|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I would like to see this mans name correctly spelled. After all, "Eddan" has had quite an influence on modern writing and saga. Therefore I would like to see this mans name changed to Snorre Stularson. Snorri Sturluson is, as far as I am concerned, an english enterpretation of the original icelandic name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olofgren (talk • contribs)
- Also, Iceland ought to be correctly spelled Island, but your move to Snorre would be easier to pull off than that. If your wish isn't just "when will winter end?" peevishness - that is you're pretty sure about it - then move the article. Please create a redirect, because there are a great many links to Snorri. He's quite famous. I advise holding off until Spring. Metarhyme 10:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- "Snorri Sturluson" is the normalized Old Norse and normalized Modern Icelandic spelling and not an Anglicization. Haukur 10:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- In that case it is not a simple uncontested move. For an article name change which isn't accepted by all, the procedure is to format your Olofgren-proposed move as specified at Wikipedia:Requested moves placing it in the top date section there. Then, again per Wikipedia:Requested moves, place a move template on the top of this Talk page. Also create a Discussion section here. I advise against this. Metarhyme 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Google certainly should not be the final word in these matters, but, "Snorre Stularson" gets one hit whereas "Snorri Sturluson" gets "about 250,000", including ones in English and Icelandic. This Olafgren needs to show a lot more to get this even considered [pov]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs)
- He'd need to reappear and campaign. If Iceland really wanted Snorre, then...? Metarhyme 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. then there would be no stopping the Icelanders. Carptrash 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- All swedish school children are told that his name was Snorre Sturlason, which in it self is quite funny when you're a kid since "Snorre" is swedish slang for the male reproductive organ (atleast where I'm from). And a search for "Snorre Sturlason" renders about 48.000 hits on Google. I don't know where "Stularson" comes from and the single hit in Google tells me it's probably just a typo. Also, the swedish Wikipedia calls him "Snorre Sturlasson".
- This is English Wikipedia. It should either follow English convention (Snorri Sturluson) or Icelandic convention (Snorri Sturluson). Snorri was not Swedish, nor did he really have much to do with Sweden. I can see MAYBE Norwegians having some claim to him, but not as strong as the Icelanders. "Snorre" is just fine for Swedish wiki, but "Snorri" is universally accepted in Iceland and almost all of the English-speaking world. Jawbone 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The picture in the article (supposedly dated 1665) says "Snorre", so there certainly has been one historical incident of it spelled this way. Why not leave the article as it is, but simply add "(also spelled Snorre Sturluson") after the first mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Snorri Sturluson" is the normalized Old Norse and normalized Modern Icelandic spelling and not an Anglicization. Haukur 10:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It might be an idea for someone with considerable Snorri knowledge to have a gaze through the fact and narrative of the article. It seems that the tone fluctuates and contains potentially unhelpful phraseology: "and the war was on" and "saga-type actions" which are overly familiar. Zach Beauvais 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Snorri sturluson also went to Greenland as a trader he had to stay there and help the Greenlanders out
Would it be inaccurate to trans-alphabetize Alþingi "All-thingy"? Assuming that there is no one in the world who can read written English who is actually clueless concerning the þ thorn glyph - well, this is a mistaken assumption. Sadly, all the world isn't fluent in Icelandic just yet, even if Island pwns alles. Metarhyme 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Iceland's embassy in the U.S. uses Althingi on its English-language FAQ, and use without an article ("Althingi is a legislative body...") as one would do with "Congress" or "Parliament." The U.S. State Department's background notes on Iceland also uses Althingi, as does the National Geographic Society, though the CIA World Factbook uses Althing. Seems to me the Icelanders writing in English ought to know. — OtherDave 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "Icelanders writing in English" was slightly tongue in cheek, though I feel confident that those writing text for the Icelandic embassy have strong English skills. It does appear that the U.S. State Department and the National Geographic Society, neither burdened with Icelandic as a native tongue, disagree with the "almost always" contention. — OtherDave 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
BAD GRAMMAR: If you are going to contribute to an encyclopedia, know basic grammar.
"of" never follows "comprised". Say "comprising ......" or "composed of". Basic stuff.
- While making a big deal about grammatical minutia [and not signing it] in an article likely written by someone for whom English is a second or third or fourth language is bad manners. Also pretty basic stuff. So, which is worse? Carptrash 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Basic stuff," perhaps, but as Merriam-Webster notes, "comprise" in the sense of compose or constitute has been in use since the late 18th century, even in the apparently shocking "is comprised of" construction. — OtherDave 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Disliked by Odinists?
Request for agreement on Sturluson
Well, I KNOW how insistent Scandinavians can be about getting these matters what they consider right! First of all let me say that I am a native English speaker and have a pretty good idea (though not perfect) about what is "right" in English, although some of my speech mannerisms are not the same as our British cousins'.
