10-31-2014, 11:25 PM
Thanks Márk! This is complex stuff (for me, anyway...)
Aha, I see... so in fact a woman's own 'wealth' would actually belong to her family (i.e. ultimately her paterfamilias). But do we not hear of crafty Roman men marrying wealthy widows to get hold of their money? How would that work - unless some portion of the wife's family's money passed to the husband? Or was it all done with dowries, or something?
About the slaves (and all sorts of other domestic business) - in the case I mentioned above, of the husband being away from home for a long period, would his wife have to apply to the overseer of his finances to buy a new slave (if one died, say), or would she be allowed to use his money for this sort of purpose, as it benefitted his household?
Late Roman - more exactly, Tetrarchic/Constantinian. How might the situation have changed by that point?
Quote:The wife did not have slaves, the husband owned them, and the wife could use them... women had no property, so everything went to the husband.
Aha, I see... so in fact a woman's own 'wealth' would actually belong to her family (i.e. ultimately her paterfamilias). But do we not hear of crafty Roman men marrying wealthy widows to get hold of their money? How would that work - unless some portion of the wife's family's money passed to the husband? Or was it all done with dowries, or something?
About the slaves (and all sorts of other domestic business) - in the case I mentioned above, of the husband being away from home for a long period, would his wife have to apply to the overseer of his finances to buy a new slave (if one died, say), or would she be allowed to use his money for this sort of purpose, as it benefitted his household?
Quote:A LOT depends on time. Please specify, and I can help
Late Roman - more exactly, Tetrarchic/Constantinian. How might the situation have changed by that point?
Nathan Ross
