Gripla - 01.01.1984, Síða 96

92
GRIPLA
ficient to provide the society with a policing apparatus. As the only
centralized decision-making bodies in the society, the lögrétta and the
fjórðungsdómar endorsed the principle that stability was to be main-
tained through compromise between individuals rather than through
governmental fiat. Even when chieftains were involved, the maintenance
of order and the enforcement of judicial decrees were seen as mainly
private matters.
The open granting of power to private individuals rather than to
officials differentiated Iceland from continental governments whose exe-
cutive components, to the best of their abilities, guarded princely pre-
rogatives and often tried to enlarge the governmental right to command.
Thus Icelandic and continental political roles and intentions were sharp-
ly divergent. Unlike the underlying philosophy of government which
held sway throughout medieval Europe, the Icelandic societal order did
not strive to supplant private feud. Instead, Iceland, which until the
thirteenth century did not have to contend with continual foreign inter-
vention, organized its judicial apparatus, indeed its entire society, to
assist and expedite the resolution of feud. Heusler had good reason to
write that in Iceland “der Gerichtsgang ist eine stilisierte Fehde.”10
The concentration on controlling feud had far-reaching consequences
for the development of the insular northern society. Rather than an
aberrant and socially destructive force to be controlled by sheriffs, bail-
iffs, marshals, and royal justiciars, feud in Iceland was, at least for the
first few centuries, a socially accepted process. To feud fell the responsi-
bility of regulating wealth, power, and status. The ambitions of individ-
uals and the fate of families hung in the balance.
In the details of its operation the Icelandic process of limiting violence
was extremely complex; nevertheless, even into the thirteenth century
the society functioned in a systematic way. The overall structure of this
societal process is clearly outlined in the sagas. The sagas about feuding
Icelanders exhibit a narrative pattern with increasing numbers of char-
acters taking part in disputes that begin as small matters. The inclusion
of the community is often presented as necessary in order to reach re-
solution, whether arrived at privately or publicly. Indeed, the frequently
noted realism of the sagas rests on the plausible manner in which new
characters, often brokers, are drawn into disputes as a means of helping
10 Strafrecht, p. 103.