[ULPIANUS libro primo ad edictum aedilium curulium. ] §21.1.14.prQuaeritur de ea muliere, quae semper mortuos parit, an morbosa sit: et ait Sabinus, si uuluae uitio hoc contingit, morbosam esse.
[ULPIANUS in the first book on the edict of the curule aediles.] It is asked concerning a woman who always gives birth to dead offspring, whether she is diseased; and Sabinus says that if this happens because of a defect of the womb, she is diseased.
§21.1.14.1Si mulier praegnas uenierit, inter omnes conuenit sanam eam esse: maximum enim ac praecipuum munus feminarum est accipere ac tueri conceptum:
If a pregnant woman is sold, it is agreed among all that she is healthy; for the greatest and chief function of women is to conceive and protect the conception.
§21.1.14.2Puerperam quoque sanam esse, si modo nihil extrinsecus accidit, quod corpus eius in aliquam ualetudinem immitteret.
A woman who has recently given birth is also healthy, provided that nothing has happened from without to plunge her body into some state of ill health.
§21.1.14.3De sterili Caelius distinguere Trebatium dicit, ut, si natura sterilis sit, sana sit, si uitio corporis, contra.
Concerning a sterile woman, Caelius says that Trebatius distinguishes: if she is sterile by nature, she is healthy; if because of a bodily defect, the contrary is true.
§21.1.14.4Item de eo qui urinam facit quaeritur.
Likewise, there is a question concerning one who wets the bed.
et Pedius ait non ob eam rem sanum non esse, quod in lecto somno uinoque pressus aut etiam pigritia surgendi urinam faciat: sin autem uitio uesicae collectum umorem continere non potest, non quia urinam in lecto facit, sed quia uitiosam uesicam habet, redhiberi posse: et uerius est quod Pedius.
And Pedius says that he is not unhealthy for the reason that he passes urine in bed when overcome by sleep and wine, or even from laziness in getting up; but if, owing to a defect of the bladder, he cannot contain the collected fluid, he can be returned, not because he passes urine in bed, but because he has a defective bladder. And what Pedius says is more correct.
§21.1.14.5Idem ait, si uua alicuius praecisa sit, tollere magis quam praestare redhibitionem, quod morbus minuitur: ego puto, si morbus desinit, non esse redhibitioni locum, sin autem uitium perseueret, redhibitionem locum habere.
The same writer says that if anyone's uvula has been cut away, this rather removes than provides a ground for redhibition, because the disease is diminished. I think that if the disease ceases, there is no room for redhibition, but if the defect persists, redhibition has a place.
§21.1.14.6Si quis digitis coniunctis nascatur, non uidetur sanus esse, sed ita demum, si incommodatur ad usum manus.
If anyone is born with webbed fingers, he does not seem to be healthy, but only if he is inconvenienced in the use of his hand.
§21.1.14.7Mulierem ita artam, ut mulier fieri non possit, sanam non uideri constat.
It is well established that a woman who is so narrow that she cannot become a woman is not considered healthy.
Si quis ἀντιάδας §21.1.14.8habeat, an redhiberi quasi uitiosus possit, quaeritur.
If anyone has tonsils, it is asked whether they can be returned as if defective.
et si ἀντιάδες hae sunt quas existimo, id est inueteratas, et qui iam discuti non possint faucium tumores, qui ἀντιάδας habet uitiosus est.
And if these tonsils are what I think they are, that is, deep-seated and throat swellings that can no longer be dispersed, one who has tonsils is defective.
§21.1.14.9Si uenditor nominatim exceperit de aliquo morbo et de cetero sanum esse dixerit aut promiserit, standum est eo quod conuenit (remittentibus enim actiones suas non est regressus dandus), nisi sciens uenditor morbum consulto reticuit: tunc enim dandam esse de dolo malo replicationem.
If the seller has specifically excepted some disease and has said or promised that for the rest the slave is healthy, the agreement must be stood by (for those who waive their actions are not to be given recourse), unless the seller, knowing of the disease, deliberately kept silent; for then a replication on the ground of fraud must be given.
§21.1.14.10Si nominatim morbus exceptus non sit, talis tamen morbus sit, qui omnibus potuit apparere (ut puta caecus homo ueniebat, aut qui cicatricem euidentem et periculosam habebat uel in capite uel in alia parte corporis), eius nomine non teneri Caecilius ait, perinde ac si nominatim morbus exceptus fuisset: ad eos enim morbos uitiaque pertinere edictum aedilium probandum est, quae quis ignorauit uel ignorare potuit.
If the disease was not specifically excepted, yet it was of such a nature as could be apparent to everyone (as, for instance, if a blind man was sold, or one who had an obvious and dangerous scar either on the head or on some other part of the body), Caecilius says that the seller is not liable on that account, just as if the disease had been specifically excepted; for it must be held that the edict of the aediles refers to those diseases and defects which a person was ignorant of or could have been ignorant of.