ANTHROPOLOGY.
STATISTICS--GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS--PERSONAL
APPEARANCE--CHARACTER--THE FAMILY--DISEASES.
§ 1. STATISTICS.
The constitution of society and the physical features of Iceland are
peculiarly favourable to numbering the people. The island has no object
either to diminish her total in order to avoid recruiting, and has scant
interest in exaggerating it with a view to urban concessions and civic
privileges. Between A.D. 1840-60 the census was quinquennial; since that
time every decade has been deemed sufficient.
The following numbers are taken from various sources, and especially
from the latest official figures in the Skýrslur of October 1, 1870:
O. OLAVIUS PONTEPPIDAN THAARUP, ETC.
S. Qr. W. Qr. N. & E. Qrs. Total.
In A.D. 1703, 18,728 15,774 15,942 50,444
” 1769, 17,150 13,596 15,455 46,201
In A.D. 1770 Uno Von Troil (p. 25) estimated the population at 60,000
souls, or about 10,000 more than sixty years after the Norwegian
colonisation. In 1783 the total fell to 47,287, and in 1786 to 38,142
(Preyer and Zirkel, p. 483). Since the beginning of the present century
we have exact and minute computations:
STATISTISK TABEL-VÆRK.
S. Qr. W. Qr. N. & B. Qrs. Total.
In A.D. 1801, 17,160 13,976 16,104 46,240(47,207?)
” 1806 (Preyer and Zirkel, whereas Mackenzie assigns it
to 1804), 46,349
” 1808 (Preyer and Zirkel; and Mackenzie, p. 280), 48,063
” 1834, (Dillon, unofficial, evidently “round numbers”) 53,000
” 1835, 20,292 14,480 21,263 56,035
” 1840, 20,677 14,665 21,752 57,094
” 1842 (Meddel., ii. 70), 53,000
” 1845, 21,364 14,956 22,238 58,358
SKÝRSLUR.
S. Qr. W. Qr. N. & E. Qrs. Total.
In A.D. 1850, 21,288 15,112 22,757 59,157
” 1855, 22,810 16,362 25,431 64,603
” 1857 (Preyer and Zirkel), 66,929
” 1858 ( Do. ), 67,847
” 1860, 23,137 16,960 26,890 66,987
” 1865 (Vice-Consul Crowe), 68,000
” 1870, 25,063 17,001 27,699 69,763
” 1872 (estimated), 70,000
while that of Madeira is 80,000.
The following table (Skýrslur um landshagi á Íslandi, v. 310, 1872)
shows the increase of population during the present century down to
1870:
From Feb. 1, 1801, to Feb. 2, 1835, increase 18·71 per cent.
” Feb. 2, 1835, to Nov. 2, 1840, ” 1·89
” Nov. 2, 1840, to Nov. 2, 1845, ” 2·55
” Nov. 2, 1845, to Feb. 1, 1850, ” 1·01
” Feb. 1, 1850, to Oct. 1, 1855, ” 9·21
” Oct. 1, 1855, to Oct. 1, 1860, ” 3·69
” Oct. 1, 1860, to Oct. 1, 1870, ” 4·14
The average rate of increase during the last century was very small:
between A.D. 1703 and 1758 it was about one-fifth of 1 per cent. During
the present age there has been, we observe, a tolerably regular progress
with only three exceptions (A.D. 1835-40, A.D. 1845-50, and A.D.
1860-70). During this decade (1860-70) there has been a considerable
failure, 4·14 per cent., or only 2·05 for each lustrum. In 1872, as will
be seen, the number of males was 33,102; of females, 36,660. But
throughout Iceland the fluctuations have ever been so great as to
reduce the value of “general considerations.”
* * * * *
The following tables are compiled from the minute returns made to the
Danish Government, and published in vols. i.-vi· of 1852-61, of the
Meddelser fra det Statistishe Bureau, Copenhagen.
No. 1.--Table showing the Population of Iceland and its Distribution on
the 1st February 1850, and on the 1st October 1855.
------------------------------------------+-----------------+----------------+-----------+
| | | | |
|Districts. | No. of Families.| Population. |Increase, |
| +------+----------+-------+--------+ in |
| | 1850.| 1855. | 1850. | 1855. |hundredths.|
+-----------------------------------------+------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
| SOUTHERN AMT. | | | | | |
|Reykjavik, | 219| 250 | 1149 | 1354 | 17·84 |
|Gullbríngu and Kjósar Sýsla,{*} exclusive| | | | | |
| of Revkjavik, | 783| 853 | 4519 | 4853 | 7·39 |
| +------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
|The same, including Reykjavik, | 1002| 1103 | 5668 | 6207 | 9·51 |
|Borgarfjarðar Sýsla, | 329| 355 | 2097 | 2312 | 10·25 |
|Árnes Sýsla, | 723| 755 | 5018 | 5382 | 7·25 |
|Rángárvalla Sýsla, | 700| 717 | 4766 | 4917 | 3·17 |
|Austr and Vestr Skaptafells Sýsla,{*} | 481| 529 | 3340 | 3545 | 6·14 |
|Vestmannaeyja{**} Sýsla, | 91| 98 | 399 | 447 | 12·03 |
| +------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Total (Southern Amt), | 3326| 3557 |21,288 | 22,810 | 7·15 |
| +======+==========+=======+========+===========+
| | | | | | |
| WESTERN AMT. | | | | | |
|Mýra and Hnappadals Sýsla,{*} | 379| 383 | 2410 | 2569 | 6·60 |
|Snæfellsness Sýsla, | 512| 526 | 2684 | 2825 | 5·25 |
|Dala Sýsla, | 267| 277 | 1923 | 2104 | 9·41 |
|Barðastrandar Sýsla, | 336| 347 | 2518 | 2703 | 7·35 |
|Isafjarðar{***} Sýsla, | 508| 545 | 4204 | 4589 | 9·16 |
|Stranda Sýsla, | 179| 190 | 1373 | 1572 | 14·49 |
| +------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Total (Western Amt), | 2181| 2268 |15,112 |16,362 | 8·27 |
| +======+==========+=======+========+===========+
| | | | | | |
| NORTHERN AND EASTERN AMTS. | | | | | |
|Húnavatns Sýsla, | 556| 639 | 4117| 4637 | 12·63 |
|Skagafjarðar Sýsla, | 626| 622 | 4033| 4258 | 5·58 |
|Eyjafjarðar Sýsla, | 625| 638 | 3965| 4289 | 8·17 |
|Norðr and Suðr Thingeyjar Sýsla,{*} | 640| 684 | 4453| 5108 | 14·71 |
|Norðr-Múla Sýsla, | 405| 473 | 3201| 3754 | 17·28 |
|Suðr-Múla Sýsla, | 391| 416 | 2988| 3385 | 13·29 |
| +------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
| Total (Northern and Eastern | | | | | |
| Amts), | 3243| 3472 | 22,757| 25,431 | 11·75 |
| +======+==========+=======+========+===========+
| Total for all Iceland, | 8750| 9297 | 59,157| 64,603 | 9·21 |
+-----------------------------------------+------+----------+-------+--------+-----------+
{*} Separated on Ólsen’s map.
{**} Apparently combined with Rángárvalla Sýsla on Ólsens map.
{***} Sub-divided into north and west by P. and Z., p. 480; Mck., p.
281.
No. II.--Distribution of the Population of Iceland according to ages in
1855.
-------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+----------+
Ages. | Per cent. | Ages. |Per cent. |
-------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+----------+
Under 20 years, | 42·315 | Between 50 and 60 years, | 9·303 |
Between 20 and 30 years, | 19·485 | Between 60 and 70 years, | 5·413 |
Between 30 and 40 years, | 11·886 | Over 70 years, | 2·463 |
Between 40 and 50 years, | 9·135 | | |
-------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+----------+
No. III.--Table showing the Means of Support of the Population of
Iceland on the 1st October 1855.
Key:
M: Males.
F: Females.
T: Total.
P: Percentage of Population.
