Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 149
149
(e.g. Byock 2000, 66). Having freedom as their highest value, these people
were to choose emigration to a distant island rather than subordination to
some monopolistic royal power. And once there, to avoid the domination
of one kinship group, they thoughtfully introduced a complex system of
keeping a political balance between the numerous local leaders (goði) who
could aspire to a permanently dominant position. This was viewed as the
programmatic “democratic” option that stood at the very foundation of the
Icelandic “commonwealth”/“republic”/“free state”.
This romantic view of the “republican” farmers, who effectively man
aged to halt the pan-European process of power centralization and deliber
ately established a “democracy”, is somewhat simplistic. First of all, there is
an obvious contradiction between the supposedly anti-monarchic ideology
on the one hand, and the message conveyed by many sagas that depict the
disastrous results of the obligation for revenge because there was no power
strong enough to stop it. That lack of a paramount decision making power,
and of a supreme judicial authority, led to the development of a complex
system of negotiations which, however, did not furnish final solutions for
conflicts that could have lasted for generations.
In my view, medieval Icelandic historians somehow admired the cen
tralized power system even if, at the same time, they were “obligatorily”
stressing the hardships introduced by the autocratic monarchy. They were
almost obsessed with the effectiveness of radical decisions being taken by
rulers, who could apply executive power even if it was achieved by harsh
methods. These order-makers immediately dominated the stage whenever
they entered the story. the Icelandic intellectuals could have realized that
the aim of the monarchic system was not to implement justice but to effec
tively sustain general social order through immediate intervention, even if
this might have left some individuals and their families unhappy. therefore,
despite the open ideological contradiction between the viking ethos of
unlimited freedom and the oppressive royal autocracy, the overseas
Norwegian court always attracted young men who gained fame there and
learned political lessons. Even the Papacy, which in the early Middle Ages
had no effective power over distant Christian societies, was looked upon as
a semi-legendary paramount authority that was able to pacify even the
bloodiest conflicts, as in the famous stories of Njáll and Grettir, whose
kinsmen found final reconciliation only in Rome.
DeConStRuCtInG tHe “noRDIC CIvILIZAtIon”