Saga - 1980, Blaðsíða 50

48
GÍSLI GUNNARSSON
the 19th century. Various measures were taken to eliminate or at
least to minimize the effects of foreign trade on the Icelandic
economy. Pluctuations ir. foreign prices were through administra-
tive and traditional restraints kept away from intemal prices. Hence
there were two different price systems, one for foreign trade and
another for internal trade. The Danish monopoly trade in Iceland
(1602-—1787), during which the prices were fixed by royal decrees,
was a logical continuation of these administrative restraints.
In table 1 the results of the first section are summarized. First
there are the prices in internal trade („viðskipti innanlands") and
then prices in foreign trade („utanríkisverslun”). The third column
is the price of dried fish as the percentage of the price of grain.
Here we can see that while the relative price around 1550 was 75 in
internal trade, it was 160—200 in foreign trade. First during the
monopoly trade period the divergency between the two price systems
began to be minimal. This probably conserved the archaic system of
Búalög for a few centuries.
The study of the payment of land rent in cereals has as a starting
point a well known statement that this kind of payment was an
evidence that the tenant farmers produced more grain than was con-
sumed in their households. This statement is rejected by showing
how individual farmers could buy cheap foreign grain and use it
for paying the land rent and thus effectively paying a lower land
rent. They could do this partly because the stipulated pay form
usually changed at a slow rate in the stagnated society, but mainly
because of the extremely weak position of the landlord, who in this
case was the crown. When the position of the Danish monarchy later
was strengthened in Iceland, the real land rent was raised by rest-
ricting the supply of goods, with which the land rent was paid, to
commodities which were undervalued in Búalög. (The nominal land
rent, of course remained rather constant.) Then the payment of the
land rent in the overvalued cereal products naturally disappeared.
Cereal payment of land rent was, however, exceptional during the
16th century in the Icelandic region studied. This comes clearly for-
ward in table 3. Table 4 shows that the cereal expenditure of the
royal officials in this region consisted of 170 barrels for 1551—
1552 while the cereal income (from land rent) was only 12 barrels.
In 1709 there were examples from another region of land rent being
paid in grain. This grain was obviously imported to Iceland.