Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

LIBERTUS. LYBERTUS. 705
LIBERO'RUM JUS. [LEx JULIA ET PArIA (that is, liberatus) with reference to his master;
PoPPAEA,] with reference to the class to which he belonged
LIBERTUS (aTrEXsV0epos), a freedman. i. after manumission, lie was Libertinus. According
GR EEK. It was not unfrequent for a master at to Suetonius, libertinus was the son of a libertus
Athens to restore a slave to freedom. A private in the time of the censor Appius Claudius, and
person, it appears, might liberate his slave without for some time after (Claud. c. 24); but this is not
any particular formality; sometimes the state the meaning of the word in the extant Roman
-would emancipate a slave, but then the purchase writers.
money had to be restored to his master. (Plat. There were three modes of Legitima manumisdce Leg. xi. p. 914.) The state into which a slave sio, the vindicta, the census. and the testamentum:
thus entered was called 7srXeeuOEpga, and he was if the manumitted slave was al)ove thirty years of
said to be KaO' iavur6v. (Demosth. pro Phorm. age, if he was the Quiritarian property of his
p. 945.) It is not quite certain whether those per- master, and if he was manumitted in proper form
sons who are termed oi XCpis OKOOUTES (Demosth. (ley/iio7e,,jGstla et lelgitimna 5l5cunumissione) he became
-Philip. i. p. 50) were likewise freedmen, as the a Civis Romanus: if any of these conditions were
gramnmarians assert, or vhether they were persons wanting, he became ai Latinus; and in some cases
yet in slavery, btht living separated from their nmas- only a Dediticius. [MANuMISSIO.] Thus there
ters' household; but in Demosthenes (e. Euesg. et were, as Ulpian observes, three kinds of Liberti:
llnaesib. p. 11 61) the expression Xwcpls E.tL is evi- Cives Romani, Latini Juniani, and Dediticii.
dently used as synonymous with " he has been The Status of a Civis Romanus and that of a
emancipated." A slave -when manumitted. entered Dediticils, have been already described. [CIVITAs;
into the status of a pETOzKos [METOECUS], uand DEDITICn.] As to the political condition of Liberas such he had not only to pay the I/eTObtlov, but tini under the republic, who were Cives Romani,
a triobolon in addition to it. IThis triobolol was see MAINUMIssIo.
probably the tax which slave-holders had to pay to Originally slaves who were so manumitted as
the republic for each slave they kept, so that the not to become Cives Romani, were still slaves; but
triobolon paid by freedmen was intended to in- the Praetor took them under his protection, and
demnify the state, which would otherwise have maintained their freedom, though he could not
lost by every manumission of a slave. (Bbckh, make them Cives Romammi. The Lex Junia gave
Publ. Econ. of Athezs, p. 331, &c., 2d edit.) The them a certain status, whiich was expressed by the
connection of a freedman with his former master phrase Latini Juniani: they were called Latini,
was however not broken off entirely on his nlanu- says Gains (i. 22, iii. 56), because they were put
mission, for he had throughout his life to regard on the same footing as the Latini Coloniarii, and
him as his patron (7rpoodr-Ss), and to fulfil certain Juniani because the Junia Lex gave them freedom,
duties towards him. In what these duties con- whereas before they were by strict law (ex Juar
sisted beyond the obligation of showing gratitude Qziritinem) slaves. Gains (iii. 56) says that the
and respect towards his deliverer, and of taking Lex Junia d2clared such manumitted persons to he
him for his patron in all his affairs, is uncertain. as free as if they had been Roman citizens by
though they seem to have been fixed by the laws birth (cices Roecani ingenui), who had gone out
of Athens. (Meier and Schim. Aft. Proc. p. 473, from Rome to join a Latin colony, and thereby
&c.; Petit. Leg. Att. ii. 6. p. 261; compare Plato, had become Latini Coloniarii: this passage, which
de Leg. xi. p. 915.) Whether the relation exist- is not free from diffcualty, is remarked on by
ing between a person and his freedman descended Savigny (Zeitschrift, ix. p. 320).
to the children of the latter, is likewise unknown. A Latinus could attain the Civitas in several
That a-master, in case his freedman died, had some ways. (Gainus, i. 28, &c.; Ulp. Frag. tit. 3; LAclaims to his property, is clear from Isaeus (de TINITAS.) As the patria potestas was a Jus pecuNicostrust. hered. c. 9; Rhetor. ad Alex. i. 16; liar to Roman citizens,it followed that a Latinus had
compare Bunsen, De Jur-. iered. At/l. p. 51). The not the (Roman) patria potestas over his children.
neglect of any of the duties which a freedman had If, however, be had married either a Latina and had
towards his former master, was prosecuted by the begotten a child, who would of course be a Latinus,
7rovTaetov &iKtc. [APosTASiou DIIE.] or had married a Roman civis, and had begotten
The Spartans likewise restored their slaves some- a child, which, by a senatusconsultum of Hadrian,
times to freedom, but in what degree such freed- would be a Romanus Givis, he might, by complying
men partook of the civic franchise is not known. with the provisions of the Lex Aelia Sentia, in the
That they could never receive the full Spartan former case obtain the civitas for himself, his wife,
firanchise is expressly stated by Dion Chrysosto- and child, and in both cases acquire the patria
mus (Orat. xxxvi. p. 448, b), but Miller (Dow. potests over his child just as if the child had been
iii. 3. ~ 5) entertains the opinion that Spartan born in juostae nuptiae. (Gains, i. 30. 66.)
freedmen, after passing through several stages, In considering the legal condition of Libertini,
might in the end obtain the full franchise; this it is necessary to remember that even those who
opinion however is more than doubtful. Spartan were Cives Romani were not Ingenui, and that
freedmen were frequently used in the armies and their patroni had still certain rights with respect
in the fleet, and were, according to Myro (ap. to them. The Latini Juniani were under some
At/len. vi. p. 271), designated by the names of special incapacities; for the Lex Junia which depafSra, atE'oiroToL, EpUc7v1PESe, ae-o-roovoYas'ae, te.rmined their status, neither gave them the power
and veoeac&6lets. [L. S.] of nsaking a will-, nor of taking property under a
2. ROMAN. Freemen (libe/i) were either In- will, nor of being named Tutores in a will. They
genui [INGENUI] or Libertini. Libertini were could not therefore take either as heredes or legathose persons who had been released from legal tarii, but the} could take by way of fidei-coomservitude (qui ex justa servilutetc azumissi sezz, missm. (Gains, i. 24.) The sons of libertini
Gaius, i 11). A manumitted slave was Libertos Iwere ingenui, but they could nlot have gentile rights;
z