Manus. Of the powers of the paterfamilias abrogated in the Justinian period. The other was the mancipium. The manus was the power of the paterfamilias over the woman when the marriage was verified by confarreatio, coemptio or usus. Pure Civil law institution prior to the patria postestas (parens patriae), therefore it is not to be accepted the opinion by which the former is based on the this one. Manus was achieved upon the celebration of certain acts as described by Gaius when he says: Olim itaque tribus modis in manum conveniebant, usu, farreo, coemptione (tribes originally agreed upon the use of the manus by use, farreo, coempcion). The oldest must have been the usus, since in cases of woman kidnapping are found in Indo-European people. In the roman law the first to appear must have been the confarreatio, because of its religious nature corresponding to the character of the ancient roman people and as being exclusive of the noble it is implied that it was the manner to achieve the manus in the romulean state. When the plebeian became part of the city they could not celebrate the confarreatio, since they lacked domestic cult, therefore upon being permitted the marriage between patricians and plebeians by virtue of the law Canuleya in the 309 of Rome it turned out to be necessary to find a manner common to all, it was the coemptio which being an application of the mancipatio, Was able to be celebrated by all the ones having the conmercium. The legal position of the woman in manu is expressed by the roman jurists by saying she has the position of daughter (loco filiae habetur), not in the sense of equality but of similarity. She was after the son since he was always preferred for being considered the prosecutor of the domestic cult and the family surname, which was not held by the women; they could neither be subject to ownership and they could only own for the pater familias, with the exception that women were entitled to a res uxoriae (things of wife) in case of divorce. As a consequence of the manus the woman underwent a capitis diminutio minima, so breaking bonds with her civil family and entering with her being and things to the family of her husband as daughter or granddaughter depending on whether it be sui iuris or a alieni iuris; as a consequence of which her personality and estate was absorbed, being her debts extinguished, even praetorian law granted the creditors useful actions in order to avoid damages to themselves the purpose of which was to claim their credits and to go against the property of the dowry and the ones acquired under the marriage, these actions having as a basis the fiction of not having suffered the woman the capitis diminutio; also as a consequence of this the woman acquired the right to ab intestate succession over the property of her husband as daughter of his and sister of her children. The power of the husband over the woman in manu were legal and economical. As a consequence of the first, if he was pater familias, as a magistrate he was able to judge the woman, imposing punishments over her which would go from death to detraction of a portion of the dowry, even though the marital power was limited in this case more than in any other by the consilium domesticum (domestic council).On the economic side the husband used to take for himself the estate of the woman the same as all the purchase she hand made, and he was able to emancipate and offer as punishment the woman herself, these powers having disappeared is on the imperial time. The manus terminated as a consequence of the following: 1) the death of the husband or the woman ; by the medium and maximum capitis diminutio of the husband; 2) by an act contrary to the one by which it was created: in the case of the confarreatio it dissolved by the difarreatio, formal ceremony celebrated in the house of the husband with the participation of the priest and the woman renouncing to the cult of the husband by means of imprecations; in the case of the coemptio, by the emancipation of the woman to a third person ; regarding the usus, once acquired there was no contrary act able to dissolve it; however, before the end of the year the woman was able to interrupt it by not going to her husband ´s address three continuing nights (usurpatio trinoctii, use of three nights). In addition to the real manus there was another referred to as formulate performed under the way of coemptio which served the following purposes: 1) Interimendorum sacrorum cause, that is to free the woman from the costs of a private cult (sacral). Cicero (106-64 B.C.) refers to this type of coemptio in his sentence pro Lucius Licinius Murena. The woman generally celebrated the coemptio with an old man therefore breaking the bonds with the husband’s family and not having to pay for the cost of his cult. Rodolfo de Jhering (1818-1892) says that women emancipated slaves for that purpose to thereafter marry them. According to Karlowa, in these cases the woman married an old man since she would soon be free and she would inherit him. Tito Maccio Plauto (254-184) and Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43) talk about the senes coemptionales (the old coemcionales). 2) Testamenti faciendi gratia (testamentary coemptio). When it was allowed for the woman to grant a hill, tutors denied their consent in order not to lose the property they would be entitled to under ab-intestate as a consequence of the rule according to which the woman who went on being part or her original family could not testate. So that a woman could do a testament she surrendered herself under coemptio to a good man who bound himself to emancipate her, so she was sui iuris and could testate. 3) Tutelae evitandae gratia, in order to free the woman from the fatherly or tutelary despotism. In this case, after the formulate of the coemptio matrimonii causa (coempcion by reason of marriage) the pactum fiduciae was added (pact of trust), by which the husband undertook to emancipate the woman. Fathers and tutors oppose to this type of marriage, until case law obtained its acceptance during the last times of the Republic. In the ancient law the only known marriage was the one with manus; but in the last times of the Republic already existed the sine manu, introduced by custom and later recognized by a law of the V century or beginning of the VI of Rome. The sine manu marriage became more and more general therefore being reduced the application of the manus. The reason might be that in the sine manus marriage the woman did not break the agnation with her family; so fathers and mostly tutors were interested in favoring it. Even though in this type of marriage women Had more independence and could separate in case of being abused , it hurt her children, since in case of their death abs intestate her property passed to the agnate and not her children, and if the woman was alieni iuris she obtained nothing with that marriage which did not free her from the parens patriae or custody. Fathers were more interested and above all tutors since as agnation did not break the former could maintain more rights over the woman and the latter could inherit her ab intestate. From the three types of caerse in manu, the usus was the first one to disappear; it existed at the time of Cicero, but Gaius considers it as disappeared, in part because of the laws and in part because of out of desuetude. The confarreatio was not so frequent and in times of Alexander Tiberius it was difficult to find three patrician born of the feasted marriage in order to chose from them a flamin of Jupiter, in order to avoid this decay and due to religious interest a law of the year 23 A.C. provided that the women getting married by confarreatio, at least the ones of the flamins of Jupiter, were under the manus from the religious point of view, but not from the civil; with this restriction and within the circle of the flamins the confarreatio was kept until the fall of the paganism. The coemptio was still used to produce a real manus during the times of Gaius (s.II); regarding the formulary, when the emperor Adrinaus (76-138) abolished the inability that the coemptio testamentary used the fill in, he removed its reason and on the IV century of our time the coemptio was completely out of use. The last mention to the manus is found in a portion of Emilio Papinianus (142-212) and another of Julio Paulo, included in Mosaicorum et romanorum legum collatio (Collection of the mosaic and roman laws).

