Reykjavík Grapevine - 10.10.2008, Blaðsíða 12

12 | REYKJAVÍK GRAPEVINE | ISSUE 16—2008
INTERvIEW BY BeRguR eBBI BeneDIKTSSon — pHoTo BY gAS
Recently, professor emeritus Sigurður Líndal gave
an interesting lecture on the political views of Snor-
ri Sturluson. People flocked to see what the profes-
sor had to say. It is admirable that people have the
same enthusiasm for politics of the 13th century as
for what is going on at the Alþingi (Parliament) right
now. It is easy to understand what draws people to
see such a lecture. They are in fact meeting two
interesting people: the academic Snorri Sturluson
and the academic Sigurður Líndal. Although they
are about 750 years apart in time they would prob-
ably understand each other easily if they were to
meet. Sigurður agreed to explain the political ideas
of Snorri Sturluson and why he is interested in the
subject.
A CoMMuNITY oF FREE MEN
Sigurður is a 77-year old professor emeritus of law
from the University of Iceland but also holds a de-
gree in history. He knows from years of experience
that the best way to present the political ideas of a
past figure is to start by a thorough introduction of
its times. I sit back and enjoy as Sigurður, a man of
spontaneous story-telling and academic accuracy,
opens a window into the Middle Ages.
“We must understand that the people of
Iceland lived by the old Germanic concept of law,
where laws were considered old and fair and there
was no bureaucracy or central power to set new
law. If the law did not comply with reality, it was
considered necessary to direct the law in to its right
course. The thought was that it was no need to set
new law but rather to seek for the originality of the
old law and apply it to the case,” says Sigurður and
explains that this was the way things were in Ice-
land up until the 13th century. “Another important
thing is that nobody was bound by the law unless
he agreed to it. The law was more like a contract
between chieftains. If somebody did not agree to
the contract, he was detached from the law. There-
fore it was important that everybody could agree to
the law and compromise was an essential theme in
the old Germanic legal system,” says Sigurður and
names the adoption of Christianity in Iceland as
an example of how a compromise was necessary
in order to hold the country under uniformed law.
Sigurður also notes that the concept of taxation did
not really exist in the old Germanic concept of law.
“It was a community of free men and they were not
bound to give away their earnings as tax but they
would often give away money and goods as pres-
ents,” says Sigurður.
PEACE WAS IMPoRTANT
“This started to change in the 12th and 13th century
and the provoker was the Catholic Church with its
canon law. Additional factors were that trade in-
creased, the bourgeois class was formed and cities
were built and all this was done in cooperation with
the Church. A good example of the good union be-
tween trade and the Church are the rules set about
certain periods, usually weekends, being times of
peace and certain places, usually the town square
beside the church, being places of peace. Peace
was important and kings were no longer knights
of war but those who could secure the peace. The
Church became a worldly force with the clergy and
was active in law-making. The Church could still
claim that their law stemmed from God. The kings
responded by building up their own bureaucracy
and found ways to justify setting laws on a worldly
basis. They dug up old writings like the Roman law
book Corpus Juris Civilis and by these means the
old Germanic concept of law faded away.”
Sigurður then explains how Snorri’s views,
as portrayed in Heimskringla, the history of the
Norwegian kings, are basically in favour of the old
concept of law. He resisted the changes and wrote
about the fairness of past kings. He lived in the
middle of the changes and obviously contradicted
himself to some degree. In 1218 he was invited to
Norway by King Haakon IV. He persuaded Haakon
to become king of Iceland, and he became Haa-
kon’s vassal. Snorri returned to Iceland in 1220,
but in the ensuing years his relation with Haakon
deteriorated. “In 1240 Snorri was in Norway and
became friends with the earl Skúli Bárðarson who
was Haakon’s competitor. Haakon suspected that
Snorri was planning a rebellion against him and or-
dered Snorri to stay in Norway. Snorri left the coun-
try anyway and travelled home to Iceland. Snorri
was using his right of rebellion against the tyrant
Haakon by leaving,” says Sigurður and adds that
Heimskringla holds many examples of this right. It
was Haakon who gave orders for Snorri’s assassina-
tion at his home in Reykholt in 1241.
hARAlD WAS hAAkoN
“Snorri was not against kings. He just favoured the
kings of the past who did not rise above the law
but were equal to the chieftains. He was obviously
not in favour of taxation but he did not see any-
thing wrong in paying the king respect in the form
of a present. King Haakon made Norway a strong
kingdom where the king had the power to set law.
Snorri considered that to be tyranny and it shines
through Heimskringla,” says Sigurður who also
has a clever theory. In Heimskringla, Snorri writes
about Harald the Fairhaired who was a 9th century
mythical king of Norway who is said to have united
the nation. He is an important figure in Icelandic
history because he is said to be one of the reasons
for the settlement of Iceland. Chieftains and farm-
ers supposedly fled Norway because of his tyranny.
