Acceso usuarios
Starting from the 1950s, the reaction to the interpolation critique, on the one hand, allowed the abandonment of an extremism that had led to excesses and apriorisms, and on the other, led to an anti-interpolationist extremism and to a consequent superficiality in the study of the sources, approached in a sectorial and uncritical manner, rejecting any possibility of their alteration. Illustrative of such illogical genuinism are the attempts to save two texts, namely D. 8.5.10. pr.-1 and D. 39.3.1.23, which, despite appearing to raise insurmountable problems both as regards the terminology and therefore the conceptualisations used by them, and especially the legal regulation of iura in re aliena implied by them, are considered classical. Urgent then is the need to revise this tendency, aspiring to a «critical neo-interpolationism», centred on the historical study of the text and on the identification of its possible various drafts - focusing on the specific reasons that led the late antique jurist or the Justinian commissioner to that specific type of intervention on the classical text - with the consequent return of the sources to their intrinsic diachrony.
