Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:38:05.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was There a Marital Debt in Byzantium?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

MAROULA PERISANIDI
MAROULA PERISANIDI*
Affiliation:
3.16 Michael Sadler Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Western canonists, husband and wife had a debt towards one another: they were obliged to render sexual intercourse on demand. This article looks at the differences and similarities of the ‘marital debt’ in Byzantium and the West in order to evaluate whether this concept can be applied to Byzantine couples. It argues that, contrary to the West, in Byzantium there was no fixed linguistic terminology or sophisticated rules to describe a sexual obligation between spouses. Ultimately, there was also less need for one as sexual intercourse within marriage was not considered sinful and needed no justification.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 510 - 528
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laiou, A. E., ‘Sex, consent, and coercion in Byzantium’, in Laiou, Angeliki E. (ed.), Consent and coercion to sex and marriage in ancient and medieval societies, Washington, DC 1993 Google Scholar. The idea of marital rape is a modern one and does not have a straightforward equivalent in the Middle Ages. Ruth Karras has noticed that, unlike other forms of mistreatment, what we call marital rape is notably absent from Western medieval sources. This does not mean that sexual violence by husbands never took place, but that ‘the husband's unquestioned right to sexual relations with his wife, coupled with the legal and social dominance of the man within the relationship’ would have been coercion enough in most of the cases: Sexuality in medieval Europe: doing unto others, Abingdon 2005, 86 Google Scholar.

2 Bees, Nikos A., ‘Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien)’, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher xxi (1976), 65 Google Scholar.

3 Laiou, ‘Sex, consent, and coercion’, 183.

4 For the marital debt in the West see Makowski, Elizabeth M., ‘The conjugal debt and medieval canon law’, Journal of Medieval History iii (1977), 99–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more on Gratian see Winroth, Anders, The making of Gratian's Decretum, Cambridge 2004 Google Scholar.

5 There are numerous examples in legal sources. For Gratian see in particular causa 33 which discusses whether a woman can leave a man because he cannot have intercourse and whether a husband can render the debt to his wife during times of prayer. One clear instance of the language of debt is ‘Secundum uerba apostolica, etiam si uir continere uoluisset, et tu noluisses, debitum tibi reddere cogeretur, et illi Deus inputaret continentiam, si non suae, sed tuae cederet infirmitati, ne in adulterium caderes’ (‘According to the words of the Apostle, even if your husband wanted to observe continence, and you did not, he would be compelled to render you the debt, and God would impute continence to him, if it is not to his own but to your weakness that he yielded, lest you fall into adultery’): Corpus iuris canonici: pars prior: Decretum magistri Gratiani, C.33 q.5 c. 5, ed. Friedberg, E., Leipzig 1879, 1252 Google Scholar. For a decretal of Pope Alexander iii (1159–81), where he advises that a husband who cannot render the debt should live with his wife as brother and sister see ‘Super eo vero, quod de illo nobis significasti, qui cum procreare velit filios, uxori suae nunquam carnis debitum reddidit vel reddere potuit, … consuetudo est Romanae ecclesiae in similibus taliter tenere, quod si non potest eam sicut uxorem habere, ipsam habeat sicut sororem’ (‘Concerning the issue you indicated to us about the man who, though he wishes to beget sons, has never rendered or been able to render the carnal debt to his wife, … it is the custom of the Roman Church in similar cases to hold that if he cannot keep her as a wife, he should keep her as a sister’): Quinque compilationes antiquae, comp. i lib. iv tit. xvi, ed. Friedberg, E., Leipzig 1882, 51 Google Scholar. For a non-legal source written for the instruction of clerics see Gerald of Wales's Gemma ecclesiastica (d. c. 1223), a compendium of spiritually beneficial precepts and examples. ‘Item exemplum de responso Hugonis Lincolniensis episcopi cuidam matronae facto, cui super impotentia mariti, quia debitum ei reddere non poterat, conquerenti’ (‘A further example regards the response given by Hugh bishop of Lincoln to a wife, when she complained about her husband's impotence, since he could not render the debt to her’): d. ii. ch. 18 in Giraldi cambrensis opera, ed. J. S. Brewer and others (Rolls Series, 1861–91), ii. 250. Note that the translation of this text renders ‘debitum ei reddere non poterat’ as ‘her husband's inability to have sexual intercourse [with her]’, obscuring the reference to the marital debt. See The jewel of the Church: a translation of Gemma ecclesiastica by Giraldus Cambrensis, trans. Hagen, John J., Leiden 1979, 190 Google Scholar.

