VI. Heaven and a Spindle. The Legal Status of Women during and after Marriage in the Principality of Liège, between Customary Law, Ius Commune, and Notarial Practice (16th–17th century)

Silan, Marie-Sophie

doi:10.1515/zrgg-2026-0006

Article (Scientific journals)

VI. Heaven and a Spindle. The Legal Status of Women during and after Marriage in the Principality of Liège, between Customary Law, Ius Commune, and Notarial Practice (16th–17th century)

Silan, Marie-Sophie

2026 • In Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung, 143 (1), p. 231-275

Editorial reviewed

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/347272

DOI
10.1515/zrgg-2026-0006

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

SILAN MS – Heaven and a Spindle – 2026 – Editor (OA).pdf

Publisher postprint (716.7 kB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Abstract :

[en] In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the Principality of Liège, a medium-sized estate of the Holy Roman Empire governed by a prince-bishop, the legal position of women during marriage and after its dissolution was primarily influenced by the customary matrimonial regime, known by local jurists as the ‘mainplévie’. While the mainplévie regime did not significantly diverge from the laws of neighboring regions regarding the wife’s personal status, it exhibited distinctive features concerning the ownership and transmission of her property. Upon the consummation of marriage, all assets brought by the woman or her family, along with any gifts or inheritances she received during the union, became the full property of her husband. As a result, he could dispose of these assets without her consent, subject to only minimal constraints. This loss of property was, however, balanced by a customary right of inheritance granted to widows in the absence of legitimate offspring, referred to as the ‚droit de mainplévie’. In such cases, the widow not only recovered her original assets but also inherited full ownership of her husband’s property – both movable and immovable – with limited exceptions. In addition to outlining the legal framework of the mainplévie as defined by customary law, this study draws on notarial practice – specifically a corpus of marriage contracts and wills from residents of the City of Liège – to reveal how notaries developed contractual clauses that both limited the husband’s authority during marriage and restricted the surviving spouse’s inheritance rights. These practices significantly nuanced the legal position of women beyond the prescriptive norms of customary law. ‒ Lastly, this contribution also investigates the position of mothers within the family and their legal relationship with their children. For both subjects, I will show instances in which learned law influenced the interpretation and development of customary law throughout the time-period under study, and, in turn, impacted women’s lives.

Disciplines :

Metalaw, Roman law, history of law & comparative law

Author, co-author :

Silan, Marie-Sophie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit romain et droit privé comparé

Language :

English

Title :

VI. Heaven and a Spindle. The Legal Status of Women during and after Marriage in the Principality of Liège, between Customary Law, Ius Commune, and Notarial Practice (16th–17th century)

Publication date :

11 July 2026

Journal title :

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germanistische Abteilung

ISSN :

0323-4045

Publisher :

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Volume :

143

Issue :

Pages :

231-275

Peer reviewed :

Editorial reviewed

Development Goals :

5. Gender equality

Additional URL :

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/zrgg-2026-0006/xml

Available on ORBi :

