Money in the Apologia: Dos et Testamentum

Marriage, and the dowry (dos) it involved, and wills (testamenta), and the property and money involved, were two of the most significant financial transactions a Roman could undertake. As a result, they were also two frequently legislated issues. The Theodosian Code, ordered by the emperor Theodosius II and completed in 438 AD, the Codex Justinianus and the Digest of Justinian, ordered by the emperor of that name and completed in 529 and 533, respectively, represent codifications of earlier Roman law. Although the laws brought together in the Theodosian Code are post-312 AD, they may refer to precedent which can be helpful in trying to understand dowry and inheritance law in the mid second century AD, when Apuleius was pleading his case. Justinian's Digest, containing the works of the classical jurists and his Codex, which codifies all imperial constitutions from Hadrian on, also contain relevant material to the discussion at hand. Dowry is recorded in Justinian's Digest (XXIV.3.1) as taking precedence at all times and in all circumstances, thus showing how such an issue could result in the legal case presented in the Apologia. [2] With respect to inheritance, these legal texts show the gradual process through which women received the right to make bequests and the laws governing those bequests. This issue will become relevant when considering the legal basis on which Pudentilla's will might be disputed by her son, previous brother-in-law and possibly brother. This commentary, linked to the text and translation of Apuleius' Apologia, will put the dowry and inheritance themes of the speech into context and, using legal texts, flesh out the specifics of how these financial matters function in this dispute.

This inheritance focus of the Apologia can be traced right from the start of the speech when in Section 2, Apuleius introduces the allegedly forged will of Aemilianus' uncle. In this section Apuleius is discussing the charges against himself and how Sicinius Aemilianus was unwilling to take responsibility for any real charges. Apuleius states that had Sicinius Aemilianus found any real charges, the latter never would have been so stupid as to bring these charges against Apuleius seeing as how Aemilianus had been mixed up in a case where he had charged that his own uncle's will was a forgery. The implication of this reasoning by Apuleius is that Aemilianus had no business bringing up charges concerning wills and inheritance in light of the latter's proven unreliability in such matters. Apuleius brings up this unreliability again, mentioning how a despicable character such as Aemilianus would be willing to lie repeatedly and accuse a man he knows to be innocent, just as he was willing to defame a will he knew to be true. Hence, Apuleius from the start is attempting to discredit his opponent with respect to the inheritance case at hand.

Another interesting point that comes up in this passage regards the previous city praefect's involvement in the case of the alleged forged will. Lollius Urbicus , an earlier praefectus urbi, along with his concilium decided that the uncle's will ought to be considered true and valid. Here then is precedent within the Apologia for what is going on with the charges currently brought before Claudius Maximus. It is shown that such inheritance cases are correctly brought before the provincial government. In addition, perhaps Apuleius is trying to invoke this specific precedent in that this same accuser has been found wrong in such inheritance cases in the past. Note, though, that the significance of this precedent is not merely the accuser's unreliability, but his unreliability when it comes to inheritance issues. Note that no precedent is invoked here concerning magic charges as brought before the provincial government.

Following this discussion on Sicinius Aemilianus' proven unreliability when it comes to matters of inheritance, Apuleius mentions that he must deal with the slanders against his own character before he can turn to the real charge.* It is at this point that Apuleius mentions his defense of philosophy in the context of which he will deal with the charges of magic, which are often mistaken as the real issue of the Apologia. These philosophy/magic issues are merely the slanders (male dicta) which Apuleius must deal with before coming to the real charges concerning Pudentilla's dowry and inheritance. In fact Apuleius himself states after his long digression on philosophy and magic, that he will now address the real charges against himself . In Section 66 , he first turns to the charges as they relate to marrying Pudentilla for her money. In Section 67, Apuleius breaks down the five points he must discuss as they relate to inheritance issues. These are mentioned as the motive of his accusers for devising the slanders of magic. In fact, it is revealed later that the magic charges are applicable only as the method by which Apuleius might have beguiled Pudentilla to get at her wealth. Thus all the matters that intervene between Apuleius' statements of Aemilianus as being unfit to bring charges concerning inheritance and when Apuleius actually comes to deal with the inheritance issues should be seen as Apuleius dismissing the slanders against himself before he comes to the actual charge.

