Definition
A Latin term from early English law with two distinct senses: (1) a thing that has been stolen, or the monetary value of that stolen thing; and (2) in older usage, a reference to capital punishment by decapitation, connecting the term to *judicium capitale* (a capital judgment or trial involving risk of life).
The first meaning is the more practically documented one in historical legal lexicons. It appears in property and theft-related legal proceedings where the object of theft, or its assessed value, required precise legal identification for purposes of restitution, forfeiture, or punishment.
The second sense is derivative and terminological rather than substantive—*capitale* as an adjective modifying a judgment or proceeding, pointing toward the capital/death-penalty dimension of early criminal law.
---
Common Confusion
The term invites confusion with the modern English word "capital" in its financial sense (wealth, assets, investment stock). That usage is entirely unrelated to *capitale* as used in historical English and Romano-canonical legal texts. A researcher encountering *capitale* in a medieval or early modern legal document should not read it as referring to financial capital, property wealth, or commercial assets. The connection, if any, runs through Latin *caput* (head, chief thing), but the legal term *capitale* carries the specific technical senses described above.
*Capitale* should also not be confused with *capitalis* (chief, principal, as in *capitalis justiciarius*, the Chief Justice) or with *capital punishment* as a modern phrase, though the etymological kinship is real.
---
Why It Matters in Research
**Navigating historical sources:** *Capitale* appears almost exclusively in Latin legal sources—Anglo-Saxon and Norman-era texts, early common law records, and glossaries of archaic law. Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus on topics of early property law, theft, restitution, or criminal procedure will encounter this term primarily in:
- Glossaries appended to early statutory compilations and Year Book editions
- Blount's *Nomo-Lexicon* (1670), which is the primary source cited by both Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence—meaning the term's authority in English-language dictionaries is thin and derivative of a single seventeenth-century source
- References to *judicium capitale*, where Bouvier cross-references rather than defines, signaling that Bouvier treats the term as primarily procedural/jurisdictional rather than substantive
**The Blount dependency:** Because Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence all trace directly or indirectly to Blount, the historical record for this term is shallower than it appears. Three dictionary entries that cite the same single source are effectively one source. Researchers should treat the definition as plausible but should not cite multiple dictionaries as independent corroboration.
**Corpus connection:** In any research involving medieval theft law, restitution doctrine, or the distinction between *furtum* (theft) and related Roman-derived concepts absorbed into English common law, *capitale* may surface as a term of art. Its value is primarily identificatory: it marks the object or equivalent value that changes hands in a theft proceeding.
**Jurisdictional and temporal scope:** This term has no meaningful modern legal life. It functions as a historical marker. Encountering it in a source post-1700 almost certainly signals either a scholarly gloss or a citation to an older authority.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three dictionary sources are in agreement on the core definition—stolen thing or its value—but differ notably in what else they provide.
Black's gives a clean, minimal definition with attribution to Blount. Rapalje & Lawrence preserves a slightly fuller version that explicitly mentions decapitation as the historical punishment context: "the decapitation which, in former times, the value of it" (the entry as preserved appears garbled, likely a transcription artifact, but the decapitation reference is significant and absent from Black's). Bouvier omits a definition entirely and redirects to *judicium capitale*, suggesting Bouvier understood the term primarily as a modifier in a capital judgment context rather than as a standalone noun.
None of the three sources engage with Roman law antecedents or the term's precise procedural function. For a term rooted in Latin legal tradition, this is a gap. Historical dictionaries of Roman and canon law would offer richer context than the common law dictionaries in the Law Mind shelf. Researchers needing depth should look beyond these three sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
*Capitale* is historical Anglo-English legal Latin with no modern jurisdictional application. It is not a term in current use in any common law or civil law jurisdiction. Its relevance is confined to historical legal research in English, Norman, and ecclesiastical legal sources.
---