Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:17:24.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magic and Property: The Legal Context of Apuleius' Apologia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Tristan Taylor
Tristan Taylor*
Affiliation:
The University of New England, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines Apuleius' Apologia from the perspective of its legal context. The paper asks three questions: first, what was the legal situation in relation to the property issues central to the motivations of Apuleius' accusers? Second, what would the legal effects of a conviction have been on these property concerns? And, finally, what light do our answers to these questions shed on the Apologia itself? The applicable legal rules suggest both that some of the concerns of the prosecutors were ill-founded and that the prosecution would have achieved little in a legal sense in terms advancing their alleged ends. These observations suggest several potential conclusions: first, that Apuleius' accusers sincerely believed their accusation of magic and thought that it was only the magical skill of Apuleius that threatened their aspirations to Pudentilla's estate. Conversely, it may be that the accusers were simply ignorant about the law, vindictive towards Apuleius, or both. Third, that Apuleius has misrepresented his accusers' motivations. Finally, these conclusions on matters of law could even be taken to suggest that the speech does not represent a genuine case, but rather is a work of fiction concocted by Apuleius for literary purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 45 , 2011 , pp. 149 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thank you to Dr Eric Ghosh, Catherine Kim, Professor J.F. Matthews and Carlos Noreña, and the anonvmous journal referees for helpful suggestions on this paper.

References

1 On the dating see the bibliography in Bradley, K., ‘Law, Magic and Culture in the Apologia of Apuleius’, Phoenix 51 (1997) 203–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. at 203 n. 1.

2 For an earlier related study see Norden, F., Apulejus von Madaura und das römische Privatrecht (Leipzig 1912)Google Scholar. Norden, however, does not deal directly with many of the key questions addressed in this paper.

3 See Hunink, V. (ed.), Apuleius of Madauros pro se de magia (Apologia) (Amsterdam 1987) vol. 1, 25–7Google Scholar, for an outline of the debate as to whether the speech represents a real trial or not.

4 It is generally assumed that Apuleius was not condemned: see Hunink (n. 3) vol. 1, 19-20.

5 This is leaving aside the fact that Apuleius reveals in the speech that they were ignorant of some of the actual facts, such as the fact that Apuleius had not been made heir to Pudentilla's estate: Apul, . Apol. 100Google Scholar.

6 E.g. Apul, . Apol. 66.1Google Scholar.

7 Apul, . Apol. 97.7–98.1Google Scholar.

8 Apul, . Apol. 98Google Scholar.2. Aemilianus would have held this position as Pudens' surviving agnatic relative if Pudens were to predecease him: Gai., Inst. 3.9Google Scholar.

9 Apul, . Apol. 91.5Google Scholar.

10 Apul, . Apol. 99.5–7Google Scholar.

11 Apul, . Apol. 101.Google Scholar4ff.

12 Harries, J., Law and Crime in the Roman World (Cambridge 2007) 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Dig. 48.1.8Google Scholar (Paul) on the continuing relevance of the statutes. On discretion, see Dig. 48.19.13Google Scholar (Ulpian); Robinson, O.F., Penal Practice and Penal Policy in Ancient Rome (London 2007) 188Google Scholar; Harries (n. 12) 36-7. On the evolution of cognitio, see Jolowicz, H.F. and Nicholas, B., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 3rd edn (Cambridge 1972) 401–4Google Scholar.

14 A fact alluded to by Apuleius himself: Apul, . Apol. 47.4Google Scholar; Harries (n. 12) 125.

15 See the heading to Paul. Sent. 5.23Google Scholar: ad legem Corneliam de sicariis et veneficiis, and e.g., 5.23.17, dealing with magi and those conseil magicae artis. See also Norden (n. 2) 32. On the date of the Sententiae, see Johnston, D., Roman Law in Context (Cambridge 1999) 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Hunink (ed.) (n. 3) vol. 1, 13: ‘the relevance of this law is beyond doubt.’

17 Harries (n. 12) 122-5.

18 This is the vexed question of ‘interpolation’, or the extent to which the texts in the Digest represent classical law, or post-classical rewriting during the process of compilation of Justinian's Corpus Iuris Civilis. The pendulum has swung back and forth on this issue, but generally today it is felt that while changes to wording are numerous, changes to substance are probably less so, although this should not lead to the uncritical acceptance of all texts: see Johnston (n. 15) 14-22; Watson, A., ‘Prolegomena to Establishing Pre-Justinianic Texts’, TR 62 (1994) 113–25Google Scholar. Kaser, M., Zur Methodologie der römischen Rechtsquellenforschung (Vienna 1972)Google Scholar; Johnston, D., ‘Justinian's Digest. The Interpretation of Interpolation’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 9 (1989) 149–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We will make frequent reference to pre-Justinianic texts to help control for interpolations. On pre-Justinianic texts, see Johnston, , Roman Law (n. 15) 12–14Google Scholar.

