3. STATUS SLAVERY, AND CITIZENSHIP
Status lay at the heart of the law of persons. The law of persons described the various categories of status, and hot
it could be acquired and lost.
Legal Personality
For Roman jurists, persons essentially meant human beings, but there are instances where non- human entities
were recognized as acquiring rights and duties, eg collegia, churches amongst others. (for these examples read
pages 85 and 86)
Status
3 constituent elements of status in Roman law of persons- libertas, civitas and familia. Person of full status
possessed all 3 elements: he had libertas (freedom) and thus was not a slave, he had civitas (citizenship) thus a
citizen of Rome and not a foreigner, and he had familia thus belonging to a Roman household. Loss of any of these
3 resulted in capitis deminutio (a loss of status).
There are 3 kinds of change of civil status: when we lose all 3... the change of civil status is the greatest (when a
citizen is enslaved). But when we lose citizenship and retain freedom the change of status is in the middle
(occurred mostly when a person was deported for some misdemeanour’s). If only family is changed then the
change of status is the least- Paul, Sabinus, Bk 2.
Freedom and the law of slavery
Gaius states in the Institutes Book 1- all men are either free men or slaves.
This is the primary classification in the law of persons i.e. people either have freedom or they are slaves. Thus
what is freedom?
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9- Freedom is one's natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is
ruled out either by coercion or by law.
Therefore it recognizes that freedom is a natural condition. At the same the same jurist went on to define slavery,
thus drawing a distinction between freedom and slavery.
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9: Slavery is an instituition of the ius gentium (law of nations), whereby someone is
against nature made subject to the ownership of another.
Being subject to against nature is consistent with the definition of freedom, whereby freedom is natural and thus
slavery must be unnatural. The description of a slave as an object of ownership is significant as slaves were
regarded as property, thus be acquired, owned and disposed. However, they were a special type of property, res
mancipi, which in theory necessitated that their transfer should be effected by formal methods of conveyancing.
Slaves could be owned by a private individual owner, or they could be public slaves working for the roman civil
service. Slaves did not have any rights, generally because they were things and things did not have any rights.
Nevertheless, there are scenarios where the slave can have certain privileges or power to alter legal relation eg a
slave could make a contract on behalf of his master.
Slave in the Roman society
In early Rome slaves were treated well, possibly because they were a few of them. Treatment of slaves
deteriorated after Roman expansion plus the increase in capture of foreigners. As a result slaves were cheap and
disposable. There never once was a general policy of brutality towards the slave. Slaves could only hope to
improve their condition through manumission, the legal release of a person from slavery.
Enslavement
It could arise through the sale of children, punishment, capture or by birth.
• Sale of children- In early law, the paterfamilias had the right to sell children into slavery. Evetually this
power was banned. It was revived in the Empire in limited circumstances: newly born children could be
, sold into slavery on the grounds of poverty, but a right to redemption was reserved to the parents should
their circumstance improve. When redeemed the child gained his original status.
• Punishment- In the event of a crime, under the twelve tables, a thief who was caught stealing became a
slave of his intended victim. There were penal slaves whose sentence involved working in the mines or
fighting wild beasts and were the most degraded slaves, ownerless and incapable of being manumitted. A
pardon was their only hope of survival. Those who evaded the census, thus escaping the liability to be
taxed or serve in the legions, could be enslaved by the state. Also debtors who failed to pay their debts
could be enslaved. A freedman (ex- slave) could be re- enslaved if he showed ingratitude to his patron
(former master). Selling oneself was invalid as a free person could not be the object of a contract of sale.
Attempts to sell oneself were punishable by enslavement.
• Capture- Resulted mainly from the capture in war of foreigner prisoners and also where a foreigner was
arrested on Roman territory in times of peace, not having lawful justification of his presence there. In
theory these slaves belonged to the Roman people as a whole, but most of them probably became slaves in
private hands. The same position was regarded for Romans captured by the enemy, suffering the greatest
change of status once captured, losing all legal powers, property owned etc. What if the slave escaped or
was released? He remained a slave unless he was entitled to postliminium (benefit of re-entering the
borders)
Pomponius states: if during the same war he returns he has postliminium, that is, all his rights are restored
to him just as if he had not been captured by the enemy.
For the ex captive to be entitled to the benefits of postliminium, it had to be shown that the capture had
occurred in honourable circumstances and that the return to Rome (or to her allies) had been made at the
first reasonable opportunity. Whether return had to be during the same war as stated above is unclear.
