Property Consequences of Sexual Relationships
Municipal lawmakers were concerned during this period about the consequences of marriage and other sexual relationships for the property rights of the parties and the issue of their union.
Although canon law had for centuries recognized marriage without dowry, communities strongly disapproved of unions lacking dowry—Florentines considered it far more shameful to marry without dowry than to marry without the blessing of a priest.[2012] “Since it is in the interest of the government to have rich citizens and subjects, and to eliminate the causes of their impoverishment,” declared the Reggio Emilia statutes, it seemed necessary to impose strict limits upon the amount of property that families might give as dowry. No one might dower his daughter with more than fifteen percent of his total assets, nor might any dowry exceed a maximum of 400 gold ducats, according to the statute.[2013] Such limitations had implications for the groom’s family as well, since the contribution by the mans family to the newlyweds was liable to be approximately equal to the contribution of the bride s family.[2014] Cities were anxious that these arrangements be settled in writing, or at least that agreements concerning them be attested by witnesses.[2015] Italian towns also tried to see to it that the dowries given to marriageable daughters did not disadvantage other family members. For this reason several of them incorporated in their statutes what had long been a common practice, namely that a woman who received a dowry at the time of marriage was excluded from any further share in her family’s estate.[2016]Dowry represented the married womans claim to financial security, but that security might be jeopardized by her own actions or those of her husband. The married woman who committed adultery stood to lose her dowry, and the beneficiary in that case was her husband, who received part or all of it as compensation for his humiliation.[2017] Giovanni Nevizzani held that even exchanging a sexy kiss with a man to whom she was not married might cause a married woman to forfeit her dowry, but other authorities were unwilling to push the point this far.
Ulrich Zasius maintained that a woman convicted of adultery on circumstantial evidence alone should not be deprived of her dowry. Martin de Azpilceuta also argued in favor of an unmarried womans prospective rights in a dowry promised to her and declared that even if she had an illicit affair her parents or other benefactor could not on that account deny her the promised settlement at the time of marriage.[2018] Men had to be careful, too. A husband who expelled his wife without legal cause might be required not only to repay her dowry, but also to add up to a quarter of his own assets to her financial settlement. If a man committed fornication with a widow, he stood to lose any legacy left to him by her late husband. Ifboth parties to a marriage were guilty of sexual misconduct, the wife was entitled to repossess her dowry and the husband to take all other marital property when their marriage terminated.[2019] If a man received gifts from a married woman with whom he had committed adultery, however, he was obliged to restore that property to her husband as a condition for reconciliation with the Church.[2020]The property claims that resulted from adulterous relationships were so complicated, and might be so disruptive, that some couples were willing to overlook or to bear with their marital discords in order to conserve their financial interests by avoiding the economic penalties that separation or divorce entailed.[2021]
Both canonists and secular authorities sought to protect women whose financial interests were threatened by the carelessness, incompetence, or neglect of spendthrift husbands. They provided a process whereby the wife might secure a separation from her husband if she could show that he was endangering her financial security and that his conduct tended to impoverish her. In these cases the wife was entitled to sue for restitution of her dowry, as was also true in some jurisdictions if her husband was convicted of a crime.[2022]
Secular writers also attempted to spell out in detail the rights of surviving spouses in the estates of their deceased partners.
If the wife died before the husband, he was normally entitled to a share in her dowry, whether there were children from the marriage or not. If there were children, they received the residue of their mother’s dowry; if there were no children, the residue usually returned to the wife’s family of origin. Where the husband predeceased the wife, she was normally entitled to claim all of her dowry. If there were children of the marriage, the widow commonly had to divide with them her interest in the husband’s property and in any acquests. Ifthere were no children she received a portion of her husband’s estate proportional to the value of the dowry she had brought to the marriage.[2023]Some civic authorities shared the ecclesiastical courts’ concern about alimony and child support following divorce or separation. The Concilio maggiore of Venice declared in 1374, for example, that it was prepared to deal with complaints about these matters and to require husbands to make appropriate financial arrangements to care for their estranged wives and children.[2024]