since 15 July 2026

Statistics

Number of views

58 (10 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

53 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

1) The Principality of Liège came into existence on 7 July 985, when Theophano, regent of the Holy Roman Empire, donated the County of Huy to the bishop of Liège, Notger, on behalf of her son, the young emperor Otto III. The prince-bishopric was dissolved on 1 October 1795 following its annexation by the First French Republic pursuant to a decree of the National Convention; on the history of Liège see B. Demoulin/J.-L. Kupper, Histoire de la principauté de Liège: de l’an mille à la Révolution, Toulouse 2002 (with further bibliography). In this article, readers should not be surprised by the use of the spellings Liege, Liége or Liège, depending on the date of the source that mentions it: the spelling of the word has evolved over the centuries, and was only officially fixed as Liège, its current spelling, in 1946.
2) To date, research has focused mainly on the Principality’s public, institutional and judicial law see primarily S. Dubois/B. Demoulin/J.-L. Kupper (eds.), Les institutions publiques de la Principauté de Liège (980‒1794), 2 vols. Brussels 2012. Liège private law has been the focus of renewed scholarly attention in the course of the last decade, which first started with a doctoral dissertation dedicated to Charles de Méan (1604‒1674) by Benoît Lagasse, Charles de Méan: le Papinien liégeois, Ph.D. diss., University of Liège/University of Ghent 2017. Mention should also be made of Wim Decock’s studies on canon law jurists from Liège, notably his contribution Droit au coeur de la science politique, Le ‘Trésor’ de Jean de Chokier, canoniste liégeois (1571‒1656), in: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 92 (2024) 440‒469.
3) However, mention should be made of the interest in Liège law taken by German jurist Leopold August Warnkönig (1794‒1866). Warnkönig, a correspondent of Savigny and a member of the German Historical School, was the very first professor of Roman law at the University of Liège, founded by the Dutch King William of Orange (William I) in 1818. During his time in Liège (he later transferred to the University of Ghent, also founded in 1818), Warnkönig took an interest in the law of the Principality of Liège, and even dedicated a short monograph to it, which mainly reviews the history of its customary law see L. Warnkönig, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Lütticher Gewohnheitsrechts, Freiburg 1838; about Warnkönig in Liège see J.-F. Gerkens, Léopold Auguste Warnkönig (1794‒1866), l’École Historique Allemande débarque dans les Universités de Liège et Gand, in: D. Heirbaut/J.F. Gerkens/G. Grandjean/P. Humblet/M. Cools (eds.), Deux-centième anniversaire des facultés de droit de Gand et Liège /Tweehonderd jaar rechtsfaculteiten Gent en Luik, Bruges 2019, 161‒163. German scholarship has also taken an interest in the Liège Revolution (1789–1795), in particular see H. Wüller, Systemkrise als Handlungschance: Christian Wilhelm von Dohm und die Lütticher Revolution von 1789, Berlin 2004; and S. Reuter, Revolution und Reaktion im Reich, Die Intervention im Hochstift Lüttich 1789‒1791, Aschendorff 2018. Many thanks to my colleague Antoine Leclère for these latest references.
4) The main Liège jurists mentioned in this contribution are the following: Pierre de Méan (1576‒1638); his eldest son Charles de Méan (1604‒1674); Vincent de La Hamaide (ca. 1650‒1703); and Dominique-François de Sohet (1728‒1811). The exact origin of the ‘mainplévie’ and of its name are still unclear to this day and would deserve further research.
5) Specifically, Pierre de Méan, Recueil des poincts marquez pour coustumes du Pays de Liege, reveux l’an 1642 par les Deputez de Son Alteze & de ses Estats, printed apudLéonard Streel, Liège 1650 [1642 Liège Customs], ch. 11 (Legal succession), art. 13. The most comprehensive account of Early modern Liège law written in French to this day is Dominique-François de Sohet, Instituts de droit, ou sommaire de jurisprudence canonique, civile, féodale et criminelle, pour les pays de Liège, de Luxembourg, Namur et autres, 3 vols. Namur 1770, Bouillon 1772 and Namur 1781. Sohet’s three massive volumes about Liège law were published in a chaotic order, and it is therefore easier to find a specific provision in it by citing the livre (book), titre (title), chapitre (chapter) and/or number of such provision than giving the numbers of the relevant vol. and page – which is why, in this contribution, I will systematically refer to the specific provision; on mainplévie see ibid. livre 1 titre 69: Des Personnes du Sexe Masculin, & Féminin, Du S.C. Velleyen, & autres Droits des Filles & Femmes, ch. 2: De la Mainplevie, ou Puissance Maritale dans le Païs de Liége, n 2.
6) For an account of the main features of inheritance law in the former Southern Low Countries that goes beyond local particularities see D. Heirbaut, A History of the Law of Succession, in particular in the Southern Netherlands/Belgium, in: C. Castelein/R. Foqué/A. Verbeke (eds.), Imperative Inheritance Law in a Late-Modern Society – Five Perspectives, Antwerp 2009, 65‒84; for a focus on Liège inheritance law, with a special attention to women’s inheritance rights, see M.-S. Silan, ‘Aussy avant les filz que les filles, et les filles que les filz’: les droits successoraux des filles de famille dans la coutume de Liège et dans les actes de la pratique du 16e siècle, in: Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 115‒142.
7) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 1‒4. Under canon law, the consummation of the marriage referred to the first act of sexual intercourse between the newly-weds, following the exchange of mutual consents. The consummation rendered the marriage indissoluble, but it was not necessary for its validity; about the requirements for a marriage’s formation see C. Donahue, Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages, Arguments about Marriage in Five Courts, Cambridge 2007, 16‒19.
8) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 13.
9) I will explain why I speak of compensation to refer to a widow’s inheritance right when discussing her ‘droit de mainplévie’ under subsection 2.2.1, below.
10) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 13.
11) Liège feudal law made a double distinction between types of fiefs: a first between ‘fiefs stipaux’ and ‘fiefs d’estock’ (or ‘de côté’) and a second between ‘pleins fiefs’ and ‘menus fiefs’. Fiefs stipaux were fiefs that came from the direct line of the family, while fiefs d’estock had been inherited from collateral parents. As for pleins fiefs, as opposed to menus fiefs, they were estates of a value superior to thirty Brabant florins, or, in the alternative, which had their own court of law; on those distinctions see B. Lagasse, Les différents types de fiefs dans la Principauté de Liège suivant Charles de Méan, C@hiers du CRHiDI 41 (2018). https://popups.uliege.be/1370-2262/index.php?id=607 (20 May 2025). To summarise, pleins fiefs stipaux were family fiefs of a particular economic and social value, which is why they reverted to their family of origin after the death of the surviving spouse.
12) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 13 (Feudal succession), art. 5.
13) This was at least the interpretation of seventeenth century jurists. The 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) refer to the husband’s inheritance rights in ch. 1 art. 1 (which establishes a husband’s ownership rights over his wife’s assets during and after marriage), and to the widow’s droit de mainplévie in ch. 11 art. 13 (namely the chapter dedicated to the rules of legal succession).
14) With the exception of Raoul Van der Made, Propos sur la capacité de la femme en droit médiéval liégeois, in: X., Hommage à Léon Graulich (par ses anciens étudiants), Liège 1957, 421‒433. This article about the legal capacity of women (irrespective of marital status) in medieval Liège, is, however, quite dated.
15) J.J. Raikem/L. Crahay/S. Bormans/M.L. Polain, Coutumes du pays de Liége, 3 vols. Brussels 1870, 1873 and 1884.
