Since the critical studies of the texts on what is generally described as depositum irregulare made by J C Naber and G Longo and published in 1906 it has been impossible to argue that the relevant texts are wholly classical. Opinions have differed on whether the proper conclusion to draw from the contradictions, real and apparent, and the signs of interpolation in the texts is that depositum irregulare is wholly a creation of the Compilers or is that it had some classical basis but was extended in scope and modified in its rules when it was incorporated into the law of Justinian. The full and careful account of depositum irregulare and of the state of opinion given by W Litewski makes it unnecessary to enter into details. It is sufficient to say that most shades of opinion have found some support and the preponderance of modern views favours some classical recognition. What follows is not a full re-examination of depositum irregulare but a few observations on it in the light of the discussions which have taken place.

The first observation is that it seems rather doubtful whether it is wise to speak of depositum irregulare as an institution or a “figura giuridica” or the like. This suggests that depositum irregulare was more clearly defined than seems to be the case even in Justinian's law, which did recognise something which has been given that name by later commentators.