine. Historical sources do not always flag this distinction clearly, and researchers should be cautious about assuming doctrinal identity between the civil law and common law treatments of the same term.
No major expansion or evolution of the term itself appears across the historical dictionaries; *aurifodina* remained a stable Latin label for a stable concept. Its disappearance from legal usage tracks the general decline of Law Latin in English practice.
Jurisdictional Note
The royal mines prerogative to which *aurifodina* is most relevant was a doctrine of English law with limited direct application in American jurisdictions, where mineral rights developed along different lines following independence. Researchers working in Scottish law will find a parallel but distinct body of doctrine on crown rights to gold and silver.