Now, Middle English is partly characterized by its variant spellings, which tended to stabilize in modern English. If you don't mind the spelling, you can read just about any middle English and even Old English. This tendency did not entirely go away in modern English! Despite all the handbooks of all the great universities you are still going to find variants in the dictionary and no one seems to be able to halt this process.
In contrast possibly to Swedish or Danish or Norwegian (I don't know those languages) when it comes to the Anglicization of Scandinavian names there is just plain no "right" way to do it! So you are going to find several variants of Snorri's name in English, and they are all "right", and if you are going to argue and confront about what it "should" be we are going to be here on this discussion page on a more or less permanent basis.
I am against using a Scandinavian standard. Which one are we supposed to use? It doesn't matter at all to native English speakers what the English-speaking Swedes might do in transliterating these names. We speak English, not standard Swedish-translation lingo (or whatever). For myself I learned Sturlson in school but I have no problem at all with Sturluson, Sturlarson, Sturlason or whatever. This is a foreign word to us; we don't recognize it. There are no sturls here manufacturing sturls the way smiths worked iron.(more later)Dave 11:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Later. So, what I propose is this. Sturluson has the advantage of first of all being compatible with Sturlungar on which there already is an article and second it seems to be the target of most of the searches. We want the public to find what they search for. Now, I know other people do it other ways. I have here before me a copy of Heimskringla in English and the author's name (in English) is Snorre Sturlason. So what? What I want to do is, first of all revert to Sturluson as a standard. Then I want to put in sufficient redirects to cover the other possibilities. And finally, just so no one will get confused or think that their nationality is being slighted, I want to research and put in a footnote on the different spellings of the name. For that I am just going to look it up in every encyclopedia and dictionary I have at hand and also incorporate some of the material in this discussion page.
- Naturally Snorre is an emotional topic. Sagas are not the most objective writing in the world. But, there are a lot of emotional topics on Wikipedia. If you could manage to choke down your outrage and nationalism so we can turn this into a star article I would appreciate that. Everyone comes from somewhere and is loyal to something but we are trying to rise above that for encyclopedic purposes. Thank you. I'm going to start on that note.Dave 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I just want to say that English speakers cannot 'read just about any' Old English text. Clearly you have no knowledge of the language or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim; Anglo-Saxon is >99% unintelligible with modern English. Middle English is mostly incomprehensible to anyone without knowledge of it. I'm guessing you've mixed up Old English with Early Modern English (Shakespeare's language), if so please go and educate yourself and cease spouting drivel.
What is meant by Snorri becoming the "king's chamberlain"? There was, of course, no such title in Norway, what is the Norwegian title that is translated as chamberlain in this article? I am very unsure if it's an appropriate translation.--Barend (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can only guess that it's supposed to be a translation of drottsete as the other hird offices fits even less. Fornadan (t) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I looked it up myself - and it is skutilsvein. That is the title which later in the 13th century was converted to riddar, which translates easily to knight. I'd say the translation chamberlain is not just inappropriate, it's plain wrong. And speculating that It is unclear that he understood the significance of these honors seems very unlikely - Snorri was certaily no fool.--Barend (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Some general comments:
Until now, the discussion on this article is mainly concerned with spelling and such side issues. Unable to resist intervening, I point out that Snorri wrote his name in Latin letters, and as it happens, no letters that are particular to Icelandic are required. It should therefore be harmless to spell his name as he did himself, although it is only fair to acknowledge variations based on usage in other languages (and provide for redirections).
Other names are however curiously, but very inconsistently, modified in spelling, apparently in the expectation of pleasing readers unfamiliar with the language they belong to. This is a disservice. A reader gains nothing from the impression that Sighvatur (Sighvatr in older spelling) may be “Sigvat” in the nominative case, Klængur “Klaeing”, or Ormur “Orm”. The masculine nominative ending -ur in Icelandic is of the same nature as the common corresponding masc. nom. sing. -us in Latin. While this may not be important or even interesting, there is no reason to hide the proper nominative ending away for the sake of petty comforts, even if they exist outside the writer’s imagination. And readers unfamiliar with Æ lose nothing by being shown a letter that has been used in very many languages for ages, and was also frequently used in Latin.
As for king’s chamberlain, it demands learning to be able to convert a title such as skutilsveinn (with a double n in the nominative) to correlates in other systems. The reader may be expected to know this, and a slight discrepancy in such matters is hardly of great consequence. But there are many (other) indications that the writer’s self-confidence overwhelms his learning.
