or n o t ,' becaufe thefe modes of add refs exprefsly flgnify manumiffion,
as being received in that fenfe,both in law, and alfo in common nfe.
And fhould the perfon thus addreffing his flave afterwards declare that
he had only fpoken in je ji; or that, by the terms fr e e , Modttick, and
fo forth, he meant no more than to intimate that he [the Have] was
reieafed from work or labour, his declaration is (till to be credited in a
religious view * , fince thefe expreffionS bear fuch conftrudtions; but
yet it is not credited with the Kdssee, as thofe conftrufHons contradift
the evident tenor of the emancipator’ s words.
I f a man call to his (lave, faying “ O, Modttick!” — or, “ O,
“ freeman!” the (lave is thereby emancipated, as thefe are vocatives
pronounced in terms exprefsly fignifying manumiffion, and which
require the condition of freedom to exift in the perfon to whom they
are addrefled: he is accordingly emancipated,— except where the
proper name o f the (lave coincides with the addrefs, as if [for inftance)
the flave’ s name be Hoor, (that is, fr e e ,) , and his mafter fhould call
or (peak to him by that term, for in this cafe the term is intended
(not as the defcriplion o f a quality, but) merely as an appellative.— If,
however, the Have have' a name differing in terms but correfponding
in fenfe, as if his name were Hoor, [that is, in the Arabic language,
free,'] and the owner fhould call to him in the P e r f an language, faying,
“ O, Azadl [which has the fame fignification,] the learned hold that
the (lave is in this cafe emancipated; and fo alfo, if a perfon fhould
call to his (lave whofe name is Azad, faying “ O, Hoor l ” beca.ufe,
in both thefe cafes, the term by which the (lave is addrefled is not his
appellative, and mnft therefore be regarded as defcriptive, which requires
that the (lave be free.
and fo alfo, if j F a man fay. either to his male or female flave “ your neck, (or)
he annex the J # . j j
emancipation “ back, (or) head, is free,” or to his female (lave, “ your pudendum
* That is to fay, with regard to his confidence.
I I »s
“ is releafed,” fuch male or female (lave is thereby emancipated, becaufe
by thefe expreffions ; the whole perfon is neceflarily implied, as
has been already explained in the Book of Divorce.— And if a man
apply emancipation to any diffufive portion of the body, faying to his
(lave “ an half o f you is free,”— fuch portion of the (lave becomes
emancipated accordingly.— In this, however, there is a difference of
opinion which (hall be hereafter explained.
I f a man apply emancipation to any fpecific part of the body
which is not explained- to imply the whole perfon, (fuch as the hand
or fo o t, for inftance,) it will have no effect either totally or partially.
— This is the opinion o f our do&ora.— Shcfei, however, oppofes It.—
The arguments refpedting it have been recited in the. Book of
Divorce.
If a man fay to his flave “ I have no property in you,” thereby
intending manumiffion, the flave Is emancipated;— but he is not
emancipated if manumiffion be not the intention, becaufe this mode of
(peaking does not only bear the fenfe of a fentence o f emancipation,
but it may alfo imply fa le, or any other mode of transfer of propriety,
as i f the mafter were to declare ‘ ‘ that he poffefled no property in fuch
“ a (lave,, having fold (or beftowed) him;” and neither of thefe con-
ftrudtions can he afeertained but by the intention.— And the fame rule
obtains in all implied expreffions of emancipation, fuch as “ I have no
“ property in you,” — or, “ you owe me no ferviee,” and fo forth ;
becaufe as thofe expreffions bear the fenfe of emancipation, fo do they
likewife bear the conftrudtion of fa le or g ift, or emancipation by ran-
fom; and hence the intention is neceflary, in order to afeertain which
fenfe the expreffion is to he conftrued into.
If a man fay to hi& female flave “ A tlikto-ke," (that is; I have
parted with you,) it is the fame as if he had faid “ I leave-you to your
“ own way.”— This is recorded as an opinion of'Abort- Toofaf, and is
merely
to any part
which figuratively
implies
the
whole P'rfin-,
and fo iike-
wife (propor-
tionably) i f
to any dijfu•
Ji'-oe portion
of the perfon.
In implied
expreffions
emancipation
depends upon
the intention: