this date. John Fiske's[6-2] well-considered opinion of this same saga
(544 and 557) has weight: "Its general accuracy in the statement and
grouping of so many remote details is proof that its statements were
controlled by an exceedingly strong and steady tradition,--altogether too
strong and steady, in my opinion, to have been maintained simply by word
of mouth." And Vigfusson,[6-3] in speaking of the sagas in general, says:
"We believe that when once the first saga was written down, the others
were in quick succession committed to parchment, some still keeping their
original form through a succession of copies, others changed. The saga
time was short and transitory, as has been the case with the highest
literary periods of every nation, whether we look at the age of Pericles
in Athens, or of our own Elizabeth in England, and that which was not
written down quickly, in due time, was lost and forgotten forever."

The absence of contemporary record has caused some American historians
to view the narratives of the Vinland voyages as ordinary hearsay. But it
is important to remember that before the age of writing in Iceland there
was a saga-telling age, a most remarkable period of intellectual
activity, by means of which the deeds and events of the seething life of
the heroic age were carried over into the age of writing.[7-1] The
general trustworthiness of this saga-telling period has been attested in
numerous ways from foreign records. Thus Snorri Sturlason's "The Sagas of
the Kings of Norway," one of the great history books of the world,
written in Iceland in the thirteenth century, was based primarily on
early tradition, brought over the sea to Iceland. Yet the exactness of
its descriptions and the reliability of its statements have been verified
in countless cases by modern Norwegian historians.[7-2]

With reference to the Vinland voyages, there is proof of an unusually
strong tradition in the fact that it has come down from two sources, the