Search

Italian films are typically financed through the same formula and it appears that at this stage of the production process there is little room for alternative possibilities. Starting from this prelimi- nary consideration, the article aims to demonstrate that alternative sources of financing exist, and moreover can generate positive benefits for the films themselves, both in economic and aesthetic terms. To do so, the article analyses the financing of In grazia di Dio (Edoardo Winspeare, 2013). To make the film, the producers invented an innovative tool that they called “pacco-baratto”, which is based on the free donation of goods and services by the local community. The article first investigates analogies and differences between the pacco-baratto method, on the one hand, and barter placement and crowd funding on the other. Second, it shows how pacco-baratto can improve the textual and extra-textual qualities of the film.

The article aims to understand why some Roman jurists sometimes needed to support their legal arguments with verses taken from the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer. As the first step, this study focused on the famous dispute between Sabinians and Proculians about the relationship between sale and barter, attested in two basic sources, Gaius, 3, 141, and Paul, 33 to edictum, D. 18, 1, 1, which contain four quotes from Homer; subsequently it has been extended to the entire repertory of quotations from Homer present in Roman legal texts surviving in the Corpus Juris Civilis. The general purpose of the research has been to explore the theory according to such quotes would have had merely rhetorical or decorative intents, lacking whatever purpose of hermeneutical clarification. The end of the research supports the hypothesis that, on the contrary, these poetical sources would serve not only and not so much to prove the Greek origin of the Roman disciplines, but to define or clarify the contours of technical expressions (as venenum in the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis, as analyzed in Gaius, 4 to legem XII tabularum, D. 50, 16, 236 pr., with respect to Od., 4, 230) or to illustrate special disciplines of Roman institutions with the support of the Greek quotations. This would be, therefore, a clear strategy of argumentation, introduced by Masurius Sabinus and improved by jurists of the second century b. Ch.

This paper analyses a famous excerpt from the roman jurist Paulus on the barter (Paul. 32 ad ed. D.19.4.1.4). According to the scholars this passage lists (even if confusedly) the available procedural remedies against the defaulting party, given the institution of a valid contract: action in id quod interest, aimed at obtaining a specific performance, and the condictio quasi re non secuta, for the recovery of what has already been given. However, this reconstruction does not consider the connection (igitur) with the previous § 3, in which it is affirmed that barter is void when a party delivers a third party property. So the author suggests to abandon Mommsen’s reconstruction based on Bas.20.3.1 and Paul 5 quaest. D.19.5.5.1, and to read, as cod. Vaticanus n. 1406 ‘ut interest’, instead of ‘ut res’ contained in F. The meaning of the passage will thus appear clear: since the delivery of a third party good makes the contract void, the only available remedy will be the recovery quasi re non secuta and not the enforcement of a performance. The alteration of F. was probably caused by an error in the transcription. The new interpretation discussed in this paper poses two interesting questions with regard to the application of the extension (quasi) of the condictio re non secuta or, less likely, of condictio incerti.