RAZE

Definition

In law, to raze means to erase or obliterate writing, marks, or entries from a document or record. The legal sense is narrower than ordinary usage: it refers specifically to the physical or effective removal of recorded matter — scraping out text, obliterating entries, or otherwise defacing an official document. This is distinct from the common meaning of demolishing a structure. The legal wrong of razing a record involves the unauthorized alteration or erasure of an official document, particularly a court record or parliamentary proceeding, and has historically been treated as a serious offense against the integrity of public records.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To level or tear down a building or town to the ground; to demolish entirely. Also, more broadly, to remove something completely from existence; to destroy or obliterate. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 treats "raze" in the sense of a root (citing Shakespearean usage), reflecting that the demolition sense was already firmly established in ordinary English by the nineteenth century while the scraping/erasure sense had receded from common speech. The gap is significant and directionally reversed. In ordinary modern English, "raze" almost exclusively means to demolish a structure — leveling a building to the ground. In legal usage, the term means the opposite kind of destruction: not of a physical structure, but of recorded information. A researcher encountering "razing a record" in a historical legal document should not read it as destroying a building or room that housed the record, but as erasing or defacing the record itself.

Common Confusion

"Raze" in legal texts is sometimes misread through the lens of its common demolition sense, leading researchers to interpret references to "razing a record" as physical destruction of the document (burning, tearing) rather than the more precise act of erasure or scraping out of text. The two can overlap in effect — a destroyed document is also an obliterated record — but the legal term targets the act of altering or defacing the recorded text, not merely its physical destruction. "Raze" in this sense is closely related to, but distinct from, forgery: razing a record typically refers to the removal of existing content rather than the addition of false content.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers working in early modern English legal records, parliamentary proceedings, or state trials will encounter "raze" consistently in the erasure sense. Failure to recognize this meaning will produce misreadings of the underlying charge or conduct at issue. The term appears in the context of one of the most significant constitutional confrontations in English legal history — the parliamentary proceedings of 1628 concerning the Petition of Right and the liberty of the subject. John Selden was specifically charged with "razing a record" during those proceedings, as noted in Howell's State Trials. Understanding the term is therefore not merely lexicographic but substantive: the charge bore on the integrity of parliamentary records and the question of who could lawfully alter them. In corpus research, "raze" will appear rarely in modern legal materials in this sense — it has largely been displaced by "erase," "expunge," and "obliterate." When it appears in modern texts, it almost certainly carries the common demolition sense. The legal erasure sense is effectively confined to historical materials, particularly English sources predating the nineteenth century. Researchers should not assume consistent usage across periods. The connection to forgery and document fraud in the corpus is important: "razing a record" may appear alongside charges of counterfeiting, falsification, and related offenses, even though it describes a distinct act.

Historical Dictionary Support

All three source dictionaries agree on the core definition: to raze means to erase. The entries are brief, which accurately reflects the term's narrow and settled legal meaning. Burrill's Law Dictionary is the most instructive, situating the term in its most prominent legal context — the 1628 parliamentary proceedings and the charge against Selden — and providing the connection to Howell's State Trials. Black's (both editions) simply state the meaning and cite the same source, without contextual elaboration. None of the historical dictionaries address the divergence between the legal and common meanings, which had already become pronounced by the time these dictionaries were compiled. A researcher relying only on Black's bare definition risks missing the historical and constitutional weight carried by the term in practice.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Forgery and Document Fraud; Parliamentary Privilege and Records.

Related Terms