--------------------+----------------+-------------------------------------+--------------------+-------
| | SUPPORTED. | |
| +--------------------+----------------+ |
| PROVIDING | Wives & | Servants. | TOTAL. |
OCCUPATIONS. | SUPPORT. | Families. | | | P
--------------------+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+------+------+------+------+-------
| M | F | T | M | F | T | M | F | T | M | F | T |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ecclesiastics and | | | | | | | | | | | | |
teachers, | 196| 7| 203| 399| 623| 1022| 527| 613| 1140| 1122| 1243| 2365| 3·66
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Civil officials and | | | | | | | | | | | | |
employés, | 45| 2| 47| 74| 105| 179| 105| 123| 228| 224| 230| 454| 0·70
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Persons who live | | | | | | | | | | | | |
on their means, | 84| 89| 170| 40| 84| 124| 18| 44| 62| 139| 217| 356| 0·55
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Men of science | | | | | | | | | | | | |
and letters, | 29| --| 29| 20| 42| 62| 20| 29| 49| 69| 71| 140| 0·22
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Persons who live | | | | | | | | | | | | |
by agriculture, |7063| 618| 7681|11,835|19,354|31,189|6112|7493|13,605|25,010|27,465|52,475| 81·23
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Persons who live | | | | | | | | | | | | |
by the sea, | 980| 86| 1066| 1090| 1925| 3015| 465| 509| 974| 2535| 2520| 5055| 7·82
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mechanics, | 199| 27| 226| 133| 219| 352| 59| 73| 132| 391| 319| 710| 1·10
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Traders and | | | | | | | | | | | | |
inn-keepers, | 87| 4| 91| 136| 231| 367| 117| 155| 272| 340| 390| 730| 1·13
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Persons who work | | | | | | | | | | | | |
by the day, | 172| 62| 234| 97| 168| 265| 13| 11| 24| 282| 241| 523| 0·81
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Others who pursue | | | | | | | | | | | | |
no definite | | | | | | | | | | | | |
occupation, | 162| 123| 285| 67| 172| 239| 20| 42| 62| 249| 337| 586| 0·91
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Receiving alms, | 497| 710| 1207| --| --| --| --| --| --| 497| 710| 1207| 1·87
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Prisoners, | 2| --| 2| --| --| --| --| --| --| 2| --| 2| 0·00
+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+------+------+------+------+-------
Total, |9513|1728|11,241|13,891|22,923|36,814|7456|9092|16,548|30,860|33,743|64,603|100·00
+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+------+------+------+------+-------
Percentage of | | | | | | | | | | | | |
population, |14·7| 2·7| 17·4 | 21·5 | 35·5 | 57·0 |11·5|14·1| 25·6 | 47·8| 52·2 | 100·0| --
--------------------+----+----+------+------+------+------+----+----+------+------+------+------+-------
The following are the latest returns:
Table showing the Population of Iceland on the 1st October 1860 and 1870.
-----------------------------------+-----------+-----------------+------------+
| Number | Population. | Increase |
Districts. | of | | & Decrease |
| Families. +--------+--------+ per cent. |
| | 1860. | 1870. | |
-----------------------------------+-----------+--------+--------+------------+
SOUTHERN AMT. | | | | |
Reykjavik, | 356 | 1444 | 2024 | |
Gullbríngu and Kjósar Sýsla, | 824 | 5001 | 5302 | + 13·7 |
Borgarfjarðar Sýsla, | 352 | 2251 | 2590 | + 15·1 |
Árnes Sýsla, | 772 | 5409 | 5891 | + 8·9 |
Rángárvalla Sýsla, | 689 | 5034 | 5201 | + 3·3 |
Austr and Vestr Skaptafells Sýsla, | 490 | 3499 | 3484 | - 0·4 |
Vestmannaeyja Sýsla, | 885 | 499 | 571 | + 14·4 |
+-----------+--------+--------+------------+
Total (Southern Amt), | 3568 | 23,137 | 25,063 | + 8·3 |
+===========+========+========+============+
WESTERN AMT. | | | | |
Mýra and Hnappadals Sýsla, | 373 | 2663 | 2765 | + 3·9 |
Snæfellsness Sýsla, | 471 | 2869 | 2799 | - 2·4 |
Dala Sýsla, | 285 | 2223 | 2190 | - 1·5 |
Barðastrandar Sýsla, | 311 | 2727 | 2699 | - 1·0 |
Ísafjarðar Sýsla, | 518 | 4860 | 4895 | + 0·7 |
Stranda Sýsla, | 192 | 1618 | 1653 | + 2·2 |
+-----------+--------+--------+------------+
Total (Western Amt), | 2150 | 16,960 | 17,001 | + 0·2 |
+===========+========+========+============+
NORTHERN AND EASTERN AMTS. | | | | |
Húnavatns Sýsla, | 623 | 4722 | 4906 | + 3·9 |
Skagafjarðar Sýsla, | 614 | 4379 | 4574 | + 4·5 |
Eyjafjarðar Sýsla, | 707 | 4647 | 5108 | + 9·9 |
Thingeyjar Sýsla, | 715 | 5497 | 5746 | + 4·5 |
Norðr-Múla Sýsla, | 487 | 4183 | 3885 | + 0·5 |
Suðr-Múla Sýsla, | 442 | 3462 | 3480 | - 7·1 |
+-----------+--------+--------+------------+
Total (Northern and Eastern Amts), | 3588 | 26,890 | 27,699 | + 3·0 |
+===========+========+========+============+
Total for all Iceland, | 9306 | 66,987 | 69,763 | + 4·1 |
-----------------------------------+-----------+--------+--------+------------+
The following is the official list of households for 1872:
In the Suðr-umdæmið (South Quarter) are 3568 households, with 11,835 men and 13,228 women.
” Vestr ” (West ” ) ” 2150 ” 7,981 ” ” 9,019 “
” Norðr og Austr ” 3588 ” 13,286 ” ” 14,413 “
---- ------ ------
Total, 9306 33,102 men and 36,660 women.
According to Mr Vice-Consul Crowe (Report), during the average of ten
years (1855-65) there was annually--
1 marriage for every 143 persons.
1 birth for every 25 “
1 death for every 39 “
1 deaf and dumb for every 994 “
1 blind 320 “
In 1855 there were 202 blind and 65 born surd-mutes. In 1870 the former
numbered 225 (160 men and 65 women), and the latter 50 (20 + 30).
* * * * *
In table III. (1855), we see that of 64,603 souls, 52,475, about
three-fourths of the heads of families and those who provide support,
lived by farming, that is, by cattle-breeding, whilst more than
four-fifths of the entire population thus derived their maintenance. At
the same time, 5055 were fishermen, and only 703 were traders, showing a
primitive state of society. Mr Consul Crowe (Report, 1870-71) remarks:
“Somewhat more than the 75 per cent. of the total population were
engaged in sheep rearing and agricultural pursuits; and, notwithstanding
the steady and lucrative nature of the fisheries, only about 10 per
cent. were engaged in them.” The mechanics may be further distributed as
follows:
Bakers, (in 1855) 1 proportion per thousand 0·01 in 1870 numbered 2
Coopers, ” 35 ” 0·55 ” 17
Gold & Silver}
Smiths, } ” 80 ” 1·24 ” 21
Blacksmiths, ” 80 ” 1·24 ” 31
Carpenters, ” 61 ” 0·94 ” 12
Masons, ” 6 ” 0·09 ” 2
Millers, ” 4 ” 0·07 ” 1
Turners, ” 8 ” 0·13 ” 1
Boatbuilders, ” 38 ” 0·59 ” 12
Tailors, ” 27 ” 0·41 ” 10
Joiners, ” 174 ” 2·69 ” 56
Saddlers, ” 46 ” 0·71 ” 15
Weavers, ” 20 ” 0·30 ” 4
Watchmakers, ” 0 ” 0·00 ” 1
Other industries, ” 103 ” 1·59 ” 24
The following is a table of ages in 1870:
MEN | WOMEN.
|
Years. Mar- Unmar- Wido- Separ- | Mar- Unmar- Wi- Separ-
ried. ried. wers. ated. | ried. ried. dows. ated.
