Þessi bók, Tvær eyjar á jaðrinum. Ímyndir Íslands og Grænlands frá miðöldum til
miðrar 19. aldar, fjallar um ytri ímyndir eða framandleika Íslands og Grænlands, frá
því um 1100 og fram um 1850. Ímyndafræðin fjalla ekki síst um það hvernig ímyndir
landa og þjóða verða til, hverjir eru helstu áhrifavaldar við þróun þeirra, hvernig
framanleikinn birtist og hvaða áhrif þættir og hugtök eins og vald, miðja og jaðar,
eyjar, útópíur og norðrið hafa haft á þróun og birtingarform ímyndanna, með öðrum
orðum hvernig orðræðan hefur mótast. Það eru þessi atriði sem fjallað er um í þessu
verki.
Helstu aðferðir sem verkið byggir á eru í fyrsta lagi hefðbundnar aðferðir
sagnfræðinnar, að endurgera tiltekinn „veruleika“ sem er byggður á margvíslegum
heimildum; sá „veruleiki“ sem hér er einkum verið að rannsaka eru hugmyndir um
tiltekin lönd og fólkið sem í þeim býr. En einnig er beitt aðferðum ímyndafræða,
imagology, og þá er mikið stuðst við rannsóknir á nýlendustefnu og nýlenduhyggju og
þau fræði notuð til þess að kanna margvíslegar hugmyndir um Ísland og Grænland.
Heimildirnar eru einkum rit höfunda frá Vestur-Evrópu, mest frá Bretlandi en einnig
Þýskalandi. Heimildaflokkarnir eru tveir. Í þeim fyrri eru almenn yfirlitsrit um löndin
tvö en í þeim síðari eru frásagnir sjónarvotta um Ísland og Grænland. Kannað er hvort
og hvernig ímyndir landanna tveggja birtist á ólíkan hátt í þessum tveimur flokkum.
Framandleiki þessara tveggja landa hefur oft einkennst af því að þau væru talin
undarleg og furðuleg; undur voru hluti algengrar orðræðu um framandi svæði til forna
og á miðöldum og sú hefð var einnig vel þekkt eftir að komið var fram á nýöld. Hefðin
um það hvernig bæri að lýsa Íslandi og Grænlandi var iðulega full af andstæðum, svo
mótsagnakennd að margir textar virðast vera furðulega samsettir, sambland af
dystópíu, útópíu og ef til vill einnig „venjulegum“ aðstæðum. Þau voru frumstæð,
siðlaus, bernsk, eksótísk, villt, grimm, blíð og svo má áfram telja. Þannig var stór
hluti lýsinga um bæði löndin á þessu tímaskeiði. Þegar greitt hefur verið úr þeirri
flækju má þó sjá skýra drætti í lýsingum á löndunum tveimur á tímabilinu.
Einn meginþátta í ímyndasköpun á eyjunum tveimur í norðri getum við kallað
frumstæða útópíu. Þessi þráður var greinanlegur í elstu lýsingum frá Íslandi. Hann var
spunninn áfram á næstu öldum og hvað Ísland varðar er hann sjáanlegur allt til loka þess
tímabils sem hér er til umfjöllunar. Á 17. og 18. öld tengdist hann hugmyndum um hinn
göfuga villimann sem voru nátengdar orðræðu nýlenduhyggjunnar. Á þeim tíma urðu
þessar hugmyndir algengar í orðræðu um Grænland og var svo allt til loka tímabilsins.
Orðræða um Ísland og Grænland sem sælueyjar, jafnvel eins konar fjársjóðseyjar, var
einnig vel þekkt. Að hluta til tengdist hún íbúunum en slík stef voru einnig greinileg að
því er varðar löndin tvö, náttúru og umhverfi. Samhliða voru neikvæðar og dystópískar hugmyndir algengar um þessi lönd.
Samkvæmt þeim var iðulega lýst samfélagi grófra villimanna sem voru í litlu
frábrugðnir dýrum. Löndunum var þá lýst sem óbyggilegum sökum kulda og myrkurs
þar sem vart nokkurt líf gæti þrifist. Stundum vörðuðu hinar neikvæðu hugmyndir þó
aðeins fólkið í löndunum tveimur en ekki löndin sjálf.
