The Implications of Divorce in late 19Th- and early 20Th-Century Iceland

Abstract

This study looks at the socio-economic status of divorced men and women in two Icelandic censuses: the censuses of 1880 and 1920. In 1880, Iceland was an almost exclusively rural society, in which only a tiny fraction of the population lived in towns. In 1920, almost two-thirds of the population lived in towns. In line with other studies, it is shown that divorced persons were more likely to live in urban than rural settings. Contrary to most other studies, it is shown that, initially, the majority of divorced people belonged to the urban and rural poor. Less than half of all divorcees in 1880 headed a household and a notable proportion lived on poor relief. The changes in the societal structure caused improvements in the conditions of divorcees and, in 1920, the social status of divorcees was considerably higher than in 1880. It is shown that there were notable differences between divorced men and women. Divorced women were more likely to live in urban areas than men and the social status of divorced women was higher in urban than in rural areas. In the towns, women were able to lead an independent existence, in which they could earn their living by providing various types of services.

Keywords:

• Iceland
• divorce
• marriage law
• 19th century
• 20th century

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. See also Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek; Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model of Marriage’.

2. See, for example, Snævarr, Hjúskapar- og sambúðarréttur.

3. Björnsdóttir, Ég vil heldur skilja við þann sem ég elska heldur en að lifa í ósamlyndi alla ævi.

4. See Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek, 91−124.

5. Ólöf Garðarsdóttir is currently working on the coding and harmonization of Icelandic 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century censuses in collaboration with the Minnesota Population Center and the National Archives of Iceland. On the coding schemes and methodology, see: https://www.nappdata.org/napp/. See also NAI (National Archives of Iceland), Census database: http://manntal.is/.

6. On the mass emigration from Iceland, see, for example, Kjartansson, ‘Icelandic Emigration’.

7. See, for exampl,: Gunnalugsson and Guttormsson, Household Structure and Urbanization, 316.

8. Garðarsdóttir, Þáttur kvenna.

9. Kjartansson, Vöxtur og myndun þéttbýlis á Íslandi 1890–1915.

10. Gunnlaugsson and Garðarsdóttir, Transition into Widowhood.

11. Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek, 36−9.

12. Lovsamling for Island I, 113−24 (Ordinans, hvorledes udi Ægteskabssager paa Island dömmes skal); Tamm and Jørgensen, Dansk retshistorie i hovedpunkter fra Landskabslovene til Ørsted I, 86; Lög um stofnun og slit hjúskapar 39/1921.

13. Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek, 94−5; Johansen, Marriage Trouble; Andersen, Ægteskabsrett II. Ægteskabs retsvirkninger, 253; Taranger, Hvorledes skal kirken stille sig til vor moderne skilsmisseret?, 22−4.

14. Björnsdóttir, Íslenskar mæðgur skrifa danakonungi.

15. Björnsdóttir, Ég vil heldur skilja; Nelleman, Skilsmisse ved kongelig bevilling, 5, 44, 57, 60−7; Johansen, Marriage Trouble, 176, 181, 184; Andersen, Ægteskabsret, 180.

16. In the case of Finland, the stipulations on no-fault divorce in the law dating from 1929 were more restrictive than in the other countries (see Bergenheim‘s article and the Introduction in this volume).

17. Karlsdóttir, Norrænt lagasamstarf:þátttaka Íslands frá upphafi, 69−70.

18. See the discussion in the Introduction to this volume.

19. Philipps, Putting Asunder, 271−2, 376−7; Chester, Divorce in Europe, 311.

20. On the discussion of the development of divorce rates in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, see Le Bouteillec, Bersbo, and Festy, Freedom to Divorce or Protection of Marriage?

21. Our study is based on a database that includes both the 1880 and 1920 censuses. The censuses were retrieved from the National Archives of Iceland (NAI). On digitized Icelandic censuses, see: http://manntal.is/. Occupation of all individuals has been classified on the basis of HISCO and the houehold postion on the basis of a system developed at the Minnesota population center (IPUMS): https://www.nappdata.org/napp-action/variables/group. The 1880 and 1920 censuses will be available at the NAPP website in 2017.

22. Lovsamling for Island, X, 673, XIV, 410−11.

23. Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek.

24. Stjórnartíðindi 1893 C, 77−9.

25. See, for example, Gunnlaugsson and Garðarsdóttir, Transition into Widowhood.

26. Gunnlaugsson and Garðarsdóttir, Transition into Widowhood.

27. Only around 28% of Icelandic farmers were freeholders in 1901 (compared to 17% in 1842). The share of freeholds rose considerably during the early 20th century and had reached the level of 47% in 1922. See Hagskinna, Icelandic Historical Statistics, Table 4.5.

28. Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household in Iceland, 94–5.

29. Gunnlaugsson and Guttormsson, Transition into Old Age; Gunnlaugsson and Garðarsdóttir, Transition into Widowhood.

30. Johansen, Marriage Trouble, 184–5; Stjórnartíðindi A 1878 s., 32–48; Stjórnartíðindi A 1904 s., 34–8.

31. Björnsdóttir, Ég vil heldur skilja við þann sem ég elska en lifa í ósamlyndi alla ævi.

32. When looking at the age distribution of divorced people that did not head households, we see that people in their 20s and 30s as well as the elderly (60 years and older) were less likely to be in the position of head of household than those 40–59 years old.

33. The classification of occupations is chiefly based on the HISCO classification system. Some modifications have, however, been made within the framework of the NAPP project (North Atlantic Poplation Project). See https://www.nappdata.org/napp/.

34. Stjórnartíðindi 1884. C, Table B.

35. Ibid.

36. Phillips, Putting Asunder, 608−11; Goode, World Changes in Divorce Patterns, 25−30; Kalmijn Vanassche, and Matthijs, Divorce and Social Class; Matthijs, Baerts, and Van de Putte, Determinants of Divorce in Nineteenth-Century Flanders; Sandström, Socioeconomic Determinants of Divorce in Early Nineteenth Century Sweden; Van Poppel, Family Breakdown in Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. It is generally acknowledged that, prior to the divorce transition, there was a positive relationship between divorce rates and socio-economic status, i.e that the affluent part of the population was more likely to divorce. This pattern was reversed during the divorce transition, when economic and normative constraints to divorce diminished. See Goode, World Changes in Divorce Patterns, 25−30.

37. It is somewhat difficult to compare the official statistics between 1880 and 1920. In neither census are wives included in the category provider. On the other hand, domestic servants are treated differently in the two censuses. For the 1880 statistics, domestic servants are excluded from the category provider, but in the 1920 census, domestic servants above the age of 15 are treated as providers. For comparative purposes we have substracted servants aged 16–29 from our analysis in the 1920 census. For occupational structure in the two censues: 1880: Stjórnartíðindi fyrir Ísland árið 1884, C, Table C; 1920: Statistique de l‘Islande 46b, Tables XX and XXIII.

38. See also several publications by Rosenbeck and her Nordic colleagues on the issue: Melby et al., Inte ett ord om kärlek. Äktenskap och politik i Norden ca 1850-1930.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ólöf Garðarsdóttir

Ólöf Garðarsdóttir is Professor in social history at the University of Iceland. Her research interests include historical demography, family history, history of childhood and history of education. Address: University of Iceland, School of Education, Stakkahlíð, Reykjavík, Iceland.

Brynja Björnsdóttir

Brynja Björnsdóttir holds a MA in history from the University of Iceland. She is freelance historian in Reykjavík. Address: Álfaland 7, 108 Reykjavík, Iceland.