Definition
In law, "tame" describes an animal that has been domesticated or reclaimed from a state of wildness — one that is accustomed to living with or in proximity to humans. The legal significance of the distinction between tame and wild animals lies primarily in property rights and liability: tame animals (domitae naturae) are capable of absolute ownership, while wild animals (ferae naturae) generally are not. A tame animal is one that, through human effort or breeding, has acquired a disposition sufficiently docile to be kept and controlled.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Wiktionary's primary entries for "Tame" as a standalone noun reference a surname and two English rivers. As an adjective in ordinary modern usage, "tame" most commonly means lacking excitement, interest, or spirit — as in a "tame performance" — or describes an animal that is not afraid of humans.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 records an obsolete or provincial English verb sense of "tame" meaning to broach or enter upon a cask or store, to divide out, or to distribute — as in opening a stack of corn for distribution. This usage is wholly unrelated to the animal-law meaning.
The legal meaning of "tame" is closer to the modern common adjectival usage (domesticated, not wild) than to the Webster's 1913 verb sense, which is archaic and irrelevant to legal research. Researchers encountering "tame" in historical legal texts should not be confused by the obsolete distributive verb sense appearing in period general dictionaries.
Common Confusion
"Tame" and "domestic" are sometimes used interchangeably in older legal writing, but they are not synonyms. An animal may be domestic by species — born of a line long bred in association with humans (cattle, dogs) — without being tame as an individual, and conversely, a wild animal by species may be rendered tame by individual training or habituation. The legal classification domitae naturae generally tracks the species-level presumption, but liability questions in tort often turn on the specific animal's individual disposition and the owner's knowledge of it.
Why It Matters in Research
The term "tame" rarely appears as a freestanding legal concept in modern sources; it functions almost entirely as a modifier within the law of animals. Researchers working in tort, property, or early common law must understand that historical sources treat "tame" as the operative adjective in a binary classification system — tame versus wild (domitae naturae versus ferae naturae) — that governs both ownership rights and the standard of care owed by keepers. This classification system is largely intact in modern law but has been substantially supplemented by statute in most jurisdictions (animal control ordinances, dangerous animal regulations, strict liability statutes), so relying solely on common-law tame/wild distinctions will produce incomplete analysis for contemporary questions.
In historical corpus materials, the term appears most often in cross-references (as Anderson's entry illustrates — simply directing the reader to ANIMAL). This means the real analytical content lives under ANIMAL, FERAE NATURAE, DOMITAE NATURAE, and related entries, not under TAME itself. Searching for "tame" alone will underrepresent the doctrine.
Researchers examining liability for animal attacks in historical sources should note that the tame/wild distinction carried different weight depending on whether the jurisdiction followed the English common-law rule of strict liability for wild animals and negligence-based liability for tame animals, or modified that framework. The classification of an animal as "tame" in older case law may have been outcome-determinative in a way that the word's casual appearance would not suggest.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries converge on a single, narrow definition: domesticated; reclaimed from wildness; accustomed to man. Black's (both editions) supplies the Latin gloss domitae naturae, which is the term's primary functional vehicle in legal argument and opinion. Bouvier echoes this formulation without elaboration. Anderson declines to define the term at all, directing readers to ANIMAL — a structurally honest choice that signals "tame" is not a self-contained legal concept.
None of the historical dictionaries address the consequences that flow from the tame/wild classification — that is left to entries under ANIMAL, OWNER, and related liability concepts. This is a meaningful gap for researchers who encounter the term in an argument about negligence or absolute liability: the dictionary definitions establish the category but not its legal consequences.
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions vary in how strictly they apply the common-law tame/wild binary. Some states have enacted comprehensive dangerous animal statutes that impose strict liability regardless of whether the animal is classified as tame. Researchers should not assume that a finding of "tame" conclusively limits an owner's liability in any given jurisdiction without checking current statutory law.