96 Journal on European History of Law

Legal Status of Women in Codes Binding in Central Polish Lands

in the Early Nineteenth Century *
Piotr Z. Pomianowski **

Abstract
The article describes the position of women pursuant to the codes adopted in the territories of contemporary Poland at the beginning of the
nineteenth century (Allgemeines Landrecht für die Königlich Preussischen Staaten, Code civil des Français, Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch).
According to all three codes wives were subordinate to their husbands, but there were many differences in specific matters. The husband usually ad-
ministered common marriage property, or in case of separate property regime, he had a significant influence on his wife’s property. In all the analysed
codes, parental authority was exercised mainly by the father, although children had to obey their mother, too.
The relations between the spouses could be fundamentally changed by prenuptial agreements. Moreover, the legal practice changed the letter of
law many times and in numerous cases it differed between the territories where the same code was in force (e.g. France and the Congress Kingdom of
Poland – in both countries the Napoleonic Code was in force). Thus, time-consuming research on sources like notarial deed, as well as court records
should precede a complex analysis covering the application practice of all three codes on the Polish lands.
Keywords: legal status of women; Napoleonic Code; Landrecht of 1794; ABGB; Poland.

1. Introduction
In this article I would like to address the legal status of married
women under private law binding in territories of contempora-
ry Poland in the nineteenth century. To achieve this goal, I will
compare three codes which were in force on the Polish lands on
the west bank of the Bug River: the Prussian Landrecht of 1794,1
the Napoleonic Code of 1804 (hereafter CC) 2 and the Austrian
civil code of 1811 (hereafter ABGB).3 I will analyse the original
version of each code (without amendments – it should be noted
that French and Austrian codes are still in force in these coun-
tries, but of course they have been changed many times). What
is more, significant changes in favour of married women were not
implemented until the second half of the nineteenth century. The
legal status of husband and wife were made fully equal after the
Second World War. It must also be noted that the status of Land-
recht 4 formally was subsidiary (its provisions were only used when
there were no regulations dealing with a specific problem in the
legal system of the province in which it arose). On the contrary,
the CC and the ABGB had priority over all earlier sources of law
(but it should be noticed that in the Habsburg Empire private law
was defined very strictly – e.g. relations between manor-owners
and peasants or between employers and employees were treated
as a part of the administrative law).5 My analysis will not address
the Lithuanian Statute of 1588 which remained in force until
1840 in partitioned lands (on the east bank of the Bug River). It
was a code from a distant past, changed many times by the judi-
ciary and by lawmakers.6 Thus, a brief description of women’s le-
gal status in those territories is much more complicated.7

* This publication was prepared as part of the project National Codification – a Phantasm or a Realistic Alternative? In the Circle of Debates over the Native System
of Law in the Constitutional Kingdom of Poland, supported by the National Science Centre (NCN), grant number UMO-2015/18/E/HS5/00762.
** dr hab. Piotr Z. Pomianowski, Institute of the History of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
1 Allgemeines Landrecht für die Königlich Preussischen Staaten, Berlin, 1794.
2 Code civil des Français : édition originale et seule officielle, Paris, 1804.
3 Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Wien, 1811.
4 For more about relations between Landrecht and the legal system of formerly independent Poland, see RADWAŃSKI Z. and WĄSICKI J., Wprow-

adzenie pruskiego prawa krajowego na ziemiach polskich, Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne 6, no.1 (1954): p. 184–222. About the legal status of mar-
ried women pursuant to the Polish code of 1825, see MACHUT-KOWALCZYK J., Panny, mężatki i wdowy przed sądem pokoju. Prawo a praktyka
w Królestwie Polskim na przykładzie akt sądów pokoju okręgu łęczyckiego, zgierskiego i łódzkiego, Studia z Dziejów Państwa i Prawa Polskiego 16 (2013):
p. 201–14; DOLATA T., Kilka uwag o sytuacji prawnej kobiety zamężnej na ziemiach b. Królestwa Kongresowego z punktu widzenia osobowego prawa
małżeńskiego, Pozycja prawna kobiet w dziejach, ed. Stanisław Rogowski, Wrocław, 2010, p. 139–45; ZOLL F., Małżeńskie prawo majątkowe, Encyklopedia
podręczna prawa prywatnego założona przez Henryka Konica, ed. ZOLL F. and WASILKOWSKI J., Warszawa, 1937, p. 806–42.
5 SÓJKA-ZIELIŃSKA K., Wielkie kodyfikacje cywilne, Warszawa, 2009, p. 98–9, 123.
6 The need to study the changes introduced in the Statute by Sejm constitutions has also been pointed out by ZAKRZEWSKI A. B. Wielkie Księstwo

Litewskie (XVI-XVIII w.): prawo, ustrój, społeczeństwo, Warszawa, 2013, p. 231. Cf. also GODEK S., III Statut Litewski w dobie porozbiorowej, Warszawa,
2012, p. 711.
7 ZIELIŃSKA T., Noblewomen’s Property Rights In 16th-18th Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Acta Poloniae Historica 81 (2000): p. 89.
 1/2020 97

