Definition
A Latin term from the civil and old English law traditions carrying two related but distinct meanings depending on legal context:
1. (Old English law) Security; surety. A guarantee or pledge given to ensure performance of an obligation or appearance before a tribunal. Used in procedural contexts where a creditor, debtor, or party was required to furnish assurance of conduct — as in capta securitate à creditore de prosequendo, meaning security taken from a creditor to prosecute.
2. (Civil law) An acquittance or release — the formal discharge of a debt or obligation, equivalent to the civil law term apocha. In this sense, securitas operates not as a guarantee of future performance but as evidence that a past obligation has been satisfied.
Common Confusion
The two meanings of securitas point in opposite directions: one is prospective (a pledge or guarantee of future conduct), the other is retrospective (a release confirming that an obligation has already been discharged). Researchers encountering the term in historical sources must determine from context which sense is operative. Confusing surety with acquittance is a substantive error — one creates liability, the other extinguishes it. Burrill explicitly distinguishes the two usages, noting the civil law meaning as apocha, which should serve as a disambiguating signal in primary sources.
Why It Matters in Research
Securitas is a term of art that surfaces in medieval English legal records, Civilian treatises, and early common law procedural texts. Several research traps apply:
First, the dual meaning requires close attention to source tradition. An instrument described as securitas in a common law pleading context almost certainly means surety or security bond; the same word in a Civilian or canon law document may mean a release or discharge. The distinction is legally material and cannot be resolved by the word alone.
Second, the writ family built on this root term — particularly the breve de securitate pacis (writ of security of the peace) and the writ of securitatem inveniendi — extends the term into procedural law as a basis for restraining subjects from leaving the realm or requiring peace bonds. Rapalje & Lawrence flags securitatem inveniendi as an ancient royal writ lying against subjects to stay them from departing the kingdom, a use of securitas entirely distinct from either the surety or acquittance senses. Researchers tracing writs of this type should treat securitas as a root word generating a writ family, not merely a standalone definition.
Third, Fleta (lib. 2, c. 60, § 33), cited by Burrill, provides one of the few procedural illustrations of securitas in practice, anchoring the surety meaning in an identifiable medieval source. Researchers working in early English procedural history who need to verify usage should consult Fleta directly rather than relying on dictionary synthesis alone.
Fourth, modern legal databases do not index Latin terms consistently, and securitas may appear without translation in transcribed Year Book entries, plea rolls, or ecclesiastical court records. Researchers should run searches on both the root term and its anglicized cognates (security, surety, acquittance) to avoid gaps.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in broad agreement on the dual meaning, though they vary in depth. Burrill provides the most useful entry: it quotes Fleta for the Old English surety sense, cites Spelman and Calvin's Lexicon for the civil law acquittance sense, and identifies the civil law equivalent as apocha — a cross-reference that usefully connects securitas to the broader Civilian vocabulary of discharge and receipt. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the significant detail about the writ securitatem inveniendi, which neither edition of Black's develops, making Rapalje a necessary supplement for researchers interested in the writ dimension of this term. Black's (both editions) treats the entry briefly and without procedural illustration; it is adequate for identifying the meanings but insufficient for understanding how securitas functioned in practice. None of the historical dictionaries fully addresses the distinction between the surety and acquittance senses as a research trap, which is the most practically important issue for modern corpus work.
Jurisdictional Note
Securitas as a live term of art is confined to historical legal sources. It does not appear as operative terminology in modern Anglo-American statutory or common law. Its relevance is primarily to English legal history, canon law, and Civilian tradition research, with some crossover into early American colonial records that borrowed directly from English Latin pleading forms.