The Godlike Nature Of Social Status

The Godlike Nature of Social Status : A comparison of Women’s Property Control in the Classical Period of the Roman Empire and Quattrocentro Florence

Both the society of the Classical period of the Roman Empire and that of Quattrocentro period of Florence were highly obsessed with status. A person’s worth was determined was determined by their social standing. The laws of both periods highly reflect this intense obsession. As Roman law was revived in the eleventh century [?] and used throughout Italy, it is logical that the laws of Quattrocentro would reflect the importance of status as legislated in Classical Roman law. However, the local laws of Florence raised the bar and indicated that the determining factors of status had shifted slightly. While wealth was always a great determining factor in one social worth from the time of Classical Roman law, in Quattrocentro Florence one’s monetary situation became even more important and the laws of the period reflect a willingness to protect and advance a person’s wealth as much as possible in order to maintain their status. In the societies of the Classical Roman Empire and Quattrocentro Florence, a family’s status, and thus the personal status of all of its members, was determined by the male members of the family, especially the male head of the family. In an effort to protect male wealth, the laws of Florence effectively negate the power of women to hold property of their own, a feature that was lacking in laws of the Classical Roman Empire. This paper will first examine the laws of the Classical Roman Empire in the context of the manner in which social status was determined. It will then do the same for the Quattrocentro Florence, and then offer reasons for the decrease of control that women had over their property and the shift in the manner that status was determined that prompted it.

There are three main ways women could have access to property. The first of these ways was through receiving a dowry for her marriage. While this was money or property that technically belonged to the women’s father, it was property that was set aside to provide her with a livelihood befitting of her status during marriage: “The provision of dowry was basically a contribution customary though not compulsory, from the wife’s family to the expenses of the household of the husband.” The husband had the use of the dowry while the marriage lasted but was required to return it to his wife’s father, or his wife if her father was deceased: [insert Digest quotation]

This legal commentary from the digest indicates how important it was that the dowry be able to move with the woman. In order to maintain his wealth, it was important for a paterfamilias to only have to pay out one dowry for each daughter. For most marriages, the dowry was the means for providing for the wife and was seen as almost necessary. Dowries were also rather large expenses because they needed to contain enough money to support the woman throughout her marriage, and in a lot of cases throughout her life. When the father paid out the dowry to the husband, while it did not belong to the husband, he was placed in the husbands hands. There was a rather large chance that the husband might squander the dowry with poor business and investment decisions. Thus, it was in the best interest of fathers, and heads of family, that they put a little money on the table as possible, which meant paying out only one dowry per daughter.

Legal commentaries by [insert name] in the Digest are consistent with this sentiment. While the digest is not law itself, it is an analysis of the present law and therefore is able to give an accurate representation of the law. One of the many commentaries from the digest on the subject of dowry that is worth analyzing is that “It is in the interest of the state that women have their dowries secure, on account of which they are able to marry." (Dig 23.3.9.3 -- Evans Grubbs). This excerpt from the Digest of Justinian indicates the felt necessity of providing a dowry for any daughters that one intended to marry. With dowry seen as a necessity, this piece of legal analysis also expresses the sentiment that it was desirable to only have to dole out one dowry per daughter. As the dowry was such a large expense for the majority of families, it was in the best interest of these families to only have to pay out the dowry once in order to place the least amount of money at risk.

The second piece of commentary from the digest that is worth analyzing is from the [insert book] of the Digest and states that “For a husband is prohibited by the Julian Law . . . from alienating dotal property if his wife is unwilling. (Gaius, Institutes II.62-63) This piece of legal commentary is significant for two reasons. First, this analysis of the Julian law indicates the same desire to protect the dowry that is evident in the preceding Digest piece through controlling the husband’s ability to selling or investing property from his wife’s dowry, and cutting down on risk to a man’s property that was incurred when he dowered his daughters. But secondly, and more interestingly, this piece of commentary acknowledges an acceptance of the concept of women as able to own property. Another piece of commentary on dowry that exhibits this same acceptance of women as property holders is from Book 23 of the Digest: “Although a dowry becomes part of the husband’s property it still belongs to the wife. (Dig 23.3.75) In other words, the husband has the use of the property while he is married but does not actually own the property. These two pieces of commentary both acknowledge women’s ability to hold property. The first one, in requiring that the wife be consulted before parts of her dowry are liquidated, indicates that the wife had a claim to the property in question. This leads to the conclusion that women were not only allowed to have property nominally, but more consequentially their right to hold property was respected. The second piece of commentary also attests to the fact that women’s ability to hold property was respected by Classical Roman law. By using the wording “belongs to the wife” the law fully acknowledges and supports a woman as a property holder. [I want to add more detailed analysis to this section] From these selections in the Digest, it is apparent that, where dowry is concerned, the jurisprudence of the Classical Roman Empire respected women as having the capacity to hold property and respected their right to do so.

The second type of property that was available to women was non-dotal property. Non-dotal property was property that was not part