reasonable to doubt whether these laws were very often carried out
strictly to the letter. For example, the law did indeed hold that the
estate of a party guilty of treason was confiscated to the state[163];
but even here it was expressly ordained that the goods of the condemned
man's freedmen be reserved for his children.[164] Moreover, in actual
practice we can find few instances where the law was executed in its
literal severity even under the worst tyrants. It was Julius Caesar who
first set the splendid example of allowing to the children of his dead
foes full enjoyment of their patrimonies.[165] Succeeding emperors
followed the precedent.[166] Tyrants like Tiberius and Nero, strangely
enough, in a majority of cases overruled the Senate when it proposed to
confiscate the goods of those condemned for treason, and allowed the
children a large part or all of the paternal estate.[167] Hadrian gave
the children of proscribed offenders the twelfth part of their father's
goods.[168] Antoninus Pius gave them all.[169] There was a strong public
feeling against bills of attainder and this sentiment is voiced by all
writers of the Empire. The law forbade wives to suffer any loss for any
fault of their husbands.[170]

Since we have now noticed that women could inherit any amount, that they
were bound to receive something under their fathers' wills, and that the
guilt of their kin could inflict no prejudice upon them in the way of
bills of attainder involving physical injury or civil status and, in
practice, little loss so far as inheriting property was concerned, we
may pass to a contemplation of the specific legal rights of inheritance
of women.

If women were to be disinherited, it was sufficient to mention them in
an aggregate; but males must be mentioned specifically.[171] If,
however, they were disinherited in an aggregate (_inter ceteros_), some