Indefensio and procedural resistance within and without the edictum perpetuum

Summary Lenel’s alleged edicts ut oportet non defendit have significantly influenced our understanding of the consequences of indefensio . Yet, this paper challenges the reality of these edictal provisions. Addressing what might be considered as a legal gap, the praetor’s prerogatives on indefensio both within and beyond the edictum perpetuum are comprehensively reassessed. It is concluded that the praetor regulated indefensio in his edict opportunistically, primarily to resolve complex situations of indefensio . In cases not covered by the edict, the praetor relied on his powers derived from iurisdictio and imperium to impose appropriate measures against the indefensus .