Definition
A Latin term of medieval English law denoting the tackle, furniture, and outfitting equipment of a ship. Specifically, it referred to the complete rigging and gear required to make a vessel seaworthy and operational. In historical legal usage, the term carried a precise obligation: certain English towns were required by law to furnish designated ships at their own expense, fully equipped with double skippage or tackle — meaning the outfitting burden was doubled as a condition of the towns' service obligation. The companion terms ESKIPPER and ESKIPPARE (to ship) derive from the same root and refer to the act of loading or dispatching cargo or persons by sea.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs to a narrow class of archaic maritime and feudal obligation vocabulary that surfaces primarily in Close Rolls and early English statutory records, particularly from the reign of Edward I. Researchers encountering eskippamentum in primary sources are almost certainly working with documents touching ship service obligations — the medieval precursor to later naval impressment and requisition frameworks.
The key research trap is the term's obscurity: it does not appear in modern legal dictionaries, and without the historical sources, a researcher might misread the passage entirely or mistake it for a variant of a more familiar Latin term. All five source dictionaries trace the term ultimately to Cowell's *Interpreter*, making Cowell the authoritative anchor — but Cowell himself was working from a Close Roll reference (Claus. 1 Edw. I), so the evidentiary chain is thin. Do not treat any single dictionary's gloss as more than a relay of Cowell.
The doubling requirement — "double skippage or tackle" — is the legally operative detail. It suggests an enhanced or punitive outfitting standard imposed on certain towns, possibly as a substitute for or supplement to personal military service. Researchers interested in the history of ship money, naval impressment, or the feudal obligations of coastal boroughs should treat this term as a gateway into that literature.
Bouvier's note that "the modern word outfit would seem to render the passage quite as satisfactorily" is editorially honest but legally misleading: outfit is too general to capture the specific double-tackle obligation or its feudal context. Do not substitute modern synonyms when the specific legal burden is at issue.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The five source dictionaries are in near-complete agreement, all tracing to Cowell. The substantive content is identical across Black's (1st and 2nd editions), Bouvier's, Rapalje & Lawrence, and Burrill's. Minor variations in phrasing do not indicate independent research — they reflect successive copying of the Cowell gloss with light editorial adjustment.
Burrill adds the most precise sourcing, citing "Claus. 1 Edw. I." (Close Roll, 1 Edward I), which gives the term a datable documentary origin in the late thirteenth century. This is the most useful detail for archival researchers and is not emphasized sufficiently in the other dictionaries.
Bouvier stands out for its candor in flagging interpretive uncertainty — acknowledging that "the conjecture of Cowel has the advantage of antiquity" rather than presenting the definition as settled. This is a healthy caution given the slender evidentiary base. Rapalje & Lawrence, by contrast, offers the tersest entry ("Skippage; tackle or ship furniture — Cowell") without the contextual detail about town obligations, making it the least useful of the five for substantive research.
None of the dictionaries discuss the legal mechanism by which towns were bound, the remedies for non-compliance, or how the double-tackle requirement was assessed. These are gaps that cannot be filled from dictionary sources and require direct engagement with Close Rolls and secondary literature on medieval English naval administration.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Exclusively English in origin and application. No counterpart term exists in Scots, Irish, or American legal tradition. The obligation it describes dissolved with the transformation of English naval administration in the early modern period and has no surviving legal force.
---