Iceland in Tolkien's Work?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

Well strictly speaking, anarchy does not imply 'chaos' and the (apparent) lack of central State control in The Shire is indeed still a form of Anarchy. Presumably as they do not have specific 'departments' devoted to such things as maintaining roads, picking up rubbish etc they must share these duties - as would happen under an 'ideal' state of anarchy. Interestingly Tolkien himself felt he had to underline the difference as the word 'anarchy' is such a loaded term:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

Although the fact that The Shire does have certain systems (e.g. shiriffs) again suggests that someone (we? Tolkien?) has overstated the supposedly 'anarchic' nature of the place somewhat, so I tend to agree with you that the Shire was not, in fact, in a 'state of anarchy'! And that could be an oxymoron

The existence of the Althing and a legal system in old Iceland however, suggests that that too was not some anarchic Utopia; it had some basic systems of 'control' and in that respect, it is very much like The Shire as both have basic 'systems' in operation, even if they do not have central state control of one form or another.

Now, another thing which draws to mind an Iceland/Numenor comparison is the importance of 'bloodline' and how blood feuds could carry on for a long time - of course and how the island is at first a gentle paradise and later descends into chaos through said feuding.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It was an Icelandic Norseman who first travelled to the Americas if I'm not mistaken? Hmm, travelling to Valinor?

2. However, the old Icelanders were essentially a peaceful people mostly engaged in farming despite the raiding adventures, unlike the expansionist and often unpleasant Numenoreans.

ah but lets take a look at these people of you speak. . .

Firstly Erik The Red: Erik the Red had to flee Norway because of some killings he commited, he and his family settled in Iceland. The Icelanders then exiled Erik for several murders around the year 982.

Erik then left Iceland and "found" Greenland which he started colonizing. . . Erik is often said to be the first Norseman locating Greenland, but I have read that apparantly it was spottet over 50 years earlier.

Now Erik seems just as unpleasant as the Numenorians. . .but he was really more Norweigan than Icelandic. . . Moving on to other explores of Iceland.

Now Erik the Red's son Leif the Lucky was the one that settled in Vinland (Newfoundland) and for what I know there is no stories of him being bad, in fact I can only find nice things about him.

SO that seemed undecisive. . .but I am leaning more towards the Numenorians, simply because of the sailing and the fact that the Icelandics had thralls, something I think is very unlikely to be found in the Shire.

[Lalwendë]

I'm very glad Rune is here - do you learn all this cool stuff at school in Denmark?

Wasn't this Leif the famous Leif Erikksson (he who the mobile phones were named after? As was 'Bluetooth' named after Harald Bluetooth?)?

So what you are saying is that some Icelanders were still expansionist and still tough guys in every sense of the word? That to me rings true again with Numenor as this was essentially a peaceful society at forst containing one or two 'bad apples' and as it grew they came more to the fore. I have to say Hobbits certainly don't have the adventuring spirit inherent in them that Icelanders/Numenoreans had!

Course there is also the small matter that Numenoreans, like Vikings in general, had the habit of setting up new societies on the shores of the home continent (Vikings for example setting up: Dublin, Isle of Man, much of Northern Britain, Normandy etc).

Inetersting that you say Erik was 'more Norwegian' than Icelandic. Maybe the 'Black Numenoreans' could be termed in a similar way - they were more 'Middle-earth' than 'Numenor' - i.e. more of the old country (Morgoth tainted) than of the new, slightly Elvish island?

[davem]

Well, Icelanders weren't exactly 'expansionist' - for a lot of the time they were more concerned with simple survival. Another reason why the society was basically peaceful was that farms needed running & it was difficult to sustain violent feuds which cut individuals off from the rest of the community or risk alienating their neighbours (plus in such a small community most families tended to be related to each other to some degree). Icelanders were farmers first & foremost - but farmers with swords & a strong sense of personal honour. Their whole social & legal set up was designed to limit the effect of feuds & to solve disputes quickly & to the satisfation of all concerned. They did have slaves in the earlyier period, but slavery disappeared before too long - Freedmen could own land of their own once they'd been liberated. Slavery was often uneconomical - farming was often difficult & supporting a household plus slaves could be difficult, if not impossible - you'd free your slaves to avoid having to provide for them..

Expansionist??

Well, one problem was that Iceland didn't provide wood for shipbuilding (or much for building generally, & timber had to be imported. Young men might go off raiding & trading (homespun cloth was very a popular commodity), but the kind of life they lived made an expansionist attitude a no-no. They were basically peaceful farmers who tried every means to avoid conflict & resolve it peacfully, primarily because they didn't have the luxury to do much else. Iceland was effectively a big village. Violence did tend to explode & get dealt with quickly - except in extreme cases.

[Kath]

Of course, another similarity is that both lands were uninhabited, & there were no 'natives' to cause problems for the settlers (of course, that would apply equally to Numenor....)

Ah, well, that's not entirely true according to some of those who live there. Many people still believe in 'the little people', and have done for a long time. In fact the belief is so strong that when roads were built they made sure not to build them over where the little people lived for fear that if they did it would cause these legends to become angry with them.

So perhaps that would link Iceland more to the Shire as you could see the little people as being hobbits.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

haha I do not know if they are named after those two, but we do learn this stuff although some teachers does not have their facts straight.

I thought for a long time that the reason it was called "Vinland" was because they found grapes there. . .but that is most likely a legend. I must admit that I had forgotten why Erik the Red left iceland and so I had to read up on that.

Originally Posted by Davem

Well, Icelanders weren't exactly 'expansionist' - for a lot of the time they were more concerned with simple survival. Another reason why the society was basically peaceful was that farms needed running & it was difficult to sustain violent feuds which cut individuals off from the rest of the community or risk alienating their neighbours (plus in such a small community most families tended to be related to each other to some degree). Icelanders were farmers first & foremost - but farmers with swords & a strong sense of personal honour.

You are right, but in this respect the Icelanders are not very different from the rest of the Norse society. . .Vikings was not worriors by profesion, they where farmers and blacksmiths and stuff. . . Why did they come to Iceland in the first place? They where running out of farmable land in their home lands. . . there was also the raiding, but it was not the main thing.

So I think the Viking soicieties in genneral was a lot more peaceful than people think, but it was not idyllic like the shire.

I just see far more paralels to Numenor than to the Shire.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah, well, that's not entirely true according to some of those who live there. Many people still believe in 'the little people', and have done for a long time. In fact the belief is so strong that when roads were built they made sure not to build them over where the little people lived for fear that if they did it would cause these legends to become angry with them.

And there are episodes in the sagas where individuals fight trolls, Elves & ghosts. 'Ghosts' are interesting in Scandinavian lore, as they have a physical presence & engage in combat with heroes (Grettir fights trolls & breaks into a barrow to steal grave goods. He has to fight the ghost of the inhabitant, & defeats him in the traditional way - beheading the ghost & placing its head between its buttocks.

Clearly there was a belief right from the start that Iceland was inhabited by supernatural beings, & that they had to be respected or combatted.

[Lalaith]

The supernatural people of Iceland were traditionally not "little" - they were "hidden" (huldufolk - hidden people). They are as big as humans, possibly bigger, and more beautiful. So elves, not hobbits.

Leif was named Lucky not because he found America, nor because he lost it again. (I think I've told this joke before...) He was called lucky because he rescued people from a shipwreck.
This is revealing of the Norse view of luck. To have good fortune has a moral dimension which is quite hard to explain.