summary. the open window sold according to city statutes and the institution must offer it to the burghers of the city. Unrelated burghers could not redeem the property but had to pay its full value to the religious houses. The value of the property was assessed and determined by the courts. While the city of Stockholm respected the individual’s need to make worldly donations to religious institutions for the sake of their souls (as prescribed by ecclesiastic doctrine), they ensured that the religious institutions in the city could not accumulate property. Institutions could only temporarily own the right to demand the rent from the burghers renting spaces in dwellings and buildings. As a donor, the wife did not differ from her husband. The wife had the right to donate the income from her share of the couple’s property, albeit with her husband’s consent. He could do the same. Both took advantage of the property’s interest income when donating. Of course, they could also donate together. The wife could also use the immovable property interest income to secure a loan. Against this background, attention can be turned to the wife’s opportunities to obtain credit and her prospects to participate in the city’s credit and commercial markets. The wife’s right to half of the household’s movable property enabled another way for her to secure a loan. She not only needed to use the fixed-interest portion of the immovable property but could also use the value of the movable property. In the first instance, it was chattels and inventories that secured loans attained by the burghers of Stockholm. When debt was to be repaid, the borrower’s part was used in the household’s movable property and inventory. No difference was made between men’s and women’s loans. The study clearly establishes that the loans the woman took and the credits she permitted were her personal responsibility. Thus, as a woman, she was unable to defer loan obligations to her husband, or to any male relative. As long as she was alive, she would pay off her debts herself. Documented examples of a husband explicitly notifying the city council that he was not going to be responsible for his wife’s debts and stating she would be responsible for them herself support this point. If a woman, or a man for that matter, failed to pay debts, their part of the household’s movable goods was seized. In cases where one of the 294
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=