16) F. Bomerson, La mainplévie dans le droit coutumier liégeois, in: Revue historique de droit français et étranger 9 (1930) 294‒323. On the Court of Aldermen of Liège, see J. Maquet, La Souveraine Justice des Échevins de Liège, in: Dubois/ Demoulin/Kupper (n. 2) I 364‒393.
17) M. Yans, L’équité et le droit liégeois du Moyen Âge: étude historique des successions, Liège 1946, 26‒34.
18) See, for instance, the brief examination of the mainplévie regime by J o h n G i l i s s e n, Le statut de la femme dans l’ancien droit belge, in: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 12/2 (1962) 255‒321, 312‒314 in his overview of the legal position of women in the laws of the regions that now form present-day Belgium. More strikingly, P h i l i p p e G o d d i n g, Le droit privé dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux du 12e au 18e siècle, Brussels 1987, 313‒314, in his authoritative monograph on the laws of the former Southern Low Countries (in which he also discusses the Principality of Liège), dedicated a separate section of his chapter on matrimonial regimes to the mainplévie.
19) Lagasse, Charles de Méan (n. 2) 330‒336.
20) B. Lagasse, De niet-toepassing van de mainplévie in Maastricht, Nederlands-Belgisch Rechtshistorisch colloquium, 16‒17 December 2016, Maastricht 2016.
21) Godding (n. 18) 283; on legal pluralism and notarial practice in the Middle Ages and in the Early modern period see also J. Hilaire/F. Terré, La vie du droit, Coutumes et droit écrit, Paris 1994.
22) Godding (n. 18) 283.
23) Yans, L’équité (n. 17) (based on the analysis of wills); P. Demonty, Documents concernant le mariage et la famille à Liège (XVe siècle), in: Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire 152/1 (1986) 115‒145 (based on a sample of marriage contracts). To date, my study is the only one to combine the analysis of marriage contracts and wills ‒ a choice that proved particularly fruitful given the intrinsic connection between matrimonial law and inheritance law.
24) Silan, L’épouse (n. *).
25) Although the aldermen were aware of the ‘enquête par turbe’ (namely a method of proving custom, consisting of asking a group of local dignitaries to unanimously declare the existence and substance of an alleged rule), which was widely used in neighbouring regions, they made very limited use of it, preferring instead to dictate customary rules through judicial rulings and legal opinions known as records; for an account of the sources of Liège law, including customary law see P. B r u y è r e, Aux sources du droit public liégeois (XIIe‒XVIIIe siècle), in: D u b o i s / D e m o u l i n / K u p p e r (n. 2) I 41‒71.
26) About this historical episode see M. Yans, La rédaction de la coutume de Liège, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Liégeois 67 (1949/1950) 379‒384. 27) G. Hansotte, Les institutions politiques et judiciaires de la Principauté de Liège aux Temps modernes, Brussels 1987, 42.
28) Any formal amendment to the customary law of Liège had to receive the endorsement of the ‘Sens du Pays’, which was composed of the Prince-Bishop and the representatives of the principality’s three estates (the clergy, the aristocracy and the third estate). This rule dates back to the Paix de Fexhe of 18 June 1316, on which see in particular C. Masson, La Paix de Fexhe et les textes dits ‘constitutionnels’ dans la Principauté de Liège (1316‒1794), in: G. Grandjean/M. Lempereur/J. Maquet (dirs.), Histoire des institutions diachroniques: le pouvoir politique en Wallonie, Liège 2022, 39‒55.
29) Yans, La rédaction (n. 26) 384.
30) Hansotte (n. 27) 42. The success of Pierre de Méan’s compilation (n. 5) is primarily due to Charles de Méan’s Observationes et res judicatae ad jus civile romanorum, leodiensium, aliarumque gentium canonicum et feudale, 6 vols. Liège 1652, 1654, 1658, 1663, 1669 and 1678, which sought to clarify the legal foundations of each customary rule established by Pierre de Méan. These commentaries not only facilitated a better understanding of the text among practitioners, but also helped them bring evidence as to the existence and substance of a specific customary rule in legal proceedings. In this study, I shall use the augmented version of Charles de Méan’s Observationes, published in 1740 (see n. 45, below).
31) B. Lagasse, Charles de Méan, de luikse Papinianus, Biografie van een luikse jurist uit de zeventiende eeuw, in: Pro Memorie, Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden 17/2 (2015) 251‒263, 253.
32) Around 12,500 marriage contracts and wills were preserved by the Court of Aldermen of Liège from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries alone. To ensure the feasibility of our study, our sample was limited to thirteen records (seven from the sixteenth century and six from the seventeenth century), focusing on documents from residents of the City of Liège and its immediate suburbs. This approach enabled us to gather data on the entire period under study.
33) The analysed documents are therefore only copies of the original minutes, which were preserved either by the notary and/or by the families of the parties (for marriage contracts) or that of the testator/testatrix (for wills). In Liège, marriage contracts and wills could be insinuated in two ways: either by the competent court of justice approving the deed and registering it in the court’s records, or by a simple registration known as ‘réalisation’; see de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 31 n 4‒6.
34) In the Early modern period, the notion of family included all people who shared a common roof, namely the spouses/parents, the children, and the servants. They were all placed under the authority of the head of the household, namely the husband and father; see S. Minvielle, La famille en France à l’époque moderne, Paris 2010, 5‒6.
35) The translation is my own.
36) B. Albanese, Le persone nel diritto privato romano, Palermo 1979 uses ‘auctoritas’ to describe the legal result obtained thanks to the tutor’s consent. Puissance and autorité cannot be used interchangeably.
37) The position of the married woman in Liège was more or less the same also elsewhere in Western Europe, as further discussed below; for a comparison see C. Beattie/M.F. Stevens, Introduction, Uncovering Married Women, in: Iidem (eds.), Married Women and the Law in Premodern Northwest Europe, Wood-bridge 2013, 1‒10; and K. Cappelle, ‘In de macht, plicht en momboorije van heuren man’, De rechtspositie van de getrouwde vrouw in Antwerpen en Leuven (16de eeuw), in: Pro Memorie, Bijdragen tot de rechtsgeschiedenis der Nederlanden 18 (2016) 48‒68.
38) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 77 n 23.
40) This obligation stemmed from the duty of cohabitation between spouses imposed by canon law. Women were expected to accompany their husbands wherever they went, including to prison or to war. Only two exceptions were recognised: when the husband embarked on a long pilgrimage, and when he led a vagrant life – though, according to some canon law jurists, the latter exemption applied only if the wife had been unaware of her husband’s lifestyle at the time of marriage; see A . E s m e i n, Le mariage en droit canonique, vol. 2 Paris 1891, 6.
41) Anne Lefèbvre-Teillard, Le nom, Droit et histoire, Paris 1990, 71 points out that married women were allowed to use their husband’s surname in public. However, in private deeds married women are typically identified by their maiden name. In addition, they are often addressed as the wife or widow of a particular man.
42) It is worth noting that, under Liège customary law, a daughter who received a dowry upon marriage was not automatically excluded from her parents’ succession. This was because the parents retained the discretion to decide whether or not the dowry would have to be returned to the estate following the death of the surviving parent. As a result, a daughter could benefit twice – once through the dowry and again through an inheritance. Moreover, if the dowry granted was of lesser value than the daughter’s ‘légitime coutumière’ – that is, the minimum share of her parents’ immovable property she was legally entitled to – she could claim the difference; see Silan, Aussy avant les filz (n. 6) 138.