• Birth- The basic rule of ius gentium was that the child took the status of the mother at the time of the
child's birth. Thus slavery of a child occurred if the mother was a slave at the time of giving birth, owned
by the mothers master. If the mother was a citizen and the father a slave, the child would be born a citizen.
However a number of exceptions emerged to this.
S C Claudianum provided that if a female citizen cohabited with another's male slave, despite the owner's
objection, any issue resulting from the union belonged to the slave's owner, who could claim the mother as
well.
Hadrian brought about 2 important changes- he decreed that the owner could claim the mother and the
child together or neither- an attempt to avoid separation of the mother an the child. He also decreed that a
child born to a slave mother was free if the mother had been free at the time of conception or at any time
between conception and birth.
Legal position of the slave
Slaves lacked rights. Slaves were human things (the objects of rights) without legal personality owned by their
masters as res mancipi.
• Maltreatment- Financial value of a slave would have influenced masters treatment of it. Educated slaves
were expensive things that would be properly maintained by their masters to preserve their investment. In
early law a master could do as he pleased with his slave. However, brutal treatment of slaves could result in
disapproval from the censors, resulting in legal disgrace. In 81 BC, the unjustified killing of another's slave
was made a crime. A lex Petronia penalized masters who forced their slaves to fight wild beasts in the
arena without the consent of a magistrate in the 1st century AD. Claudius issued an edict stating that if a
slave had been abandoned due to old age or sickness he would obtain freedom and the status of Junian
Latin. Domitian AD 81-96 prohibited the castration of slaves.
In Hadrians reign reform came about in regards to the castration above: Ulpian, Duties of Proconsul Bk 7:
Should anyone act in defiance of my edict, the doctor performing the operation shall suffer a capital
penalty.
Hadrian also enacted measures that forbade masters from killing their slaves without consent of the
magistrates. Antoninus went further to state that unjustified killing of a slave by a master constituted
, criminal homicide. (look at the text on page 93) This text allowed a slave to initiate a process that might
lead to improvement in his treatment. Further under Constantine it was made an offence to kill a slave,
even with a cause, if the manner deemed was excessively cruel.
• Legal Proceedings and noxal surrender- Slaves could not be parties to a civil action, but they were
personally liable for any crimes they committed. They could be compelled to act as witnesses but not
against their own masters. In criminal and civil proceedings they were examinable under torture. If the
salve was a victim of delict, it was his master who could sue. If the slave committed a delict, he could not
be sued, but the master was liable. The master had a choice to pay damages or to hand over the slave to the
victim. Under Justinian, a slave who had been handed over, and worked off the damages could be
presumed to be entitled to his freedom. The option of surrendering the slave was called noxal surrender.
Noxal liability operated in a manner where there was a change of master after the commission of a delict,
the liability followed the wrongdoer i.e. whoever was the master at the time when the victim took
proceedings was liable. (Ulpian, Edict, Book 3 states this as well in D.9.4.7pr.)
• Property – the peculium- A slave could not own property basic rule! Anything he acquired in the form of
earnings gifts etc belonged to the master. (Gaius, Institutes, book 2- D.41.1.10.1. Reaffirms this position).
Masters allowed their slaves a peculium- property for the slaves use and enjoyment:
Pomponius, Sabinus, book 7- what the salve holds with the master's consent which constitutes the
peculium.
The peculium could take any form besides money, often being a commercial establishment, even of other
slaves. Peculium was not a static fund, but could grow and diminish according to the salve's business
acumen. The size of the peculium was only determined upon condemnation if a creditor sued the
paterfamilias on the basis of a debt incurred by the slave using his peculium. It was granted by the master
to the slave, for the latter’s development, utilization and enlargement through labour, transactions and
manipulation- free administration of the peculium. It provided the slave of an incentive to work hard.
Strictly the slave had no rights in the peculium: the master was the absolute owner. Slaves were regarded as
virtual owners. And when slaves were freed by the masters will, it was common for them to receive the
peculium by way of legacy.
• Contracts- Could not generally make contracts for themselves, but could for their masters. In the latter case
the master was not bound by the contract, although he could enforce it. Praetors made a crucial intervention
to this in the late Republic by allowing actions against the master in certain circumstances, collectively
known as actiones adiecticiae qualitatis were available against owners whose slaves had incurred debts
while acting as business agents.
• Personal relationships- they could not be parties to marriages except for public slaves. Sexual union was
legally recognized.
