Definition
A rescript is a written official reply or directive issued by an authority of superior jurisdiction. The term carries distinct meanings across legal systems and procedural contexts:
1. In Roman civil law: The written answer of a Roman emperor to a petition or inquiry by a judge, magistrate, or private party concerning a difficult or doubtful legal question. Rescripts were initially binding only in the specific case prompting them, but in practice they accumulated precedential weight and became a recognized source of Roman law.
2. In canon law: The written answer of the pope to a formal inquiry on a question of canon law or morals. Distinguished from decretals, which carry general precedential force; a rescript is technically ad hoc and particular, though the line between the two has been contested historically.
3. At common law: A counterpart or duplicate of a legal instrument.
4. In American appellate practice (Massachusetts usage): A written order transmitted from an appellate court to the trial court clerk directing further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision — essentially the formal vehicle by which an appellate judgment is implemented at the trial level.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A clarification of a point of law issued by a monarch upon formal consultation by a lower magistrate; a papal reply to a canonical question; a duplicate copy; or a rewritten document.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The answer of an emperor when formally consulted on a difficult question; hence, any edict or decree; or the official written answer of the pope on a question of canon law.
The common and legal definitions overlap significantly here — but the gap lies in specificity. Common usage flattens the term toward "official reply," obscuring the functionally different roles rescripts play in Roman law (quasi-legislative authority building over time), canon law (particular, not precedential), and American procedure (purely mechanical appellate direction). Treating a rescript as a generic "official answer" in a legal research context will lead to misreading sources across these systems.
---
Common Confusion
Rescript is sometimes conflated with decretal in canon law sources. A decretal is a papal letter addressed to a specific question that acquires general applicability as a rule of canon law; it is inherently precedential. A rescript, strictly speaking, is particular and non-precedential. In practice, the boundaries blurred as collections of rescripts were compiled and treated as authoritative sources. Researchers working in canonical or ecclesiastical legal history should treat the distinction with care: sources using "rescript" and "decretal" interchangeably likely reflect later canonical usage rather than strict classification.
In American appellate practice, rescript should not be confused with mandate. In most jurisdictions, the formal instrument returned to the trial court is called the mandate; Massachusetts historically used rescript for this function, and some practitioners and secondary sources use both terms loosely.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Roman civil law recognized a functional taxonomy of imperial rescripts:
- Subscriptiones: The emperor's reply written directly beneath the original petition, returned to the petitioner.
- Epistolae: Rescripts in letter form addressed to a magistrate or official.
Both operated as authoritative responses, but epistolae directed at magistrates more readily assumed the character of binding rules.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter rescript across four largely separate bodies of legal literature — Roman law, canon law, English common law, and American appellate procedure — and the word means something different in each. This is a strong false-friend term: seeing it in a source without knowing the legal system in context almost guarantees misreading.
In Roman law sources, rescript is part of the larger category of imperial constitutions alongside edicts and mandates. Mackeldey's Roman Law and similar institutional treatises discuss rescripts as a source of jus novum — tracking the term's evolution from individual ruling to quasi-legislative authority is essential for understanding how Roman law developed after the classical period.
In canon law, the distinction between rescript and decretal matters enormously for understanding the authority structure of the Corpus Juris Canonici. Sources that treat all papal communications as equivalent will misrepresent how canonical authority was organized and claimed.
In American procedural sources, rescript is largely a Massachusetts artifact. Researchers using Mass. Reports or Massachusetts practice materials from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries will encounter it regularly as a term of art for the appellate court's directive to the trial court. Other states use mandate for the same concept; searching for rescript in non-Massachusetts federal or state materials is unlikely to yield procedural usage.
Anderson's dictionary entry included in the source materials for this entry erroneously concerns rescission rather than rescript — a copyist or indexing error. Researchers relying on Anderson's for this term should treat the entry with caution.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence are substantially in agreement on the Roman and common law meanings, all identifying the Roman imperial answer, the common law counterpart/duplicate, and (Black's and Bouvier's) the Massachusetts appellate usage. Bouvier adds a useful note connecting rescript to the Massachusetts supreme judicial court's appellate statement of decision, which Rapalje & Lawrence omits.
Rapalje & Lawrence offers a more precise account of the Roman rescript's initially particular, subsequently precedential character — a distinction that Black's somewhat underplays by describing it only as answers that "became rules for future litigated or doubtful legal questions" without explaining the mechanism.
All historical sources are thin on the canon law distinction between rescript and decretal. Webster's 1913 captures the common-use range well, echoing Bouvier. None of the historical dictionary sources engage the internal Roman taxonomy of subscriptiones versus epistolae; institutional Roman law treatises are the appropriate resource for that level of analysis.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The appellate procedural usage of rescript as the court's written direction to the trial court clerk is primarily a Massachusetts usage. Most American jurisdictions use mandate for this function. Researchers working across jurisdictions should not assume the terms are interchangeable without confirming local practice.
---