Medieval Women Haunted by Startling Laws in the Romanian Lands

In medieval Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, the concept of the “perfect woman”, be it a daughter, a wife or a queen, was shaped by both startling secular and religious laws that dictated nearly every aspect of her life. These laws not only defined what women could own or where they could go, but they also controlled whom they could marry and under what circumstances. The image of the ideal woman presented by these laws wasn’t necessarily based on her desires or individuality but was a reflection of society’s expectations, framed by the intertwined forces of religion and politics.

Legal texts from the 15th to 17th centuries provide a stark portrayal of how women were perceived by the authorities. The laws, deeply rooted in religious beliefs, depicted women as naturally weaker—both physically and mentally—rendering them dependent on male guardianship and protection. At the heart of these codes was the family, with a woman’s identity often defined solely by her role within it. Without the structure of marriage, women would have barely been acknowledged at all. Their roles and worth were bound by their relationships, leaving little room for personal freedom outside of these confines.

“Women are forbidden from holding civil and public offices. They cannot be judges, nor take part in governance or public councils, nor interfere in the affairs of others, nor manage anyone’s property.”
(Manualul legilor sau CELE ŞASE CĂRŢI – Manual of Laws or THE SIX BOOKS)

Medieval Marriage: Between Law and Reality

The law seemed clear on the matter of marriage—both partners, including the bride, had to consent. On the surface, this suggests that women had some say in choosing their husbands. However, the reality was far more complicated. Parental approval was paramount, and in most cases, a father’s word carried far more weight than his daughter’s wishes. There is little historical evidence to suggest that women were truly free to marry for love.

In medieval Romania, patriarchal society and Orthodox tradition bound women to their families, shaping their roles and future under male authority.

Once married, a woman’s legal identity essentially merged with her husband’s. Marriage, while framed as a mutual contract, was anything but equal. The wife was expected to remain faithful, obedient, and morally upright—qualities that were demanded by the law, yet often placed her in a subordinate position. Meanwhile, the husband wielded authority, both in the household and in the eyes of the law, with his power deemed natural and necessary.

Despite this rigid framework, the laws reveal an intriguing paradox: they were enforced because women—both noble and common—persistently tested their boundaries. Some defied their families to marry for love, while others fought fiercely for their inheritances. Many found ways to assert their influence within their communities, even in the face of laws designed to keep them in check.

Property and Inheritance: The Woman’s Dowry

In Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, a woman’s legal standing was often tied to her dowry and property. The Seventeenth-century “Pravilele” codes acknowledged that dowries were family obligations, theoretically keeping them in a woman’s name. However, in practice, husbands often controlled or outright claimed them.

Thus, if you were a wealthy girl about to get married, your dowry sheet or dowry document had to be drawn up in the presence of witnesses, relatives and guests invited to the agreement party. It listed all the items given to the daughter by her parents: from jewelry or household utensils to estates.

“Dowry document that I, Zlata Comisoae, give to my daughter Nastasia and to the son of Panhilie, for all to know. Year 7160, April 15.
50 mares with foals; 3 pairs of carriage horses; 50 cows with calves; 50 breeding cattle; 3 oxen plows; 3 beehives in the village of Curtești, in the Botoșani region, and in the apiary, two hundred and twelve hives; 100 tablecloths; 20 gold rings with stones; 2 silver bracelets in addition to other small ornaments; 6 silver nuts; 2 small plates; 2 large silver cups, 2 smaller silver cups; 2 pairs of saddlebags with harness for horses; 2 scabbards; 300 lei; 50 trade cattle; a silver bowl; 300 beehives in the village of Chircești, in the Vaslui region; 300 sheep.”
(Dowry sheet from 1652, given by a mother to her daughter)

Divorce was legally possible but rarely easy, with cases typically decided by ecclesiastical courts under the Orthodox Church’s jurisdiction.

For unmarried women, the law had no separate category. They remained under the authority of their male relatives—daughters were governed by their fathers, nuns by the church.

The Ideal Woman as Seen by the Law: Dutiful, Silent and Submissive

The legal codes attempted to define the ideal woman: obedient, morally pure, and firmly entrenched in her husband’s shadow. Yet, history paints a different picture. Many women refused to be confined by the roles the law sought to impose on them. They pushed boundaries, fought for their rights, and in many cases, successfully shaped their own destinies.

Heresy, Marriage and Whatever Women’s Rights There Were

The Orthodox Church held a significant role in shaping the laws around marriage, morality, and heresy. Heresy was considered a serious deviation from church doctrine, punished by severe penalties under the law. According to Îndreptarea Legii (1652), the prescribed punishment for heresy was “a terrible death.” The Carte Românească de Învățătură (1646) also stated that marriages deemed improper, such as those contracted with heretics (such as between Orthodox and Catholics), were illegal.

