In this blog post, we’ll examine the realities and contradictions surrounding women’s property rights as reflected in civil law—including dowries, majorat, and notarial negotiations—through Balzac’s ‘The Marriage Contract’.

Balzac, Money, and the Law

Honoré de Balzac, often called the “father of the modern novel,” left behind an incomparably vast body of work. His “Human Comedy” series contains over 90 novels, featuring a diverse cast of characters ranging from aristocrats, bourgeoisie, workers, and peasants to usurers, judges, merchants, bankers, artists, scientists, swindlers, and murderers. The total number of characters reaches 2,500, and more than 500 of them are interconnected through the technique of reappearing in multiple works.
The range of themes is also broad. Balzac, who described himself as a chronicler of social customs, incorporated various fields—including politics, economics, society, history, culture, art, science, and law—into his works. In particular, money and law form the central pillars of his novels. While studying law, Balzac worked as a clerk in a law firm and a notary’s office. Through his experiences in courtrooms, he witnessed various conflicts, human suffering, despair, greed, ambition, cunning, and deceit; and at the notary’s office, he handled documents related to marriage, dowries, inheritance, and wills firsthand, gaining insight into the realities of life hidden behind the paperwork.
The commentator focused on two novels from this period that deal with money and civil law: ‘The Marriage Contract’ and ‘The Incompetent’. These two works clearly illustrate how the law intervenes in property disputes within families and both raise questions regarding women’s rights—particularly property rights. The Civil Code, known as the Napoleonic Code, regulated all aspects of personal life—including an individual’s legal status, marriage, divorce, inheritance, property rights, and debt relationships—but under this code, women were often classified as having a status similar to that of “minors,” thereby limiting their authority to manage their property.
For example, in one story, Nathalie brings a dowry of over one million francs, but a significant portion of it must be contributed to the formation of her husband’s family estate (“The Marriage Contract”); in another, the Marquise de Despar is unable to freely dispose of or invest her own property, and if her husband is declared legally incompetent, she cannot serve as his guardian and must instead appoint another man to that role (“Legal Incompetence”). Just as with characters who are constantly plagued by debt despite possessing enormous dowries, ‘Human Comedy’ features countless examples of women’s property rights being restricted.
What is interesting is the contradiction revealed in Balzac’s political and social attitudes. While he defends the legitimacy of patriarchy and primogeniture to a certain extent, he fundamentally challenges the infringement of women’s rights caused by the dowry system. Just as his monarchist tendencies are mixed with progressive perspectives, the author’s duality—supporting patriarchal ideals to some degree while criticizing their practical consequences—is evident throughout his works.

“The Marriage Contract” and Women’s Property Rights

“The Marriage Contract” is, quite literally, a novel centered on the civil contractual process related to marriage. In a letter to his sister in October 1835, Balzac stated that the scene of the marriage contract alone could depict a couple’s future, and indeed, the novel focuses on the arguments and negotiations between the two parties during the drafting of the marriage contract. The contract negotiations themselves constitute the novel’s central event.
The story vividly depicts the notaries, acting on behalf of both parties’ interests, as they struggle to secure favorable terms for their respective clients. The key point of contention here is the bride’s dowry. Traditionally, France had a dowry system, and marriage was contractual in nature. However, in the rapidly changing society following the French Revolution, the bride’s dowry took on far greater significance than before.
Under the Ancien Régime, aristocratic marriage was an institution designed to ensure the continuity of the family line and the preservation of property; however, after the French Revolution, the meaning of the family changed, and the family was no longer considered sacrosanct. The Civil Code, completed in 1804, was the product that legally enshrined these changes. Marriage was viewed not as a matter of emotion but as a union of interests, and everything—including the division of property, inheritance, and the disposition of assets upon a spouse’s death—had to be specified in the contract.
The novel’s protagonist, Paul de Manerville, was born in 1794, spent his youth during the Napoleonic Empire, and later experienced the new era in Paris; he represents the nobility in the modern sense—the bourgeoisified nobility. He defines himself as an ordinary person who “acts in accordance with the laws of society,” revealing bourgeois aspirations for happiness grounded in domestic virtues. However, as society at the time was steeped in individualism and selfishness, marriage ultimately amounts to nothing more than a union of interests.
