Gripla - 20.12.2010, Side 214

GRIPLA214
in Íslendingabók and portions are even quoted verbatim (the only instance
of direct prose speech in Íslendingabók). Kristni saga (ÍF XV, 33), Njáls saga
(ÍF XII, 271) and Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar by Oddr Snorrason (KS I, 105–
109) all tell a similar story, although none of the versions go into any detail
regarding the Christians’ decision to elect Hallr as the man to proclaim
their laws. This decision suggests Hallr had considerable influence over the
other chieftains. It seems likely he was considered sage, incorruptible, and
even-handed (qualities supported by the other episodes about him in Njáls
saga). But neither these qualities nor his Christian principles alone would
be enough to afford him the role. Rather, I suggest, that his Machiavellian
side (as hinted at by Haukr Valdísarson) was of no less importance to those
who elected him to the role. It was his skill in law, political acumen and
ability to uphold his own rights against all men that they believed would
ensure the success of their cause. Furthermore these characteristics also
decide his approach to the matter. Without a King, the Icelandic Com-
mon wealth was dependent entirely upon the adherence to and recognition
of the agreed laws for social stability, and, although undoubtedly fulfilling
a utilitarian and practical role in the pre-literate culture, the role of the
Law-Speaker was also symbolic.18 It was the highest (though unlike a royal
or presidential role not necessarily the most powerful) single office in the
constitution and was called upon to arbitrate and establish the correct legal
principles in the most contentious disputes. The refusal of Christians to
recognise the law established by their pagan ancestors and their attempt to
establish their own Law-Speaker threatened to destabilise the foundations
upon which the Commonwealth was established.19 Although what is pro-
posed is not revolution, but the establishment of a separate sub-culture, it
is hard to see how such a constitution could operate. Two social groups
living under separate laws, administered by separate institutions would
18 On the office of the Lawspeaker see Jón Jóhannesson 1974, 47–49 and Gísli Sigurðsson
2004, 53–92.
19 Jón Jóhannesson (1974, 56–58) notes that under the old law part of the process of consecrat-
ing legal assemblies involved swearing oaths to pagan deities. As such, to even have access
to legal process the Christian chieftains would have potentially been required to enter into
pagan practices. This may have been one of the aspects of the pagan law that appeared so
distasteful to them and the reason why the question discussed at the Alþingi was so specifi-
cally focussed on the law under which men should live and not the religious behaviours they
would be allowed to practise.