Definition
A person placed under a ban; an outlaw or banished individual. The term appears in medieval and early common law sources to designate someone who had been formally expelled from the community by legal or sovereign authority, stripped of the protection of the law, and rendered subject to seizure, punishment, or death without the ordinary legal proceedings afforded to those within the law's protection. The bannitus was, in effect, civilly dead to the legal order that had expelled him.
---
Common Confusion
BANNI or BANNITUS should not be conflated with simple exile or voluntary flight from justice. The bannitus was not merely absent from the jurisdiction — he had been formally declared outside the law's protection through an official act. A person who fled before judgment (a fugitive) occupied a different, though related, legal status. The confusion arises because later sources sometimes use "ban" loosely to cover both formal outlawry and administrative exile. Researchers should also distinguish the bannitus from the attainted person: attainder involved forfeiture of civil rights and corruption of blood through a specific legal proceeding, whereas the ban was a broader, often more immediate expulsion from legal protection. In some early sources, the concepts overlap, but they are not synonymous.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is primarily a term of historical legal significance, encountered almost exclusively in medieval and early modern legal texts, treatises on English common law, and sources drawing on continental European practice. Researchers working in Law Mind's historical corpus should note several navigational points.
First, the term is Latin and appears in varying forms — banni (plural), bannitus (singular male), bannita (singular female in some civil law sources) — so corpus searches should account for all variants.
Second, the concept of the bannitus is intimately connected to the broader doctrine of outlawry, which evolved considerably between the Anglo-Saxon period and the abolition of outlawry in English law in the nineteenth century. Sources from different periods use the term with meaningfully different implications: in early medieval usage, the bannitus could be killed on sight without legal consequence; by the later common law period, the practical severity of the status had diminished while the formal legal machinery persisted.
Third, continental civil law traditions and English common law diverged in how they treated the ban. Researchers using sources that draw on Roman or canon law foundations may find banni used in ways that do not map cleanly onto English common law outlawry. Calvin's Lexicon, cited by Black's, is a civil law reference, and its usage reflects that tradition.
Fourth, the term is largely absent from modern legal usage. If it appears in a contemporary source, it is either in a historical or comparative law context, or the source is of antiquarian character. Researchers should not expect to find the term operative in any modern jurisdiction's statutes or case law.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines banni or bannitus as "one under a ban; an outlaw or banished man," citing Britton (chapters 12 and 13) and Calvin's Lexicon. This entry is sparse but accurate in its core meaning. Britton, the thirteenth-century English legal treatise, provides the most direct common law grounding for the term, situating the bannitus within English outlawry doctrine. Calvin's Lexicon brings in the civilian tradition, where the concept of the ban had roots in both Roman and Germanic law.
The historical dictionaries do not substantially develop the term beyond this skeletal definition, and none of the standard historical sources offer a full treatment of the procedural mechanics by which a person became a bannitus or the specific legal consequences that followed. Researchers seeking depth will need to go beyond the dictionary sources to primary treatises — Britton, Bracton, and Fleta for the English common law tradition — and to continental legal historians for the civilian side of the concept.
What the historical sources collectively miss is the distinction between the ban as a sovereign or royal act and the ban as a judicial product of outlawry proceedings. The two could produce the same status in the person of the bannitus, but the procedural origins and applicable rules differed, and conflating them can distort historical legal analysis.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term and the underlying concept belong to English and continental European legal history, not to any modern jurisdiction. The formal doctrine of outlawry was abolished in England by the Statute Law Revision Act 1879 and related reforms. In civil law jurisdictions, analogous concepts persisted in varying forms but under different terminology. The term banni or bannitus has no operative force in any contemporary legal system.
---