medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Chris Daniell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Please excuse a tangential question about dowry to the list (my excuse for
asking here is that dowry was often given during the marriage service) but
does anyone know how the system of dowry did, or was supposed to work, in 12th
century England, in particular in relation to land.
>As I understand it if the dowry was land, during the marriage it was joined
to land brought to the marriage by the husband,
i know nothing about 12th english practice, but have come across a few late
12th and 13th documents in the Chartrain which shed a bit of light on what was
going on there, then.
from what (little) i've seen, the dower property was brought to the marriage
by the *wife*, the income of which could be used by the husband, presumably as
head of the (new) family.
what i've seen is charters which deal with the alienation (sale or pawn) of
the property, and, not only is the wife's "spontaneous consent" (i forget the
precise latin term, but it is *always* used) given, but also that of her
daughter(s).
this lead me to think not only that the (usually) land came from the wife's
family, but also **continued to be passed down the distaff side of the
family**, as dowry for the daughter(s).
i *believe* that i found evidence in one case for a "dowry" (i.e., property
from the distaff side of the family) being used as an "entry gift" for a
younger son entering a (cistercian) monastery. but this might not have been
the case and, in any event, might have been very unusual.
(http://www.ariadne.org/centrechartraine/lords/237CJ.rtf , note 12)
>but what happened if either the husband or wife died?
i don't know, but suspect that if the husband died the dower property would
revert to the wife, perhaps to be held in trust for her daughters (in my
interpretation of the Chartres documents). If the wife died the husband
*might* keep the property, but only in trust for the daughters (perhaps
overseen by the wife's kinsmen).
my thought here is that the property belonged, in essence, to the distaff side
of the on-going family --but this is just a guess of mine.
>Did the lands (in theory at least) remain two separate portions, which could
be disposed of as such (and did this lead to squabbles amongst children?)
anything could lead to "squabbles amongst the children."
and, amongst the in-laws, especially if the property was not just kept for the
usefruct but was pawned or alienated.
>literature ?
i've never come across anything, though i'm sure it's out there.
Barbara Rosenwein *might* say something about these matters, re 10th-11th c.
Burgundy, in her _To be the neighbor of Saint Peter : the social meaning of
Cluny's property, 909-1049_ (Cornell U.P., 1989).
i'd like to hear more, should anyone actually know something about these
matters.
best from here,
christopher
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|