The important documents from Norse sources that may be classed as
"Original Narratives of Early American History" are the Icelandic sagas
(prose narratives) that tell of the voyages of Northmen to Vinland. There
are two sagas that deal mainly with these voyages, while in other
Icelandic sagas and annals there are a number of references to Vinland
and adjacent regions. These two sagas are the "Saga of Eric the Red" and
another, which, for the lack of a better name, we may call the "Vinland
History of the Flat Island Book," but which might well bear the same name
as the other. This last history is composed of two disjointed accounts
found in a fine vellum manuscript known as the Flat Island Book
(Flateyjar-bok), so-called because it was long owned by a family that
lived on Flat Island in Broad Firth, on the northwestern coast of
Iceland. Bishop Brynjolf, an enthusiastic collector, got possession of
this vellum, "the most extensive and most perfect of Icelandic
manuscripts," and sent it, in 1662, with other vellums, as a gift to King
Frederick III. of Denmark, where it still is one of the great treasures
of the Royal Library.
On account of the beauty of the Flat Island vellum, and the number of
sagas that it contained (when printed it made 1700 octavo pages), it
early attracted the attention of Old Norse collectors and scholars, and
hence the narrative relating to Vinland that it contained came to be
better known than the vellum called Hauk's Book, containing the "Saga of
Eric the Red," and was the only account of Vinland that received any
particular attention from the scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries The Flat Island Book narrative was also given first place in
Rafn's _Antiquitates Americanae_ (Copenhagen, 1837). This ponderous volume
contained all the original sources, but it has given rise to much
needless controversy on the Norse voyages, for many of the author's
conclusions were soon found to be untenable. He failed to winnow the
sound historical material from that which was unsubstantiated or
improbable. And so far as the original sources are concerned, it was
particularly unfortunate that he followed in the footsteps of seventeenth
and eighteenth century scholars and gave precedence to the Flat Island
Book narrative. In various important respects this saga does not agree
with the account given in the "Saga of Eric the Red," which modern
scholarship has pronounced the better and more reliable version, for
reasons that we shall consider later.
The Flat Island Book consists of transcripts of various sagas made by the
Icelandic priests Jon Thordsson and Magnus Thorhallsson. Very little of
their lives is known, but there is evidence to show that the most
important portion of the copying was completed about 1380. There is,
however, no information concerning the original from which the
transcripts were made. From internal evidence, however, Dr. Storm of the
University of Christiania thinks that this original account was a late
production, possibly of the fourteenth century.[4-1] It is, moreover,
evident that this original account was quite different from the one from
which the existing "Saga of Eric the Red" was made, so that we have two
distinct accounts of the same set of events, both separately derived from
oral tradition, a fact which, on account of the lack of harmony in
details, has been the source of much confusion, but which nevertheless
gives strong testimony concerning the verity of the Vinland tradition in
its general outlines.
The saga which has best stood the test of modern criticism, namely the
"Saga of Eric the Red," has beyond this fact the additional advantage of
having come down to us in two different vellums. The one is found in
Hauk's Book, No. 544 of the Arne-Magnaean Collection in Copenhagen, and
the other is in No. 557 of the same collection. These two narratives (in
vellums 544 and 557) tell the same story. They are so closely allied that
the translation which appears in this volume has been made from a
collation of both texts, that of Hauk's Book (544) having been more
closely followed.[5-1] The Hauk's Book text is clearly legible; No. 557
is not in such good condition.
Many facts in the life of Hauk Erlendsson, who with the assistance of two
secretaries made Hauk's Book, are known. He was in 1294 made a "lawman"
in Iceland, and died in Norway in 1334. There are reasons for believing
that the vellum bearing his name was written a number of years before his
death, probably during the period 1310-1320. Hauk was particularly
interested in the "Saga of Eric the Red," as he was descended from
Thorfinn Karlsefni, the principal character of the saga, a fact that
perhaps lends a certain authority to this version as against that of the
Flat Island Book. Hauk brings the genealogical data of the saga down to
his own time, which is not done in No. 557, one fact among others which
shows that 557 is not a copy of 544.
