Scanned text contains errors.
might be in the public road (in transitii), as when the praetor or proconsul was going to the bath or the theatre. It was not the place which determined the validity of such an act, but it was the circumstance of its being done before a competent authority.
The Lex Ftiria or Fusia Caninia fixed limits to the number of slaves who could be manumitted by will. The number allowed was a half, one third, one fourth, and one fifth of .the whole number that the testator possessed, according to a scale fixed by the lex. As its provisions only applied to cases where a man had more than two slaves, the owner of one slave or of two slaves was not affected by this lex. It also provided that the slaves to whom freedom was given, should be named. This lex only applied to manumission by testament. It was passed about A. d. 7, and several senatuscon-sulta were made to prevent evasions of it. (Sueton. Octav. 40 ; Gaius, i. 42—46.) This lex was repealed by Justinian. (Cod. 5. tit. 3. De lege Fus. Can. tollenda.}
A form of manumission " inter amicos " is alluded to by Gaius. This was in fact no legal manumission, but it was a mere expression of the master's wish, which would have been sufficient in the absence of all positive law. This might be done by inviting the slave to table, writing him a letter, or in any other less formal way. It is stated that originally such a gift of freedom could be recalled, as to which there can be no doubt, as it was not legal freedom ; but ultimately the praetor took persons who had been made free in this manner under his protection, and the Lex Junia Norbana gave them the status called Latinitas. [lex junta norbana ; latini.]
A Manumissio sacrorum causa is sometimes mentioned as a kind of manumission, whereas the words Sacrorum causa point rather to the grounds of the manumission : the form might be the usual form. (Festus, s. v. Mamtmitti, Pun; Savigny, Zeitsclirift* vol. iii. p. 402.)
Besides the due observance of the legal forms, it was necessary in order to effect a complete manumission that the manumissor should have the Qui-ritarian ownership of the slave. If the slave was merely In bonis, he only became a Latinus by manumission. A woman in tutela, and a pupillus or pupilla could not manumit. If several persons were joint owners (socii) of a slave, and one of them manumitted the slave in such form as would have effected complete manumission, if the slave had been the sole property of the manumissor, such manumissor lost his share in the slave which accrued to the other joint owner or joint owners. Justinian enacted that if only one joint owner was willing to manumit a slave, the others might be compelled to manumit on receiving the price fixed by law for their shares. If one person had the ususfructus and another the property of a slave, and the slave was manumitted by him who had the property, he did not become free till the ususfructus had expired: in the meantime, however, he had no legal owner (dominus).
The act of manumission established the relation of Patronus and Libertus between the manumissor and the manumitted. [libertus.] When manumitted by a citizen, the Libertus took the praeno-men and the gentile name of the manumissor, and became in a sense a member of the Gens of his patron. To these two names he added some other
name as a cognomen, either some name by which he was previously known, or some name assumed on the occasion : thus we find the names L. Cornelius Chrysogonus, M. Tullius Tiro, P. Terentius Afer, and other like names. If he was manumitted by the state as a Servus publicus, he received the civitas and a praenomen and gentile name, or he took that of the magistratus before whom he was manumitted. The slave also assumed the toga or dress of a Roman citizen, shaved his head and put on a pileus: this last circumstance explains the expression " servos ad pileuin vocare " (Liv. xxiv. 32), which means to invite the slaves to join in some civil disturbance by promising them liberty. The relation between a Patronus and Libertus is stated under patronus.
At the time when Gains wrote, the peculiar rights of Roman citizens were of less importance than they had been under the republic. He states that all slaves who were manumitted in the proper form and under the proper legal conditions, became complete Roman citizens. But this could not have been so in the earliest ages. The liberti of the plebeians, for instance, before their masters obtained the honores, could not be in a better condition than those who manumitted them, and their masters had not then the complete civitas. The want of ingenuitas also affected their status ; but this continued to be the case even under the empire.
According to Dionysius (iv. 22), Servius Tullius placed the libertini in the four Urbanae Tribus. In b. c. 311, the censor Appius Claudius gave the libertini a place in all the tribes. (Pint. Poplicol. 7 ; Liv. ix. 46 ; Diod. xx. 36.) In the years, c. 304, they were again placed in the four tribus urbanae (Liv. ix. 46) ; but it seems that the libertini did not keep to their tribus, for in b. c. 220 they were again placed in the four urbanae tribus. (Liv. Epit. xx.) In the censorship of Tiberius Gracchus, b.c. 169, they were placed in one of the tribus urbanae determined by lot (Liv. xlv. 15 ; compare Dionys. iv. 22), or as Cicero (de Or. i. 9) expresses it, the father of Tiberius and Caius Sempronii transferred the libertini (nutu atque verbo} into the tribus urbanae. Subsequently by a law of Aemilius Scaurus, about b. c. 116, they were restored to the four city tribes, and this remained their condition to the end of the republic, though various attempts were made to give them a better suffrage. As to the attempt of the tribune, C. Manilius b. c. 58, to give the libertini votes in all the tribes, sec Dion Cassius (xxxvi. 25), and the note of Reimarus. As to the distribution of the libertini in the tribus, see Becker, Handbuck der Rom. Altertliumer.
A tax was levied on manumission by a Lex Manlia, b. c. 357: it consisted of the twentieth part of the value of the slave, hence called Vicesi- ma. (Liv. vii. 16, xxvii. 10 ; Cic. ad Att. ii. 16.) As to Manumissio, see Becker, flandbuch der Rom. Alterthumer, 2te Th. Iste Abth. ; Dig. 40. tit. 1. De Manumissionibus.) [G. L.]
MANUS. [aes manuarium,]
MANUS FERREA. [harpago.]
MANUS INJECTIO is one of the five modi or forms of the Legis Actio according to Gaius (iv. 12). It was in effect in some cases a kind of execution. The judicati manus injectio was given by the Twelve Tables. The plaintiff (actor} laid hold of the defendant, using the formal words " Quod tu mihi judicatus sive damnatus es sestet-