law should certainly not be seen as a kind of degrad ation or regress. It perfectly suited the medieval society of the time. The political background of the formation of this law was the political power of the Church that was strong enough to introduce and to enforce uniform rules. The ideological background of the unification was the- at that time still almost undisturbed -unity of the Christian belief. Mystique and dogmatism were inherent to the society of that time. As soon as the canon concept of marriage as a sacrament had taken root, it was accepted by the population as self-evident The political and ideological influence of the Church may explain the fact of the unification, though not the substance of the uniform law. To explain this substance is not easy For some innovations the background is more or less clear. To declare marriage a sacrament granted it an appropriate position in the set of values of that time. The institutionalisation of marriage, the banning of concubinage and the bastardisation of children born outside wedlock cannot be understood apart from the so-called feudal revolution: the introduction of the feudal system with the right of succession belonging to the first-born as its corner stone Around the 11th century, the horizontal, cognate family structure of Carolingian times, in which male and female heirs were equal, was replaced by the vertical, agnate family structure in which only the male line was important and male heirs were privileged. 30 The goal of this change was to limit the amount of heirs in order to prevent the further division of land. The restrictions of family law served the same purpose Other features of canon law are more difficult to explain. Uphold ing the requirement of free consent to marriage clearly ran against the interest of the feudal families to have as much room as possible for the arrangement of strategic marriages between the noble clans The only explanation I can suggest lies in Christian ideology on the issue of free consent. The free will as one of the central concepts of Christian philosophy was required for the other sacraments, baptising and communion. It seems logical that marriage, once proclaimed as sacrament, also fell under this requirement. The impossibility of repudiating a childless wife and to remarry, or to conclude endogamous marriages, also ran against the crucial needs of the feudal families, because it made it more difficult to keep the land within the clan. In this light, the -to my taste, a bit too cynical -explanation by Goody, who suggests the Churchs craving for power behind these changes, 31 is not convincing. By declaring marriage to be indissoluble, the Church diminished its own possibilities of profiting from its prerogative to grant or refuse divorce. The only explanation I can suggest is that the concept of marriage as a sacrament compelled the Church to consider it to be indissoluble Though the background of the medieval unification leaves us with more questions than answers, one can observe that it was rather multicoloured. Economic and ideological factors were interweaving and complementing one another 3. The medieval dogmas: Obstacles to modern person-orientated family law The uniformity of canon marriage and divorce law only lasted until the Reformation. From law by way of the changes in the social function of the family. Willekens starts his analysis from the function of the family in the agrarian societies at the beginning of the 18th century when, as in the feudal period, land was of primary econom ic importance. I wonder whether the function of the family in those days differed so much from the Roman society of the classical period, which was also in essence agrarian, and whether this difference could expla in the informa lity of family law and the low level of institutiona lisation of marriage Duby(1985)pp.110-111 3 Goody(1983)pp.44-45,145law should certainly not be seen as a kind of degradation or regress. It perfectly suited the medieval society of the time. The political background of the formation of this law was the political power of the Church that was strong enough to introduce and to enforce uniform rules. The ideological background of the unification was the - at that time still almost undisturbed - unity of the Christian belief. Mystique and dogmatism were inherent to the society of that time. As soon as the canon concept of marriage as a sacrament had taken root, it was accepted by the population as self-evident. The political and ideological influence of the Church may explain the fact of the unification, though not the substance of the uniform law. To explain this substance is not easy. For some innovations the background is more or less clear. To declare marriage a sacrament granted it an appropriate position in the set of values of that time. The institutionalisation of marriage, the banning of concubinage and the bastardisation of children born outside wedlock cannot be understood apart from the so-called feudal revolution: the introduction of the feudal system with the right of succession belonging to the first-born as its corner stone. Around the 11th century, the horizontal, cognate family structure of Carolingian times, in which male and female heirs were equal, was replaced by the vertical, agnate family structure, in which only the male line was important and male heirs were privileged.30 The goal of this change was to limit the amount of heirs in order to prevent the further division of land. The restrictions of family law served the same purpose. Other features of canon law are more difficult to explain. Upholding the requirement of free consent to marriage clearly ran against the interest of the feudal families to have as much room as possible for the arrangement of strategic marriages between the noble clans. The only explanation I can suggest lies in Christian ideology on the issue of free consent. The free will as one of the central concepts of Christian philosophy was required for the other sacraments, baptising and communion. It seems logical that marriage, once proclaimed as a sacrament, also fell under this requirement. The impossibility of repudiating a childless wife and to remarry, or to conclude endogamous marriages, also ran against the crucial needs of the feudal families, because it made it more difficult to keep the land within the clan. In this light, the - to my taste, a bit too cynical - explanation by Goody, who suggests the Church’s craving for power behind these changes,31 is not convincing. By declaring marriage to be indissoluble, the Church diminished its own possibilities of profiting from its prerogative to grant or refuse divorce. The only explanation I can suggest is that the concept of marriage as a sacrament compelled the Church to consider it to be indissoluble. Though the background of the medieval unification leaves us with more questions than answers, one can observe that it was rather multicoloured. Economic and ideological factors were interweaving and complementing one another. 3. The medieval dogmas: Obstacles to modern person-orientated family law The uniformity of canon marriage and divorce law only lasted until the Reformation. From law by way of the changes in the social function of the family. Willekens starts his analysis from the function of the family in the agrarian societies at the beginning of the 18th century when, as in the feudal period, land was of primary economic importance. I wonder whether the function of the family in those days differed so much from the Roman society of the classical period, which was also in essence agrarian, and whether this difference could explain the informality of family law and the low level of institutionalisation of marriage. 30Duby (1985), pp. 110-111. 31Goody (1983), pp. 44-45, 145