Definition
Latin. Literally, "monstrosities in law." The phrase denotes positions or propositions in legal argument so extraordinary, unheard-of, or contrary to established principle that they shock legal reason — arguments or doctrines regarded as absurd deformities within the body of the law. The term was used rhetorically, not as a formal category of legal classification, to condemn reasoning that departed so radically from accepted legal logic as to be considered grotesque or inadmissible on its face.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Portent" in modern English refers to an omen or sign of something important, often something ominous or foreboding. "Portenta" as a Latin plural rarely appears in ordinary modern English.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's defines "portent" as "that which portends, or foretoken; especially, that which portends evil; a sign of coming calamity; an omen; a prodigy; an augury." The Latin "portenta" carried a similar sense of prodigies or monstrous omens in classical usage.
The gap between common and legal meaning here is instructive. Where ordinary usage treats a portent as a sign pointing toward a future event, the legal phrase inverts the metaphor: portenta in lege are not warnings of future disorder but rather present distortions — arguments already monstrous in their conception. The rhetorical force of the phrase depends on the classical sense of portenta as prodigies or freaks of nature, transposed into legal argument to signal that a position is not merely wrong but fundamentally unnatural within the law's own logic.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase is a rhetorical and argumentative term of art, not a doctrinal category. Researchers encountering it in historical sources should read it as a signal of advocacy, not classification — its appearance marks a point where an advocate or jurist is condemning opposing argument in the strongest possible terms, rather than describing a recognized legal doctrine.
The phrase appears in Bacon's argument in Low's Case of Tenures, a context that places it squarely within the early seventeenth-century English debates over feudal tenure and the crown's prerogative rights. Researchers working in that area should note that Bacon's use of the phrase was deliberate rhetorical escalation, not neutral legal description.
Because portenta in lege has no modern doctrinal life, it will not appear in contemporary indexes, digests, or finding aids. It surfaces only in early modern legal argument, treatises, and the few historical dictionaries that preserved it. Burrill, drawing on Bacon's usage, is one of the few bridges between the phrase and the modern legal researcher. Its absence from later standard dictionaries — including Black's — confirms that the term did not survive as a living legal concept beyond its historical rhetorical context.
Researchers using Law Mind's historical corpus should watch for the phrase in proximity to arguments about tenure, prerogative, and parliamentary authority, where the rhetoric of legal monstrosity was deployed most aggressively in the Jacobean and early Stuart periods.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is the primary source preserving this term in the common law dictionary tradition. Burrill's entry is spare — "Monstrosities in law; unheard of positions" — with a single attribution to Bacon's argument in Low's Case, pointing to the collected Works (volume iv, p. 239). No elaboration of meaning or context is provided beyond the citation.
The entry's brevity reflects the term's nature: Burrill preserves it as a historical artifact of learned legal Latin rather than as a working doctrinal concept. The phrase does not appear to have generated commentary or definition beyond this single locus in the major common law dictionaries. Later dictionaries, including successive editions of Black's Law Dictionary, omit it entirely, suggesting that even by the mid-nineteenth century the term had passed out of active legal use.
The Baconian source is significant. Bacon's Latin legal phrases tended to be precise rhetorical instruments, and portenta in lege is best understood in that light: a deliberately classical formulation designed to place certain arguments outside the pale of legitimate legal discourse, not merely wrong but categorically inadmissible to a trained legal mind.
---