Iceland in Tolkien's Work?

[Lalwendë]

After starting to get into Icelandic sagas in our house I've been thinking about some similarities in Tolkien's work, aside from the stylistic similarities of the sagas to Tolkien's work.

But we have two different ideas floating around, so see what you think:

1. The Numenoreans could be like the old Icelanders. Iceland is a relatively young nation, the Norsemen sailed there and settled it not long before 1000 AD. In the Sagas you read of men who would sail back to the 'old country' and have adventures, maybe do some raiding, have dealings with the old Kings and Queens. The Numenoreans, like the Icelanders were an indepnedent and very adventurous people.

I'm not the only one to notice this, as I had a poke around and found this old thread: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...t=gawain+green
In post 22 The Ka is the first to mention a possible similarity.

It was an Icelandic Norseman who first travelled to the Americas if I'm not mistaken? Hmm, travelling to Valinor?

2. However, the old Icelanders were essentially a peaceful people mostly engaged in farming despite the raiding adventures, unlike the expansionist and often unpleasant Numenoreans.

Are The Hobbits more like the Icelanders? One of the ways the farmers would build houses is to construct a low longhouse, walled with turf so that their homes would often blend completely in with the landscape - a little like The Hill! Plus the Icelanders did not take Kings, like the Hobbits.

Now in common with both Numenoreans and Hobbits, Icelanders always have and still do believe in Elves. If you don't think that's true take a look at this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/in...erland&emc=rss

A very magical place, methinks

Anyway, which do you think Iceland is more like? Numenor or The Shire?

[davem]

I'd lean towards the Shire being closer to the Icelandic Free State (ie Iceland in the Saga period. Iceland was effectively a farming community, without the kind of hierarchical structure found in other Scandinavian countries, with law being held as paramount. To what extent the Shire Moot was equivalent to the Althing is probably unanswerable.

Yet, Iceland was more violent than the Shire - though less violent than it is often perceived by casual readers of the Sagas - & there was probably less need for arbitration in neighbourly feuds.

I was struck by the way Icelanders built turf houses which, due the the effect of weather would become absorbed into the landscape - after all 'Holbytla' is translated 'hole-builder' rather than 'hole-digger'. The similarites between the Icelandic long houses & Bilbo's Hobbit hole, with its rooms leading off the main tunnel, are again worth pointing up. Icelanders would often add extra rooms to their longhouses by knocking holes through the walls & building on (often for protection - latrines were often added as extra rooms in order to avoid the need to go out after dark in response to a call of nature & risk attack by enemies at night).

That said, the Hobbits seem to have inflicted less damage on their environment than the early Icelanders, who weren't averse to using slash & burn tactics to clear the little forest they found for grazing land (though perhaps there's an echo of that in their treatment of the Old Forest). Of course, the Shire is a far more temperate place than Iceland & there would be less of a struggle for survival.

Certainly, The Shire has been related to Anglo-Saxon England (by Shippey among others), but I can't help feeling that the Iceland of Tolkien's beloved Sagas, with its 'anarchic' social structure, did contribute something to the 'soup'.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...perhaps Bjork should've sang the theme song to the movie then.

Sorry, that was the only Icelandic allusion I had readily handy.

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

[Andsigil]

I really don't see a parallel between Iceland and Numenor, other than the fact that they're both islands.

Numenor was home to a fantastic (Atlantean) civilization. Iceland gave us many sagas and had some hardy explorers, but they weren't the center of the world the way Numenor was.

[Lalaith]

They wanted Bjork to sing Gollum's song but she was about to have a baby. So they got Emiliana Torrini, who despite the name is also Icelandic.


I think there's more of a case for Numenor than the Shire, myself. I'm not sure about the peaceful nature of the early Icelanders...The sagas are set in the 10th and 11th century, around the time the country was founded, but were written in the 13th century, by which time the Republic had collapsed in bloody civil war. Iceland was taken over by the Norwegian king at that time because of the internal chaos in the country.
I think the Shire feels very English indeed, and much too gentle and fertile a land to have any resemblance to Iceland. It's a harsh, windswept place - tundra and permafrost and what have you...

[davem]

I also came across the interesting fact that after the introduction of paper for books a number of early Icelandic velum books were simply destroyed - in one case a page was used to make a pattern for a waistcoat.

Once their contents had been transferred to a more easily read format, the vellum books lost almost all value to the contemporary population. In fact, they were viewed as so unimportant that the stiff pages of one of them were cut up into patterns for making clothes. (Byock 'Viking Age Iceland')

Now, given the fondness among Hobbits for that particular item of clothing, one has to wonder what happened to the original Red Book....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

I think by later period there was a fairly complex social structure in Iceland. Whether or not the Shire can be considered 'anarchical' in the sense Tolkien used the term in whatever letter he expressed his approval of that 'system' is another question. I think a glance at the complexities of Gragas, the almost machiavellian system (at least in practical terms) of the Godi/thingman/advocacy set up & the means of dealing with feud points to a very advanced culture in Iceland. "With law must our land be built, or with lawlessness be laid waste" (Njal's Saga)

Yet, as I stated, I'm not arguing that the Shire is exactly like Iceland, merely that there is something of Icelandic society/ culture that went into the soup.