This illustrates the intersection of religion and law, where a woman’s moral purity was not only dictated by her own actions but by the beliefs of the church and society.

Marriage: A Duty, Not a Choice

Marriage in medieval Romania was a duty, not a choice—arranged to secure alliances, wealth, and lineage. Like in Western Europe, it marked a shift in authority as women moved from their father’s household to their husband’s, taking on new responsibilities. Daughters were valued for their dowries and marriage prospects, while wives managed households and bore children to uphold family honor. Though patriarchal, family was a social contract of mutual dependence—parents securing their children’s futures, and in return, expecting care in old age.

Motherhood was central to medieval women’s lives, often seen as their defining role and, in the eyes of clerics, their only redeeming quality. Women were expected to bear and raise large families, with many having between six to twelve children. For example in 15th century Moldavia Serbian Princess Lady Elena had six children with Moldavian Voivode Petru Rareș;  16th century her daughter Chiajna Muşatina gave Wallachian prince  Mircea the Shepherd seven children, in the 17th century Lady Marica Brâncoveanu had 11 children with Wallachian Prince Constantin Brâncoveanu while Elina Cantacuzino had seven (nine?) children with boyar Constantin Cantacuzino. Childbearing was not only an expectation but a duty, solidifying a woman’s identity and place within the household.

Medieval women in Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania lived under patriarchal and religious traditions yet held influence within their households, managing finances, children, and property under male supervision. Their lives revolved around Church rituals, with milestones like baptism, marriage, and death blending public and private spheres. Marriage marked a defining transition, symbolized by the coil, a head covering denoting a wife’s status. Though personal emotions remain absent from records, wills hint at both tenderness and control, revealing the complex realities of their lives.

Widowhood rarely brought full independence. Legal documents often dictated a widow’s fate, limiting her inheritance rights. Some managed estates, while others faced disputes or debts. Without male protection, widows were vulnerable, often remarrying for security or retreating into monastic life. Across Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, tradition and obligation shaped a woman’s existence, reinforcing male dominance in the family hierarchy.

The Legal Status of Wives: Power, Obedience, and Violence

Marriage laws did more than regulate property and inheritance—they established a wife’s role within the household. The 17th-century legal codes left no room for doubt: a wife’s duties were clear, her authority secondary to her husband’s.

One of the most disturbing aspects of these laws was the way they dealt with domestic violence. A husband’s power was so absolute that the law implicitly allowed him to punish his wife. In some cases, the violence was justified if the wife was seen as having provoked it. Court records from places like Odorheiul Secuiesc shed light on the grim reality of physical abuse, which was often accepted as a part of the marriage contract, with little protection for the woman.

“Two arbitrary things support that a husband won’t be punished if he beats up his wife: if it was her fault or if he strikes her just a little bit.”
(Pravila by Vasile Lupu, 1646)

These laws present a grim picture of women’s lives in medieval Romania. Their rights were conditional, their status defined by the men around them, and even after death, their inheritances were often contested. Yet, in the face of these limitations, many women found subtle ways to resist. Strategic marriages, well-crafted wills, and the occasional exploitation of legal loopholes became tools of quiet resistance, offering some women a degree of financial stability and autonomy in a world that sought to suppress them.

Divorce in Medieval Romania: A Right with Consequences

Romanian marriage and divorce laws, shaped by centuries of Byzantine and Germanic influences, were more conservative than those in much of Europe. While many European countries had moved towards more progressive legal frameworks, Romania still adhered to traditional customs. Written legal codes, such as the Îndreptarea Legii, only appeared centuries after the state was established.

However, one area where Wallachia and Moldavia stood out was their adoption of the Byzantine principle of mutual divorce. In contrast to other medieval societies, both spouses in the Romanian principalities had the right to seek separation.

Despite this legal right, divorce was not easy. The church played a central role in these decisions, and ecclesiastical courts treated divorce as both a civil and religious matter. If granted, a carte de despărțenie (separation document) would be issued. But the social and moral consequences were severe, particularly for women. Divorce led to social stigma, financial hardship, and isolation. Property division and child custody almost always favored the husband.

According to Vlastares’ Syntagma (a 14th century monk expert in canon law) which was applied in the Romanian Principalities, divorce could be initiated by both spouses based on several rules:

“Reasons (…) If the wife is aware of the plans of those conspiring against her… If the wife has been accused of adultery… If she parties or bathes with foreign men… If she spends a night outside the home, except at her parents’ house… If she goes to see circus games, shows, or hunting without the knowledge or against the will of her husband.”