Aside from such relatively minor irritations, the article is mostly of biographical content, about the life (not so much the works or later significance) of a man living in troubled and violent times. Although biographical information is of course appropriate in an article about a particular person, I believe that the details of the political tangles, terror and warfare of the sturlungaöld (the Age of the Sturlungar) in Iceland are, like the basically similar details of the Civil War Era in Norway, of relatively limited interest to Wikipedia readers generally. The same may probably be said of who married whom and the accompanying financial and political arrangements. On the other hand Snorri´s value to medieval studies and European prehistory (maybe even extending to Rus and Turkey), is important to all interested in those and related fields. It is a pity that a quality Wikipedia article on Snorri has yet to be written.
I am just a lawyer, not a historian. Merely that kind of education, while not directly to the point, suffices quite well to ensure the realization of a fact that must be fundamental to all study of history, namely that concepts, beliefs, attitudes and views change by time and place. As far as I know the concept of “State” was new in Snorri’s time, i.e. if applied to territories controlled by reguli (petty kings). To the extent it may have been accepted in NW Europe in his day, it was not defined in the same way as now. Much the same can be said of the so often accompanying terms “sovereignty” and “independence”. And Icelanders back then hardly saw themselves as a “nation” different from the Norwegians, knowing full well that they were in fact Norsemen (which comes close to being a synonym for “Norwegians”) living in Iceland. I was disillusioned by the writer’s obvious uncritical swallowing and regurgitation of the “presentist” views of Icelandic history promulgated by many of my compatriots (i.e. the Icelanders) from the late 19th century and even to this day, although Icelandic nationalistic self-inflation and many of its tenets had already in the 1970s subsided to the extent of making a measure of revision possible for academically trained Icelandic historians. In my opinion such sentiments have little function besides providing a playing field for demagogues, and people earnestly desiring knowledge have no business there.
I therefore pulled myself together, logged in to Wikipedia, and made some changes to the article, the most extensive of which was a new passage beginning with “In a way Snorri made a comeback into politics long after his death”. I deleted an assertion to the effect that the “Icelandic commonwealth” was “a sovereign nation” in 1173, and some other pieces of what I thought “presentist” nonsense, such as assertions of “despicable” attitudes of chieftains who wanted to accept union with Norway, and comments such as about the unnaturalness of Snorri serving a king in “one country” while holding high office in “another”. Such comments indicate views that are, I believe, at best uninteresting to others, and at worst ridiculous. In fact the article says little about Snorri, but provides considerable info about the writer. The writer also uses terms such as commando and guerilla, which are out of place, not so much because they or their equivalents in other languages came into use much later, but mainly because if used, their intended meaning must correspond to their modern one. The term “chain of command” is another example of the same. This implies regular State-run military organization and discipline, but Icelanders, like Greek hoplitai of old, did not fight on such a basis. I have been told it was the Romans who invented the system of “officers” and “other ranks”, and thus paved the way for terms such as “chain of command”. Of course both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Icelanders generally submitted in practice to the will of men of superior social rank and carried out the directions they gave, but the idea of committing to a person the power to give another free person orders that were to be obeyed unconditionally as a matter of duty, and enforceable by the severest measures, was foreign to both. I left all these terms untouched, and even managed to resist tampering with the comment that king Hákon “went on suborning the chiefs of Iceland”, which I regret.
As I understand it, I need not apologize to anyone for my intrusion into the article. The enterprise of editing it was conceived as a little tidying-up and at the same time an exercise. But these small changes do very little for the article, because an article of the quality Snorri deserves must be coherently conceived from beginning to end. And it must of course also include information on whatever significance he may have had for later times, and how he may be of value to modern scholars. That is something I am not capable of.
Therefore “it might be an idea for someone with considerable Snorri knowledge to have a gaze through the fact and narrative of the article”. Indeed it might. And I heartily endorse the comment that “if you could manage to choke down your outrage and nationalism so we can turn this into a star article I would appreciate that.” It is unfortunate that a topic like Snorri should be bogged down in obsolete nationalistic-presentistic humbug.
I may contact a person or two whom I deem capable of writing such an article. That person should not only be knowledgeable about literature, but also about European prehistory, European paganism, and much more which I as a layman can have little idea about. If you are interested in Snorri and his works, I ask you to do the same.
totally confusing article
if this article isn't on purpose made confusing, then some serious cleanup is in order. for example, "As Sturla was trying to settle a lawsuit with Father Páll Sölvason, the latter's wife lunged suddenly at him with a knife, intending, she said, to make him like his hero Odin"
who's "Páll Sölvason" ? he has not been mentioned in the article before and he is not linked to. who's wife did that ? what lawsuit ? it's like a few passages taken from a middle of a literary work without any context...
Snorri is primarily remembered as an author, yet the article has almost nothing to say about his writings; this is a major shortcoming.
important discussion missing?
I think it's important to show why it took until the 20th century for Sturluson to get his respect back. Who were his biographers in the interim? Who wrote the scholarly studies of his work in the interim? What do modern scholars say about what happened in the interim and what are their sources? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)