HISTORICAL NOTES.[111]
The author has no intention of troubling his readers with the normal
“historical sketch,” which is usually an uninteresting
abridgment--“compendium, dispendium,”--handed down from traveller to
traveller. But it may be useful as well as interesting to dwell upon
both extremes of the island annals; upon the beginning which is a
disputed point, and upon the end which is still causing so much
movement.
The Landnámabók (i. 1) briefly relates how, “according to some, Naddodd
the Víking, in the days of Harold Fairfax, when sailing from Norway to
the Færoes, was driven westward, and came upon the eastern coast of the
island which he called Snæland;” how the Swede Garðar Svafarson, after
the earliest circumnavigation, named it Garðarshólm, and established
Húsavík; how Flóki Vilgerðarson, a mighty corsair (hèt Víkingr mikill)
found ice investing the northern coast (A.D. 868) and gave the island
its present grim and grisly title--“Greenland” being more kindly treated
for advertising purposes, “a good name would induce people to settle
there;” how Flóki’s companion Thórólf, describing it as a place where
butter dropped from every plant, the northern equivalent of “flowing
with milk and honey,” gained the nickname of Thórólfr Smjör (Butter
Thorolf); and finally, how Ingólfr, banished for murder, accompanied by
his foster-brother and friend, Leifr, or Hjör-leifr (Leif of the sword),
Hróðmarsson, settling in A.D. 870-874, the latter was murdered by his
Irish thralls--an agrarian outrage which has since happened to many a
landlord in the Emerald Isle. This official occupation of Ultima Thule
took place shortly after King Alfred had defeated the Danes (A.D. 871):
thus 1874 is the Millenary of Iceland colonisation, as 1872 was the
Jubilee of Harold Fairfax, and as 1876 will be the Centenary of Freedom
in the U.S.
But the Landnámabók proposes to itself a subject, the emigration of the
pagan Northmen, who _nim’d_ (Icel. “námu”) the island,[112] and a few
sentences, short and vague, are deemed sufficient for the older
occupants. Later Scandinavian authors generally have satisfied
themselves with repeating its statements, and have clung to a tradition
which evidently does not date from ancient times. The argument relied
upon by Arngrímr Jónsson has been often quoted; yet it appears far from
satisfactory. The author is well aware of the difficulties to be
encountered when supplementing the imperfect relation, and the “weight
of tradition and historical circumstances” which lies in the way; he can
hardly flatter himself with having succeeded, but he hopes that he has
shown a case worthy of being taken in hand by some scholar who has
leisure and inclination for the task.
The first modern writer who presumed to differ from the Landnámabók was,
it is believed, Pontanus the Dane (loc. cit., Amstelodami, A.D. 1631,
folio, p. 754). He gives the following extracts from the Bull of Pope
Gregory IV., which he dates from A.D. 835, or thirty-nine years before
the official date of discovery
“Ipsum filium nostrum, jam dictum Ansgarium et successores ejus
legatos in omnibus circumquaque gentibus Danorum, Sueonum,
Norvagorum, Farriæ, _Groenlandensium_, Helsingelandorum,
_Islandorum_, Scritifindorum, Slavorum; necnon omnium
Septentrionalium et orientalium nationum quocunque modo nominentur,
delegamus et posito capite et pectori, super corpus et confessionem
Sancti Petri Apostoli sibi suisque successoribus vicum nostram
perpetuo retinendam, publicamque evangelizandi tribuimus
auctoritatem,” etc., etc.
Presently Pontanus quotes the following words from the Præcept of King
Louis the Mild (regn. A.D. 814-840), son of Charlemagne, a document
bearing date the year before the papal Bull (_i.e._, A.D. 834):
“Idcirco Sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ filiis præsentibus scilicet et
futuris, certum esse volumus, qualiter divinâ ordinante gratiâ,
nostris in diebus, Aquilonalibus in partibus, scilicet, in gentibus
Danorum, Sueonum, Norvagorum, Farriæ, _Groenlandorum_,
Helsinglandorum, Scritofinnorum, et omnium Septentrionalium et
orientalium nationum magnum cælestis gratia predicationis sive
acquistionis pateficit ostium, ità ut multitudo hinc inde ad fidem
Christi conversa, mysteria cælestia ecclesiasticaque subsidia
desiderabiliter expetaret, unde Domino Deo nostro laudes immensas
persolventes extollimus, qui nostris temporibus et studiis Sanctam
Ecclesiam, sponsam videlicet suam, in locis ignotis sinit dilatari
ac patefieri,” etc.
Here it is possible that “Greenland,” being mentioned with the islands
and terra firma of Europe, may be the name of some district in the
Scandinavian peninsula, and it has been suggested that “Iceland” may
occur under similar conditions. In the Zeni Voyages, the Shetlands are
called Estlanda, Eslanda, and Islande. But while a southern Shetland
kept its place, the Shetlands were moved up to the north-east coast of
Iceland, like the Orkneys to the south-east. He, therefore, who
discovered the northern Shetlands, would also discover Iceland.
Evidently the first point is to consult an official copy of the
Gregorian Bull referred to by Pontanus. The Very Rev. Father
O’Callaghan, Principal of the English College, Rome, obliged the author
with the following full extract:
_From the First Volume of the_ BULLARIUM ROMANUM. _Printed at
Turin_, 1857.
Pages 279, 280.
“Confirmatio Sanctæ Sedis Hamburgensis in ultima Saxoniæ parti
trans Albiam; cui Ecclesiæ Anscharius præficitur Archiepiscopus,
datoque ei pallio, sibi subjectis gentibus apostolicæ sedis legatus
constituitur.[113]
SUMMARIUM.
“Carolus Magnus Saxones ad Christi fidem perduxit--Hamburgensem
sedem episcopalem constituit.--Anscharius[114] et successores
Hamburgenses archiepiscopi legati sedis apostolicæ apud Danos,
Sveones, Slavos, etc., delegantur.--Sedes Hamburg. vulgo d.
archiepiscopalis efficitur.--Jus eligendi archiepiscopos penes
Palatinos principes.--Anathema contra decreti hujus
temeratores.--Pallium Anschario et successoribus.--Ad eundem
Anscharium saluberrimæ adhortationes.
[Sidenote: Carolus Magnus Saxones ad Christi fidem perduxit;]
[Sidenote: Hamburgensem sedem episcopalem constituit.]
[Sidenote: Anscharius et successores Hamburgenses archiep. legati
Sedis Apostolicæ apud Danos, Sveones, Slavos, etc., delegantur.]
[Sidenote: Sedes Hamburg. vulgo d. archiepiscopalis efficitur.]
[Sidenote: Jus eligendi archiepiscopos penes Palatinos principes.]
[Sidenote: Anathema contra decreti huius temeratores.]
[Sidenote: Pallium Anschario et successoribus.]
“Gregorius episcopus servus servorum Dei Omnium fidelium
dinoscentiæ certum esse volumus, qualiter beatæ memoriæ
præcellentissimus rex Karolus, tempore prædecessorum nostrorum,
divino afflatus spiritu, gentem Saxonum sacro cultui subdidit,
iugumque Christi, quod suave, ac leve est, adusque terminos Danorum
sive Slavorum, corda ferocia perdomans docuit, ultimamque regni
ipsius partem trans Albiam inter mortifera Paganorum pericula
constitutam, videlicet ne ad ritum relaberetur Gentilium, vel etiam
quia lucrandis adhuc gentibus aptissima videbatur, proprio
episcopali vigore fundare decreverat. Sed quia mors effectum
prohibuerat, succedente ejus præcellentissimo filio Hludewico
imperatore Augusto, pium studium sacri genitoris sui efficaciter
implevit. Quæ ratio nobis per venerabiles Ratoldum, sive Bernoldum
episcopos, necnon et Geroldum comitem, vel missum venerabilem
relata est confirmanda. Nos igitur omnem ibi Deo dignam statutam
providentiam cognoscentes, instructi etiam præsentia fratris
filiique nostri Anscharii primi Hordalbingorum archiepiscopi, per
manus Drogonis Metensis episcopi consecrati, sanctum studium
magnorum imperatorum, tam præsenti auctoritate, quam etiam pallii
datione, more prædecessorum nostrorum roborare decrevimus; quatenus
tanta auctoritate fundatus prædictus filius noster, eiusque
successores lucrandis plebibus insistentes, adversus tentamenta
diaboli validiores existant,[115] _ipsumque filium nostrum iam
dictum Anscharium, et successores eius legatos in omnibus
circumquoque gentibus Danorum, Sveonum, Northweorum, Farriæ,
Gronlandan, Halsigolandan, Islandan, Scridevindum, Slavorum, nec
non omnium septentrionalium, et orientalium nationum quocumque modo
nominatarum delegamus, una cum Elbone Remensi archiepiscopo;
statuente, ante corpus et confessionem Sancti Petri, publicam
evangelizandi tribuimus auctoritatem_, ipsamque sedem
Nordalbingorum, Hammaburg dictam, in onore Salvatoris, sanctæque
eius, et intemeratæ genitricis semper virginis Mariæ consecratam,
archiepiscopalem deinceps esse decernimus. Consecrationem vero
succedentium sacerdotum, donec consecrantium numerus ex gentibus
augeatur, sacræ Palatinæ providentiæ interim committimus. Strenui
vero prædicatoris persona, tantoque officio apta in successione
semper eligatur: omnia vero a venerabili principe ad hoc Deo dignum
officium deputata, nostra etiam auctoritate pia eius vota firmamus:
omnemque resistentem, vel contradicentem atque piis nostris studiis
his quolibet modo insidiantem, anathematis mucrone percutimus,
atque perpetua ultione reum diabolica sorte damnamus, ut culmen
apostolicum more prædecessorum nostrorum, causamque Dei pio affectu
zelantes ab adversis hinc inde partibus tutius muniamur. Et quia
te, carissime fili Anschari, divina clementia nova in sede primum
disposuit esse archiepiscopum, nos quoque pallio tibi ad missarum
solemnia celebranda tribuimus, quod tibi in diebus tuis, uti et
Ecclesiæ tuæ perpetuo statu manentibus privilegiis uti largimur.