While Landrecht explicitly stipulated gender equality,8 there
were no similar provisions in the CC or in the ABGB. Indeed, the
ABGB (§ 16) guaranteed inherent rights to all people regardless of
their gender 9 but some, like children and the insane, did not have
the capacity to enter into legal transactions.10 It should be under-
lined that women were not one of the categories of people depri-
ved of this capacity. Article 8 of the Napoleonic Code functioned
similarly to § 16 of the ABGB.11 Although its literal interpretation
could suggest otherwise, according to the widely accepted reading,
this provision should be applied to both sexes with exception for
categories deprived of capacity to enter into legal transactions,
such as minors, interdicted persons or married women.12
However, upon a  closer look at the detailed provisions, it
must be concluded that in each of the three analysed codes, the
legal status of men surpassed women’s in many aspects. On the
other hand, there also existed some regulations that favoured
women in respect of men: for example the obligation to pay
alimony, a very strong presumption of legitimacy.13
2. Status of married and unmarried women
The most important distinction between the Napoleonic
Code and the ABGB were regulations concerning married wo-
men. As already mentioned, the Code Civile deprived wives of
the capacity to enter into legal transactions, equating them to
minors and the insane. The ABGB did not contain an equiva-
lent provision. The general rule of the Landrecht suggests that
the Prussian lawmaker shared the attitude of the Austrian one
in this matter. Nevertheless, the Landrecht stipulated so many
exceptions from this general principle that it was weakened to
the point of making the legal status of married women in Prus-
sia and in France similar.
Under private law, the legal status of unmarried adult wo-
men (single and never married, widows and divorcees) was simi-
lar to the position of adult men.14 There were a few exceptions,
for example regarding the capacity to act as a  legal guardian
to unrelated children or as a witness to testaments and some
other transactions.15 It should be noted, however, that some
commentators attributed this problem to the public law rather
than to the private one.16
To a lesser or greater degree, in each of the three compared
systems, wives were subordinate to their husbands, deemed the
heads of families.17 Wives were obliged to live with their hus-
bands, who chose the place of residence.18 They were also ex-
pected to obey their husbands, although none of the discussed

8 Landrecht, part 1, § 24. “Die Rechte beider Geschlechter sind einander gleich, soweit nicht durch besondre Gesetze, oder rechtsültige Willenserklärun-
gen, Ausnahmen bestimmt worden”; VICK B., Liberalism, Nationalism, and Gender Dichotomy in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Germany. The Contested
Case of German Civil Law, The Journal of Modern History 82, (September 2010): p. 557; CHLEBOWSKA A. „Stare panny,” wdowy i rozwiedzione. Samotne
szlachcianki w Prusach w latach 1815-1914 na przykładzie prowincji Pomorze, Szczecin, 2012, p. 99.
9 ABGB, § 16. “Jeder Mensch hat augeborne, schon durch die Vernunft einleuchtende Rechte, und ist daher als eine Person zu betrachten. Sklaverei oder

Leibeigenschaft und die Ausübung einer darauf sich beziehenden Macht wird in diesen Ländern nicht gestattet.”
10 ABGB, § 21. “Diejenigen, welche wegen Mangels an Jahren, Gebrechen des Geistes oder anderer Verhältnisse wegen, ihre Angelegenheiten selbst

gehörig zu besorgen, unfähigsind, stehen unter dem besonderen Schutze der Gesetze. Dahin gehören: Kinder, die das siebente, Unmündige, die das
vierzehnte, Minderjährige, die das einundzwanzigste Jahr ihres Lebens noch nicht zurück gelegt haben; dann: Rasende, Wahnsinnige und Blödsin-
nige, welche des Gebrauches ihrer Vernunft entweder gänzlich be raubt oder wenigstens unvermögend sind, die Folgen ihrer Handlungen einzusehen;
ferner: diejenigen, welchen der Richter als erklärten Verschwendern die fernere Verwaltung ihres Vermögens untersagt hat; endlich Abwesende und
Gemeinden.”
11 Article 8 CC: “Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights”; All the articles of the Napoleonic Code quoted in this paper come from the translation: The

Code Napoleon or the French Civil Code Literally Translated from the Original and Official Edition Published at Paris in 1804, London, 1827.
12 DELSOL J. J., Explication élémentaire du Code Napoléon, mise en rapport avec la doctrine et la jurisprudence, vol. 1, Paris, 1867, p. 35– 6.
13 Landrecht, part 2, title 2, § 1-2; CC, Art. 312; ABGB, § 138; see CZEMERYŃSKI I. S., Powszechne prawo prywatne austriackie: dla użytku podręcznego, vol. 1,

