was possible. 24 This was more than a technicality. In the course of the Middle Ages, the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, affinity and spiritual affinity (created by baptising)were extended in such a manner25 that most noble families were related to each other within a prohibited degree. 26 Although the priests were obliged to make a genealogical inquiry before celebrating marriage, the prohibitions were often violated. 27 Sometimes this was wilfully done to ensure the possibility of d issolving the marriage. Duby cites an illustrative letter from a 12th century knight who remarks about his prospective wife: Without any doubt she is related to me within the third degree. That is not close enough to stay away from her. But if I want, and if she does not suit me, I can, on the basis of this relationship, obtain a divorce. 28 As a result the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox canon rules on the termination of marriage was less significant than it seems. The possibility of annulling an endogamous marriage in Western Europe had almost the same practical meaning as the limited possibility of divorce in the case of adultery in Eastern Europe As this brief summary of the formation of med ieval ecclesiastical marriage law shows Catholic and Orthodox canon marriage law was, in spite of a formally different approach to the constitutive elements of marriage and to the admissibility of divorce, in effect very much alike. Both gave marriage a closed, strongly institutionalised character 2. From pre-Christian law via canon unification to modern times: A helical process? In a way, the comparison of medieval ecclesiastical marriage and divorce law with pre-Christian law and current law evokes the image of a circular movement, or better still, of a spiral. Pre-Christian family law, with its informal rules on the formation of marriage, easy divorce, tolerance towards concubinage and acceptance of illegitimate children, resembles modern family law much more than medieval law. The difference between pre-Christian and modern law is of course tremendous because we are talking about completely different societies, but still the similarities are striking. The development of marriage and divorce law from the middle ages to the present can be seen as the gradual return to the informality of pre-Christian times, but on a different level; thus the use of a spiral as a metaphor. The most illustrative examples of this return to informality are some radical changes introduced during the french and russian revolutions What is the place of the medieval canonical unification in the overall line of the development of family law? What were the reasons for the unification? Should it be seen as a temporary regress or a necessary step forward? There is no simple answer to these questions It was a crucial period in the history of family law, a time of unity when there were as yet no significant differences, a kind of ius commune of family law. It was also the period in which many concepts were formed that have been dominating family law almost until the present That is why medieval law is so often, consciously or unconsciously, used as a point of reference in debates about the modernisation of family law. 29 I think that medieval family 24Duby(1985p.179 25From the third degree in the 6th century to the seventh degree in the 12th century; Goody (1983), p. 56 6 Dispensation was possible up to the fourth degree 27Idem, p. 145 Duby(1985),p 221(my translation) 9To my mind, this is a vulnera ble point in the analysis of willekens, who tries to explain the changes in familywas possible.24 This was more than a technicality. In the course of the Middle Ages, the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, affinity and spiritual affinity (created by baptising) were extended in such a manner25 that most noble families were related to each other within a prohibited degree.26 Although the priests were obliged to make a genealogical inquiry before celebrating marriage, the prohibitions were often violated.27 Sometimes this was wilfully done to ensure the possibility of dissolving the marriage. Duby cites an illustrative letter from a 12th century knight who remarks about his prospective wife: ‘Without any doubt she is related to me within the third degree. That is not close enough to stay away from her. But if I want, and if she does not suit me, I can, on the basis of this relationship, obtain a divorce.’28 As a result, the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox canon rules on the termination of marriage was less significant than it seems. The possibility of annulling an endogamous marriage in Western Europe had almost the same practical meaning as the limited possibility of divorce in the case of adultery in Eastern Europe. As this brief summary of the formation of medieval ecclesiastical marriage law shows, Catholic and Orthodox canon marriage law was, in spite of a formally different approach to the constitutive elements of marriage and to the admissibility of divorce, in effect very much alike. Both gave marriage a closed, strongly institutionalised character. 2. From pre-Christian law via canon unification to modern times: A helical process? In a way, the comparison of medieval ecclesiastical marriage and divorce law with pre-Christian law and current law evokes the image of a circular movement, or better still, of a spiral. Pre-Christian family law, with its informal rules on the formation of marriage, easy divorce, tolerance towards concubinage and acceptance of illegitimate children, resembles modern family law much more than medieval law. The difference between pre-Christian and modern law is of course tremendous because we are talking about completely different societies, but still the similarities are striking. The development of marriage and divorce law from the Middle Ages to the present can be seen as the gradual return to the informality of pre-Christian times, but on a different level; thus the use of a spiral as a metaphor. The most illustrative examples of this return to informality are some radical changes introduced during the French and Russian Revolutions. What is the place of the medieval canonical unification in the overall line of the development of family law? What were the reasons for the unification? Should it be seen as a temporary regress or a necessary step forward? There is no simple answer to these questions. It was a crucial period in the history of family law, a time of unity when there were as yet no significant differences, a kind of ius commune of family law. It was also the period in which many concepts were formed that have been dominating family law almost until the present. That is why medieval law is so often, consciously or unconsciously, used as a point of reference in debates about the modernisation of family law.29 I think that medieval family 24Duby (1985), p. 179. 25From the third degree in the 6th century to the seventh degree in the 12th century; Goody (1983), p. 56. 26Dispensation was possible up to the fourth degree. 27Idem, p. 145. 28Duby (1985), p. 221 (my translation). 29To my mind, this is a vulnerable point in the analysis of Willekens, who tries to explain the changes in family