Idcirco huius indumenti honor morum a te vivacitate servandus est:
si ergo pastores ovium sole, geluque pro gregis sui custodia, neque
ex eis aut errando pereat, aut ferinis lanianda morsibus rapiatur,
oculis semper vigilantibus circumspectant, quanto sudore, quantaque
cura debeamus esse pervigiles, nos qui pastores animarum dicimur
attendamus. Et ne susceptum officium in terrenis negotiis
aliquatenus implicare debeas ammonemus. Vita itaque tua filiis tuis
sit via; in ipsa si qua fortitudo illis inest, dirigant, in ea quod
imitentur aspiciant; in ipsa se semper considerando proficiant, ut
tuum post Deum videatur esse bonum, quod vixerint. Cor ergo tuum
neque prospera, quæ temporaliter blandiuntur, extollant, neque
adversa deiiciant; districtum mali cognoscent, pium benevoli
sentiant. Insontem apud te culpabilem malitia aliena non faciat,
reum gratia excuset; viduis, ac pupillis iniuste oppressis defensio
tua subveniat. Ecce, frater carissime, inter multa alia ista non
sacerdotii, ista sunt pallii, quæ si studiose servaveris, quod
foris accepisse ostenderis, intus habebis. Sancta Trinitas
fraternitatem tuam diu conservare dignetur incolumem, atque post
huius sæculi amaritudinem ad perpetuam perducat beatitudinem.
Amen.”[116]
Father O’Callaghan adds:
“I have carefully examined the fourth volume of the Bullandists,
and find that they agree with Mabillon in omitting mention of
Iceland and Greenland in their version of the Bull.[117] The
introductory commentary to the Life of St Anscharius (§ xii.),
there given under the date of February 3, will suggest an
explanation of the way in which the interpolation seems to have
occurred.”
The quotation of Mabillon (Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, Sæculi
Quarti, Pars Prima, 123, 124, fol., Venetiis, 1738) is as follows:
BULLA GREGORII.
“Ipsumque filium nostrum, jam dictum Ansgarium Legatum in omnibus
circumquaque gentibus Sueonum sive Danorum [_omitting the
‘Norvagorum, Farriæ, Groenlandensium, Helsingelandorum, Islandorum,
Scritifindorum,’ of Pontanus_] nec non etiam Slavorum [_omitting
‘nec non omnium Septentrionalium et orientalium nationum, quocunque
modo nominentur, delegamus et posito capite et pectori,’ of
Pontanus_], vel in cæteris ubicunque illis partibus constitutis
divina pietas ostium aperuerit, una cum Eboni Rhemensi
archiepiscopo, statuentes ante corpus et confessionem Sancti Petri
publicam evangelizandi tribuimus auctoritatem.”
Furthermore, the Acta Sanctorum thus shortens the “Præceptum Ludovici
Imperatoris”:
“Idcirco Sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ filiis, presentibus scilicet et
futuris, certum esse volumus, qualiter divina ordinante gratia
nostris in diebus, Aquilonalibus in partibus, in gente videlicet
Danorum sive Sueonum [_omitting the ‘Norvagorum, Farriæ,
Groenlandorum, Helsinglandorum, Scritofinnorum, et omnium
Septentrionalium et orientalium nationum,’ of Pontanus_] magnum
cælestis gratia prædicationis sive acquisitionis patefecit ostium.”
It is curious to remark that the same tampering has been attributed to
the Præcept as to the Bull, and it is not easy to divine the mode in
which the double fraud was so successfully effected.
Mr Jón A. Hjaltalín, who owns to “grave doubts about the historical
value of Danish chronicles recording dates of this period,” supplies the
following excerpts from the “Vita Sancti Anskarii, a Rimberto”
(Archbishop of Hamburg) “et alio discipulo Anskarii conscripta” (before
A.D. 876), “edidit C. F. Dahlmann, Prof. Göttingen.” The editor’s
preface contains these words of
INTRODUCTION.
“In edenda Anscharii vita hi codices et editiones subsidio fuerunt.
“(1.) ...
“(2.) Codex Vicilini ... textum exhibet ex eodem limpido quidem
fonte manantem, sed consulta opera ita mutilatum et interdum
interpolatum, ut facile suspiceris, ambitionem insatiabilem
Adalberti archiepiscopi Bremensis, qui sub Henrico IV. imperatore
patriarchatum septentrionis machinabatur, in hac fraude versatam.
Recisa enim sunt, et ita quidem recisa, ut plane nihil deesse
videatur, omnia, quæ de Ebonis, archiepiscopi Remensis, meritiis et
legationis ejus in septentrionem susceptæ privilegiis verissime
Rimbertus ex ore Anscharii excerpta scripsit, deest amissa cella
Turholt, disceptatio interdioceses Bremensem et Verdensem unacum
levamento damni quod Verdensis accepit, verbo omnia, quæ fideliter
narrata ecclesiæ Bremensi detrimentum facere possent; contra addita
dominatui Bremensi Islandia, quam Hibernicis quidem Anscharii ætate
jam innotuisse nuper didicimus e Dicuilo, at plane tunc ignota
Scandinavis et Germanis, æque ac Groenlandia, Færoeæ insulæ,
reliquæque fraudulenter inculcatæ remotissimæ regiones.”
TEXT.
“Cap. 13. Et ut hæc omnia perpetuum suæ stabilitatis retinerent
vigorem, eum honorabiliter ad sedem direxit apostolicam, et per
missos suos venerabiles Bernoldum et Ratoldum episcopos ac Geroldum
illustrissimum comitem omnem hanc rationem sanctissimo papæ
Gregorio intimari fecit confirmandam. Quod etiam ipse tam decreti
sui auctoritate, quam etiam pallii donatione, more prædecessorum
suorum roboravit, atque ipsum in præsentia constitutum legatum in
omnibus circumquaque gentibus Sueonum sive Danorum, nex non etiam
Slavorum, aliarumque in aquilonis partibus gentium constitutarunt,
unacum Ebone Remensi archiepiscopo, qui ipsam legationem ante
susceperat, delegavit: et ante corpus et confessionem Sancti Petri
apostoli publicam evangelizandi tribuit auctoritatem.”
EDITOR’S NOTE.
“Codex Vicilini hunc ita interpolatum exhibet locum, ut sublata
plane Ebonis mentione, in majorem ecelesiæ Hammaburgensis gloriam
nomina septentrionalium tunc inaudita adsuant, quæ fraus etiam
latius serpsit interpolationibus ipsius bullæ papæ Gregorii:
‘Gentibus Sueonum, Danorum, Farriæ, Gronlondon, Islondon,
Scrideuindun, Slauorum, nec non omnium septentrionalium et
orientalium nationum quocunque modo nominatarum delegauit. Et
posito capite et pectore super corpus et confessionem Sancti Petri
apostoli, sibi suisque successoribus vicem suam perpetuo retinendam
publicamque evangelizandi tribuit auctoritatem’ (Cod. Vicilinus).
Manifesta utique interpolationum hujus loci et bullæ papalis fraus,
quam ab Adalberto archiepiscopo, Adami Bremensi æquali, ad quem
extremi venerunt Islandi, etc., profectam, cum Langebekio
suspicamur” (G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, tom. ii.,
p. 699).
VITA S. RIMBERTI (Ex Codice Vicilino).
Edidit G. H. PERTZ.
“Imperator Hludowicus ... extremam plagam aquilonarem ejusdem
provinciæ ad hoc reservaverit, ut ibidem archiepiscopalis
construeretur sedes, unde prædicatio verbi Dei finitimis fieret
populis, Suenonum, Danorum, Norweorum, Farriæ, Gronlandan,
Islandan, Scridivindan, Slavorum, nec non omnium septentrionalium,”
etc.
EDITOR’S NOTE.
