Definition
A Latin phrase meaning "word for word." Used in legal writing to indicate that text has been reproduced, quoted, or transcribed verbatim — exactly as it appeared in the original source, without alteration, omission, or paraphrase. The phrase functions as a precision marker, signaling to the reader that what follows (or what was done) is a literal, character-for-character reproduction of the original language.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): No standalone entry. The component words — "verbum" (word) and the preposition "de" (from/concerning) — are recognized Latin roots widely embedded in English vocabulary.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): No direct entry. Webster's acknowledges "verbatim" as the standard English equivalent, defined as "word for word; in the same words."
The legal phrase carries no gap from common understanding in terms of meaning — both contexts intend literal transcription. Its significance in legal sources is not semantic but functional: the phrase signals a formal claim of exact reproduction, which carries evidentiary and interpretive weight in pleadings, writs, and record-keeping contexts where even minor variation in language could alter legal effect.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering this phrase in historical legal texts should treat it as a term of art signaling that a document, writ, plea, or oath was copied or recited without deviation. In medieval and early common law practice, the distinction between verbatim reproduction and paraphrase was not merely stylistic — it was legally operative. Writs had to follow prescribed forms; oaths had to be administered in set words; pleadings often needed to track statutory language precisely. A failure to reproduce language de verbo in verbum could void a document or defeat a plea.
The phrase appears in Bracton and related institutional sources, which means researchers working with early common law materials — particularly writs, forms of action, and pleading records from the 13th through 16th centuries — are likely to encounter it. It is less common in post-Reformation legal writing, where English-language equivalents ("verbatim," "word for word") became standard.
Cross-corpus researchers should note that the phrase may appear in Latin pleadings, Year Books, and abridgments without translation or gloss, since it was treated as self-evident by legal readers of the period. Modern transcriptions and editions of these sources may render it in English without flagging that a Latin phrase was used in the original — a potential source of imprecision when tracing exact original language.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries are in close agreement. All three define the phrase simply as "word for word" and anchor it to Bracton's *De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae* (folio 138b). There is no substantive disagreement on meaning.
Burrill's entry is the most complete. It adds two useful details absent from the Black's editions: first, the Law French equivalent *de mot en mot*, which researchers working with Anglo-Norman legal sources will need; and second, the variant form *de verbo ad verbum*, drawn from Fleta (*Lib. 1, c. 21, § 3*). Fleta, a late 13th-century legal treatise closely derivative of Bracton, uses the prepositional variant *ad* (to) rather than *in* (in), producing the same meaning through a slightly different construction. Researchers should not treat this as a distinct phrase — it is the same concept, differently prepositioned, and the two forms appear interchangeably in the historical literature.
The Black's entries (both first and second editions) are nearly identical and notably spare, offering no contextual elaboration beyond the Bracton citation. Neither edition flags the Fleta variant or the Law French parallel, making Burrill's the more useful historical reference for this term.
None of the source dictionaries address how the phrase functions operationally in legal instruments — a gap this entry addresses above.
---