19 Harries (n. 12) 124.

20 Apul, . Apol. 26.9Google Scholar: in discrimen capitis deducit; 100Google Scholar.9: capitis accusavit. At Apol. 66Google Scholar.3 Apuleius also refers to the prosecution as one of the pericula vitae that he has endured; however, see Garnsey, P., Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1970) 110Google Scholar, who cautions against taking this phrase too literally.

21 Garnsey (n. 20) 171 and chap. 5.

22 Ibid 234-5, 237-45 and chap. 9 on specifying who were honestiores, who humiliores. See also Harries (n. 12) 35.

23 Dig. 48.8.3.5Google Scholar (Marcian). Those of lower rank were crucified or thrown to the beasts.

24 On deportatio see Garnsey, (n. 20) 111–22Google Scholar.

25 Dio 77.17.2: Garnsey (n. 20) 111.

26 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar: honestiores in insulam amisssa parte bonorum relegantur.

27 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar: quod si ex hoc mulier aut homo perierit, summo supplicio adficiuntur. On summum supplicium see Garnsey (n. 20) 122ff.

28 Paul. Sent. 5.23.17Google Scholar: magicae artis conscios summo supplicio adfici placuit, id est bestiis obici aut cruci suffigi. ipsi autem magi vivi exuruntur.

29 Paul. Sent. 5.23.15Google Scholar: qui sacra impia nocturnave, ut quem obcantarent defigerent obligarent, fecerint faciendave curaverint, aut cruci suffiguntur aut bestiis obiciuntur.

30 Love philtres: Apul, . Apol. 90.1, 91.4, 102.2, 102Google Scholar.3; nocturnal rites: 57ff.; knowledge of magical arts and the magician extends throughout the whole speech, but see especially the discussion of the meaning of ‘magician’, magus, in 25–6Google Scholar. See also Norden (n. 2) 29-31 and Harries (n. 12) 126 for an outline of the alleged magical activities of Apuleius.

31 Garnsey (n. 20) 111.

32 Dig. 48.8.3.2 (Marcian)Google Scholar.

33 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar.

34 See Garnsey (n. 20) 110-11.

35 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar.

36 Dig. 48.22.6 pr (Ulpian)Google Scholar.

37 Dig. 48.20.7.5 (Paul)Google Scholar.

38 E.g. Dig. 48.22.6.2 (Ulpian)Google Scholar. See also Dig. 48.19.15 (Venuleius Saturninus)Google Scholar; Garnsey (n. 20) 125 for a law of Hadrian apparently excluding decurione from execution.

39 Dig. 48.19.28.13–14 (Callistratus)Google Scholar.

40 Garnsey (n. 20) 105-11.

41 Ibid. 79-80, 242-3.

42 Harries (n. 12) 35 does not exclude execution, though regards exile as the most likely outcome.

43 See Treggiari, S., Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991)Google Scholar chap. 10; Saller, R., Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar chap. 9; Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht (Munich 1971) vol. 1, 332–41Google Scholar. Norden (n. 2) 93-100.

44 Apul., Apol. 67Google Scholar.4.

45 Paul. Sent. 2.22Google Scholar.1.

46 Tit. Ulp. 6.3Google Scholar.

47 Tit. 6.4Google Scholar.

48 Tit. Ulp. 6.3Google Scholar.

49 E.g. Apul, . Apol. 91.5Google Scholar.

50 Apul, . Apol. 92.1Google Scholar; Norden (n. 2) 93-4.

51 Apul, . Apol. 91.8Google Scholar.

52 Apul., Apol. 92Google Scholar.1 implies that Aemilianus either did not know, or did not believe, this pactum existed: fors fuat an ne sic quidem credit Aemilianus sola trecenta milia nummum scripta eorumque repetitionem filiis Pudentillae pacto datam.

53 Buckland, W.W.W., A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd edn, rev. Stein, P. (Cambridge 1963) 109–10Google Scholar. The wife could reclaim the dos via an actio rei uxoriae: Norden (n. 2) 94-5; Treggiari (n. 43) 350-3. See further below for a discussion of the fate of the dos on Apuleius' conviction.

