Crafting the Hierarchy of Debts (Antwerp, 15th-16th Centuries)

The Antwerp case demonstrates that rules regarding debts were crafted

in response to diverse and connected phenomena. Lawmakers took into

account mercantile practice, even though special circumstances could

partly be responsible for legal change as well. The outcome of processes

of legislative deliberation was influenced yet not determined by market

conditions. Legislators had to retrieve solutions for which there was

no blueprint. They had to balance different interests. The legal regime

concerning collateral rights proved a challenge for the Antwerp administrators.

Le Marchand was right in saying that in Antwerp the dowry was at

one point considered a super-priority, but this was only during the period

1523–1548. In spite of Le Marchand’s overrating of dowry preferences

in bankruptcy cases, his explanation of collateral rights as crucial features

of municipal legal constellations is correct. Cities of trade had extensive

autonomy over the rules that applied to the contracts that were drafted

in their markets. In that regard, the contractual autonomy of creditors

and debtors was always limited. Municipal bylaws stipulated hierarchies

of debts, and the rules in these bylaws defined how claims were to be

enforced.