Kraków, 1861, p. 77; UNGER J., Österreichischen allgemeinen Privatrechts, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1876, p. 280.
14 Landrecht, part 1, title 5, § 23. This equality between adult men and spinsters, widows and female divorcees was common in Europe of the nineteenth

century, with the exception of the laws in some cantons of Switzerland, which obliged single adult women to have a legal guardian; OKOLSKI A.,
Kwestia kobieca w świetle najnowszego prawodawstwa, Biblioteka Warszawska, no. 4 (1888): p. 218.
15 Landrecht, part 1, title 12, § 115 (witness to testament); Landrecht, part 2, title 18, § 143 (legal guardianship); CC, Art. 37 (witness to certificates of

birth, death or marriage); CC, Art. 442 (guardianship and membership in family councils); CC, Art. 980 (witness to testament); ABGB, § 192 (legal
guardianship), ABGB, § 434 (witness to real estate transactions); ABGB, § 591 (witness to testament). Moreover, many restrictions applied to entailed
estate (fidei commissum); Landrecht, part 2, title 4, § 134 et seq.; ABGB, § 624. Napoleonic Code abolished the institution of entailed estate (CC, Art.
896), but the ban was soon lifted; SENKOWSKA-GLUCK M., Donacje napoleońskie w Księstwie Warszawskim. Studium historyczno-prawne, Wrocław, 1968,
p. 31–2.
16 HOLEWIŃSKI W., O zobowiązaniach podług Kodeksu Napoleona, Warszawa, 1875, p. 82, footnote 4; Roman Wierzchlejski classified these acts as falling

between public and private law, see WIERZCHLEJSKI R., O prawach kobiety wedle ustaw u nas obowiązujących, Biblioteka Warszawska 3, no. 8 (1883):
p. 179.
17 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 184. “Der Mann ist das Haupt der ehelichen Gesellschaft; und sein Entschluß giebt in gemeinschaftlichen Angelegenheiten

den Ausschlag”; CC, Art. 212. “Les époux se doivent mutuellement fidélité, secours, assistance”; CC Art. 213. “Le mari doit protection à sa femme,
la femme obéissance à son mari”; ABGB, § 91. “Der Mann ist das Haupt der Familie. In dieser Eigenschaft steht ihm vorzüglich das Recht zu, das
Hauswesen zu leiten; es liegt ihm aber auch die Verbindlichkeit ob, der Ehegattin nach seinem Vermögen den anständigen Unterhalt zu verschaffen
und sie in allen Vorfällen zu vertreten”; ABGB, § 92. “Die Gattin erhält den Namen des Mannes und genießt die Rechte seines Standes. Sie ist verbun-
den, dem Manne in seinen Wohnsitz zu folgen, in der Haushaltung und Erwerbung nach Kräften beizustehen, und soweit es die häusliche Ordnung
erfordert, die von ihm getroffenen Maßregeln sowohl selbst zu befolgen, als befolgen zu machen”; see also LINDEN J., Das österreichische Frauenrecht,
Wien, 1834, p. 115 et seq.
18 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 175; CC, Art. 214; ABGB, § 92; LEPSIUS S.,“Die privatrechtliche Stellung der Frau im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts,”

L’Homme. Europäische Zeitschrift für feministische Geschichtswissenschaft 14, no. 1 (2003): p. 116.
98 Journal on European History of Law

codes authorised the husband to discipline his wife by whipping
her or placing her in custody (ius castigandi).19
3. Matrimonial property regimes
Regulations concerning the matrimonial property regimes
are as important as those regulating personal relations between
wife and husband. In each of the three analysed codes the sta-
tutory default matrimonial regimes differed, but future spou-
ses could always modify this regime by prenuptial agreement.
Owing to the brevity of this article, I will only address the sta-
tutory default regimes, which applied in absence of prenuptial
agreement, or when such agreement did not modify the marital
regime.
Under Landrecht the statutory default was a separate proper-
ty regime, but husband administered the property of his wife.20
Pursuant to the Napoleonic Code, joint property regime was
applied in absence of prenuptial agreement and husband ad-
ministered over the entire property belonging to the couple.21
Under the rules of the Austrian code, separate property regime
was in force.22 It may at first seem as though separate property
regime is more beneficial for married women than joint proper-
ty regime.23 Yet in reality the matter was much more complex.
Naturally, separate property regime minimised the risk of the
husband squandering his wife’s fortune.24 On the other hand,
however, when the husband died or the couple divorced, joint
property regime could often be more advantageous for the wife
than separate property regime. In such cases, common property
was divided between the wife and the husband’s successors, or
between the divorced couple (Art. 1474 CC). We should re-
member that in the nineteenth century, the husband’s income
was usually higher than the wife’s, who often mainly took care
of their home.25 It should be underlined that under each of
the three codes, widows and widowers had very weak rights to
inheritance from the deceased spouse.26
Each of the compared systems granted married women
a different scope of capacity to perform acts in law. Under the
ABGB, married women had full capacity, with the aforementio-
ned exceptions, i.e. limitations connected to guardianship over
children and capacity to act as a witness, but these applied to
all women, not only married ones.27 According to the general
principle the wife administered over her property by herself,
but the husband, as her statutory representative, also had some
power over her assets.28
Conversely, in the French legal system, the capacity to per-
form acts in law was strictly limited. A woman could not make
or receive any donations, give declarations on accepting suc-