[Lalaith]

Anarchic - perhaps. One of the main reasons Iceland was settled in the first place was because Norway was being brought under the rule of one king.
Some landowners and petty lords of the western Norwegian coast who could not brook such subjugation sailed away to newly discovered Viking territories in the west - the Faroes and Iceland.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Anarchic - perhaps. One of the main reasons Iceland was settled in the first place was because Norway was being brought under the rule of one king.
Some landowners and petty lords of the western Norwegian coast who could not brook such subjugation sailed away to newly discovered Viking territories in the west - the Faroes and Iceland.

Well, clearly in the Sense that Tolkien used the term 'anarchy' does not imply savagery or chaos.

Of course, one can't push the similarities between The Shire & medieval Iceland too far. The Hobbits sought a place where they could live in peace with their own rules to guide them. Not being quite 'human' - in the sense of being more natural peace-loving than the folk who took over Iceland - they managed to live a more harmonious life in their new land.

Of course, another similarity is that both lands were uninhabited, & there were no 'natives' to cause problems for the settlers (of course, that would apply equally to Numenor....)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

Well strictly speaking, anarchy does not imply 'chaos' and the (apparent) lack of central State control in The Shire is indeed still a form of Anarchy. Presumably as they do not have specific 'departments' devoted to such things as maintaining roads, picking up rubbish etc they must share these duties - as would happen under an 'ideal' state of anarchy. Interestingly Tolkien himself felt he had to underline the difference as the word 'anarchy' is such a loaded term:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

Although the fact that The Shire does have certain systems (e.g. shiriffs) again suggests that someone (we? Tolkien?) has overstated the supposedly 'anarchic' nature of the place somewhat, so I tend to agree with you that the Shire was not, in fact, in a 'state of anarchy'! And that could be an oxymoron

The existence of the Althing and a legal system in old Iceland however, suggests that that too was not some anarchic Utopia; it had some basic systems of 'control' and in that respect, it is very much like The Shire as both have basic 'systems' in operation, even if they do not have central state control of one form or another.

Now, another thing which draws to mind an Iceland/Numenor comparison is the importance of 'bloodline' and how blood feuds could carry on for a long time - of course and how the island is at first a gentle paradise and later descends into chaos through said feuding.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It was an Icelandic Norseman who first travelled to the Americas if I'm not mistaken? Hmm, travelling to Valinor?

2. However, the old Icelanders were essentially a peaceful people mostly engaged in farming despite the raiding adventures, unlike the expansionist and often unpleasant Numenoreans.

ah but lets take a look at these people of you speak. . .

Firstly Erik The Red: Erik the Red had to flee Norway because of some killings he commited, he and his family settled in Iceland. The Icelanders then exiled Erik for several murders around the year 982.

Erik then left Iceland and "found" Greenland which he started colonizing. . . Erik is often said to be the first Norseman locating Greenland, but I have read that apparantly it was spottet over 50 years earlier.

Now Erik seems just as unpleasant as the Numenorians. . .but he was really more Norweigan than Icelandic. . . Moving on to other explores of Iceland.

Now Erik the Red's son Leif the Lucky was the one that settled in Vinland (Newfoundland) and for what I know there is no stories of him being bad, in fact I can only find nice things about him.

SO that seemed undecisive. . .but I am leaning more towards the Numenorians, simply because of the sailing and the fact that the Icelandics had thralls, something I think is very unlikely to be found in the Shire.

[Lalwendë]

I'm very glad Rune is here - do you learn all this cool stuff at school in Denmark?

Wasn't this Leif the famous Leif Erikksson (he who the mobile phones were named after? As was 'Bluetooth' named after Harald Bluetooth?)?

So what you are saying is that some Icelanders were still expansionist and still tough guys in every sense of the word? That to me rings true again with Numenor as this was essentially a peaceful society at forst containing one or two 'bad apples' and as it grew they came more to the fore. I have to say Hobbits certainly don't have the adventuring spirit inherent in them that Icelanders/Numenoreans had!

Course there is also the small matter that Numenoreans, like Vikings in general, had the habit of setting up new societies on the shores of the home continent (Vikings for example setting up: Dublin, Isle of Man, much of Northern Britain, Normandy etc).

Inetersting that you say Erik was 'more Norwegian' than Icelandic. Maybe the 'Black Numenoreans' could be termed in a similar way - they were more 'Middle-earth' than 'Numenor' - i.e. more of the old country (Morgoth tainted) than of the new, slightly Elvish island?

[davem]

Well, Icelanders weren't exactly 'expansionist' - for a lot of the time they were more concerned with simple survival. Another reason why the society was basically peaceful was that farms needed running & it was difficult to sustain violent feuds which cut individuals off from the rest of the community or risk alienating their neighbours (plus in such a small community most families tended to be related to each other to some degree). Icelanders were farmers first & foremost - but farmers with swords & a strong sense of personal honour. Their whole social & legal set up was designed to limit the effect of feuds & to solve disputes quickly & to the satisfation of all concerned. They did have slaves in the earlyier period, but slavery disappeared before too long - Freedmen could own land of their own once they'd been liberated. Slavery was often uneconomical - farming was often difficult & supporting a household plus slaves could be difficult, if not impossible - you'd free your slaves to avoid having to provide for them..

Expansionist??

Well, one problem was that Iceland didn't provide wood for shipbuilding (or much for building generally, & timber had to be imported. Young men might go off raiding & trading (homespun cloth was very a popular commodity), but the kind of life they lived made an expansionist attitude a no-no. They were basically peaceful farmers who tried every means to avoid conflict & resolve it peacfully, primarily because they didn't have the luxury to do much else. Iceland was effectively a big village. Violence did tend to explode & get dealt with quickly - except in extreme cases.