Paul succeeds in high society during the Restoration era thanks to his noble status and wealth, but he falls in love with the beautiful Natalie Evangelista, who is descended from Spanish nobility on her mother’s side. Believing the rumor that Natalie is a bride with a dowry of one million francs, he proposes to her without attempting to verify her financial status. However, as the marriage proceedings unfold, the matter becomes less a matter of emotion and more a financial transaction, turning into a battle where notaries—rather than the parties involved—argue over the specific terms.
The two notaries represent different spirits of the age. Matthias is a notary of the old school who values aristocratic principles, viewing the purpose of marriage as the preservation of the family name and the continuation of the bloodline. In contrast, the young notary Solone is a representative of the emerging bourgeoisie who prioritizes personal gain, embodying the interests of an era where money is king. This conflict comes to the surface throughout the entire negotiation process.
During the negotiations, Paul and Matthias learn that Madame Evangelista lacks the means to provide her daughter with a dowry. In traditional society, the dowry given by a father to his daughter was considered her right, but Madame Evangelista had already squandered her fortune and was unable to fulfill that promise. Matthias was shocked, and even Paul, blinded by love, fell into deep distress.
At this point, Solone makes a proposal, as if he had come up with a brilliant solution. He suggests that if Mrs. Evangelista sells her mansion and government bonds, she could secure the approximately one million francs that Natalie inherited from her father, thereby resolving the dowry issue. Upon hearing this, Mrs. Evangelista declares that she will even part with all her jewelry, and the naive Paul rejoices.
However, Matthias sees through the flaws in this calculation and the deception underlying it. Another major concern is the high risk that the future, extravagant bride might squander even her husband’s fortune. From a notary’s perspective, this marriage was a reckless act that would jeopardize the Manerville family’s wealth. Paul, lost in love, refuses to heed rational advice, but Matthias proposes a plan to prevent his bankruptcy and protect the family fortune.
The solution Matthias proposes is the establishment of a “majorat,” a form of real estate inherited by the eldest son. A majorat is a hereditary estate that is legally non-transferable and difficult to use as collateral or seize; by its nature, the eldest son cannot dispose of it at will. It can be understood as a concept similar to clan ownership in traditional Korean society.
Historically, the majorat system also held a special position within the civil law system. While the Civil Code of 1804 encouraged equal inheritance, the 1808 amendment recognized the majorat system, paving the way for partial respect for aristocratic traditions. Subsequently, amid political upheavals, there were legal changes regarding the establishment and disposition of majorat estates: the Restoration period was favorable toward establishing majorat estates, a bill prohibiting their establishment was passed in 1835, and a law permitting their disposition was enacted in 1849. The period around 1822, which serves as the backdrop for the novel, was during the Restoration period when conditions were favorable for establishing majorat estates.
Matthias proposes establishing a majorat for the Manerville family by combining Paul’s estate with the bride’s dowry, and the marriage is finalized when the bride’s family agrees to this proposal. Thus, the negotiation process of the marriage contract reveals how legal and financial mechanisms—rather than personal emotions—determine the fate of a family, and how women’s property rights are restricted and institutionalized within that framework.
Mrs. Evangelista, who had been anxiously worrying that the marriage might fall through, breathed a sigh of relief for the time being. However, on the morning of the scheduled signing of the marriage contract, a chilling thought flashed through her mind like a “will-o’-the-wisp.” She suspected that if the resourceful Matthias had gone quiet, Paul must surely have prepared something to ensure he would not suffer a loss.
Before signing, Madame Evangelista asks about the legal effect of the “majora” and what consequences its establishment would have for her daughter. Matthias kindly explains the concept of the “majora.” He explains that the “majora” functions similarly to a family estate: if the husband dies first, leaving a son, the wife retains rights only to the portion of her dowry not invested in the “majora.” He also adds that all of the husband’s assets unrelated to the majora must be inherited by the children.
In other words, even if the dowry exceeds 1 million francs, if her husband dies first, Natalie would only have rights to the balance remaining after subtracting the 800,000 francs invested in the majora. Doesn’t this mean Natalie will end up losing almost all of her wealth? Believing she had completely outwitted Paul, she initially rejoiced in her victory, but soon realized that the winners were not her, but Paul and Matthias. The moment she celebrated her victory was, in fact, the moment she lost, and upon realizing that the sacrificial lamb of this negotiation was her own daughter, the wife is overcome with rage. At that moment, she begins to harbor a deep hatred for her son-in-law.
