Studia Islandica - 01.06.1986, Page 287

285
fluenced by the other two. The three structures are further defined as
follows:
1) The utopian structure: The protagonists triumph in the sense that their
wish for love and freedom, the pleasure dream, is fulfilled. More often than
not, society tries to assimilate these characters against their will, but even-
tually gains some “understanding” of its flaws and the need for change.
2) The demonic structure: The protagonists are defeated, annihilated
physically or emotionally. The organizing principle is usually connected
with class injustices, reflecting the point of view that the conflict between
the individual and society is irreconcilable - unlike the first structure, where
the conflict is basically personal and ethical. Reversal of polarities occurs in
many of the demonic works: it is shown that what is ideal from the stand-
point of the social powers that be implies the destruction of the human ele-
ment - and that the demonic condition is ideal from the standpoint of the
individual even though it invites a social chaos.
3) The utopian-demonic structure: The commands of society prevail in
that the lovers are separated, but in the process they gain experience which
enables them to sublimate their emotions and reconcile themselves to what
has happened. More often than not, they exchange their selfish passion for
impersonal Christian love, dedicating themselves to service and self-sacri-
fice. In other words, the solution frequently entails merging of the external
realities and the pleasure principle, with the latter transformed and subli-
mated. The main conflict in such works is very often ethical.
2
The social and ideological background of the literature in question is dis-
cussed at some length. In the second half of the 19th century, Icelandic soci-
ety remained a static, rural and closed world where ordinary people were
fettered by physical isolation, toil and class injustices. Very few had any
opportunity to set their sights ahead or upwards, or to find outlets for pent-
up emotions and creative urges; in fact, the stagnation was much more op-
pressive than was dictated by the struggle for existence and by the require-
ments of human relations. Broadly speaking, there were just two socio-eco-
nomic classes: secular officials, clergymen and well-to-do farmers, on the
one hand, and the toiling common people, on the other. In individual
parishes, the centre of power was frequently shared by the deputy sheriff/
farmer of means and the parson; from them and out to the fringe of society,
there was a range consisting of the poor, paupers and misfits. All conduct
was subject to strict rules - love life particularly; choosing a mate was a
class-bound socio-economic function; marriage was a device for maintaining
the status quo of the class system. In other words, sexuality was a merc-
handise or, rather, an economic policy instrument. The official world-view
of that society may be likened to a set of concentric circles encompassing