Manufacturing in the 18^th Century

Abstract

The putting-out spinning of flax for merchants and weaving of kersey in house-manufactories for export are examples of new elements in wool production and manufacturing in late 18th-century Iceland. The import of luxuries also increased, and a broader group of inhabitants acquired these items from the monopoly-trade merchants. The article analyses how these elements can be understood in light of Iceland’s pre-industrial society. How did these changes become visible and have an impact on the country? Did changes in wool production and consumption signify new trends in 18th-century society, or should one interpret them as extensions of structures that already existed within what can be called the ‘Old Society’?

Keywords:

• wool manufacturing
• putting-out production
• house-manufactories
• economic thought
• consumption
• Iceland
• 18th century
• Denmark

Notes

¹ I use the term ‘twill’ here for homespun cloth or wadmal (2:2), traditionally made in homes in pre-industrial Iceland.

2 Róbertsdóttir, Landsins forbetran, 205–12.

3 This is the general interpretation offered in the latest overview of 18th-century Icelandic history, from 2006. See: Björnsson, Saga Íslands, VIII, vii, 93–105, 128–38. It is also present in other previous writings. See an overview of historical writings regarding the manufactories of the Privileged Icelandic Company: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 59–62.

4 This discussion is based on my book Wool and Society, which is a study of wool manufacturing in 18th century Iceland. In it I explore the various ideas regarding Iceland’s economy that were current during the 18th century, particularly in light of developments in Denmark at the time. Furthermore, I place these ideas in the context of wool-working and the recent introduction of workshop manufacturing into Iceland. In doing so I consider the impact such ideas had on the local community. See: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society.

5 Karlsson, Iceland's 1100 Years, 91–5, 100–5; Feldbæk, ‘Vækst og reformer’, 232–40. See 18th-century statements that throw light on this connection between Iceland and Norway, in: Thott, ‘Allerunderdanigste uforgribelige Tanker’, 182; Olavius, ‘Afhandling om de opmuntringsværdigste Natur-Producter’, 8–10.

6 In the original Danish text, it is stated: ‘Naar jeg dette og andet fleere, som her af dependerer, har overveyet, har jeg holdet min Penne fra at forestille noget nytt, med lader mit förste, sidste og mellemste Project være, at jeg intet heller önskede end at Landet maatte forblive ved dets forrige Louver, consvetudines og privilegier og beholde sin Fattigdom uden nye Udgivter, Byrde og Tyngsel’. Bjarni Halldórsson to the royal commissioners, 2 May 1771, Landsnefndin 1770–1771, vol. 2, 179.

7 Róbertsdóttir, ‘Áætlun um allsherjarviðreisn Íslands’, 29–54.

8 Gustafsson, ‘The Conglomerate State’, 195–8, 201–3; Gustafsson, Political Interaction, 22–7, 154–7, 162–4; Gustafsson, ‘Upplysning, kameralism och förvaltning’, 65–74.

9 Horn, Rosenband, and Smith, ‘Introduction’, 1–4.

10 Bruland, ‘Reconceptualizing Industrialization in Scandinavia’, 125–9, 135–44.

11 See a definition of proto-industrial production in: Ogilvie and Cerman, ‘The Theories of Proto-Industrialization’, 1.

12 See an overview of this discussion in: Kriedte, Medick, and Schlumbohm, Industrialization before Industrialization, 135–60.

13 Examples of this view are in: Magnússon, Iceland in Transition, 74–5; Gunnlaugsson, Family and Household in Iceland, 156–8. Gunnlaugsson also states that no evidence is to be found of a putting-out system in Iceland. See also a discussion on this where I see possibilities in using the discussion on proto-industrialization, although not in relation to industrialization. See: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 53–4.

14 See for instance: Ogilvie, ‘Social Institutions and Proto-Industrialization’, 23–35.

15 Horn, Rosenband, and Smith, ‘Introduction’, 4.

16 De Vries, The Industrious Revolution, 9–19.

17 Examples of research where the development of fisheries is central to the interpretation of the development, see: Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation, 13, 17–18, 168–70; Óskarsson, Saga Reykjavíkur, 51–74.

