D.9.2.27.17 VERSUS CO.2.4: KOJI TEKST JE INTERPOLISAN?

Samir Aličić

doi:10.5937/zrpfns46-2542

Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu

D.9.2.27.17 versus CO.2.4: which text is interpolated?

Samir Aličić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns46-2542

Abstract

In this paper two citations from the same paragraph of Ulpian’s XVIII book on edict are discussed, one of which is preserved in Justinian's Digest and another in Collatio legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum. Texts differ in a part containing legal solution of the case, and it is obvious that at least one of two texts was edited. Author tries to determine which of them is interpolated.

Published

2012/12/10

Issue

Vol. 46 No. 2 (2012): Зборник радова Правног факултета у Новом Саду

Section

Original Scientific Paper

Ensuring a Blind Peer Review

To ensure the integrity of the blind peer-review for submission to this journal, every effort should be made to prevent the identities of the authors and reviewers from being known to each other. This involves the authors, editors, and reviewers (who upload documents as part of their review) checking to see if the following steps have been taken with regard to the text and the file properties:

The authors of the document have deleted their names from the text, with Author and year used in the references and footnotes, instead of the authors' name, article title, etc.;
With Microsoft Office documents, author identification should also be removed from the properties for the file (see under File in Word), by clicking on the following, beginning with File on the main menu of the Microsoft application: File > Save As > Tools (or Options with a Mac) > Security > Remove personal information from file properties on save > Save.
With PDFs, the authors' names should also be removed from Document Properties found under File on Adobe Acrobat's main menu.