SI - AUT - NON: Die Ambiguität in D. 34.5.13(14).2-3 (Iul. sing. amb.)

D. 34.5.13(14).2-3 (Iul. sing. amb.) deals with a special case of stipulatio poenae. If one is promising a penalty, in case he would not (si non) deliver the slave X or (aut) the estate Y - what does he have to deliver to avoid the penalty: either slave or estate? Or both of them? The first interpretation would read «si non ... aut ...» as a negative disjunction: «if neither ... nor ...». The second one would read it as a disjunction of negated elements: «if either ... not ... or ... not ...». The way Julian treats the question, spreading out the ambiguity of the wording, has fascinated scholars of Roman law for generations. However, modern literature is not exactly correct in relying on the textual transmission. Giuliano does not decide the question on the grounds of his logical demonstration, but by his own authority. If there is 'logical mastership' in Julian, it is about impressing the reader and sharpening the problem, but not about resolving it.