Some regions, like Moldova, provided women with more autonomy in divorce cases. If a woman could prove her husband’s misconduct—whether abuse or drunkenness—she could not only seek divorce but also claim financial support. In such cases, the woman was allowed to keep her dowry and sometimes even a portion of her husband’s property.

What set Moldova apart from other regions was that women had the right to represent themselves in court, even without a male guardian. This was especially significant in divorce cases, where women could challenge accusations made by their husbands. However, the court often scrutinized whether the wife had provoked the abuse, shifting part of the blame onto her. Despite these challenges, Moldova’s legal system gave women the ability to defend their rights in ways that were far ahead of most other European societies at the time.

Women and Inheritance in Medieval Romania: Rights, Privileges, and Limitations

Inheritance in medieval Romania was more than just the transfer of wealth; it was a tool for securing power, preserving family legacies, and, in many cases, keeping women marginalized in terms of legal recognition. In a society where men dominated both law and land, a woman’s right to inherit was carefully controlled—not by a sense of fairness, but by societal expectations that limited her autonomy and influence.

The Complexities of Inheritance and Women’s Rights in Medieval Transylvania

In medieval Transylvania, women’s legal rights concerning inheritance were both restricted and convoluted. The Tripartitum, a key legal code of the time, stipulated that women were entitled to a quarter of the land that belonged to their family, but this right came with significant limitations. For instance, a document from the period records:

“The captain from Oradea certifies that the sons of Lökös from Ivankahaza give the estate of Bank in Bihor County to their sisters for the quarter that is due to them as daughters.”

This legal recognition of women’s inheritance rights granted them a share of the family property, but with severe restrictions. Women could inherit, but they were forbidden from selling or purchasing property. Their rights were often subject to the control of male family members or, in some cases, royal authority.

Despite these constraints, there were instances where women could still navigate these restrictions, though it usually required the intervention of the king. This royal involvement, however, was not common. A document dated February 7, 1357, sheds light on the complex inheritance laws for noble families in Transylvania:

“To increase royal authority and honor the kingdom, guided by the memory of our ancestors who relied on the country’s customs, it is decreed that no noble or estate owner should give or pass the fourth part due to their daughters as their rightful share, together with their estates, without royal approval. However, by the king’s generosity, they may still gift it, but only if the land is redeemed from the king, with financial compensation.”

This decree shows that noble women could not freely transfer land or wealth without royal consent. The process was further complicated by the fact that women inherited only from their mothers, while their brothers inherited from both parents. In this instance, the woman’s brother had to redeem the estate on her behalf. This illustrates how family wealth and power were often strategically controlled by male relatives, with inheritance laws frequently working to maintain the family’s fortune within the hands of men.

“No Land for Women”: The Legal Justification for Exclusion in Transylvania

In the medieval world, where kingdoms were built and defended through military might, the Tripartitum explicitly justified why women were excluded from inheriting land and noble privileges:

“Since this Kingdom of Hungary, along with its territories, has always been surrounded by enemies and defended by the sword, our ancestors acquired lands and rights through military skill and the shedding of blood. But women and girls do not customarily, nor can they, bear arms and fight against enemies—thus, these properties do not pass to them.”

This reasoning reinforced the idea that landownership was intrinsically tied to the ability to defend it militarily, effectively barring women from inheriting property. While this rationale held sway across much of medieval Transylvania, it was not universally applied. Some noble families managed to navigate these rules, using their influence to secure a share of the estate for their daughters, even if it was only a portion of what their male heirs would receive.

A 14th-Century Royal Decree: King Louis I’s Prohibition of Female Inheritance

A 14th-century decree by King Louis I of Hungary exemplifies the strict prohibition against female inheritance, particularly when it concerned properties granted to high-ranking officials. On February 26, 1365, the king issued a ruling that denied the female descendants of Ștefan, Bishop of Zagreb, and his brother Ioan, the right to inherit their estates. The king declared that neither he nor his successors would allow inheritance through the female line. This decree underscores the rigid laws that prevented women from inheriting property, especially when such inheritance was linked to privileges granted by rank.

“However, if the question is raised as to why property and rights of land (bona ac iura possessionaria), acquired through service, do not pass to women (ius foemineum non sequantur), the answer is given that this kingdom of Hungary, with its dependent parts, was placed in the midst of and under the claws of its enemies, and it has always been accustomed to be protected and defended with sword and arms, while our ancestors acquired (…) property and land rights (as usual) through military skill and bloodshed (…). However, women and girls are not accustomed to and cannot go to war with weapons and fight with enemies, and for this reason, those goods do not pass to women.”