18 See examples of these views in: Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation, 115–18; Karlsson, Iceland's 1100 Years, 173–6; Björnsson, Íslands hlutafélag, 163–7.

19 Sheilagh Ogilvie has discussed how corporate groups as merchants’ companies interacted with proto-industrial production in early-modern Germany. See: Ogilvie, State Corporatism and Proto-Industry, 4, 12, 360–3. See also: Ogilvie, Institutions and European Trade, 94–100, 164–7.

20 Júlíusson, ‘Bønder i pestens tid’, 54–5.

21 Arnórsdóttir, ‘Var sjálfsþurft ríkjandi á Íslandi á miðöldum?’, 1–3, 13–14; Sverrisdóttir, ‘Tóskapur’, 194–203.

22 Kristjánsson, ‘Tengsl framleiðslu og markaðar’, 51, 125–7.

23 De Vries, The Industrious Revolution, 1–10, 18–19.

24 In relation to the total import into Iceland, the import of textiles was slightly greater in the 17th century than it became a century later. Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation, 32.

25 The assessment of the 17th century is based on two accounts preserved from 1630 and 1655. They are published in: Aðils, Einokunarverzlun Dana á Íslandi, 677, 687–9.

26 Case studies were conducted on the counties Gullbringusýsla, Borgarfjarðarsýsla, Mýrasýsla, Suður-Múlasýsla, Mið-Múlasýsla, Norður-Múlasýsla and parts of Þingeyjarsýsla, as shown in Figure 1. The study of textile imports is based on the merchants’ account books from the trading ports of these areas. See: The Danish National Archives (DRA). Kgl.okt.Isl. 453. Det kgl. oktr. Islandske Kompagni 1742–66. Krambodsböger: 49 Holmens Havn 1762; 73 Rödefjords Havn; 92 Wapnafjords Havn 1762. – DRA. Real.komm. 455. Krambodsbøger for Island og Finmarken 1781–1794. 407 Holmens Havn 1783; 421 Wapnafjords Havn 1786.

27 Statistics on the quantity and price of imports of the most common fabrics are provided in Jónsson and Magnússon, Hagskinna. Icelandic Historical Statistics, 434–43 (Table 10.5. Value and quantity of imported goods 1625–1819); more detailed information is provided in: Private. Working papers from Jónsson and Magnússon, Hagskinna. Icelandic Historical Statistics. Tables: Inn_stadir 1773–1784. Innsam 1773–1784; Innflu 1764–1784. There were 24 formal trading ports in the country in those years. See also a complete list of all imported fabrics to two ports in 1762, Vopnafjörður and Reyðarfjörður in: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 271, 321.

28 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 241–4, 290–5.

29 Horrebow, Tilforladelige Efterretninger, 304–9.

30 The central authorities issued the price that monopoly-trade merchants were to follow. Lovsamling for Island. I, 567–8; Lovsamling for Island. IV, 314–53.

31 Aðils, Den danske Monopolhandel, 488–93, 506–9; DRA. Real.komm. 455. Inventarbog for det Islandsk-Finmarkske udredningskontor 1783–1784, 391; Róbertsdóttir, ‘Munaðarvara og matarmenning’, 87–99.

32 Jónsson and Magnússon, Hagskinna. Icelandic Historical Statistics, 416–29; Róbertsdóttir, Landsins forbetran, 24–41; Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation, 33–5. The above-mentioned figures provide the values within the country; when sold abroad the price for woollen products was relatively lower.

33 See a description of how the winter trade developed in different ports: Aðils, Den danske Monopolhandel, 252–3, 281–4, 303–7, 340–6.

34 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 253–65. This study of textile export is based on research examining merchants’ account books that record export from the years 1762 in the port of Vopnafjörður and Reyðarfjörður in the north-east of Iceland. There the yearly trade from each customer is registered.

35 Björnsson, Íslands hlutafélag, 90–9, 107–14, 134–9, 143–7.

36 Some parties other than the Privileged Icelandic Company were unsuccessful with their applications for privileges in the 1750s and 1760s. Gunnlaugsson, ‘The Granting of Privileges’, 195–202; Róbertsdóttir, Landsins forbetran, 192–200.