“‘Norweorum--Scridivindan,’ hæc pro supposititiis habet
Henschenius. Sed obstant diplomata ab imperatoribus summisque
pontificibus ecclesiæ Hamburgensi concessa. 1. Hludowicus I. post
Danos et Sueones etiam ‘gentes Norweorum, Farriæ, Gronlandon,
Halsingalandon, Islandon, Scridevindan, Slavorum et omnium
septentrionalium et orientalium nationum’ addit. 2. Gregorii IV.
diploma eadem adjicit. 3. Charta Johannis X. pro Unni archiepiscopo
a. 915 Norweos, Islandon, Scridevindon, Gronlandon. 4. Benedictus
IX. in charta Adalberto archiepiscopo a. 1042 aut 1043 concessa
‘Hislandicorum et omnium insularum his regnis adjacentium.’ 5.
Victor II. in diplomate a. 1055, Oct. 29, Islandon, Scridivindan,
Gronlandon; et 6. Innocentius II., a. 1133, d. Maii 27, Farria,
Gronlandon, Halsingaldia, Island, Scridivindan et Slavorem
mentionem injecerunt. Hæc aliaque ejus ecclesiæ diplomata in
codicibus diversis, uno, quem ante oculos habeo, Sæculi XIII....
altero Philippi Cæsaris quem codici Vicelini valde similem fuisse
constat, occurrunt; quorum de fide eo saltem non dubitare possumus,
quod alia diplomata quæ hodie supersunt eorum exemplis hic
adservatis congruunt. Igitur aut non unum sed quinque studio
Adalberti archiepiscopi falsata credas, et tunc haud
intelligeretur, cur Adalbertus multo majorem numerum reliquorum
ecclesiæ suæ privilegiorum, ubi tantum de Danis, Sueonibus et
Norweis aliisque septentrionalibus et occidentalibus barbaris
nationibus sermo est, intactum reliquerit;--aut omnia sana, et
locum hunc ex charta Hludowici I. sincera in posteras omnes
emanasse statuendum est....” (G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ
Historica, tom. ii., p. 765).
Mr Jón A. Hjaltalín, who “admits that the subject is not fully cleared
up,” adds:
“We have only to do with the three documents first mentioned. (_See
note_ 1, p. 86.) Unless a copy of the letter of Ludvig and the Bull
of Gregory, of a date anterior to the times of Adalbert, can be
produced, I do not see any impossibility in all the copies
mentioned, the earliest of which dates from the thirteenth century,
being derived from a copy falsified by Bishop Adalbert; at any
rate, if all the copies can be derived from a true one, as Dr Pertz
seems to think, they can as well be derived from a false one. The
Bullarium does not help us (we have only the older ones, not that
of 834), as it does not state from what MS. the Bull is printed.
But even if the Bull is proved true, which only can be done by
producing the original, or at least a copy anterior to Bishop
Adalbert, it would hardly establish the fact that Iceland was known
by that name prior to its Norwegian discovery; for many of the
names mentioned in these documents, such as Gronlondon,
Scridevindon, and Halsingaldia, are perverted Norwegian districts,
and I should be inclined to look upon Islandon in the same way.
But, in my own mind, I am perfectly satisfied that Professor
Dahlmann is right in pronouncing the interpolated passages as
forgeries. In this case I prefer his judgment to that of Dr Pertz,
as he has proved his intimate acquaintance with the subject in his
eminently critical ‘History of Denmark.’”
The following quotation from La Peyrère’s “Account of Iceland.” dated
Copenhagen, December 18, 1644, and addressed to M. de la Mothe de Vayer
(Churchill’s Coll., vol. ii.), is quoted because it well expresses the
opinion adverse to that generally received. Mr Jón A. Hjaltalín remarks
of this amusing French traveller:
“Peyrère is no authority, either in this or in other statements. He
wrote what he had been able hurriedly to gather together from
Arngrímr Jónsson and Blefkenius, aided by conversation with sundry
learned men in Copenhagen, and he confesses that he had scarcely
time to peruse the writings of ‘Angrim Jonas.’ Consequently his
account abounds in inaccuracies and blunders. It is evident that he
had never heard of the Landnámabók, as he complains of Arngrím’s
not stating when Kalman and other Irish settlers came to Iceland. I
have also grave doubts about his Danish chronicles. Arngrímr
refutes Pontanus in his ‘Specimen Islandiæ Historicum;’ and
Pontanus should have mentioned where he found his quotation,
especially as it militates against everything that is known in the
matter.”
We may, however, be certain that in the following extract La Peyrère
expresses the opinions popular at Copenhagen in the seventeenth century:
“_Angrim Jonas_,[118] as it seems, would not be so averse, to allow
that _Iseland_ is the same with the Ancient _Thule_, provided he
could be convinced, that that Isle was inhabited before the time
of _Ingulph_; wherefore, tho’ I have said enough upon this Head for
the Satisfaction of unbyass’d Persons; yet will I not think it
beyond the purpose, to alledge some undeniable Reasons for the
Proof thereof, _viz._, That _Iseland_ was Inhabited before that
time. I have by me two Chronicles of _Greenland_ written in
_Danish_, one in Verse, the other in Prose. That written in Verse,
begins with the year 770, when it says _Greenland_ was first
discovered. The other assures us, That the Person, that went first
from _Norway_ into _Greenland_ pass’d through _Iseland_, and tells
us, expressly, That _Iseland_ was Inhabited at that time; whence it
is evident, that _Iseland_ was not first of all Inhabited in the
year 874.”
“_Angrim Jonas_ will perhaps object, That my _Danish_ Chronicles
don’t agree with that of _Iseland_, which says, That _Greenland_
was not discovered till the year 982; nor inhabited till 986. But I
must tell him, That my _Danish_ Chronicles are founded upon the
Authority of _Ansgarius_, a great Prelate, a Native of _France_,
who has been acknowledged the first Apostle of the Northern World.
He was made Archbishop of _Hamborough_, by _Lewis the Mild_, his
Jurisdiction extended from the River _Elbe_, all over the Frozen
Sea; the Emperor’s Patent, constituting the said _Ansgarius_ the
first Archbishop of _Hamborough_, are dated in the year 834, and
were confirmed by Pope _Gregory_ IV.’s Bull in 835. The true Copy,
both of the Patent and of the Bull, are to be seen in the 4th Book
of _Pontanus_ his _Danish_ History of the year 834, where it is
expressly said in the Patent, That _the Gates of the Gospel are set
open, and that Jesus Christ had been revealed both in_ Iceland
_and_ Greenland; for which the Emperor gives his most humble Thanks
to God.”
“Two Inferences are to be made from thence: First, That _Iseland_
was inhabited by Christians in the year 834, and consequently 40
years before the arrival of _Ingulph_ there: Secondly, That
_Greenland_ was inhabited by Christians in the same year, 834.
Which agrees with my _Danish_ Chronicle, where the first discovery
of _Greenland_ is fix’d to the year 770.[119] _Angrim Jonas_ being
put to a _nonplus_, tells us, That he questions the authority of
the Bull of Gregory IV. alledged by _Pontanus_, which he would fain
make us believe, is supposititious; but to be plain with him, I
think he has taken a Notion of maintaining the Credit of his Native
Country, by adhering too strictly to the Authority of its
Chronicles; whereas it would have been more for his Reputation, not
to have insisted so much upon that Authority, than to rob this Isle
of the glory of its Antiquity; who is so ignorant, as not to know,
that the Age wherein _Ingulph_ lived, was not very barbarous? The
_Goths_ having carried the same together with their Arms throughout
all _Europe_; whoever should go about to persuade me, into a Belief
of all what is inserted in the Ancient Chronicles of these
barbarous Ages, might as soon make me believe the Romances of
_Oger the Dane_, or the Four Sons of _Aymon_, of the Archbishop of
_Turpin_, and other such like nonsensical Stories relating to the
same time.”
A fair collateral testimony is given by that conscientious writer, Uno
Von Troil (p. 224):
“Thus I go further back with regard to the eruptions of fire in
Iceland than the common tradition among the vulgar people there,
who believe that the first inhabitants of the country, whom they
suppose to have been Christians and Irishmen, were so much
oppressed by the Norwegian colonists, that they were forced to
leave the country, to which they first set fire to revenge
themselves.”
And Iceland still contains many traces of its old colonists--Welsh,
Hebridian, and Irish. The places occupied by the former are known by the
general term Kumbravágr. Arngrím Jónsson mentions one Kalman from the
Hebrides (Land. II. i. 51), who first settled in Kalmanstunga or “Doab”
of Kalman, the western part of Iceland; and Patrick (Patrekr Biskup,
Land. I. xii. 23), a Hebridian bishop, is known to history as having
sent the materials of a chapel, which was afterwards built at the base
of the Esja mountain; hence Patreksfjörð in the north-west. The signs of
the Irish are most numerous,[120] and possibly they supplied “Raven
Floki” with food during the two years which he passed in the far north.
