A Short History of Women's Rights by Eugene Arthur Hecker: Chapter 1

Even when sui iuris a woman could not acquire power over any one, not even over her own children[12]; for these an agnate €”a male relative on the father's side was appointed guardian, and the mother was obliged to render him and her children a

It is a sad commentary on Christian rulers that for many ages they allowed the crimes of the father to be visited upon his children and by their bills of attainder confiscated to the state the goods of condemned offenders.

If there were children, the Roman law put certain limitations on the testator's powers, whether man or woman.

But she was permitted to assume complete charge of her children's property during their minority and enjoy the usufruct; only she must render an account of the goods when the children arrived at maturity.[115]

All these forms, however, had either been abolished by law or had fallen into desuetude during the second century of our era, as is evident from Gaius.[31]

But at the end of the first century of our era the Senate voted that the law be emended to help women and to give them special privileges in every class of contract.

A father was permitted to put to death his daughter and her paramour if she was still in his power and if he caught her in the act at his own house or that of his son-in-law; otherwise he could not.[85]

All Roman historians speak with great admiration of the many heroic deeds performed by women and are fond of citing conspicuous examples of conjugal affection.[23]

As a matter of fact, women of mature age do manage their own affairs, and in certain cases the guardian interposes his authority as a mere formality; frequently, indeed, he is forced by the supreme judge to lend his authority against his will."

Decay of the power or the guardian.Such are a few examples of the growth of respect for women; and we should naturally conclude that, as time progressed, the unjust laws of guardianship would no longer be executed to the letter, even though the hard statutes were not formally expunged.

Hadrian gave the children of proscribed offenders the twelfth part of their father's goods.[168]

This statute acted powerfully to prevent a husband from wheedling a wife out of her goods; and in case the latter happened to be of a grasping disposition the law was a protection to the husband and hence to the children, his heirs, for whose interests the Roman law constantly provided.

That they had complete disposal of their property is proved furthermore by the numerous complaints in Roman authors about the sycophants who flattered and toadied the wealthy ladies with an eye to being remembered in their wills.[123]

If he tried to browbeat her as to what to do, she could send him a divorce, a privilege which she had at her beck and call, as we have seen; and then she could force him to give her any guardian she wanted.[136]

When the woman died, her dowry, if it had been given by the father (dos profecticia) returned to the latter; but if any one else had given it (dos adventicia), the dowry remained with the husband, unless the donor had expressly stipulated that it was to be returned to himself at the woman's death (dos recepticia),[70] In the case of a dowry of the first kind, the husband might retain what he had expended for his wife's funeral.[71]

For what is commonly believed, to the effect that on account of unsteadiness of character they are generally hoodwinked, and that, therefore, it is right for them to be governed by the authority of a guardian, seems rather specious than true.

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]

Public-spirited citizens were also accustomed to contribute liberally to the same cause; Pliny on one occasion[193] gave the equivalent of $25,000 for the support and instruction of indigent boys and girls.

So much for the laws that mitigated slavery under the Empire.

Now, the Roman law stated positively that "the crime or punishment of a father can inflict no stigma on his child."[159]

Only by coercion was he finally induced to prosecute.

Cicero, who was a lofty moralist”on paper,put away his wife Terentia in order to marry a rich young ward and get her money if he could.

They were exposed to every whim of master or mistress without redress.[198]

Divorce became, at least among the higher strata of society, extraordinarily frequent.

If, however, they were disinherited in an aggregate (inter ceteros), some legacy had to be left them that they might not seem to have been passed over through forgetfulness.[172]

If, now, the divorce was clearly the fault of the woman, her husband could retain certain parts of the dowry in these proportions: for adultery, a sixth part for each of the children up to one half of the whole; for lighter offences, an eighth part; if the husband had gone to expense or had incurred civil obligations for his wife's benefit or if she had removed any of his property, he could recover the amount.[106]