This is a series of posts, by me, made in response
to a post by Gary Elkins in which he quoted at length from an
anarchist FAQ to attack what he believed to be my views on Iceland.
The FAQ has been revised over the months, apparently in response to
my criticisms. I also have a post commenting
on a more recent version, in which most of
the more obvious errors have been removed.
Subject: Re: Mythadventures in Iceland: Friedman's Folly
From: ddfr@best.com (David Friedman)
Date: 1996/07/25
Some ways back in this thread, Gary Elkins posted a bit from an Anarchist FAQ, giving a wholly imaginary account of Icelandic history and institutions, complete with Jarls (Norwegian) and Housecarls (Anglo-saxon), and went on to write:
This change from a communal, anarchistic society to a statist, propertarian one is described in an article on Iceland by Harvard's Einar Haugen in the _Encyclopaedia Americana_:
"During the 12th century, wealth and power began to accumulate in the hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220, six prominent families ruled the entire country. It was the internecine power struggle among these families, shrewdly exploited by King Haakon IV of Norway, that finally brought the old republic to an end."
I was curious about the quote, so I dropped by the library. The quoted passage is in the encyclopedia, but the article says nothing about a "commual, anarchist" society, nothing about Jarls, Housecarls, or all the rest of the stuff Gary quoted--none of it, and nothing like it, is there. The author is simply offering his (entirely possible) explanation for why the old Icelandic system broke down.
Also, the author's name is given as Hallberg Hallmundsson, and no connection to Harvard is mentioned, either in the article or in his entry in the description of contributors at the beginning of the encyclopedia. Gary is welcome to check these facts for himself--it's easy enough.
Consider it as one example of why I think Snorri is a more reliable source for facts than most posters here.
David Friedman
--
In article <elkin-2607960710370001@z429701.cts.com>, elkin@cts.com (gary elkin) wrote:
> A couple of editing mistakes (see below) do not constitute a "wholly
> imaginary account."
I didn't say it did. The whole account prior to the quote from the encyclopedia is imaginary--it was apparently written by someone who didn't know anything about Icelandic history, and assumed that he could figure out what must have happened on grounds of general principle.
> > complete with Jarls (Norwegian) and Housecarls
> > (Anglo-saxon),
>
> > and went on to write:
> >
> > This change from a communal,
> > anarchistic society to a statist, propertarian one is described in an
> > article on Iceland by Harvard's Einar Haugen in the _Encyclopaedia
> > Americana_:
> >
> > "During the 12th century, wealth and power began to accumulate in the
> > hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220, six prominent families ruled the
> > entire country. It was the internecine power struggle among these
> > families, shrewdly exploited by King Haakon IV of Norway, that finally
> > brought the old republic to an end."
> The FAQ article does NOT say that the encyclopedia article refers
> specifically to a "communal, anarchist society."
But it says that the change from a communal to a propertarian society is described in the article, which simply isn't true. What the article describes is the change from an independent propertarian society to a propertarian society ruled by the King of Norway, via a period of civil war. As is obvious to anyone who actually reads the sagas, the society described in them (prior to the change) is not "communal, anarchist." There are employees (farm laborers), land is privately held and bought and sold, ... .
> > nothing about Jarls, Housecarls, or all the
> > rest of the stuff Gary quoted
> Why do you assume that the reference to Jarls and Housecarls is from the
> same article? Jarls etc were all common features of Viking society at the
> time, as far as I am aware. The English word Earl comes from Jarl, for
> example. I'll check up on my sources. In any case, these terms were not
> stated to have come from the encyclopedia article.
No--and they didn't. Do you really assume that you can deduce the history of Iceland from "common features of Viking society?" As I pointed out long ago, there weren't jarls (or housecarls) in Iceland, making it obvious that whoever wrote that bit was simply making up his facts.
My point was not that you or your source was claiming that everything you said was in the Encyclopedia article but that you were claiming it supported some of what you said (communal anarchist to propertarian), which was false, and that the rest of what you said was not there, nor in any other reputable source, since it was, as I said at the beginning, a wholly imaginary account--made up by someone who had read a little about dark ages history.
> That is the essence of the argument, namely, that MEDIEVAL ICELAND WAS
> DESTROYED BY CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIVATE WEALTH. Interesting that you
> totally ignore the main point of the argument and
> concentrate on minor details.
If you read my Icelandic article, you will find that offered as one possible explanation of what happened as well. The "main point" was what purported to be a history of Icelandic institutions; one element--and the only element having anything to do with the actual history of Iceland--was the observation that those institutions eventually broke down, and a conjecture as to why.
> The main fact quoted from the encyclopedia article -- destruction of
> medieval Icelandic society by concentrations of private wealth -- is
> accurate. The need for one stylistic editing change, a possible
> etymological error, and one wrong attribution for a quote are hardly
> strong indications of unreliability. Your exaggerations and quibbling
> about minor details -- while completely ignoring the argument -- actually
> damage your own credibility.
