Contested Households: Lodgers, Labour, and the Law in Rural Iceland in the Early 19th Century

ABSTRACT

The historiography of labour in pre-industrial Iceland has commonly portrayed it first and foremost as life-cycle service in rural households and has suggested that, in a European context, the Icelandic system of compulsory service – or vistarband – was exceptionally harsh due to its broad scope and inflexibility. This approach has been built primarily on demographics and a normative analysis of legal sources. Less attention has been paid to the everyday practices of workers and their employers (or the state) as they manoeuvred within and around the labour legislation to establish working relationships to make ends meet. Similarly, ambiguities within the legislation and discrepancies between law and practice have rarely been explored, nor has people’s understanding of the principal concepts of the labour laws, concepts such as ‘household’, ‘farm’ and ‘servant’, been scrutinized. This article invokes such questions and provides a microhistorical analysis of two court cases which illustrate the nuances and ambiguities of putting such a broad-reaching set of regulations into practice in a pre-industrial rural setting.

KEYWORDS:

• Servants
• labour relations
• coercion
• household
• rural history

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Following Icelandic tradition, where people are referred to by their given name (first name) and not their patronym (as family surnames are not commonly in use in Iceland), I refer to all persons either by their full name, or by their given name only, throughout the article. All discussion on the case against Jón is based on the archives of the county magistrate. See: NAI (National Archives of Iceland). County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6‒3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820–1823), 123‒31. The court summons, along with the letters written by Jón and his mother to the magistrate, can be found in: NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GB/3‒8. Dómsskjöl (1822‒1822).

2. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GB/3–8. Dómsskjöl (1822–1822). Court summons for Jón Pálsson dated July 31, 1822. Original: ‘án þess ad nein naudsyn þvingi hann þar til’.

3. NAI. GA/6–3, p. 130. ‘lausamadur enn ekkert löglegt vinnuhiú’.

4. For this analysis, I borrow the definition put forward by Swedish historian Jonas Lindström that the labouring poor were ‘people who neither had enough land nor were paupers, but depended on wage work for their survival’. Such a definition suits this study very well as it includes not only servants but also lodgers, cottars and day labourers but excludes all peasants regardless of their economic status, allowing for an analysis built on social status and labour relations rather than economic standing. See Lindström, “Labouring poor,” 404.

5. For a thorough discussion of the entanglement of labour, poor-relief, and settlement legislation in a European historical context, see King and Winter eds., Migration, Settlement and Belonging.

6. Tom Brass, “Some Observations,” 258‒9.

7. van der Linden, “Dissecting Coerced Labour”.

8. While microhistory has many faces, most microhistorians would agree with Christian G. De Vito and Anne Gerritsen when they say that microhistory ‘seeks to use the particular and the exceptional as tools to enhance our understanding of the unexceptional’. See De Vito and Gerritsen, eds., Micro-Spatial Histories, vii. For further discussion, see Brewer, “Microhistory” and Magnússon and Szijártó, What is Microhistory?.

9. See De Vito, Schiel, and van Rossum, “From Bondage to Precariousness?”

10. See for example Whittle, “Introduction,” 1. She says: ‘Servants were paid workers who lived within the home of their employer, and who received board and lodging as well as a cash wage. They were employed for longer terms, typically several months to a year at a time rather than by the day or task’. See also Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry, 3‒4. As Rafaella Sarti has shown, defining service and servants is, however, inherently more difficult as the difference in understanding of the concept changed considerably according to locality and historical era. See Sarti, “Who are Servants?”.

11. See for example Lundh, “Life-Cycle Servants”; Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household; For a more critical approach see Moring, “Nordic family patterns”; Prytz, “Life-Cycle Servant”; Østhus, “Servants in Rural Norway”.