However, in these intervening sections dealing with philosophy and magic , issues of inheritance do emerge and deserve comment. Following what Apuleius refers to as the slanders against himself concerning the tooth powder, the love poems to the two slave boys and the possession of a mirror, Apuleius turns to the discussion of his poverty in Sections 17 through 23. This entire digression on the nature of poverty and whether or not it is befitting for a philosopher should be viewed in the context of the financial aspect of the case against Apuleius. Apuleius' accusers have probably asserted that he is poor and therefore only out to get Pudentilla's money. Apuleius himself points to his marriage to Pudentilla and the money involved when in Section 22, in the midst of his praise of poverty, he states that his accusers might envy his wallet more than his marriage to Pudentilla, thus putting his marriage and his accusers' greedy motive at the forefront of this discussion on money.

The discussion begins as to whether or not Apuleius' freeing of three slaves indicates poverty in that he had only three or wealth in that he was able to free three. *(IMAGE) Then Apuleius launches into a long treatment on the relative merits of being poor versus wealthy. From the end of Section 17 through Section 22, Apuleius puts poverty into the context of the good philosopher's life. However, it is important to remember that for the case being charged against Apuleius, philosophy is not the issue, but rather Apuleius' financial status as it relates to a possible attempt on Pudentilla's wealth. Apuleius reminds that inheritance is at issue when he mentions why someone might be poor and includes that one's guardian might have taken one's money or that one's father might not have left any. * Finally, Apuleius brings the discussion of his alleged poverty to a climax when he admits the two million sesterces inheritance left to himself and his brother by his father, and the fact that it has been considerably diminished.* This shows that this entire digression on poverty has been in order to deal with the issue of Apuleius' own inheritance and how that might reflect on his desire to gain Pudentilla's money.

Just as Apuleius worked to discredit his accuser Aemilianus earlier in the speech with reference to his unreliability when it comes to wills, Apuleius again attempts to malign his opponent in the present poverty/inheritance context. Apuleius states that Aemilianus ought not to be discussing another's poverty at all considering the inheritance left to him by his father.* This specific barb by Apuleius will take on more significance later in the speech when it is recognized that this entire dispute is over Pudentilla's money, part of which is the inheritance left to her sons by their paternal grandfather, Aemilianus' father. Here, perhaps Apuleius is alluding to the direction he will later take in his defense of showing that his accusers have only brought a case against him because they themselves want the money that Pudentilla controls. Further, in terms of discrediting Aemilianus, Apuleius makes reference to the many inheritances his opponent has managed to garner, earning himself the nickname Charon. With this attack, Apuleius is hinting that if anyone is guilty of estate hunting, it is Aemilianus.

Now Apuleius turns to the trumped up charge of magic, but even this is marked by reference to his supposed desire for Pudentilla's money. Before Apuleius turns to the specifics of the charge of magic, he puts these charges in the context of his marriage to Pudentilla, and hence his alleged desire for her money. Apuleius quotes the charges concerning magic, with most emphasis on how they relate to the possible seduction of his wife through magical means.* Above all, Apuleius appears to be interested in stressing that there was nothing magical in his marriage to Pudentilla and that he married for love not for money.* Again he comes back to the motive of his opponent, Aemilianus, stating that it has been his marriage to Pudentilla which has spurred the anger and madness inherent in Aemilianus' accusations.* As with each of the examples above, Apuleius returns to Aemilianus and inheritance, here the money Apuleius stood to gain from his marriage.