6 For example see the section in Thomas of Chobham's Summa confessorum entitled ‘Quod abstinendum est ab amplexibus quibusdam temporibus’ (‘That one should abstain from embraces at certain times’), in Thomae de Chobham summa confessorum, ed. Broomfield, F., Louvain–Paris 1968, 364–6Google Scholar.

7 ‘Qui adulterae reddit debitum tribus annis peniteat … Si quis uxorem suam scit adulteram, et non uult dimittere eam, sed in matrimonio habere, tres annos peniteat, et quamdiu illa penitet, abstineat se ab illa’ (‘Let the man who renders the debt to an adulterous wife do penance for three years … If someone knows his wife to be an adulteress and does not want to dismiss her, but wants to keep her in marriage, let him do penance for three years, and while she is doing penance, let him abstain from her’): Decretum magistri Gratiani, C.32 q.1 c.4 at p. 1117. See also ‘Et dicit decretalis una quod si crimen fuerit manifestum debet fieri separatio tori, si autem fuerit occultum non debet fieri separatio sed iniungendum est corruptori ut nunquam exigat debitum sed reddat’ (‘And one decretal says that if the sin is openly known they ought to sleep apart, if however it was secret they should not sleep apart, but the perpetrator is enjoined never to exact the debt, but to render it’): Thomae de Chobham summa confessorum, 171.

8 ‘De his autem, qui causa frigiditatis uxoribus debitum reddere non possunt, statuit Gregorius Papa, ut uterque eorum septima manu propinquorum tactis sacrosanctis reliquiis iureiurando dicat, quod numquam permixtione carnis coniuncti una caro effecti fuissent. Tunc mulier secundas nuptias poterit contrahere; uir autem, qui frigidae naturae est, maneat sine spe coniugii’ (‘In the case of those who cannot render the debt to their wives because of frigidity, Pope Gregory decreed that each member of the couple should take an oath, after touching sacred relics, supported by seven oath-helpers, saying that they had never become one flesh through carnal intercourse. The woman will then be able to contract a second marriage, but the husband, whose nature is frigid, would remain without hope of marrying’): Decretum magistri Gratiani, C.27 q.2 d.p.c. 28, at p. 1071.

9 For examples of this see the section entitled ‘Sophisticated regulations?’ below.

10 Brundage, James A., Law, sex, and Christian society in medieval Europe, London 1987, 242, 358–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Elliott, Dyan, ‘Sex in holy places: an exploration of a medieval anxiety’, Journal of Women's History vi/3 (1994), 6–34 at p. 30 n. 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Payer, Pierre J., The bridling of desire: views of sex in the later Middle Ages, Toronto 1993, 101–2, 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Note, however, that views on spiritual marriages varied across the Middle Ages and that both societies had saints who had formed sexless marriages: Elliott, Dyan, Spiritual marriage: sexual abstinence in medieval wedlock, Princeton, NJ 1993 Google Scholar; Alwis, Anne P., Celibate marriage in late antique and Byzantine hagiography, London 2011 Google Scholar; Kazhdan, Alexander, ‘Byzantine hagiography and sex in the fifth to twelfth centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers xliv (1990), 131–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 More than 5,000 Greek manuscripts contain works attributed to John Chrysostom: Bady, Guillaume, ‘Les Manuscrits grecs des œuvres de Jean Chrysostome d'après la base de données Pinakes et les Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VII: Codicum Parisinorum pars prior’, Eruditio Antiqua iv (2012), 65–82 Google Scholar.

14 It was in fact very common for English ecclesiastics to be educated in Paris or Bologna. That was the case for the authors used here, including Thomas of Chobham and Gerald of Wales. See Baldwin, John W., Masters, princes, and merchants: the social views of Peter the Chanter and his circle, Princeton 1970, i Google Scholar.

15 On Chrysostom's use of these words see also Deming, Will, Paul on marriage and celibacy: the Hellenistic background of 1 Corinthians 7, 2nd edn, Cambridge 2004, 115 n. 36Google Scholar.