Diverse Inheritance Practices Across the Romanian Principalities

The Romanian Principalities did not adhere to a single inheritance model; rather, each region had its own set of rules and practices. Moldavia, in particular, stood out for its more progressive stance on inheritance. In Moldavia, sons and daughters had equal inheritance rights, ensuring that daughters could inherit property on the same terms as their brothers. A practice known as sinisfora, common during the 16th and 17th centuries, allowed married daughters to inherit land and property from their parents, even if they had already received a dowry.

Under sinisfora, if a daughter had been married before her parents’ death and received a dowry, she could still claim additional property when the family estate was divided after the death of either parent. This custom helped ensure that daughters were treated fairly in terms of inheritance, sometimes receiving land or estates in addition to their dowries.

Wallachia and Transylvania: Restrictive Practices

In contrast, Wallachia and Transylvania imposed stricter limitations on women’s inheritance rights. In Wallachia, inheritance was generally reserved for male heirs. However, in certain circumstances, a daughter could inherit if there were no male heirs. This required the intervention of the king, who could grant a daughter the inheritance rights typically reserved for sons. This legal mechanism allowed women to inherit in exceptional cases, but it remained the exception rather than the rule.

By the 17th century, gender equality in inheritance began to emerge across the Romanian Principalities. The rise of written wills played a significant role in shifting inheritance practices. Property owners could now bypass rigid inheritance laws and distribute their wealth as they saw fit, allowing women greater access to property. Despite this, widows often faced substantial challenges. Their inheritance was typically limited to personal belongings or whatever their husbands had explicitly left for them in their wills, offering little security compared to the wealth and power afforded to male heirs.

A Nuanced View of Women’s Rights

These examples reveal a nuanced view of women’s legal rights during this period, illustrating the limitations placed upon them while also highlighting the occasional opportunities for agency—especially when royal power was involved. The varying inheritance practices across the Romanian Principalities show that while women were often excluded from inheriting property, they occasionally managed to navigate these constraints, especially when supported by royal intervention.

The legal framework of the time, though restrictive, did not entirely erase women’s potential to secure wealth or influence, particularly in Moldavia, where more equitable inheritance laws prevailed. However, in Wallachia and Transylvania, women’s roles in inheritance remained strictly controlled, with male relatives frequently holding power over family estates and wealth.

Women and the Law: Crime, Morality and Justice in Medieval Romania

In medieval Romania, law transcended property and marriage; it was deeply interwoven with the moral fabric of society, with the Orthodox Church playing a dominant role. Much like its Catholic counterpart in Western Europe, the Church served as both the moral compass and a legal enforcer, dictating not only spiritual doctrine but also earthly laws.

Take Radu cel Mare, Radu the Great, for example. In 1493, he summoned Patriarch Nifon not only for spiritual counsel but also to rid Wallachia of vice, drunkenness, and fornication. Fast forward to 1592, when a decree in Bucharest called for the eradication of adultery and illicit relationships—clearly demonstrating the Church’s pervasive influence on both civil and criminal law.

While severe crimes like treason and murder warranted harsh penalties, moral transgressions such as kidnapping, adultery, incest, and bigamy were equally punished, often more so. However, it was women who found themselves under the harshest scrutiny. Yet, within the boundaries of these laws, women occasionally discovered ways to challenge and navigate the rigid constraints set upon them, sometimes rewriting the very rules meant to define their place in a male-dominated society.

The Widows: Privileges and Restrictions

Widows in medieval Romania were technically afforded more legal autonomy than most women—they could own property, manage finances, and make legal decisions without the necessity of a male guardian. Yet, there was often a chasm between legal recognition and practical reality. While Transylvanian law acknowledged the need for widow protection, this was often framed as moral duty rather than true independence. A 17th-century legal code, for instance, suggested that widows were prone to “natural negligence,” implying that they required oversight to avoid poor decisions. In practice, male heirs frequently held the final say in the family’s wealth.

“Because the law and natural justice give precedence to brothers over women, and a man or a woman only inherit from each other when they have no relatives at all.”
(Manualul legilor sau CELE ŞASE CĂRŢI – Manual of Laws or THE SIX BOOKS)

Craft guilds, too, enforced rigid rules for widows. If a widow inherited her husband’s trade, she could continue it—but only under specific conditions that preserved the guild’s patriarchal structure rather than supporting her economic independence.