1 801 | 777
1-2 1530 | 1570
3-4 1814 | 1798
5-6 1828 | 1768
7-10 3073 | 3090
11-15 3713 | 3715
16-20 3 3693 | 39 3706
21-25 143 2374 2 | 350 2301 14 3
26-30 843 1601 16 7 | 1031 1691 55 9
31-35 1224 814 44 12 | 1384 1046 126 17
36-40 1869 650 96 17 | 1867 916 226 31
41-45 1377 307 107 18 | 1225 523 289 22
46-50 1125 171 131 29 | 1067 350 343 23
51-55 751 100 114 17 | 623 232 361 24
56-60 501 83 111 4 | 456 204 359 10
61-65 424 67 154 6 | 360 203 383 9
66-70 341 64 208 7 | 282 208 494 8
71-75 178 42 174 2 | 130 113 346 3
76-80 70 10 126 1 | 50 60 206
81-85 28 3 54 | 16 24 88 1
86-90 5 1 12 | 7 15
91-95 1 1 | 1 2 5
96-100 1 | 2 3
Above 100[165] none. | none.
---- ------ ---- --- | ---- ------ ---- ---
8882 22,740 1361 120 | 888 24,306 3313 160
{_________________________} |{______________________}
33,103 | 36,660
{___________________|_______________}
69,763
According to Mr Consul Crowe (Report, 1870-71), the proportion between
births and deaths was:
+-------+---------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
| Year. | Births. | Deaths. | Computed Population. | Percentage. |
|-------+---------+---------+----------------------+-------------|
| 1861 | 2525 | 2391 | 66,973 | + 0·20 |
| 1862 | 2693 | 2874 | 66,792 | + 0·27 |
| 1863 | 2648 | 2115 | 67,325 | + 0·80 |
| 1864 | 2760 | 2001 | 68,084 | + 1·13 |
| 1865 | 2757 | 2100 | 68,741 | + 0·96 |
| 1866 | 2662 | 3122 | 68,281 | + 0·67 |
| 1867 | 2743 | 1770 | 69,254 | + 1·42 |
| 1868 | 2449 | 1970 | 69,733 | + 0·69 |
| 1869 | 2177 | 2404 | 69,506 | + 0·33 |
| 1870 | 2276 | 1698 | 70,084 | + 0·83 |
| |---------+---------+----------------------+-------------|
|Total, | 25,690 | 22,445 | | |
+-------+---------+---------+----------------------+-------------+
The tables of 1855 gave an excess of 2865 women. Mackenzie (1801) shows
21,476 males to 25,731 females, or 4255 out of a total of 47,207. In
1865 the proportion of men to women was 1000: 1093. In 1870 the
conditions had improved, the surplus being only 3554 out of 69,763, a
small percentage of waste labour.
It is easy to account for the preponderance of women, as well as their
superior longevity, without entering into the knotty subject of what
determines sex. They lead more regular lives, they have less hardship
and fatigue, and they are rarely exposed to such accidents as being lost
at sea or “in the mist.” According to Mr Vice-Consul Crowe, in 1865-66,
of every forty-two deaths one was by drowning.
There is a tradition that Iceland during its palmiest days contained
100,000 souls, but it seems to rest upon no foundation. On the other
hand, the old superstitious belief that some fatal epidemic invariably
follows an increase beyond 60,000, has, during the last few years, shown
itself to be equally groundless. It is probably one of the _post hoc,
ergo propter hoc_ confusions so popular amongst the vulgar; and,
unhappily, not confined to the vulgar.
§ 2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
“The first inhabitants of the northern world, Dania, Nerigos, and
Suæcia,” says Saxo Grammaticus, repeated by Arngrímr Jónsson, “were the
posterity and remnant of the Canaanites _quos fugavit Jesus
latro_--expulsed from Palestine about A.C. 1500 by Joshua and Caleb.”
Duly appreciating the ethnological value of this tradition, we may
remark that the occupation of Ultima Thule, which the ancients evidently
held to be inhabited--_tibi serviat_ must mean that there were men to
serve--has not yet been proved. But Mongoloid or præ-Aryan colonies in
ancient days seem to have overrun all the Old, if not the New World, and
we must not despair of tracing them to Iceland.
The modern Icelander is a quasi-Norwegian, justly proud of the old home.
His race is completely free from any taint of Skrælling, Innuit,[166] or
Mongoloid blood, as some travellers have represented, and as the vulgar
of Europe seem to believe. Here and there, but rarely, a dark flat face,
oblique eyes, and long black horsehair, show that a wife has been taken
from the land
“Where the short-legged Esquimaux
Waddle in the ice and snow.”
In the southern parts of the island there is apparently a considerable
Irish infusion; and we often remark the “potato face” and the peculiar
eye, with grey-blue iris and dark lashes so common in outer Galway, and
extending to far Tenerife.
It has been the fashion for travellers to talk of “our Scandinavian
ancestors in Iceland,” to declare that the northern element is the
“backbone of the English race,” and to find that Great Britain owes to
the hyperborean “her pluck, her go-ahead, and her love of freedom.”
That a little of this strong liquor may have done abundant good to the
puerile, futile Anglo-Kelt, and the flabby and phlegmatic Anglo-Saxon,
there is no doubt, but happily we have not had a drop too much of
northern blood. The islanders are by no means slow to claim descent from
the old Jarls of Norway and Sweden, whilst some of the peasantry have
asserted, and, it is said, have proved, consanguinity with the Guelphs:
this would make them Germans, like the Royal Family of Denmark, who
enjoy only poetical and laureated connection with the “Sea-Kings.” Those
who reject these pretensions reply that every noble house emigrating
from Scandinavia in the ninth and tenth centuries brought with it a
train of serfs and thralls; for instance, Njál headed nearly thirty
fighting men, serviles included, and Thráin led fifteen house-carls
trained to arms. And genealogical statistics prove that while the Jarl’s
blood dies out, the Carl’s increases and multiplies.
The Saga’s description of Gunnar Hamondsson is that of a well-favoured
Icelander in the present day: “He was handsome of feature and
fair-skinned; his nose was straight and a little turned up at the end
(‘tip-tilted’); he was blue-eyed, and bright-eyed, and ruddy cheeked;
his hair was thick and of good hue, and hanging down in comely curls.”
And Skarphèdinn Njálsson may stand forth as the typical “plain” Thulite:
“His hair was dark-brown, with crisp curly locks; he had good eyes; his
features were sharp, and his face ashen pale; his nose turned up, and
his front teeth stuck out, and his mouth was very ugly.”
The Icelander’s temperament is nervoso-lymphatic, and, at best,
nervoso-sanguineous. The nervoso-bilious, so common in the south of
Europe, is found but rarely; and the author never saw an instance of the
pure nervous often met with in the United States and the Brazil. The
shape of the cranium is distinctly brachycephalic, like the Teuton who
can almost always be discovered by his flat occiput and his projecting
ears. The face is rather round or square than oval; the forehead often
rises high, and the malar bones stand out strongly, whilst the cheeks
fall in. A very characteristic feature of the race whose hardness, not
to say harshness, of body and mind still distinguishes it from its
neighbours, is the eye, dure and cold as a pebble--the mesmerist would
despair at the first sight. Even amongst the “gentler sex” a soft look
is uncommonly rare, and the aspect ranges from a stoney stare to a sharp
glance rendered fiercer by the habitual frown. Hence probably Uno Von
Troil (p. 87) describes the women as generally ill-featured. The best
specimens are clear grey or light blue, rarely brown and never black;
and the iris is mostly surrounded by a ring of darker colour, the
reverse of _arcus senilis_. Squints and prominent eyeballs, in fact what
are vulgarly called “goggle eyes,” are common; and even commoner,
perhaps, are the dull colourless organs which we term “cods’ eyes.” The
“Irish eye,” blue with dark lashes, is still found in the southern part
of the island, where, perhaps, thralls’ blood is most common. A mild and
chronic conjunctivitis often results from exposure to sun-glare after
dark rooms and from reading deep into the night with dim oil lamps. The
nose is seldom aquiline; the noble and sympathetically advancing
outlines of the Mediterranean shores will here be sought for in
vain.[167] The best are the straight, the worst are offensive “pugs.”