“I think when Snorri writes about Harald, who is a
border-line mythical character, he is actually writ-
ing about King Haakon,” says Sigurður.
It is obvious that Sigurður is charmed by
Snorri’s wisdom. He still points out to me that his
ideas did not prevail. In the end of the 13th century
Icelanders were given a lawbook, Jónsbók, by the
king of Norway. They agreed to follow the book but
maybe they did not have a choice. Traces of the old
Germanic concept of law were still found in discus-
sions in the Alþingi during the following centuries
but it had mostly vanished by the end of the Middle
Ages.
A 13th Century Rebel
Examining the politics of Snorri Sturluson
Snorri Sturluson was an Icelandic
chieftain, historian and poet who
died in Reykholt in Borgarfjörður
in 1241. For some reason people
talk about Snorri like he just
recently passed away. His politics,
wisdom and poetry stand close
to the people of Iceland who talk
about his assassination like a hor-
rible contemporary event.
KIng HAAKon MADe noRwAY A
STRong KIngDoM wHeRe THe KIng
HAD THe poweR To SeT LAw. SnoRRI
conSIDeReD THAT To Be TYRAnnY
AnD IT SHIneS THRougH HeIM-
SKRIngLA
Professor emeritus sigurður líndal - almost as old as snorri sturluson
ARTIClE
We all secretly love the United States. List your top
ten heroes, writers, musicians, actors, anything;
chances are most of them will be citizens of the
United States. As much as we may dislike its gov-
ernment, it’s easier said than done to turn our
backs on American Culture. And on what is still
sometimes referred to as the American Dream.
To their great credit, some of the most vocal op-
ponents of President George W. Bush have been
American citizens.
So what will change if Barack Obama be-
comes president? In a word, everything. Secretly
or openly, we all want a US president we can re-
ally like. Al Gore would have done nicely. Clinton
seemed alright, but there was just something fun-
damentally sleazy about him. And as for the others,
well, the less said the better. So give us our Obama
fix, and we’ll probably forget the Iraq War as quick-
ly as we forgot Vietnam. Given, of course, that the
war can be brought to an end. Then in about ten
year’s time, we can expect a slew of great movies
about how much of a mess the Iraq War really was,
directed by future Oliver Stones and Stanley Ku-
bricks. Then again, if we forget too easily, we might
wind up with another Rambo.
So, will everything be back to normal then?
Not quite. Even if we manage to forgive and forget,
that doesn’t mean that the colossus will be back on
its feet. US dominance is being challenged by other
powers. It has lost the firm hold it recently had on
many parts of the world. If Obama does win, he will
undoubtedly be popular in Europe, and rightly so.
But he will also be the first president with a non-
European sounding name. Irrespective of this, in
the long run, the US is likely to spend most of its
attention on the Asia Pacific Region and the Middle
East. We may be willing to love the US again, but it
might no longer be as eager to love us back.
The United States was at the peak of its pow-
ers in 1945. When Europe and Asia lay in ruins,
the US alone accounted for more than 50% of the
world’s industrial production. The European na-
tions would not rise again as global superpowers,
but the US predominance was challenged militar-
ily by the Soviet Union and financially by Japan.
However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and
Japan‘s economic problems in the early 90‘s, the
United States enjoyed an Indian Summer as world
hegemon. Campaigns in the Balkans and in the
Middle East seemed to herald a New World Order,
where the US could win any war without having to
face casualties on its end.
But on September 11th 2001,changed that
perception. Seven years later, the War on Terror has
managed to do what neither World War II nor the
Cold War could, to make the US seem weak both
militarily and economically. None of the nations
that are now rising, China, Russia or India, seem
likely to supersede it in the near future, but no lon-
ger can the US lay claim to being the world‘s lone
Superpower.
For many, particularly those in South Ameri-
ca who have had to bear the brunt of US domina-
tion, this is a time to rejoice. Leftist governments
have come to power in Venezuela, Uruguay, Brazil,
Paraguay and Chile without bringing US interven-
tion on themselves. This would have been incon-
ceivable in the 20th Century. And it is no wonder
that many people are tired of a Superpower that as
often abused its position by supporting numerous
dictatorships around the world, as well as with its
wars in South East Asia and the Middle East.
But the Decline of the United States is not as
much cause for celebration as many who have criti-
cized it would like to think. The rising powers are
even less likely to take human rights into consider-
ation than the US was. Russia supports a dictator
next door in Belorussia while it invades Georgia,
and the Chinese occupy Tibet while they do busi-
ness with genocidal regimes such as Sudan. The
American Hydra may be humbled, but other beasts
will take its place. And they will be far less tolerant
of criticism, from its own people as well as from
abroad.
The tragedy of the American Century is not that so
much power was concentrated in the US, but how
badly that power was abused. It may not yet be
time to forgive the United States. But perhaps we
will soon start to miss them.
Can We Love
the US Again?
BY vALuR gunnARSSon