That part of the quote is accurate; whether the explanation it offers is accurate neither you nor I knows, although it is certainly one possibility. I am still waiting for you, or anyone else, to justify the main body of what you posted. Find me the sources for Icelandic Jarls and Housecarls and all the rest of that account of what happened up to the Sturlung period.
David Friedman
Subject: Re: Mythadventures in Iceland: Friedman's Folly
From: ddfr@best.com (David Friedman)
Date: 1996/07/27
In article <elkin-2607960710370001@z429701.cts.com>, elkin@cts.com (gary elkin) wrote:
> According to the author of the FAQ article, the quote was taken from Mike
> Huben's web site and the attribution was assumed to be accurate.
I checked Mike Huben's site; since you didn't say where the FAQ was I couldn't readily check that.
Mike Huben's version correctly attributes the authorship of the quoted article, unlike the version you posted. It includes the Jarls but leaves out the Housecarls. So what we appear to have is:
1. An encyclopedia article which offers a plausible account of the breakdown of the Icelandic institutions during the Sturlung period, resulting in the country going under Norwegian rule, but says nothing (at least in the quoted part--you are welcome to check the rest if you like) about such a change being associated with a breakdown of communal anarchic institutions into propertarian ones.
2. Layered on top of that, an imaginary account of Icelandic history by someone who had read enough about dark ages Scandinavia to know the terms "Jarl" and "Thing," probably had some general view based on anarchist theory about what must have happened (or else was deliberately inventing facts to win an argument), but shows no evidence of having actually read anything about Icelandic history beyond one encyclopedia article.
3. Layered on top of that, some further elaboration by someone, probably the author of the FAQ that Gary refers to, possibly Gary himself, who also knew nothing about Iceland (and thus threw in the Anglo-Saxon "housecarls") and changed the authorship of the article, either carelessly or because he thought attributing it to someone from Harvard made it sound more impressive.
My views on Icelandic history are based on reading a good deal of the primary source material (in translation; I don't read old Norse), essentially all of the secondary source material available in English when I wrote my article (I haven't kept up with the literature thereafter), and discussing it with my then colleague Jesse Byock (UCLA history), who is one of the leading authorities in the field. Furthermore, my views are set forth and defended in a published article, available on the web, so that anyone interested can check not only the arguments but the sources.
Gary "corrected" my account, with great confidence, on the basis of what? His own knowledge--no, he shows no evidence of ever having read a saga or any of the secondary literature. An account by someone he knows to be reliable? No--he has no idea who wrote the original version of the account he quoted or added the modifications. An account that includes references from which the reader can check that it is true? No--the only reference is to an encyclopedia article on Iceland, misattributed, and all that shows is the breakup--which can also be found in my article, and is not what we are disagreeing about (I think the encyclopedia article is more confident than the facts warrant about its explanation of what happened, but it is a possible explanation).
As I commented earlier, now you know why I think that Snorri Sturluson, writing in the 13th century, is a more careful and reliable source than people posting here. Snorri actually cared about the problem of how one could know what happened in the past--what sources were or were not reliable in what way--and discussed it. Gary thinks that any account that gives the conclusion he likes, whatever its pedigree, will do.
David Friedman
Subject: Re: Mythadventures in Iceland: Friedman's Folly
From: ddfr@best.com (David Friedman)
Date: 1996/07/28
In article <elkin-2807960706070001@z429701.cts.com>, elkin@cts.com (gary elkin) wrote:
> Interesting that Friedman's whole "case" against the FAQ article is based
> on a misattributed reference, the incorrect usage of a couple of words,
> and a suggested ambiguity in one phrase, with no rebuttal to the
> *argument* of the FAQ.
The use of the terms "Jarl" and "Housecarl" in what purports to be a description of Icelandic history, terms which not only were not used in Iceland but do not correspond to anything that existed in Iceland, is pretty good evidence that the author doesn't know what he was talking about. What would you think about a summary of American history that discussed the Tory majority in parliament during the time when Clinton was Prime Minister?
> Instead we have Friedman saying "my references are
> better than yours," essentially an argument from authority.
Except that I give my references (my article on my web page) and, aside from an encylopedia quote which provides no support for most of your story, you don't. Nor does the anonymous source you are quoting.
> Here's more of Friedman's silly quibbling in an effort to deflect
> attention away from the real argument in the FAQ, which he can't answer.
> The FAQ article suggested that the change from a communalistic society to
> a propertarian one and its ultimate destructuction due to wealth
> concentration can be observed in what happened in Iceland.
But the FAQ article first invented the "communalistic" society. No evidence, primary or secondary was offered for it--and it was written by someone who, for reasons I have just pointed out, obviously knew very little about Icelandic history.
> It's interesting that Friedman ignores the previous paragraph of the FAQ,
> where the earlier, communalistic nature of Icelandic society is described
> as "based on artisan production, with free access to communal land and had
> a form of social self-administration, "the *thing*" (both local and
> Iceland-wide), which was a "primitive" form of the anarchist communal
> assembly," WITHOUT reference to the encyclopedia article. The fact that
> early Scandanavian societies were communalistic
But this "fact" is an invented one, as I have pointed out several times. Law at the Icelandic Allthing was made by the logretta, an assembly whose members were the Godar (chieftains). Chieftainship was a piece of private property, which could be inherited, sold, etc. Iceland was settled starting in 870 and the system I am describing was created in 930, so you don't have much time into which to squeeze your imaginary system of communal rule--especially since the period of settlement is described in detail in the sagas. And how do you get "free access to communal land" when, according to the Icelandic sources, all suitable land had been claimed--i.e. privatized--by about 930?