Only in two instances, both of them men of good blood, I saw the broad
open brows, the Grecian noses, the perpendicular profiles, the oval
cheeks, and the chins full, but not too full, which one connects in idea
with the Scandinavian sea-king of the olden day. As a rule, then, the
Icelandic face can by no means be called handsome.
The oral region is often coarse and unpleasant. Lean lips are not so
numerous as the large, loose, fleshy, and _bordés_ or slightly everted,
whilst here and there a huge mouth seems to split the face from ear to
ear. The redeeming feature is the denture. The teeth are short,
regular, bright-coloured, and lasting, showing uncommon strength of
constitution. They are rarely clean when coffee and tobacco are abused,
and they are yet more rarely cleaned. Doubtless a comparatively scanty
use of hot food tends to preserve them. The jowl is strong and square,
and the chin is heavy, the weak “vanishing” form being very uncommon.
The beard is sometimes worn, but more often clean shaved off; it seldom
grows to any length, though the mustachios, based upon a large and solid
upper lip, are bushy and form an important feature. Thick whiskers are
sometimes seen, and so are “Newgate frills,” from which the small foxy
features stand sharply out.
The other strong points are the skin and hair. The former is almost
always rufous, rarely milanous, and the author never saw a specimen of
the leucous (albino). The “positive blonde” is the rule; opposed to the
negative or washed out blonde of Russia and Slavonia generally. The
complexion of the younger sort is admirably fresh, pink and white; and
some retain this charm till a late age. Its delicacy subjects it to
sundry infirmities, especially to freckles, which appear in large brown
blotches; exposure to weather also burns the surface, and converts rose
and lily to an unseemly buff and brick-dust red. It is striated in early
middle-age with deep wrinkles and it becomes much “drawn,” the effect of
what children call “making faces” in the sunlight and snow-blink. In the
less wholesome parts of the island the complexion of the peasantry is
pallid and malarious.
Harfagr (Pulchricomus) is an epithet which may apply to both sexes. The
hair, which belongs to the class Lissótriches, subdivision Euplokomoi,
of Hæckel and Müller (Allg. Ethnographie, 1873), seldom shows the darker
shades of brown; and in the very rare cases where it is black, there is
generally a suspicion of Eskimo or Mongoloid blood. The colour ranges
from carrotty-red to turnip-yellow, from barley-sugar to the
_blond-cendré_ so expensive in the civilised markets. We find all the
gradations of Parisian art here natural; the “corn-golden,” the _blonde
fulvide_, the incandescent (“carrotty”), the _flavescent_ or
sulphur-hued, the _beurre frais_, the _fulvastre_ or lion’s mane, and
the _rubide_ or mahogany, Raphael’s favourite tint. The abominable
Hallgerda’s hair is the type of Icelandic beauty; it was “soft as silk
and so long that it came down to her waist.” Seldom straight and lank,
the _chevelure_ is usually wavy, curling at the ends, when short cut, as
in England. The women have especially thick locks, which look well
without other art but braiding, and many of the men have very bushy
hair. As in the negro, baldness does not appear till a late age, and
perhaps the Húfa (cap) by exposing the larger part of the surface acts
as a preservative; old men and women, though anile beauty is very rare,
are seen with grey and even white locks exceptionally thick. Canities
comes on later than in Scotland and Sweden, yet scant attention is paid
to the hair beyond washing at the brook. The body pile is as usual
lighter coloured.
The figure is worse than the face, and it is rendered even more uncouth
by the hideous swathing dress. The men are remarkable for
“champagne-bottle (unduly sloping) shoulders,” “broad-shouldered in the
backside,” as our sailors say. They are seldom paunchy, though some,
when settled in warmer climates, develop the _schöne corpulenz_ of the
Whitechapel sugar-baker. They have the thick, unwieldy trunks of
mountaineers, too long for the lower limbs--a peculiarity of hill-men
generally, which extends even to the Bubes of Fernando Po. The legs are
uncommonly sturdy; the knees are thick and rounded, an unpromising sign
of blood; the ankles are coarse, and the flat feet are unusually large
and ill-formed, like the hands, a point of resemblance with the
Anglo-Saxon pure and simple. Hence they are peculiarly fitted for their
only manly sport, besides skating and shooting, “Glímu list:” this
wrestling has a “chic” of its own, though very different from the style
of Cumberland and Cornwall. The gait, a racial distinction, is shambling
and ungraceful, utterly unlike the strut of Southern Europe and the roll
of the nearer East; the tread is ponderous, and the light fantastic toe
is unknown. This “wabble” and waddle result from the rarity of
walking-exercise compared with riding and boating, and from the
universal use of the seal-skin slipper. The habit becomes a second
nature: all strangers observe the national trick of rocking the body
when sitting or standing to talk, and they mostly attribute it to the
habit of weaving, when it is practised by thousands who never used a
loom. The feminine figure is graceful and comparatively slender in
youth, like the English girl of the “willowy type,” but the limbs are
large and ungainly. After a few years the “overblown” forms broaden out
coarsely. Women do not draw the plough, as in Greece and parts of
Ireland, but they must take their turn at all manner of field-work. The
_Frauen-cultus_, said to be a native of Europe north of the Alps, has
not extended here, at least in these days.[168] Hence the legs and
ankles, hands and feet, rival in size and coarseness those of the men.
As wives, they would be efficient correctives to the “fine drawn”
framework and the over-nervous diathesis of southern nations. Cold in
temperament, they are therefore, like the Irish, prolific, which may
also result from the general fish-diet. Dr Schleisner, who resided in
Iceland under the Danish Government, has proved the temperature of the
blood to be higher than amongst other races. Assuming the average of
Europeans at C. 36°·5 (= F. 97°·7), nine persons out of twelve exceeded
C. 37° (= F. 98°·6): the maximum was C. 37°·8 (= F. 100°); the minimum
was C. 36°·5, and the average was C. 37°·27 (= F. 99°·09).[169]
Intermarriage is so general that almost all the chief families are
cousins; yet among several thousands the author saw only one hunchback,
two short legs, and a few hare-lips. It is almost needless to say that
the common infanticide of pagan days is now unknown, and that we must
seek some other cause for the absence of deformity. It may be found,
perhaps, in the purity of unmixed blood, which, mentioning no other
instances, allows consanguineous marriages to the Jews, the Bedawin
Arabs, and even to the Trasteverino Romans;[170] whereas composite and
heterogeneous races like the Englishman, the Spaniard, and especially
the New Englander, cannot effect such unions without the worst
results--idiocy and physical deformity.
As regards uncleanliness in house and body, it may be said that the
Icelander holds a middle rank between the Scotchman and the Greenlander,
and he contrasts badly with the Norwegian of modern days. Personal
purity, the one physical virtue of old age, is, as a rule, sadly
neglected. Concerning this unpleasant topic, the author is compelled to
offer a few observations. The old islander could rival the seal: his
descendant, like the man of Joe Miller, will not trust himself in water
before he can swim. The traveller never sees man or woman in sea, river,
or brook, though even the lower animals bathe in hot weather. It is a
race _abominantes aquam frigidam_, and, even as pagans, their chief
objection to Christianity was the necessity of baptism: they compounded
for immersion in the Laug or hot spring,[171] and the latter is still,
though very seldom, used. Washing is confined to the face and hands; and
the tooth-brush is unknown like the nail-brush: the basins, where they
exist, are about the size of punch-bowls. Purification by water, after
Moslem fashion, is undreamed of. Children are allowed to contract
hideous habits, which they preserve as adults; for instance, picking
teeth, and not only teeth, with dinner-forks. Old travellers, who
perhaps had not observed the cellarman in the wine vaults (London Docks)
bore a hole and blow through it to start the liquor, record a peculiarly
unpleasant contrivance for decanting the milk-pan into narrow-necked
vessels; the same, in fact, adopted by the Mexican when bottling his
“Maguey;” and “Blefkenius” alludes to a practice still popular amongst
the Somal: it is only fair to own that the author never saw them. The
rooms, and especially the sick rooms, are exceedingly stifling and
impure. Those who venture upon an Icelandic bed may perhaps find clean
sheets, but they had better not look under them. The houses, except in
the towns, or the few belonging to foreign merchants, have no offices,
and all that have, leave them in a horrible condition: there is no
drainage, and the backyard is a mass of offal. Such is the effect of
climate, which makes dirt the “poor man’s jacket” in the north; which
places cleanliness next to godliness in the sub-tropical regions, and
which renders personal uncleanliness sinful and abominable to the
quasi-equatorial Hindú. Nor must we forget that the old English proverb
“Washing takes the marrow out of a man,” still has significance amongst
our peasantry.
