Page:Bury J B The Cambridge Medieval History Vol 2 1913.djvu/101

Rh the husband, which was now a usual incident, was treated as balancing the dowry and gradually subjected to like treatment (468). As the dowry could be increased by the wife or others during the marriage (notwithstanding the rule against gifts between husband and wife), so also could the husband's antenuptial gift, and, if none such had been made, he was allowed to make one not exceeding the value of the dowry, and any agreements which had been made for a marriage settlement could be modified accordingly. The amount of the settlement could be reduced by mutual consent, unless there were children of the marriage, for which the settlement was made (527). Justinian enacted (529)that all agreements for the share to be taken by the wife in her husband's gift after his death were to apply to the share to be taken by the husband in the wife's dowry on her death, the larger share to be reduced to the smaller, and altered the phrase ante nuptias donatio to propter nuptias donatio, that it might fit the extended character (531). In 539 he enacted that the dowry and the marriage gift should be equal, and that in all cases of dissolution of the marriage, whether either party married again or not, the amount coming to him or her from the settlements of the marriage or former marriage should pass as property to the children of the marriage and only the usufruct to the parent; and that was to be subject to the support of the children. In 548 he enacted that either party abstaining from a second marriage should as a reward share with the children in the property of the dowry or nuptial gift, besides enjoying the usufruct of the whole: and further he required that the husband or his friends should (as in other cases of gift) record in court the amount of his marriage gift if over 500 solidi (about equal to £500) under penalty for omission of losing all share in the dowry.

A woman's claim for her dowry had since 529 (and still more since 539) precedence of almost all other claims on her husband's property; and if her husband was insolvent she could maintain her claim on the settled property even during his life against his creditors, and against her father or mother or other donor unless they had expressly stipulated for its return.

Any money or securities or other property which the wife had beside her dowry (parapherna) were not touched by any of these agreements or statutes, but remained entirely the property of the wife and subject to her claim and disposition. The fact was sometimes mentioned in the dowry deed, and the husband and his property were answerable for the parapherna so far as they were under his care. Justinian (530) allowed him to sue for them on his wife's behalf, and to use the interest for their joint purposes, but the capital he was to deal with according to her wish.

were the subject of much change of opinion, in the minds of the Emperors at least, between Augustus and Justinian.