Release from slavery
A slave could gain freedom in many ways eg if his master abandoned him. The status of slavery could be removed
as a reward for the services to the State. Release from slavery was normally complimented with the conferment of
citizenship. Manumission was the most important manner in which a slave was freed, the process where his master
free him. Formal manumission resulted in the slave becoming free and a citizen. Slaves could be manumitted by
vindicta (by the rod), by census, by will and by declaration in church.
• Manumissio vindicta- the master, his slave and a third party, the adsertor libertatis (asserter of freedom),
appeared before a high ranking magistrate, normally the praetor. The adsertor was normally a lictor, the
magistrate's assistant. The adsertor claimed the slave to be free, touching him with the ceremonial rod. The
master ceded the slave by remaining silent and touching him with the rod. Magistrate's consent was
necessary, and if given, the slave was unconditionally freed forthwith.
• Manumission by census- If a slave was enrolled on the census by the master's approval, he was formally
manumitted. Consent of the censors was necessary. This form of manumission became obsolete in the early
Empire.
, • Manumission by will- freedom could be granted in a will, either as a direct legacy to the slave, or by way
of a trust imposed on the heir or a legatee to manumit him. The words granting freedom had to be express
and phrased in the imperative. In later law, implied manumission was allowed by Justinian. The salve had
to be clearly identified, small mistakes like misspelling could be ignored.
Testators could impose conditions when freeing slaves (statuliberi). Thus such slaves remained slaves until
the condition was satisfied but their position was preferable to that of ordinary slaves. The testator's heir
became owner of statuliberi, including the slaves children before the satisfaction of the condition. Illegal
and immoral conditions were ignored, as were impossible conditions. These conditions would simply be
struck out and the slave be free unconditionally. The general rule was that the slave was freed from the
moment when the heir entered upon the inheritance i.e. when he did anything characteristic of an heir. The
general rule did not apply to statuliberi who were freed when the conditions were met.
• Informal manumission- this occurred when the master did not follow the formal methods but had a clear
intention that the slave should be freed. Relevant intent could be demonstrated by letter or between friends.
In the former case, the slave was freed by appropriate written words, having effect from the time of
appraisal. The latter needed a declaration by the master in the presence of friends or family. In later law
any witnessed act sufficed to show intent. Before reforms by Augustus this form of manumission was void,
but the slave was recognised as having de facto freedom protected by the praetor should the master
exercise his full rights.
Manumission reforms of Augustus
• Lex Fufia Caninia- restricted the number of slaves that could be manumitted by will. Maximum that could
be free was 100, the permitted quota varying in proportion to the number of slaves owned by the deceased.
If to many slaves were named in the will, the first named (within the permitted number) were freed; and if
the testator put the names in a circle, s that no clear order was ascertainable, none of the slaves were freed.
• Lex Junia- The statute tackled the problems of uncertain status of informally manumitted slaves by creating
a new status for them, that of Junian Latin, whereby the salve acquired freedom, but not citizenship.
• Lex Aelia Sentia- important provisions in this statute include; establishing a council (both in Rome and the
provinces) to investigate manumissions.
Any manumission was deemed void if the master was under 20 years of age unless he obtained permission
from the council on showing good cause.
Paul, Lex Aelia Sentia, Book 1, provides an example of good cause- the slave may have aided the master
in a battle, protected him against brigands, healed him in sickness, uncovered a plot... since many services
can occur for which it is honourable to grant freedom by a formal decision...
The statute also includes; a slave under the age of 30 cannot be manumitted except for a good cause and
with permission of the council. A manumission in the breach of this rule resulted in the slave becoming
Junian Latin.
Certain slaves with criminal records were prohibited from becoming citizens on manumission. They were
given the status of dediticii.
Manumissions made to defraud creditors were deemed void. A manumission made by an insolvent master
fell in this category, irrespective of his intention.
Gaius comments on this, It is deemed that a man manumits to the detriment of creditors if he is insolvent at
the time of manumission of would become insolvent after the grants of freedom; for men often hope that
their assets are greater than they actually are.
Justinians reforms
He simplified the law on manumission. The status of Junian Latin and dediticii was abolished. Citizenship was
acquired on informal as well as formal manumission. The old methods for informal manumission was still used,
but needed to be evidenced by a document attested by 5 witnesses. The quotas for manumission by will were
abolished- lex filia repealed. The rule that slaves had to be aged at least 30 years was abolished.
