Chapter VII: 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).”