Bologna's Jurists, Roman Law, and Women

Faeelin · Jun 29, 2004

Ancient Rome, surprisingly, was a fairly good place to be a woman in, all things considered.

In early imperial law and late republic, a woman could own her own property, and while the woman's dowry went to the husband, the woman was part of her father's property system.

Essentially, while her father lived, the woman's property was held by the father. But when the father died, as happened fairly early, property went to the woman, not to her husband or kids. Thus, women could own property in their own right.

When Bologna's jurists revived classical law in the 12th and 13th centuries, they modified it. (Shock! Gasp!) . A woman's position in regard to her husband was now similar to that of a freedwoman to her master in Rome, to whom respect and duties were owed. Women were also placed under their husband's guardianship after their father died in this Bologna Roman Law. In Tru Roman Law, they were under no one's guardianship.

So, around 1150, a jurist has a different, better wife. Frederick I supports this as part of the package of Roman Law; the pope opposes it, but it does catch on in Italy. It expands as Roman Law does, in southern france and elsewhere.

Thoughts?

Susano · Jun 29, 2004

Well, its the middle ages. Whatever laws are made in the cities wont effect greatly the customs and community laws of the still overwhelmingly rural population...
In the cities themselves, though, especially Italy of course, that is another case, naturally. Social movements take time to grow, especially in times with such rather bad communication. besides, I assume few men would be willing to give up their position of power. And if it is sponsored by a German even then.. well somehow I think it will spread slowly if at all.
We might see many pointless juristic debattes about why women had an inferior position in roman law, even though that was not the case.... but foir the normal population I can imagine quite few things change. too many stuff stands in the way for this...

LordKalvan · Jun 29, 2004

The position of a woman under the Roman law was not so nice, I'm afraid. There was a law (the lex Voconia, if I remember right) that precluded women from inheriting the main assets of their husbands (or fathers). Unless a Senatorial decree was not obtained prior to the death of the male (one such case was Cornelia, of the Gracchi family), the inheritance went automatically to the closest male relative. Still a woman in Rome was better placed than in the East for sure (or even better than in classical Greece).
The main problem in medieval times stems out of the Pauline attitude toward women, which permeated the thinking of the Church for a lot of time (and it is still there).

Faeelin · Jun 30, 2004

LordKalvan said:
The position of a woman under the Roman law was not so nice, I'm afraid. There was a law (the lex Voconia, if I remember right) that precluded women from inheriting the main assets of their husbands (or fathers). Unless a Senatorial decree was not obtained prior to the death of the male (one such case was Cornelia, of the Gracchi family), the inheritance went automatically to the closest male relative.

Well, that's kind of a duh, isn't it? Of course common procedure is to have most property go to a man; the fact is however that women could inherit.

The law you're quoting says that a man can't give a woman more than half his property: http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/...oman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Lex_Voconia.html

Still a woman in Rome was better placed than in the East for sure (or even better than in classical Greece).
The main problem in medieval times stems out of the Pauline attitude toward women, which permeated the thinking of the Church for a lot of time (and it is still there).

Yes, which is why I'm proposing that they revive the laws along with the other roman laws.

I mean hell, if they can decide that roman emperors had feudal rights...

LordKalvan · Jun 30, 2004

Well, there must be a rationale behind a big change.
The only way I can see it (considering also the Church opposition) would be a real rift between Church and Empire, much worse than it happened. So first of all the Houenstaufen must survive. The Pope leaves Rome and goes to Avignon, as usual. An anti-Pope is installed in Rome. Now the Emperor though his jurists reforms the law, to his benefit. Incidentally, he also enhances the rights of women because he needs the support of a big Feudal lord who is a woman (someone like Mathilde of Tuscany of 50 years before. But with a fixation on improving the lot of women, instead of supporting the Pope)

MerryPrankster · Jun 30, 2004

I thought in Rome they had the paterfamilias system where a father could kill or enslave his wife, kids, and even his tenant farmers. Though I've heard that power wasn't invoked nearly as often as one would think, the fact that it even existed is not a good thing.

Pauline attitude towards women? If you view Paul's writings in the context of Mediterranean society of the time, it's actually a great improvement ("women should learn in silence and full submission" is better than "women should not learn at all...get back to the kitchen, $#@#%"). If you must blame one of the early Christian leaders for sexism, blame Tertullian. That doofus claimed all women were bad influences b/c of Eve.

Now, back to the POD...

I heard that in northern Europe, the position of women was much freer than in southern Europe (Roman vs. German cultural influence, I guess). Will this decision have ramifications in the North as well, or will it mostly bring the South up, so to speak?

LordKalvan · Jun 30, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
I thought in Rome they had the paterfamilias system where a father could kill or enslave his wife, kids, and even his tenant farmers. Though I've heard that power wasn't invoked nearly as often as one would think, the fact that it even existed is not a good thing.

Pauline attitude towards women? If you view Paul's writings in the context of Mediterranean society of the time, it's actually a great improvement ("women should learn in silence and full submission" is better than "women should not learn at all...get back to the kitchen, $#@#%"). If you must blame one of the early Christian leaders for sexism, blame Tertullian. That doofus claimed all women were bad influences b/c of Eve.

Now, back to the POD...

I heard that in northern Europe, the position of women was much freer than in southern Europe (Roman vs. German cultural influence, I guess). Will this decision have ramifications in the North as well, or will it mostly bring the South up, so to speak?

Roman law was based on the pater familiae, and his right to put to death every member of his household. Obviously, it made quite a difference between a poor farmer and some important, rich senator.