A glaring double standard existed. While widowers were rarely scrutinized for their behavior or mourning period, women were judged more harshly. Remarrying within a year of her husband’s death was seen as scandalous, and the widow’s legal rights, including inheritance and bequests, were often severely restricted.

At the Edge of the Law: Prostitutes and Enslaved Roma Women

Not all women in medieval Romania enjoyed the relative privileges of widowhood or marriage. Prostitutes and enslaved Roma women occupied the lowest rungs of the social and legal ladder, often denied any form of legal recognition. Prostitution was not treated as a distinct category of crime but was rather criminalized as a moral transgression. Women involved in sex work were stripped of their legal standing—if they were assaulted or exploited, the law rarely intervened on their behalf.

Enslaved Roma women, however, were subjected to even harsher treatment. Considered property, they were owned by nobles or religious institutions, and while there were occasional penalties for extreme abuse, the legal system largely justified this enslavement. Roma women were often described as inherently criminal, an attitude reflecting the deep-seated prejudice against them in the period.

Despite these systemic barriers, many women found ways to survive and, at times, even thrive—whether through cunning, strategic alliances, or sheer determination.

Women and the Law: Civil Disputes and Criminal Punishment

In medieval Romania, most civil lawsuits involving women revolved around one issue: inheritance. Widows and daughters frequently found themselves battling in court over property that was legally theirs but often contested. The frequency of inheritance disputes highlights the gap between the legal protections granted to women and the reality of their social and familial relationships.

Yet, there was a darker side to women’s legal battles—the witch trials.

In Transylvania, the courts were obsessed with sorcery and women, particularly those living on the fringes of society, were often the targets of witchcraft accusations. The first recorded execution for witchcraft in Transylvania occurred in 1565, when the midwife Carla Botzi was burned alive. By 1593, executions had escalated, with up to fifty women killed in towns such as Cluj and Dej for alleged witchcraft.

As you may know, the methods used in witch trials were both brutal and absurd. One notorious test was the “water trial,” where accused women were thrown into the Someș River. If they sank and drowned, they were deemed innocent, though dead. If they floated, they were deemed guilty and sentenced to burn at the stake. Executions were public spectacles, with the remains often displayed along the Witches’ Road near Cluj’s Tailors’ Tower. The courts, driven by superstition and the whims of powerful men, left little room for true justice.

Interestingly, in medieval Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia, women were also key figures in healthcare. Healers, midwives, and herbalists, though lacking formal medical training, played a crucial role in tending to their communities. Yet these same women were often accused of witchcraft. Unlike Western Europe, where healers were less likely to be branded witches, Transylvania saw a higher number of women, especially those engaged in healing practices, prosecuted for alleged sorcery. These trials, often secular and handled by local magistrates, were steeped in societal biases that fueled accusations.

The image of an old woman, as ugly as a witch, with a scythe and a sack on her back, is present in local folklore, where the plague says that it was sent by God to take the life of everyone, whether good or bad, even of a young man in love, with whom it engages in dialogue:

“What are you looking for here, old woman?”

“I am the Plague, my dear,
And I am sent by God
To gather both the good and the bad
To take your soul as well!”

The Church’s Dominance: Shaping Women’s Lives

A woman’s life, from birth to death, was shaped by religious prescriptions that reinforced obedience. Public and private life often merged through Church rituals, with women actively participating in weddings, funerals, and death preparations. Despite social and legal inequalities, both men and women were seen as equal in death, preparing for the afterlife through testaments, charitable acts, and, for some women, founding religious institutions.

Women in 15th–17th century Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania were shaped by strict religious and legal codes, yet historical records reveal their surprising agency. Their lives revolved around childbirth, marriage, and death, with royal women also managing ceremonial and diplomatic duties. These milestones unfolded amid political instability, military conflict, and disasters, which deeply affected women and their families.

A Legal System Built on Inequality

The law, while promising women certain protections, often found their fate tied to their virtue, social status, and the influence of the men who surrounded them. A noble widow could wield power, provided she adhered to social norms, while a peasant woman might find herself in court for something as intangible as sorcery, with little chance of defense. Prostitutes and enslaved Roma women had no rights at all.

The Orthodox Church played a significant role in shaping these laws, blending religious morality with civil judgment. Women were often perceived as both physically and morally weaker, making them subject to the control of others.

Yet, despite the societal structures meant to suppress them, history reveals that women—whether widows, accused witches, or outcasts—were far from passive. Many learned to navigate the systems that sought to confine them. In a world built on inequality, their resilience and resourcefulness could not be entirely silenced as we will see next time, through the unseen influences of rulers’ wives in medieval Romania.