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

MANUMISSIO. MIANUS INJECTIO, 7,31
might be in the public road (in transitel), as when name as a cognomen, either some name by which
the praetor or proconsul was going to the bath or he was previously known, or some name assumed
the theatre. It was not the place which'determined on the occasion: tllhus we find the names L. Cornethe validity of such an act, but it was the cir- lius Chrysogonis, M. Tullius Tiro, P. Terentius
cumstance of its being done before a competent Afer, and other likenames. If he was manumitted
authority. by the state as a Servus publicus, he received the
The Lex Furia or Fusia Caninia fixed limits to civitas and a praenomen and gentile name, or he
the number of slaves who could be manumitted by took that of the magistratus before whom he was
will. The number allowed was a half, one third, manumitted. The slave also assumed the toga or
one fourth, and one fifth of the whole number that dress of a Roman citizen, shaved his head and put
the testator possessed, according to a scale fixed by on a pileus: this last circumstance explains the
the lex. As its provisions only applied to cases expression " servos ad pileuIn vocare " (Liv. xxiv.
where a man had more than two slaves, the owner 32), which means to invite the slaves to join in
of one slave or of two slaves was not affected by some civil disturbance by promising them liberty.
this lex. It also provided that the slaves to whom The relation between a Patronus and Libertus is
freedom was given, should be named. This lex stated under PATRONUS.
only applied to manumission by testament. It At the time when Gaius wrote, the peculiar
was passed about A. D. 7, and several senatuiscon- rights of Roman citizens were of less importance
sulta were made to prevent evasions of it. (Sueton. than they had been inder the republic. He states
Octav. 40; Gaius, i. 42-46.) This lex was re- that all slaves who were manumitted in the proper
pealed by Justinian. (Cod. 5. tit. 3. De lege Fus. form and under the proper legal conditions, became
Can. tollendca.) complete Roman citizens. But this could not have
A form of manumission "inter amicos " is al- been so in the earliest ages. The liberti of the
luded to by Gaius. This was in fact no legal plebeians, for instance, before their masters obmanumission, but it was a mere expression of the tained the honoree, could not be in a better conmaster's wish, which would have been sufficient in dition than those who manumitted them, and their
tlhe absence of all positive law. This might be masters had not then the complete civitas. The
done by inviting the slave to table, writing him a want of ingenuitas also affected their status; but
letter, or in any other less formal way. It is this continued to be the case even under the empire.
stated that originally such a gift of freedom could [INGENUI.]
be recalled, as to which there can be no doubt, as According to Dionysius (iv. 22), Servius Tullius
it was not legal freedom; but ultimately the prae- placed the libertini in the four Urbanae Tribus.
tor took persons who had been made free in this In B. c. 311, the censor Appius Claudius gave the
manner under his protection, and the Lex Junlia libertini a place in all the tribes. (Plut. Poplicol. 7;
Norbana gave them the status called Latinitas. Liv. ix. 46,; Diod. xx. 36.) In the year B. c. 304,
[LEx JUNIA NORBANA; LATINI.] they were again placed in the four tribus urbanae
A Manumissio sacrorum causa is sometimes (Liv. ix. 46); but it seems that the libertini did
mentioned as a kind of manumission, whereas the not keep to their tribus, for in B. c. 220 they were
words Sacrorum causa point rather to the grounds again placed in the four urbanae tribus. (Liv. Epit.
of the manumission: the form might be the usual xx.) In the censorship of Tiberius Gracchus,
form. (Festus, s.v. Mgnunzuitti, Purl; Savigny, B. c. 169, they were placed in one of the tribius
Zeitsc7zrift, vol. iii. p. 402.) urbanae determined by lot (Liv. xlv. 15; compare
Besides the due observance of the legal forms, DI)ionys. iv. 22), or as Cicero (de Or. i. 9) expresses
it was necessary in order to effect a complete manu- it, the father of Tiberius and Caius Sempronii
mission that the manumissor should have the Qui- transferred the libertini (nuitz atque verbo) into the
ritarian ownership of the slave. If the slave was tribus urbanae. Subsequently by a law of Aemilius
merely In bonis, lie only became a Latinus by Scaurus, about B. c. 1 l6, they were restored to the
manumission. A woman in tutela, and a pupillus four city tribes, and this remained their condition
or pupilla could not manuamit. If several persons to the end of the republic, though various attempts
werejoint owners (socii) of a slave, and one of them were made to give them a better suffrage. As to
manumitted the slave in such form as would have the attempt of the tribune, C. Manilius B. c. 58, to
effected complete manumission, if the slave had give the libertini votes in all the tribes, see Dioln
been the sole property of the manumissor, such Cassius (xxxvi. 25), and the note of Reimarus. As
manumissor lost his share in the slave which ac- to the distribution of the libertini in the. tribus,
crued to the other joint owner or joint owners. see Becker, Hansdbuch der Riioz. Alterthlibner.
Justinian enacted that if only one joint owner was A tax was levied on manumission by a Lex
willing to manumit a slave, the others might be Manlia. B. c. 357: it consisted of the twentieth
compelled to manumit on receiving the price fixed part of the value of the slave, hence called Vicesiby law for their shares. If one person had the ma. (Liv. vii. 16, xxvii. 10; Cic. ad Att. ii. 16.)
ususfructus and another the property of a slave, As to Manmnlissio, see Becker, H:andbuc7s des
and the slave was manumitted by him who had Roms. Alterthiinser, 2te Th. iste Abth.; Dig. 40.
the property, he did not become free till the usus- tit. 1. De MiIanusissionibus.) rG. L.]
fructus had expired: in the meantime, however, he MANUS. [AEs MANU.RzIUsi]
had no legal owner (doszingss). MANUS FERREA. [HARPAGO.]
The act of manumission established the relation MANUS INJE'CTIO is one of the five modi
of Patronus and Libertus between the manumnissor or forms of the Legis Actio according to Gaius (iv.
and the manumitted. [LIBERTus.] When manu- 12). It was in effect in some cases a kind of
mitted by a citizen, the Libertus took the praeno- execution. The judicati manus injectio was given
men and the gentile name of the manunissor, and by the Twelve Tables. The plaintiff (actor) laid
became in a sense a member of the Gens of his hold of the defendant, using the formal words
patron. To these two names he added some other " Cuod tu mihi judicatus sive damnlatus s sester