(i.) _Capitis deminutio maxima_ was the loss of _civitas_ and _libertas_, consequent on a man’s becoming a prisoner of the enemy. With the loss of freedom, political and therefore private rights[546] ceased _ipso jure_ to exist. The obligations of international law might also produce this condition; the Roman general who concluded a treaty with the enemy, which the people would not accept, was handed over as a scapegoat for the broken faith of the community[547] (_deditus_), and similar treatment was meted out to one who had violated the sanctity of envoys,[548] or to a general who had made war with a state in alliance with Rome.[549] This loss of status was also produced by the civil law, in so far as it enjoined slavery as a penal measure—e.g. in the case of the _incensi_ or of those who shirked military service[550]—or permitted the sale of the debtor or of the child into a foreign land.[551] (ii.) _Capitis deminutio media_ (or _minor_[552]) was the loss of _civitas_ alone. This might be voluntarily incurred by the assumption of the citizenship of another town, for the principle of the older Roman law was that a man might not be a member of two independent communities.[553] The exile from Rome which followed condemnation for a criminal offence was of this type of rejection of citizenship, for the exile was always assumed to be a voluntary act. Enforced abstention from the Roman _civitas_, which necessitated a continuance in exile, was produced by the decree of outlawry (_aquae et ignis interdictio_)[554] often passed by the people against an individual who was in voluntary banishment for a crime. (iii.) _Capitis deminutio minima_—originally a loss of family rights—was improperly construed by the later jurists as a change of family status.[555] Its applications have been already considered.[556] There were means of recovering the status lost in either of these three modes. The loss of _familia_ in its original sense[557] might be recovered by emancipation; the loss of _civitas_, if enforced by the state, by a special act repealing this disability (the _restitutio in integrum_ of the criminal law). _Libertas_ could be regained by the exercise of a right known as the _jus postliminii_. The return, unintentional or premeditated, of the captive within the limits of his own country destroyed the state of bondage, and restored the _ingenuitas_ and the rights of the former prisoner. Although described as a legal fiction[558] it was a direct consequence of the simple principle that a Roman could not be enslaved on Roman soil.