Definition
A Latin phrase from old English law meaning "unfavorably thought of" or "held in bad repute or credit." The term describes a person whose standing, character, or credibility was regarded poorly within the community or before a court. It carried legal weight in contexts where a witness's or party's reputation bore on the reliability of their testimony or their eligibility to participate in certain legal proceedings.
Common Confusion
*Male creditus* should not be confused with *maledicta est expositio quæ corrumpit textum*, the interpretive maxim that appears in the same dictionary entries. The juxtaposition in historical sources is incidental. *Male creditus* describes a person's reputation; the maxim concerns principles of legal construction. They are unrelated in function and doctrine.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially a period artifact. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in medieval English legal texts, particularly in Bracton's *De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae*, where questions of personal reputation were procedurally significant. In early common law, a person who was *male creditus* might be disqualified from serving as a compurgator (oath-helper) or have their testimony discounted. The concept belongs to a body of law in which social reputation functioned as a legal status marker — a feature that gradually receded as evidentiary rules formalized.
The phrase does not appear in modern statutory or case law as a live term of art. Its value to the researcher is contextual: when reading Bracton or other early English sources, understanding *male creditus* clarifies passages about witness competence, oath-worthiness, and the social-legal structure of medieval proceedings. Mistaking it for a procedural term of the later common law would be an error.
Note also the maxim that appears immediately alongside this term in all three source dictionaries: *Maledicta est expositio quæ corrumpit textum* — "That is a cursed interpretation which corrupts the text." This maxim, cited to Coke and Broom's *Legal Maxims*, is a separate principle of statutory and textual construction cautioning against strained interpretations that distort the plain meaning of a legal document. The two entries share proximity in historical sources because of phonetic similarity (*male creditus* / *maledicta*), not substantive connection. Researchers should not conflate them.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three source dictionaries — Black's (first and second editions) and Burrill's — are in full agreement on the definition and cite the same primary source, Bracton, though with minor variation in folio references (fols. 116 and 154 in Black's first edition; fols. 110 and 154 in the second edition; fol. 116 and 154 in Burrill). This discrepancy in folio citation between the first and second editions of Black's is minor and likely a typographical variance; researchers consulting Bracton directly should verify against a reliable modern edition. Burrill adds the citation identifier "Bozoun's case" for the Coke reference, which is useful for tracking the maxim to its source.
None of the three dictionaries elaborate on the procedural consequences of being *male creditus* beyond the bare definition. Burrill provides slightly more bibliographic precision. No source attempts a connection to modern law, which accurately reflects the term's obsolescence. Researchers seeking fuller context on the role of reputation in early English law will need to go beyond dictionary sources to Bracton's text directly and secondary scholarship on medieval legal procedure.