Manumissions in accordance with ius civile and their consequences in terms of civil law

Abstract

As the slave labor was needed in Rome, slavery always existed as an establishment. In addition, it was possible for a slave to become free at a certain period of his life. When a master granted freedom to his slave due to various reasons, it would bear critical legal consequences. If such slave had been liberated based on one of the conditions required as per ius civile, he would have acquired citizenship and become a part of Roman civitas. In other words, leading his life as a freed man (libertinus), the former slave's legal status would change. Spending his life as a "person", he would be entitled to the capacity to have rights. Therefore, the emancipation processes and results were deemed very significant in the Roman society and the public authorities were involved in the procedure. On the other hand, the fact that a freed person was once a slave had a negative effect on the following periods of his life. Particularly during the first periods in the Roman society, the right of patronage (iura patronatus) was likely to affect the freedom acquired by the freedman negatively.Under Roman law, slaves were legally regarded in the status of property and could be the subject of one right only. The freeing of slaves was only possible by a juridical procedure called "manumissio" (emancipation). The Master's reasons of having this juridical procedure put into practice to free her or his slaves varied in different periods. Manumissio, is the act of changing the legal status of the slave, which was held in accordance with the forms and practices stated in ius civile at master's will to grant her or his slaves the freedom. Were the slave registered as the citizen thanks to this practice, the emancipated old slave would become " competent for the rights", in other words, the person who has the capacity to have rights. These formal practices were the oldest emancipation methods -manumissio vindicta (emancipation by a stick), manumissio censu (emancipation by the inventory), manumissio testamento (emancipation by testament). Apart from these emancipation forms, master's freeing his slave did not bear any legal consequences. Even though the slave was emancipated by her or his master, s/he was accepted as a slave before ius civile. However, in some cases where praetors laid bare the master's will to emancipate, there appeared the freed slaves living as free when the slave was patronised against the ownership claims. Unanticipated by Ius civile, these new forms did not grant the Roman citizenship to the emancipated slave along with the freedom endowed. These were the emancipation methods bearing legal consequences according to the Law of Praetor: Manumissio inter amicos (emancipation before the friends), manumissio per epistulam (emancipation by a letter), manumission per mensam (emancipation on the table).The emancipation practices had some effects and bore some consequences with regards to the private law. It is possible to examine these effects and consequences under two headings, one of which is in terms of the relationship between the freed (libertus) and the old master (patronus) and the other one is of the freed and the free from birth.The relation between the freed and the old master was based on fides and was bearing some mutual moral duties. It was customary in Rome that the slaves continued being liable to the master even after s/he was emancipated. This was seen as natural especially in the beginning and explained by the right of mastership (iura patronatus) of the master on her or his freed slave. These rights meant the tasks of reverentia and operae that the freed were supposed to perform. In addition to this, the master had the right to enter upon the inheritance (bona) when the freed died. While the word "obseqium" was used to refer to the respect that the kids were to show to their parents (and the freed to their masters and their children), the word "reverentia" was used to point out the obligation of showing respect that the kids were under to their parents and the freed to their masters and their children. Therefore it is impossible to think reverentia something different from obseqium. As for operae libertorum, it meant the services or works that the freed had to do for her or his old master for a certain period of time in her or his interest after s/he was emancipated.It should be noted here that the freed were not as equal as the free from birth in both the social life and public law. Even though they gained their freedoms, their lives were negatively affected by the fact that they were slaves in the past. They were, for example, deprived of the right to stand for election (ius honorum), and would have a limited use of their rights to vote (ius suffragii). In other words, their capacity was limited within the public law. Like the other Roman citizens (ius conubii), they had the right to get married. Having said that, although the marriage between the freeborn and the freed were accepted as legal and not subject to any penalty, such marriages were never well received in any period of the Roman society.