19 However, William Blackstone wrote that in England “in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted and
a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who were
always fond of the old common law, still claim, and exert their ancient privilege : and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife
of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior”; BLACKSTONE W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1, New York 1827, p. 353–54. In some
other countries ius castigandi was still in force in the nineteenth century; Juliusz Bem, “Kobieta wobec władzy w rodzinie,” Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska
(1882), no. 46, 367. We should also notice that in French law there were some methods of forcing a wife to live with her husband; BURZYŃSKI
P., Wykład prawa cywilnego francuzkiego, vol. 1, Kraków, 1852, 263; ZACHARIÄ v. LINGENTHAL K. S., Le Droit civil français, vol. 1, Paris, 1854,
p. 229.
20 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 205; VICK, “Liberalism, Nationalism, and Gender,” p. 555. The Prussian lawmaker usually secured wife’s property; Landrecht,

part 2, title 1, § 199; the exception is Landrecht, part 2, title 5, § 3.

21 DELSOL J.J., Explication élémentaire du Code Napoléon, vol. 3, p. 6–10. Moreover, we must note that pursuant to article 1388 CC “Married persons cannot

derogate from the rights resulting from the power of the husband over the persons of his wife and of his children, or which belong to the husband as
head, nor from the rights conferred on the survivor of the married parties by the title ‘Of the Paternal Power’ and by the title ‘Of Minority, Guardian-
ship, and Emancipation’ nor from the prohibitory regulations of the present code”.
22 ABGB, § 1237. “Haben Eheleute über die Verwendung ihres Vermögens keine besondere Übereinkunft getroffen, so behält jeder Ehegatte sein voriges

Eigentumsrecht, und auf das, was ein jeder Teil während der Ehe erwirbt, und auf was immer für eine Art überkommt, hat der andere keinen Anspruch.
Im Zweifel wird vermutet, daß der Erwerb von dem Manne herrühre.”
23 BOGUCKA M., Białogłowa w dawnej Polsce: kobieta w społeczeństwie polskim XVI–XVIII wieku na tle porównawczym, Warszawa, 1998, p. 44.
24 It should be noted that joint property regime could not be absolute; CC, Art. 1404. In addition, under the Napoleonic Code husband’s debts usually

did not burden personal property of the wife; DELSOL, Explication élémentaire du Code Napoléon, vol. 3, 40–2.
25 See CC, Art. 1401.
26 Under Landrecht, a  widow or a  widower could only inherit after a  deceased spouse if she or he had no surviving relatives; BARDACH J. and

SENKOWSKA-GLUCK M., eds., Historia państwa i prawa Polski. Od rozbiorów do uwłaszczenia, vol. 3, Warszawa, 1981, p. 640. Pursuant to the Napo-
leonic Code, the surviving spouse could only inherit in absence of relatives to the twelveth degree of consanguinity; CC, Art. 755, 767. The ABGB
was the most favourable for widows (widowers), as it stipulated that the surviving spouse inherited concurrently with children, in which case he or
she was entitled to a lifetime use of a quarter of the inheritance (ABGB, § 757), but when there were no children, he or she inherited half of the estate
(ABGB § 758).
27 KURATÓW-KURATOWSKI R., “O zdolności prawnej mężatek według Kodeksu Cywilnego Polskiego,” Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska [XLVII, no. 39]

(1919), p. 376.
28 In practice, husbands’ rights were interpreted broadly, see Arne Duncker, Gleichheit und ungleichheit in der ehe: persönliche Stellung von Frau und Mann im

Recht der ehelichen Lebensgemeinschaft 1700-1914 (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2003), 813; ABGB, § 1034. Husbands’ rights were not limited by § 1008 (ZOLL
F. et al., Prawo cywilne: opracowane głównie na podstawie przepisów obowiązujących w Małopolsce. Prawo familijne i spadkowe, vol. 4 (Poznań: Wojewódzki Instytut
Wydawniczy, 1933), 78; dissenting opinion in Czemeryński, Powszechne prawo prywatne austriackie, vol. 2, 95; see also: FORSTER E., “Die Spiegelung
widersprüchlicher Vorstellungen über die Geschäftsfähigkeit von Frauen im österreichischen Privatrecht um 1800,” in Kontinuität im Wandel 200 Jahre
ABGB (1811-2011), ed. BARTA H. et al., Innsbruck, 2012, p. 269–93; FORSTER E., “Gesellschaftliche Neuordnung am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts?
Ein Vergleich der österreichischen und toskanischen Rechtsentwürfe,” Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione, no. 2 (2011): p. 35–6; Ute Gerhard, “Civil
Law and Gender in Nineteenth-Century Europe,” Clio. Women, Gender, History, no. 43, “Gender and the Citizen” (2016): p. 263; FLOSSMANN U.,
Österreichische Privatrechtsgeschichte, Wien-New York, 1992, p. 27–30.
 1/2020 99

