The Process of Modernisation of Family Law in Eastern and western Europe: Difference in Timing, resemblance in Substance Masha v antokolskaial Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or othenwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating th source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use Abstract In this article, it is submitted that the historical development of family law in Europe allows a fundamental re-evaluation of the stereotype argument that harmonisation and unification of family law is unfeasible because of unbridgeable historical and cultural differences between the various European countries. The line of the argument put forward can be summarised as follows 1. The family law of the whole European continent before the Reformation was mainly uniform canon law. It consisted of two separate systems, Catholic and Orthodox, which in fact were very much alike. The unification of canon family law in the Catholic part of Europe was achieved around the 12th century and brought about dramatic change l art Orthodox Europe, the process of unification, although more spread out in time, led to almost the same results 2. The development of family law from the end of the Middle Ages until tod ay can be seen as the gradual abandment of concepts of canon family law. Pre-ecclesiastical family law and current family law have more similarities between them than both have in relation to ecclesiastical family law. In a way, the process of distancing from the canonical heritage can be seen as a return to the informality of pre-ecclesiastical family law 3. The process of gradually abandoning the concepts of canon law was essentially the same in all European countries, and took place under the influence of the same liberal ideas The general trend can be described as the gradual change from a transpersonal to a personal approach. This process, however, did(and still does)not take place simultaneously. The major differences in the history and current state of the family law of the European countries a persisting strong religious influence, such as Greece. Italy and Ireland, this process mao with can be considered d ifferences in the timing and in the extent of this process. In countries plodded along wearily and slowly. In Scand navia and Eastern Europe, where secularisation speed ier and more rad ical. But the general direction of the changes was and is undoubted/y took place at an earlier stage and canonical concepts did not obstruct reform, the process wa the same everywhe Special attention is devoted to the post-Revolutionary reforms in Russia, because many attempts to explain the development of family law do not include them, or treat them as excesses, and place them outside explanatory theories The authors study of this subject is in a rather preliminary stage. More extensive Senior Research Fellow of the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Ms Antokolska ia's research has been made possible by a fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
The Process of Modernisation of Family Law in Eastern and Western Europe: Difference in Timing, Resemblance in Substance Masha V. Antokolskaia1 Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free to use the ideas expressed in it, they may not copy, distribute or publish the work or part of it, in any form, printed, electronic or otherwise, except for reasonable quoting, clearly indicating the source. Readers are permitted to make copies, electronically or printed, for personal and classroom use. Abstract In this article, it is submitted that the historical development of family law in Europe allows a fundamental re-evaluation of the stereotype argument that harmonisation and unification of family law is unfeasible because of unbridgeable historical and cultural differences between the various European countries. The line of the argument put forward can be summarised as follows. 1. The family law of the whole European continent before the Reformation was mainly uniform canon law. It consisted of two separate systems, Catholic and Orthodox, which in fact were very much alike. The unification of canon family law in the Catholic part of Europe was achieved around the 12th century and brought about dramatic changes. In Orthodox Europe, the process of unification, although more spread out in time, led to almost the same results. 2. The development of family law from the end of the Middle Ages until today can be seen as the gradual abandment of concepts of canon family law. Pre-ecclesiastical family law and current family law have more similarities between them than both have in relation to ecclesiastical family law. In a way, the process of distancing from the canonical heritage can be seen as a return to the informality of pre-ecclesiastical family law. 3. The process of gradually abandoning the concepts of canon law was essentially the same in all European countries, and took place under the influence of the same liberal ideas. The general trend can be described as the gradual change from a transpersonal to a personal approach. This process, however, did (and still does) not take place simultaneously. The major differences in the history and current state of the family law of the European countries can be considered differences in the timing