43) In Liège customary law sources, as will be further discussed in section III, below, parental authority was referred to as ‘puissance’, ‘mambournie’ or ‘tutelle légitime’; here again, I will use the broader term ‘authority’ to refer to the responsible parent’s prerogatives over their child’s person and property. It was held primarily by the father. Upon his death, it fell automatically on the mother.
44) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 9.
45) C. de Méan, Observationes et res judicatae ad jus civile romanorum, leodiensium, aliarumque gentium canonicum et feudale, augmented version by M.G. de Louvrex/S. Bastin/M. Gordinne, Liège 1740, 6 vols., here Observatio 63 n 1, I 130. In volume 6, Méan’s commentaries are called Definitiones, however without any noticeable difference in terms of content with the Observationes found in the five previous volumes.
47) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 99 n 7.
48) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 9.
49) Observatio 63 n 1 (n. 45) I 130.
50) Observatio 58 n 4 (n. 45) I 119. In Liège, a princely edict adopted on 3 July 1572 set the civil majority at the age of 25 for both men and women. The age of majority before 1572 was set at 17 or 18 years old, according to a legal opinion of the Court of Aldermen of Liège from 17 October 1594, in: Coutumes du pays de Liége (n. 15) III, ed. Bormans/Crahay, 209.
51) Observatio 688 n 1 (n. 45) V 350. The same applied to married men who were still underage when they got married. However, they could not be appointed as a guardian – either by a will or by a court of law – to anyone except their wife until they had come of age. Charles de Méan argues that, in matters of guardianship, the authority conferred by the marital status is insufficient to compensate for the prudence that only age can bring, see Observationes 58 n 4 and 607 n 3 (n. 45) I 119 and V 18.
52) Observatio 688 n 2 (n. 45) vol. 5, 350; and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 72 n 39.
53) Gilissen, Le statut (n. 18) 292.
54) Jean-Baptiste de Glen, Oeconomie chrestienne, contenant les regles de bien vivre, tant pour les gens mariés qu’a marier pour nourrir & eslever les enfans, fils, filles en la vraye piété, ses serviteurs aussi, & servantes, compris en huict livres, printed apud Jean de Glen, Liège 1608. Before writing his opus magnum, de Glen had already published a – much – smaller book in 1597, dedicated to young girls who wished to marry, and to their parents – more will be said about it under section III below. More on the life and work of Jean-Baptiste de Glen can be found in M.-É. Henneau/O. Donneau/Y. Charlier, Livres religieux, in: A. Marchandisse/P. Bruyère (dirs.), Florilège du livre en Principauté de Liège, du IXe au XVIIIe siècle, Liège 2009, 257‒303, 275.
55) de Glen, Oeconomie chrestienne (n. 54) 342.
57) de Glen, Oeconomie chrestienne (n. 54) 344‒345.
58) de Glen, Oeconomie chrestienne (n. 54) 345.
59) In historical sources, the guardian – either of a child or of his wife – is often referred to as the ‘mambour’. This term seemingly derives from the Frankish terms mundiumand munderbundium. Under Frankish law, Mundiumreferred to the father’s authority over his children, the husband’s authority over his wife, and the king’s authority over his subjects, see P. Ourliac/J. de Malafosse, Histoire du droit privé, Le droit familial, Paris 1968, 69.
60) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 4.
61) Ibid. In addition, according to Charles de Méan, in such circumstances, she was required to appear in person, which meant that she could not send her husband or another procurator to represent her; see Observatio 58 n 25 (n. 45) I 122.
62) H. Coing, Europäisches Privatrecht 1500 bis 1800, Älteres Gemeines Rechts, vol. 1 Munich 1985, 236.
63) Ibid. The comparison between the wife and the pupil can be found in the writings of several Liège jurists, for instance Vincent de La Hamaide, L’art de contracter et tester, conforme au droit et coutumes, avec modèles des contracts et acts de volonté dernière, printed apud Pierre Danthez, Liège 1683, 13, treatise aimed at (future) notaries; and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 15‒16.
64) On the tutela impuberum see A l b a n e s e (n. 36) 431‒513, and F. L a m b e r t i, La famiglia romana e i suoi volti. Pagine scelte su diritto e persone in Roma antica, Turin 2014, 51‒89.
65) Coing (n. 62) 236.
67) Gilissen, Le statut (n. 18) 299.
68) P. Petot, Cours d’histoire du droit privé 1950‒1951, La femme mariée, Paris 1950, 84.
69) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 6.
70) Observatio 60 n 1‒2 (n. 45) I 123.
71) Observatio 60 n 3 ibid. 124.
73) Observatio 60 n 4 ibid. 124.
74) The earliest traces of the existence of this regime in Liège can be found in the Loi nouvelle of 1355 and in the ‘Mutation de la Loi nouvelle’ of 1386. It was later included in the 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 5. Similar exceptions in favour of commerce existed abroad, see, e.g., A. Slimani, La femme marchande publique: coutume, jurisprudence, doctrine (XVIe‒XVIIIe siècles), in: P. Charlot/E. Gasparini (dirs.), La femme dans l’histoire du droit et des idées politiques, Dijon 2008, 93‒121; and Gilissen, Le statut (n. 18) 295‒298. A vast body of literature has been dedicated to women and work in Early modern Europe, which generally includes legal considerations, see for an overview A. Bellavitis/B.Z. Micheletto (eds.), Gender, Law, and Economic Well-Being in Europe from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Century, North versus South?, London 2019; for a more recent study, focused on Early modern Brabant and Biscay, see N. Vandeweerdt, Women and Work through a Comparative Lens, Gender and the Urban Labor Markets of Premodern Brabant and Biscay, Leuven 2025.
75) Slimani (n. 74) 95.
76) Observatio 59 n 4‒5 (n. 45) I 122‒123.
78) Loi nouvelle of 12 December 1355, art. 18, in: Coutumes du pays de Liége (n. 15) II, ed. Raikem/Polain/Bormans, 4. My interpretation of this provision suggests that the spouses were either legally separated from bed and board, or had separated privately – the latter practice, it should be noted, was considered sinful and contrary to canon law; about this see de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 11 n 12‒13.
79) Edict of 3 July 1572, ch. 4 art. 16, in: Raikem/Polain/Bormans II (n. 78) 431.
80) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 17‒19.
81) I was not able to find this ruling (Louvet vs. Vivegnis), which is reported by Charles de Méan in Observatio 29 n 3 (n. 45) I 59‒60.
82) J. Britz, Code de l’ancien droit Belgique, ou Histoire de la jurisprudence et de la législation, suivie de l’exposé du droit civil des provinces belges, Brussels 1847, 95‒98. About Petrus Peckius see also the recent monograph by A.L. Ferreira Gomes Silva, Shaping Canon Law in an Age of Reform, Petrus Peckius on Church Reparation and Clerical Discipline, Leiden 2026, in particular 3‒15.
83) P. Arabeyre/J.-L. Halperin/J. Krynen, Dictionnaire historique des juristes français, XIIe‒XXe siècle, Paris 2007, 322‒323.
84) Observatio 29 n 3 and Definitio 59 n 6 (both in n. 45) I 59‒60 and VI 124. Albanese (n. 36) 494 argues that in classical Roman law, the auctoritas tutoris should necessarily follow, and not precede the pupil’s transaction. He further writes that from the classical period onwards, an oral declaration given by the tutor, who had to be present when his pupil was carrying out the transaction, was sufficient to give legal effect to the latter.
85) Observatio 29 n 3 (n. 45) I 59‒60. However, it is worth noting that de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 17‒19, building on this debate, later argued that the ratification by the husband could not take place after the wife’s death as he might curtail the rights then already acquired by the children upon their mother’s death – by which Sohet refers to the automatic devolution of the bare ownership of matrimonial immovables to the children after their parents’ death (the so-called droit de dévolution), as will be further discussed in subsection 2.2.1.