Þarna á milli gátu svo verið margvísleg blæbrigði en segja má að hinar andstæðu
hugmyndir hafi lengst af tímabilinu kristallast í hugmyndum um annars vegar hið illa
norður en hins vegar hina góðu eyju. Eiginlega má segja að þessar andstæður hafi
virkað eins og segull þar sem kraftarnir, eyjan og norðrið, toguðu til sín frásagnir af
ólíkum toga, neikvæðar og jákvæðar. Þetta leiddi til þess að oft lék vafi á því hvers
konar svæði Ísland og Grænland væru. Neikvæð umræða var lengi algeng en þegar
tímar liðu, undir lok tímabilsins, voru jákvæðar ímyndir orðnar algengari. Andstæðar
hugmyndir voru þó ætíð skammt undan og oft eða oftast voru lýsingar á eyjunum
tveimur í norðri blanda af þessu tvennu.
Hér birtist því tvíhyggja sem er hluti af mótun sjálfsmynda allra samfélaga sem
spegla sig í öðrum samfélögum. Þessari orðræðu, sem segja má að hafi verið
algengust um Ísland og Grænland og íbúa þessara landa fram um miðja 18. öld, svipar
mjög til ríkjandi orðræðu í evrópskum menningarheimi til annarra framandi svæða,
bæði svæða á „jöðrum“ álfunnar, t.d. Írlands og landa sama í norðri, og orðræðunnar
um aðra heimshluta. Hún er þekkt frá fornu fari en varð síðar einn þáttur í orðræðu
nýlenduhyggjunnar. Kynþáttahyggja var hluti hennar og áhrif hennar mjög vaxandi
eftir því sem leið á umfjöllunartímabilið. Orðræðan birtist skýrt á þeim samlíkingum
sem voru algengar um bæði löndin og íbúa þeirra. Algengt var að líkja þeim við
Afríkubúa eða frumbyggja Ameríku en einnig við aðrar þjóðir lengst í norðri, t.d.
sama og samoyeda.
Samhliða þessari orðræðu var einnig gert ráð fyrir að við lýði væri einhvers konar
samsemd á milli Íslands og Grænlands og hinnar siðmenntuðu Evrópu, einkum á það
þó við fyrrnefnda landið. Fyrir kom að þeim væri lýst sem „venjulegum“ og varð
algengt um Ísland eftir miðja 18. öld. Mikilvægara var þó að sú hefð varð til, þegar á
miðöldum, að lýsa Íslandi sem miðstöð menningar. Þessi umfjöllun varð áhrifamikil
á 16. öld. Síðar varð hún hluti hinnar þjóðernissinnuðu og kynþáttatengdu orðræðu
og mikilvægur hluti af framandleika Íslands á 19. og 20. öld; hann birtist í
hugmyndum um yfirburðasamfélag miðalda, Hellas norðursins.
Hér er vitaskuld verið að fjalla um meginlínur en í stórum dráttum voru ímyndir
Íslands og Grænland svipaðar fram um miðja 18. öld, jafnvel lengur. Ekki er þó unnt
að líta fram hjá því að ímyndir Íslands voru fjölbreyttari og meiri vafi lék á því hvers
konar svæði það væri, meiri óvissa var um einkenni og eðli landsins heldur en þegar
rætt var um Grænland. Að því kom að þessi lönd áttu ekki lengur samleið er komið
var fram á 19. öld. Orðræðan um Ísland varð líkari umfjöllun um hin Norðurlöndin
sem þá voru komin í hóp „siðmenntaðra“ landa heldur en orðræðunni um Grænland. Þarna skildi því á milli þó að líkindi í lýsingum á löndunum tveimur hafi alls ekki
horfið.