Solone, sensing the lady’s fury, devises a cunning scheme: he inserts a clause into the contract stipulating that if Paul dies without issue, Majora would become part of the couple’s joint estate, but if he dies leaving only daughters, the establishment of Majora would be null and void. Ostensibly, this was a measure to avoid litigation with the Manerville family. However, it is precisely this diabolical clause that leads to Paul’s ruin. This was because Natalie had firmly resolved not to have children.
Ultimately, five years after the marriage, Madame Evangelista had nearly completely ruined her son-in-law, and the unsuspecting Paul, now penniless, left France. However, Paul’s fortune, which appeared to have vanished, had in fact fallen into the hands of his mother-in-law. Having amassed a fortune by siphoning off all the income from Paul’s estate in Bordeaux, she used a front man to lend money to Paul and collected exorbitant interest. When, over time, Paul was forced to sell his estate to pay off his debts, she purchased all of the land.
Believing in his wife’s love and his mother-in-law’s devotion, Paul sets off for the East Indies to earn money for his wife. Given that Paul de Manerville does not appear again in the novel, it is highly likely that he met a tragic end—perhaps even death.
“The Marriage Contract” depicts the downfall of a young man, but it takes on greater significance precisely because he is an incompetent aristocrat. It seems to foreshadow the complete collapse of the aristocracy—which had been in gradual decline since the French Revolution—after 1830.
At first glance, the author appears to be exposing and criticizing Madame Evangelista’s greed, fraud, and hypocrisy. It is natural for readers to feel sympathy for Paul, who is being ruined by his love for his wife, and to view Madame Evangelista with disdain. However, the translator discovers in this novel the author’s perspective, which exposes the irrationality of the dowry system of the time and raises the issue of women’s property rights.
According to the customs of the time, a bride brought a dowry into the marriage, but the authority to manage that dowry lay with the husband. In other words, no matter how large a dowry a wife brought into the marriage, she could not dispose of or use that money as she pleased. Furthermore, a significant portion of the dowry had to be contributed to the establishment of the “maiora.” Even the notary Matthias emphasizes that it is actually an honor for a bride’s dowry to be contributed to the “maiora,” which is described as “an indestructible, solid estate for the family.”
Balzac appears to be criticizing precisely this point and arguing that women are also entitled to their own property rights. Marse’s statement in the novel—“The Civil Code has granted women the status of wards. It has treated women as minors or children”—seems to be an expression pointing out the injustice of the Civil Code.
‘Incapacity’ was serialized from January to February 1836 in a magazine of which Balzac was the majority shareholder. “Incapacity” refers to a system under civil law that prohibits individuals deemed mentally incapacitated from managing or disposing of their property; a person subject to such a ruling is called an “incapacitated person.” This term and system were later abolished, and in modern times, systems such as adult guardianship have been introduced. While the declaration of legal incapacity focused primarily on property management, the adult guardianship system has a strong welfare-oriented nature, addressing both property management and personal protection.
This novel unfolds around a civil case involving a petition for a declaration of legal incapacity. The gist of the story is as follows: The venerable Marquis de Despar learns that his family’s fortune originated from land unjustly confiscated from a Protestant family at the time of the repeal of the Edict of Nantes. The marquis resolves to compensate Jean-Lano and his son, descendants of that family. Although he bears no legal responsibility, he feels pangs of conscience over his ancestors’ crimes and, for the sake of his family’s honor, chooses to make a noble sacrifice.
However, his wife—a central figure in Parisian high society—seeks to brand her husband as insane and have him declared legally incapacitated. Her goal is to seize her husband’s fortune. The novel describes in detail the legal proceedings following the Marchioness’s petition. The Marchioness attempts to bribe the presiding judge, while the fair and perceptive Judge Popino uncovers the truth, and the noble Marquis—who seeks to atone for his ancestors’ sins in accordance with his conscience—emerges as the central character.
Balzac’s legal experience played a major role in his writing of ‘The Incompetent’. He studied law in his youth and gained practical experience working in the offices of legal representatives and notaries. Balzac enjoyed reading the ‘Bulletin des Jugements’ and often drew material for his novels from actual court cases; these publications contained numerous cases involving petitions for a declaration of legal incapacity. In particular, the case of the Duke of Omont, whose legal incapacity was declared after a decade-long legal battle, would have piqued his interest.
Balzac borrowed several elements from the Omon case. For example, like the Duke of Omon, the Marquis de Despar also supported a baroness, and both had amassed their wealth from property confiscated from Protestants by their ancestors. Furthermore, the fact that the Duchess of Omon had founded a newspaper drew criticism given the customs of the aristocracy at the time, and these elements were reflected in the novel.