cession, nor transfer or encumber real estate 29 without the au-
thorisation of her husband. However, the position of wife was
stronger if separate property regime had been established by
prenuptial agreement (Art. 1536 CC), court verdict (Art. 1538
CC) or during the separation process (Art. 1449 CC). Yet also
under the joint property regime she could perform certain acts
by herself.30 If the husband refused to authorise his wife to pass
an act, she could sue him in court (Art. 219 CC).
Despite all the limitations described above, the position
of married women was strengthened by the institution called
Schlüsselgewalt in German and by the similar French institution
(mandat tacite).31 It allowed the wife to represent her husband
in acts of ordinary management needed to run their common
household.32 In all three compared systems, the legal basis of
this institution was based rather on practice, doctrine and ju-
risprudence than on the letter of the law. Nevertheless, in both
the Prussian and the Austrian codes, we can find the same
grounds, which were interpreted broadly. There were provisions
in Landrecht stipulating that the wife should manage the com-
mon household on the level adequate to the status of her hus-
band 33 and authorising the wife to take out a loan for ordinary
household needs.34 In the original version of the ABGB we can
find some foundations of this institution in § 92.35 On the other
hand, the French mandat tacite, which had a similar function to
that of Schlüsselgewalt, did not have any grounds in the Code Ci-
vil. It was created by practice and accepted by doctrine and juris-
prudence. Its essence was that in issues associated with ordinary
management needed to run the common household, the wife
was treated as a plenipotentiary of her husband. Her authorisa-
tion was usually tacit, but the husband could cancel it.36
In the last part of these detailed considerations on the legal
status of married women, I will address their capacity to appear
in court and to conduct a business or a trade. In both French
and Prussian legal systems married women generally did not
have the capacity neither to sue nor to be sued (their husbands
acted as their statutory representatives).37 Interestingly, there
were no similar limitations in the Austrian law.38
Pursuant to French and Prussian laws, the wife needed her
husband’s authorisation for conducting a business or a trade.39
Conversely, there were no analogical provisions in the ABGB,
but some similar limitations were stipulated in acts of lower
ranks.40 When a  husband gave his wife permission to trade,
she achieved full legal capacity for transactions linked to her
business.
4. Personal relations between spouses and between
children and parents
Having analysed the material aspects of marriage, I will make
some remarks on personal relations between spouses and bet-
ween children and parents. Firstly, it must be stated that all the
compared systems distinguished the legal status of children born
in wedlock and of natural children (born out of wedlock).41 This
distinction was additionally reinforced by a  rule according to
which legitimate children bore surnames of their fathers, while
natural ones took on the last name of their mothers.42 Further
considerations will be limited to legitimate children.

29 HLEWIŃSKI W., O zobowiązaniach podług Kodeksu Napoleona, 83; LEPSIUS S., “Die privatrechtliche Stellung der Frau,” p. 115. Articles limiting the wives’
capacity were scattered all over the Napoleonic Code; CC, Art. 776. “Married women are incapable of a valid acceptance of a succession without the
authority of their husbands”; CC, Art. 905. “A married woman cannot make donation during life without the assistance or the special consent of her hus-
band”; CC, Art. 934. “A married woman shall not be allowed to accept a donation without the consent of her husband”; CC, Art. 1029. “A married woman
shall not be allowed to accept testamentary executorship except with her husband’s consent”; CC, Art. 1124 (inability to enter into legal transactions).
30 Exceptions in the Napoleonic Code were Art. 241 (bringing divorce action into the court), Art. 940 (if the husband did not satisfy certain formali-

ties connected with donation, the wife could proceed without authorisation), Art. 1096 (revoking the donation in favour of the husband), Art. 1990
(possibility to make the wife her husband’s representative). Moreover, note Art. 865, 875 and 878 of the Code de procédure civile: édition originale et seule
officielle, Paris, 1806.
31 LONGSCHAMPS de BERIER R., “Ograniczenia kobiet w prawie cywilnem obowiązującem na ziemiach polskich”, Przegląd prawa i administracji 45,

no.2 (1920): p. 177–78; ZOLL F., Prawo cywilne, 75, footnote no. 2.
32 Contemporary version of the ABGB regulates this institution in § 96 (it is gender neutral now).
33 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 194.
34 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 321; DUNCKER, Gleichheit und ungleichheit in der ehe, p. 815; VICK, “Liberalism, Nationalism, and Gender,” p. 558. The

wife’s capacities strengthened in times of her husband’s absence (Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 202–204).

35 “Die Gattinn erhält den Nahmen des der Ehe. Mannes, und genießt die Rechte seines Standes. Sie ist verbunden, dem Manne in seinen Wohnfitz

zu folgen, in der Haushaltung und Erwerbung nach Kräften beyzustehen, und so weit es die häusliche Ordnung erfordert, die von ihm getroffenen
Maßregeln sowohl selbst zu befolgen, als befolgen zu machen.” DUNCKER, Gleichheit und ungleichheit in der ehe, p. 814.
36 S. P., “Kobieta i prawo cywilne,” Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska 22, no. 27 (1894): p. 422; KURATÓW-KURATOWSKI, “O zdolności prawnej mężatek,”

p. 325.
37 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 189. “In der Regel kann daher die Frau, ohne Zuziehung und Einwilligung des Mannes, mit Andern keine Prozesse führen.”