St. Paul was the origin od it, believe me. If I remember right, he had quite a number of doubts on the possession of soul by women

Faeelin · Jul 1, 2004

LordKalvan said:
Well, there must be a rationale behind a big change.
The only way I can see it (considering also the Church opposition) would be a real rift between Church and Empire, much worse than it happened. So first of all the Houenstaufen must survive. The Pope leaves Rome and goes to Avignon, as usual. An anti-Pope is installed in Rome. Now the Emperor though his jurists reforms the law, to his benefit. Incidentally, he also enhances the rights of women because he needs the support of a big Feudal lord who is a woman (someone like Mathilde of Tuscany of 50 years before. But with a fixation on improving the lot of women, instead of supporting the Pope)

Actually, you've basically hit the scenario this is for dead on, although the pope is more likely to flee to Rouen. I'm trying to figure out the effects.

MerryPrankster · Jul 1, 2004

"St. Paul was the origin od it, believe me. If I remember right, he had quite a number of doubts on the possession of soul by women"

I don't remember reading him saying anything about that.

I do recall Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

From what I've heard, the notion of women not having souls seems to have come around in medieval times. All these theologians living in all-male theological domiciles could probably have really screwy ideas.

LordKalvan · Jul 1, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
"St. Paul was the origin od it, believe me. If I remember right, he had quite a number of doubts on the possession of soul by women"

I don't remember reading him saying anything about that.

I do recall Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

From what I've heard, the notion of women not having souls seems to have come around in medieval times. All these theologians living in all-male theological domiciles could probably have really screwy ideas.

I may be mistaken. Actually, my experience with St. Paul's writings goes back quite a time. I don't have the time (or the will) to go and check it. The point is that women were considered 2nd class citizens, at best.

LordKalvan · Jul 1, 2004

Faeelin said:
Actually, you've basically hit the scenario this is for dead on, although the pope is more likely to flee to Rouen. I'm trying to figure out the effects.

Do you have in mind some significant female feudatary of the age of Barbarossa? Otherwise, it could be the case of going back a few years, and choose a feminist Mathilda

Faeelin · Jul 2, 2004

LordKalvan said:
Do you have in mind some significant female feudatary of the age of Barbarossa? Otherwise, it could be the case of going back a few years, and choose a feminist Mathilda

A bit after, actually. Henry VI establishes a hereditary emipre and doesn't die in 1196, retaking Jerusalem as the Ayyubids exhaust themselves in civil war. Innocent III is elected, as in OTL, tries to support first a Guelph Otto of Brunswick as Emperor, then John. Phillip of Swabia, meanwhile, uses a Sicilian-Pisan fleet to take Byzantium in a coup, averting the 4th crusade.

End result is a pope who's firmly under the Emperor's sway, and who has France much closer to medieval France, or even england, than Medieval Germany.

LordKalvan · Jul 3, 2004

Faeelin said:
A bit after, actually. Henry VI establishes a hereditary emipre and doesn't die in 1196, retaking Jerusalem as the Ayyubids exhaust themselves in civil war. Innocent III is elected, as in OTL, tries to support first a Guelph Otto of Brunswick as Emperor, then John. Phillip of Swabia, meanwhile, uses a Sicilian-Pisan fleet to take Byzantium in a coup, averting the 4th crusade.

End result is a pope who's firmly under the Emperor's sway, and who has France much closer to medieval France, or even england, than Medieval Germany.

wouldn't a greater presence and interests in the East work against women's rights? It is true that the women left at home would be more involved in governing their husbands fiefs.. maybe the two things would compensate each other, who knows

MerryPrankster · Jul 3, 2004

In medieval law, women were subordinate to fathers, husbands, son, etc. This was in theory.

In practice, since the men were away at war a lot, women often ran estates and the like. In modern parlance, that'd be like running a small corporation (you'd be supervising farming, metalworking, trade, etc).

Plus, there were differences in medieval societies. In Saxon England, for example, a town prostitute ended up becoming a powerful noblewoman (a thane), and there were many powerful women in the upper classes. I imagine the situation wasn't the same in, say, Italy or Spain.

LordKalvan · Jul 4, 2004

Matt Quinn said:
In medieval law, women were subordinate to fathers, husbands, son, etc. This was in theory.

In practice, since the men were away at war a lot, women often ran estates and the like. In modern parlance, that'd be like running a small corporation (you'd be supervising farming, metalworking, trade, etc).

Plus, there were differences in medieval societies. In Saxon England, for example, a town prostitute ended up becoming a powerful noblewoman (a thane), and there were many powerful women in the upper classes. I imagine the situation wasn't the same in, say, Italy or Spain.

In Italy the situation was quite different between the North (where, even without an official sanction by law women could and did run businesses, either in the absence of their husbands or as widows) and South (the influence of Arab occupation of Sicily was still strong).

I am not equally informed about Spain, but it is reasonable to think that Aragon would be quite under the influx of Provence (troubadours and romance), while Castilla and Leon were more man-oriented

Faeelin · Jul 4, 2004

LordKalvan said:
wouldn't a greater presence and interests in the East work against women's rights? It is true that the women left at home would be more involved in governing their husbands fiefs.. maybe the two things would compensate each other, who knows

What, and let the decadent Saracen ways corrupt a true and Christian people?

Christians in Outremer readily adopted some Eastern practices, but look at that long, unending stream of queens.

LordKalvan · Jul 4, 2004

Faeelin said:
What, and let the decadent Saracen ways corrupt a true and Christian people?

Christians in Outremer readily adopted some Eastern practices, but look at that long, unending stream of queens.

I should check a few dates, but i guess that there were a lot of queens because the king had what we would call an unhealthy job. No one would give him a life insurance

MerryPrankster · Jul 5, 2004

Faeelin,

Long unending stream of queens? Are you talking about the rulers of the Crusader states?