[ULPIANUS libro sexto ad edictum. ] §3.1.1.6Remouet autem a postulando pro aliis et eum, qui corpore suo muliebria passus est.
He also removes from making applications on behalf of others anyone who has submitted to female functions with his body.
si quis tamen ui praedonum uel hostium stupratus est, non debet notari, ut et Pomponius ait.
If, however, anyone has been violated by the violence of robbers or enemies, he ought not to be marked with infamy, as Pomponius also says.
et qui capitali crimine damnatus est, non debet pro alio postulare.
And one who has been condemned for a capital crime ought not to make applications on behalf of another.
item senatus consulto etiam apud iudices pedaneos postulare prohibetur calumniae publici iudicii damnatus.
Likewise, by a senatus consultum, a person condemned for calumny in a public trial is prohibited from making applications even before assistant judges.
et qui operas suas, ut cum bestiis depugnaret, locauerit.
And anyone who has hired out his services to fight with wild beasts.
bestias autem accipere debemus ex feritate magis, quam ex animalis genere: nam quid si leo sit, sed mansuetus, uel alia dentata mansueta? ergo qui locauit solus notatur, siue depugnauerit siue non: quod si depugnauerit, cum non locasset operas suas, non tenebitur: non enim qui cum bestiis depugnauit, tenebitur, sed qui operas suas in hoc locauit.
Now we ought to understand wild beasts by their wildness rather than by the species of animal; for what if it is a lion, but tame, or some other toothy animal that is tame? Therefore, only the one who hired out his services is marked with infamy, whether he fought or not; but if he fought when he had not hired out his services, he will not be bound; for it is not the one who fought with wild beasts who will be bound, but the one who hired out his services for this purpose.
denique eos, qui uirtutis ostendendae causa hoc faciunt sine mercede, non teneri aiunt ueteres, nisi in harena passi sunt ne honorari: eos enim puto notam non euadere.
In short, the ancient jurists say that those who do this without reward for the sake of showing courage are not bound, unless they have submitted in the arena to not being honored; for I think these do not escape the stigma.
sed si quis operas suas locauerit, ut feras uenetur, uel ut depugnaret feram quae regioni nocet, extra harenam: non est notatus.
But if anyone has hired out his services to hunt wild beasts, or to fight with a wild beast that is harmful to a region, outside the arena, he is not marked with infamy.
his igitur personis, quae non uirtutis causa cum bestiis pugnauerunt, pro se praetor permittit allegare, pro alio prohibet.
Therefore, to these persons who fought with beasts not for the sake of courage, the praetor permits making representations for themselves, but prohibits them on behalf of another.
sed est aequissimum, si tutelam uel curam huiusmodi personae administrent, postulae eis pro his, quorum curam gerunt, concedi.
But it is most equitable, if persons of this kind administer a guardianship or a curatorship, that making applications be granted to them on behalf of those whose care they manage.
qui aduersus ea fecisse monstretur, et pro aliis interdicta postulatione repellitur et pro aestimatione iudicis extra ordinem pecuniaria poena multabitur. §3.1.1.7Ut initio huius tituli diximus, tres ordines praetor fecit non postulantium: quorum hie tertius est, quibus non in totum denegat postulandi facultatem, sed ne pro omnibus postularent: quasi minus deliquerint quam hi qui superioribus capitibus notantur. §3.1.1.8Ait praetor: 'Qui lege, plebis scito, senatus consulto, edicto, decreto principum nisi pro certis personis postulare prohibentur: hi pro alio, quam pro quo licebit, in iure apud me ne postulent. ' hoc edicto continentur etiam alii omnes, qui edicto praetoris ut infames notantur, qui omnes nisi pro se et certis personis ne postulent. §3.1.1.9Deinde adicit praetor: 'Qui ex his omnibus, qui supra scripti sunt, in integrum restitutus non erit, eum. ' 'Qui ex his, qui supra scripti sunt' sic accipe: si fuerit inter eos, qui tertio edicto continentur et nisi pro certis personis postulare prohibentur: ceterum si ex superioribus, difficile in integrum restitutio impetrabitur.
Anyone who is shown to have acted contrary to these provisions shall both be rejected, with applications on behalf of others prohibited, and be fined a pecuniary penalty extraordinarily according to the assessment of the judge.\n As we said at the beginning of this title, the praetor made three classes of those who do not make applications; of which this is the third, to whom he does not deny the capacity of making applications entirely, but prevents them from making applications on behalf of everyone, as if they had committed less of an offense than those who are marked with infamy in the preceding chapters.\n The praetor says: "Those who by law, plebiscite, senatus consultum, edict, or decree of the emperors are prohibited from making applications except on behalf of certain persons: let these not make applications in court before me on behalf of any other than those for whom it is permitted." In this edict are also contained all others who are marked as infamous by the edict of the praetor, all of whom may not make applications except for themselves and certain persons.\n Then the praetor adds: "Anyone of all these who are written above who has not been restored to his former position, him..." Understand "Anyone of those who are written above" in this way: if he is among those who are contained in the third edict and are prohibited from making applications except on behalf of certain persons; on the other hand, if he is from the preceding classes, a restoration to his former position will be obtained with difficulty.\n Now of what restoration is the praetor speaking?
§3.1.1.10De qua autem restitutione praetor loquitur? utrum de ea quae a principe uel a senatu? Pomponius quaerit: et putat de ea restitutione sensum, quam princeps uel senatus indulsit.
Whether of that which is granted by the emperor or by the senate? Pomponius asks, and thinks the reference is to that restoration which the emperor or the senate has granted.
an autem et praetor restituere possit, quaeritur: et mihi uidetur talia praetorum decreta non esse seruanda, nisi sicubi ex officio iurisdictionis suae subuenerunt: ut in aetate obseruatur, si quis deceptus sit, ceterisque speciebus quas sub titulo de in integrum restitutione exsequemur.
But whether the praetor also can restore is questioned; and it seems to me that such decrees of praetors are not to be maintained, unless in some cases they have brought relief by virtue of the office of their jurisdiction, as is observed in the case of age if anyone has been deceived, and in the other categories which we shall pursue under the title on restoration to former position.
pro qua sententia est, quod si quis famoso iudicio condemnatus per in integrum restitutionem fuerit absolutus, Pomponius putat hunc infamia eximi. §3.1.1.11Deinde adicit praetor: 'Pro alio ne postulent praeterquam pro parente, patrono patrona, liberis parentibusque patroni patronae': de quibus personis sub titulo de in ius uocando plenius diximus.
In favor of this opinion is the fact that if anyone condemned in a degrading trial has been acquitted through restoration to former position, Pomponius thinks he is freed from infamy.\n Then the praetor adds: "Let them not make applications on behalf of another except on behalf of a parent, patron, patroness, and the children and parents of a patron or patroness"; of which persons we have spoken more fully under the title on summoning to court.
Item adicit: 'liberisue suis, fratre sorore, uxore, socero socru, genero nuru, uitrico nouerca, priuigno priuigna, pupillo pupilla, furioso furiosa,'
Likewise he adds: "or their own children, brother, sister, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, male ward, female ward, madman, madwoman..."