Meanwhile, Balzac himself was embroiled in a legal dispute. In January 1836, he sued an editor over his work ‘The Lily of the Valley’, as the editor had published the manuscript without the author’s permission, while the author, in turn, filed a counterclaim alleging that he had never provided the manuscript. During this period, when he was both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same lawsuit, he must have reflected deeply on the fairness and justice of the law.
Furthermore, the novel is set in 1828, a time when Balzac had suffered successive failures in publishing, printing, and typefounding and was being hounded by creditors. Since the author was in danger of being stripped of his civil rights at the time, this work can be seen as reflecting the crises and painful experiences he endured.
This work follows two main storylines. One is the legal proceedings surrounding a petition for incapacitation in court, and the other concerns the persecution of Protestants in France and the resulting confiscation of property. First, regarding the legal background of the petition for incapacitation, since the novel is set in 1828, the legal proceedings follow the Civil Code of 1804 and the Code of Civil Procedure of 1806, both enacted by Napoleon.
The completion and widespread adoption of the Civil Code were regarded as symbols of the establishment of a modern social system, and Napoleon himself considered the Civil Code his most important achievement. He even stated that his true glory lay not in victories on the battlefield but in the Civil Code. Balzac drew the novel’s central theme directly from the provisions on legal incapacity in the 1804 Civil Code.
According to Article 488 of the Civil Code, an adult is defined as “a male aged 21 or older who is capable of exercising his civil rights.” A person under legal incapacity is defined as “a person who, regardless of age, is unable to exercise his rights and therefore requires the protection of the law and his family”—that is, someone who is a fool, mentally deranged, or suffers from violent seizures—and is treated similarly to a minor under the law. The problem was that the Civil Code did not provide clear legal definitions for terms such as “idiot” or “mentally deranged.”
Taking advantage of this, the Marchioness’s legal agent drafts a plausible petition. At that time in France, the roles of the legal agent, who prepared documents, and the attorney, who argued cases in court, were separate. The legal agent drafts the petition to induce those who have been manipulated—such as the Genaro mother and son—to transfer a vast fortune to the Marquis. The petition attempts to prove that the Marquis was incapable of rational thought by citing factors such as his paranoid behavior and his obsession with the publishing business.
In response, the Marquise’s opponents argue that the family’s fortune must be preserved for the sake of the children’s future. The legal proceedings unfold vividly within the novel as a drama in which law, emotion, honor, and greed become entangled.
Upon receiving the petition, the chief judge of the Court of First Instance in the Seine region—which corresponds to present-day Paris—appoints Popino as the presiding judge for the case. Upon learning that Popino is the uncle-in-law of the young doctor Bianchon, the Marchioness attempts to sway the judge through Bianchon, but Popino is not a man to be swayed by anyone’s persuasion. Visiting the Marchioness to uncover the truth of the matter, he deliberately feigns stupidity to steer the conversation, but behind his unassuming facade lies an insight that pierces through the human soul and conscience. Observing the mansion’s splendor and extravagance, he surmises that the Marchioness is deeply in debt and suspects that she may have filed for the declaration of legal incapacity to pay off those debts. After questioning the Marquis, he becomes convinced that his suspicions were correct. Moved by the Marquis’s noble attitude—his desire to atone for his ancestors’ plundering and compensate the victims’ descendants—and recognizing the Marquis’s noble character through his affection for children and passion for China, Popino uncovers the truth of the matter and confirms that the Marchioness’s petition is false.
However, Popino’s fair judgment is rendered ineffective. Before the judgment could be issued, the Marchioness invited the Minister of Justice, who demanded that the Chief Justice replace the judge. The Chief Justice replaced the judge, citing the fact that Popino had gone to the Marchioness’s home for tea as grounds for the replacement. This is because Article 78, Paragraph 8 of the 1806 Civil Procedure Code prohibits a judge from eating or drinking at the home of any of the parties from the moment a lawsuit begins. Of course, Popino did not even have a single cup of tea at the Marchioness’s home. In return for this unjust personnel decision, the Chief Justice promises Popino the Legion of Honor. Faced with the political collusion between the minister and the chief justice, Popino can do nothing but smile cynically. Judge Camuzo, appointed to succeed Popino, is the sort of man who would fabricate charges where none exist in order to advance his career. Thus, as a fair judge is replaced by a political one, the novel comes to an end. Readers are left in the dark regarding the final outcome of the lawsuit. However, those who recall how Camuzo—who served as the investigating judge in the Anglanson case in the previous novel—handled the case of the young Count Degrinon’s forged promissory note, and how he used that case as a springboard to climb the career ladder, are left with a bitter aftertaste. However, upon reading ‘The Glory and Misery of a Prostitute’, published several years later, readers find relief in the fact that Lucien de Rubanfré exposed the truth of the case to take revenge on the Marquise de Despar, and when public opinion turned against her, the Minister of Justice stepped back, leading to the Marquise’s defeat. The author likely intended to convey that while politics intervenes in every legal case, fairness and justice are not entirely dead.
