Viking Weddings, Part 7 (Final)

Gunnora Hallakarva gunnora at bga.com
Wed Sep 11 01:41:23 PDT 1996


Courtship, Love and Marriage in Viking Scandinavia
Part VI:Divorce in the Viking Period
======================================================

        In order to complete a survey of marriage in Viking Scandinavia, one
must briefly examine the custom of divorce.  The Vikings were unique as a
medieval European people due to the extensive provisions they made for
divorce.  Even after Christianity became the accepted religion of
Scandinavia, divorce continued to be a prevalent custom in the North, acting
as a social safety valve for a people whose marriages were arranged to the
benefit of their families instead of for the maximum happiness of the wedded
couple.  Divorce allowed an unhappy couple to seperate and try again with
new partners, before resentments grew into hatreds that could spawn feuds
and violence.  By looking at the laws and customs surrounding divorce, one
may gain a greater understanding of the conditions expected to prevail
within a Viking marriage as illuminated by examples of the actions which
would bring a marriage to an end.

        The Arabic poet al-Gazal reported that he was told by a Danish queen
that "jealousy was unknown in that country, and that women stayed with men
of their own free will, and left them whenever they wanted to" (Jacobsen,
Sexual Irregularities, pp. 78-79).  While this is not a completely accurate
statement, examination of the sagas shows that women were often the ones who
initiated a divorce (Frank, p. 478).  This was probably due to the fact that
men had greater social and sexual options, being free to travel and to take
concubines, while the wife was often tied to the homestead by her various
managerial duties and denied sexual outlets other than her husband.  The
divorce laws show that definite circumstances warranting a divorce were
necessary, and that al-Gazal's picture of capricious bed-hopping did not
reflect the reality of Viking life.  Since marriages were contracted to
benefit the families of the wedded couple, no doubt there would be pressure
to continue the alliance if possible, but sometimes this just could not be
done (Jochens, Icelandic Heroine, p. 45).  

        The icelandic law code, *Gragas*, allows divorce in only three
cases.  The first was if the couple gave each other "large wounds" or *meira
sar metiz* (Jacobsen, Position of Women, p. 51), generally defined as those
wounds which penetrated the brain, body cavity or marrow (Jochens, Icelandic
Heroine, p. 45).  The second was the case in which a couple was too poor to
support themselves and had to rely on their familes for support, in which
case they could be forced to divorce by their kin, or a divorce might be
grabted "if one spouse with little or no money of his- or her own was
suddenly charged with the support of poor relatives" (Jacobsen, Secual
Irregularities, p. 75; also Jacobsen, Position of Women, p. 53), thus
enabling the solvent member of the partnership to escape with his- or her
goods safe from predation by in-laws.  The third legal provision for divorce
was if a husband tried to take his wife out of the country against her will
(Jacobsen, Position of Women, p. 51).  If one of these conditions was not
cited, *Gragas* states that "no divorce shall exist" (Jochens, Icelandic
Heroine, p. 44).  This may be due to the fact that the redaction sof
*Gragas* which we possess today have been influenced to some degree by canon
law, for the sagas list a whole variety of grounds for divorce which are not
mentioned in the law code.

        The reasons given in the sagas for divorce would be familiar to any
twentieth-century divorce court.  First were problems with relatives, such
as a family feud (Frank, p. 478), or one spouse failing to treat the family
of the other "with due consideration" (Williams, p. 107).  Family violence
was also a reason for divorce, especially in those parts of Scandinavia
heavily influenced by Christianity where divorce was harder to obtain.
Aside from the "large wounds" cited in *Gragas*, a spouse might seek a
divorce because the other partner made mocking verses about him or her
(Frank, p. 478), excessive anger or jealousy displayed by one spouse
(Jochens, Icelandic Heroine, p. 39), or if one partner slapped the other.
Slapping a spouse, especially in front of witnesses, was considered
extremely humiliating (Williams, p. 106).  The Gulathing Law of Norway made
special provisions against a husband slapping his wife:  if a man struck his
wife in front of witnesses, she could not only claim monetary compensation
for the blows equal to what he would have received had another man struck
him, the wife had the right to divorce the husband on top of the fine after
the third slap (Jacobsen, Position of Women, p. 116).  Slapping a wife is
the most common reason given for a divorce in the sagas (Jochens, Icelandic
Heroine, p. 39).  Occasionally a woman did not feel that divorce was
sufficient retaliation for the insult of a slap:  Hallgerd in *Njals saga*
was involved in the deaths of two husbands who made the fatal mistake of
slapping her (Magnusson and Palsspn.  Njal's Saga.  pp. 59 and 123).  