Such are Briánn or Bran, Melkorka, Nial or Njáll, Konall (Connell),
Kormak and Kjartan, Íraá (Irish River); the Írafell, or Irish fell, in
the Kjósar Sýsla; and the Írarbuðr, or Irish booths, in the Hvammsfjörð.
Hence we can explain the fables of history which have been regarded as
simple fabrications. Geoffrey of Monmouth makes Prince Arthur, in A.D.
517, subdue Iceland with an army of 60,000 men. Hence, too, another
writer attributes its recovery to Malgo, king of Britain; whilst a third
alludes to the mixture of Finns and Scandinavians before the official
rediscovery of the island.[121]
Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen, the whole
was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64), “King Harold, who did
not contribute a little towards it by his tyrannical treatment of the
petty kings and lords in Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order,
that no one should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine
silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual emigrations, which
weakened his kingdom.” The stock phrase of the Landnámabók (ii. 12, 92)
is, “Fyrir ofríki Haralldar Konungs”--“For the overbearing of King
Harold.” But posterity has done justice to Pulchricomus, the Fair-haired
Jarl, who, following the example of Egbert, brought under a single
sceptre the quasi-independent reguli and heads of clans: the latter
remind us of nothing more than the thousand kinglets, each with a family
all kinglets, the ridiculous King Boys and King Pepples of Western
Africa.
Before the tenth century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians
had fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000 souls.
A census taken about A.D. 1100, numbered the franklins who had to pay
Thing-tax at 4500, without including cotters and proletarians. The
chiefs, who were also the priests, lived each upon his own “Landnám,” or
lot, which perhaps he had seized from another. Once more like little
kings, they intermarried; they left their possessions to their families;
they assigned lands to new comers; and they raised revenue from their
clients and freedmen, serfs and slaves. They brought with their language
and religion their customs and records; they claimed all the influence
which could be commanded by strength and valour, birth and wealth; and
they had no common bonds of union save race and religion. The three
castes were sharply distinguished, like the four of the Hindús. The
first was the Goði, priest and lord, including a rare Jarl, and Hersir
(baron). The two latter, descended from _Hersir_ and _Erna_, are
described like our “Barbarians,” as having fair hair, clear complexions,
and fine piercing eyes: their duties in life were riding, hunting, and
fighting. Secondly came the progeny of Afi and Amma; the Thanes, Churls,
Karls, or free peasants: their florid, red-haired sons were Stiffbeard,
Landholder, Husbandman, and Smith; and their daughters, Prettyface,
Swanlike, Blithespeech, and Chatterbox. Last in the list were the
Thralls, begotten by Thræl, son of Ái and Edda, upon Thý: for offspring
they had Plumpy, Stumpy, Frousy, Homespun, Sootyface, and Slowpace, the
latter a very fruitful parent; and their daughters were Busybody,
Cranefoot, Smokeynose, and Tearclout.
But Iceland was already too populous for this “leonine” state of
society. In the brave old days when ancient mariners were ancient
thieves, the roving islandry throve by piracy and discovery; but the
settled Udallers (Óðalsmenn) must have felt that some tie was necessary
for the body politic. The Höfðingja-stjórn, or aristocratic republic,
was initiated by the establishment of the Althing,[122] and by the
adoption of Úlfljót’s oral law in A.D. 929-930. This annual assembly, at
once legislative and judicial, was supreme over the local “Things,”[123]
comitia or meetings which, independent of one another, and unchecked by
a supreme court, could not do justice between rival nobles and
franklins. With the Althing was introduced a kind of President, under
whom the Icelandic commonwealth at once assumed shape and form. His
title was Lögsögumaðr, or Sayer of the Law, and his functions resembled
in important points the commoner, who began in A.D. 1377, to speak to
(and not for) our Lower House.[124]
Still Justice walked _pede claudo_. All suits were to be pled in the
Thing nearest the spot where the cause of action arose, and plaintiffs
perforce sought redress in the enemy’s country, where violence was ready
to hand. Thord Gellir, about a generation afterwards, caused the island
to be divided into Quadrants, or Tetrads (Fjórðungr), and each of these
to be subdivided into Thriðjungr (“ridings”), three judicial circles
(Thing-sóknir), whose inhabitants were bound to appear at a common
meeting. Causes were set on foot at the Spring-Thing (Vár-Thing), thence
they were carried in appeal to the Quadrant-Thing (Fjórðunga-Thing),
which must not be confounded with the Quadrant courts (Fjórðungsdómar)
at the Althing; and, finally, if judged fit, to the Diet. Moreover, in
each subdivision were established three chief temples (Höfuðhof),
corresponding with our mother or parish churches, to which the most
powerful Udallers holding priesthoods (Goðorð) were appointed. We shall
presently find traces of this politico-religious supremacy of the
pontiff in the parson of the nineteenth century.
Thus three priesthoods made one local Thing, three local Things one
Quadrant-Thing, and four Quadrant-Things one Althing,--a grand total of
thirty-six tribunals recognised by the Respublica. Every franklin was
obliged to declare his allegiance to one of the priests, and to
determine the community of which he was a member.
The next step was to separate the judicial from the legislative and
executive attributes of the Diet. Hitherto there had been but one body
at the Althing, the Lög-rétta,[125] combining the three functions. It
now became exclusively legislative, the supreme power in the land,
presided over by the Speaker, and consisting of forty-eight Goðar, who
controlled all laws and licences. The judicial functions were
distributed amongst the four Fjorðungsdómar or Quadrant-courts of the
chief assembly. Each of these took charge of the suits which, belonging
to its division, were carried before the Althing.
Presently the State became master of the Church. The priesthoods being
limited to thirty-six, and new temples not being recognised by, nor
represented in, the assembly, the old institutions would look rather to
the central power than to their subjects. The Thingmen of the three
established priesthoods, by the orders of the Diet, were gradually made
to form one Vernal-court (Vár-Thing), and the Quadrant-Things became
obsolete. Thus there was more of justice for suitors than when they were
compelled to appear before a single priest and his dependants or
parishioners.
The Vernal Thing, though only a tribunal of first instance from which an
appeal lay, became an Althing on a small scale. Each had its
Thingbrekka, or Hill of Laws, whence notices were given; its
Lögmaðr,[126] lagman, or lawman, who “said” the law from memory, and its
general assemblies. Each also of the three priests, who presided in
turn, named three judges, after the recognised principle, “three twelves
must judge all suits;” and the three arbiters were bound to be
unanimous. In addition to these courts were the tribunals called Autumn
Leets (Leið),[127] held a fortnight after the dissolution of the Diet;
here the calendar of the current year, and the new laws and licences of
the past Althing, were published.
Under the new system the Court of Laws contained 39 priests (3 × 12, + 3
for the Northlanders’ Quadrant[128]); and, to counter-balance the three
clerical extras, three laymen were chosen from each of the other Tetrads
by the priests who represented it. Thus the whole number on the bench
was 48 (39 + 9), and each of the 48 had two assessors. The Law Court,
therefore, contained 144 (48 × 3) equal votes, and, including the
Speaker, 145 voices. In later times the two bishops were added.
The four Quadrant Courts of the Althing (Fjórðungsdómar) each numbered
thirty-six judges, named as usual by the priest out of the frequenters
of his Thing: thus we find again the law of three twelves, and the total
of 144. Finally, in A.D. 1004, about forty years after the institution
of the four, was added the Fimtar-dómr, or Fifth (High) Court of Appeal
or Cassation, suggested by Njáll Thorgeirsson, the hero of the
“Nials-burning.”[129]
Such was the artificial and complicated system which sprung from the
litigious nature of the Northern man. It was a ponderous machine for the
wants of some 50,000 souls, and its civilised organisation contrasts
strongly with the rude appliances by which it was carried out, the
barren wart and the rough circle of “standing stones” on the hill-top
where the sessions took place.
A mighty change came over the island mind when Ólafr Tryggvason (Olaf
I., Trusty-son, killed during the same year at the battle of Svoldur)
induced, in A.D. 1000, the Althing to accept Christianity as the
national religion.[130] The old pagan creed had become age-decrepit.
After producing the Völuspá, a poem, grand, noble, and ennobling in
general conception, as it is beautiful and perfect in all its parts, it
engendered such monstrous growths as the Fjöllvinnsmál (Fiolvith’s Lay),
a mythological pasquinade abounding in _bizarreries_, and the Lokasenna
(Loki’s Altercation), all scoffs and sneers, an _epigramme moqueuse et
grossière_, a kind of hyperborean _Guerre des Dieux_. The “great Sire of
gods and men”[131] was dying or dead, a gloomy fate which equally awaits
superhuman and human nature. The decline and fall of Odinism only
repeated the religious histories of Palestine, Egypt, and India; of
Greece and of Rome, whose maximum of effeteness has ever been at the
period of the Christian invasion.