See also Allgemeine Gerichtsordnung für die Preußischen Staaten (Berlin: Pauli, 1795), part 1, title 1, § 16. “Ehefrauen können ohne Beytritt ihrer Männer
vor Gericht nicht erscheinen”; CC, Art. 215. “La femme ne peut ester en jugement sans l’autorisation de son mari, quand même elle serait marchande
publique, ou non commune, ou séparée de biens”; CC, Art. 216. “L’autorisation du mari n’est pas nécessaire lorsque la femme est poursuivie en matière
criminelle ou de police.”
38 KURATÓW-KURATOWSKI, “O zdolności prawnej mężatek,” p. 376.
39 Landrecht, part 2, title 1, § 195; CC, Art. 220; Code de commerce, Paris, 1807, Art. 4.
40 LINDEN J., Das österreichische Frauenrecht 115 et seq., p. 162. The Austrian Commercial Code of 1862 contained a similar provision; CZEMERYŃSKI,

Powszechne prawo prywatne austriackie, vol. 2, 7.

41 BOBIŃSKI M., “Władza rodzicielska w prawie francusko-polskim w XIX wieku,” (PhD diss., University of Warszawa, 2015), p. 232; PIETRZAK M.,

“Sytuacja prawna kobiet w Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej,” in O ustroju, prawie i polityce II Rzeczypospolitej, ed. BORECKI P. et al., Warszawa, 2018, p. 188.
42 Landrecht, part 2, title 2, § 58; ABGB, § 146. There were no similar provisions in the Napoleonic Code because it authors thought that it was obvious;

GULCZYŃSKI A., Nazwisko dziecka. Ewolucja ukazywania relacji rodzinnoprawnych, Poznań, 2010, p. 112, 126, 132.
100 Journal on European History of Law

Pursuant to the Napoleonic Code, during the time of marria- were many differences in specific matters. The status of married
ge legitimate children were under the father’s control (puissance women was most strictly limited by the Napoleonic Code. In
paternelle).43 Nevertheless, both German codes recognized not contrast, under the ABGB the position of the wife was relative-
only “father’s power” (väterliche Gewalt) but also parental autho- ly strong.47 However, the practice mitigated some distinctions:
rity (Gemeinschaftliche Rechte und Pflichten der Eltern). Therefore, on the one hand, by strengthening the position of French wives
German lawmakers gave the mother some scope of authority over (mandat tacite), and on the other hand by weakening the status of
the children, but that authority was weaker than “father’s po- Austrian wives (authority of husband as the statutory represen-
wer.” 44 Moreover, in Prussia and Austria courts could deprive tative of his wife). In order to determine the actual legal situation
parents of parental authority for serious reasons.45 In France on the Polish lands (as in the case of other countries governed
this option was not introduced until 1889.46 by the same codes) in the nineteenth century, systematic archive
research is needed. It must also be kept in mind that occasionally
5. Summary the same articles of the Napoleonic Code were interpreted dif-
On the whole, in all three compared systems wives were subor- ferently in Paris and in Warsaw. The same sometimes happened
dinate to their husbands, and children to their fathers, but there with the practice of the ABGB, for example in Galicia and Tirol.
Bibliography
Published primary sources
Allgemeine Gerichtsordnung für die Preußischen Staaten. Berlin: Pauli, 1795.
Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Wien: Hippolyt-Verlag, 1811.
Allgemeines Landrecht für die Königlich Preussischen Staaten. Berlin, 1794.
Code civil des Français : édition originale et seule officielle. Paris: Imprimerie de la République, 1804.
Code de commerce. Paris: Imprimerie des frères Mame, 1807.
Code de procédure civile: édition originale et seule officielle. Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1806.
“Loi sur l’abolition du divorce (loi Bonald) (8-10 mai 1816).” In Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglements, avis du
Conseil d’État, edited by Jean-Baptiste Duvergier, Vol. 20, 464–5. Paris: A. Guyot, 1827.
The Code Napoleon or the French Civil Code Literally Translated from the Original and official Edition Published at Paris in 1804. London:
William Benning, 1827.