Status lay at the heart of the law of persons. The law of persons described the various categories of status, and hot
it could be acquired and lost.
Legal Personality
For Roman jurists, persons essentially meant human beings, but there are instances where non- human entities
were recognized as acquiring rights and duties, eg collegia, churches amongst others. (for these examples read
pages 85 and 86)
Status
3 constituent elements of status in Roman law of persons- libertas, civitas and familia. Person of full status
possessed all 3 elements: he had libertas (freedom) and thus was not a slave, he had civitas (citizenship) thus a
citizen of Rome and not a foreigner, and he had familia thus belonging to a Roman household. Loss of any of these
3 resulted in capitis deminutio (a loss of status).
There are 3 kinds of change of civil status: when we lose all 3... the change of civil status is the greatest (when a
citizen is enslaved). But when we lose citizenship and retain freedom the change of status is in the middle
(occurred mostly when a person was deported for some misdemeanour’s). If only family is changed then the
change of status is the least- Paul, Sabinus, Bk 2.
Freedom and the law of slavery
Gaius states in the Institutes Book 1- all men are either free men or slaves.
This is the primary classification in the law of persons i.e. people either have freedom or they are slaves. Thus
what is freedom?
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9- Freedom is one's natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is
ruled out either by coercion or by law.
Therefore it recognizes that freedom is a natural condition. At the same the same jurist went on to define slavery,
thus drawing a distinction between freedom and slavery.
Florentinus, Institutes, Book 9: Slavery is an instituition of the ius gentium (law of nations), whereby someone is
against nature made subject to the ownership of another.
Being subject to against nature is consistent with the definition of freedom, whereby freedom is natural and thus
slavery must be unnatural. The description of a slave as an object of ownership is significant as slaves were
regarded as property, thus be acquired, owned and disposed. However, they were a special type of property, res
mancipi, which in theory necessitated that their transfer should be effected by formal methods of conveyancing.
Slaves could be owned by a private individual owner, or they could be public slaves working for the roman civil
service. Slaves did not have any rights, generally because they were things and things did not have any rights.
Nevertheless, there are scenarios where the slave can have certain privileges or power to alter legal relation eg a
slave could make a contract on behalf of his master.
Slave in the Roman society
In early Rome slaves were treated well, possibly because they were a few of them. Treatment of slaves
deteriorated after Roman expansion plus the increase in capture of foreigners. As a result slaves were cheap and
disposable. There never once was a general policy of brutality towards the slave. Slaves could only hope to
improve their condition through manumission, the legal release of a person from slavery.
Enslavement
It could arise through the sale of children, punishment, capture or by birth.
• Sale of children- In early law, the paterfamilias had the right to sell children into slavery. Evetually this
power was banned. It was revived in the Empire in limited circumstances: newly born children could be
, sold into slavery on the grounds of poverty, but a right to redemption was reserved to the parents should
their circumstance improve. When redeemed the child gained his original status.
• Punishment- In the event of a crime, under the twelve tables, a thief who was caught stealing became a
slave of his intended victim. There were penal slaves whose sentence involved working in the mines or
fighting wild beasts and were the most degraded slaves, ownerless and incapable of being manumitted. A
pardon was their only hope of survival. Those who evaded the census, thus escaping the liability to be
taxed or serve in the legions, could be enslaved by the state. Also debtors who failed to pay their debts
could be enslaved. A freedman (ex- slave) could be re- enslaved if he showed ingratitude to his patron
(former master). Selling oneself was invalid as a free person could not be the object of a contract of sale.
Attempts to sell oneself were punishable by enslavement.
• Capture- Resulted mainly from the capture in war of foreigner prisoners and also where a foreigner was
arrested on Roman territory in times of peace, not having lawful justification of his presence there. In
theory these slaves belonged to the Roman people as a whole, but most of them probably became slaves in
private hands. The same position was regarded for Romans captured by the enemy, suffering the greatest
change of status once captured, losing all legal powers, property owned etc. What if the slave escaped or
was released? He remained a slave unless he was entitled to postliminium (benefit of re-entering the
borders)
Pomponius states: if during the same war he returns he has postliminium, that is, all his rights are restored
to him just as if he had not been captured by the enemy.
For the ex captive to be entitled to the benefits of postliminium, it had to be shown that the capture had
occurred in honourable circumstances and that the return to Rome (or to her allies) had been made at the
first reasonable opportunity. Whether return had to be during the same war as stated above is unclear.
