Page - 32 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2017
Image of the Page - 32 -
Text of the Page - 32 -
ALJ 1/2017 Leo Peppe 32
male condition revolved around the conjugal house and its care. There was also an awareness, to
borrow the words of the jurist Papinianus of about 200 CE, that âThere are many points in our law
in which the condition of females is inferior to that of males.â36
Correspondingly, even within the Roman elite, the individual social value, the dignitas, of men was
always greater than that of women.37
Why this difference? According to the Roman jurists of the II and III century CE, a recurring expla-
nation is the supposed feebleness of the female mind, the so-called sexus inbecillitas: this is a
common statement in Roman classical culture, one that finds full expression already in Greek
culture.38 In my opinion literature has and still places too much importance on this âfeeblenessâ,
while not enough questions have been asked about why this justification appears in Roman law
and culture only from I century BCE in Cicero:39 indeed, it sounds like an artificial label. Even the
jurist Gaius, reflecting his world of the II century CE, states that this is a specious explanation
devoid of truth.40
In fact, this label served to cloak the increasing difficulty of making exclusive recourse to the an-
cient and original principle, according to which women were excluded from whatever tasks that
were considered masculine at the time.41
This also indicates the concern for protecting womenâs modesty, in particular by ensuring that
their presence in society remained discreet. Especially in non-legal sources, the female occupa-
tion of a public space is condemned. When this does occur, this womanâs opinions place her at
36 DIG.1.5.9 (Pap. l. 31 quaest.): âIn multis iuris nostri articulis deterior est condicio feminarum quam masculorumâ;
about mores a perfect example is D. 5.1.12.2 (Paul. l. 17 ad ed.): âNon autem omnes iudices dari possunt ab his qui
iudicis dandi ius habent: quidam enim lege impediuntur ne iudices sint, quidam natura, quidam moribus. Natura, ut
surdus mutus: et perpetuo furiosus et impubes, quia iudicio carent. Lege impeditur, qui senatu motus est. Moribus
feminae et servi, non quia non habent iudicium, sed quia receptum est, ut civilibus officiis non fungantur.â âNot every-
body may be appointed judge by those with the right to appoint judges. For some are prevented by statute from being
judges, some by nature, and some by custom. For example, the deaf and dumb, the permanently insane, and the im-
pubes [prepubescent child] through lack of judgement are prevented by nature. A person expelled from the senate is
prevented by statute. Women and slaves are prevented by custom, not because they lack judgement but because it is
accepted [it is traditional] that they do not perform civic duties.â
37 DIG. 1.9.1 PR. (Ulp. l. 62 ad ed.): âConsulari feminae utique consularem virum praeferendum nemo ambigit. Sed vir
praefectorius an consulari feminae praeferatur, videndum. Putem praeferri, quia maior dignitas est in sexu virili.â âThat
a man of consular rank always takes precedence over a lady of consular rank is a point no one doubts. However,
whether a man of prefectorial rank takes precedence over a lady of consular rank remains to be seen. I should think he
does, because greater dignity inheres in the male sex.â
38 Giunio Rizzelli, Représentations féminines, lieux communs et droit dans la Rome antique, in DONNE, CIVILTà E SISTEMI
GIURIDICI. RACCOLTA DI TESTI DAL MASTER INTERNAZIONALE CONGIUNTO FEMMES, CIVILISATION ET SYSTĂMES JURIDIQUES 59, esp. 61
et seq. (D. Curtotti, C. Novi & G. Rizzelli eds., 2006).
39 CIC. Mur. 12.27: infirmitas consilii, âweak judgementâ; for sexus inbecillitas see DIG. 16.1.2.2 (Paul. l. 30 ad ed.): âVerba
itaque senatus consulti excutiamus prius providentia amplissimi ordinis laudata, quia opem tulit mulieribus propter
sexus inbecillitatem multis huiuscemodi casibus suppositis atque obiectis.â âAnd so let us examine the terms of the se-
natus consultum [s.c. Velleianum, about 54 CE], having first praised the foresight of the most distinguished order [the
senate], because it brought help to women, seduced and deceived in many cases of this kind, on account of the weak-
ness of their sex.â
40 GAI 1.190.
41 About tutelage see DIG. 26.1.16 PR. (Gai l. 12 ad ed. prov.): âTutela plerumque virile officium est.â âTutelage is, for the
most part, a masculine office.â (The interpolation suggested by some for plerumque serves only to remove a
source of embarrassment for those who do not wish to admit exceptions.) DIG. 26.1.18 (Neratius l. 3 reg.): âFemi-
nae tutores dari non possunt, quia id munus masculorum est, nisi a principe filiorum tutelam specialiter postulent.â
âWomen cannot be appointed as tutors, because this is a duty for males, unless they petition the emperor especially for
the tutelage of their children.â (Plerumque and nisi relativize the scope of the general principle.)
back to the
book Austrian Law Journal, Volume 1/2017"
Austrian Law Journal
Volume 1/2017
- Title
- Austrian Law Journal
- Volume
- 1/2017
- Author
- Karl-Franzens-UniversitÀt Graz
- Editor
- Brigitta Lurger
- Elisabeth Staudegger
- Stefan Storr
- Location
- Graz
- Date
- 2017
- Language
- German
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- Size
- 19.1 x 27.5 cm
- Pages
- 56
- Keywords
- Recht, Gesetz, Rechtswissenschaft, Jurisprudenz
- Categories
- Zeitschriften Austrian Law Journal