The faith of the Hindús, a modern people amongst whom we can best study
the tenets and practices of the ancients called “classics,” distinctly
recognises Pantheus, the All-God.[132] The worshipper of Bramhá, Vishnu,
and Shiva, still refers in familiar discourse to something above his
triad of world-rulers; to a Paraméshwar (Chief Eshwara or Demiourgos),
and to a Bhagwán or Giver of good, as if he were a Jew, a Christian, or
a Moslem. Even the barbarous tribes of Africa are not without the
conviction, as we see in the Nyonmo of the Gold Coast, and in the Nzambi
Mupunga (Great Lord) of the Congo. But the God of ancient as of modern
paganism was and is an unknown God--in fact, the UNKNOWABLE recognised
by our contemporary philosophy, which seems to be returning to the
natural instincts of its childhood. Moreover, in old Scandinavia the
several forms or eidola of the Deity, such as Oðin and Thor, Freyr and
Njördr, were confused as the systems of African Fetichism--a confusion
indeed by no means wanting in the civilised idolatries of Assyria, of
Egypt and India, of Greece and Rome, and of Mexico and Peru, the New
World representatives of our “classical regions.”
Curious to observe, however, the pagans had, like the modern Gaboons, a
form of baptism, water being probably the symbol of the Urðar-brunnr
(Weird or Fate-fount), and a regular system of national expiation
(Sónar-blót), annually performed by prince-pontiff and lieges.
Presently Christianity came with its offer of a personal God, an
anthropomorphous Creator who, having made the creature after His own
image, was refashioned by the creature; and the change from vagueness to
distinctness perfectly suited the spirit of the age. Yet, in Iceland,
Thor[133] died hard because he was essentially an Icelander; blunt,
hot-headed, of few words and of many blows. The red-bearded one was not
to be abolished at once; “they called Paul Odin, but Barnabas they
called Thor:” the latter was long invoked by the traveller and the
soldier before deeds of “derring do;” whilst Jesus was prayed to in
matters of charity and beneficence. “Hast thou heard,” said the mother
of Ref the Skáld, “how Thor challenged Christ to single combat, and how
He did not dare to fight Thor?” We find the same phenomenon in the
modern faith of the Persian, who adores Allah, and who reveres Mohammed
and Ali, whilst he looks back with regret upon the goodly days when his
Persian deities, the gods and demi-gods of Guebrism, gloriously ruled
the land of Iran.
The transition from the turbulent and sanguinary Odinic system, with its
Paradise of war and wassail, to a religion based upon mildness and
mercy could not fail to bear notable fruit. The blithe gods who built
Miðgarð vanished in the glooms of the sad “School of Galilee.” Of the
extreme craft and cruelty, the racial characteristics of the old
Scandinavian, only the craft remained. A nation of human sacrificers now
cannot bear to see a criminal hanged--he must be sent for execution to
Copenhagen. The new faith, also, was adverse to the spirit of a free
people: it preached over-regard for human life, and it taught fighting
men _propter vitam vivendi perdere causas_. It weighed heavily upon the
“secret and profound spring of society,” as Ozanam describes the laws of
honour in man, “which is nothing but the independence and inviolability
of the human conscience, superior to all powers, all tyrannies, and all
external force.”[134] In fact, we may repeat in Iceland what
Montalembert (The Monks of the West, p. 252) said of the ex-mistress of
the world: “There is something more surprising and sadder still” (than
all its pagan cruelty and corruption) “in the Roman Empire after it
became Christian.”
The first school, founded about the middle of the eleventh century,
began to divert the national mind from arms and raids to art and
literature. The Eddas and Sagas were committed to writing; and the
Augustan age extended during the two following centuries, ending with
the fourteenth. The islanders gave their own names, many of them very
uncouth, to the festivals of the Church. Saints arose in the land. The
best known to local fame was Bishop Thorlák (Thorlacius) Thorhallsson,
who died in A.D. 1193. Though uncanonised, he was honoured by the
dedication of a church at Mikligarð (the Great Fence), or
Constantinople, for the use of the Waring[135] Janissaries. The _vigne
du Seigneur_ was split into two bishoprics, Skálholt (A.D. 1057), and
Hólar (A.D. 1107). Hospitals were endowed, and no less than nine
monasteries and nunneries were founded by the regular canons
(Augustines), and by their most estimable brethren the Benedictines,
whose annals command all our respect.[136]
The following is a list of the religious houses built in Iceland:
The foreign Bishop Rudolph (ob. 1052) established the first
monastery in Iceland in Bær, Borgarfjörð. It never had any abbot,
and soon disappeared.
Bishop Magnús Einarsson (ob. 1148) bought the greatest part of the
Vestmannaeyjar, and began to build a monastery there; after his
death the institution came to nothing.
A monastery was instituted in Hýtardalr (circa 1166), but was
dissolved before the year 1270. During its existence it had five
abbots.
Jón Loptsson, the grandson of Sæmundr Fróði, built a house and a
church at his estate Keldur (circa 1190), which he intended for a
monastery; but owing to some quarrels with the bishop of Skálholt,
it never was consecrated nor dedicated to its intended purpose.
Bishop Brandr of Hólar instituted a monastery in Saurbær in
Eyjafjörð (circa 1200). It had two abbots, but it is never
mentioned after the year 1212.
Of the monasteries permanently established, the earliest was
THINGEYRAKLAUSTR.
Shortly after the installation of Jón Ögmundsson (1106) as bishop
of Hólar, the season was so severe that no growth appeared when the
people were assembled at the spring meeting (Vár-Thing, about the
end of May) in Thingeyrar. The bishop made a vow to erect a
monastery at the place, for monks of the Order of St Benedict. Soon
after this there was a favourable change in the weather. It was
not, however, until 1133 that the Benedictine monks fixed their
abode there. The monks of Thingeyrar were celebrated for their
learning, and several illustrious names are to be found among its
abbots, _e.g._, Karl (ob. 1212), Oddr (ob. circa 1200), Gunnlaugr
(ob. 1218), and many others. The twenty-third and last of the
series died 1561.
MUNKATHVERÁRKLAUSTUR.
This monastery, famous for its old documents, was founded by Bishop
Björn Gilsson of Hólar in A.D. 1155. Its monks also were
Benedictines. The twenty-fifth of its abbots embraced Lutheranism
in A.D. 1551.
THYKKVABÆARKLAUSTUR.
This monastery is also called the monastery in Ver or Álftaver. It
was founded by one Thorkéll Geirason, by the authority of Bishop
Klœngur Thorsteinsson of Skálholt, in A.D. 1168. Its tenants were
under the rule of St Augustine. The nineteenth and last abbot of
this monastery went to Copenhagen in 1550, and was there converted
to the Lutheran persuasion. This house had a famous library.
FLATEYAR--HELGAFELLSKLAUSTUR.
Bishop Klœngur Thorsteinsson of Skálholt instituted a monastery in
the island Flatey, in Breiðifjörð, in 1172. His successor, St
Thorlákr, removed it to Helgafell, and dedicated it to St John.
Its tenants followed the rule of St Augustine. The twenty-fifth and
last abbot died shortly before 1550.
VIÐEYARKLAUSTUR.
Founded by Thorvaldr Gissurarson, the father of Earl Gissur, and
consecrated by his brother, Bishop Magnús of Skálholt, in the year
1226. Its tenants followed the rule of St Augustine. The eighteenth
and last abbot embraced Lutheranism, and died in A.D. 1568. Earl
Gissur here ended his days.
There were two priories in the island, viz.:
MÖÐRUVALLAKLAUSTR.
Instituted by Bishop Jörund of Hólar in A.D. 1296. Its monks were
Augustines. Seven of its priors are known, and the last died in
1546.
SKRIÐUKLAUSTR.
Instituted towards the end of the fifteenth century. It only had
four priors, who, it seems, followed the rule of St Augustine.
There were two nunneries:
KYRKJUBÆARKLAUSTR.
Founded by one Bjarnharðr, at the application of Bishop Klœngur of
Skálholt, and consecrated by him in A.D. 1186, on condition that
its occupants should be nuns following the rules of St Benedict.
The names of twelve of its abbesses are recorded.
REYNISTAÐARKLAUSTR.
Founded by Bishop Jörund of Hólar in 1296. The sisters followed the
rules of St Benedict. Ten of its abbesses are mentioned, and the
last died in 1562.