§3. CHARACTER.
Appreciations of national character too often depend upon the casual
circumstances which encounter and environ the traveller; and writers
upon Iceland differ so greatly upon the matter, that perhaps the safest
plan will be to quote the two extremes.
The unfriendly find the islanders serious to a fault; silent, gloomy,
and atrabilious; ungenial and morose; stubborn and eternally suspicious;
litigious and mordant; utterly deficient in adventure, doing nothing but
what necessity compels; little given to hospitality; greedy of gain, and
unscrupulous in the _quocumque modo rem_. “Gaiety,” says one, “seems
banished from their hearts, and we should suppose that all are under the
influence of that austere nature in the midst of which they were born.”
Henderson (i. 34), who represents the bright side of the picture,
enlarges upon their calm and dignified, their orderly and law-abiding
character; he denies their being of sullen and melancholy disposition;
he was surprised at the degree of cheerfulness and vivacity prevailing
among them, and that, too, not unfrequently under circumstances of
considerable external depression. They are so honest that the doors are
not locked at night in their largest town; strangely frank and
unsophisticated; ardent patriots and lovers of constitutional liberty;
fond of literature, pious, and contented; endowed with remarkable
strength of intellect and acuteness; brimful of hospitality, and not
given to any crimes, or indeed vices, except drunkenness.
And, upon the principle of allowing the Icelander to describe himself,
we may quote as an exemplar of character the following model epitaph:
“To the precious memory of A., S.’s son, who married the maiden C.,
D.’s daughter. He was calm in mind; firm in council; watchful, active,
his friends’ friend; hospitable, bountiful, upright towards all, and the
affectionate father of his house and children.”
The truth is, that although isolation has, as might be expected,
preserved a marked racial character, the islandry are much like other
Northmen. During the pagan times, and indeed until the sixteenth
century, we read “their chief characteristics were treachery, thirst for
blood, unbounded licentiousness, and inveterate detestation of order and
rule;” but we shall hardly recognise the picture now. They are truthful,
and they appear pre-eminently so to a traveller from the south of
Europe, or from the Levant. They have a sense of responsibility, and you
may believe their oaths: at the same time, they look upon all men as
liars, and they are as _desconfiados_ (distrustful) as Paulistas or
Laplanders--a mental condition apparently connected with a certain phase
of civilisation. Compared with the sharp-witted Southron, they are dull
and heavy, stolid and hard of comprehension as our labouring classes,
without the causes which affect the latter. They cleave like Hindús to
the father-to-son principle, and they have little at home that tempts
either to invention, to innovation, or to adventure. They are a
“polypragmatic peasantry;” the love of lawsuits still distinguishes the
Norman in France after ages of separation from the parent stock. Even in
private debate they obstinately adhere to the letter, and shun the
spirit: an Icelander worsted in argument takes up some verbal
distinction or secondary point, and treats it as if it were of primary
importance. An exaggeration of this peculiarity breeds the _Querelle
d’Allemand_.
Another peculiarity of the islandry is a bitterly satirical turn of
mind, a quality noted of old. We rarely meet with a “Thorkel Foulmouth,”
but we see many a Skarphèdinn who delights and who takes pride in
dealing those wounds of the tongue which according to the Arabs never
heal. An ancient writer gives a fair measure of what could be done by
Níðvísur[172] (lampoons), which never spared even the kings. They
threatened Harold the Dane to write as many lampoons upon him as there
were noses[173] in Iceland (Ólaf Tryggvason’s Saga, xxxvii.), and
escaped by magic from an invasion. Nor did they spare even the gods; for
instance, Hjalti sings (Burnt Nial’s Saga):
“I will not serve an idle log,
For one, I care not which;
But either Odin is a dog
Or Freya is a----.”
The term “Tað-skegglingar,” Dung-beardlings, applied by a woman to
certain youths whom she hated, caused a small civil war. When Dr Wormius
was Rector Magnificus of the Copenhagen University, an Icelandic student
complained of a libellous fellow-countryman. The poet, when summoned,
confessed the authorship; contended that it contained no cause of
offence, and, with characteristic plausibility and cunning, talked over
the simple Vice-Chancellor. Thereupon the plaintiff in tears told the
Rector that his fair fame was for ever lost, explaining at the same time
the “fables, figures, and other malicious designs under which the
malignity of the satire was couched;” and even the “spells and
sorceries” which threatened his life. Thereupon Dr Wormius took high
ground, and by citing certain severe laws against witchcraft, persuaded
the poet to tear up his satire and never to write or to speak of it
again. “The student was ravished with joy,” because he had made his
peace with a pest who could exceed in power of annoyance Aristophanes,
Horace, and Juvenal.
The courage, steadfastness, and pertinacity of the Icelander are proved
by his annals, and if he does not show these qualities in the present
day, it is because they are overlaid by circumstances. As regards the
relations of the sexes, we find nothing in the number of illegitimate
children which justifies the poet in singing of the “moral north.”[174]
Iceland in fact must be reckoned amongst the
“Littora quæ fuerunt castis inimica puellis;”
and although she has improved upon the reckless licentiousness of the
Saga days, ichthyophagy and idleness must do much to counterbalance the
“sun-clad power of chastity.” The “unsophistication” of the race is
certainly on the wane; there are doubtless
“Honest men from Iceland to Barbadoes,”
but the islander is pre-eminent for a “canniness” which equals, if it
does not exceed, that of the Yankee, the lowland Scotch, and the
Maltese. And what he gains he can keep with a most tenacious hold.
The statistics of crime in Iceland are peculiarly unsatisfactory. As the
Journal will show, many a man goes free who would be prosecuted and
severely punished farther south. Traveller after traveller has asserted,
“it is in a large measure to their widespread home education that we
must attribute the fine moral character of the Icelanders;” and capital
has been made of the fact that the old stone-prison became the
Government House. The Danish Parliamentary Reports (p. 255, vol. xlvii.
for 1837-1838) contain details concerning the number of persons
arraigned and convicted, sentenced, and acquitted by the tribunals.
During a period of seven years (1827-1834), there were but 292
indictments on the island; of these 216 ended in conviction; 20 cases
were suspended; 32 were dismissed, and 56 were acquitted. Of the 216
convictions, 79 were for “carnal offences;” 86 for larceny; 15 for
transgressing sanitarial laws; 5 for murder, and 31 for various
offences, such as false-witness and receiving stolen goods. The last
statistics in 1868 give 46 criminal cases (37 males, 9 females) for the
whole island, and in 37 conviction and sentence followed; 34 were for
theft, 1 for forgery, 2 for adultery, besides 29 were fined for
disturbance of the peace and for offences against public order. There
were also 57 cases of adultery and seduction; 24 of these were fined,
and in 33 cases the fine was remitted (Skýrslur um Landshagi, v. 193,
1871).
The suicide,[175] arson, and infant exposure of the republican and pagan
ages are no longer heard of; vagrancy is hardly an offence; the state of
the country prevents technical robbery; and forgery does not belong to
its present state of civilisation. It is peculiar that almost all
classes believe in and fear a tribe of outlaws or bandits who occupy the
deserts of the interior--these are the days of Robin Hood come again.
§ 3. SOCIETY.