Apuleius' explanation of his use of fish does come in the context of his defense against accusations of magic. However, note that the fish magic he is being accused of using is that which would have beguiled Pudentilla to marry him.* Apart from this statement by Apuleius as he closes his fish argument, the love-potion use of fish is implied elsewhere in his fish argument.* Clearly, Apuleius' use of fish for magical purposes should not be seen as a separate charge of magic, but closely connected with the dispute over Pudentilla's money, i.e. that Apuleius charmed her to get a disproportionately large dowry and her inheritance. Inheritance indeed even comes up in the fish argument, when Apuleius is criticizing his opponents for their assumption that objects' names somehow imply their destined use.* Specifically, he brings up sarcastically the question of whether one should use a certain type of shell (testa) in the making of a will (testamentum). Having dealt with these remaining magic issues, Apuleius returns to the issue of Pudentilla's money, reminding that the accusations against himself are based on his opponents' insistence that he has worked his way into Pudentilla's house through the desire of riches.* He cites envy as the prime motivating factor for Sicinius Aemilianus and his co-prosecutor, Herrenius Rufinus in fabricating charges of magic. Apuleius then moves on to list the charges which relate to Pudentilla, the first three involving his use of magic to seduce a supposedly sixty year old, fourteen year widow and the latter two related to the signing of the marriage contract (tabulae nuptiales) and the making over of the dowry (dos) to Apuleius. Apuleius is clearly putting emphasis on the fact that all the charges against himself can be traced back to this one factor, Pudentilla's money.

Section 68 sets up the context for the dispute over the money which Pudentilla controls. Here Apuleius relates the family relationships of the Sicinii and how Pudentilla fits in. Aemilia Pudentilla, now the wife of Apuleius, had been married to a certain Sicinius Amicus, who had predeceased his father, leaving her with two sons, Pontianus and Pudens. These two sons were left in potestate paterni avi. Potestas in Roman private law denotes the head of the family's power over his family members. [3] Hence, the paternal grandfather now had control over Pudentilla's sons, but not directly over Pudentilla. That Pudentilla was independent can be inferred by the fact that most marriages under Roman law by this time were matrimonium sine manu, where the wife remained in the potestas of her father. Upon her father's death, such a wife would have the independent right to inherit property, apart from her husband. [4] At any rate, Pudentilla is probably not in potestate of her father-in-law.

However, this grandfather Sicinius' indirect control over Pudentilla becomes apparent when he insists that if her sons are to get their inheritance from the Sicinii, she must marry her brother-in-law, Sicinius Clarus. This move by the grandfather should be viewed as an attempt to consolidate his family's wealth and to keep Pudentilla's wealth in his family. Pudentilla, to protect her sons' interests does make a marriage contract (tabulae nuptiales) with Clarus, but avoids actually marrying him for fourteen years, when her father-in-law dies, leaving her sons as his heirs. It is important to note that the tabulae nuptiales were the marriage contract which outlined the provisions for the dowry, what it contained and how it would be given back to the wife at the dissolution of the marriage. From this situation, then, it is evident that Sicinius Aemilianus had a two-fold interest in Pudentilla's wealth: there is the Sicinii money left to her sons which she now controls (recall that Aemilianus did not fare well in his father's will) < a href= #ac>[5], plus there is the money which would have been promised to the Sicinii family in the marriage contract which Pudentilla had made with Clarus.

