Definition
A Latin term used in two distinct legal senses inherited from Roman civil law:
1. A copy or authorized written transcript of a legal document — particularly a certified copy made from an original instrument. In this sense, an exemplum was the written reproduction of a record or deed carrying formal authority.
2. An example or illustrative instance — used in legal reasoning and maxims to denote a case cited not as binding authority but as illustration. This sense appears in the maxim *ad exemplum constituti singulares non trahi*: exceptional things must not be taken as examples, meaning that special rules or singular enactments do not generalize into broader legal principles.
The two meanings are conceptually related: both involve something derived from, or standing in relation to, an original — one as a physical copy, one as a logical instance.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An example; a story or parable demonstrating a moral point.
Historical common usage: The term was not in general English use as a common word; it remained largely within learned, ecclesiastical, and legal Latin contexts.
Editorial note: The ordinary sense of *exemplum* as "example" or "moral tale" carries none of the technical weight the term bears in civil law. In legal contexts, the copy-meaning is operative in documentary practice, while the example-meaning appears almost exclusively inside Latin maxims. A researcher encountering the word in a modern English context should not assume legal significance without confirming a civil law or maxim setting.
---
Common Confusion
EXEMPLUM / EXEMPLAR / EXEMPLIFICATION: These three terms are closely related and frequently blurred in historical sources. *Exemplar* refers to the original model or pattern from which a copy is made. *Exemplum* in its copy-sense refers to the copy itself. *Exemplification* is the formal common law process of making a certified copy under official seal — a procedural act, not merely the document produced. Modern practice almost exclusively uses *exemplification* or *certified copy*; *exemplum* survives only in historical civil law discussion and Latin maxims. Burrill's distinction between *exemplum* as a copy and *exemplar* as the pattern it derives from is worth noting for close textual work in early sources.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter *exemplum* in two very different parts of the Law Mind corpus, and conflating the two senses produces misreading.
In civil law treatises and Digest-derived sources, *exemplum* in the copy-sense signals questions of documentary authenticity and proof — it connects to discussions of what makes a copy legally operative, who could authenticate it, and what probative weight it carried. Burrill cites Digest 42.1.33 for this usage, grounding it firmly in Roman procedure.
In the maxim literature, *exemplum* appears as part of interpretive rules about generalization from singular cases. The maxim *ad exemplum constituti singulares non trahi* — cited across Black's, Rapalje & Lawrence, and Burrill — is a canon of statutory construction with genuine doctrinal relevance: it warns against treating exceptional legislative grants or unusual precedents as establishing general rules. Researchers working on statutory interpretation history, or tracing the use of Latin maxims in common law courts, will find this usage significant.
The two senses rarely appear together in a single source without context distinguishing them. When *exemplum* appears in a maxim or brocard, it is the example-sense. When it appears in discussion of notarial practice, record-keeping, or documentary evidence, it is the copy-sense.
Historical gap to flag: Neither Black's edition adequately separates the two senses with enough clarity for a researcher unfamiliar with civil law foundations. Burrill handles the distinction more carefully and should be the primary historical reference for disambiguation. All four dictionary sources agree on both senses; none disputes the dual meaning.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries are in substantial agreement. All recognize both meanings — copy and example — and all cite the same maxim (*ad exemplum constituti singulares non trahi*) with attribution to Calvin's *Lexicon Juridicum* as authority for the example-sense.
Burrill's entry is the most analytically useful. It separately glosses the copy-sense with a Digest citation (42.1.33) and the example-sense with Coke on Littleton (24a), grounding each in a different textual tradition. The maxim *Exempla illustrant non restringunt legem* — examples illustrate the law, they do not restrict it — appears in Burrill but not in the other sources, and it is worth preserving: it encapsulates the interpretive posture that accompanies the example-sense of the term across civil and common law reasoning.
Black's first and second editions are nearly identical on this entry and add little beyond confirming standard usage. Rapalje & Lawrence follow the same structure. None of the sources traces the documentary-copy sense into its procedural consequences with any depth — for that, researchers should look to entries on *exemplification* and related terms in the same dictionaries.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Exemplification; Latin Maxims in Common Law Courts; Documentary Evidence in Civil Law Procedure.
---