The social condition of Iceland has been compared with Lord Macaulay’s
pictures of the Highlanders a hundred and fifty, and of the English
three hundred years ago--the differences are more salient than the
points of resemblance. The proverb “Heimskt er heimaðlia barn” (homely
is the housebred child) produced a habit of voyaging and travelling; and
wide wandering made the homes centres of refinement: the same practice
in the Hebrides astonished Dr Johnson. Unhappily it is now no longer the
popular habit; it has gone the way of the manly exercises, bowls,
quoits, swimming, and practising weapons, which distinguished the heroic
age. With much aristocratic feeling there is no aristocratic order
properly so called; the earl, the baron, and the clan-chief are equally
unknown; whilst the parson, like the priest in Slavonic countries, is
the modern pattern to the Thane or Churl. As in the United States, there
is no gentlemen class except the liberal professions, and even the
clergy until the present generation were farmers and fishermen,
labourers, mechanics, and so forth, often poorer and shabbier than the
laity. The official circles are too small to form a _beamten-kreis_; the
squirearchy is represented by the franklins or peasant lairds, who no
longer correspond with the ancient Udallers; the merchants are chiefly
foreigners.
Under these circumstances we can hardly expect much general refinement,
nor the particular phase which produces men whose life consists in
adorning society, and women born to wear diamonds and to be beautiful.
Yet the Icelander, franklin or pauper, has none of the roughness and
rudeness which we remark in the manners of the Canadians and of the
lowland Scotch. “No tax is levied upon civility,” and their mutual
regard for one another’s feelings, though sometimes carried to an
inconvenient extent, is the essence of true politeness. The intercourse
is rather ceremonious than “free and easy,” and travellers deride such
quaint mixture as “You lie, my blessed (or beloved) friend!” The abuse
of mutual regard is a servile fear of making enemies; they often tamely
put up with injuries, as the Brazilian submits to be plundered by a
richer neighbour, and the Syrian swallows his wrath rather than offend
one who may some day become a Pasha.
The Icelander is a large-brained and strong-brained man, essentially
slow and solid in point of intellect, and capable of high culture, of
wide learning, and of deep research. This lesson is taught by the whole
of his literature; although the muse no longer sings of love and war,
she is by no means mute--her turn is now the theological, the
philological, and the scientific. Arngrímr Jónsson well describes his
countrymen as “Ad totius Europæ res historicas lyncæi.” But the islander
never attains his full development except out of his own country, and
this condition dates from past ages. Throughout the north, from
England[176] and Val-land (France and Italy), to Mikligarðr
(Constantinople),[177] he has distinguished himself and proved
“That every country is a brave man’s home.”
Abroad, his emulation is excited, his ambition is roused, and his slow
sturdy nature is stirred up to unusual energy. At home he can command no
serious education, nor can he escape from the indolent and phlegmatic,
the dawdling and absolutely unconditioned slowness of the country, where
time is a positive nuisance, to be killed as it best can. In Iceland the
author met several Danes, but only two Icelanders, who spoke good
English, French, or German; it is far otherwise in Europe, and
especially, we need not say, in England.
As the notices of emigration will show, Iceland, like Ireland, is
instinctively seeking her blessing and salvation, the “racial baptism.”
One traveller records the “inexpressible attachment of the islanders for
their native country.” Their _Sehn sucht_ in a mountainless land, and
the time-honoured boast, “Hið besta land solin skínr uppá” (Iceland is
the best land upon which the sun shines).[178] So Bjarni Thorarensen
sings, “World-old Iceland, beloved foster-land, thou wilt be dear to thy
sons, as long as sea girds earth, men love women, and sun shines on
hills.” But all the people of all the poorest countries console
themselves in the same way, and geographical ignorance confirms an idea
which to the traveller becomes simply ludicrous: moreover, northerners,
it need hardly be said, gain more by removal, and therefore emigrate
more readily than southerners. The latter express themselves
unmistakably:
Ἀνδρὶ γάρ τοι, κἄν ῦπερξάλλῃ κακοῖς
Οὐν ἔστι θρεψαντος ἤδιον πέδον.
And “Ulysses ad Ithacæ suæ saxa properat, quemadmodum Agamemnon ad
Mycenarum nobiles muros; nemo enim patriam amat quia magna, sed quia
sua” (Seneca), They are happy at home; why should they leave home?
The Icelander cannot be called degenerate. He is what he was. But whilst
the world around, or rather beyond him, has progressed with giant
strides, he has perforce remained stationary. His mother country forbids
him to decuple the human hand and arm by machinery; the enormous
water-power of his rivers is useless, and thinness of population bars
out the appliances of civilisation--how can he expect to hold a fair
place in the race of life? Moreover, like another small and heroic
kingdom, modern Greece, Iceland has suffered from ages of virtually
foreign dominion, not to say tyranny, and from restrictions of trade,
which, small as items, combined to form a system of grinding oppression.
His brightest days were those when, like the Goth and Hun, the Arab and
the Tartar, he devoted himself to plundering the wealthy weak. But the
times for these nomad incursions are past, until at least China can
renew them; and he hopelessly sank when no longer able to harry the
southern islands, to break down London bridge, to plunder and massacre
Luna, and to spread
“Beneath Gibraltar to the Lybian sands.”
His future career is in his own hands, and improvement must be sought in
extended stock-breeding, in better use of the fisheries, and in
extensive emigration. With free institutions he will bring to the task
the same high and steadfast spirit which distinguished him in his prime.
Anthropologists justly object to the popular theory of a nation
degenerating, unless, indeed, there be a mixture of foreign and inferior
blood; but they see everywhere in history the decline and fall of races,
whenever the stronger neighbouring peoples rise to the same or to a
higher level of civilisation. The Roman and the Athenian still greatly
resemble the conquerors of Europe and Asia, but in those days the Gauls
and the Germans, the Scandinavians and the Britons, were mere
barbarians, uneducated and undisciplined. Now all are on a level, and,
as we saw in the late Franco-Prussian war, the physically strongest
wins--the north beats, and will ever beat, the south.
The islanders, like their brother Scandinavians and the Teutons, had no
idea of towns. We may apply to them the description of Tacitus (Germ.,
c. xvi.), “Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari satis notum est ...
colunt discreti ac diversi, ut fons, ut campus, ut nemus placuit.” In
Norway the first town, Níðar-ós, _par excellence_ called Kaupang, was
built by the two Olaves (Ó. Tryggvason or Trusty-son, and Ó. Helgi the
Saint) in A.D. 994-1030; the real founder of cities was Olave the Quiet
(1067-1093). Thus in old Norse codes the Town-law is an appendix to the
Land-law. As late as 1752, Reykjavik was a single isolated farm.
It is strange how little the style of Iceland life has altered since the
time (1767) when M. de Kerguelen wrote his short and lively sketch--it
seems to be fixed like the language. As now, the island was divided into
four provinces, of which each had eighteen to twenty counties, and every
county fifteen to sixteen parishes. The Sýslur were under bailiffs, all
subject to the grand bailiff (Governor), and to the sovereign council
(Althing). The chief civil officer and the royal seneschal (treasurer),
who collected the taxes, reported to a governor-general residing at
Copenhagen--he is now represented by the minister for Iceland. There
were two bishops, one for the south (Skálholt), and another for the
north (Hólar); there is at present only one in the capital, but the
people would willingly see, and will see, the older status restored.
The Iceland farm-house[179] was then, as now, a set of buildings
scattered over the “tún,” or infield. The abode was entered by a
passage (Bæjar-dyr) six feet wide, with a cross-raftered roof, and this
“Skemma” was lighted by windowlets (Skjágluggi) of “Himna” (membrane),
transparent parchment of cattle’s bladder; by Likna-belgur, ewe’s
chorion; by Vats-belgur, sheep’s amnion; or by Skæna, inner membranes of
the stomach, a little more opaque, or, rarely, by bulls’ eyes of glass.
They were not the only tenements in the eighteenth century which had no
light--
“Save one dull pane, that, coarsely patched, gives way
To the rude tempest, yet excludes the day.”