It is true that there were some local mutual insurance arrangements that you could call "communalistic"--but so far as I know, they survived the period of breakup.
Why should I argue with a set of madeup facts, invented by someone who obviously doesn't know anything about the history and thinks he can deduce
what must have happened in Iceland from reading Kropotkin--without bothering to read any of the Icelandic sources?
> (and thus a primitive form
> of anarchism) and that remnants of earlier communalistic institutions even
> survived in some places into modern times, can documented from many
> sources, e.g. the works of Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, and Peter
> Kropotkin, among others. Or does Friedman expect us to believe that
> Iceland had *always* been propertarian, and if so, on the basis of what
> evidence?
The descriptions of the period of settlement, the surviving copy of the law codes, all of the available evidence... . Try Egilsaga for a description of one of the early settlements, or the early part of Laxdalasaga.
> "During the 12th century [in Iceland], wealth and power began to
> accumulate in the hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220
Note that 1220 was 290 years after the system was set up. Everyone agrees that the Icelandic system eventually broke down--although it seems to have lasted quite a bit longer than the system set up by the founders of this country. Do you really want to deduce inevitable tendencies from a process that took almost three centuries?
David Friedman
Subject: Re: Mythadventures in Iceland: Friedman's Folly
From: ddfr@aol.com (DDFr)
Date: 1996/08/02
I wrote:
> The use of the terms "Jarl" and "Housecarl" in what purports to be a
> description of Icelandic history, terms which not only were not used in
> Iceland but do not correspond to anything that existed in Iceland, is
> pretty good evidence that the author doesn't know what he was talking
> about.
Gary Elkins replied:
"<yawn> More quibbling over an essentially semantic issue. It indicates only that he doesn't know the particular Icelandic dialect for "lord" and "warrior," not that his *argument* is flawed in any way. Or is Friedman suggesting that there were no "lords" and "warriors" in Iceland?"
But "Jarl" and "Housecarl" are not simply translations of "lord" and "warrior"--they describe particular roles which did not exist in saga period Iceland. The nearest thing to a "Jarl" is a "Godi" (usually translated "chieftain")--but the difference between a Jarl and a Godi is at least as great, probably greater, than between a U.S. president and a British Prime Minister. A Godi had no territory--anyone in Iceland could be the Thingman of any Godi who would have him, independent of where either lived. The right to be a Godi was a piece of transferrable private property. It carried with it a vote in the legislature. None of this was true of the Norwegian Jarl.
Similarly, a Huscarl was a professional warrior maintained by a lord. The warriors in the Icelandic sagas are farmers, some of whom have at some point been vikings, and most of the time they are fighting for their own family or other families with which theirs is currently allied. Insofar as they correspond to anything in the contemporary Anglo-Saxon monarchy, it was the Fyrd not the Huscarls.
Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with "Icelandic dialect"--as you would know if you were even moderately well informed about medieval Iceland. The language spoken by the Icelanders was west Norse--the same language spoken by the Norwegians. The Icelanders had a word for "Jarl" all right--the word was "Jarl." They used it in describing (for example) Sigurd, the Orkney Jarl, who comes into Njalsaga as a minor character, or Jarl Hakon of Norway, or other (foreign) jarls. So much for your Castillian vs Mexican example.
Again, the author of that passage quite obviously did not know much about the society he was purporting to describe. I have offered the evidence for that. I am still waiting for Gary's evidence to the contrary--for any reason at all why we should believe the unsupported assertions about Icelandic history that he posted.
"What Friedman conveniently overlooks is the fact that the Vikings who settled in Iceland came from countries which did have a "communal past" and that these traditions were also practiced in Iceland. If he says otherwise he is claiming that the people in Iceland made a clean break with their culture after leaving Norway, etc. This is obviously *false* -- Iceland had the *thing* and *allthing*."
Since your source is wildly inaccurate on stuff I do know about (i.e. Iceland), I see no reason to trust his (or your) unsupported assertion on stuff I don't know about (early Norwegian institutions). What little I do know about them suggests that property became less private over time (i.e. ceased to be allodial), as a result of the establishment of the Norwegian monarchy by Harald Harfagr in the nineth century.
So far as the Thing and the Allthing are concerned, we know in considerable detail how they worked in Iceland--and they were not communal assemblies in which the whole population got to make law. We also know quite a lot about property ownership early in the saga period--one of the earliest, perhaps the earliest, Icelandic historical works is _Landnamabok_, which is an account of the original claiming of land.
Besides, your source was linking the shift from communal to propertarian to the Sturlung period conflicts. That's more than three hundred years after the period of settlement.
David Friedman