Orðræðan um Ísland og Grænland var lengi í öllum megindráttum svipuð og
orðræðan um jaðarsvæði og áhrifasvæði helstu ríkja Vestur-Evrópu, og bæði löndin
voru talin utan siðmenningar, utan „Evrópu“. Þess vegna er brýnt að slíta umfjallanir
um Ísland – og líka Grænland – ekki úr samhengi heldur fjalla um þær sem hluta af
miklu stærri heild. Á þann hátt fæst skilningur á því hvers eðlis þær eru. Þetta rit er
hugsað sem liður í því verkefni.The present book, Islands on the Edge: Images of Iceland and Greenland from the Middle
Ages to the mid-19th Century, considers external images of Iceland and Greenland from
around 1100 until around 1850, particularly in terms of their perceived ‘otherness’. The
study focuses on how images of these two countries and nations originated, the main
influences on their development, the nature of their alterity, and the effects that notions
such as power, centre and periphery, islands, utopias, and the North have had on
perceptions of their evolution and representation; or, in other words, how the discourse on
the two islands has been shaped over time.
The main methodologies informing this dissertation are, firstly, the traditional ones
of historical study. These are augmented by approaches deriving from imagology or
image studies. Thirdly, postcolonial studies are invoked in order to explore particular
ideas aboutIceland and Greenland. The principal sources drawn on are published writings
by Western European authors, mostly from Britain but also from Germany, and consist
of two groups: first, general reports about Iceland and Greenland, and, second, travelogues
relating to the two countries. The extent to which images of the two countries appear
differently in these two discursive categories will be investigated.
The otherness of these two countries has often been characterized in terms of their
being considered wondrous and peculiar; ‘wonders’ were part of the general discourse on
exotic lands in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, and such conventions and motifs were
also much in evidence in more modern times. The conventions that developed for the
depiction of both Iceland and Greenland were often full of disparities and contradictions,
causing many accounts to appear strange fusions of utopias, dystopias and more everyday
phenomena. The inhabitants were seen to be primitive, amoral, innocent, exotic, barbaric,
vicious, gentle, and so on. However, analysis reveals clear contradictions and contrasts in
descriptions of the two countries during this period.
One of the dominant themes in the alterity of these two northern islands is what
might be called primitive utopia. This motif is discernible in the earliest accounts of
Iceland and persists into the centuries that followed; indeed, in respect of Iceland, it is
identifiable up to the end of the period under discussion in the present study. In the 17th
and 18th centuries the idea was linked to that of the noble savage, which in turn was
closely associated with the discourse of colonialism. These concepts were prominent in
representations of Greenland until the end of the period. The representation of Iceland
and Greenland as paradisal islands—or even treasure islands—was also familiar. This
related both to the inhabitants and to the two countries themselves, their nature and
environment. Alongside these positive perceptions, negative and dystopian ideas were also
common. There were frequent descriptions of societies whose crude barbarian
inhabitants were hardly distinguishable from animals. The countries were described
as uninhabitable due to the cold and darkness in which scarcely any life was
sustainable. Sometimes, however, these ideas concerned the residents of the two
countries rather than the countries themselves. Accordingly, an element of dualism is
clearly important in the process of identity formation for these two islands.
Though numerous variations can be found between these representational
extremes, it may be said that for most of the period in question the opposing
conceptions crystallized into contrasting notions of the Evil North and the Good
Island. Indeed these opposites seem to have acted like magnets, where the forces of
‘the Island’ and ‘the North’ attracted stories of all sorts, both positive and negative.
As a result, there were often doubts as to what kind of places Iceland and Greenland
actually were. Negative discussion was long dominant but over time positive images
found fuller expression. Yet conflicting ideas were never far away, and descriptions
of the two northern islands were frequently a blend of the two.
The most common discourse concerning Iceland, Greenland, and their inhabitants
up to the middle of the 18th century reflects the dominant colonial discourse of the
European cultural world concerning other exotic lands, whether these were peripheral
European regions—for example, Ireland and the northern regions inhabited by the
Sami—or areas in other parts of the world. This becomes clearly apparent in the
comparisons used for the two countries and their inhabitants: the latter were routinely
compared with Africans or Native Americans, as well as to other nations in the far north,
such as the Sami and Samoyedic peoples. Racism was a part of this discourse, and its
influence developed strikingly during the period under discussion.