12. See for example Vilhelmsson, “Tactics of Evasion”.

13. Uppenberg, “Masters Writing the Rules”.

14. Jónsson, “Institutional Change”, 103.

15. Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade; Magnússon, Iceland in Transition; Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household; Hálfdanarson, “Old Provinces, Modern Nations”; Jónsson, “Institutional Change”; Jónsson, “Stjórntæki gamla samfélagsins”; Stefánsson, “Ráðningarskilmálar”; Halldórsson, ‘Byggðastefna’; Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society; Guttormsson, Childhood, Youth and Upbringing; Kristinsson, Hnignun, hvaða hnignun?.

16. See for example Jónasson, Ólafsdóttir and Magnússon, Híbýli fátæktar; Kristjánsdóttir, Nýtt fólk; Grjetarsson, ‘Upphaf og þróun’; Magnússon, The Hidden Class..

17. Hallgrímsdóttir, “Independent Women”; Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn”; Axe, “De uregelrlige”; Jónsson, Á mörkum mennskunnar; Leifsson, ‘Flökkulíf’; Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk; Vilhelmsson and Gunnlaugsson, “Passports, permits, and labour im/mobility”.

18. Jakobsson, “From Reciprocity to Manorialism”, 274–8; Jónsson, Frjálst verkafólk.

19. Júlíusson, “Signs of Power”.

20. Hálfdanarson, “Old Provinces, Modern Nations”; Jónsson, Vinnuhjú; Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household.

21. Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 52‒67; Kofoed, “Authorities Who Care”; Lis and Soly, Worthy Efforts, 440‒6.

22. Lovsamling for Island I, 428–37.

23. Lovsamling for Island II, 605‒20.

24. Lovsamling for Island IV, 683–6.

25. Ibid., 685. ‘Det maa ikke være Nogen tilladt at arbeide for Daglön, uden Husmænderne og deres Qvinder og Börn, som hos dennem ere til Huse’ and ‘De, som boe ved Strandkanterne og ernære sig med Fiskerie … maa det være tilladt, naar Værtiden er forbi, at arbeide hos Bonden for Daglön’.

26. For further discussion, see Vilhelmsson, “The Moral Economy of Compulsory Service”.

27. Jónsson, Vinnuhjú, 11; Guttormsson, “Il servizio come istituzione sociale”; Júlíusson, Landbúnaðarsaga, 50.

28. Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household, 80‒2.

29. Björnsson, “Um hússtjórnina”, 137; Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 11‒12.

30. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/8‒3. Dóma- og þingbók (1855‒1860), 204‒6.

31. Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade, 21; Magnússon, Iceland in Transition, 35.

32. Lovsamling for Island VII, 208.

33. Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn”, 1‒2; Jónsson, “Institutional Change”, 104.

34. See discussion in Hjaltason, Markús, 171‒7.

35. Tíðindi um stjórnamálefni Íslands, vol. 1, 714. For a similar contemporary definition see Ólafsson, “Um ómagaframfærslu”, 198.

36. Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household, 96; Magnússon, Iceland in Transition, 34; and Jónsson, “Institutional Change”, 106.

37. Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn”, 3‒4.

38. Ibid., 4. See also Laxness, Íslandssaga I, 214.

39. See for example Ásmundsdóttir, “Út við ræði og erfið föng”, 36.

40. Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 187‒201. Direct quote is Sigmundsson, “Til hvörs eru kóngsbréfin”, 62.

41. Björnsson, “Um hússtjórnina á Íslandi”, 94‒138; Stephensen, “Um jafnræði bjargræðisveganna”, 113‒93.

42. Beier, Masterless Men; Jütte, Poverty and Deviance; Lis and Soly, Worthy Efforts, 426‒509.

43. Griffiths, “Masterless Young People”; Miller, Transformations of Patriarchy; Eccles, Vagrancy in Law and Practice; Johnsson, Vårt fredliga samhälle; Stanziani, Bondage; Lis and Soly, Worthy Efforts; Jütte, Poverty and Deviance.

44. Beier, Masterless Men; Eccles, Vagrancy in Law and Practice; Winter, “Vagrancy”; Johnsson, Vårt fredliga samhälle; Hufton, The Poor of Eighteenth Century France; Fumerton, Unsettled; Vilhelmsson, “Tactics of Evasion”.

