Definition
A Latin term from old English law meaning a proclamation made by public announcement, typically by the voice of a herald. BANNUS appears in two distinct legal contexts:
1. Bannus regis (the king's proclamation): A formal declaration issued at the outset of trial by combat, commanding all persons present to refrain from interfering — by movement, word, or gesture — regardless of what they witnessed. The proclamation was delivered orally by a herald and carried the force of royal command.
2. Bannus matrimonii (banns of marriage): A public announcement of an intended marriage, made on three successive occasions before the solemnization of the union. The canonical formula preserved in Fleta requires that the bannus and triple denunciation be made before the espousals.
Common Confusion
BANNUS and BAN are closely related but not interchangeable in historical sources. BAN is the broader English and Norman-French term encompassing proclamations of outlawry, summons, and royal edicts generally. BANNUS is the Latinized form used specifically in legal pleading and record-keeping, and its appearance in a source signals a formal legal instrument rather than an informal or administrative announcement. Researchers who encounter BAN in a narrative chronicle and BANNUS in a plea roll should not assume identical legal weight. Burrill directs the reader to BAN as the parent entry, confirming the hierarchical relationship.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Bannus regis — The king's proclamation at trial by combat. A specialized royal command silencing the crowd assembled to witness judicial combat, enforcing the integrity of the proceeding.
Bannus matrimonii — The banns of marriage. A canonical and civil requirement that notice of an intended marriage be publicly proclaimed (typically three times) before solemnization, providing an opportunity for objections on grounds of impediment.
Why It Matters in Research
BANNUS is a term researchers will encounter almost exclusively in medieval and early modern sources — plea rolls, treatises such as Bracton and Fleta, and ecclesiastical records — and it rarely survives into modern legal usage in its Latin form. Several navigational points matter:
First, the two meanings of BANNUS occupy entirely different branches of law. Bannus regis is a procedure tied to trial by combat, an institution abolished in England in 1819 but long obsolete in practice. Finding this term in a source signals proximity to medieval criminal and property dispute procedure. Bannus matrimonii, by contrast, feeds directly into ecclesiastical law and eventually into the marriage statutes. These are distinct research threads and should not be merged.
Second, when transcribing or reading manuscript records, BANNUS may appear abbreviated or corrupted. The folio references in Black's and Burrill point to Bracton (fol. 142) and Fleta (lib. 1, c. 34, §1; lib. 5, c. 30, §3) as the foundational primary sources. Researchers tracing the term's application should consult these treatises directly rather than relying solely on the dictionary gloss, which condenses the original considerably.
Third, the marriage banns usage of BANNUS connects to a living legal tradition far longer than trial by combat. The requirement of public proclamation before marriage persisted in English ecclesiastical courts and was later regulated by statute (notably the Marriage Act 1753 in England). Modern Anglican and Catholic practice still observes banns. Researchers moving from medieval BANNUS entries into early modern or modern sources may find the term has migrated into vernacular English as "banns" without the Latin form, complicating corpus searches.
Fourth, jurisdictional transplantation matters: American jurisdictions largely did not adopt the English banns-of-marriage requirement as a legal mandate, though churches maintained the practice. A researcher finding BANNUS or "banns" in American legal sources should scrutinize whether the reference is to ecclesiastical custom or an actual legal requirement in that jurisdiction.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries — Black's (1st Ed.), Black's (2nd Ed.), and Burrill — agree on the core definition and share substantially identical language for bannus regis, all citing Bracton fol. 142. The consistency signals that later editions copied rather than independently verified this entry, a common pattern in historical legal lexicography.
Burrill's entry is the most complete. It is the only source dictionary here to address the marriage banns meaning explicitly, citing the Latin formula from Fleta (lib. 5, c. 30, §3): "Cum bannus et trina denunciatio facta fuerit ante desponsationem" ("When the bannus and triple denunciation shall have been made before the espousals"). This is a genuine addition to the Black's entries, which omit the marriage sense entirely. Researchers relying only on Black's would miss half the term's legal function.
None of the source dictionaries situate BANNUS within the broader system of royal proclamations or explain its relationship to outlawry procedure, where BAN (rather than BANNUS) does the heavier work. The entries are appropriately narrow — defining the word as encountered in specific procedural contexts — but should not be read as exhaustive accounts of proclamation law.
Jurisdictional Note
BANNUS as a legal term is effectively confined to English and ecclesiastical legal history. American law did not inherit trial by combat, and the marriage banns requirement was not generally adopted as a civil legal mandate in the United States. Researchers working in Scottish, Irish, or Continental European ecclesiastical records will encounter equivalent terms in local Latin usage, but the specific procedural context described in Bracton and Fleta is English.