16 For a reference to fatherly favour see ‘πατέρα προσεῖπε τὸν Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πλούσιος, καὶ ἧς εἰκὸς ἀπολαῦσαι τέκνον πατρικῆς εὐνοίας, οὐκ ἠδυνήθη’ (‘The rich man addressed Abraham as father; but was not able to enjoy the paternal favour which a son commonly receives’): Chrysostom, ‘De Lazaro’, PG xlviii. 1005. For the good will shown by God to man see ‘Ὅπερ γὰρ λέγων οὐδέποτε ἐπαυσάμην, τοῦτο καὶ τήμερον ἐρῶ, ὅτι οὐχ ἡ ἀπαλλαγὴ τῶν δεινῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ συγχώρησις τούτων ἀπὸ τῆς εὐνοίας γίνεται τοῦ Θεοῦ’ (‘For as I have never stopped saying, and I will say this again today, it is not only deliverance from terrible things, but also forgiveness for them that comes from the love of God’): Chrysostom, ‘Ad populum Antiochenum’, PG xlix. 144. For the good will shown by man to God see ‘Καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησε, τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν εὔνοιαν ἐνδεικνύμενος’ (‘And he built the synagogue himself, showing his love for God’): Chrysostom, ‘In centurionem’, PG lxi. 770. For other authors see also Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. (ed.), A patristic Greek lexicon, Oxford 1961, 571 Google Scholar.

17 For the translation see St John Chrysostom: on marriage and family life, trans. Roth, Catharine P. and Anderson, David, Crestwood, NY 1986, 86–7Google Scholar. For the Greek see PG li. 214.

18 Paul Schroeder has noted that sex and money were the two areas in which Chrysostom gave mutual authority to husband and wife through the use of this Pauline instruction: ‘The mystery of love: paradigms of marital authority and submission in the writings of St John Chrysostom’, St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly xliv (2000), 143–68 at pp. 159–61Google Scholar.

19 For example see ‘Homily 20 on Ephesians 5:22–33' and ‘How to choose a wife’ in St John Chrysostom: on marriage and family life, 49–50, 97–101.

20 The term τιμή is usually translated as ‘honour’, ‘dignity', ‘value’ or ‘esteem’ and does not bear sexual connotations. It appears in John Chrysostom in the context of marriage only rarely. For example, Chrysostom uses it in his Letter to a young widow reminding his addressee that while her spouse was alive she had enjoyed the customary ‘honour and care’ (καὶ τιμῆς καὶ προνοίας) due to the wives of good husbands. It is God now who will take his place and provide her with his protection: Jean Chrysostome: A une jeune veuve; Sur le mariage unique, trans. Grillet, Bernard and ed. Ettlinger, Gérard H., Paris 1968, 124–5, 116–17Google Scholar.

21 ‘Τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλομένην τιμὴν ἀποδιδότω· ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρί. Τί δέ ἐστιν ἡ ὀφειλομένη τιμή; Ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει, ἀλλὰ καὶ δούλη καὶ δέσποινά ἐστι τοῦ ἀνδρός. Κἂν ἀποστῇς τῆς δουλείας τῆς προσηκούσης, προσέκρουσας τῷ Θεῷ· εἰ δὲ ἀποστῆναι βούλει, ὅταν ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐπιτρέπῃ, κἂν πρὸς βραχὺ τοῦτο γίνηται. Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ὀφειλὴν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν, ἵνα δείξῃ μηδένα κύριον ὄντα ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἀλλήλων δούλους. Ὅταν οὖν ἴδῃς πόρνην πειρῶσάν σου, εἰπέ· Οὐκ ἔστι τὸ σῶμα ἐμόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς γυναικός. Ταῦτα καὶ ἡ γυνὴ λεγέτω πρὸς τοὺς βουλομένους αὐτῆς διορύξαι τὴν σωφροσύνην· Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἐμόν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀνδρός. Εἰ δὲ σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ὁ ἀνὴρ ἢ ἡ γυνή, πολλῷ μᾶλλον χρημάτων. Ἀκούσατε ὅσαι ἄνδρας ἔχετε, καὶ ὅσοι γυναῖκας. Εἰ γὰρ σῶμα ἔχειν ἴδιον οὐ χρή, πολλῷ μᾶλλον χρήματα’: Chrysostom, ‘In epistulam i ad Corinthios’, PG lxi.152.

