In Roman society, concubinage was accepted for unmarried persons as a secondary form of conjugal union. Among some peoples that inhabited Europe in post-Roman times concubinage was accepted even for a married man. 16 The early Church was also tolerant of concubinage. The concubine was a member of the household of the man and her children were not entirely excluded from the family structure. 17 In Western Europe, the Church only started to oppose concubinage in the Carolingian era. Concubinage occurring simultaneously with marriage became impossible, and the children of a concubine could only inherit in the absence of offspring from the lawful marriage 18 Around the 11 th and 12th centuries, the rules on marriage law became so imperative in both parts of Europe that concubinage left the stage completely. The concubine became no more than a mistress, and her children were As marriage became more and more institutionalised divorce law became more and more restrictive. In pre-Christian times, there was a considerable freedom to divorce. In classic Roman law, divorce, as well as marriage, was a private, informal transaction. 20 Before the restrictive rules of Augustus and the subsequent reform by Constantine, both divorce upon mutual consent and unilateral divorce were possible. Divorce upon mutual consent survived the reforms, the grounds for unilateral divorce were strictly limited. 21 The Christian Church has shown an aversion towards divorce from the very beginning. Initially, the Church refused to bless all second marriages because it was held that the spiritual ties created by marriage survived not only divorce but also the death of one of the spouses. Although the New Testament mentions the possibility of repudiating an adulterous wife, 2 there was no uniformity on this point in the Catholic and Orthodox worlds. The Orthodox Church accepted under pressure from the Byzantine emperors, 23 a limited possibility for divorce and remarriage. The Catholic Church tolerated divorce and remarriage until deep into the middle Ages. The ind insolubility of marriage was declared for the first time in the 8th century. But until the Gregorian reform, there was no clear border between annulment and dissolution of marriage. Only around the 12th century did the indissolubility of marriage become really enforced. At that time the divorce and annulment of marriage became the exclusive affairs of the Church. In the case of adultery, separation was the only option, with no possibil ity of remarrying. In the case of violation of the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, the marriage was null and void. This meant that it was considered never to have taken place, and the sacrament was considered never to have been given. That is why in such a case(re)marriage 6For instance, the Russian Prince Vladimir was bon to his fathers concubine, who was a housekeeperof his father's wife Olga. This origin did not preclude him from being accepted as a son and from inheriting the realm Nevolin(1851),p.312 17 Goody(1983)p.73. I8For these reasons, Charlemagne did not give his daughters away in marriage but gave them as concubines in order to limit the number of potential heirs, Duby (1985), p. 58 Goody(1983),p.77 2 Grubbs(1995,pp.226-227 2ldem,pp.228-229 22Matthew 19.8-9 2Of most influence in this respect was the struggle of Emperor Leo VI to have his second maria ge blessed at the end of the 9th century; Troitskii (1995),p. 192In Roman society, concubinage was accepted for unmarried persons as a secondary form of conjugal union. Among some peoples that inhabited Europe in post-Roman times concubinage was accepted even for a married man.16 The early Church was also tolerant of concubinage. The concubine was a member of the household of the man, and her children were not entirely excluded from the family structure.17 In Western Europe, the Church only started to oppose concubinage in the Carolingian era. Concubinage occurring simultaneously with marriage became impossible, and the children of a concubine could only inherit in the absence of offspring from the lawful marriage.18 Around the 11th and12th centuries, the rules on marriage law became so imperative in both parts of Europe that concubinage left the stage completely. The concubine became no more than a mistress, and her children were bastardised.19 As marriage became more and more institutionalised, divorce law became more and more restrictive. In pre-Christian times, there was a considerable freedom to divorce. In classic Roman law, divorce, as well as marriage, was a private, informal transaction.20 Before the restrictive rules of Augustus and the subsequent reform by Constantine, both divorce upon mutual consent and unilateral divorce were possible. Divorce upon mutual consent survived the reforms, the grounds for unilateral divorce were strictly limited.21 The Christian Church has shown an aversion towards divorce from the very beginning. Initially, the Church refused to bless all second marriages because it was held that the spiritual ties created by marriage survived not only divorce but also the death of one of the spouses. Although the New Testament mentions the possibility of repudiating an adulterous wife,22 there was no uniformity on this point in the Catholic and Orthodox worlds. The Orthodox Church accepted, under pressure from the Byzantine emperors,23 a limited possibility for divorce and remarriage. The Catholic Church tolerated divorce and remarriage until deep into the Middle Ages. The indissolubility of marriage was declared for the first time in the 8th century. But until the Gregorian reform, there was no clear border between annulment and dissolution of marriage. Only around the 12th century did the indissolubility of marriage become really enforced. At that time, the divorce and annulment of marriage became the exclusive affairs of the Church. In the case of adultery, separation was the only option, with no possibility of remarrying. In the case of violation of the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, the marriage was null and void. This meant that it was considered never to have taken place, and the sacrament was considered never to have been given. That is why in such a case (re)marriage 16For instance, the Russian Prince Vladimir was born to his father’s concubine, who wa s a housekeeper of his father’s wife Olga. This origin did not preclude him from being accepted as a son and from inheriting the realm; Nevolin (1851), p. 312. 17Goody (1983), p. 73. 18For these reasons, Charlemagne did not give his daughters away in marriage, but gave them as concubines in order to limit the number of potential heirs; Duby (1985), p. 58. 19Goody (1983), p. 77. 20Grubbs (1995), pp. 226-227. 21Idem, pp. 228-229. 22Matthew 19, 8-9. 23Of most influence in this respect was the struggle of Emperor Leo VI to have his second marriage blessed at the end of the 9th century; Troitskii (1995), p. 192