45. Landsyfirrjettardómar IV, 256.

46. Jónsson, Vinnuhjú, 61; Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade, 21‒2; Þorláksson, “Undir einveldi”, 43‒8.

47. For further discussion and extensive citations see Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 187‒201.

48. Lovsamling for Island V, 65‒8. ‘Sysselet skal vrimle af Lösgjængere og Lösemænd’.

49. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla. Archive of Þorkelshólshreppur commune PB/2–2. Magistrate Björn Blöndal to all constables, 14 January 1826.

50. Vilhelmsson, “Ett normalt undantag?”.

51. NAI. Rentukammer 1928 E/72–1. Jarðabók Húnavatnssýslu 1802–1804; Manntal á Íslandi 1801, 73.

52. See Jónsson, “Institutional Change”, 110.

53. Lindström, “Labouring poor”, 404.

54. Blönduós Regional Archive (BRA). Vindhælishreppur. Hreppsbók (1790‒1830), 283.

55. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820–1823), 6–10; Lovsamling for Island II, 600–5.

56. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820–1823), 126.

57. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820–1823), 125‒6.

58. Vilhelmsson and Gunnlaugsson, “Passports, permits, and labour im/mobility”. See also Guttormsson, “Population, households and fisheries” and Gunnlaugsson, “Kaupavinna”.

59. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GB/3–8. Dómsskjöl (1822–1822). Jón Pálsson to county magistrate Björn Blöndal, 5 August 1822. ‘hvad eg trúi flestum Húsbændum leifilegt’.

60. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6‒3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820‒1823), p. 123. ‘ … unnid fyrir lífi Barns míns, mínu eginn og hennar’.

61. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GB/3–8. Dómsskjöl (1822–1822). Helga Magnúsdóttir to the county court of Húnavatnssýsla, 3 August 1822. ‘ … vel vitid þér ad Eckium og ómindugum skulu þeir aungvan skada giöra’; ‘ … ef Jón verdur þvingadur til ad fara í vist til vandalausra’.

62. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GA/9‒1. Dóma- og þingbók (1837‒1842), 259‒62.

63. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GA/7‒1. Dóma- og þingbók (1825‒1827), 123‒6.

64. NAI. County magistrate in Húnavatnssýsla GA/9‒1. Dóma- og þingbók (1837‒1842), 492‒4. ‘ … alid svo önn fyrir þessum börnum ad þau ei hafi sveitarstyrk þegid’.

65. Lovsamling for Island I, 432. ‘ … en þeir sem minna eiga, og ei hafa nauðsynlega að forsorga (eptir mati sýslumanns og hreppstjóra) sína foreldra, börn eða aðra lögkomna ómaga, líðist ekki lausamennska’.

66. Alþingisbækur Íslands X, 560‒1. For more on this draft legislation and its presumed use see Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 184‒5 and Gustafsson, Mellan kung och allmoge, 158.

67. Magnússon, “Sögur af fátæku fólki”; Gunnlaugsson, Saga og samfélag, 130‒43; Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 67‒77, 121‒4.

68. Lovsamling for Island VII, 328‒9.

69. There are various indications hidden in the interstices of archives, buried within witness depositions, that hreppstjórar often were aware of day labourers, vagrants and other ‘illegals’ within their communes but left them to their own devices if they caused no social disturbance. For some examples, see Vilhelmsson, Sjálfstætt fólk, 208‒9.

70. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820‒1823), 130. ‘til ad fyrirbyggia slíkt athæfi og óordu’.

71. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820‒1823), 130. ‘lausamadur enn ekkert löglegt vinnuhiú’.

72. NAI. County magistrate of Húnavatnssýsla. GA/6–3. Dóma- og þingbók (1820‒1823), 130‒1. This is in contrast with the recent claim by historian Guðný Hallgrímsdóttir that, due to their ownership of sufficient livestock, lodger households were ‘regarded as farming’ in their own right. That seems not always to have been the case. See Hallgrímsdóttir, “Independent Women,” 499‒500.