54 See e.g. Kaser, , Römische Privatrecht (n. 43) vol. 1, 318–21Google Scholar.

55 Apul, . Apol. 88.3, 103Google Scholar.2.

56 Apuleius reveals his accusers were mistaken in their belief that he had been made heir under the will: Apul., Apol. 100Google Scholar.

57 Tit. Ulp. 15.1–2Google Scholar: Treggiari (n. 43) 70-1.

58 On usufruct see e.g. Buckland (n. 53) 269-74.

59 Tit. Ulp. 15.3Google Scholar: Treggiari (n. 43) 70-1.

60 Tit. Ulp. 15.1–1aGoogle Scholar; Treggiari (n. 43) 70-1.

61 Pudentilla was just over 40: Apul, . Apol. 89.5Google Scholar; Apuleius was perhaps in his mid 30s: Hunink (ed.) (n. 3) vol. 1, 15.

62 Ulp., Tit. 17.2Google Scholar.

63 Gai., List. 2.207Google Scholar; Buckland (n. 53) 319.

64 The alternative would be that Pudentilla was emancipated. The tutor, Cassius Longinus, is mentioned in Apol. 101Google Scholar.

65 Apul., Apol. 100Google Scholar.

66 Apul, . Apol. 99.5–6Google Scholar.

67 Gai., Inst. 2.248Google Scholar; Buckland (n. 53) 294.

68 For an outline see Buckland (n. 53) 367-70. Agnatic relatives were those who possessed consanguinity on the father's side.

69 Bonorum possessio was literally the possession of the estate given by the praetor: Berger, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia 1953) 375Google Scholar. See also Kaser, , Römische Privatrecht (n. 43) vol. 1, 674–6Google Scholar.

70 Buckland (n. 53) 370-1.

71 It was not until the Senatus Consultum Orphitianum of 178 CE that children had a priority claim to their mother's estate: Buckland (n. 53) 373.

72 Dig. 48.20.1 pr (Callistratus)Google Scholar. That this represented classical law, rather than Justinianic interpolation, is suggested by the title of a book by Paul extracted in the Digest, de portionibus, quae liberis damnatorum conceduntur: Dig. 48.20.7 (Paul)Google Scholar. Presumably, a book would only be required on what portions were conceded to children of the condemned if the property of the condemned was actually confiscated. See also Paul. Sent. 5.23Google Scholar.14: confiscation of property for administering a love philtre, and 5.23.18: confiscation of property for possession of books on the art of magic.

73 Dig. 23.3.7.3 (Ulpian)Google Scholar: si res in dote dentur, puto in bonis mariti fieri.

74 Dig. 24.3.31 pr (Julian)Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that, should a woman have undergone conviction for a capital offence, her dowry would have been confiscated as part of her property: Dig. 48.20.3 (Ulpian)Google Scholar.

75 Garnsey (n. 20) 111.

76 Gai, Contrast. List. 1.128Google Scholar and Just, . Inst. 1.12.1–2Google Scholar. The Justinianic passage is clearly borrowed from Gaius, yet Gaius only mentions interdictio aqua et igni, for which Justinian substitutes deportatio and includes an extra sentence on relegatio. See Garnsey (n. 20) 111-22.

77 Contrast the penalty of relegatio for giving an abortificant or a love philtre (Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar) with the punishment of deportado for castrating a person (Paul. Sent. 5.23.13Google Scholar).

78 The hierarchy suggested by Pauli Sententiae makes these offences, punishable by execution alone, more serious than just administering a love philtre, the other offence implied by the speech, for which relegation is prescribed only if the victim does not die: Paul. Sent. 5.23.14-15 and 17Google Scholar.

79 See e.g. Dig. 48.22.6 pr (Ulpian), 48.22.15 pr (Marcian)Google Scholar.

80 Tit. Ulp. 22.2Google Scholar; Buckland (n. 53) 290. Slaves, though non-citizens, could be instituted as heirs provided that they were manumitted by the will: Tit. Ulp. 22Google Scholar.7ff.

81 Tit. Ulp. 5.2–5Google Scholar; Gai, . Inst. 1.55–6Google Scholar; Dig. 24.3.56 (Paul)Google Scholar; Treggiari (n. 43) 43, 435-6. See also Gai, . List. 1.128Google Scholar on deportation ending citizenship and with it patria potestas.