The issue of Pudentilla's dowry to her dead husband and the marriage contract she made with his brother both have significant legal implications. Since dowry technically became the property of the husband, here Sicinius Amicus, it did not automatically revert to the wife at her husband's death. The dowry at issue had to be sought back by the actio rei uxoriae undertaken by the wife or her father on her behalf. However, if the husband had been in potestate to his father (who does outlive Amicus in this case), the dowry technically belonged to the husband's father and the wife would have to seek it back from her father-in-law. [6] It is unclear which of these cases holds true for Pudentilla; however, either way, she would have to seek her original dowry back from the Sicinii family. Perhaps it was easier for her just to make another marriage contract involving her original dowry with a brother of the same family. As Pudentilla had every right to get all or most of her dowry back, it also would have been in the interest of the Sicinii family to keep Pudentilla in their family. Despite the fact that Pudentilla never marries her brother-in-law Clarus, she still has the legal obligation of dowry to him. Although it has been shown that Pudentilla perhaps transferred her original dowry to the brother and would have had to seek it back otherwise, there is legal basis that the dowry, whether the marriage had taken place or not, actually belonged to the husband until it was sought back. The Theodosian Code (3.5.1) records a law made in 319 by Constantine referring to the seeking back of dowry gifts should the marriage not take place. Constantine expresses displeasure with the opinion of his predecessors that there is no such thing as a conditional betrothal gift, i.e. if something was promised in a dowry and then the engagement was broken off by the party giving the gifts, the party breaking off the marriage lost all rights to the betrothal gifts. This law, referring to ancient legal opinion, is possibly applicable to what has transpired between Pudentilla and her Sicinii in-laws. There are clearly grounds for significant legal dispute on the property contained in the tabulae nuptiales, or dowry, of Pudentilla to the brothers Sicinii, Amicus and Clarus. It is on this legal basis that Sicinius Aemilianus might be interested in pursuing a case. His family was losing out on promised dowry if Pudentilla married Apuleius and transferred her dowry to him instead.

Next Apuleius turns to Pudentilla's decision to remarry after her long widowhood. Even Aemilianus recommended Pudentilla's remarriage, but according to Apuleius, only under the assumption that his brother Clarus was the match.* His letter, recommending the second marriage, to Pudentilla's son Pontianus was intercepted by Pudentilla. She forwarded in its place a letter to her son stating her marital intentions. It is interesting to note that in the midst of these discussions of Pudentilla's remarriage, her sons' inheritance from their paternal grandfather comes up, with Pudentilla reminding Pontianus of how she had achieved and even augmented this inheritance for him through her long widowhood.* It is appropriate that Pudentilla should have mentioned her sons' inheritance, as it is this concern which brings Pontianus back to Oea from Rome. Pontianus was evidently concerned that his mother might give over her fortune to a new husband. In mentioning Pontianus' worries for his mother's wealth,* Apuleius reveals that there are two sets of money at issue in this inheritance dispute: the money (described as modicum) left to Pudentilla's sons by their paternal grandfather and Pudentilla's own large fortune of 4,000,000 HS. Pudentilla has evidently promised much of this money to her sons nullis tabulis, i.e. without any official documentation. Therefore, in Pontianus' concern over his mother's wealth and his own inheritance, the great deal of money that is at issue in this case becomes clear. Pudentilla's remarriage is not of concern over whether or not magic has been practiced. Her remarriage is of concern due to the amount of money which is at stake.

Here it is useful to briefly discuss a woman's right to leave property, i.e. her power of bequest. Women were early on allowed to inherit. To then bequeath their money was a right which developed over time. [7] Since no one was in potestate to a woman, it was necessary for her to leave a will to designate her heirs. Otherwise her property would return to her agnate (male blood line) kin,< a href =#af>[8] in this case perhaps Tannonius Pudens. This reversion to the agnate kin was changing by the late second century AD. The fact that Pudentilla's property was promised to her sons with nullis tabulis, must have worried Pontianus and Pudens a great deal, and rightfully so according to the law. A woman's children did expect a significant portion of her estate, as seen in the Theodosian Code 2.19.2, where a law of 321 AD permits children to complain of an undutiful (inofficiosum) will. This perhaps is part of Sicinius Pudens' legal interest in the case against Apuleius. Clearly, Pudentilla's devising of her will is a significant issue in the Apologia and one which had legal implications. When Apuleius introduces his opponent Herrenius Rufinus and his family, their interest in Pudentilla's money also becomes clear. Rufinus is presented by Apuleius as a low-life who has squandered his own 3,000,000 HS inheritance on riotous living and is now interested to find a new income for his household.* The methods by which Rufinus came into his inheritance deserve comment. This money has come from his mother's property, thus affirming that his mother could pass down property of her own, which she had the legal right to do as shown above, in much the same way that Pudentilla will make arrangements as shown later in this speech. Other money has come from his wife's dowry. In this way, Apuleius charges Rufinus with the exact same crime that he is being charged with, i.e. squandering his own inheritance and the dowry given by his wife. In Pontianus, Rufinus sees just the income he needs to replenish his family's fortunes. Marrying off his own daughter to Pontianus, Herennius Rufinus tries to convince Pontianus not to allow his mother to marry Apuleius, warning that it is unwise to allow his mother to transfer her money to another.* Herennius Rufinus' motives in prosecuting this case now become clear. He is interested in gaining access through Pontianus to the money which Pudentilla controls.