86) The mainplévie regime was applied only when both spouses where nationals of the Principality of Liège, and only in relation to immovable property located within its territory; see Observatio 55 n 13‒14 (n. 45) I 108. According to Charles de Méan, if only one of the spouses was a foreigner – which included residents of the County of Looz, a part of the Principality of Liège with a distinct legal status –, the surviving spouse would not be protected by this matrimonial regime. The jurist Mathias Guillaume de Louvrex (1665‒1734), commenting on Méan’s Observatio 55 n 17(f), reports that, in 1720, the Court of Aldermen of Liège decided an exception to this principle for foreign spouses from places where a regime with similar effects to the mainplévie ruled. However, at that time, the only county with compareable customary law was Chimay.
87) Such stipulation was mostly found in marriage contracts but also, although rarely, in wills, as will be shown under subsection 2.1.3.
88) In Liège, both the future husband and the future wife, or their families on their behalf, made a financial contribution to the union. These contributions were traditionally formalised in a marriage contract negotiated between the parties, usually (although not always) under the supervision of a notary. The dowry of the bride-to-be constituted her contribution to the future union as well as an advance on her share of the parental inheritance; for more on the dowry see Silan, Aussy avant les filz (n. 6) 129, 134.
89) Feudal property remained with the bride, but her husband was required to pay homage to the lord which was known as rendering a relief “de main à bouche” (no transfer fee). Furthermore, the obligation of auxilium (military aid) fell on the vassal’s husband while, in theory, his wife could still perform her obligation of consilium (advising); see de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 59 n 131‒132.
90) Censal property included all estates held in cens tenure, as well as any estate mortgaged in exchange for annuity payments, see Silan, Aussy avant les filz (n. 6) 125‒130.
91) Raikem/Polain/Bormans, Coutumes du pays de Liége II (n. 78) 122; and Bomerson (n. 16) 301.
92) The wife’s estates situated abroad were subject to the laws of the respective countries.
93) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 2‒3.
94) Ibid. This rule can be found already in the Paix de Saint-Jacques of 28 April 1487, §26 art. 11.
95) Legal opinion of the Court of Aldermen of Liège of 14 July 1600, see Coutumes du pays de Liége III (n. 50) 223, which was later included in 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 1.
96) If the family had children, the husband could not dispose of his wife’s property mortis causa when she was on her deathbed, as this would be considered as robbing the children of their future inheritance, see 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 10 (Testamentary succession) art. 6. Conversely, if the wife was in good health, the husband could do as he pleased. If the spouses had no children, the husband could originally dispose of his wife’s property without any restriction, including donating her property mortis causa or bequeathing it. Following a legal opinion of the Court of Aldermen of Liège handed down on 27 February 1631, see Coutumes du pays de Liége III (n. 50) CVIII, husbands were no longer permitted to do so, as the aldermen realised that they deprive their future widow of her legal inheritance, or droit de mainplévie. For the same reasons, they could no longer dispose of their own assets without their wife’s consent. This legal opinion of 1631 was taken over by the 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 14.
97) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 chap. 2 n 3–4.
98) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 2.
99) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 6 art. 24. It is interesting to note that in this provision, Pierre de Méan uses the word ‘déguerpissement’ to refer to the wife’s waiving of her right of usufruct.
100) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 6.
101) Legal opinion of the Court of Aldermen of Liège of 20 January 1574, see Coutumes du pays de Liége III (n. 50) 142. An earlier opinion of 7 October 1566, which was not reiterated, referred to the celebration of the marriage as the mainplévie’s starting point, see Coutumes ibid. 106. In the seventeenth century, it appears well-established, also among jurists, that the mainplévie starts with consummation, see Observatio 55 n 8 (n. 45) I 107, as well as de La Hamaide (n. 63) 17. It is worth recalling that under canon law, the consummation of the marriage referred to the first act of sexual intercourse between the newly-weds, after the exchange of mutual consents. The consummation rendered the marriage indissoluble, but was not necessary for its validity.
102) After Tametsi, the decree on marriage issued by the Council of Trent in 1563, marriage was valid only in facie ecclesiae, in the presence of the priest of the parish of the betrothed and witnesses. In the Principality of Liège, Tametsi was promulgated without any hurdles and quite rapidly, in 1567, see F. Willocx, L’introduction des décrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et la Principauté de Liège, Louvain 1929, 236‒237.
103) Observatio 55 n 8‒9 (n. 45) I 107.
104) Observatio 55 n 9 ibid.
105) The marriage was not dissolved in the event of the civil death of one of the spouses, i.e. if they became a monk or nun.
106) The earliest mention of this rule can be found in the Observatio 264 n 1 (n. 45) II 248 “Jus connubii resolutum est per separationem thori”; see also de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 11 n 14‒15.
107) Historian Aurore Drécourt, in her Ph.D. diss. Réguler les conflits violents, Le rôle du notaire dans la Principauté de Liège, XVIIe‒XVIIIe siècle, University of Liège and Catholic University of Louvain 2019, 270, studied instances of interpersonal violence, including between spouses, in notarial records from the City of Liège in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. She analysed a few such acts of reconciliation between separated husbands and wives. One dated 1622 stipulates that the state of separation ends if the wife may manage her own assets independently, and that the husband must obtain his wife’s consent before disposing of her assets; she obviouly accused her husband of prodigality.
108) Also in 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 1.
109) In our entire sample of wills, I encountered three instances of this. One was the will of a widow named Aylis Builhon, drafted in 1567, who bequeathed half of her property, movable and immovable, to her daughter Maroie, who was herself married to a man named De Houten. Maroie should dispose of her inheritance as she pleased, and her husband would not be permitted to do so without his wife’s consent, see Archives de l’État à Liège, Série des Convenances et Testaments des Échevins de Liège (SCTEL), vol. 48, 62.
110) Observatio 55 n 28 (n. 45) I 112.
111) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 103‒104; see also de La Hamaide (n. 63) 13‒14.
112) Observatio 55 n 29 (n. 45) I 112.
113) Ibid. “Si igitur jus personae suae sibi reservaverit uxor pacto dotali, ut nempe in mariti manum non transeat, nec capitis minutionem, quam jus connubii Leodiensium, semota pactione dotali, inducit, patiatur: certi juris est, hanc pactionem servandam; cum non sit contra bonos mores, nequidem civiles; imo connubium ad juris civilis communis dispositionem reducat” [emphasis added].
114) Observatio 55 n 30 (n. 45) I 112.
116) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 29‒31.
117) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 2.
118) For instance see the marriage contract of Libert le Berlier and Marie delle Sarte, the daughter of a Liège alderman, concluded in 1525, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 29, 75. In this contract, the representatives of the future spouses – their fathers – agreed that, if necessary, le Berlier could sell or mortgage the immovable property brought into the marriage on two conditions. First, he must ask for their permission; second, he must dispose of assets belonging to both his family and his wife’s.
