Norse Mythology & Life 3 Old Norse Mytholog
Part VI:Divorce in the Viking Period
Download 3.63 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Viking Social Classes
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, Sexual 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 redactions of 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 wife 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. Viking Social ClassesBy the Viking Answer Lady L  ike most medieval peoples, the Vikings had a rigidly stratified caste system. At the bottom of the social order existed those who were unfree: these were termed þræll or "thrall", which means literally, "an unfree servant." Slavery or ánauð is a term encountered occasionally, especially in reference to persons enslaved as a consequence of warfare or raids. Hereditary thralls were often known as fostre, or "fosterling," and probably had a more beneficent relationship with their owners. All thralls could be termed "bond-servants" (an anchronistic term when referring to the Viking Age, which arose from the much later custom of indentured service) due to the fact that it was possible for the thrall to purchase his/her freedom or redeem his bond by paying his owner his purchase price or current worth.
Download 3.63 Mb. Share with your friends:
|