Artikkelen diskuterer Olavs regjeringstid 1015–28 på grunnlag av en sammenlignende undersøkelse av sagatradisjonen, med hovedvekt på verker eldre enn Snorres Heimskringla; dette fordi Snorre i svært stor grad har konstruert sammenhenger mellom begivenhetene. Resultatet blir at interessekonflikter og Knuts angrep blir en viktigere forklaring på Olavs fall enn Snorres betoning av hevn og ære, og at Olavs herredømme har vært svært forskjellig i de ulike riksdelene, sterkest på Østlandet og svakest i Trøndelag, med Vestlandet i en mellomstilling. Inntrykket av Olavs relativt sterke stilling på Vestlandet, til tross for at han sjelden var der, blir i sin tur et argument for at Olav virkelig tilhørte Hårfagreætten.
ST OLAFR AS KING OF NORWAY (1015-28)
The article discusses Óláfr Haraldsson’s reign of Norway in 1015-28 against the background of the various accounts in the sagas. Its main methodological approach is reliance more on Snorri Sturluson’s predecessors than on Snorri himself. Although Snorri was a brilliant writer and his biography of Óláfr one of the masterpieces of medieval historical writing, he can be shown to have made bold constructions, not just in general explanations but also in details. Greater importance is attached to earlier works, notably the Legendary Saga, usually dated to between 1150 and 1200. This results partly in a different explanation of Óláfr’s fall from that of Snorri, in which conflicts of interest become more important than honour and revenge, and partly in greater differences between Óláfr’s control of the various parts of the country. His position in Trøndelag seems to have been weaker than Snorri assumes, whereas there is more to be said in favour of the picture of royal suzerainty over Western Norway. This in turn implies that Óláfr must have belonged to the Fairhair dynasty, contrary to the widely accepted assumption by Claus Krag that this was invented by the saga writers.
I den statsteoretiske litteraturen i Danmark-Norge fra 1770-årene og fram mot 1814 ligger en oversett kildegruppe til forståelse av bakgrunnen for religionsparagrafene i den norske Grunnloven og hvorfor de ble som de ble. Det var mer statsteoretisk refleksjon om forholdet mellom religion og stat enn forskningen så langt har trukket fram. Den samtidige tenkningen om forholdet mellom religion og stat kan ha hatt større betydning for Grunnlovens bestemmelser om religionen enn man tidligere har vært oppmerksom på. Kameralisten J. C. Fabricius kan ha inspirert utformingen av åttende grunnsetning, mens L. Nørregaard i sin naturrett kan ha bidratt til avgrensningen av hva Grunnloven regulerte vedrørende religionen.
Religion and state in political theory in Denmark–Norway before 1814: New light on the background of the articles on religion in the Norwegian constitution
The articles on state religion in the Norwegian Constitution have long been regarded as the most conservative elements. It is widely asserted that the Constitution alone prolonged the arrangement of Church and State from the absolutist monarchy of Denmark–Norway. The literature on political theory in Denmark–Norway from about 1770 to 1814 is a neglected source that can shed some light on the background. The relationship between religion and state was more extensive than research has so far been aware, and the near history of ideas contributed substantially to the way religion was regulated in the Constitution. The cameralist scientist J. C. Fabricius may have inspired formulation of the eighth principle from the committee preparing the Constitution at Eidsvoll, and the jurist L. Nørregaard may have contributed to delimitation of the Constitution’s regulations regarding religion. Several of the constitutional articles on religion prolonged the state religion system of the absolutist state, even sometimes the wording of the corresponding absolutist rules. In the context of the late enlightenment, these articles emerge challenged and grounded on new premises in the Norwegian Constitution of 1814.
Finnefondet var et sentralt instrument i statens fornorskningspolitikk mellom 1852 og 1921. Fondet var en ekstra bevilgning på statsbudsjettet og finansierte en rekke tiltak innen skolevesenet i Finnmark og Troms. Lærere som hadde arbeidet mer enn fem år (fra 1904, to år) i grunnskolen i utvalgte områder i Finnmark, kunne etter søknad få et ekstra lønnstilskudd fra Finnefondet. En språkinstruks satte opp rammene for hvordan lærerne skulle jobbe for fornorskningen. Argumentene i lærernes søknader varierer: noen fremhever sin egen beherskelse av samisk, andre gir ganske detaljerte beskrivelser av hvordan norsk gradvis blir innført i undervisningen. Det har vært en allmenn oppfatning at fondets lærertilskudd ble brukt aktivt for å belønne lærere som fulgte instruksen. I forskningslitteraturen er det motstridende synspunkter på dette. Min gjennomgang av 63 søknader om lønnstillegg fra fondet i perioden 1901–1902 viser at alle lærerne som søkte i denne perioden fikk tillegget. Dette tyder på at Finnefondet ikke virket helt etter hensikten – som et direkte incitament for fornorskning – men mer som et allment lønnstillegg. En forklaring på dette kan være at myndighetene hadde få muligheter til å kontrollere hva lærerne foretok seg i klasserommet. En annen grunn kan være at skolestyrets formenn, som godkjente lærernes søknader på kommunalt nivå, hadde et nært og fortrolig forhold til lærerne, noe som gjorde økonomisk forskjellsbehandling vanskelig. Skoledirektørene Karl Aas og Bernt Thomassen var sentrale aktører i intensiveringen av fornorskningspolitikken fra 1900, men heller ikke de viste vilje til å skille mellom lærerne på bakgrunn av innsats for fornorskningen. Begges rolle i bruken av Finnefondsmidlene vil bli diskutert.
The Lap Fund: An instrument for Norwegianization or a wage subsidy? An examination of the fund’s grants to teachers 1901-1902
Between 1850 and 1962, official policy of the Norwegian state was to Norwegianize and assimilate the Sámi and Finns in Northern Norway, and the Lap Fund (»Finnefondet» in Norwegian) was an important instrument in this. The fund was an extra grant on the state budget from 1851 to at least 1921, funding as it did a number of initiatives in primary schools in Sámi and Finnish areas. A proportion of the fund financed extra wages for teachers who worked for more than five years (from 1904 two years) in certain districts in Finnmark. Teachers had to apply every year and account for their work in accordance with a written instruction detailing how Norwegianization should be carried out in practice in classrooms. A common belief is that teachers who worked in accordance with the instruction were given a grant as a reward while it was denied to others. Scholars have contradictory views on this point. My study of 63 applications in the period 1901-1902 shows that all teachers who applied were given the grant, which means that the Lap Fund did not work as intended, namely as an incentive for Norwegianization at the individual level, but was given as a general wage increase. One reason could be that long distance and poor communication made it difficult for the school director to control the extent to which the teachers were actually following the instruction. Another reason could be that the chairman of the school boards, who recommended the applications at the municipal level, knew the teachers well, and a practice of recommending acceptance of every application seems to have been established. The directors of schools in Finnmark, Karl Aas (1899-1902) and Bernt Thomassen (1902-1921), were central actors in the most intense Norwegianization period, but showed no determination to differentiate among teachers based on their achievements in the process. Aas’s and Thomassen’s roles in the implementation of the Lap Fund are discussed.