37 The system of training is well outlined in several drafts and final versions of statutes and contracts of the manufacturing company in the period 1750–1755. These documents are published in Róbertsdóttir, Landsins forbetran, 219–40.

38 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 132–5, 301–10. This production was organized as a Kaufsystem, or‚ a ‘home-workshop system’; the farmers used their own raw materials for producing goods.

39 Karlsson, Iceland's 1100 Years, 138–42; Feldbæk, Danmarks økonomiske historie, 81–91.

40 Ogilvie, Institutions and European Trade, 31–8.

41 See, for instance, the octroi for the General Trading Company from 1763, which should be valid for 20 years. Feldbæk, Danske Handelskompagnier, 618–39.

42 Gunnarsson, Monopoly Trade and Economic Stagnation, 58–60.

43 Many decrees of this kind were issued in the 18th century. One example can be found in Lovsamling for Island. IV, 212–13.

44 Karlsson, Iceland's 1100 Years, 141–2; Aðils, Den danske Monopolhandel, 340–6, 509–49, 611–58.

45 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 353–5.

46 This emphasis within Icelandic historiography can partly be explained by the historical view of the 20th century, when the struggle for independence between Iceland and Denmark dominated. It presented a stark view of the Icelanders’ struggle against Danish merchants in former centuries. See for example, Aðils, Skúli Magnússon, 82–250; Björnsson, ‘Atvinnumál’, 94–8, 109–12, 117–18; Björnsson, Saga Íslands, VIII, 93–105, 128–38. See further discussion in Róbertsdóttir, ‘Hagsvæði, sérhæfing og svæðisbundin þróun’, 255–68.

47 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 169–74.

48 Lovsamling for Island, V, 343–52.

49 The monopoly trade was abolished in northern Norway in 1789, the Faroe Islands in 1856 and Greenland in 1950.

50 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 48–55.

51 Ogilvie, ‘Social Institutions and Proto-Industrialization’, 23–5.

52 Here I refer to the putting-out system (Verlagsystem in German) and home-workshop system (Kaufsystem).

53 Trade conducted all year round began to develop in 1759 and onwards, and was obligatory for the monopoly-trade merchants from 1777.

54 Björnsson, ‘Við vefstól og rokk’, 183–204.

55 In addition to the reform scheme that led to the establishment of the manufactories, the change in wool production is a central argument in most writings about reforms in Iceland during the 18th century. See: Thoroddsen, Landfræðissaga Íslands, II, 223–71; Róbertsdóttir, ‘Áætlun um allsherjarviðreisn Íslands’, 29–43; Róbertsdóttir, ‘Manufaktur og reformpolitikk’, 222–39.

56 On the conditions of farm servants during the 18th century, see Guttormsson, ‘Uppeldi og samfélag á Íslandi’, 20–5; Guttormsson, Bernska, ungdómur og uppeldi, 96–132.

57 The articles containing these debates were published in the periodical Islandske Maanedstidender and Rit þess Íslenska Lærdómslistafélags; Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 190–7.

58 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 274–81, 347–57.

59 Sverrisdóttir, ‘Kalemank og klæði’, 7–16; Róbertsdóttir, Landsins forbetran, 112–21, 143–57.

60 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 363–4.

61 This is the general picture. For further information on figures on participation in trade for inhabitants in the two trading areas, see Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 241–4, 290–5.

62 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 369–72.

63 Guttormsson’s results regarding the Hvalsnes parish demonstrate that up to 70% of the people who stayed in this area during the winter originally came from other districts in the country and were mainly farm servants located elsewhere in the country.

64 See further: Olavius, Oeconomisk Reise, I–II.

65 Guttormsson, ‘Population, Households and Fisheries’, 163–4.

66 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 197–202.

67 On mechanized wool factories in the late 19th century, see: Guðmundsson, Ull verður gull, 13–16.

68 Oxenbøll, ‘Manufakturer og fabrikker’, 81–104.

69 This idea also applied to fish, grain, timber and various other goods. Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 90–3.