To gain a deeper understanding of this novel, one must first examine the intense religious conflicts of the time. European history has long been marred by conflict between the Catholic and Protestant churches, and without this background, it is difficult to fully grasp the various contexts of the work.
Following Martin Luther’s Reformation in 1517, various regional princes in Germany supported Protestantism, and under the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, the residents of each territory were required to follow the religion of their sovereign. In France, while the influence of Lutheranism was limited, the power of Protestants—known as Huguenots—expanded after 1540 due to the influence of Calvinism. To put it simply, Catholicism was primarily the religion of the landowning nobility and peasants, while Protestantism was the religion of the emerging bourgeoisie, such as bankers and merchants. Catholicism condemned the pursuit of personal profit as a sin, but Calvinism encouraged economic activity, holding that those who accumulated wealth legitimately in this life would be blessed in the next. Therefore, it was a natural phenomenon that the classes that had accumulated wealth through commerce, industry, and finance gravitated toward Protestantism. This is supported by the fact that while land-based agricultural nations such as France and Spain adhered to Catholicism, countries with developed commerce and industry—such as Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands—adopted Protestantism.
Religious conflict in France reached its peak with the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572. Catherine de’ Medici, who seized power as regent following the death of Henry II, arranged for her daughter, Princess Margot, to marry Henry of Navarre—a Protestant leader and King of Navarre—in an effort to promote religious harmony. However, the Huguenots attending the wedding were brutally massacred by Catholics. After the assassination of Henry III in 1589, Henry of Navarre, the Protestant King of Navarre, ascended the French throne as Henry IV. A few years later, he converted to Catholicism to promote national unity and, by issuing the Edict of Nantes, which guaranteed religious freedom, brought an end to the religious wars that had raged since 1562.
Nevertheless, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants did not completely disappear. As the influence of Protestants—who had amassed wealth through commerce and industry—grew, Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu persecuted Protestants in various cities. Negreplis, which appears in the novel, is a village where Protestants were massacred in 1622. Since the persecution at that time stemmed from political motives, the state did not intend to completely deprive the entire nation of religious freedom. However, the situation became more severe during the reign of Louis XIV. In 1685, Louis XIV issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes, and religious freedom was prohibited. Huguenots were forced to convert, imprisoned, or executed, and many Protestants emigrated to England, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and the Americas. Since a large number of Protestants were merchants, industrialists, engineers, and artisans, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes dealt a blow to the national treasury, and this measure is regarded as one of Louis XIV’s major blunders. Subsequently, religious freedom was guaranteed by the Edict of Versailles in 1787 during the reign of Louis XVI, and Protestants who had lost their French citizenship regained it in 1789.
The central issue in the novel is the legitimacy of the property held by nobles who became wealthy by acquiring land confiscated from Protestants when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes. This issue was a subject of heated debate when the 1825 Law on Compensation for Exiled Nobles was enacted. Liberals who opposed the compensation law pointed out that the government had provided no compensation for property unjustly confiscated from Protestants prior to the Revolution. If so, why do the exiled nobles claim rights to property that has already been confiscated? Did the revolutionary government seize property more unjustly than the previous monarchy? The Marquis takes issue with precisely this point. In the novel, the Marquis asks whether it is just for the exiled nobles to demand the return of property confiscated during the Revolution while refusing to return property they themselves acquired through criminal means. Balzac seems to reflect on the criticism of the liberal Benjamin Constant, echoing his own stance—that he had acknowledged the validity of liberal logic before converting to the royalist camp. Furthermore, through the character of Popino, Balzac states: If, by any means—even if those means were wicked—a person who possesses confiscated property were required to return it 150 years later, there would be little legitimate property left in France. Nevertheless, through the marquis’s actions—seeking to restore his family’s honor by returning property that his ancestors had acquired unjustly—Balzac demonstrates a pursuit of noble spirit and morality.