The next specific money issue that arises in the Apologia deals with the specifics of Pudentilla's dowry. In Section 91, Apuleius outlines these dowry specifics to show that he had nothing monetarily to gain from marrying Pudentilla. Apuleius offers the tabulae themselves, the actual written dowry, as evidence. He calls Pudentilla's dowry modicum and states it was given not as a gift but as a trust (creditam). This can be explained by mentioning one purpose of a dowry, to provide for the woman should the marriage end either in divorce or the husband's death. [9] Hence this money was not Apuleius' to use as he wished. The other purpose of a dowry is evident in the rest of the provisions Apuleius mentions, to provide for the children of the marriage. The terms of Pudentilla's dowry stated that upon her death it should go half to any children by her marriage to Apuleius and the rest to her sons Pontianus and Pudens. If there were no children to Apuleius and Pudentilla, the entire dowry would revert to her sons, as her primary heirs. That the dowry is so carefully specified only reinforces the emphasis in this case on Pudentilla's money.

Again there is legal basis for such claims being made by Pudentilla's son on the basis of an undutiful dowry. Pudentilla's heirs, in this case Sicinius Pudens, could make claims that a dowry was inofficiosa, if a law passed in 358 AD is any indication of earlier legal practice. This law (Theodosian Code 2.21.1) stated that a fourth part of a woman's property must be set aside for her children. Hence, if a son felt that he was being deprived through his mother's dowry of his rightful share of his mother's estate, he was then justified to bring such a case. Citing the Papian law under Augustus of 9 AD, Theodosian Code 2.21.2, states that a dowry depriving the children of a first marriage their fourth part of their mother's property, shall not be valid. That this mid fourth century law is citing Augustan precedent points to the possibility that such legal sentiment on dowry existed in the meantime, when Apuleius' case is taking place. Again, the dowry specifics mentioned by Apuleius point to it as being a significant issue of contention in the case.

After dealing with the dowry's administration after Pudentilla's death, the actual amount of the dowry is then compared with that which was offered by Herrenius Rufinus for his daughter.* It is not possible to say much about the amount of Pudentilla's dowry and whether or not it is excessive compared to other dowries, as it is the only evidence for a dowry which can be compared to net worth. [10] What is significant though is that it can be derived that Pudentilla's dowry only amounts to seven percent of her total fortune, where it is implied that Herrenius Rufinus vastly stretched his means, even borrowing, to dower his daughter. It is not the actual amount of the dowry that matters, but rather the dowry's percentage of one's wealth. This is suggested both by the derision of Apuleius for Rufinus' daughter's dowry and the law mentioned above. By making these computations possible, Apuleius shows that he has not received an undutiful dowry, thus undermining any attempt by Sicinius Pudens to make such a claim.

Just as Apuleius works to show that he has little to gain from his wife's dowry, i.e. that it was not an inofficiosa dos, he also attempts to show that he was instrumental in getting Pudentilla to hand some of her property over to her sons,* i.e. that she not complete an undutiful will. Pudentilla, as an independent woman no longer in the potestas of her father, would be able by law to make such gifts of her property. Of what type this property devolution was must be examined. Clearly what is mentioned is not inheritance, as it appears the brothers are taking possession of the property immediately, not upon Pudentilla's death. These gifts should be viewed in terms of the donatio mentioned in the next section. Donationes are gifts which could be given with the similar function of a legacy (donatio mortis causa). However, what is evidenced here is a donatio inter vivos where the donee may take control of the gift while the donor is still alive. This technical inheritance issue brought up by Apuleius again shows the true focus of the case against the Apologia's speaker.

