The decrees and edicts were not confined to Venice, or to Italy, France, or Germany; they made their appearance quite generally throughout western and northern Europe and the interdictions of the civil authorities were strengthened by the voice of the bishops and other clergy, especially in the imperial cities of southern Germany. Yet the united authority of church and state was ineffectual in stemming the tide of fashion and personal fancy, and whether or not pearls should be worn became one of the much discussed questions of that period. To the question, “Whether the statute and regulation of Bishop Tudertinus, who had excommunicated all women who wore pearls, was binding,” Joannes Guidius replied that many denied that this was so, and made the subtle defense that “the women had not accepted it and all had worn pearls, and it was considered that such a law was binding only when it was accepted by those for whom it was intended.”[36] And as to the validity of the statutes requiring that women should not wear more than a definite number of pearls, he decided that “such a statute is valid and in itself good. And if the question is put whether every woman who infringes incurs the penalty, an answer may be gathered from the sayings of the doctors, who distinguish between married and unmarried women. They consider that an unmarried woman is obliged to obey the statute and regulation or to incur the penalty. But as to a married woman, if her husband approves, she should obey the statute; if, however, the husband objects, then the wife ought to wish to obey the statute, but in effect she should rather obey her husband, for she is most immediately and strongly bound to do this.”[37] Aided by such ingenious opinions as these, the women continued to follow their own inclinations notwithstanding the opposition of church and state. Other fine distinctions were drawn by the lawyers of that day regarding ownership of gems under certain conditions. For instance, it was decided that pearls given by a father to his unmarried daughter remained her property after marriage because “they are given for a reason, namely to induce a marriage”; yet “pearls handed to a wife by her husband are not considered as her property, but must be given to his heirs, since it is supposed that they were given only for her adornment. The same holds good as respects pearls handed to a daughter-in-law by her father-in-law.”[38] However, the greed of fashion, which law-makers and bishops could not arrest, was gradually satiated; and, influenced probably by the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, more simple taste prevailed in the latter part of the seventeenth century.