and in the extent of this process. In countries with a persisting strong religious influence, such as Greece, Italy and Ireland, this process has plodded along wearily and slowly. In Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, where secularisation took place at an earlier stage and canonical concepts did not obstruct reform, the process was speedier and more radical. But the general direction of the changes was and is undoubtedly the same everywhere. Special attention is devoted to the post-Revolutionary reforms in Russia, because many attempts to explain the development of family law do not include them, or treat them as excesses, and place them outside explanatory theories. The author's study of this subject is in a rather preliminary stage. More extensive 1Senior Research Fellow of the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Ms. Antokolskaia’s research has been made possible by a fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
research will be undertaken in the coming years. Therefore the author welcomes all informed reactions at M.Antokolskaya@law.uu. nl Contents Introduction 1. The Catholic West and the Orthodox east: The formation of a uniform med ieval canon of family law 2. From pre-Christian law via canon unification to modern times: A helical process? 3. The medieval dogmas: Obstacles to modern person-orientated family law 4. From the med ieval uniform law to the diversity of modern times: Difference in timing resemblance in substance Literature Introduction Last year, I was asked to make a contribution to a report for the Netherlands Comparative Law Association on the prospects for the harmonisation and unification of family law in Europe. 2 This obliged me to scrutinise the stereotype argument that harmonisation and unification of family law is unfeasible because of unbridgeable historical and cultural differences between the various European countries. Going back in time in search of the roots of the diversity of current family law in Europe, I became highly interested in the correlation between the level of modernisation of family law and the influence of concepts inherited work I strongly rely 3 What I suggest in this article is that this correlation is the key to e from medieval canon law. This correlation has been noticed by several scholars, on who important insights into the historical development of family law in Europe that allow a fund amental re-evaluation of the aforementioned argument of unbridgeable differences. I will devote some special attention to the post-Revolutionary reforms in Russia, because I have noticed that many attempts to explain the development of family law do not include them, or treat them as excesses, and place them outside explanatory theories. I think that Russian post-Revolutionary developments can and should be placed within an explanatory framework, and i will try to show how they can fit within such a framework. I should mention that, at the moment, my work on this subject is in a rather preliminary stage. The suggestions I make in this article are based on a preliminary study which has inspired me to undertake more extensive research in the coming years What i will submit can be summarised as follows 1. The family law of the whole European continent before the Reformation was mainly uniform canon law. It consisted of two separate systems, Catholic and Orthodox which in fact were very much alike. The unification of canon family law in the Catholic part of Europe was achieved around the 12 th century, and brought about dramatic changes. In Orthodox Europe, the process of unification, although more spread out in time, led to almost the same results 2 Antokolska ia, De Hondt and Steenhoff( 1999) SE. g, Duby (1985), Goody(1983), Glendon(1989)and Rheinstein(1972)
research will be undertaken in the coming years. Therefore the author welcomes all informed reactions at M.Antokolskaya@law.uu.nl Contents Introduction 1. The Catholic West and the Orthodox East: The formation of a uniform medieval canon of family law 2. From pre-Christian law via canon unification to modern times: A helical process? 3. The medieval dogmas: Obstacles to modern person-orientated family law 4. From the medieval uniform law to the diversity of modern times: Difference in timing, resemblance in substance Conclusion Notes Literature Introduction Last year, I was asked to make a contribution to a report for the Netherlands Comparative Law Association on the prospects for the harmonisation and unification of family law in Europe.2 This obliged me to scrutinise the stereotype argument that harmonisation and unification of family law is unfeasible because of unbridgeable historical and cultural differences between the various European countries. Going back in time in search of the roots of the diversity of current family law in Europe, I became highly interested in the correlation between the level of modernisation of family law and the influence of concepts inherited from medieval canon law. This correlation has been noticed by several scholars, on whose work I strongly rely.3 What I suggest in this article is that this correlation is the key to important insights into the historical development of family law in Europe that allow a fundamental re-evaluation of the aforementioned argument