Page - 26 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2017

ALJ 1/2017 Leo Peppe 26 they are obliged to follow on foot, as if the seat of empire were in the country of the others, not in their own.”9 The women of Rome, the dominant city, cannot be inferior to Latin women: in these demands, we see two interesting rights, to public transportation and to jewellery. Yet, when the use of the litter was established, not all women were allowed to use it, but only those of good repute: it was prohibited to others. As for jewellery, it had always represented an important part of the hereditary assets of women, and thus evidenced their economic capacity.10 The Digest of Justinian preserves a precious frag- ment, containing a slice of life: “A woman, at the time of her death, made the following bequest of her ornaments: “I wish all my ornaments to be given to my friend Seia.” She also added in the same will: “I desire my funeral to be conducted in compliance with the wishes of my husband, and whatever my burial ceremonies may be, I desire to have buried with me, of my ornaments, two strings of pearls, and my emerald bracelets.” When the body of the deceased was committed to the earth, neither her heirs nor her husband buried her with the ornaments, which she directed to be placed upon her body. The question arose whether the aforesaid articles would belong to the woman to whom she left all her ornaments, or to her heirs. The answer was that they would not belong to the heirs, but to the legatee.”11 A woman dies. It is clear from the context that she has made a will, her husband is alive and there are heredes. The woman leaves – this is undisputed – all her ornaments to her friend Seia, except some jewels to be buried with her. Yet, the heirs do not fulfil her wishes, thus the jurist responds that these ornaments too belong to the legatee and not to the heirs. 2. Second right: women at official dinners, in their own home or that of others Sometimes, even in the most recent literature, the condition of Roman women is examined alongside that of Greek, and especially Athenian, women. However, the Romans adopted a simi- lar approach as well. One example, in the I century BCE Cornelius Nepos writes, contrasting Greek customs and Roman customs: “For what Roman is ashamed to bring his wife to a feast, or whose consort does not occupy the best room in the house, and live in the midst of company? But in Greece the case is far otherwise; for a wife is neither admitted to a feast, except among relatives, nor does she sit anywhere but in 9 LIV. 34.7.5–6: “At hercule uniuersis dolor et indignatio est, cum sociorum Latini nominis uxoribus uident ea concessa ornamenta quae sibi adempta sint, cum insignes eas esse auro et purpura, cum illas uehi per urbem, se pedibus sequi, tamquam in illarum ciuitatibus non in sua imperium sit.” 10 About the economic capacity of women see lastly 43 THE MATERIAL SIDES OF MARRIAGE. WOMEN AND DOMESTIC ECONO- MIES IN ANTIQUITY (Ria Berg ed., 2016). 11 DIG. 34.2.40.2 (Scaev. l. 17 dig.): “Mulier decedens ornamenta legaverat ita: ‘Seiae amicae meae ornamenta universa dari volo”. eodem testamento ita scripserat: “funerari me arbitrio viri mei volo et inferri mihi quaecumque sepulturae meae causa feram ex ornamentis lineas duas ex margaritis et viriolas ex smaragdis’: sed neque heredes neque maritus, cum humi corpus daret, ea ornamenta, quae corpori iussus erat adici, dederunt: quaesitum est, utrum ad eam, cui or- namenta universa reliquerat, pertineant an ad heredes. respondit non ad heredes, sed ad legatariam pertinere.”