22 The same can be said about John Damascene who also associates 1 Cor. vii.3–5 with marital fidelity and presents the spouses’ bodies as each other's property which they need to preserve intact: ‘Καὶ τὸ ῥῆμα γράψον εἰς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου, καὶ εἰπὲ τῇ πόρνῃ· Τί με καλεῖς; οὐκ ἔστι τὸ σῶμα ἐμόν, ἀλλὰ τῆς γυναικός μου. Οὐ τολμῶ τὸ ἀλλότριον προδοῦναι. Τὴν προῖκα αὐτῆς οὐ τολμᾷς μειῶσαι, οὐδὲ τὰ πράγματα αὐτῆς τολμᾷς δαπανῆσαι, καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτῆς τολμᾷς μολῦναι’ (‘And write this phrase on your face, and say to the harlot: “Why are you calling me? My body is not my own, but my wife's. I do not dare to give away what is someone else's.” You do not dare to diminish her dowry, nor do you dare to spend her property, but you dare to pollute her body?’): PG xcvi.257.

23 On Zonaras and Balsamon see Troianos, Spyros, ‘Byzantine canon law from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries’, in Hartmann, Wilfried and Pennington, Kenneth (eds), History of Byzantine and Eastern canon law to 1500, Washington, DC 2012, 176–83Google Scholar, and Macrides, Ruth, ‘Nomos and kanon on paper and in court’, in Morris, Rosemary (ed.), Church and people in Byzantium, London 1990, 61–85 Google Scholar. For many interesting articles on the Byzantine canonical commentaries see also the collection edited by Oikonomides, Nikos, Byzantium in the 12th century: canon law, state and society, Athens 1991 Google Scholar. The commentaries are available in Syntagma.

24 ‘μήτ’ ἄλλο τι ἱερατικὸν ἐνεργεῖν· ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ τῇ τιμῇ τῆς προεδρίας’ (‘nor should he practise any other of his ecclesiastical duties, but should be satisfied with the honour of his seat’): Balsamon in Syntagma, iv.163; ‘Ταῦτα, φησὶν ὁ κανών, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ ὁρισθέντα, καὶ κατὰ τὸ πρέπον τῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ τιμῇ τῇ ἱερατικῇ’ (‘The canon says that these things have been decreed for the sake of salvation and according to what is suitable for the sacerdotal rank and honour’): Zonaras in Syntagma, iii. 281; ‘Ἐὰν δὲ στάσεις κινῶσι πρὸς τοὺς ὄντας ἐκεῖ ἐπισκόπους, τότε καὶ τῆς τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τιμῆς στερεῖσθαι αὐτούς, καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐκκηρύκτους, τουτέστι καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκπτώτους’ (‘But if they rebel against the bishops in post there, they should be deprived even of the honour of the priesthood, and they should be denounced, that is to say banished from the church’): Zonaras in Syntagma, iii. 58.

25 We also find the noun form ‘ὀφείλημα’ in the Lord's Prayer: ‘Καὶ τοῦτο τῆς αὐτῆς ἀπονοίας ἐστί, τὸ λέγειν, ὅτι οἱ ἅγιοι εὐχόμενοι, Ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ·’ (‘And it is also senseless to claim that the saints who pray “Forgive us our trespasses” say it not for themselves, but for the people’): Zonaras in Syntagma, iii. 569.

26 We can find an example of the term ‘εὔνοια’ meaning ‘good will’, in the canonists’ discussion of priests who usurp episcopal power, pretending to do so out of good will for the people: ‘ὡς τάχα τοῦτο δι’ εὔνοιαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ποιοῦντες, ἥτις εὔνοια ἄτακτος ἐστίν·’ (‘pretending to do this out of favour for them, a favour which is lawless’): Zonaras and Balsamon in Syntagma, iii. 434. See also Syntagma, iv. 523. For the use of ‘ἔρως’ see Syntagma, ii. 419, 279; iii. 197; iv. 307.

27 Bees, ‘Johannes Apokaukos’, 65.

28 Ibid. 64–5.

29 See also Elliott, Spiritual marriage, 143–6, 155–67.

30 ‘non potest mulier ita attenuare corpus per abstinentiam quod sit minus habilis ad reddendum viro debitum’: Thomae de Chobham summa confessorum, 560.