of unbridgeable differences. I will devote some special attention to the post-Revolutionary reforms in Russia, because I have noticed that many attempts to explain the development of family law do not include them, or treat them as excesses, and place them outside explanatory theories. I think that Russian post-Revolutionary developments can and should be placed within an explanatory framework , and I will try to show how they can fit within such a framework. I should mention that, at the moment, my work on this subject is in a rather preliminary stage. The suggestions I make in this article are based on a preliminary study which has inspired me to undertake more extensive research in the coming years. What I will submit can be summarised as follows: 1. The family law of the whole European continent before the Reformation was mainly uniform canon law. It consisted of two separate systems, Catholic and Orthodox, which in fact were very much alike. The unification of canon family law in the Catholic part of Europe was achieved around the 12th century, and brought about dramatic changes. In Orthodox Europe, the process of unification, although more spread out in time, led to almost the same results. 2Antokolskaia, De Hondt and Steenhoff (1999). 3E.g., Duby (1985), Goody (1983), Glendon (1989) and Rheinstein (1972)
2. The development of family law from the end of the Middle Ages until today can be seen as the gradual abandonment of concepts of canon family law. Pre-ecclesiastical family law and current family law have more similarities between them than both have in relation to ecclesiastical family law. In a way, the process of d istancing from the canonical heritage can be seen as a return to the informality of pre-ecclesiastical family law 3. The process of gradually abandoning the concepts of canon law was essentially the same in all European countries, and took place under the influence of the same liberal ideas The general trend can be described as the gradual change from a transpersonal to a personal approach. This process, however, did (and still does )not take place simultaneously. The major differences in the history and current state of the family law of the European countries can be considered differences in the timing and in the extent of this process. In countries with a persisting strong religious influence, such as Greece, Italy and Ireland, this process has plodded along wearily and slowly. In Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, where secularisation took place at an earlier stage and canonical concepts did not obstruct reform, the process was speedier and more rad ical. But the general direction of the changes was and is undoubtedly the same everywhere 4. The composition of the group of countries where family law had already been rad ically revised at in the beginning of the 20th century -Scandinavia, the Soviet Union and Portugal -reveals a discrepancy between the level of economic development and the modernisation of family law, and suggests a primary role of ideological factors such as breaking with religious concepts and the influence of liberal id 1. The catholic West and the Orthodox East: The formation of a uniform medieval canon of family law In Western Europe, the formation of uniform canon rules on marriage and divorce had been completed by the beginning of the 12 th century by the reforms of Pope gregory VII (1073-1084 ) In spite of the schism of 1054 that separated the Orthodox countries from the West, a comparable formation process took place in the Orthod ox world around the same time. The ecclesiastical unification concerned mainly the rules on marriage and divorce, but because of the crucial importance of those institutions for the determination of the legal position of offspring, for inheritance and for the rights to family property, the whole area of family law was influenced. Therefore it is possible to speak, with some reservations, of medieval canon family law in general The Gregorian reform was in many aspects the final point in the formation of uniform ecclesiastical family law, s but the beginning of the formation process was almost 600 years earlier. In the first centuries of Christianity, the Church did not pay much attention to marriage. The dominant ascetic and eschatological attitude in the early Church led to the disapproval of sexuality and the appreciation of celibacy above marriage. 6 The early Church 4i do not intend to take sides in the discussion on the role of econom ic and ideological factors in the and to what extent ideological and other factors serve asa link between them. I have no answer to these cy o, transformation of family law. It is, of course, impossible to deny a certa in dependency between the modemit family law and the level of economic development. The question is how strong and direct this dependend questions. At this point, my intention is limited to the rather positivist observation of discrepancies and correlations between these factors and the level of modemity of family law at certain points of its development SThe last step in the development of the rules on the formation of marriage was made at the Council of Trent in the 16th century 6See, for example, the letter of the Apostle Paul to Corinthians(1 Cor, 7,1