Alongside this discourse was the belief that there was some kind of affinity
between the inhabitants of Iceland and Greenland and those of civilized Europe,
particularly in the case of the former country. Occasionally the two lands would be
described as ‘normal’; this became a commonplace for Iceland after the middle of the
18th century. More importantly, however, was the tradition that emerged in the
Middle Ages of describing Iceland as a centre of culture. This notion became a
recognised part of the discourse of nationalism and racism and a significant feature
of Icelandic otherness in the 19th and 20th centuries; it finds particular expression in
ideas about the superiority of medieval Icelandic society, the Hellas of the North.
Images of Iceland and Greenland had much in common until the middle of the
18th century and even later. However, images of Iceland were certainly more diverse:
there was more confusion and uncertainty about its characteristics than was the case
with Greenland. In the 19th century the discourse on Iceland increasingly diverged
from that involving Greenland, as the idea gained traction that Iceland resembled the
other Nordic countries, which were in turn seen as having joined the community of Alongside these positive perceptions, negative and dystopian ideas were also
common. There were frequent descriptions of societies whose crude barbarian
inhabitants were hardly distinguishable from animals. The countries were described
as uninhabitable due to the cold and darkness in which scarcely any life was
sustainable. Sometimes, however, these ideas concerned the residents of the two
countries rather than the countries themselves. Accordingly, an element of dualism is
clearly important in the process of identity formation for these two islands.
Though numerous variations can be found between these representational
extremes, it may be said that for most of the period in question the opposing
conceptions crystallized into contrasting notions of the Evil North and the Good
Island. Indeed these opposites seem to have acted like magnets, where the forces of
‘the Island’ and ‘the North’ attracted stories of all sorts, both positive and negative.
As a result, there were often doubts as to what kind of places Iceland and Greenland
actually were. Negative discussion was long dominant but over time positive images
found fuller expression. Yet conflicting ideas were never far away, and descriptions
of the two northern islands were frequently a blend of the two.
The most common discourse concerning Iceland, Greenland, and their inhabitants
up to the middle of the 18th century reflects the dominant colonial discourse of the
European cultural world concerning other exotic lands, whether these were peripheral
European regions—for example, Ireland and the northern regions inhabited by the
Sami—or areas in other parts of the world. This becomes clearly apparent in the
comparisons used for the two countries and their inhabitants: the latter were routinely
compared with Africans or Native Americans, as well as to other nations in the far north,
such as the Sami and Samoyedic peoples. Racism was a part of this discourse, and its
influence developed strikingly during the period under discussion.
Alongside this discourse was the belief that there was some kind of affinity
between the inhabitants of Iceland and Greenland and those of civilized Europe,
particularly in the case of the former country. Occasionally the two lands would be
described as ‘normal’; this became a commonplace for Iceland after the middle of the
18th century. More importantly, however, was the tradition that emerged in the
Middle Ages of describing Iceland as a centre of culture. This notion became a
recognised part of the discourse of nationalism and racism and a significant feature
of Icelandic otherness in the 19th and 20th centuries; it finds particular expression in
ideas about the superiority of medieval Icelandic society, the Hellas of the North.
Images of Iceland and Greenland had much in common until the middle of the
18th century and even later. However, images of Iceland were certainly more diverse:
there was more confusion and uncertainty about its characteristics than was the case
with Greenland. In the 19th century the discourse on Iceland increasingly diverged
from that involving Greenland, as the idea gained traction that Iceland resembled the
other Nordic countries, which were in turn seen as having joined the community of “civilized” nations. That said, similarities in the presentation of Iceland and
Greenland did not disappear entirely.
In essence, and historically, the discourse on Iceland and Greenland reflects that
of other marginal lands and territories most under Western European influence,
though separated from the continental mainland. It is therefore critical not to remove
discussions of Iceland—or of Greenland—from their context; they should be
regarded as part of a much larger whole in order to better understand their character.
This book seeks to contribute to that endeavour