• Birth- The basic rule of ius gentium was that the child took the status of the mother at the time of the
child's birth. Thus slavery of a child occurred if the mother was a slave at the time of giving birth, owned
by the mothers master. If the mother was a citizen and the father a slave, the child would be born a citizen.
However a number of exceptions emerged to this.
S C Claudianum provided that if a female citizen cohabited with another's male slave, despite the owner's
objection, any issue resulting from the union belonged to the slave's owner, who could claim the mother as
well.
Hadrian brought about 2 important changes- he decreed that the owner could claim the mother and the
child together or neither- an attempt to avoid separation of the mother an the child. He also decreed that a
child born to a slave mother was free if the mother had been free at the time of conception or at any time
between conception and birth.
Legal position of the slave
Slaves lacked rights. Slaves were human things (the objects of rights) without legal personality owned by their
masters as res mancipi.
• Maltreatment- Financial value of a slave would have influenced masters treatment of it. Educated slaves
were expensive things that would be properly maintained by their masters to preserve their investment. In
early law a master could do as he pleased with his slave. However, brutal treatment of slaves could result in
disapproval from the censors, resulting in legal disgrace. In 81 BC, the unjustified killing of another's slave
was made a crime. A lex Petronia penalized masters who forced their slaves to fight wild beasts in the
arena without the consent of a magistrate in the 1st century AD. Claudius issued an edict stating that if a
slave had been abandoned due to old age or sickness he would obtain freedom and the status of Junian
Latin. Domitian AD 81-96 prohibited the castration of slaves.
In Hadrians reign reform came about in regards to the castration above: Ulpian, Duties of Proconsul Bk 7:
Should anyone act in defiance of my edict, the doctor performing the operation shall suffer a capital
penalty.
Hadrian also enacted measures that forbade masters from killing their slaves without consent of the
magistrates. Antoninus went further to state that unjustified killing of a slave by a master constituted
, criminal homicide. (look at the text on page 93) This text allowed a slave to initiate a process that might
lead to improvement in his treatment. Further under Constantine it was made an offence to kill a slave,
even with a cause, if the manner deemed was excessively cruel.
• Legal Proceedings and noxal surrender- Slaves could not be parties to a civil action, but they were
personally liable for any crimes they committed. They could be compelled to act as witnesses but not
against their own masters. In criminal and civil proceedings they were examinable under torture. If the
salve was a victim of delict, it was his master who could sue. If the slave committed a delict, he could not
be sued, but the master was liable. The master had a choice to pay damages or to hand over the slave to the
victim. Under Justinian, a slave who had been handed over, and worked off the damages could be
presumed to be entitled to his freedom. The option of surrendering the slave was called noxal surrender.
Noxal liability operated in a manner where there was a change of master after the commission of a delict,
the liability followed the wrongdoer i.e. whoever was the master at the time when the victim took
proceedings was liable. (Ulpian, Edict, Book 3 states this as well in D.9.4.7pr.)
• Property – the peculium- A slave could not own property basic rule! Anything he acquired in the form of
earnings gifts etc belonged to the master. (Gaius, Institutes, book 2- D.41.1.10.1. Reaffirms this position).
Masters allowed their slaves a peculium- property for the slaves use and enjoyment:
Pomponius, Sabinus, book 7- what the salve holds with the master's consent which constitutes the
peculium.
The peculium could take any form besides money, often being a commercial establishment, even of other
slaves. Peculium was not a static fund, but could grow and diminish according to the salve's business
acumen. The size of the peculium was only determined upon condemnation if a creditor sued the
paterfamilias on the basis of a debt incurred by the slave using his peculium. It was granted by the master
to the slave, for the latter’s development, utilization and enlargement through labour, transactions and
manipulation- free administration of the peculium. It provided the slave of an incentive to work hard.
Strictly the slave had no rights in the peculium: the master was the absolute owner. Slaves were regarded as
virtual owners. And when slaves were freed by the masters will, it was common for them to receive the
peculium by way of legacy.
• Contracts- Could not generally make contracts for themselves, but could for their masters. In the latter case
the master was not bound by the contract, although he could enforce it. Praetors made a crucial intervention
to this in the late Republic by allowing actions against the master in certain circumstances, collectively
known as actiones adiecticiae qualitatis were available against owners whose slaves had incurred debts
while acting as business agents.
• Personal relationships- they could not be parties to marriages except for public slaves. Sexual union was
legally recognized.
