Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:18:06.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Early Patterns of Manumission1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

David Daube
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following remarks are intended to call attention to a profound difference between manumission censu and some other ancient modes of manumission; a difference emerging if, in examining the several modes, we pay regard to form and original setting rather than to the general role they came to acquire in fully historical times.

Modern scholars appear to seek for a uniform pattern of early manumission (I). In point of fact, whereas the fundamental idea underlying some other modes was release of a slave by his master, though this release was controlled or ratified by the public authority (II), that underlying manumission censu was incorporation of a man by the State, though, as a rule, the incorporation was made only with the master's consent (III).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 1-2 , November 1946 , pp. 57 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © David Daube 1946. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am indebted to Professor Hugh Last for very valuable criticisms and suggestions, made at every stage of this study.

References

2 Römisches Staatsrecht ii3, 374, n. 4.

3 Römische Rechtsgeschichte ii, 133.

4 Quelques problémes du très ancien droit romain, 74.

5 Op. cit., p. 74, n. 3.

6 ‘The Servian Reforms,’ in JRS XXXV, 1945, 30 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 l.c., p. 38.

8 ‘Die Stadtrechte von Salpensa und Malaca,’ in Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. 1857, 436 f. (Ges. Schr. i, 330).

9 Gellius, , Noct. Att. iv, 20Google Scholar.

10 l.c, pp. 38 ff.

11 For a discussion and references see Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, 589 ff.

12 Gaius, , Inst. ii, 267Google Scholar. For further references see Heumann-Seckel, Handlexicon zu den Quellen des römischen Rechts 9, S.V. iubere c.

13 See Festus 158 f. M (148 f. L) S.V. manu mitti.

14 Col. 2, 20 ff.

15 De orat, i, 183.

16 i, 8.

17 Cic., Ad Top. i, on ii, 10Google Scholar.

18 i, s, 4. Theophilus is wrong in asserting that the slave inscribed himself: the censor made the entry. The point did not escape the notice of Professor Buckland, who remarks (op. cit. in n. 11, 440, n. 15): ‘He describes the process inexactly.’ But it is a slip easily committed: cf. the account of manumission censu of a bondsman in A Text Book of Roman Law 2, 134.

19 It is the meaning listed by Heumann-Seckel, op. cit. in n. 12, under iubere d.

20 Gaius, , Inst. iii, 167aGoogle Scholar; Dig. 45, 3, 5 and 6 (Ulp. xlviii ad Sabin. and Pomp, xxvi ad Sabin.).

21 Ulp., Reg. xix, 19Google Scholar; Dig. 29, 2, 6 pr. (Ulp. vi ad Sabin.).

22 Dig. 50, 17, 169 pr. (Paul ii ad Plaut.).

23 Just., , Inst. i, 10Google Scholar pr.

24 Dig. 3, 2, 1 (wrongly inscribed Jul.; ad edict.: see Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum 3, 77).

25 Gaius, , Inst. ii, 267Google Scholar, cited above.

26 Dig. 33, 8, 6, 3 (Ulp. XXV ad Sabin.): further references in Heumann-Seckel, iubere c.

27 Festus, l.c. in n. 13.

28 Römisches Staatsrecht ii3, 374, n. 4.

29 xli, 9, 11.

30 The Roman Law of Slavery, p. 440, in the section concerning manumission censu, and p. 442, in that concerning vindicta.

31 The words ‘quive postea futurus esset’ are not extant in the text; but it is universally considered, probably rightly, that something like this clause must have dropped out. See Weissenborn-Müller, T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri ix 3, ad loc.

32 This word also is not to be found in the text as it stands.

33 On these two words see below.

34 See Weissenborn-Müller, loc. cit.

35 Inst. i, 140.

36 iv, 22 f. The passage iv, 23, 7, will be quoted presently.

37 Inst. i, 131.

38 Op. cit., ii3, 638 f.

39 De domo sua 78.

40 Dionysius vii, 13, 5; Plutarch, , Cor. xiii, 3Google Scholar; Cicero pro Caec. 98.

41 Dionysius vii, 13, 5.

42 77 f.

43 Inst. i, 131.

44 Inst. i, 140.

45 IV, 22 f.

46 See Mommsen, op. cit., iii, 58 f., 428; and Jörs-Kunkel, Römisches Recht 2, 68 f.

47 Op. cit. in n. 11, p. 442.

48 ii, 5, 9 f.

49 V, 13, 1.

50 Publ. vii, 5.

51 Publ. vii, 4 f.