Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

398 14. the family in the late roman world
her, and had remarried. This was a grave sin, Jerome admits, and rightly
merited harsh expiation. But she had been forced into such action by necessity
and had not been wrong in preferring a second marriage to a life of solitude
full of uncertainties (echoing Paul’s admonition ‘it is better to marry
than to burn’). 20 The ladies of high society may well have enjoyed extenuating
circumstances, but it would be a mistake to explain such leniency
solely as a class issue. Rather it should be viewed in terms of the tormented
relations between evangelical principle and the human factor: a real sociological
constant not only in late antique society but also much later. And
so, while Jerome himself contended that in Christian marriage ‘certain are
the laws of Caesar, others those of Christ’ and that Christians were
expected to obey the latter, 21 the vast majority of the faithful must have felt
that there was no need to have harsher restrictions than those established
by the moral code of their own class and by imperial legislation. The tensions
between ‘pastoral humanity’, on the one hand, and decisions of ‘an
abstract, almost mathematical character’, on the other, were destined to be
an enduring trait even of Byzantine and medieval family history. 22
The clarity of the religious prescriptions was also clouded by the existence
of mixed marriages between pagans and Christians. Since such
unions, which were still very common in Augustine’s day, constituted an
important vehicle for religious conversion, the church’s attitude was stricter
in theory than in actual practice. And inevitably, the presence of religious
differences between married couples will have made it plain that absolute
rigour in matrimonial affairs was beyond the reach of most Christians.
Finally, brief mention should be made of the episcopalis audientia, for historians
have hitherto ignored this institution’s role in the arduous process
of adapting social behaviour to the prescriptions of Christian morality (as
expressed in the writings of the Fathers, the sermons of preachers or the
conciliar canons). In his capacity as iudex, the bishop was expected to
ensure compliance with the terrena iura, the rules established by imperial
legislation. Again, this was a field in which the Christian emperors of late
antiquity had to temper the excesses of Constantine’s enthusiasm, this
time by reducing the scope of the bishops’ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the
episcopalis audientia still commanded considerable authority on civil matters
at the beginning of the fifth century. 23 To the majority of the faithful, the
idea of a bishop judging cases involving family relationships in accordance
with human (and not divine) laws must have seemed a legitimate
20 21 Hier. Ep. 77.3. Ibid.
22 For Byzantium, Karlin-Hayter (1992) 134; see also Vogel (1982). For the west, see for example
Bishop (1985).
23 As is shown in Augustine’s new Ep. 24* (CSEL lxxxviii.126f.): Lepelley (1983). On the relationship
between marriage legislation and the episcopalis audientia, see for example CJ i.4.16 (472) and 28
(530).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008