Definition
An archaic Law French term meaning "easy" or, in legal context, an easement. The term appears in early Anglo-Norman legal texts and carries two related senses: (1) the adjectival or adverbial sense of "easy" or "easily," used in comparative constructions to describe relative ease or convenience; and (2) a substantive sense equivalent to "easement" — a right of use or accommodation over another's land.
The comparative phrase *meyns esee que devaunt* ("less easy than before") illustrates the term's adjectival use in pleading contexts, where courts assessed whether a party's condition or access had been diminished.
___
Common Confusion
ESEE vs. EASEMENT: The term *esee* is an early Law French root from which the English legal term "easement" derives etymologically, but the two should not be treated as functional synonyms in research. *Esee* appears only in medieval and early Anglo-Norman sources; "easement" is the operative term in all modern legal contexts. Researchers encountering *esee* in a historical source should understand it as a precursor form, not as a technical term carrying the full doctrinal weight of a modern easement.
___
Why It Matters in Research
*Esee* is essentially a paleographic and linguistic marker rather than a living legal concept. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in transcriptions or analyses of early English legal texts, particularly those drawing on Britton (the late-thirteenth-century Anglo-Norman legal treatise) and similar sources from the period when Law French dominated English legal writing.
Two practical research traps:
First, variant spellings abound in manuscript sources of this period. *Esee*, *esee*, *esement*, and related forms may appear inconsistently even within a single text. Kelham's *Dictionary of the Norman or Old French Language* (1779) is a useful supplementary reference for tracing these variants, and Burrill draws on it directly.
Second, the substantive use of *esee* to mean "easement" may cause confusion when indexing or searching early materials. A medieval passage using *esee* in the property-rights sense refers to what modern law calls an easement, but the doctrinal content of that right in the thirteenth century was considerably less developed than the modern framework. Reading back modern easement doctrine into passages using *esee* risks anachronism.
The Britton citation (c. 54, c. 61) is the primary textual anchor for this term. Researchers working in early English property law, the history of easements, or Law French legal vocabulary should treat Burrill's entry as a pointer toward Britton rather than as a self-sufficient definition.
___
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the primary English-language legal dictionary source for this term, and the entry is spare: it gives the translation, the comparative phrase, and the cross-reference to Kelham and Britton. No other major historical legal dictionary — not Black's, not Bouvier's, not Jacob's — carries a dedicated entry for *esee*, which reflects the term's status as a linguistic fossil rather than a term of ongoing legal art.
Burrill's double function for the term — adverb/adjective on one hand, substantive property concept on the other — is consistent with how Law French terms of this period operated. The same root word often served grammatical roles that English would later differentiate. Kelham's gloss of *esee* as "an easement" confirms the substantive reading and is the most direct historical authority for that usage.
What historical dictionaries collectively miss is any doctrinal analysis of what rights *esee* encompassed in practice. The term is treated as a vocabulary item, not a legal concept warranting definition of its elements. Researchers needing the substantive history of easement rights in early English law must look beyond dictionary sources to Britton itself, to Bracton, and to secondary historical scholarship on medieval property law.
___