- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:3.1.1.pr-3.1.1.5
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-01
The restriction of eligibility for making applications in the praetorian edict, and the definition of 'applying'. It discusses the criteria of disqualification based on youth, physical disabilities (deafness, blindness), sex, or infamy, alongside exceptions and historical precedents.
[ULPIANUS libro sexto ad edictum.]
[ULPIAN, on the Edict, Book VI.]
Hunc titulum praetor proposuit habendae rationis causa1 suaeque dignitatis tuendae et decoris sui causa, ne sine delectu passim apud se postuletur.
The praetor proposed this title for the sake of showing proper consideration, preserving his own dignity, and for the sake of his own propriety, so that applications might not be made before him everywhere without selection.
Eapropter tres fecit ordines: nam quosdam in totum prohibuit postulare, quibusdam uel pro se permisit, quibusdam et pro certis dumtaxat personis et pro se permisit.
For this reason, he established three classes: for he prohibited certain persons from making applications entirely, allowed certain persons to do so at least for themselves, and allowed certain persons to do so both for specified persons only and for themselves.
Postulare autem est desiderium suum uel amici sui in iure apud eum, qui iurisdictioni praeest, exponere: uel alterius desiderio contradicere.
Now, to make an application is to set forth one’s own demand or that of one’s friend in court before the person who presides over jurisdiction, or to oppose another’s demand.
Initium autem fecit praetor ab his, qui in totum prohibentur postulare. in quo edicto aut pueritiam aut casum excusauit. pueritiam: dum minorem annis decem et septem, qui eos non in totum compleuit, prohibet postulare, quia moderatam hanc aetatem ratus est ad iure responsitasse.2 propter casum surdum qui prorsus non audit prohibet apud se postulare: nec enim erat permittendum ei postulare, qui decretum praetoris exaudire non poterat, quod etiam ipsi erat periculosum futurum: nam non exaudito decreto praetoris, quasi non obtemperasset, poena in contumax plecteretur.3
The praetor made a beginning with those who are prohibited from making applications entirely. In this edict, he took into account either youth or misfortune. As to youth: he prohibits anyone under seventeen years of age, who has not fully completed those years, from making applications, because he considered this age too immature to answer in court. On account of misfortune: he prohibits a deaf person, who cannot hear at all, from making applications before him; for indeed, one who was unable to hear the decree of the praetor ought not to have been permitted to make applications, which would also be dangerous to himself; for if the decree of the praetor were not heard, he would be punished with the penalty against the contumacious as if he had not obeyed.
Ait praetor: 'Si non habebunt aduocatum, 'ego dabo.' nec solum his personis hanc humanitatem praetor solet exhibere, uerum et si quis alius sit, qui certis ex causis uel ambitione aduersarii uel metu patronum non inuenit.
The praetor says: “If they do not have an advocate, I will give one.” And the praetor is accustomed to show this benevolence not only to these persons, but also if there is anyone else who, for certain reasons, either because of the influence of his adversary or through fear, cannot find a patron.
Secundo loco edictum proponitur in eos, qui pro aliis ne postulent: in quo edicto excepit praetor sexum et casum, item notauit personas in turpitudine notabiles. sexum: dum feminas prohibet pro aliis postulare. Et ratio quidem prohibendi, ne contra pudicitiam sexui congruentem alienis causis se immisceant, ne uirilibus officiis fungantur mulieres: origo uero introducta est a Carfania improbissima femina, quae inuerecunde postulans et magistratum inquietans causam dedit edicto. casum: dum caecum utrisque luminibus orbatum praetor repellit: uidelicet quod insignia magistratus uidere et reuereri non possit. refert etiam Labeo Publilium caecum Asprenatis Noni patrem auersa sella a Bruto destitutum,4 cum uellet postulare. quamuis autem caecus pro alio postulare non possit, tamen et senatorium ordinem retinet et iudicandi officio fungitur. numquid ergo et magistratus gerere possit? sed de hoc deliberabimus. exstat quidem exemplum eius, qui gessit: Appius denique Claudius caecus consiliis publicis intererat et in senatu seuerissimam dixit sententiam de Pyrrhi captiuis. sed melius est ut dicamus retinere quidem iam coeptum magistratum posse, adspirare autem ad nouum penitus prohiberi: idque multis comprobatur exemplis.
In the second place, the edict is proposed against those who may not make applications on behalf of others; in which edict the praetor made an exception for sex and misfortune, and also marked out persons notable for infamy. As to sex: he prohibits women from making applications on behalf of others. And the reason for prohibiting them is indeed that they should not intermeddle in the lawsuits of others contrary to the modesty appropriate to their sex, nor should women perform male offices; but the origin of this was introduced by Carfania, a most shameless woman, who, by impudently making applications and annoying the magistrate, gave cause for the edict. As to misfortune: the praetor rejects a person blind in both eyes; obviously because he cannot see and revere the insignia of the magistrate. Labeo also reports that Publilius the blind, father of Asprenas Nonus, was rejected by Brutus with his chair turned away when he wanted to make an application. But although a blind man cannot make applications on behalf of another, he nevertheless retains senatorial rank and performs the duty of judging. Could he then also hold magistracies? But we shall deliberate on this. Indeed, there exists an example of one who did so: Appius Claudius the blind, after all, took part in public councils and delivered a most severe opinion in the senate regarding Pyrrhus’ prisoners. But it is better for us to say that he can indeed retain a magistracy already begun, but is entirely prohibited from aspiring to a new one; and this is confirmed by many examples.
- 3.1.1.prhabendae rationis causa
A gerundive expression. Here it means 'for the sake of paying proper regard or consideration' by the praetor toward his duties and the order of the court.
- 3.1.1.3ad iure responsitasse
A corrupted reading in the manuscripts. It is generally understood to represent either the gerund 'ad iuri respondendum' (to answer in law) or the frequentative 'ad iure responsitandum' (to repeatedly make legal responses), referring to the capacity to make legal arguments.
- 3.1.1.3poena in contumax plecteretur
The phrase 'in contumax' (against the contumacious) uses the adjective substantively. It indicates the passive consequence of being punished with the penalty imposed for non-compliance.
- 3.1.1.5auersa sella a Bruto destitutum
'auersa sella' is an ablative absolute. It describes the scene where the magistrate (Brutus) turned his official chair (sella) away to refuse an audience, thereby ignoring and rejecting the person who wished to make an application.