Herrenius Rufinus and his interest in Pudentilla's wealth appear again when Apuleius speaks of Pontianus and his will in Section 97. Apuleius offers to produce the unfinished will of Pontianus to show that he himself received respectful mention but that Herrenius Rufinus did not. His daughter apparently was left only a small amount of linen. The implication of these points is that Rufinus was foiled in his attempts to get at Pudentilla's wealth through his daughter's marriage to her son. Instead, he is forced to now try and marry his daughter to Pudens, the surviving son of Pudentilla* (in much the same way that Pudentilla was encouraged to marry her dead husband's brother), and to press this court case against Apuleius in an attempt to get some of Pudentilla's wealth. Perhaps this is just such a case of the actio rei uxoriae, where the dowry of a daughter is sought back from the dead husband's family. Sicinius Aemilianus' direct interest in getting Pudentilla's money are also apparent. Just as Herrenius Rufinus hopes to profit from the his daughter's marriage to Pudens, Aemilianus would stand to gain money as the heir of a dead, intestate Pudens.*

The climax of Apuleius' speech centers on the actual presentation of Pudentilla's will in Section 100. It is with the presentation of this document that Apuleius proves that Sicinius Pudens, and not himself, is the major beneficiary. This presentation of Pudentilla's will introduces two interesting legal points. The reader might wonder why it is that if this entire case is about Pudentilla's money, why she has not been called as a witness. This question may be answered by Ulpian, an early third century jurist, who is quoted in Justinian's Digest (XXVIII.1.20,6) as stating that a woman is not able to act as a witness in a case involving a will. Such legal thought may have existed merely sixty years earlier, when the Apologia was delivered. A second legal point, the complaints of inofficiosum testamentum, has been mentioned briefly above but deserves comment here. These querula inofficiosi testamenti could be brought by children, parents, brothers and sisters. [11] The Theodosian Code (2.19.2) mentions a law of 321 citing that the burden of proof in such a case where the son claims that his mother has left an undutiful will rests with the son. The son is thus responsible to show that it is not himself that has acted wrongly but his mother. Such a case can be seen going on with the Apologia where Sicinius Pudens tries to make his mother look unfavorable. Apuleius by showing that Sicinius Pudens alone is named as heir, disputes any such claim of inappropriateness that his step-son is making.

Twice, Apuleius makes reference that by leaving her money to Pudens, Pudentilla has actually left her inheritance to Sicinius Aemilianus* and Herrenius Rufinus.* Apuleius argues that it is the greed of his prosecutors, all of whom have been shown to have a personal stake in the money in this case, which induced them to charge that Apuleius aimed at Pudentilla's inheritance.* Clearly, with these implications, Apuleius has uncovered at last, the major point of the case against him, that he was after Pudentilla's wealth. He gives most emphasis to the refutation of this charge in his concluding remarks when he shows that everything in the accusations of his opponents went towards trying to show his interest in Pudentilla for her wealth. He counters this ultimate charge with three legal points which have already been discussed in detail: the marriage contract (tabulae dotis), the deed of gift (tabulae donationis) of her property to her sons and her will (testamentum).* It has been clearly shown that the case against Apuleius, to which he responds with his Apologia, was based on claims for Pudentilla's money, both her dos and testamentum. Those prosecuting the case had interests firmly rooted in Pudentilla's wealth. Legal material introduced in this commentary shows that the prosecutors of Apuleius had legal grounds for disputing the dowries of Pudentilla and her will. Sicinius Aemilianus, Pudentilla's brother-in-law, whose family inheritance as passed to his brother's sons was under the control of Pudentilla and whose interests in the original dowry given to his family by Pudentilla clearly has legal basis for disputing Pudentilla's present dowry and will. Herrenius Rufinus was interested in Pudentilla's wealth as it related to the 400,000 HS dowry given to Pontianus, his claims on the inheritance of his dead son-in-law and his efforts to make Pudentilla's surviving son his daughter's second husband in a renewed attempt to procure some of Pudentilla's wealth. Sicinius Pudens, the surviving son of Pudentilla, was interested in his mother's wealth and what his share in her inheritance would be, that his mother's will not be undutiful. Tannonius Pudens, considering his family name and what possible interest he might have in the case, may have been Pudentilla's brother, an agnate relative, with an interest that his family's fortune not be passed to some random philosopher. These accusers were all concerned that Apuleius, through his marriage to Pudentilla would garner a disproportionately large dowry and also have undue influence over the money which they deemed rightfully their own . In order to protect their monetary interests, these accusers wanted to show that the marriage was invalid and attempted to do so by suggesting it was accomplished through magical means... hence the incorrect assumption that this case was about magic.