119) The incarceration of one of the spouses could result from a criminal conviction or from insolvency. De Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 1 n 3 states that in the eighteenth century, contrary to what was established by learned law, women in Liège could be imprisoned for debt just like men.
120) See the marriage contract of Raes le Chockier and Margaritte Dori, concluded in 1508, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 25, 216, and that of Libert le Berlier and Marie delle Sarte (n. 118).
121) The French word ‘joyaux’ is the term used in Liège marriage contracts and wills. At the time, the term then referred to ornaments made out of precious metal (gold or silver) set with stones or pearls, see L . B r e n n e t - D e c k e r s, Le bijou à Liège aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Liégeois XCIII (1981) 5‒150, 13.
122) See two examples of this in the marriage contract of Raes le Berlier and Catherine de Hey concluded in 1506 (Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 25, 68); and that of Denis Marteau and Anne Entman, dated 1542 (Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 34, 361).
123) Indeed, the clause completely disappears in contracts from the seventeenth century. However, de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 3‒4 still mentions the rule in the eighteenth century, which shows that it was considered as customary. It is likely that the contractual provision eventually passed into customary law, and that, as a consequence, no one longer deemed it necessary to include it in marriage contracts.
124) In turn, it is interesting to analyse what women did with the clothes and jewellery they could freely dispose of. In their individual wills, they regularly bequeathed their clothes and ornaments, usually (though not always) to other women: the recipient could be a daughter, a sister, a goddaughter, a niece, a cousin. For a faithful maid, such a generous bequest could help constitute a dowry and consequently escape a life of domestic labour. In joint wills, the mother’s clothes and ornaments were more often than not reserved for the daughter. They could then be preserved for her to wear, or to sell, so that the money of the purchase could be invested for her sole profit; for a compelling example see the will of Piron Malcoir and Anne de Montfort, written in 1617, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 53, 286. Women donors were well aware that through gifts and bequests, they contributed to increasing another woman’s wealth and influence – for instance by giving more economic power, and therefore a greater weight in domestic negotiations, to a married woman, or by increasing a young girl’s dowry to help her make the most advantageous marriage possible. About some specific features of women’s wills see also L. Garlati, Women’s Succession from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era, in: M.G. Di Renzo Villata (dir.), Succession Law, Practice and Society in Europe Across the Centuries, New York 2018, 207‒230, 219‒220.
125) For instance, see the marriage contract of Philippe de Saint-Georges and Noyette Saverot, a widow, in which Saverot excludes 200 golden carolus from her new spouse’s mainplévie to keep and use for her daughter’s dowry, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 40, 335.
126) E.g. to future marriage or, similarly, her entry into a religious order.
127) Under canon law, parental consent to the child’s marriage was no requirement for the marriage to be valid. However, social practices entirely expected that children obtain their parents’ approval to their settlement – whether they intended to get married or enter religious life. In Liège, parents could penalise a child, in order to protect the family’s assets as well as reputation from scandal, by depriving them of a dowry or inheritance. Such sanctions were typically laid out in wills and, on occasion, in marriage contracts, see Observatio 691 n 23 (n. 45) vol. 5, 358 and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 9 n 39‒40. This discussion in Liège was related to a wider debate that began among ius commune authors in the Middle Ages, see G. Chiodi/W. Decock, Disinheritance of Children for Lack of Parental Consent to the Marriage in the Ius Commune and Early Modern Scholastic Traditions, in: Di Renzo Villata (n. 124) 271‒335.
128) See, for instance, the marriage contract of Georges Joirion and Marie Gyrar, approved and registered by the Court of Aldermen of Liège in 1543, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 34, 384, in which both future spouses bring everything they own into the marriage, to ‘use it together in all friendship’. The future wife also preserves the right of disposal of her property during the marriage.
129) This provision is known as ‘Lex Iulia de fundo dotali’ found in Augustus’ ‘Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis’ (18 BC).
130) J. Gaudemet, Le statut de la femme dans l’Empire romain, in: Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’histoire comparative des institutions 12/2 (1962) 191‒222, 218.
131) D. De ruysscher, The Capacity of Married Women to Engage in Contracts, Emancipation through Ius Commune in the Southern Law Countries, in: G. Jacobsen/H. Wunder (eds.), East Meets West: A Gendered View of Legal Traditions, Kiel 2014, 185‒195, 194.
132) Demonty (n. 23) 124.
133) Illegitimate children only had the right to receive alimenta from their parent, provided that filiation had been established, either by a voluntary recognition or by a court ruling. This held true even if they were born from incest or adultry, see Observatio 89 n 12‒15 (n. 45) I 211; de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 68 n 5‒7. Early in Observatio 89 n 4 (loc.cit.) I 210, Charles de Méan presents an opinion which stands quite isolated. He suggests that illegitimate children claim a sixth of their father’s inheritance as long as they were not born from incest or adultry and if there were no surviving spouse or legitimate children. From legal practice it becomes clear that parents could leave a bequest to their illegitimate children, irrespective of the presence of legitimate children. In the will of Bertheneit de Huffalie, written in 1509, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 25, 285, the testator leaves a generous bequest to his illegitimate daughter, and even appoints a guardian to look after her and manage the bequest until she is old enough to marry. However, illegitimate children could not be instituted as heirs in their parent’s will, see Charles de Méan’s Observatio 89 n 3 (loc. cit.) I 210.
134) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 1 and ch. 11 art. 13 also included all acquests made by the spouses during marriage. However, in the absence of children, the inheritance of acquests was usually divided by half, and one half restricted to usufruct, as this part was automatically bequeathed to the predeceased spouse’s family after their death.
135) As mentioned above (n. 11), ‘pleins fiefs stipaux’ were fiefs inherited in direct line of a value of more than thirty Brabant florins and/or which had their own court of law.
136) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 12 (n. 12) art. 5.
137) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 13.
138) Specifically, Pierre de Méan ibid. and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 69 ch. 2 n 2.
139) For an overview of matrimonial regimes and the widow’s inheritance rights in Northern France see S. Beauvalet-Boutouyrie, Être veuve sous l’Ancien régime, Paris 2001, and J.-M. Augustin, La protection juridique de la veuve sous l’Ancien régime, in: N. Pellegrin/C.-H. Winn (eds.), Veufs, veuves et veuvage dans la France d’Ancien regime, Actes du colloque de Poitiers (11‒12 juin 1998), Paris 2003, 25‒45.
140) For an overview of matrimonial regimes in the Southern Low Countries see Godding (n. 18) 261‒314; also L. Van Aert, The Legal Position of Antwerp Widows in the Late Sixteenth Century, in: The History of the Family 12/4 (2007) 282‒295.
141) Observatio 55 n 34 (n. 45) I 113.
142) Observatio 55 n 16 ibid. 109.
143) Observatio 57 n 6 ibid. 116.