73. Lovsamling for Island IV, p. 684. ‘hos Bönder og boende folk’.

74. BRA. Vindhælishreppur. Hreppsbók (1790‒1830). Various entries.

75. Manntal á Íslandi árið 1703, xvii. ‘ærlegur lífernisháttur’.

76. See for example Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn”; Magnússon, Iceland in Transition, 30.

77. Ibid., 273‒7; Manntal á Íslandi 1801, 72‒85; Manntal á Íslandi 1816 V, 819‒26. Categorizing different social groups in census records is always to some degree based on subjective analysis. Here, I counted every person or group of persons who obviously resided together (such as husband and wife, parents and children) as a single lodger household if the census described them as a húsmaður or húskona, tómthúsmaður, tómthúskona, grashúskona, jordlös huusmand, jordlös huuskone, husmand or huskone or if they are said to live off their labour, such as ‘lever af uldarbeide’ (Manntal á Íslandi 1801, 72) or ‘ernæres af deres arbeide og ringe midler’ (Ibid., 74). Lodger households are included in the total number of households. The census of 1816 is incomplete. It does not include the parish of Hof and is missing several farms in the parish of Höskuldsstaðir.

78. Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn,” 7.

79. Loftur Guttormsson was critical of this practice and did not count lodger households separately in his analysis of household size and composition. See Guttormsson, Childhood, Youth and Upbringing, 161.

80. Björnsson, “Um hússtjórnina á Íslandi,” 98. ‘húsmenn á landsbygdinni eru búsitjandi menn, þó þeir vinni fyrir daglaun og geingur afli þeirra heimilum þeirra til framfæris’.

81. Manntal á Íslandi 1801, 55; Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn,” 9.

82. Gunnlaugsson, “The poor laws and the family”.

83. Tómasdóttir, “Húsmenn”.

84. BRA. Vindhælishreppur. Hreppsbók (1790‒1830). Various entries.

85. NAI. BC/2. Höskuldsstaðir parish census 1826‒1844.

86. NAI. County magistrate of Skagafjarðarsýsla. GA/5‒3. Dóma- og þingbók (1832‒1838), 68 v‒70 r, 76 v‒77 r, 79 v‒80 v.

87. Thoroddsen, Lýsing Íslands III, 174‒5; Sigurðardóttir, “Byggingarefnið torf,” 10‒22.

88. Búalög, 54. Until the latter half of the 19th century, wages and prices in Iceland were generally calculated according to a predetermined quantity of the products generated by the farming and fishing economy. As a pricing unit, one fish was thus not one fish but rather a predetermined weight of stockfish.

89. NAI. County magistrate of Skagafjarðarsýsla GA/5‒3. Dóma- og þingbók (1832‒1838), 80 v. ‘ósanngjarnlega hátt’.

90. Klausturpósturinn 4, no. 12 (1821), 197.

91. Axe, “Menningarmunur”, 69‒79.

92. Klausturpósturinn 4, no. 12 (1821), 197.

93. Landsyfirrjettardómar IV, 256.

94. Hálfdanarson, “Social Distinctions and National Unity”; Axe, “De uregerlige”; Hastrup, Nature and Policy, 47‒57.

95. NAI. County magistrate of Skagafjarðarsýsla. GA/5‒1. Dóma- og þingbók (1823‒1826), 102.

96. Jónsson, “Stjórntæki gamla samfélagsins,” 64; Magnússon, Wasteland with Words, 23‒4.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Vilhelm Vilhelmsson

Vilhelm Vilhelmsson (b. 1980) is a historian and director of the University of Iceland Research Centre Northwest and editor of the journal SAGA. He has a doctoral degree in history from the University of Iceland. His research focuses on the power relations of everyday life in pre-industrial Iceland, on labour coercion, subaltern agency and everyday resistance. He is the WG leader of the COST-Action funded network Worlds of Related Coercions in WorK Working Group 3: (Im)mobilization of the workforce. https://uni.hi.is/vilhelmv