The Skálds, or bards, who probably long retained their old paganism in
new Christianity, distinguished themselves by word and deed in every
northern court of Europe, and wandered as far as the Mediterranean
shores. But the heart of the people was dying, and the national spirit
had fled, never more to be revived. In A.D. 1024, the Althing bravely
refused all connection with Norway. But, presently, the clergy,
spiritually subject to foreign sees,--Bremen, Scania, and
Throndhjem,--listened to the voice of the annexor, and thus traitors
divided the island camp. They fostered jealousies between rival
Udallers, whose implacable hatreds and blood-feuds converted the annals,
like those of the Anglo-Saxons, into records of rapine and murder. The
Althing shortly after A.D. 1004 had abolished the duello, a northern
institution unknown to classic Greece and Rome; or rather, let us say,
it abolished itself, when “trial by point and edge” had lost its old
significancy as a formal and religious appeal to that God of Battles who
defends the right. The Court of Justice took the place of the
Hólm-gang; and at times it was silent in the presence of the sword and
the firebrand, which, in riotous frays, spared neither sex nor age. But
gradually it developed every form of chicanery and law-devilry, in whose
dark labyrinths it is hard to see any improvement upon the “wild justice
of revenge.” Its arts were jury-challenging; demurrers aided by the
jealousy of the judges, whose duty was to catch a man tripping; the
detection of flaws; attempts to split the court (að vèfingja dóminn) and
cause non-suits; false witness, and the breaking of oaths those “sports
of brave men and terrors of fools.” The law was made bankrupt by the
tricks of irrelevancy and by-play, by the special pleading, by the
quibbling, the bribery, and the corruption of the tribunals. When all
failed, a petty massacre was sure to succeed; and as these proceedings
arose from the captious litigiousness of the race, so they long
maintained the grievous trammels and shackles of so-called legal
principles.[137]
Thus in the middle of the thirteenth century, Hakon V., king of Norway
(reg. A.D. 1217-1264), was able openly to treat for the surrender of
Iceland liberty. After some three hundred years of Udallism, the heroic
island passed into foreign dominion by a decree of the Althing under
“Catillus,” or “Catullus” (Kettill), the last of the independent
law-sayers or presidents. Modern Icelanders, copied by strangers,
stoutly and patriotically maintain that the relation of the two
countries was an alliance, a personal union, rather than a real union,
or _à priori_ a subjection. It is certain that treaties were formally
exchanged; that the ancient laws and rights of property were secured;
that free commerce was stipulated; that Icelanders were made eligible to
hold office in Norway; and that any infringement of conditions dispensed
with the incorporation. But the hard facts remain that a poll-tax, a
tribute of sixteen ells of homespun cloth, was imposed, and that a
viceroy was appointed to govern the island. Thus Liberty was palsied,
and Independence gave place to the _status pupillaris_. To dispute upon
this independent allegiance is only to debate a question of degree.
The eighth and last of the Crusades, movements which began in A.D.
1188-1190, and ended in A.D. 1260-1275, was the first preached in
Iceland (Hist. Eccles., i. 571), and it partially aroused the islandry
from their apathy and habitual law-contests. But the effects were
transient, save upon individuals. The physical history of the thirteenth
century is chiefly remarkable for the widespread ruin caused by its
terrible eruptions and desolating earthquakes. Now began the epidemics
and epizootics which, from A.D. 1306 to A.D. 1846, number 134--viz.,
seven in the fourteenth, six in the fifteenth, twelve in the sixteenth,
twenty-eight in the seventeenth, and forty-one in the eighteenth
centuries, with several during the present. An unreformed pagan would
have believed that the wrath of the olden gods weighed heavy on the
land.
The same may be said of the fourteenth century, which also witnessed the
calamitous annexation to Denmark.[138] After the death of Knut (Canute)
in A.D. 1035, Magnús ascended the throne of Norway, and native
sovereigns ruled till A.D. 1319, when the male line became extinct with
Hakon VII. The Diet enthroned his daughter’s infant son, Magnús
Eiriksson, who, being already king of Sweden, had brought the
Scandinavian peninsula and its dependencies under a single sceptre. But
the union did not last. Magnús bestowed Norway upon his son Hákon, who
was married to Margaret, sole daughter of Waldemar III., king of
Denmark. The issue, Ólafr IV., succeeded to the throne of his
grandfather in A.D. 1376, and to that of his father four years
afterwards, thus incorporating Norway with Denmark. Dying a minor in
A.D. 1387, he left both kingdoms to his mother, Margaret, by whose
energetic rule the regency had been carried on, and she found no
difficulty in setting aside the feeble pretensions of Albert of
Mecklenburg. In A.D. 1397 the union or treaty of Calmar took place, and
Iceland, which still maintained its modicum of independence, was once
more transferred without opposition to the triple crown of Denmark,
Norway, and Sweden. The conditions of the annexation to Norway (A.D.
1264) were tacitly consented to by the Danish rulers when they succeeded
to Iceland by marriage and inheritance. Yet “the Semiramis of the north”
began by the usual contempt of stipulations: she repaid submission by
perpetuating a poll-tax of half-a-mark per head, and, worse still, by
establishing a royal monopoly of trade. The latter, confined to vessels
licensed by the Crown, nearly secured for Iceland the fate which befell
the lost colonies of Greenland. From this period till A.D. 1814, Denmark
and Norway remained united, each, however, governed by its own laws.
The fifteenth century was as disastrous as that which preceded it. The
Digerdoed, or Black Death, the Plague of the Decameron, had raged with
prodigious violence about A.D. 1348, and it was followed by a winter
which, destroying nearly all the cattle, left a purely pastoral country
permanently upon the verge of utter ruin. A second pestilence, the
Svarti Dauði, or Black Death, visited the hapless island; whilst English
and other pirates, plundering and burning on the main, fortified
themselves in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago, despoiled the churches and
farms of the coast, held the franklins to ransom, and sold the poor into
slavery. And at last, in the middle of the sixteenth century, came the
crowning blow, the introduction of Lutheranism.
Catholicism had sat lightly upon the remote spot verging on the
hyperborean seas. The papal tithe (Páfa tíund) and Peter’s Pence,
imposed in A.D. 1305 by the king of Norway under pain of
excommunication,[139] did not weigh heavy. At first the tax was one
nagli (nail), or tenth of an ell, of Wadmal (Vað-mál) cloth, its
equivalent being two fishes; and it never rose higher than ten ells of
homespun per adult male. The sale of Indulgences, which accompanied the
last and first crusade, was abolished in A.D. 1289. Celibacy of the
clergy was introduced in Iceland by Thorlák Thorhallsson, who died in
the quasi-odour of sanctity in 1193. After that date ecclesiastics were
not formally married, but were not debarred from living with Frillur,
or Fryllas, concubines, then generally called by the laity “holy women.”
As in Charlemagne’s day, bigamy was not wholly unknown. A few took
second wives, “_non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem_; but the fierce temper
of the Húsfreya, or _materfamilias_, must have made the arrangement
uncomfortable. Thus it is said[140] Snorri Sturluson in A.D. 1212
married the daughter of Deacon Loptsson, who had a harem of concubines,
one the child of a bishop. Jón Geirriksson, the Dane, popularly written
“John Jerechini,” bishop of Skálholt, in A.D. 1430, is also accused of
being a buccaneer, a mere brigand, who could not write his name, which
little drawback, however, did not prevent an attempt to canonise him
after he was deservedly (?) lynched in A.D. 1433. Jón Arason, bishop of
Hólar, is charged with keeping a mistress at the age of eighty.[141] But
much of this may be sectarian exaggeration, and in after-ages
Protestant authors would not inquire too curiously if, as often happens
in the present day, the priest was married before he was ordained. And,
although we are told that a frequent entry at Councils was “Quoniam
Dominus A. Episcopus scribere nescit, ideo ejus loco subscripsit,
B.C.”--which reminds us of many nobles and gentles who could “nocht
write” in Scotland,--we must not forget that, in the thirteenth century,
the Augustines attempted a vernacular translation of the Bible.[142]
Thus all the glow of faith and the fervid belief in the deifications of
the family, in saints and martyrs raised above man’s estate by
supererogatory piety and virtue, and in the living and breathing _locum
tenens_ of the first apostle, was darkened by a system of
semi-rationalism, which allows reason too much or too little scope;
which arrogates to itself the unreasonable right of saying “Thus far
shalt thou go and no farther,” at the same time loudly professing its
own fallibility; and which has succeeded fatally well in splitting the
Church into a thousand fragments. A philosopher might have forecast the
result from his study. Men unwilling to believe were relieved of a great
load, and their energetic action was no match for the passive resistance
of the many honest and pious souls who embraced the new form of faith.
The Crown laid violent hands, as in England, upon the “Regalia Sancti
Petri” (temporalities), which it transferred to its favourites; the
religious houses were secularised, and the ecclesiastics had the choice
either of banishment, or of conforming to what they held the teachings
of a heresiarch.
Changes of religion seem to have been peculiarly unfortunate in
Iceland. The seventeenth century saw absolute monarchism extend from
Denmark under Frederick III. to her distant dependency. Encouraged by
the apathy and indolence of the islanders, the foreign pirates, English
and French, redoubled their exertions; even the Algerines made a
successful raid. The seventeenth century showed the epidemic of
superstition which distinguished the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers;
an ignorant and fanatical interpretation of Jewish history caused the
torturing and burning of many a witch and wizard, who probably were
often only natural media, and mesmerisers or odylic sensitives. The
eighteenth century (A.D. 1707) began with the small-pox, which killed
16,000 to 18,000 of the 50,000 islanders. In A.D. 1759, rigorous winters
brought on a famine equally fatal to man and beast; of the former some
10,000 perished. In 1762 about 280,000 sheep died, or were slaughtered.
In A.D. 1788 took place that first eruption of the Skaptárjökull, which
has been described as the most appalling and destructive since authentic
history began.