145) Namely 1642 Liège Customs chapters 10, 11, and 13 on testamentary succession, legal succession and feudal succession.
146) On this curious ritual, known as ‘throwing the key on the deceased’s grave’ /‘jeter la clé sur la fosse du défunt’, see M. Ronvaux, La femme à Namur sous l’Ancien régime, in: Cahiers de Sambre et Meuse 1 (2008) 2‒32, 11.
147) Observatio 55 n 4 (n. 44) I 106; and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 88‒89.
148) de Sohet, ibid.
149) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 15.
150) The expression ‘droit de dévolution’ (in German: Verfangenschaft) comes from the famous treatise by Dutch jurist Pierre Stockmans (1608‒1671), Tractatus de jure devolutionis, printed apud Peter le Grand, Amsterdam 1667; see D. De ruysscher, Balancing interests in stepfamilies: droit de dévolution and bijleving (Southern Low Countries, 16th‒18th centuries), in: Idem/E. Alofs (eds.), Het nieuw samengesteld gezin: recht en geschiedenis, Antwerp 2014, 49‒62, 51.
151) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 15. This rule is fairly ancient, as it can already be found in art. 38 of the so-called Paweilhar Giffou, a compilation of rulings handed down by the Court of Aldermen of Liège between 1280 and 1357.
152) On the relationship between a widow and the children’s guardian(s) see also section III below.
153) A good example of the dual role played by the testamentary guardian with the widowed mother can be found in the will of Melchior de Beine, written in 1580, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 50, 259. In it, de Beine appoints his friend Vincent de Fléron to be “mambour [guardian]” to his wife and children, to assist them and help them preserve his orphans’ inheritance, including all existing and future assets, which they will receive from their parents.
154) Since 1386, rich women (including widows) were protected from dowry speculators – men who feigned wealth in order to convince wealthy women to marry them and to induce the women’s families to provide generous dowries. Some of them would, e.g., formally promise, in the marriage contract, a substantial family donation to the union. After the marriage, however, it was revealed that the husband had planned to return the donation to his family once the marriage had been concluded. In response to such practices, Liège law provided that a husband could not return the family donation without the express consent of his wife, as well as that of her representatives involved in the negotation and conclusion of the marriage contract. About this scheme see also R. Van der Made, Le droit des gens mariés dans les textes législatifs liégeois, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Liégeois 68 (1951) 99‒116, 116.
155) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 101.
157) See, for instance, the marriage contract of Lambert de Vivengnis and Maroie le Charlier, concluded on 20 October 1524, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 29, 17: “a condition que sil advenoit que ja namengne que lesdis deux futures conjoins alassent de vie a trespas sans relinguir hoires de leurs deux propres corps engendrez parvenant a parfait eaige de quinse ans. Quant adoncq tous les biens et heritaiges apportez par ledit Lambert en son mariaige deveront retourner a ses plus proismes, adont trouveis en vie. Et semblamment deveront les biens et heritaiges depart ladiste Maroie retourner avec sa plus belle focque et plus beau cottreul a ses plus proismes”. Focque and cottreau were traditional pieces of clothing for women.
158) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 12 (n. 12) art. 10, hoires meaning legitimate heirs, namely children.
159) 1642 Liège Customs ch. 12 (n. 12) art. 11.
160) See, for instance, the marriage contract of Antoine van Etten and Helwy Wolff, concluded on 14 June 1504, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 25, 17: Upon the death of the first spouse and he or she leaves no teenage children, the other one will recover his or her own property, as well as a dower of 30 ‘muids of spelt’ (the muids was a unit of measurement, particularly for grain) from the predeceased’s assets. Upon the surviving spouse’s passing, the dower will revert to the predeceased’s legal or testamentary heir: “S’il advenoit que Dieu ne vuilhe que ledit Anthoine allast de vie a trespas avant et anchors ladiste Helwy sa future espeuze sens hoirs legitimes par ly en elle engendreis parvenus a eaige de XV ans. Quant adoncques ladiste Helwy remportera avvec elle tous les biens par elle endit mariaige apportes et promis et teinrat pour son doiare toute sa vie durante trengte muys de spelte de rente a prendre, avoir et leveir sur tous sles biens par lesusdit Anthoine son futur marit endit mariaige apporteis lesquelz trente muys de spelte heritaubles retourneroient apres le trespas de ladiste Helwy la ledit Anthoenne par son testament ou aultrement ordonneit les aroit. Et se testateit ou ordonneit nen avoit retourner deveroient a ses plus proismes adont trouveis en vie” – the same clause follows regarding Antoine’s dower.
161) For instance see the marriage contract of Dennis Notter and Marie Noetelers, drafted in 1621, Archives de l’État àLiège, SCTEL(n. 109) vol. 84, 243. If Notter dies first without children, Noetelers will have for her dower the sum of 1000 Brabant florins, which she can use as she wishes – the dower will not have to be returned to her husband’s family after her death. Moreover, Notter formally retains the right to increase his wife’s dower as he wishes.
162) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 163.
163) Definitio 73 n 4 (n. 45) VI 156; see also de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 10 n 4 §1.
164) For instance see the joint will drafted in 1631 by Mathieu Counar and Anne le Pontenir, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 84, 171‒172: The spouses did not have children, which is why they decide to abolish their marriage contract, concluded in 1615, by means of a will. The marriage contract had provided for the return of all assets of the deceased, in the absence of children, to their family of origin after the death of the surviving spouse. In their joint will, Counar and Pontenir give everything to the surviving spouse, on grounds of ‘the love, respect, faithfulness and affection the testator and testatrix have always felt for each other, and feel still’.
165) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 10 art. 7. As mentioned above, the légitime coutumière was the definitive share of the immovable property from the parental succession each child was allowed to claim after his or her parents’ death. It was calculated based on the assets present in the succession after the death of the surviving spouse and the number of children who were still alive when the succession opened, see Silan, Aussy avant les filz (n. 6) 138. For an overview on customary protection mechanisms of children’s inheritance faced with testamentary freedom in the Middle Ages and the Early modern era see T. Rüfner, Customary Mechanisms of Family Protection: Late Medieval and Early Modern Law, in: K.G.C. Reid, M.J. de Waal and R. Zimmermann (eds.), Comparative Succession Law, vol. 3, Mandatory Family Protections, Oxford 2020, 39‒77.
166) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 166. This also held true when the dower was stipulated in the husband’s favour.
167) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7.
168) For a comparative overview see J. Gilissen, Puissance paternelle et majorité émancipatrice dans l’ancien droit de la Belgique et du Nord de la France, in: Revue historique de droit français et étranger 37 (1960) 5‒57.
169) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 71 n 25.
170) As Charles de Méan points out in his Observatio 61 n 1 (n. 45) I 125, the father’s authority over his children derives not only from Liège law but also from ius commune: “In patria potestate sunt liberi, quos ex justis nuptiis procreavimus, non jure Leodiensi solum, sed communi.”
171) See n. 43, above. The word ‘puissance’ appears for the first time in a legal opinion of the Court of Aldermen of Liège dated 12 July 1563, Coutumes du pays de Liége III (n. 50) 94‒95.
172) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7.
173) See, for instance, the legal opinion as in n. 171, above: “[…] la mère, après le décès de son mari, [a] en sa puissance maternelle les enffans tous pareil et comme avoit sondit marit à son vivant […]”, and also Coutumes du pays de Liége III (n. 50) 300 of 12 September 1647: “[…] testamur et fidem facimus de eodem lege, usus et consuetudine civitatis et patriae leodiensis, dissoluto, ut supra, matrimonio, liberos ex dicto matrimonio natos recidere in potestatem matris superstitis, esseque eorum legitimam tutricem, seu curatricem […].” Pierre de Méan in his 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7 states that “Les enfans de mariage legitime sont en la puissance de leur Pere et, & advenant la mort d’icelui, tombent en la puissance & mambournie de leur Mere […]” (emphasis added).
174) Observatio 61 n 1‒5 (n. 45) I 125.
175) About such prohibitions in Roman law see B. Forgó-Feldner, Wie Frauen römische Geschichte schreiben Respektive: Wie Frauen in die römische Geschichte geschrieben werden, in: Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité 71 (2024) 115‒147, 138‒141.
176) Observatio 61 n 1‒5 (n. 45) I 125.
177) E . H ö b e n r e i c h, Die Rechtsstellung der Frauen, in: U. B a b u s i a u x / C h . B a l d u s / W. E r n s t / F. - S . M e i s s e l / J. P l a t s c h e k / T h . R ü f n e r (eds.), Handbuch des Römischen Privatsrechts, vol. 1 Tübingen 2023, 741‒767, 751‒752.
179) Observatio 61 n 2 (n. 45) I 125.
180) However, it was received in other regions, already during the Middle Ages. For instance, it can already be found in Las Siete Partidas promulgated by King Alfonso X (1221‒1284) in the thirteenth century, see G. Bartolotti, La nomination de la tutrice dans Las Siete Partidas: contribution à l’étude de l’influence du droit romain sur la place de la femme dans le droit médiéval hispanique, e-Spania 36 (2020).
181) Observatio 61 n 5 (n. 45) I 125.
183) Ibid.: “Jure vero civili Leodiensium mortuo patre, recidunt liberi in potestatem matris, sicque materna potestas succedanea est patriae potestati” (emphasis added).
184) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 71 n 2.
185) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7. As mentioned above, only marriage, the death of both parents (alongside civil majority, otherwise a guardian was appointed for the minor) and a judicial emancipation before a high court of justice could free a child from parental authority, see 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 9‒10.
186) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 71 n 8‒9.
187) Sohet refers here to the peculium adventicium of the Roman filius familia. A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia 1953, 624.
188) There were a few exceptions in which the father did not even have the usufruct of an asset belonging to his child. This was the case, for instance, when the child received a bequest from a relative and that in his will, the testator or testatrix had excluded the right of usufruct of the father over the bequest, which consequently belonged in full ownership to the child. Furthermore, damages awarded by a court of law for personal insults also belonged in full ownership to the child, as in the case of married women, see de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 71 n 4‒5.
189) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 71 n 8‒9.
190) However, according to Charles de Méan, the father might be required to provide a description of his children’s assets, see Observatio 113 n 2‒3 (n. 45) vol. 1, 251.
191) ‘Obligations reciproques du pere et de la mere de famille, de leurs domestiques, et des pauvres’, printed apud Jean Ouwerx, Liège 1637, Collections of the University of Liège Library (https://hdl.handle.net/2268.1/5083) (2 February 2026).
192) de La Hamaide (n. 63) 293.
193) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 173‒174.
195) Ibid. and 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 17.
196) The’tierce-part coutumière’, coming from the widow(er)’s humiers, was composed of immovable property. It amounted to the third of the share the child could expect to receive from his or her parents’ succession, provided they survived both of them, and without taking the number of children into consideration, see 1642 Liège Customs ch. 11 (n. 5) art. 17. It has to be distinguished from the légitime coutumière (n. 165 above).
197) Judicial emancipation had to take place before a hight court of justice, such as the Court of Aldermen of Liège, see 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 10; on judicial emancipation at the time in a city where the customary law of Liège also applied see R. Van der Made, L’émancipation des enfants mineurs à Huy au XVIe siècle, in: Chronique Archéologique du Pays de Liège 45/4 (1954) 67‒86.
198) He also paid for his son’s financial contribution to his marriage.
199) Parents were expected to give their daughter a dowry on the day of her profession. They (and their heirs after them) also usually paid an annuity to the monastery to provide for the subsistence of the nun. For instance see the joint will of Alexandre Borlé and Barbe de Fexhe, written in 1598, Archives de l’État à Liège, SCTEL (n. 109) vol. 53, 15. In it, the spouses require the surviving spouse to use the share of the inheritance of the child who will enter a monastery to pay for all the necessities demanded by the chosen institution.
200) Definitio 11 n 5‒6 (n. 45) VI 26; and de Sohet (n. 5) livre 3 titre 3 n 22‒23.
201) Ibid. n 17‒18. Initially, in Roman law, the father only had a moral and social obligation to constitute a dowry for his daughter. In Justinian’s law – the one Sohet knows – this moral duty became a legal obligation, as Justinian wanted to reinforce the financial protection of women during the marriage, but mostly after its dissolution. On this evolution see J.F. Stagl, Ehegütterecht, in: Handbuch des Römischen Privatsrechts I (n. 177) 882‒883.
202) On Catholic children’s education, especially that of daughters, after the Reformation see M. Sonnet, L’éducation des filles à l’époque moderne, in: Historiens et géographes 393 (2006) 255‒268.
203) M.E. Wiesner-Hanks, Women and Gender in the Early Modern period, 4th edition, Cambridge 2019, 100.
204) See above n. 54 and J e a n - B a p t i s t e d e G l e n, Du debvoir des filles, traicté brief et fort utile, 1: de la dignité de la femme, de ses bons deportements, et debvoirs, des bonnes parties et qualités requises aux filles, qui tendent au mariage. 2: de la Virginité, de son excellence, des perfections necessaires à celles, qui en font possession, des moyens de la conserver, & de plusieurs autres choses, qui se verront plus à plein au sommaire des chapitres, printed apud Jean de Glen, Liège 1597, 43. The book can be found at the Bibliothèque Ulysse Capitaine in Liège cap. 4666.
205) Ibid, part 1, 39.
206) Ibid. 42.
208) Ibid. 56.
209) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 8. Of course, the father could pay this penalty using his wife’s assets, as discussed under the previous section.
210) So could the father if his wife predeceased him.
211) Observatio 61 n 2 (n. 45) I 125.
212) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7. As mentioned above, majority was of 17 or 18 years old before 1572, and 25 after that.
213) Observatio 61 n 8 (n. 45) I 125.
216) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 2 titre 10 n 2 and livre 3 titre 3 n 172.
217) de Sohet (n. 5) livre 1 titre 72 n 7.
218) 1642 Liège Customs (n. 5) ch. 1 art. 7 and Observatio 61 n 8 (as in n. 213).
219) The courts having jurisdiction to appoint an orphan’s guardian in the absence of legitimate and testamentary guardian were local or high secular courts (such as the Court of Aldermen of Liège), as well the ecclesiastic court of Liège, the protector of personae miserabiles; on this topic see in particular E . H é l i n, À la recherche d’une mesure de léthauté des épidémies: les désignations de tuteurs pour les orphelins servent-elles d’indicateurs?, in: Annales de démographie historique, La démographie avant les démographes (1500‒1670) (1980) 67‒78.