31 ‘quia in debito coniugii eque mulier habet potestatem uiri, sicut et uir mulieris’: Decretum magistri Gratiani, C. 33 q.5 d.p.c.11 at p. 1254.

32 He warned a nobleman who had vowed to take the cross that men often fell into vice while striving for virtue: an angel of Satan ‘urges certain people not to render the conjugal debt to their wives, so that under the veil of chastity he may send them to illicit affairs, or he may incite their wives to commit adultery’ (‘suadet quibusdam non reddere debitum conjugale uxoribus suis, ut sub velamine castitatis mittat eos ad stupra illicita, vel uxores eorum ad perpetranda adulteria’): PL clxii. 251–3.

33 ‘ne terrae sanctae impediatur subsidium penitus vel diutius differatur’: Corpus iuris canonici: pars secunda: Decretalium collectiones, X.3.34.9, ed. Friedberg, E., Leipzig 1881, 595 Google Scholar. See also Brundage, James A., ‘The crusader's wife: a canonistic quandary’, Studia Gratiana xii (1967), 425–41Google Scholar.

34 Gratian states clearly the impossibility of the situation: if laymen were expected by Paul to abstain from their wives in order to devote themselves to prayer, this was all the more the case for priests who had to pray daily and ‘were never allowed to devote themselves to their marital office’ (‘numquam coniugali offitio uacare permittitur’). If a priest had been married while still in minor orders he was allowed to provide for his wife financially, but ‘could not render what was due’ (‘debita uero reddere non ualent’): Decretum magistri Gratiani, D. 31 d.a.c. 2 at p. 111; Decretum magistri Gratiani, D. 31 d.p.c. 11 at p.114. See also Liotta, Filippo, La continenza dei chierici nel pensiero canonistico classic: da Graziano a Gregorio IX, Milan 1971, 8 Google Scholar.

35 See canon 7 of the second Lateran Council of 1139: ‘Hujusmodi namque copulationem, quam contra ecclesiasticam regulam constat esse contractam, matrimonium non esse censemus’ (‘For we do not consider that intercourse of such a kind, which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law, constitutes marriage’): Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Mansi, J. D., repr. Graz 1960–1, xxi.523Google Scholar.

36 ‘Item quid, si clericus illius ecclesie ordines hic susciperet et postea rediret ad propriam ecclesiam? Possetne uxorem accipere et celebrare uel debetne debitum denegare uxori? Posset dici quod deberet ab officio abstinere. Nullum autem preiudicium deberet fieri uxori, licet quidam contrarium dicant’ (‘Likewise, what would happen if a cleric of that church were to receive orders here and afterwards return to his own church? Would he be able to take a wife and celebrate [the liturgy] or should he refuse the debt to his wife? It could be said that he ought to abstain from his office. But his wife should not be prejudiced, although some may say the opposite’): Summa ‘omnis qui iuste iudicat’ Sive Lipsiensis, ed. Landau, P. and others, Vatican City 2007, i. 120Google Scholar. On the author of the Summa Lipsiensis see Landau, Peter, ‘X. Rodoicus Modicipassus – Verfasser der Summa Lipsiensis?’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung xcii (2006), 340–54Google Scholar.

37 For a comparison of the different approaches followed by Gratian and Balsamon see Gallagher, Clarence, ‘Gratian and Theodore Balsamon: two twelfth-century canonistic methods compared’, in Oikonomides, Nikos (ed.), Byzantium in the 12th century: canon law, state and society, Athens 1991, 61–89 Google Scholar.

38 The above example would have been part of the quaestiones disputatae, disputations held by masters of law outside their regular lectures in the schools, often on a Friday or a Sunday: Pennington, Kenneth and Müller, Wolfgang P., ‘The Decretists: the Italian School’, in Hartmann, Wilfried and Pennington, Kenneth (eds), The history of medieval canon law in the classical period, 1140–1234, Washington, DC 2008, 164–70Google Scholar.

39 Balsamon's commentary was commissioned by Emperor Manuel i Komnenos (1143–80) and Patriarch Michael iii Anchialos (1170–8) and its initial aim was to ascertain which parts of the Nomokanon in fourteen titles remained in force: Spyros Troianos, ‘Byzantine canon law to 1100’, in Hartmann and Pennington, History of Byzantine and Eastern canon law, 138–40; Macrides, ‘Nomos and kanon’, 73–4. We are not sure what Zonaras's motivations were for writing his canonical commentaries and there is considerable debate about his date of writing: Banchich, Thomas M., ‘Introduction: the Epitome of Histories’, in The History of Zonaras, ed. and trans. Banchich, Thomas M. and trans. Lane, Eugene N., London 2009, 7 Google Scholar.

