According to Western canonists, husband and wife had a debt towards one another: they were obliged to render sexual intercourse on demand. This article looks at the differences and similarities of the ‘marital debt’ in Byzantium and the West in order to evaluate whether this concept can be applied to Byzantine couples. It argues that, contrary to the West, in Byzantium there was no fixed linguistic terminology or sophisticated rules to describe a sexual obligation between spouses. Ultimately, there was also less need for one as sexual intercourse within marriage was not considered sinful and needed no justification.

In this article I analyse the twelfth-century commentaries of Aristenos, Zonaras, and Balsamon on canons that prohibited certain forms of entertainment to clerics and/or laymen. Only when their commentaries are studied as a whole, does a pattern in their treatment become clear: they sought to minimize any distinctions between laity and clergy found in the original canons. This gives us a rare glimpse into lay and clerical interactions and reinforces the view that the Byzantine Church did not wish to maintain clear boundaries between clerics and laymen.