Ernesto Bianchi

ABSTRACT: The intricate classical law of disinheritance (= exheredatio). The respective description offered by Gaius Institutes: liberi iam nati under ius civile, ius honorarium and the scheme provided by the law – lex Iunia Vellaea – to quasi postumi. §§ 130-132 of Gaius Institutes, on the postumi, are usually reconstructed on the basis of Justinian’s Institutes (I. 2.13.1). The information available shows, however, various contradictions and greatly differs from the one of Tit. ex corp. Ulp. 22.21-22, where the same topic is discussed. Some reasons are emerging to doubt about the usual text reconstruction and a hypothesis of integration is offered, not according to the Justinian’s manual, but to the scheme provided by the Tituli. The widespread assumption that, in the lacuna that closes § 132, Gaius would have compared the situation of suae heredes postumae with the one of suae heredes iam natae, as it is stated in Epit. Gai 2.3.2, is confuted. KEY WORDS: testamentary inheritance, exheredatio, postumus, palaeographic problems. SOMMARIO: Premessa. – 1. Il regime complessivo dell’exheredatio in età classica. – 2. Gai. 2.130-132: un testo corrotto e problematico ricostruito sulla base di I. 2.13.1. – 3. L’informazione offerta da Tit. ex corp. Ulp. 22.21-22 in raffronto a quella contenuta nel manuale di Gaio: proposta di integrazione conforme al regime indicato dai Tituli. – 4. La lacuna che chiude il § 132: confutazione delle tradizionali ipotesi ricostruttive basate su Epit. Gai 2.3.2. – 5. Conclusioni.