        A couple might also divorce for what modern courts would class as
sexual reasons.  If a woman committed adultery, divorce was the least of the
penalties she might have to face, being also at risk for punishments ranging
from fines to being slain if caught in the act by her husband in some parts
of Scandinavia.  On the other hand, a man committed adultery only if he
slept with another man's wife, and his extramarital activities were never
grounds for his own wife to divorce him (Frank, p. 479).  A divorce might be
granted for what has been called "an icelandic variety of nonconsummation"
(Ibid., p. 478; Magnusson and Palsson. Njal's Saga, p. 52) as described in
*Njal's saga*, or if a man failed to sleep with his wife for three years in
a row.  Another reason found for divorce in the sagas was what we might term
"cross-dressing."  If a husband wore effeminate clothing, especially
low-necked shirts exposing his chest, his wifge could then divorce him
(Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson, trans.  Laxdaela Saga.  NY: Penguin.
1969. p. 125), and if a woman appeared dressed in men's trousers, her
husband could then divorce her (Ibid.;  also Williams, p. 114).  Even if a
couple did not have one of the reasons listed above, they might still
dissolve their marriage citing incompatibility, general dislike, or
unhappiness in the marriage (Jochens, Icelandic Heroine, p. 39).

        The basic procedure for obtaining a divorce was for the couple to
declare their intention before witnesses (Christine Fell.  "Viking Women in
Britain," in Women in Anglo-Saxon England (Bloomington: Indiana U.P. 1984.
p. 140).  If only one of the two spouses wanted the divorce, "witnesses were
called in, the dissatisfied party declared him- or herself divorced and
forced the other person to leave" (Jochens, Church and Sexuality, p. 379).
The declaration had to list the reasons for the divorce, and has to be
repeated before witnesses in the couple's bedroom, in front of the main
entrance to the house, and before a public assembly (Williams, p. 108)

        After declaring a divorce, the couple had to agree on a settlement
dividing their property.  As soon as the divorce proceedings were underway,
the woman could take possession of all her property, no matter what the
eventual outcome of the settlement (Jacobsen, Position of Women, p. 53).
The division of property was arranged in such a way so as to penalize the
partner demanding the divorce.  If the divorce were due to equal poverty of
the spouses, or because of mutual unhappiness with the union, then neither
was penalized:  the wife recieved her dowry and morning-gift, the husband
took back the bride-price, and if they had commonality of property, the
woman received one-third of their common possessions (Ibid., pp. 54-55).  If
the husband were the one who demanded the divorce, his wife received the
bride-price, dowry, morning-gift, and one-third of any common property.  If
the wife had instigated the separation, she received only her dowry and the
morning-gift.  If any property dispositions had been included in the
marriage agreement, these were followed in the same manner that pre-nuptial
agreements are used today.  By financially penalizing the partner who wanted
the divorce, property division customs served to keep married couples
together except in the most serious cases.  

        After the divorce, child support was contributed by each parent
according to his or her ability to work, and this was further supplemented
by the families on either side.  There were no firm rules for determining
custody, although the mother always kept a nursing baby for its first year,
and had custody of all her children if her husband later died. (Ibid.).

        Divorce, made freely available, served the Vikings as an
indispensable social custom that complemented their marriage laws and
practices.  Scandinavians in the Viking Age could and did wed for love and
not for familial advantage, but these unions were often made by men and
women who already had had the experience of marriage, and sought to make
their succeeding unions better ones.

=====================================================
This is the final installment of a seven-part article.  If you have any
questions, comments, or corrections, please feel free to contact me at:

gunnora at bga.com

If you wish to print any or all of this paper in a newsletter for the S.C.A.
or Asatru, please contact me for permission first.  In general, I will grant
permission so long as a copy of the publication that my work appears in is
mailed to me for my files. 

::GUNNORA::


Gunnora Hallakarva
Herskerinde
===========================================
Ek eigi visa (th)ik hversu o(dh)lask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna
heldr hversu na Hersis-A(dh)al





More information about the Ansteorra mailing list