1. There are several reasons for positing Tannonius Pudens as the brother of Pudentilla. First, if the Apologia represents an inheritance case, as this commentary will show, there would be good reason for this agnate relative to be interested in his family's wealth and to act as a prosecutor against his brother-in-law. In addition, the maternal uncle played an important role in the upbringing of his sister's son. (J. Bremmer, "The Importance of the Maternal Uncle and Grandfather in Archaic and Classical Greece and Early Byzantium," ZPE 50 (1983), pp. 173-86) This would explain why Tannonius Pudens would be interested in helping Sicinius Pudens, his nephew, prosecute this case. Finally, the fact that in the course of the speech, Apuleius spares Tannonius Pudens from his more stinging invective, requires some explanation. If Tannonius were Apuleius' brother-in-law, this might explain the latter's relatively soft treatment of the former. From these points, it is possible to atleast postulate with good backing that Tannonius Pudens' involvement, as the brother of Pudentilla, in this inheritance dispute was justified.

2. Issues of dowry in the legal codes will be brought up only as they apply specifically to points in the Apologia. Dowry issues can be found in Justinian's Digest 23.3,4,5; 24.3; 25.1, Codex Justinianus 5.12,13,14,15,18,19,20,22,23; 7.74 and the Theodosian Code 2.21 and 3.5-6. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but as a starting place for those interested in tracing dowry issues in Roman law. As the number of citations suggests, Roman dowry was a complicated legal issue, a full explanation of which is outside the scope of this commentary.

3. Simple definitions of terms of Roman law as they appear in this commentary are derived from Adolph Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1968), unless otherwise noted.

4.This definition of matrimonium is from R. Saller CQ 34 (i) 1984, p. 196.

5. This reference occurs in Section 23 (p. 27 ll. 18-21), when Apuleius mentions Aemilianus' luck with inheritances.

6. These legal specifics and the evidence for them are recorded in J. Gardner, Women in Roman Law & Society (1986), pp. 107-8.

7. See Gardner, Ibid. pp. 165-9 for the steps over time through which women gained the right to make wills.

8. G. Clark, Women in Late Antiquity (1993), p. 19. It was the senatusconsultum Orfitianum, passed in 178 AD which gave children the first claim to their mother's property. See Justinian's Institutes 3.4, Digest 37.17 and Codex 6.57 for this senatusconsultum and related evidence.

9. R. Saller's CQ 34 (i) 1984 article "Roman Dowry and the Devolution of Property in the Principate" discusses the purpose of the Roman dowry in detail. He cites the two purposes mentioned in this commentary on p. 199 of his article. Other authors dealing with the dowry's purpose in detail are Corbett's (1930) chapter on dowry, Gardner, Ibid. pp.97-116 and Treggiari's Roman Marriage (1991) pp. 323-364.

10. R. Saller's CQ 34 (i) 1984 article, pp. 200-ff discusses the amount of Pudentilla's dowry in the context of trying to determine what a dowry's purpose was.

11. Claims against a woman's undutiful will are discussed in detail with legal citations in J. Gardner, Ibid.,pp.183-190.