82 Dig. 24.1.13.1 (Ulpian)Google Scholar; Dig. 48.20.5.1 (Ulpian)Google Scholar where Ulpian cites Marcellus with approval (quae sententia et vera est) as stating that deportation of the woman does not dissolve a marriage as the woman remains libera.

83 See Kaser, , Römische Privatrecht (n. 43) vol. 1, 325Google Scholar, who notes the marriage may continue under Peregrinenrecht, though not Roman ius civile. Buckland (n. 53) 105 n. 7; Norden (n. 2) 107 and 124. See also Dig. 48.22.15 (Ulpian)Google Scholar: a deported person retains the ability to use the transactions available under the ius gentium. CJ 5.17.1 (Alex. Sev.)Google Scholar: matrimonium quidem deportatione vel aqua et igni interdictione non solvitur, si casus, in quem maritus incidit, non mutet uxoris adfectionem. See also Dig. 24.1.13.1 (Ulpian); 48.20.5.1 (Ulpian)Google Scholar. In light of these texts, Paul's statement that deportation was a circumstance that ended marriage should be confined to the ending of a marriage in Roman civil law: Dig. 24.3.56 (Paul)Google Scholar. On affectio maritalis see Treggiari (n. 43) 54-7.

84 Tit. Ulp. 5.8Google Scholar.

85 Dig. 24.3.31 pr (Ulpian), 48.20.1 (Callistratus), 48.22.14.1 (Ulpian), 48.8.3.5 (Marcian)Google Scholar; Paul. Sent. 5.14.14, 5.14.18Google Scholar.

86 CJ 5.17.1 (Alex. Sev.)Google Scholar. See also Dig. 48.20.3, 48.20.5 (Ulpian)Google Scholar where in the case of a wife's deportation the dos was confiscated in certain circumstances, but not in others.

87 The action to reclaim the dos was the actio rei uxoriae: Tit. Ulp. 6.6Google Scholar. There were no grounds on which Apuleius would be able to claim retentiones (i.e. keep part of the dowry). This was only allowed where the wife had been immoral or on account of children: Tit. Ulp. 6.9–11Google Scholar; Treggiari (n. 43) 352-3.

88 Dig. 48.22.6 (Ulpian)Google Scholar.

89 See Digest 48.1.2 (Paul)Google Scholar: capitalia sunt, ex quibuspoena mors aut exilium est, hoc est aquae et ignis interdictio: per has enim poenas eximitur caput de civitate. nam cetera non exilia, sed relegationes proprie dicuntur: tune enim civitas retinetur. Garnsey (n. 20) 115 n. 6 notes that the authenticity of the underlined sections has been questioned and that they have been condemned as glosses. However, it is still highly probable that this reflected the law at the time. Ovid, for example, makes the distinction ipse relegati, non exulis utitur in me / nomine and that he was deprived of nec vitam nec opes nec ius … civis: Tristia 5.11.21Google Scholar and 15; Garnsey, 115.

90 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14Google Scholar.

91 Dig. 48.22.4 (Marcian) (emphasis added).

92 Paul. Sent. 5.23.14.

93 Dig. 24.3.31 pr (Julian).

94 Apul. Apol. 101.

95 Apul Apol. 101.6-7.

96 Tit. Ulp. 7.1. See also Dig. 24.1.

97 See Saller (n. 43) chap. 7 for illustrations of the wide range of testamentary options utilised by the Romans, and 166-8 on the testamentary freedom allowed by the laws. Pudentilla also required her tutor's assent: Gai. Inst. 2.118.

98 See Paul. Sent. 4.5Google Scholar; Dig. 5.2Google Scholar; Just. List. 2.18Google Scholar; Buckland (n. 53) 327 ff.; Norden (n. 2) 148-9.

99 Buckland (n. 53) 327.

100 Paul. Sent. 4.5Google Scholar.6.

101 See e.g. Apul, . Apol. 73.8Google Scholar.

102 Apul, . Apol. 68Google Scholar.

103 Apul, . Apol. 99.3Google Scholar.

104 Bradley (n. 1) 207–12.

105 Plin., NH 28.6.33–4Google Scholar.

106 Bradley (n. 1) 209.

107 See in particular Apul, . Apol. 92.1–2Google Scholar where he demands Rufinus read the tablets and states that Aemilianus may still not believe the size of the dos even though he now has read it.

108 On this question see Hunink (ed.) (n. 3) vol. 1, 25-7.