2. The development of family law from the end of the Middle Ages until today can be seen as the gradual abandonment of concepts of canon family law. Pre-ecclesiastical family law and current family law have more similarities between them than both have in relation to ecclesiastical family law. In a way, the process of distancing from the canonical heritage can be seen as a return to the informality of pre-ecclesiastical family law. 3. The process of gradually abandoning the concepts of canon law was essentially the same in all European countries, and took place under the influence of the same liberal ideas. The general trend can be described as the gradual change from a transpersonal to a personal approach. This process, however, did (and still does) not take place simultaneously. The major differences in the history and current state of the family law of the European countries can be considered differences in the timing and in the extent of this process. In countries with a persisting strong religious influence, such as Greece, Italy and Ireland, this process has plodded along wearily and slowly. In Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, where secularisation took place at an earlier stage and canonical concepts did not obstruct reform, the process was speedier and more radical. But the general direction of the changes was and is undoubtedly the same everywhere. 4. The composition of the group of countries where family law had already been radically revised at in the beginning of the 20th century - Scandinavia, the Soviet Union and Portugal - reveals a discrepancy between the level of economic development and the modernisation of family law,4 and suggests a primary role of ideological factors such as breaking with religious concepts and the influence of liberal ideas. 1. The Catholic West and the Orthodox East: The formation of a uniform medieval canon of family law In Western Europe, the formation of uniform canon rules on marriage and divorce had been completed by the beginning of the 12th century by the reforms of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1084). In spite of the schism of 1054 that separated the Orthodox countries from the West, a comparable formation process took place in the Orthodox world around the same time. The ecclesiastical unification concerned mainly the rules on marriage and divorce, but because of the crucial importance of those institutions for the determination of the legal position of offspring, for inheritance and for the rights to family property, the whole area of family law was influenced. Therefore it is possible to speak, with some reservations, of medieval canon family law in general. The Gregorian reform was in many aspects the final point in the formation of uniform ecclesiastical family law,5 but the beginning of the formation process was almost 600 years earlier. In the first centuries of Christianity, the Church did not pay much attention to marriage. The dominant ascetic and eschatological attitude in the early Church led to the disapproval of sexuality and the appreciation of celibacy above marriage.6 The early Church 4 I do not intend to take sides in the discussion on the role of economic and ideological factors in the transformation of family law. It is, of course, impossible to deny a certain dependency between the modernity of family law and the level of economic development. The question is how strong and direct this dependency is and to what extent ideological and other factors serve as a link between them. I have no answer to these questions. At this point, my intention is limited to the rather positivist observation of discrepancies and correlations between these factors and the level of modernity of family law at certain points of its developmen t. 5The last step in the development of the rules on the formation of marriage was made at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. 6See, for example, the letter of the Apostle Paul to Corinthians (1 Cor., 7, 1)
did not have its own rules on marriage but tolerated the marriages entered into according to the secular law of the spouses(Roman law, Jewish law or Barbarian customary law) Although different in many aspects, Roman and customary law had at that time as a common feature the absence of any obligatory civil or religious formalities for the conclusion of marriage. Marriage was a matter for the family and did not fall under the competence of the state or of religious authorities. In Roman law, legal marriage was created by the mutual consent of the spouses(in the absence of marriage impediments ).8 As Christianity originating as the religion of a small group of dissidents, eventually became the state religion of the roman Empire, the ascetic disapproval of marriage gradually diminished. 9 The ascetic attitude came into conflict with a more worldly trend that strived towards the sacralisation of marriage,and this finally became the predominant attitude The contradiction between these two approaches may explain the slow pace with which ecclesiastical marriage law came to be formulated In the 4 th century, the trad ition of blessing perfect marriages by a priest came into existence. 