About the beginning of the present century, Iceland, under physical
evils, monopoly, and misrule, fell to its lowest point. Greatly to the
displeasure of the lieges, the two sees were reduced to one; the same
took place with the colleges, and finally the Althing was abolished
(A.D. 1800). The war between Great Britain and Denmark would inevitably
have caused actual starvation, but for a humane order in council,[143]
through the interest of Sir Joseph Banks, permitting the island to be
supplied with the necessaries of life. In A.D. 1843, brighter days
dawned. After a disuse of nearly half a century, the Althing was
re-established; but it was only a shadow of its former self--a body of
representatives whom the Home Government deigned to consult. Still, it
roused the people to take interest in their own affairs. Finally, the
proclamation of a constitution for Denmark (1848) produced effects which
now are being matured.
The benefits of free and popular rule were offered by the Danish
Government to Iceland. But the offer was based upon the supposition,
indignantly repudiated in the island, that she was subject to the
Rigsdag;[144] and it was repeatedly refused, as falling short of the
royal promise made in 1848. Hence arose the Radical party, whose extreme
left, though disclaiming the idea of separation, is distinctly
republican. The author has compared it with the Home Rule movement in
Ireland, warning his readers, however, that there are salient points of
difference; while the absence of social and religious complications is
all in favour of the Scandinavian. The head of the party was and is the
highly distinguished scholar Hr Jón Sigurðsson; there is none beside
him, but “proximè accesserunt” Ex-Justice Benidikt Sveinsson, Professor
Haldór Friðriksson, Rev. Eiríkr Kuld, and Jón Sigurðsson of Gautlönd, a
farmer in the north. They complained that the king, whose rule at home
was limited by the Chambers, remained absolute in Iceland; that the
constitution did not place them on an equal footing with their
fellow-subjects; that they were governed by men living in Copenhagen,
who knew little of local requirements, and of a _doctrinaire_ clique
which has done abundant harm. They described paternal rule as equivalent
to the rule of red tape; they distrusted the Danes even _dona ferentes_,
and they declared that there is still “something rotten” in a certain
state. It was, indeed, evident that the national Liberal party of
Denmark, with the usual liberality of “Liberals,” aimed only at
subjecting their Icelandic fellow-subjects.
In vain the ministers of Frederick VII. offered what appeared to the
outer world the fairest terms--the establishment of an Upper and a Lower
House, and a settlement of all claims by a perpetual allowance of
$60,000 per annum.[145] The Home-Rulers “totted up” all that the Danes
_stole_, such is the mild word used,[146] from chalice to landed estate,
with interest, simple and compound, for the last three centuries. These
pretensions exceeded those of the United States in the Alabama affair:
everything was placed to the debit of Denmark, nothing to her credit.
But Hr Sigurðsson, the opposition leader, sensibly said, “The money
claims are the most awkward to the Liberals, and pressing them is the
best lever when moving for self-government.” The Danes laughed at the
idea of holding a constitutional country liable for the debts of
absolute kings, contracted in A.D. 1550-1800, when Denmark herself was
plundered, as well as Iceland, by irresponsible rulers. There was,
however, this difference, that while Iceland was plundered to enrich
Danes residing in Denmark, Denmark was plundered to enrich her own
citizens. And Hr Sigurðsson was fated to win. Important events have
happened since the author left the island. A public meeting, attended by
delegates from every district, was held (June 26, 1873) at Thingvellir.
Here it was resolved to use every effort either to end Danish rule in
Iceland, or to obtain an extended constitution which should give the
island a government of her own. Correspondents assured the writer that
the movement passed off without undue excitement. “Hereditary bondsmen”
know in those days that no physical blow need be struck, and that “every
institution,” to use the words of a well-known separatist, “can be
modified or destroyed by the weapon of agitation, under the guidance of
popular opinion.”
At this preliminary to the opening of the Althing it was decided to send
three delegates to Denmark, and to submit to the ministry a draft
constitution, drawn up with the view of developing the island and its
inhabitants. The two principal provisions were (1.) That Iceland should
be connected with the home country by a “personal union only;” and (2.)
That it should be governed by a Jarl, earl, or viceroy, with a minister
or ministers responsible to the House of Representatives.
After the close of the meeting the Althing assembled at the usual place.
Some of the more advanced kept, it is said, their seats when the usual
cheers were given for the king; but no disloyal manifestation was made
beyond rejecting almost all the bills brought in by the local
government. The draft constitution was referred to a committee, which on
July 28, 1873, reported in its favour, and added a resolution that the
king should be requested to concede the following temporary arrangements
as soon as possible, and not later than the next year:
1. That the Althing be at once invested with full legislative powers,
and a new budget be submitted for its approval once in every two years,
on the principle that no tax or impost shall be levied in Iceland for
defraying expenditure incurred by the Danish Government.
2. That a special minister be appointed for Icelandic affairs, and that
he be responsible to the Althing.
3. That this arrangement be valid for six years only, after which the
entire constitution shall be laid before the Althing for its
consideration.
On January 5th, 1874, after a struggle of thirty years, the new
Icelandic constitution was signed by the king, and came into force on
August 1st of the same year, the millenary festival commemorating the
occupation of the Northmen. The original plan of the two houses has been
carried out. The biennial Althing will consist of thirty members voted
in by the people, and of six nominated by the Crown. The Upper House
will contain the six royal nominees, and six others elected by the
general body of the Althing from its members, duly returned by their
constituencies; while the Lower House will number the remaining
twenty-four. The vote is confirmed to officials, to ecclesiastics of
every grade, to all university graduates, and even to students who sign
themselves “Candidat” (B.A.). It is extended to citizens who lease
farms, to those who pay a minimum of eight crowns a year in government
taxes, and to the country people that contribute either cess or parish
rates--evidently universal suffrage, excluding only women and minors,
paupers and criminals. Every voter must be twenty-five years old, and
of unblemished character; and he must have resided at least a
twelvemonth in his electoral district. Any person who has a right to the
franchise, who is thirty years of age, who has been domiciled in Iceland
or Denmark for five years, and who is not in the employment of a foreign
state, is qualified for election to the Althing. The session may not
outlast six weeks without special royal assent, and provisions are made
for extraordinary sessions.
The new constitution, which purports to regulate only home affairs, is a
distinct improvement upon the old platform. The Secretary for Iceland is
independent of the Danish Cabinet and Rigsdag, and becomes responsible
to the king and to the Althing. This minister will be answerable for the
maintenance of the constitution, and he will nominate for royal approval
the chief local functionary. The governor’s functions will be determined
by his majesty, and constitutional complaints against him will be
investigated by the Crown. Thus the Althing will enjoy certain
legislative rights, and have some control over the administration of its
country. Finally, as Iceland has no representative in the Rigsdag, and
as she has never taken part in the legislature, nor in the general
government of the empire, she will not contribute to the home
expenditure.[147]
But the power of passing laws is not granted absolutely; it is subject
to royal confirmation. The relative position of the Secretary for
Iceland to the people, represented by the Althing, remains to be
defined. Even less satisfactory are the arrangements concerning the
local governor; his power and duties are not settled, and the Althing
will have no voice in settling them. Hitherto he has mostly acted as a
mere channel of communication between the island and the Copenhagen
Cabinet, and the new constitution does nothing to remedy this evil. On
the contrary, the king makes a special reservation concerning the
expenses of the “highest local government of the island,” meaning that
the governor’s salary will be dependent upon the Crown, and will not be
discussed by the Althing with the rest of the budget. Thus the ruler
becomes wholly independent of the ruled, and dependent only on the
Secretary for Iceland. Again, the nomination of six members by the king
will have the effect, in case of disagreement between the Upper and
Lower Houses, of enabling the royal commissioners to frustrate
legislation simply by absenting themselves from the debates. This is
perhaps the weakest point of the new constitution; it may be necessary
in Denmark where the tone of the middle classes is distinctly democratic
and republican, but it is looked upon and is protested against in
aristocratic and conservative Iceland as an affront to their loyalty.
And it can serve for nothing but to create an artificial opposition and
to strengthen any minister or governor in anti-national or Danising
measures. The provision that the governor may sit in the Althing and
speak as often as he pleases, is distinctly unconstitutional; nor is the
paragraph concerning the fixed contribution and the sinking contribution
at all satisfactory.