Release from slavery
A slave could gain freedom in many ways eg if his master abandoned him. The status of slavery could be removed
as a reward for the services to the State. Release from slavery was normally complimented with the conferment of
citizenship. Manumission was the most important manner in which a slave was freed, the process where his master
free him. Formal manumission resulted in the slave becoming free and a citizen. Slaves could be manumitted by
vindicta (by the rod), by census, by will and by declaration in church.
• Manumissio vindicta- the master, his slave and a third party, the adsertor libertatis (asserter of freedom),
appeared before a high ranking magistrate, normally the praetor. The adsertor was normally a lictor, the
magistrate's assistant. The adsertor claimed the slave to be free, touching him with the ceremonial rod. The
master ceded the slave by remaining silent and touching him with the rod. Magistrate's consent was
necessary, and if given, the slave was unconditionally freed forthwith.
• Manumission by census- If a slave was enrolled on the census by the master's approval, he was formally
manumitted. Consent of the censors was necessary. This form of manumission became obsolete in the early
Empire.
, • Manumission by will- freedom could be granted in a will, either as a direct legacy to the slave, or by way
of a trust imposed on the heir or a legatee to manumit him. The words granting freedom had to be express
and phrased in the imperative. In later law, implied manumission was allowed by Justinian. The salve had
to be clearly identified, small mistakes like misspelling could be ignored.
Testators could impose conditions when freeing slaves (statuliberi). Thus such slaves remained slaves until
the condition was satisfied but their position was preferable to that of ordinary slaves. The testator's heir
became owner of statuliberi, including the slaves children before the satisfaction of the condition. Illegal
and immoral conditions were ignored, as were impossible conditions. These conditions would simply be
struck out and the slave be free unconditionally. The general rule was that the slave was freed from the
moment when the heir entered upon the inheritance i.e. when he did anything characteristic of an heir. The
general rule did not apply to statuliberi who were freed when the conditions were met.
• Informal manumission- this occurred when the master did not follow the formal methods but had a clear
intention that the slave should be freed. Relevant intent could be demonstrated by letter or between friends.
In the former case, the slave was freed by appropriate written words, having effect from the time of
appraisal. The latter needed a declaration by the master in the presence of friends or family. In later law
any witnessed act sufficed to show intent. Before reforms by Augustus this form of manumission was void,
but the slave was recognised as having de facto freedom protected by the praetor should the master
exercise his full rights.
Manumission reforms of Augustus
• Lex Fufia Caninia- restricted the number of slaves that could be manumitted by will. Maximum that could
be free was 100, the permitted quota varying in proportion to the number of slaves owned by the deceased.
If to many slaves were named in the will, the first named (within the permitted number) were freed; and if
the testator put the names in a circle, s that no clear order was ascertainable, none of the slaves were freed.
• Lex Junia- The statute tackled the problems of uncertain status of informally manumitted slaves by creating
a new status for them, that of Junian Latin, whereby the salve acquired freedom, but not citizenship.
• Lex Aelia Sentia- important provisions in this statute include; establishing a council (both in Rome and the
provinces) to investigate manumissions.
Any manumission was deemed void if the master was under 20 years of age unless he obtained permission
from the council on showing good cause.
Paul, Lex Aelia Sentia, Book 1, provides an example of good cause- the slave may have aided the master
in a battle, protected him against brigands, healed him in sickness, uncovered a plot... since many services
can occur for which it is honourable to grant freedom by a formal decision...
The statute also includes; a slave under the age of 30 cannot be manumitted except for a good cause and
with permission of the council. A manumission in the breach of this rule resulted in the slave becoming
Junian Latin.
Certain slaves with criminal records were prohibited from becoming citizens on manumission. They were
given the status of dediticii.
Manumissions made to defraud creditors were deemed void. A manumission made by an insolvent master
fell in this category, irrespective of his intention.
Gaius comments on this, It is deemed that a man manumits to the detriment of creditors if he is insolvent at
the time of manumission of would become insolvent after the grants of freedom; for men often hope that
their assets are greater than they actually are.
Justinians reforms
He simplified the law on manumission. The status of Junian Latin and dediticii was abolished. Citizenship was
acquired on informal as well as formal manumission. The old methods for informal manumission was still used,
but needed to be evidenced by a document attested by 5 witnesses. The quotas for manumission by will were
abolished- lex filia repealed. The rule that slaves had to be aged at least 30 years was abolished.