40 See also Odysseus Lampsides, ‘Πῶς εἰσάγουν εἰς τὰ κείμενά των οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν κανόνων—τὰς εἰδήσεις διὰ τὸν σύγχρονόν των κόσμον’ [How the commentators of the canons introduce in their texts news about the contemporary world], in Oikonomides, Byzantium in the 12th century, 211–27.

41 Dagron has nicely expressed the difference between East and West: ‘Nous sommes [à Byzance] du côté de l'avocat qui cherche à montrer qua la loi n'a pas à s'appliquer au client qu'il défend, et non pas du côté du juge temporel ou spirituel qui examine tous les rapports entre un cas et les prescriptions de la loi. Par cette disjonction qu'elle cherche à justifier entre la règle et son application, l’économie byzantine diffère profondément de l'analyse des “cas” qui fleurit dans la littérature juridique de l'Occident aux xiie–xiiie siècles, et de ce qu'on appellera dans le domaine religieux la casuistique’: ‘La Règle et l'exception: analyse de la notion d’économie’, in Simon, Dieter (ed.), Religiöse Devianz: Untersuchungen zur sozialen, rechtlichen und theologischen Reaktionen auf religiöse Abweichung im westlichen und östlichen Mittelalter, Frankfurt 1990, 1–18 at p. 11 Google Scholar.

42 On the concept of oikonomia see also Cupane, Carolina, ‘Appunti per uno studio dell'oikonomia ecclesiastica a Bisanzio’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik xxxviii (1988), 53–73 Google Scholar.

43 On Dionysios and the four canons found in his letter to Basilides see Heinz Ohme, ‘Greek canon law to 691/2’, in Hartmann and Pennington, Byzantine and Eastern canon law to 1500, 89–90. ‘νομίζω δὲ ὅτι κατὰ τὴν διάκρισιν τοῦ τὴν ἐξαγορίαν δεχομένου ἡ θεραπεία γενήσεται πρὸς τὰ πρόσωπα καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην τῆς φύσεως·’ (‘but I think that the cure will be administered according to the person and the needs of their nature, based on the discernment of him who receives the confession’): Syntagma, iv. 11.

44 See also Taglia, Kathryn Ann, ‘“On account of scandal …”: priests, their children, and the ecclesiastical demand for celibacy’, Florilegium xiv (1995–6), 57–70 at p. 66Google Scholar.

45 See, for example, the dispensation granted by Alexander iii to a cleric in the diocese of Lincoln: Decretalium collections, X 1.17.10 at p. 138.

46 Dagron, ‘La Règle et l'exception’, 15–16; Cupane, ‘Appunti per uno studio dell'oikonomia’, 57–8.

47 An exception to this can be found in hagiography. In the Life of Patriarch Euthymios (907–12), we read that the saint advised Theophano, the first wife of Leo vi, to reconsider, for the sake of her husband, her decision to enter a monastery. The patriarch referred specifically to 1 Cor. vii. 4 and argued that this would tempt Leo to fall into adultery. This is particularly interesting given that Leo had long fallen into adultery with his mistress Zoe Zaoutzaina and that it was most likely Theophano herself who did not want to grant a divorce: Karlin-Hayter, P., Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP: text, translation, introduction and commentary, Brussels 1970, 37–9Google Scholar. See also Garland, L., Byzantine empresses: women and power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204, London 1999, 109–11Google Scholar, and Tougher, S., The reign of Leo VI (886–912): politics and people, Leiden 1997, 138–40Google Scholar.

48 Syntagma, i. 297.

49 ‘τὸν δὲ ἄνδρα προσέρχεσθαι πρὸς αὐτὴν καὶ κολακεύειν τοῖς λόγοις καὶ παρατίθεσθαι αὐτῇ τράπεζαν καὶ πάντα τρόπον ποιεῖν, ὥστε τὸν πάλαι πόθον ἀνάψαι, χωρὶς μέντοι βίας καὶ χειρῶν ἐπιβολῆς’: Ius graecoromanum, ed. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, Aalen 1962, vi. 93.

