EIG

Definition

An archaic Latin-derived legal term appearing in early common law sources denoting those who break out of prison — persons who forcibly escape from lawful custody. The term derives from the Latin construction referring to individuals who forcibly extract themselves from confinement (*qui se è carcere proripiunt*). In early English legal usage, *eig* appears as a compressed or variant form pointing toward the class of offenders identified in Bracton and related sources as prison-breakers, closely associated with the Latin *fractores* (breakers) and the concept of the *effractor* — one who breaks through by force. The term belongs to a family of early law Latin shorthand designations used in legal texts to categorize offenders by the nature of their transgression against the king's custody.

Common Confusion

EIG is easily confused with related terms in the same textual neighborhood of early sources. *Fractores* is the broader Latin term for breakers generally, while *effractor* specifically denotes a burglar — one who breaks into a dwelling for purposes of theft (*furandi causâ domos effringunt*). EIG, by contrast, concerns breaking *out* of confinement, not breaking *into* a place. The directional distinction matters: one is an offense against private property and security; the other is an offense against the sovereign's custody and the integrity of the justice system. Researchers encountering these terms in close proximity in Bracton or Spelman should not treat them as synonyms.

Why It Matters in Research

This term will appear almost exclusively in early common law texts — Bracton, Spelman's *Glossarium*, Cowell's *Interpreter*, and Calvinus's *Lexicon Juridicum* — and rarely if ever in post-medieval legal sources. Researchers should treat it as a paleographic and textual marker rather than a living legal concept. Several research traps apply: First, the term appears in Burrill embedded within a dense passage that conflates multiple entries due to typographical compression in the original printing. The surrounding text references feoffees, donees, and lessees — entirely unrelated concepts — because dictionary entries bled together in the source edition. Researchers consulting the Burrill passage should not infer any substantive connection between EIG and those property concepts. Second, the term's relationship to *fractores carceris* (the more standard Latin phrase for prison-breaking) is close but not identical. *Fractores carceris* appears more frequently as an indictable category in early plea rolls and Year Books. EIG as a standalone term is more likely to surface in glossaries and law dictionaries than in original court records. Third, researchers tracing the history of escape and prison-breach offenses in English law should follow the *fractores* / *effractores* line forward into common law indictment forms, rather than relying on EIG as a search term in manuscript sources.

Historical Dictionary Support

Burrill's Law Dictionary is the sole source in the Law Mind corpus carrying this term, and the entry is fragmentary due to apparent typographical damage or compression in the original. Burrill traces the term to Bracton (fol. 105), Spelman's *Glossarium Archaeologicum*, Cowell's *Interpreter*, and Calvinus's *Lexicon Juridicum* — a standard constellation of early-modern legal glossary authority. Spelman and Cowell both treat prison-breaking as a species of contempt against royal authority, distinct from the underlying offense for which the prisoner was held. Calvinus's entry on *effractor* aligns the term with burglary specifically, reinforcing the directional distinction noted above. What the historical dictionaries do not address: the procedural consequences of prison-breach in early common law (forfeiture of goods, loss of clergy, treatment as an aggravated flight from justice), which must be sourced from Bracton directly or from Pollock and Maitland's *History of English Law*.

Jurisdictional Note

This is a term of early English common law with no meaningful American jurisdictional footprint. It does not appear in American statutory or case law as a term of art. Researchers working in colonial American sources may encounter it in contexts directly borrowing from English legal forms, but it carries no independent doctrinal weight in any American jurisdiction.

Related Terms