The author ventures to predict, with due diffidence, that, however
liberal this constitution may appear, it will not satisfy local
requirements--it grants too much or it gives too little. The next demand
will be for the governor to be invested with the full powers residing in
the heads of British colonies, supported by a local ministry, the latter
virtually independent of the Home Colonial Minister. Denmark is,
perhaps, not yet sufficiently advanced in political education to grant
the gift; yet the experiment is worth trying. If the demand be rejected,
the persuasion that Iceland has never thriven since Icelanders lost
their privilege of self-rule will steadily increase, and probably attain
abnormal dimensions. A school of politics has now been opened to the
people, and the new study will produce special students. Irrepressible
malcontents, _intransigentes_, and irreconcilables, who have trodden the
path of separation, are never easily brought back to the sleepy old
highway of routine rule; and the constitution has provided them with
many grievances, especially the doubts cast upon Icelandic loyalty and
good faith. There are not a few European revolutionists who, urgent for
the general derangement of affairs, will hardly disdain to “keep their
hands in,” even so far north. An Icelander in England flatly
contradicted the assertion that a republican or separatist feeling
exists in Iceland.[148] The “great public meeting” of 1873 expressed the
latter, and what could a separated Iceland be or become except a
republic? Not only “subversive philanthropists” but well-meaning and
patriotic men will find subjection to a foreign secretary and a foreign
governor intolerable when they wish to manage themselves. The “little
bill” will still be a strong lever for raising popular passions. In the
days when Ireland continues to “write and speak of ‘98,” when Norway
“strikes” as heavily as Great Britain, and when the Socialists breed
troubles in Denmark where the International has been interdicted by the
courts of justice, as a branch of the English society, the Icelandic
Home Ruler is not likely to sit still--perhaps it is not desirable that
he should.
Since the unhappy Dano-Prussian war we have heard little of Scandinavia
in England, and we are apt to conclude that the Pan-Scandinavian idea is
dead. It is not dead but sleeping; and while Pan-Slavism affects to
slumber that it may gather vis and energy for decisive movements when
the time for action comes, we still live in hopes of seeing a federal
union of the great northern kingdoms, and to find Iceland taking her
place as a minor but not an undistinguished member of the family.
Scandinavian liberty, says Montesquieu, _est la mère des libertés de
l’Europe_, and her free-born children have not lost and will never lose
respect for the parent.
NOTE TO SECTION III.
Since these lines were written, Christian IX., the first crowned head
that ever sighted her shores, has visited Iceland upon the well-chosen
occasion of her millenary festival. The courteous and parental bearing
of the king has made its due impression. The lieges have taken a
sensible view of the situation; they spoke in a conciliatory spirit, and
satisfaction with the change from the former state of things seems to
have been general. Even the anti-government party is thankful for what
it has won, and hopes in course of time to win what it wants. “This is
a good beginning,” said a prominent member, “and, since we have got
legislative powers, it is our own fault if we cannot get more.”
The following statement was sent to me by Mr Jón A. Hjaltalín, who is
responsible for his assertions. The paper thoroughly expresses the
Icelanders’ view of their financial relations with the Danish
Government:
“The budget of Iceland for 1867-68 was:
REVENUE. EXPENDITURE.
$48,345 21 sk. $79,682 56 sk.
1868-69.
$44,675 21 sk. $63,929 8 sk.
1869-70.
$51,222 21 sk. $77,361 24 sk.
1870-71.
$44,787 21 sk. $65,865 72 sk.
“This is the Danish statement of the annual budget for Iceland.
Consequently it has been commonly said by Danes and travellers who
have not been able to dive below the surface, that Iceland was the
receiver of Danish bounty to the tune of something like $30,000
annually. It was, however, acknowledged by the Danish Chancellor of
the Exchequer in 1845 that such was not the case, for in his report
he said: ‘It is perhaps doubtful whether we really contribute
anything towards the support of Iceland.... It is true, certainly,
that an annual sum is paid to the Icelandic treasury.... This
payment cannot, however, properly be called a subsidy, because _the
whole of the Icelandic revenues has not been paid into the
Icelandic treasury_ (but into the Danish treasury).... _The
Icelandic treasury has also disbursed several sums_ (at the command
of the Danish Government), _which cannot be set down as expenses
for Iceland_.’ This is the gist of the whole dispute. Sums are not
entered on the credit side of the Icelandic budget which Iceland
has really paid into the Danish treasury. Thus an annual deficit is
easily made out.
“Down to the middle of the last century the accounts of Iceland
were kept clear and separate from those of Denmark. Then the
Icelandic budget showed an annual surplus which found its way into
the Danish treasury. After that date, the accounts of both were
mixed up together, and for three quarters of a century (till 1825)
the annual revenue and expenditure of Iceland cannot be properly
ascertained. It is, however, known that several large sums, above
the annual revenues of the island, were paid into the Danish
treasury during this period. On the other hand, it cannot be shown
that the annual expenses had risen above the former yearly average.
When a separate account was again opened with Iceland, no notice
was taken of the extraordinary sums paid into the Danish treasury
on behalf of Iceland.
“To show the reader the chief items of the Icelandic budget, we
will take the budget for 1870-71:
REVENUE. | EXPENDITURE.
|
I. From the trade, $12,600 0 | I. Expenses of the
II. ” Crown property, 12,080 0 | administration and
III. ” Royal tithes, 3,750 0 | medical staff of
IV. ” Repayment of | Iceland, $34,653 0
loans, 8,192 15 sk. | II. Expenses of the
V. ” Sundries, 8,165 6 | bishop and the
VI. Deficit, 21,078 51 | educational
--------------- | establishments, 27,212 72 sk.
$65,865 72 sk. |III. Sundries, 4,000 0
| ---------------
| $65,865 72 sk.
“It will be seen from the above that one of the chief items in the
Iceland revenues is derived from Crown property in the island,
which in round numbers now amounts to $12,000. This is entered in
the annual budget to the credit of Iceland. In 1866, $175,037 had
been paid into the Danish treasury for Crown property sold in
Iceland at different times. Neither this sum nor its interest is,
however, mentioned in the annual statements of Icelandic finances.
But if Iceland has a right to the revenues derived from the Crown
property still unsold, it has an equal right to the interest of the
money paid for that which is sold. This sum, amounting to about
$7000, ought to be added to the annual revenue, thus making the
annual income from the Crown property $19,000 instead of $12,000.
There are also several smaller items which ought to be entered on
the credit side of the Icelandic budget.
“No. II. of the expenditure, viz. the salaries of the bishop and
the professors of the colleges, and other expenses connected with
the colleges, form a heavy item in the expenditure of Iceland, or,
in round numbers, $27,000 annually. It is, however, not correct to
charge this sum against Iceland unless an equal sum is entered on
the credit side of the budget, because all the property supporting
the two bishops and the two colleges of Iceland was sold according
to a royal command of 29th April 1785, and the proceeds of the sale
were paid into the Danish treasury on the understanding and implied
promise of the king, that the expenses of these institutions were
to be defrayed by the Danish treasury for the future. This sum is
nevertheless annually charged against Iceland as if Denmark never
had received any equivalent for it.
“The budget arranged according to the foregoing observations will
be:
Revenue. | Expenditure.
|
I. From the trade, $12,600 0 | I. Expenses of the
II. ” Crown property, 19,080 0 | administration and
III. ” Royal tithes, 3,750 0 | medical staff of
IV. ” Repayment of | Iceland, $34,653 0
loans, 8,192 15 sk. | II. Expenses of the
V. ” Sundries, 8,165 6 | bishop and the
VI. ” No. II. | educational
Expenditure, 34,212 72 | establishments, 34,212 72 sk.
-------------- |III. Sundries, 4,000 0
Total, $78,999 93 sk. | IV. Annual surplus, 13,134 21
| --------------
|Total, $78,999 93 sk.
“Thus it will be seen that the Icelandic budget, instead of showing a
deficit of $21,078, 51 sk., has, when properly stated, a surplus of
$13,134, 21 sk. The claims of Iceland arising out of these financial
misstatements were partly recognised by the Danish Government in the Act
of 2d January 1871, by which it was provided that $30,000 per annum
should be paid perpetually from the Danish treasury to Iceland; and, in
addition, an annual sum of $20,000 for ten years, after which period
this latter sum is to decrease by $1000 per annum until it is
extinguished.
“In conclusion, I will present the reader with the ‘little bill’ of the
Icelanders against the Danish treasury. The rent of the Crown farms was
always paid in kind, and the present money value of the articles paid as
yearly rents for these farms at the time they were seized by the Crown
is $41,055, 40 sk. When the rents of the still unsold farms are
subtracted, there remains,
I. An annual claim against the Danish treasury for the balance,
amounting to $27,855 40 sk.
II. The Icelanders’ claim for loss of interest of money paid into
the Danish treasury for sold Crown property, the annual
sum of 6,900 0
III. For the rent of farms belonging to the bishop sees, and sold for
the benefit of the Danish treasury, calculated in the same
way as the rent of the Crown farms, the annual sum of 31,769 52
IV. For movable property belonging to the episcopal sees, and appropriated
by the Crown, the annual sum of 2,400 0
V. For the trade monopoly, the annual sum of 50,800 0[149]
--------------
Total annual sums, $119,724 92 sk.
“Thus the Icelanders consider themselves to have good claims on the
Danish treasury for the annual sum of $119,724, 92 sk., or a round sum
of $3,000,000.
“On the other hand, the Icelanders consider themselves bound to pay
$20,000 annually towards the general expenditure of the Danish state
(Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Financial
Affairs of Iceland, 1861, as communicated in the Thjóðólfr newspaper,
xvii., pp. 101, 107).”