Definition
In legal Latin, *quid* means "what." As a standalone term in legal texts, it functions as an organizational and definitional marker rather than a substantive legal concept in its own right. Old English legal writers, particularly in the common law treatise tradition, used *quid* as a heading to introduce the definition of a subject under discussion — answering the question "what is this thing?" before proceeding to classify its kinds or subtypes.
The term appears most prominently as a component of the phrase QUID PRO QUO ("what for what"), which carries independent legal significance in contract, consideration, and corruption law. Researchers encountering *quid* alone in historical texts are almost always seeing it in this organizational or prefatory sense.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The inherent nature of something; also used paired with *quo* in reference to *quid pro quo*; historically, a follower of John Randolph's Democratic-Republican faction (from *tertium quid*).
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A portion suitable to be chewed; a cud; as, a quid of tobacco.
The chewing tobacco sense has no legal relevance. The Wiktionary entry gestures toward the legal context primarily through *quid pro quo*, which is where the term does its substantive legal work. Researchers should be alert that *quid* standing alone in a legal source almost certainly signals a Latin structural device, not a reference to the colloquial English noun.
Common Confusion
*Quid* as a standalone term is sometimes skimmed past in historical legal texts as mere Latin filler. It is not. In the treatise tradition Burrill identifies, *quid* signals the definitional section of a structured legal discussion — its presence marks where an author is formally answering "what is X?" This matters for reading comprehension in older sources: the *quid* section establishes the genus; the *quotuplex* section that follows establishes the species. Conflating this structural use with the substantive legal phrase *quid pro quo* will cause a researcher to misread both.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in early English common law treatises — particularly those following the scholastic organizational method inherited from Roman and canon law — will encounter *quid* as a section header or introductory word. Shepard's *Touchstone* (cited by Burrill) is the clearest example: subjects are organized first under *quid* (defining the thing) and then *quotuplex* (enumerating its varieties). Recognizing this pattern is essential for navigating pre-19th century treatise structure efficiently.
When searching Law Mind's corpus of historical legal texts, a bare search for *quid* will return large numbers of hits from *quid pro quo* constructions, Latin statutory preambles, and treatise headers. Without disambiguation, these results are noisy. Researchers should filter or contextualize hits accordingly.
The term's substantive legal significance lives almost entirely downstream, in *quid pro quo*. Any research thread that begins with *quid* in isolation will need to determine quickly whether the source is using it structurally (as a definitional heading) or as part of a compound phrase. The answer will usually be apparent from context — but the distinction is worth making consciously.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's entry is minimal and accurate. He correctly identifies *quid* as a Latin organizational device used by early treatise writers and cites Sheppard's *Touchstone* as the exemplar. His entry does not attempt to give *quid* independent doctrinal weight, which is the right call — the word has none standing alone.
No significant divergence exists among historical legal dictionaries on this point, largely because so few bother to enter *quid* as a headword at all. Burrill's decision to include it reflects his commitment to covering the full vocabulary of old legal writing, including its structural apparatus. Later dictionaries, oriented toward doctrinal rather than textual research, drop it entirely and subsume any relevant material under QUID PRO QUO.
What historical sources collectively miss is the pedagogical value of explaining the *quid/quotuplex* organizational scheme as a system — understanding it unlocks the structure of a significant portion of pre-19th century common law treatise literature.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: QUID PRO QUO