50 Similarly, Manuel's Novel 79 on this topic makes no mention of any sexual obligations: ibid. i. 426.

51 ‘Et debent scire sacerdotes quid sit exigere debitum. Verbum enim exactionis violentiam importat, unde exactores dicuntur qui per violentiam pene vel timoris aliquid extorquent. Si igitur ille qui non potest exigere debitum ab uxore blanditiis et promissis sollicitat uxorem suam et inducit eam ut consentiat ei in concubitum, non dicitur exigere’: Thomae de Chobham summa confessorum, 171–2.

52 On this genre see Papadoyannakis, Yannis, ‘Instruction by question and answer: the case of late antique and Byzantine erotapokriseis’, in Johnson, S. E. (ed.), Greek literature in late antiquity: dynamism, didacticism, classicism, Aldershot 2006, 91–105 Google Scholar. On Timothy of Alexandria see Ohme, ‘Greek canon law to 691/2’, 107–8. On Balsamon's comment on question 5 see Syntagma, iv. 334.

53 Zonaras answers that abstinence is required when spouses wish to devote themselves to prayer accompanied by tears and suffering: ‘ἀλλ’ οὐ περὶ πάσης προσευχῆς ἐνταῦθά φησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος, περὶ δέ γε τῆς σπουδαιοτέρας, ἣν ἐν δάκρυσι καὶ κακοπαθείαις δεῖ γίνεσθαι·’ (‘but here the apostle does not speak about any prayer, but about the more earnest type which ought to be accompanied by tears and suffering’): Syntagma, iv. 10.

54 The exact time necessary to abstain is not entirely clear. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges (1157–69/70) decreed in a synod in 1169 that spouses needed to abstain three days before communion: Syntagma, iii. 304. But Balsamon, in an answer to Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, advocated two rather than three days of abstinence: ibid. iv. 456–7.

55 ‘εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐκ συμφώνου γίνοιτο ἡ ἀποχή, ἀποστερεῖ πάντως τὸ μὴ βουλόμενον τὴν συνουσίαν μέρος, τὸ ταύτην ἐπιζητοῦν· καὶ πῶς ἂν δόξῃ ἐξουσιάζειν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ μὴ συγχωροῦντος μέρους, τὸ τὴν συνάφειαν ζητοῦν καὶ μὴ συγχωρούμενον;’: ibid. iv. 10, 11.

56 On Apokaukos and his decisions on marriage see also Michael Angold, ‘Η Βυζαντινή Εκκλησία και τα προβλήματα του γάμου’ [‘The Byzantine Church and marital problems’], Δωδώνη xvii (1988), 179–94; Spyros Troianos, ‘Οι Λόγοι Διαζυγίου στο Νομολογιακό Έργο του Ιωάννου Απόκαυκου’ [‘Reasons for divorce in the work of John Apokaukos on case law’], Βυζαντινά xvi (1991), 43–63; and Katerelos, Evangelos, Die Auflösung der Ehe bei Demetrios Chomatianos und Johannes Apokaukos, Freiburg 1991, 187–227 Google Scholar.

57 Pétridès, S., ‘Jean Apokaukos: lettres et autres documents inédits’, Izvestija Russkogo Archeologiceskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole xiv (1909), no. 29Google Scholar.

58 ‘ὁ Ξιφιλῖνος μὴ συνελθὼν αὐτῇ, μηδὲ συνοικήσας, μηδὲ ταύτην ἐπισκεψάμενος· καὶ ὁ μὲν Ἀπόστολος διδάσκει, μὴ ἀποστερεῖν ἀλλήλους τοὺς συναφθέντας, εἰ μή τι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου. δῆλον δέ, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο ἀνὴρ συνάπτεται γυναικί, ἵνα καὶ παῖδας ἀπογεννήσῃ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ γένους διαδοχὴν καὶ πρὸς τὰς τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπηρείας ἀντιβοηθῶσιν ἀλλήλοις καὶ μὴ πρὸς πορνείας ἐκπίπτουσιν. τί γὰρ ἄλλο βούλεται τὸ πλασθῆναι τὴν γυκαῖκα βοηθὸν τῷ ἀνδρί, καὶ τοῦτον ὡς οἰκεῖον μέλος ταύτην λογίζεσθαι, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Παύλου διδασκαλίαν; ἔνθα δὲ ἐπὶ τοσούτοις ἔτεσιν οὔτε πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα εἰσέρχεται ὁ ἀνήρ, οὔτε ταύτης ἐπιμελεῖται τὰ εἰς τροφήν, τὰ εἰς περιβλήματα, ἐκεῖσε πάντως παρὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αἰτίαν καὶ πορνεία παρρησιάζεται καὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ὑπὸ εὐθύνην γίνεται ὁ ἀνήρ.’: Bees, ‘Johannes Apokaukos’, no. 28.