Fronting the common entrance was the Baðstofa (public room, literally
meaning bathroom), measuring fourteen ells by eight, in which the
household worked at dressing wool and weaving cloth. It led to a
bedroom, where the house master and mistress slept, the children and
servants occupying the garrets and cock-lofts. On each side of the lobby
were two rooms, the kitchen (Eld-hús, opposed to the stofa or gynæceum),
and the store-room or Búr (our “bower,” and the Scottish “byre”); the
dairy and the guest-chamber (Gestaskáli). At present the entrance is
usually faced by the kitchen, and at right angles there is a covered
gallery or tunnel, upon which the doors open: thus the rooms are not
wholly dark, even when they lack glass, which is rare.[180] The
outhouses (Úti-hús) were the stables, the stores (Geymslu-hús), the
byres, the sheep pens (Fjár-hús), the forge, and, sometimes, the
carpenter’s shop. The house (Bæjar-hás or Heima-hús) was built of
planks, which, coming from Copenhagen, were too expensive to be used as
flooring. The only fire was in a stove; the fuel was of turf and
cow-“chips,” and the interior was never dry--the unrheumatic traveller
will not find that damp of which the many complained. The furniture
consisted of a table and chests acting chairs; Niels Horrebow, the Dane
who saw everything _en beau_, added wainscots, glasses, and a variety of
luxuries. Johann Anderson, afterwards burgomaster of Hamburg, by no
means wore the rose-coloured spectacles.
“The people appeared mild, good-natured, and humane, but distrustful and
_addicted to drink_. They were very fond of chess, and good coasting
sailors, _but not very courageous_”--no wonder, considering their craft!
They soon became infirm; they were old at fifty, and they rarely reached
eighty. “Landsarsak” (Landfarsótt[181]) was the name given to all fatal
illnesses usually arising from scurvy, wet feet, and want of exercise.
Their hay was not housed, but heaped in stacks two yards square, upon
raised mounds, at short distances, and covered with sloping turf to lead
the rain into surrounding ditches. In summer food was of cods’-heads,
boiled like all other provisions: in winter the peasants ate
sheeps’-heads kept in (fermented) vinegar of sour milk (Sýra), or in
juice of sorrel (Súra),[182] and other plants, the mutton being sold.
Bread was not the staff of life, being eaten only on high days and
holidays, that is, at births, marriages, and deaths: the richer sort
baked cakes, broad and thin, like sea biscuits, of black rye flour from
Copenhagen.
The men dressed like sailors in breeches, jackets acting coats, and
vests of good broadcloth, with four to six rows of buttons, always
metal, copper or silver. The fishermen wore overalls, coarse smooth
waistcoats, large paletots of sheepskin or leather, made water-proof by
grease or fish-liver oil; leather overalls, stockings, and native shoes.
The women were clad in jackets and gowns, petticoats and aprons of
woollen frieze, over which was thrown a “Hempa,” or wide black robe,
like a Jesuit frock, trimmed with velvet binding. The wealthy added
silver ornaments down the length of the dress, and braided the other
articles with silk ribbons, galloon, or velvets of various colours. The
ruff was a stiff collar from three to four inches broad, of very fine
stuff, embroidered with gold or silver. The head-dress was a cone like a
fool’s-cap or sugar-loaf, two to three feet tall, kept in place by a
coarse cloth, and covered with a finer kerchief. The soleless shoes of
ox-hide or sheep-skin, made by the women out of a single piece, were
strapped to the instep.
The wives were not so strong as the husbands, yet they had the hardest
work in haymaking. Their labour was difficult, and they “kept their beds
for a week.” At baptism a bit of linen dipped in milk was placed in the
babe’s mouth, and the child was breeched at the end of two years.
§ 4. THE FAMILY.
Population was checked by not allowing marriage to a man who did not own
a hundred of land or a six-oared boat in trim: this wholesome law,
however, is becoming obsolete as the ferocious old code which prevented
the propagation of paupers. The number of births is about 2940 to 2020
deaths per annum: thus the annual increase is 920, but the mortality of
children is, or perhaps we should say was, disproportionate. In 1858,
489 upon the island died between the ages of 1 to 5, and 68 between 5 to
10--a total of 557. During the same year the number of illegitimate to
legitimate births was 15:100: this figure appears pretty constant, but
rather on the increase than the reverse. In the early nineteenth
century, Hooker gives 383 illegitimates in 2516 births = 15⅕ per cent. =
nearly to 1:7--a high average, which he explains by the huddling
together of families. Mr Vice-Consul Crowe (1866) gives 1:6·9 of births.
Statistics of the years between 1860 and 1870 give 20:100, or 1:5. The
Consular Report of 1870-71 asserts that “in every 100 births there were
17 of illegitimate children,” and shows the following figures: 1866,
17·7; 1867, 16·7; 1868, 17·2; 1869, 16·2; 1870, 16·8.
Of 2937 children, only 48 were born (1858) of mothers under 20; 23 were
legitimate, and 25 were not: 458 had mothers aged 20 to 25: 933, of
whom 764 were born in wedlock and 169 were not, had mothers aged 25 to
30: the mothers of 703 new-born children were 30 to 35 years old; those
of 549, from 35 to 40; those of 221 from 40 to 45; and, lastly, those of
25, from 45 to 50.
In the same year, 3 men committed suicide; 65 were drowned; 17 perished
by accidents, and 1939 died of disease. The smallest number of deaths
(128) occurred in February, the coldest month; and the greatest number
(205) in July, the warmest.
There is little of novelty in the religious ceremonies accompanying
baptisms, marriages, and funerals, which are those of the Augsburg rite;
but there is something to say upon the subject of names. Until the
middle of the last century, the surnames, as in olden Kent, were all
patronymics or matronymics; such was the ancient fashion of Europe,
especially of England and Germany, a custom still preserved by the great
Slav race (_vich_ or _ich_), and by the modern Greeks, who
prefer-_poulo_ and who almost ignore the ancient-_ides_. It is notorious
how Linne (Linnæus), the prince of naturalists, was prompted by the
growing use of family names to devise the generic and specific
distinctions, which superseded a system cumbrous and intricate as that
of a Chinese dictionary. In very thinly populated countries, where every
man knew his neighbour, it was possible to be called Jón Jónsson[183]
and Caroline Jónsdóttir, but so rude a plan would not serve elsewhere.
We still find it in the country parts of Iceland, and, curious to say,
the people are returning to the old fashion of taking the paternal name
as surname. The matronymic, _e.g._, Sveinn Ástriðarson, in early times
was assumed when the mother outlived the father: it was never a mark of
base blood; as amongst the Spaniards, where El Hijo de ruin padre, Toma
el apelido de la madre.
In 1855, a curious official paper was published under the title “Um
Mannaheiti á Íslandi.” It shows that the island has only 63 native
surnames, and 530 men’s and 529 women’s Christian names: no wonder that
“nicknames” are common as amongst Moslems and Brazilians. Hence local
cognomens are also much used, as Peter of Engey, and Jón of the
“Strönd,” _i.e._, the coast from Hafnafjörð to Keblavik. The popular
address would be Herra Bonde (Mr Farmer), Herra Hreppstjóri (Mr
Constable), or “Good day, comrade!” sounding very republican, and
accompanied by a resounding kiss.
Every fifth man appears to affect, in one of five forms, the fourth
Evangelist. Jón (Johns, 4827), Jóhannes (498), Jóhann (494), Hannes
(154), and Hans (80), making a total of 5053. On the other hand, whilst
Odin has disappeared, Thór, in compounded shape, enters into 2010 male
and 1875 female “Christian” names = 3885. Guðrún[184] numbers 4363;
Marguerite, 1654; yet Marias, elsewhere so common,[185] are only 384;
and Rosas decline to 269. Amongst historical names, we find 122 Sæmundr;
of Biblical names, even the quaintest and the most Hebraical, such as
Samson, Samuel, and Solomon, Jael, and Judith, are here common as in all
Protestant countries: Catholics more wisely avoid them, leaving them to
their original Jewish owners. The western counties affect the strangest
terms, such as Petra, Petrea, Petrina, Petulína, and Tobía, a feminine.
And throughout the island there is arising a new fashion of combining
names almost as ingenious as that of the Latter-Day Saints. For
instance, the daughter of Brynjólfur by Thórdís will be called Bryndís;
the son of Sæmundr by Elina is named Elínmundr. Of course nothing can be
more barbarous, but what does “fashion” care for barbarism?