Literature
Bem, Juliusz “Kobieta wobec władzy w rodzinie.” Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska [rocznik X, no. 46] (1882): 363-367.
Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. 1. New York: E.Duyckinck, G. Long, Collins & Hannay,
Collins & CO, O. A. Roorbach, John Grigg, 1827.
Bobiński, Mariusz. “Władza rodzicielska w prawie francusko-polskim w XIX wieku.” PhD diss., University of Warsaw, 2015.
Bogucka, Maria. Białogłowa w dawnej Polsce: kobieta w społeczeństwie polskim XVI–XVIII wieku na tle porównawczym. Warszawa: “Trio,”
1998.
Burzyński, Piotr. Wykład prawa cywilnego francuzkiego. Vol. 1. Kraków 1852.
Chlebowska, Agnieszka. “Stare panny,” wdowy i rozwiedzione. Samotne szlachcianki w Prusach w latach 1815-1914 na przykładzie
prowincji Pomorze. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 2012.
Delsol, Jean Joseph. Explication élémentaire du Code Napoléon, mise en rapport avec la doctrine et la jurisprudence. Vols. 1, 3. Paris:
Cotillon, 1867.
Dolata, Tomasz. “Kilka uwag o sytuacji prawnej kobiety zamężnej na ziemiach b. Królestwa Kongresowego z punktu widzenia osobowe-
go prawa małżeńskiego.” In Pozycja prawna kobiet w dziejach, edited by Stanisław Rogowski, 139–45. Wrocław: Kolonia Limited, 2010.
43 CC, Art. 373. In the case of the father’s death, puissance paternelle was exercised by the mother, yet with certain limitations; JAWORSKI W. L., Prawo cywilne
na ziemiach polskich. Rodzice i dzieci, vol. 2, part 1, Warszawa, 1920, p. 120; DUNIN K., Prawa kobiet w nowym kodeksie cywilnym szwajcarskim, Warszawa, 1909,
p. 16; FORSTER E., “The Construction of ‘Male Capability’ and ‘Female Inability’ to assume Guardianship of Children in the Austrian ‘Allgemeines Bürger-
liches Gesetzbuch’ (ABGB) in the 19th Century,” in Less favoured – more favoured. Proceedings from a Conference on Gender in European Legal History. 12.–19. Cen-
tury, September 2004, Kopenhagen 2005, ed. Grethe Jacobsen et al., 13, http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/publikationer/fundogforskning-online/less_more/.
44 Landrecht, part 2, title 2, § 61. “Kinder sind beyden Aeltern Ehrfurcht und Gehorsam schuldig”; § 62. “Vorzüglich aber stehen sie unter väterlicher Gewalt.”;

ABGB, § 139. “Die Eltern haben überhaupt die Verbindlichkeit, ihre ehelichen Kinder zu erziehen, das ist, für ihr Leben und ihre Gesundheit zu sorgen,
ihnen den anständigen Unterhalt zu verschaffen, ihre körperlichen und Geisteskräfte zu entwickeln, und durch Unterricht in der Religion und in nützlichen
Kenntnissen den Grund zu ihrer künftigen Wohlfahrt zu legen”; § 141. “Es ist vorzüglich Pflicht des Vaters, so lange für den Unterhalt der Kinder zu sorgen,
bis sie sich selbst ernähren können. Die Pflege ihres Körpers und ihrer Gesundheit ist hauptsächlich die Mutter auf sich zu nehmen verbunden.”
45 ABGB, § 177 and § 178; Landrecht, part 2, title 2, § 90–91.
46 S. P., “Kobieta i prawo cywilne,” 453. Jean Joseph Delsol, however, asserts that courts sometimes deprived parents of their parental responsibility also

prior to 1889; DELSOL J.J., Explication élémentaire du Code Napoléon, vol. 1, 280.
47 But on the other hand it must be noted that in Napoleonic France wives could receive divorce, which was forbidden for Catholic women in the

Hapsburg Empire, where the majority of subjects were Roman Catholics. In France divorce was abolished in 1816; Loi sur l’abolition du divorce (loi
Bonald) (8-10 mai 1816.), in DUVERGIER J.B., ed., Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, réglements, avis du Conseil d’État, vol. 20, Paris, 1827,
p. 464–5.
 1/2020 101