70 Earlier in the 18th century, the royal wool manufactories in Copenhagen had the first right to the wool. See amongst others: Lovsamling for Island, I, 496, II, 299, III, 220–1, 336, 486–7, IV, 348.

71 See further: Agnarsdóttir, ‘The Urbanization of Iceland’, 125–9.

72 Christensen, ‘Danish Towns’, 45–51; Degn, ‘Urbanization of the North’, 11–18; Eliassen, ‘The Heyday of the Small Town’, 27–32.

73 See, for instance, a debate that concerned the main obstacles for the burghers’ trades in the small towns of Denmark in 1763, and a similar debate in the writings of the Danish Agricultural Society in 1770. See Danmarks og Norges Oeconomiske Magazin 7 (1763): 12; Det Kongelige Danske Landhuusholdnings-Selskabs Skrifter 1 (1776): xxviii.

74 The last vestiges of the monopoly trade were abolished in 1854/1855; cf. Lovsamling for Island, XV, 611–23.

75 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 414–18. See also information about travellers and expeditions in general during the 17th and 18th centuries: Thoroddsen, Landfræðissaga Íslands, II, 223–71; Guðmundsson, ‘Inngangur’, xx–xliii.

76 Glamann, ‘Et kameralistisk programskrift’, 11–12.

77 For the debate on Denmark, see Danmarks og Norges Oeconomiske Magazin 1–8 (1757–1764), Det Kongelige Danske Landhuusholdnings-Selskabs Skrifter (1776–1804), Oeconomisk Journal (1757–1758). For Iceland, the following periodicals were surveyed: Islandske Maaneds-Tidender (1773–1776), Rit þess Íslenzka Lærdómslistafélags 1–7, and Rit þess Konúngliga Íslenzka Lærdómslistafélags 8–14.

78 See, for instance, examples from both Denmark and Iceland: Thott, ‘Allerunderdanigste uforgribelige Tanker’, 173–216; Magnússon, ‘Allerunderdanigste Relation’, 59–68.

79 Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 81–128, 190–202.

80 Lovsamling for Island. II, 605–20, IV, 683–6, V, 14–29.

81 The study was made for the year 1786. It is notable that those acquiring raw materials from the merchants all lived near the trading port, not on inland farms.

82 One example of this from Denmark is Danmarks og Norges Oeconomiske Magazin, 7 (1763): 96–7. See further: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 108–10, 186–8.

83 Eiríksson, Udtog af afgangne Lavmand Povel Vidalins Afhandling om Islands Opkomst, 404. Here, a letter is published from the central authorities dating from 1757 where this is discussed; Lovsamling for Island. III, 487. See also: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 96–8, 202–5.

84 The debates were published in the periodicals Islandske Maaneds-Tidender and Rit þess Íslenska Lærdómslistafélags. See also: Róbertsdóttir, Wool and Society, 222–7, 369–76.

85 See Islandske Maaneds-Tidender 3 (April 1776): 97–100, 104–7 (the text is anonymous, but the author presumably was County Magistrate Magnús Ketilsson). See also Ólafsson, Vice-Lavmand Eggert Olafsens og Land-Physici Biarne Povelsens Reise, I, 335–7; Olavius, Oeconomisk Reise, II, 401–4.

86 Björnsson, Saga Íslands, VIII, 125–7, 187.

87 Guttormsson, ‘Population, Households and Fisheries’, 144–6, 162–4.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hrefna Róbertsdóttir

Hrefna Róbertsdóttir (b. 1961) is the Head of Acquisition and Preservation at the National Archives of Iceland. She has a Dr.Phil. degree in History from the University of Lund in Sweden. Her doctoral thesis was published in 2008 as Wool and Society: Manufacturing Policy, Economic Thought and Local Production in 18th-century Iceland. She currently holds a three-year START Postdoctoral Fellowship, funded by the National Archives of Iceland and The Icelandic Research Fund (IRF) in partnership with the European Commission Framework 7 Programme under ‘Marie Curie Actions’. The project is called: Communities and Settlement Culture in Early Modern Iceland.