59 Although the wording of Ephesians v.28 refers to the wife as σῶμα rather than μέλος (‘Οὕτως ὀφείλουσι, φησίν, οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας, ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα’) (‘Men, he says, should love their wives just like their own bodies’), the reference to this verse here is clear. For example, Chrysostom, in his commentary on Ephesians says ‘ἡ ἀγαπῶσα φοβεῖται ὡς κεφαλὴν, καὶ ἀγαπᾷ ὡς μέλος, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ μέλος τοῦ παντός ἐστι σώματος’ (‘she who loves, fears him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large’): PG lxii. 141.

60 Pétridès, ‘Jean Apokaukos’, nos 30, 31; Bees, ‘Johannes Apokaukos’, no. 39.

61 See Syntagma, i. 296–7. No time frame for waiting before the couple can be separated because of frigidity is given in the West. For Western legislation on impotence and divorce see Brundage, Law, sex, and Christian society, 290–2.

62 James A. Brundage, ‘Implied consent to intercourse’, in Laiou, Consent and coercion, 249.

63 The necessity of consummation was hotly debated in the West during this period. See Brundage, ‘Implied consent’, 246–8. See also Resnick, Irven M., ‘Marriage in medieval culture: consent theory and the case of Joseph and Mary’, Church History lxix/2 (2000), 350–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For some differences between Eastern and Western ideas on the nature of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and mixed marriages see Gallagher, Clarence, ‘Marriage in Eastern and Western canon law’, Law & Justice clvii (2006), 7–16 Google Scholar.

64 Brundage, James A., ‘Sexual equality in medieval canon law’, in Rosenthal, Joel T. (ed.), Medieval women and the sources of medieval history, Athens, Ga 1990, 69 Google Scholar.

65 St Augustine, ‘De genesi ad litteram’, lib. 9, cap. 7, PL xxxiv.397. For more on Augustine's views on sexuality see Hunter, David G., ‘Augustinian pessimism? A new look at Augustine's teaching on sex, marriage and celibacy’, Augustinian Studies xxv (1994), 153–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Brown, Peter, ‘Sexuality and society in the fifth century ad: Augustine and Julian of Eclanum’, in Gabba, E. (ed.), Tria corda: scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano, Como 1983, 49–70 Google Scholar.

66 Payer, Bridling of desire, 98–110; Brundage, James A., ‘Let me count the ways: canonists and theologians contemplate coital positions’, Journal of Medieval History x/2 (1984), 81–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Especially on the Parisian theologians, and their rejection of any sin associated with the marital debt, see John W. Baldwin, ‘Consent and the marital debt: five discourses in Northern France around 1200’, in Laiou, Consent and coercion, 261.

68 St John Chrysostom: on marriage and family life, 85–6.

69 Ibid. 76.

70 ‘Ἕκαστος ἀπολαυέτω τῆς ἰδίας γυναικός. Καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται, ἀλλ’ εἰσέρχεται, καὶ καθέζεται εἰς τὴν εὐνὴν νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν’: PG xcvi.257.

71 Ὑμεῖς δ'οἶμαι, καὶ τὸν συνευνασθέντα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γαμετῇ τῆς κοίτης ἐξανιστάμενον, κρινεῖται ἀκάθαρτον, καὶ εἰς προσευχὴν οὐ προσήσεσθε, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τοῦ? ναοῦ θύρας τούτῳ ἐπιζυγώσετε· οὐδ'ὅτι τίμιος ὁ γάμος εἴρηται, λογιεῖσθε, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, ἀλλ'ὅτι κἀνταῦθα σπέρματος ἐκροὴ καὶ μᾶλλον σὺν ἡδονῇ, καταδικάσετε τὸν ἀναίτιον·’: Syntagma, iv. 602.