only case of such a phenomenon among the Icelandic sagas proper. It does
not invalidate the general truth of the tradition that these two sources
clash in various matters. These disagreements are not so serious but that
fair-minded American scholars have found it "easy to believe that the
narratives contained in the sagas are true in their general outlines and
important features." It lies within the province of Old Norse scholarship
to determine which of the two Vinland sagas has the better literary and
historical antecedents. After this point has been established, the
truthfulness and credibility of the selected narrative in its details
must be maintained on the internal evidence in conjunction with the
geographical and other data of early America. And here American
scholarship may legitimately speak.

These sagas have in recent years been subjected, especially by Dr. Gustav
Storm of Christiania,[8-1] to most searching textual and historical
criticism, and the result has been that the simpler narrative of Hauk's
Book and AM. 557 is pronounced the more reliable account.[8-2] In respect
to literary quality, it has the characteristics of the Icelandic sagas
proper, as distinguished from the later sagas by well-known literary men
like Snorri. Where it grazes facts of Northern history it is equally
strong. Thus, there is serious question as to the first sighting of land
by Biarni Herjulfson, who is mentioned only in the Flat Island narrative,
and nowhere else in the rich genealogical literature of Iceland, although
his alleged father was an important man, of whom there are reliable
accounts. On the other hand, the record of the "Saga of Eric the Red,"
giving the priority of discovery to Leif Ericson, can be collaterally
confirmed.[8-3] The whole account of Biarni seems suspicious, and the
main facts, viewed with reference to Leif's discovery, run counter to
Northern chronology and history. There are, however, two incidental
touches in the Flat Island Book narrative, which are absent from the