10 Initially, that rite was of no significance for the lawfulness of the marriage. Later, it became one of the possible forms of the formation of a marriage. In Byzantium, Church solemnisation became obligatory in 893 by an Act of Emperor Leo VI Around the 12th century, this rule was accepted in the whole Orthodox region. 11 The Roman principle of consensus facit nuptials was maintained, but Church solemnisation was added as a second constitutive element of a valid marriage. At the same time, the Orthodox Church proclaimed marriage to be a sacrament. Consensus and Church solemnisation together made marriage a sacrament. 12 In the Catholic part of Europe this process took even longer. In post-Roman times and even in Carolingian times(8 th to 10th century ) the Church blessing was unusual and marriages were celebrated accord ing to local customs. 13 At the time of Pope gregory VIl, the development of the concept of marriage as a sacrament was completed 14 and the Church ceremony was prescribed, but it was only after the Council of Trent that Church solemnisation actually became a prerequisite for the legal valid ity of a marriage. The difference with the Orthodox doctrine was that it was not blessing and consensus together. but rather consensus alone which made marriage sacred. The priest was more a witness than a main actor in the ceremony. I5 The same picture arises if we look at the changes in the attitude towards concubinage 7Troitskii(1995), p. 186 Grubbs(1995), p. 142 9However, such disapprovalstill manifested itself until deep into the Middle Ages. Even in 1146, when the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Henry Il, was canonised, he was praised for his exceptionally chaste marriage life. He completely absta ined from physicalrelations with his wife Kunigunde so that both rema ined virgins until their death; Duby(1985), pp. 73-74 ioGrubbs (1995), p. 148 IITroitskii(1995), p. 192 2Neuhaus(1983), pp 16-17 3Duby(1985)pp.47-48 14Duby(1985)p.197 Duby(1985),p.197, Glendon(1989)p.25
did not have its own rules on marriage but tolerated the marriages entered into according to the secular law of the spouses (Roman law, Jewish law or Barbarian customary law).7 Although different in many aspects, Roman and customary law had at that time as a common feature the absence of any obligatory civil or religious formalities for the conclusion of a marriage. Marriage was a matter for the family and did not fall under the competence of the state or of religious authorities. In Roman law, legal marriage was created by the mutual consent of the spouses (in the absence of marriage impediments).8 As Christianity, originating as the religion of a small group of dissidents, eventually became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the ascetic disapproval of marriage gradually diminished.9 The ascetic attitude came into conflict with a more worldly trend that strived towards the sacralisation of marriage, and this finally became the predominant attitude. The contradiction between these two approaches may explain the slow pace with which ecclesiastical marriage law came to be formulated. In the 4th century, the tradition of blessing ‘perfect’ marriages by a priest came into existence.10 Initially, that rite was of no significance for the lawfulness of the marriage. Later, it became one of the possible forms of the formation of a marriage. In Byzantium, Church solemnisation became obligatory in 893 by an Act of Emperor Leo VI. Around the 12th century, this rule was accepted in the whole Orthodox region.11 The Roman principle of consensus facit nuptias was maintained, but Church solemnisation was added as a second constitutive element of a valid marriage. At the same time, the Orthodox Church proclaimed marriage to be a sacrament. Consensus and Church solemnisation together made marriage a sacrament.12 In the Catholic part of Europe this process took even longer. In post-Roman times and even in Carolingian times (8th to 10th century), the Church blessing was unusual and marriages were celebrated according to local customs.13 At the time of Pope Gregory VII, the development of the concept of marriage as a sacrament was completed14 and the Church ceremony was prescribed, but it was only after the Council of Trent that Church solemnisation actually became a prerequisite for the legal validity of a marriage. The difference with the Orthodox doctrine was that it was not blessing and consensus together, but rather consensus alone which made marriage sacred. The priest was more a witness than a main actor in the ceremony.15 The same picture arises if we look at the changes in the attitude towards concubinage. 7Troitskii (1995), p. 186. 8Grubbs (1995), p. 142. 9However, such disapproval still manifested itself until deep into the Middle Ages. Even in 1146, when the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Henry II, was canonised, he was praised for his exceptionally chaste marriage life. He completely abstained from physical relations with his wife Kunigunde so that both rema ined virgins until their death; Duby (1985), pp. 73-74. 10Grubbs (1995), p. 148. 11Troitskii (1995), p. 192. 12Neuhaus (1983), pp. 16-17. 13Duby (1985), pp. 47-48. 14Duby (1985), p. 197. 15Duby (1985), p. 197, Glendon (1989), p. 25
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. 192
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 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