The research focuses on analysis of a well-known fragment of Justinian’s Digesta: 50.16.130 (Ulp. 2ad leg. Iul. et Pap.). Formerly, several scholars have raised many doubts regard to its authenticity. The author’s basic idea is that there are not solid issues in favor of the hypothesis that the fragment is not genuine. On the contrary, both the examination of the terminology, used in the fragment, and the comparison between D. 50.16.130 and other sources (in particular: D. 38.16.1 pr.; 5.3.1 e 3; Tit. Ulp. 11.2-3; 11.14) might provide interesting evidences in support of its classical content.
|Number of pages||21|
|Journal||ANNALI DEL SEMINARIO GIURIDICO|
|Publication status||Published - 2013|