A QUESTION OF INTERPOLATION IN D.9.2.27.17 AND CO.2.4
A QUESTION OF INTERPOLATION IN D.9.2.27.17 AND CO.2.4

Summary/Abstract: Comparing the texts D.9.2.27.17 and CO.2.4 with other sources, we can conclude that it is not possible to give a definite answer to the question – which of these two texts is altered or interpolated? Still, the solution from the Digest is more in line with other classical sources. The most credible theory seems to be that both texts were subject to revision. In the original text, Ulpian probably would not allow a direct Aquilian lawsuit when a slave is injured so that his value is not permanently diminished, but for the expenses of medical care, he would allow a praetorian remedy based on the actio legis Aquiliae. In CO.2.4, the text is abbreviated so that the part in which Ulpian writes about the praetorian lawsuit is canceled, and only the part of the answer with the statement that an Aquilian lawsuit is not allowed remains. In this way, an impression is created that Ulpian did not allow any lawsuit. The text in the Digest, on the other hand, is simplified and summarized rather than abbreviated. It is retained only in the statement that an Aquilian lawsuit is allowed in this case, without making a difference between actio directa and utilis causa. Still, an assumption remains and a definite interpretation cannot be made.

• Details
• Contents