Definition
Jus scripta (Latin: "written law") is the body of law that exists in fixed, recorded form — statutes, decrees, official edicts, and authoritative legal texts committed to writing by a competent authority. The concept originates in Roman jurisprudence and stands in direct contrast to jus non scripta, the unwritten law of custom and tradition.
In Roman law, Justinian's Institutes enumerate the components of jus scripta as: laws (leges), plebiscita (resolutions of the plebeian assembly), senatusconsulta (decrees of the Senate), imperial constitutions (enactments of emperors), edicts of magistrates, and the responsa prudentium (answers of jurisprudents). Together these formed the authoritative, traceable written fabric of Roman legal order.
In English and common law scholarship, jus scripta was adopted as a classificatory tool to distinguish statutory and codified sources from the customary, judge-made law characteristic of the common law tradition.
Common Confusion
Jus scripta is sometimes loosely equated with statutory law in the modern sense, but the Roman category was broader. It included not only legislative enactments but also imperial decrees, magisterial edicts, and the recorded opinions of recognized jurists — sources that have no precise modern statutory equivalent. A researcher encountering jus scripta in a 19th-century treatise should not assume the author means only acts of a legislature.
The paired term jus non scripta (unwritten law) is equally important and frequently appears in the same passage or discussion. The two terms are defined in opposition; neither is fully intelligible without the other.
Why It Matters in Research
Jus scripta appears most often in one of three contexts in the Law Mind corpus: (1) Roman law and civil law scholarship, where the written/unwritten distinction structures the entire exposition of legal sources; (2) English common law treatises, particularly from the 17th through 19th centuries, where writers like Blackstone use the Roman taxonomy to position the common law relative to parliamentary statute; and (3) comparative law and jurisprudential works addressing the nature and sources of legal obligation.
The key research trap is anachronism. When a 19th-century American or English author invokes jus scripta, they are often drawing on a classical framework to make a point about the legitimacy or hierarchy of legal sources — not simply cataloguing statutory materials. The rhetorical weight of the term matters as much as its technical content.
Researchers working in civil law jurisdictions (Louisiana, Quebec, the mixed systems of South Africa or Scotland) will find jus scripta used with greater technical precision and more frequently than in purely common law sources. In those corpora, the written/unwritten distinction tracks real institutional differences in how law is made and found.
Bouvier's cross-reference to jus ex non scripto signals that the dictionary treats these terms as a set. Any research note on jus scripta should locate the companion entry and read them together.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's is the primary shelf source for this term and follows Justinian directly, quoting Sanders's edition of the Institutes to enumerate the six categories of written law. This is faithful to the original: the passage in Justinian (Inst. 1.2.3) is the locus classicus for the written/unwritten distinction in Roman jurisprudence, which itself drew on the earlier Greek distinction between graphos and agraphos nomos.
What Bouvier's does not do — and what researchers should note — is trace how English common lawyers adapted the Roman taxonomy. Blackstone's Commentaries (Book I, Introduction, Section 3) is the most important English-language reworking of this classification. Blackstone uses jus scripta and jus non scripta to frame the relationship between statute and common law, while acknowledging that English "written law" differs structurally from Roman written law. Bouvier's entry, read alone, leaves this common law adaptation invisible.
No significant divergence among the historical dictionaries on the core meaning — the term's content is stable because it derives from a fixed classical source. The more interesting scholarly variation lies not in the definition but in how different legal traditions have weighted jus scripta relative to unwritten law as the superior or more reliable form of legal authority.
Jurisdictional Note
The written/unwritten distinction carries more practical weight in civil law jurisdictions, where comprehensive codes constitute the primary source of law, than in common law systems, where unwritten customary and judge-made law has historically occupied a coequal or superior position. Researchers comparing legal systems should treat jus scripta as a term of art whose significance shifts substantially depending on the legal tradition under examination.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Roman Law
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Sources of Law
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Jus Non Scripta