Manus Dei

Name of an ancient plaster, out of use at present.

Manus Guidonis

Hand of Guidus or guidonian, musical and harmonic hand.

Manus habent et non palpabunt

They have hands and will not touch. Words taken by the Psalm 115, 5, where it is said that ¡dolos “have mouth and do not talk, have eyes and do not see”. Referring figuratively to the ones who do not want to listen to reason no matter how clear it be.

Manus injectio

One of the five legis actiones or quinque creates the agendi. It was a proceeding by which the creditor took control before the magistarte of the debtor, and if he did not satisfy immediately his obligation or did not offer a bailee (vindex, guarantor), the creditor took him home, and kept him as prisoner for sixty days upon the passage of which, if the debtor still failed to pay his debt, the creditor could kill him or sell him trans Tiberim as slave. At the beginning it was useful to claim the fulfillment of those duties where the creditor was granted, for example, in the case of a confessed debt; upon being established other legis actiones in order to claim and declare the fulfillment of the duties, the manus injectio, even though it permitted to initiate an action (as occurred when the vindex denied the legality of the use of it), it was a proceeding for the execution of judgments already decided. The physical arrest was permitted under the ancient law in many cases without it being necessary the appearance of the authority: This occurred with the father with respect to the child subject to his authority, with the owner with respect to the slave, and with any citizen with respect to another citizen who being called to court by the former in jus vocatus (called by law), did not want to appear, and the origin of the legis actio per manus injectionemen can be seen in the period in which to the judicial organization preceded an out of court proceeding, under which a man who was offended by another took control of him by force in order to punish him by himself, and he only compelled to stop when a third person took part in favor of the weaker. At the beginning the manus injectio was granted: 1) Without it being necessary a prior trial when they consisted in confessed money, by virtue of the nexum or the inheritance per damnationem (by conviction). 2) Under another legis actio if there was another judgment the debtor did not (manus injectio judicati). 3) Manus injectio pro judicato made as if there had been a trial, by virtue of having been assimilated a great number of cases to a legal sentence. They were: the one of the public law, which gave the sponsor a manus injectio of this type against the main debtor; the one of the furia law of sponsu, which granted against the creditor the sponsor and the fidei promissor of Italy who might have paid him more than his share of the debt and the one referring to the registration of Titus Lucretius Carus (99-55), that talks about a popular manus injectio pro iudicato, established upon provocation of the roman current law, against the one depositing dirt, took a dead body or did a funerary sacrifice in a holy grove, in order to demand a fine. In the formula mentioned by the creditor in this manus injectio, instead of saying quod tu mihi iudicatus sive damnatus it expressed the cause and added: ob eam rem ego tibi pro iudicato manum iniicio. In all the other aspects it did not differ from the manus injection iudicati. 4) Pure Manus injectio, also permitted without the need of a prior judgment, but where the debtor had the power to vindex of himself, opposing himself to the act itself (manum sibi depellere et pro se lege agere licebat), falling into as in the case of the vindex, in the punishment of duplo if he was not successful. This kind of manus injectio was referred to as pure, because the creditor did only say alter having mentioned the cause, ob eam rem ego tibi manum injicio, without adding pro judicato. It represents a considerable mitigation of the nature of the manus injectio, since it turned this generally into an introducer of a litigation, since the defendant was able to raise the issue as to whether there was or not a credit, this issue having to be decided by the magistrate himself, which would give rise or not to an executive proceeding. A Vallia law of the middle of the VI century and first third of the VII of Rome, turned into pure all the manus injections, except in the case of iudicatum and depensum, therefore the mitigation extended without removing the benefits of the creditors who could claim for the manus injectio without it being necessary a litigation when it was accepted, while the creditors to which the laws did not grant the manus injectio, nor pignoris capio, should have to apply another legis actio before claiming for the enforcement.

Manus manum fricat

One hand washes the other. It is applied to two empty persons who mutually flatter. It is equivalent to the Spanish phrase: one hand washes the other and both wash the face.

Manus manum lavat

The hand washed the hand. Identical to manus manum fricat.