It is worth recalling how, in his work Socialism, Ludwig von Mises explained—in the section regarding Contractual Marriage—that it was actually capitalism that enabled women’s emancipation; the greater financial resources made possible by capital accumulation allowed them to become independent of male domination:
By its nature polygamy was never an institution for the poor man; the wealthy and the aristocratic could alone enjoy it. But with the latter it became increasingly complex according to the extent to which women entered marriage as heiresses and owners, were provided with rich dowries, and were endowed with greater rights in disposing of the dowry. Thus monogamy has been gradually enforced by the wife who brings her husband wealth and by her relatives—a direct manifestation of the way in which capitalist thought and calculation has penetrated the family.
Even if this is true—and represents sound a priori theoretical reasoning—it is understandable that this situation applied to many people, even if they go unmentioned. Charlemagne’s case serves as an example, as many of his wives may have possessed an inheritance that allowed them to achieve independence and avoid a state of dependency.
However true and real as it may seem, what Mises mentions goes much further, as there is historical evidence—dating back many centuries before 800 AD—showing that this pattern existed: the fact that capitalism, contrary to socialist claims, benefited women.
In the tragedy by Euripides, this same mechanism appears in a scene between Hermione and Andromache. Hermione fears that Andromache has drugged her to prevent her from bearing a child with Neoptolemus—who claims ownership of her following the victory at Troy—and consequently intends to kill her so she cannot keep him. This also shows how women were not quite happy about polygamy, as there could be rivals for their security. The relevant section reads,
The finery of luxurious gold I have about my head and this variegated cloth I wear on my body—I did not wear coming these on my arrival here as the first-fruits of the house of Achilles or of Peleus, but my father Menelaus gave them to me from the city of Sparta together with a large dowry, and therefore I may speak my mind. [So it is with these words that I reply to all of you.]
Thus, Ludwig von Mises’s argument—that capitalism ultimately benefited women—can actually be traced back to 425 BC, in the midst of the Peloponnesian War. This means the argument is relevant across a span of twelve centuries more than he originally indicated. So its validity not only starts with Charlemagne, or the early medieval era.
One might attempt to criticize this on the grounds that it is a play, but its validity actually stems from the fact that the poet is reflecting a reality—a social practice he observed and understood in Athens—and incorporating it into his work by putting the words into Hermione’s mouth.
Sparta
This can also be linked to what Aristotle mentions in his Politics. Notably, despite the nature of the regime, by the end of the Peloponnesian War and into the 4th century BC, 40 percent of the land in Sparta was held by women—specifically due to dowries (hedna) and inheritances. Regarding the term “ὥστ᾽ ἐλευθεροστομεῖν” found in the tragedy, the Spartan dowry was not merely an ornament but a form of financial and legal protection against her husband’s family in Thessaly. Aristotle wrote,
And also nearly two-fifths of the whole area of the country is owned by women, because of the number of women who inherit estates and the practice of giving large dowries; . . .
In other words, Euripides is replicating a mechanism he is familiar with and attributing it to Sparta. Furthermore, this demonstrates a clear awareness that women’s legal autonomy and freedom of expression were linked to the possession and ownership of capital, as they depend upon it.
This is what Mises recounted in Liberalism: “Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state.” In the tragedy, her husband’s authoritarian will run up against an insurmountable wall: Hermione’s assets. Since she is not financially dependent on her husband, the commands issued within the household cannot bend her to his will.
Athens
All this stands in contrast to Athens. Although a woman did not directly manage her own wealth, the economic mechanism operated differently, given that the dowry served as a form of divorce insurance. Under Athenian law, the dowry (proix) remained the woman’s property. Consequently, if her husband mistreated her and separated from her, he was legally required to return it in full.
Interest calculations also came into play. If the husband failed to return the dowry in full, the law imposed a penalty interest rate—typically 18 percent per annum—to ensure the woman’s maintenance. This compelled the husband to weigh the financial implications before taking action against his wife or entering into marriage. Furthermore, should the husband die without issue, the dowry automatically reverted to the woman. The woman’s guardian could bring a legal claim against the husband, seeking restitution through the dike proikos.
Demosthenes illustrates this in the 4th century BC in his speech Against Aphobus I, explaining how the 18 percent annual interest on unpaid dowries was calculated—based on a rate of 9 obols per month per mina within the Greek monetary system—and how real estate served as collateral to safeguard the woman’s assets.
To prove that what I say is true, take and read the depositions. Depositions The dowry, then, he got in this way, and kept. But in the event of his not marrying my mother the law declares that he owes me the amount of the dowry with interest at nine obols a month. However, I set it down at a drachma a month only. This comes, if one adds the principle and the interest for ten years, to about three talents.
And in Against Onetor I, he explains how husbands must place mortgage marker stones (horoi) on their land to indicate that, should the marriage be dissolved, the wife’s dowry was physically secured by their real estate—as the discussion concerns the subject of the dowry. Although this law may be from the state, the interest rate was taken from the market. Although it could have been a free market way (free agreement between two individuals), it distorted the market, as there was no option to negotiate the rate. Demosthenes wrote further,
When I saw, men of the jury, that after the woman’s divorce had been registered with the archon, and after the defendant’s declaration that he had taken a mortgage on the farm to secure her marriage-portion, Aphobus continued to hold and till the land just as before, and to dwell with his wife, I knew well that all this was fiction and a pretence to cover up the facts.
The same applies to the 4th-century BC Greek orator Isaeus, who mentions a dispute regarding a dowry—associated with a marriage whose actual occurrence remains unclear—which, as previously noted, was the very thing that afforded women the independence championed by Ludwig von Mises in 1922:
For, on the one hand, if Nicodemus gave a dowry, it would have been only natural that the amount of the dowry should be mentioned in the evidence of those who allege that they were present; on the other hand, if our uncle, under the influence of his passion, contracted a marriage with a woman of this character, clearly he who gave her in marriage would have been all the more careful to procure an agreement from the other party stating that he received money with her, so that it might not be in the latter’s power easily to get rid of the woman whenever he wished.
This is reflected in the 7th century AD when Isidore of Seville, in Book IX, 7 of his Etymologiae (Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX), writes that marriage does not take place in vacuum but involves a rational analysis of incentives and material conditions; since he identifies wealth as a fundamental variable in the assessment of a woman, marriage is clearly not divorced from the question of assets:
Likewise, when choosing a wife, four things move a man to love: beauty, lineage, wealth, and character. Yet, it is better to seek character in her than beauty. But nowadays, people look for qualities recommended by wealth or appearance, not by character.
In conclusion, it is evident that the ideas expounded by Ludwig von Mises in Socialism are not limited to the era of Charlemagne; rather, they can be traced back as far as 425 BC to the tragedies of Euripides, or to the writings of Isidore of Seville in the 7th century AD.