Duncker, Arne. Gleichheit und ungleichheit in der ehe: persönliche Stellung von Frau und Mann im Recht der ehelichen Lebensgemeinschaft
1700-1914. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2003.
Dunin, Karol. Prawa kobiet w nowym kodeksie cywilnym szwajcarskim. Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff, 1909.
Zoll, Fryderyk, et al. Prawo cywilne: opracowane głównie na podstawie przepisów obowiązujących w Małopolsce. Prawo familijne i spadkowe.
Vol. 4. Poznań: Wojewódzki Instytut Wydawniczy, 1933.
Flossmann, Ursula. Österreichische Privatrechtsgeschichte. Wien–New York: Springer, 1992.
Forster, Ellinor. “Die Spiegelung widersprüchlicher Vorstellungen über die Geschäftsfähigkeit von Frauen im österreichischen
Privatrecht um 1800.” In Kontinuität im Wandel 200 Jahre ABGB (1811-2011), edited by Heinz Barta et al., 269–93. Innsbruck:
Innsbruck University Press, 2012.
Forster, Ellinor. “Gesellschaftliche Neuordnung am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts? Ein Vergleich der österreichischen und toska-
nischen Rechtsentwürfe.” Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione, no. 2 (2011): 15–39. https://storiaeregione.eu/attachment/get/
up_91_14684001234278.pdf.
Forster, Ellinor. “The Construction of ‘Male Capability’ and ‘Female Inability’ to assume Guardianship of Children in the Aus-
trian ‘Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch’ (ABGB) in the 19th Century.” In Less favoured – more favoured. Proceedings from a Con-
ference on Gender in European Legal History. 12.–19. Century, September 2004, Kopenhagen 2005, edited by Grethe Jacobsen et al.,
1–13. http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/publikationer/fundogforskning-online/less_more/.
Gerhard, Ute. “Civil law and gender in nineteenth-century Europe.” Clio. Women, Gender, History, no. 43, “Gender and the
Citizen” (2016): 250–75.
Godek, Sławomir. III Statut Litewski w dobie porozbiorowej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego,
2012.
Gulczyński, Andrzej. Nazwisko dziecka. Ewolucja ukazywania relacji rodzinnoprawnych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersy-
tetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 2010.
Bardach, Juliusz, and Senkowska-Gluck, Monika, ed. Historia państwa i  prawa Polski. Od rozbiorów do uwłaszczenia. Vol. 3.
Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1981.
Holewiński, Władysław. O zobowiązaniach podług Kodeksu Napoleona. Warszawa: Redakcja Umiejętności Prawnych, 1875.
Jaworski, Władysław Leopold. Prawo cywilne na ziemiach polskich. Rodzice i dzieci. Vol. 2, Part 1.Warszawa: J. Czernecki, 1920.
Kuratów-Kuratowski, Roman. O zdolności prawnej mężatek według Kodeksu Cywilnego Polskiego, „Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska”
[rocznik XLVII, no. 39] (1919): [375-377].
Lepsius, Susanne. “Die privatrechtliche Stellung der Frau im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts.” L’Homme. Europäische Zeitschrift
für feministische Geschichtswissenschaft 14, no. 1 (2003): 110–23.
Linden, Joseph, Das österreichische Frauenrecht. Wien: C. Gerold, 1834.
Longschamps de Berier, Roman. “Ograniczenia kobiet w prawie cywilnem obowiązującem na ziemiach polskich,” Przegląd
prawa i administracji 45, no.2 (1920): [173-196].
Machut-Kowalczyk, Joanna. “Panny, mężatki i wdowy przed sądem pokoju. Prawo a praktyka w Królestwie Polskim na przykładzie
akt sądów pokoju okręgu łęczyckiego, zgierskiego i łódzkiego.” Studia z Dziejów Państwa i Prawa Polskiego 16 (2013): 201–14.
Okolski, Antoni. “Kwestia kobieca w świetle najnowszego prawodawstwa.” Biblioteka Warszawska, no. 4 (1888): 1–21.
Pietrzak, Michał. “Sytuacja prawna kobiet w Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej.” In O ustroju, prawie i polityce II Rzeczypospolitej, edited by
Paweł Borecki et al., 182–96. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2018.
Czemeryński, Ignacy Szczęsny. Powszechne prawo prywatne austriackie: dla użytku podręcznego. Vol. 1. Kraków 1861.
Radwański, Zbigniew, and Wąsicki, Jan. “Wprowadzenie pruskiego prawa krajowego na ziemiach polskich.” Czasopismo Prawno-
Historyczne 6, no. 1 (1954): 184–222.
S. P. “Kobieta i prawo cywilne.” Gazeta Sądowa Warszawska 22, no. 27 (1894): 418–24, no. 28 (1894): 434–41.
Senkowska-Gluck, Monika. Donacje napoleońskie w Księstwie Warszawskim. Studium historyczno-prawne. Wrocław: Zakład
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968.
Sójka-Zielińska, Katarzyna. Wielkie kodyfikacje cywilne. Warszawa: Liber, 2009.
Unger, Joseph. Österreichischen allgemeinen Privatrechts. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1876.
Vick, Brian. “Liberalism, Nationalism, and Gender Dichotomy in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Germany. The Contested Case of
German Civil Law.” The Journal of Modern History 82, (September 2010): 546–84.
Wierzchlejski, Roman, O prawach kobiety wedle ustaw u nas obowiązujących, Biblioteka Warszawska 3, no. 8 (1883): 176–88.
Zachariä von Lingenthal, Karl Salomo, Le Droit civil français, vol. 1 (Paris: Auguste Durand, 1854)
Zakrzewski, Andrzej B. Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie (XVI-XVIII w.): prawo, ustrój, społeczeństwo. Warszawa: Campidoglio, 2013.
Zoll, Fryderyk. “Małżeńskie prawo majątkowe.” In Encyklopedia podręczna prawa prywatnego założona przez Henryka Konica, edited by
Fryderyk Zoll, and Jan Wasilkowski, 806–42. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy „Bibljoteka Polska,” 1937.
Zielińska, Teresa. “Noblewomen’s property rights in 16th-18th Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.” Acta Poloniae Historica 81
(2000): 79–89.