In pagan times the wife was often assisted by Friðlas or
supernumeraries, and, though she was liable to be exchanged or loaned,
as was the case amongst the polished Hindús, the Greeks, and the
Romans, she could put away her baron for so slight an offence as wearing
a chemisette, or any other article of feminine attire. The simple
process was to declare before witnesses that they twain ceased to be one
flesh. The marriage tie sat almost as lightly upon Icelanders as upon
Scandinavians generally, even in the Catholic days: since the
introduction of Lutheranism, it has, as we might expect, been still less
binding.[186] We may therefore conclude that a certain love of change is
in such matters a characteristic of the race. At present every _peine
infamante_ allows divorce; and incompatibility of temper, shown by three
years of separation, with the consent of the mayor, is a plea of
sufficient force to claim from the Minister of Justice at Copenhagen
freedom _a mensâ et thoro_. Both parties are able to remarry, and they
may be reunited, unless they have misconducted themselves whilst living
apart; in this case they must obtain a dispensation from the
chancellerie of the empire.
§ 5. DISEASES.
It is calculated that the yearly deaths at Reykjavik average 59-60, and
this figure, if correct, is high for the population, in 1870 only 2024,
now at most 2500. For instance, the mean of London being 19 per 1000,
and all England 20·8, to say nothing of Glastonbury, Reykjavik, with the
most favourable calculations, would be 24.[187] With more attention to
hygiene, the headquarter village should not show a death-rate exceeding
17:1000--the beau-ideal of the modern sanitarian.
The list of diseases is so extensive that little beyond the names can be
mentioned. They result mainly from the utter absence of hygiene; from
want of cleanliness; from bad living, hardship, and fatigue; and from
exposure to cold, especially after living in close and heated rooms. The
latter is a fertile source of ill-health: so at St Petersburgh the
higher classes suffer from the maladies of Calcutta, hepatalgia,
jaundice, and spleen-enlargments; and, after a certain number of
“seasons,” they must seek health in the Crimea, or in Southern Europe.
Hence the fondness of Icelanders for sour food which equals that of the
acid-loving citizens of Damascus. The pudding of the island is Skyr,
which the Dictionary wrongly translates “curdled milk, curds,” and which
Rafn derives from the Sanskrit Kshira (milk): it is the Khir of Sind and
Belochistan; the Laban of Arabia; the Dahin of Hindostan; the
Saure-milch of South Germany; the Kisalina of Styria and Slavland, and
the Hattelkit or Corstorphine Cream of Scotland.[188] Icelanders eat it
with sugar, which gives it a sickly taste. Hence the use of acid butter;
of Mysuost, or whey cheese, brown, and not unlike guava cheese; of
Valle, fermented whey, somewhat like Koumiss; of Sýra, or sour whey,
acting small beer, and used in pickles like vinegar; of Súr mjólk, or
sour milk; and of Blanda, the favourite drink, half whey and half water,
into which blueberries, and black, crake, or crow berries (Icel.
Krækjuber, _Empetrum baccis nigris_) are sometimes infused. And hence,
finally, the use of Korn-súra (_Polygonum viviparum_), _Cochlearia_
(_officinalis_ and _Danica_), trefoil (_T. repens_), _Sedum Acre_ (house
leek), and other social plants, which are considered antiseptic and
antibilious.
The skin diseases are alopecia, herpes, and psora inveterate as on the
Congo River. “St Anthony’s fire” was cured by binding live earth-worms
upon the part afflicted. Scurvy (Skyrbjúgr) results from “thinness of
blood,” induced by want of proper nourishment, especially by the overuse
of salt and dried meat and fish: the increased growth of vegetables, not
to speak of medicines, has much modified its malignancy. Measles and
scarlatina are rare, but periodical attacks of smallpox, which often
appear in history,[189] still compel the capital to convert one of the
best houses into an hospital. In 1872, it was occupied by French
fishermen only; there was no case among the natives. The author did not
see a single instance of the protean and the most cosmopolitan of
diseases, whose various phases are known as Lepra Arabum, Leuce, and Mal
Rouge; Leontasis, or Facies leonina; Elephantias, Elephantiasis, and
Barbadoes Leg. It is known to old writers as “Icelandic scurvy,” to the
islanders as Lík-thrá-sótt, or corpse-pang, which Henderson translates,
a rotten, rancid corpse;[190] Holdsveiki, or flesh-weakness, and
Spitalska (’Spital sickness), the latter being the biblical term. When
the extremities drop off, the term generally applied was Limafallsíki.
In the ninth century, leprosy required some 19,000 hospitals in Europe;
and it has perhaps lingered longest in the Færoes and in Iceland. Here,
curious to observe, its very headquarters were about Skagi and
Reykjanes, the best and mildest climates. A few cases still remain, but
the establishments built in Catholic days have not been kept up by the
Reformation, perhaps showing the want to be less urgent. The horrid
malady is evidently dying a natural death, like others which have
yielded their places to new comers, or which are gradually disappearing,
without leaving issue. The best authorities explain the change by the
use of bromide of potassium and the increase of vegetable diet. And to
the question of Aretæus, “Sed quænam medela excogitari poterit, quæ
Elephantem, tam ingens malum, expugnari digna est?” Iceland answers,
fearless of Cobbett, the potato. The latter has taken the place of the
old-fashioned simples, the tops and berries of juniper (_J. communis_),
of _Dryas octopelata_, of _Vaccinium myrtillus_ (bilberries), of
Sanguisorbs, and of similar sub-acid tonics.
It is impossible to enter into a subject which has filled many a volume,
but it may briefly be stated that no cosmical cause of leprosy has ever
been discovered; and that what seems to account for its origin in one
place, completely fails in another. India, especially Malabar,
attributes it to biliary derangements, caused by fish and milk diet. The
Brazil, like the Jews, the Moslems, and other pig-haters, refers it to
pork; Syria and Palestine, ignoring the “impure,” declare it to result
from atavism and inheritance. Iceland remarks that it was worst when men
wore woollen garments; and similarly Sir George Staunton assigns the
modern exemption of Europe to the general use of linen.
Peirce declares that syphilis (introduced, according to Uno Von Troil,
about A.D. 1753), chlorosis, mania à potu, caries of the teeth and
intermittent fevers are unknown, or almost unknown. He is certainly
incorrect with respect to the latter complaint; typhus and various
febrile affections are very common in the finest and warmest months,
when many of the peasantry show signs of “malaria.” Pleurisy is
popularly supposed to be infectious. Rachitis, called in Norway the
“English sickness,” because it is supposed to have passed over in late
years from Britain to France, Holland, and Germany; scrofula and
consumption are rare. Chiragra is attributed by old writers to “handling
wet fishing tackle in cold weather.”[191] The trismus infantium seu
neonatorum, called “ginklofi” when opisthenous, and “klums” if
emprosthonous, has raged like a plague, especially at Heimaey, one of
the Vestmannaeyjar. The children, contrary to the practice of all wild
peoples, were weaned after the first week, and were fed upon the flesh
of the foul mollie, or fulmar-petrel: the same was once the case at St
Kilda, with similar results. At Heimaey, 64 per cent. of babes have died
between the fifth and the twelfth days after birth: since a medical man
was stationed there, the tetanus has been arrested; and of 20 births,
only a small proportion has been lost.
The other complaints are catarrhs, influenzas (where the stars have
little “influence”), and chronic rheumatisms, the latter an especial
plague; hysteria, gout, and arthrites, constipation and diarrhœas, very
prevalent during spring. The endemic echinococcus and cysticercus,
affecting one-seventh of the population, are subjects of remarkable
interest, which have been treated at considerable length. No less than
seven species of hydatids have been detected in dogs. An able analysis
of writings upon these internal cysts, causing “liver-complaints” and
“staggers,” will be found in Schmidt’s Jahrbücher der in-und
Ausländischen Gesammten Medecin (No. V., Band 134 of 1867, and No. X.,
Band 152 of 1871). The principal northern authorities quoted are
Hjaltalín, Jón Finsen, Krabbe, Thorarensen, and Skaptason.