Definition
Criminalis is a Latin adjective used in historical English legal texts and pleadings to mean "criminal" — that is, pertaining to crimes, criminal prosecutions, or criminal actions as distinguished from civil ones. The term appears primarily in Latin maxims and medieval treatises as the modifier that separates criminal pleas and actions (placita criminalia, actiones criminales) from their civil counterparts.
It carries no independent substantive meaning of its own; its function is classificatory. When encountered in historical sources, criminalis signals that the proceeding, plea, intent, or matter under discussion belongs to the criminal branch of law rather than the civil.
---
Common Language
No common-usage entry applies. Criminalis is pure Latin legal terminology with no counterpart in ordinary modern English or in Webster's 1913. It does not appear in Wiktionary as an English word. Researchers encountering it in historical documents should treat it as a term of art belonging exclusively to the Latin legal vocabulary of medieval and early modern English law.
---
Common Confusion
Criminalis should not be confused with crimen, the Latin noun from which it derives. Crimen refers to the offense, charge, or crime itself. Criminalis is the adjectival form, used to characterize something as belonging to the criminal category — a plea, an action, an intention. The distinction matters when reading Latin maxims: crimen names the thing, criminalis describes the nature of something related to it.
Researchers should also avoid treating criminalis as equivalent to the modern English adjective "criminal" in its full contemporary sense. In the medieval sources where the term appears, the civil/criminal divide was drawn differently than it is today, and what was classified as a placitum criminale may not map neatly onto what modern law regards as criminal.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in pre-modern English legal sources — Glanvill, Bracton, Fleta, and their successors — will encounter criminalis as part of the standard organizational vocabulary of those texts. These treatises open with classifications of pleas and actions, and the civil/criminal divide expressed through civilis and criminalis is foundational to how those texts are structured. Understanding criminalis is therefore a threshold requirement for reading the organizational logic of medieval common law.
The most important maxim associated with criminalis in Burrill's entry is: In criminalibus sufficit generalis malitia intentionis, cum facto paris gradus — "In criminal cases, a general malice of intention suffices, with an act of equal degree." This principle has a long downstream life in Anglo-American mens rea doctrine. Researchers tracing the historical roots of criminal intent, transferred malice, or general versus specific intent will find this maxim cited in early modern treatises and occasionally in case law. Knowing the Latin formulation allows identification of those citations across corpus sources where the maxim appears in its original form.
A second navigational point: because criminalis appears in the Latin apparatus of the oldest common law sources, it tends to disappear from legal writing after the gradual shift away from Law Latin in English courts — substantially complete by the eighteenth century. Researchers should expect to find criminalis in manuscript sources, Year Books, and treatises through the early modern period, but not in later reported cases or statutes, which use the English "criminal" exclusively. The term is thus a chronological marker as well as a substantive one.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the primary surviving entry. Burrill quotes directly from Glanvill (lib. 1, c. 1), Bracton (fol. 101b), and Fleta (lib. 1, c. 16, § 3), establishing that criminalis appeared consistently across the major medieval common law treatises as the standard Latin adjective for the criminal category. The entry is brief but anchored in real sources — Burrill does not editorialize; he catalogs usage.
What Burrill's entry does not do is trace the adjectival form forward into early modern English practice or connect the mens rea maxim to its later doctrinal applications. Researchers should not expect Burrill to bridge medieval Latin usage and modern criminal law doctrine; that analytical work falls to the researcher using the corpus.
No other source dictionary in the current Law Mind set contains a dedicated entry for criminalis. Researchers needing fuller context for the Latin pleading framework should consult Bracton directly and standard treatments of medieval English legal procedure.
---