Definition
In Roman and civil law, the written answers issued by the emperor (the prince) in response to questions submitted to him concerning obscure or doubtful points of law. A subnotation was a form of imperial rescript — an authoritative legal response originating from the sovereign — directed at resolving legal uncertainty raised by private parties, magistrates, or officials who lacked clear guidance in existing law. The term is the plural of *subnotation*, and it appears almost exclusively in discussions of Roman imperial legal administration and the sources of classical civil law.
---
Common Confusion
SUBNOTATIONS, RESCRIPTS, and CONSTITUTIONS are easily conflated in civil law sources. All three represent forms of imperial lawmaking or imperial legal response, but they are technically distinct. A *rescript* (rescriptum) was the broader category of written imperial replies; subnotations were a specific type of rescript. *Constitutions* (constitutiones) were affirmative legislative enactments by the emperor, not replies to questions. Historical sources do not always draw these lines consistently, and researchers should treat these terms as overlapping rather than cleanly separated in older texts.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears only in historical and civil law contexts. Researchers will encounter it primarily when working with sources on Roman law, the development of the civil law tradition, or the history of legal authority and sovereign power. A few navigational notes:
First, the term is nearly absent from common law materials. If it surfaces in an Anglo-American source, the author is almost certainly borrowing from civilian or Roman law scholarship, and the surrounding context should be read accordingly.
Second, both Black's editions reproduce the definition verbatim, which signals that this term entered American legal dictionaries through the civilian tradition rather than from domestic legal practice. It carries no independent American legal meaning.
Third, researchers tracing the doctrine of sovereign legal authority or the history of how law is made — particularly the idea that the ruler's interpretive response carries binding legal force — will find subnotations relevant as an early institutional precedent. The concept anticipates later doctrines of administrative guidance and authoritative interpretation, though direct doctrinal continuity is a matter of scholarly debate rather than settled genealogy.
Fourth, the term is almost always encountered in the plural. This reflects the institutional character of the practice: subnotations were a class of imperial instruments, not a single document.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's Law Dictionary and its second edition define subnotations identically as "the answers of the prince to questions which had been put to him respecting some obscure or doubtful point of law." The agreement across editions is unremarkable given the verbatim repetition — this was not a term under active legal development between editions, and no evolution of meaning can be traced within the Black's corpus itself.
Neither edition contextualizes subnotations within the broader taxonomy of Roman imperial rescripts or explains the procedural mechanism by which questions were submitted to the emperor. Researchers needing that fuller picture should consult civilian law treatises and Roman law scholarship directly. The Black's entries function as a minimal gloss rather than a substantive analysis, which is typical of how both editions treat archaic civil law terms that had no living American application.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term has no operative meaning in any current common law jurisdiction. It is relevant only in historical analysis of Roman law, the civil law tradition, and the development of legal authority in pre-modern European legal systems.
---