which had this imperfect effect to confer in future full freedom, so that a letter to the slave subscribed by five persons as witnesses, or a declaration similarly witnessed or recorded in court, or the delivery to the slave before five witnesses of his master's documents of title, or the slave's attendance on the bier of the deceased master by his or the heir's direction, or the giving a female slave in marriage to a freeman with a dowry settled in writing, or addressing a slave in court as his son, were acts sufficient without further formality to make the slave a freedman or freedwoman. So also, by an edict of Claudius, ejection of a sick slave from the master's house without making provision for him, or prostitution of a female slave in breach of a condition of her purchase, forfeited the master's rights, and full freedom now ensued; and other cases of freedom by operation of law are mentioned. Further Justinian repealed the laws which required a master to be twenty years old before he could emancipate slaves by will, and restricted the number. Constantine confirmed (316) a custom of giving freedom in church before the priests and congregation, a record of the matter being signed by the former; and he allowed clerics to confer freedom on their slaves by any form of words without witnesses, the freedom to take effect on publication of the document at the master's death.
A freedman did not, however, by the act of manumission lose all trace of his former condition. He remained under limited control of his former master or owner, now patron, and patron's children. A patron could claim respect (obsequium), services, and the succession to some or all of his property at death if he left no children as heirs. From services he could be exempted by a special grant by the Emperor of the right of wearing gold rings, and by a like grant (restitutio natalium, "restoration of birth") from the patron's claim to his estate. Such grants were rarely made without the patron's consent. Justinian dispensed with the formality of special grants and made the removal of the patron's claim to services and inheritance follow of itself on a manumission. But unless the master then, or by way of trust in his will, made a declaration to that effect, this automatic grant did not exempt a freedman from the duty of due respect to his patron. He was punishable for using abusive language to him: he could not sue him or his children except by consent of the proper authority: and any suit which he brought had to shew formal respect by the complaints being couched in a mere statement of the facts without casting any imputation. Constantine allowed freedmen guilty of ingratitude or insolent conduct, even though not of a grave character, to be remitted into their patron's power. A patron in need could claim support (alimenta) from his freedman. Claims to the status of freeborn, when disputed, were reserved for the decision of the city praefect or governor: claims to the status of freedman were reserved likewise for the same high officials, or if the treasury was a party, then for the chief officer of that department.
