Gripla - 01.01.1975, Page 121

ANTIPAGAN SENTIMENT IN THE SAGAS
117
The irony in this bit of skulduggery, it seems to me, is no less sophis-
ticated than that which informs Hreiðars þáttr or the Björn-Kári
episode in Njála.
One of the pagan practices frowned upon by saga writers is that of
the exposure of unwanted infants. Ari tells us that when Christianity
was adopted by the Alþingi as the law of the land, three concessions
were made to the pagans: they were to be permitted to continue the
practice of the exposure of children at birth, the eating of horse flesh,
and private pagan sacrifice. Kristni saga (ch. 11) repeats the passage
from íslendingabók almost verbatim, including the statement that this
paganism was abandoned several years later. The author of Njála,
however, ‘corrected’ his historical sources (as he occasionally did for
artistic and/or tendentious reasons) by declaring that the worship of
false idols (skurðgoðavilla), the eating of horseflesh, and the exposure
of infants were abolished from the very beginning. To emphasize his
abhorrence of these pagan practices, he adds in modified form Ari’s
statement that they were completely abandoned within a few years.
Probably the best known instance of infant exposure in saga litera-
ture is found in Gunnlaugs saga. Disturbed by an ominous dream,
Þorsteinn Egilsson instructs his wife Jófríðr, who is pregnant, to put
out their child to die in case it is a girl. The author interrupts the
conversation between husband and wife to inform us that ‘when the
country was completely pagan, it was the custom for men of small
means and many dependents to let their children die of exposure.
Even so, it was considered an evil thing to do.’ Following this com-
ment by the author, Jófríðr retorts that it is unseemly for her husband
to demand such a thing, especially in view of his great wealth. The
episode, to which there are many parallels in ancient and medieval
literature, is too well known to need detailed repetition here. Of prim-
ary importance for our present purpose is the author’s apparent am-
bivalence. (I say ‘apparent’ because the entire episode is replete with
irony.) He doubly underscored Þorstein’s culpability by stressing his
wealth and by asserting that child exposure was regarded as evil even
when practiced by the indigent. On the other hand, Þorstein’s decision
clearly resulted from his conviction that, if permitted to live, his
daughter would be the cause of great misfortune including the death
of two suitors.