<論説>一三世紀アイスランドにおける平和維持 : ノルウェー王権受容に関する一考察

• Main Author: 松本, 涼
• Other Authors: MATSUMOTO, Sayaka, マツモト, サヤカ
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: Japanese
• Published: 史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内) 2008
• Subjects: 200; Norway; Iceland
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/240021; https://doi.org/10.14989/shirin_91_694

九三〇年頃の法と集会制度の成立から、一二六二／六四年のノルウェー王に対する臣従誓約に至るまでのアイスランドは、近代以降「自由国」と呼ばれ、王権を戴かない社会として知られている。本稿では、「自由国」とノルウェー王権受容との関係を再考する試みとして、アイスランド固有の散文物語「サガ」を主要史料とし、一三世紀アイスランドにおける平和と権力の在り方を解析した。従来、一三世紀前半は、有力者間の権力闘争の激化により、王なき「自由国」を支えていた血讐(報復義務) を基盤とする平和維持システムに破綻を来す時期と捉えられてきた。しかし、ノルウェー王との関係も視野に入れると、支配層に対し一定の発言力を保ち続けていた農民集団が、新たな「平和維持者」としてノルウェー王を選択した可能性も窺える。また、王権受容後に関しては、王による法制度の改編のみに考察が偏ってきたが、同時期を描くサガに着目すると、血讐の存続も確認される一方、ノルウェー王の裁判権が直接対面することのない農民層にも徐々に拡大してゆく様子がみてとれる。すなわち、一三世紀アイスランドは、ノルウェー王権をも構成要素のひとつとする平和維持システムの緩やかな変容過程にあったのである。 Iceland was settled mainly by Norwegian Vikings in the period c.870-c.930. Towards the end of this period, settlers established laws and an assembly system. They kept Iceland's 'independent' status until 1262/64, at which time Icelanders swore to pay tribute and submit to the king in Norway. Subsequently, the country was under foreign rule until the foundation of the republic in 1944. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, under the influence of the struggle for independence, the society that had existed during the period c.930-1262 began to be called Pjodveldi, usually translated as 'the Commonwealth' or 'the Free State'. It was thought of as a 'commonwealth' composed of free farmers, who refused the rule of any king. Since then, the Icelandic Commonwealth Period has been praised as a golden age, while the period under foreign rule was thought of as an Icelandic dark age. There was a tendency to revise such a nationalistic view in the 1970s as the Sagas (prose stories written in Old Norse in the 12th-14th centuries) began to be reevaluated as historical sources, but little attention has been paid to the period after the year 1262/64. Given this historiography, we should pay more attention to the period after the submission, as an examination of the period might reveal the uniqueness of the Icelandic Commonwealth and its relationship with the monarchy more clearly. In this paper, I try to throw new light on the changes and continuities under the Norwegian monarchy. For this purpose, I focus on peacemaking and power throughout the 13th century, because, in spite of a large stock of knowledge about peacemaking in the Commonwealth period, we know very little about it thereafter. The American anthropological school has made valuable contributions since 1980s in understanding the Icelandic peacemaking system. They clarified the mechanism of peacemaking through blood-feuds (mutual vengeance) from the Sagas and presented a new image of society based on it. This now serves as the model for the Icelandic blood-feud. Sagas about the period of internal struggle, i.e. the Sturlung Age (c.1220-1262), however, often depict exceptions to the model. Accordingly, many scholars have thought that the peacemaking system based on the blood-feud had broken down by the Sturlung Age, and the breakdown consequently led to the collapse of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Although Icelandic chieftains were closely connected with the King in the 13th century, their power was still based on the consent of the famers, and farmers expected their chieftains to control blood-feuds to keep the peace. On the other hand, the Norwegian King had a certain judicial influence on the Icelanders, mainly through the relationship with his retainers. Icelandic retainers thought of the king as an arbitrator or peacemaker among them. Farmers also recognized the authority of the king, and the decision for submission was made with their accord. Therefore it could be said that Icelandic farmers selected the king as their peacemaker, instead of chieftains who had lost the power to make peace. Few studies have been made about Icelandic society under the monarchy. Some legal historians, however, have studied the new laws that accompanied the constitutional changes brought about by the king and believe that large-scale conflicts and blood-feuds decreased after the submission. This was because the new laws contained articles forbidding blood-feuds, reflecting the political ideals of the Norwegian court. However, a survey of the conflicts and their resolution under the monarchy through Contemporary Sagas points out that revenge was still the custom of Icelanders even in that period. As a result of new laws and administration, the king meanwhile expanded his judicial influence to Icelandic famers without the limitations of a face-to-face relationship that he would maintain with a retainer. To sum up, the Kings of Norway had influence on peacemaking in Iceland before the contracts of submission and gradually expanded this power and authority towards the end of 13th century. Even so, the process does not appear to have been an entirely one-sided initiative on the part of the monarchy, but was also the result of selection by Icelanders themselves. Accordingly, we can consider the situation of 13th century Iceland as developing through interaction with the Norwegian monarchy, and inherent within the shift toward submission was a gradual transformation in the peacemaking system.