The early history of AM. 557 is not known. The orthography and hand
indicate that it was made later than Hauk's Book, probably in the early
part of the fifteenth century. Vigfusson considered it a better text than
the Hauk's Book version, though rougher and less carefully written.[5-2]
Other critics (Jonsson and Gering) consider 544 the safer text.
In regard to the date of composition of the archetype, it may be remarked
that both 544 and 557 speak of Bishop Brand "the Elder," which
presupposes a knowledge of the second Bishop Brand, whose accession
occurred in 1263. Before this date, therefore, the originals used in
making 544 and 557 could not have been written. But this mention of
Bishop Brand "the Elder" does not, we think, give an adequate basis for
fixing the date of the _composition_ of the saga, as Dr. Storm believes,
who places it somewhere between 1263 and 1300, with an inclination toward
the earlier date. Dr. Finnur Jonsson,[6-1] who accepts Dr. Storm's
opinion in other respects, says on this point: "The classic form of the
saga and its vivid and excellent tradition surely carry it back to about
1200.... To assume that the saga was first written down about 1270 or
after, I consider to be almost an impossibility." Nor does this
conservative opinion by Dr. Jonsson preclude the possibility, or even
probability, that written accounts of the Vinland voyages existed before
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
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
other saga, namely, the observation concerning the length of the day in
Vinland, and the reference to finding "three skin-canoes, with three men
under each." The improbabilities of the Flat Island Book saga are easily
detected, if one uses as a guide the simpler narrative of the "Saga of
Eric the Red," the only doubtful part of which is the "uniped" episode, a
touch of mediaeval superstition so palpable as not to be deceptive.
Aside from such things as picking grapes in the spring, sipping sweet dew
from the grass, and the presence of an apparition, the Flat Island Book
account, when read by itself, with no attempt to make it harmonize with
the statements of the "Saga of Eric the Red" or other facts of
Scandinavian history, is a sufficiently straightforward narrative. The
difficulty begins when it is placed in juxtaposition to these facts and
statements. It should not be and need not be discarded, but in giving an
account of the Vinland voyages it must be used with circumspection. From
an historical standpoint it must occupy a subordinate place. If Rafn in
his _Antiquitates Americanae_ had given emphatic precedence to the saga as
found in Hauk's Book and AM. 557, had left to American scholars the
Dighton Rock and the Newport Tower, and had not been so confident in the
matter of identifying the exact localities that the explorers visited, he
might have carried conviction, instead of bringing confusion, to American
scholars.
The general results of the work of the Norwegian scholar Dr. Storm,
together with a unique presentation of the original narratives, are
accessible in _The Finding of Wineland_ (London, 1890 and 1895), by an
American scholar, the late Arthur Middleton Reeves. This work contains a
lucid account of the important investigations on the subject, photographs
of all the vellum pages that give the various narratives, a printed text
accompanying these, page by page and line by line, and also translations
into English. There is one phase of the subject that this work does not
discuss: the identifications of the regions visited by the Northmen. Dr.
Storm, however, has gone into this subject, and is convinced that
Helluland, Markland, and Vinland of the sagas, are Labrador,
Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia.[10-1] The sailing directions in the "Saga
of Eric the Red" are given with surprising detail. These, with other
observations, seem to fit Nova Scotia remarkably well. Only one thing
appears to speak against Storm's view, and that is the _abundance_ of
grapes to which the Flat Island Book account testifies. But coupled with
this testimony are statements (to say nothing of the unreliability of
this saga in other respects) that indicate that the Icelandic narrators
had come to believe that grapes were gathered in the spring, thus
invalidating the testimony as to abundance.
Whether the savages that the sagas describe were Indians or Eskimos is a
question of some interest. John Fiske[10-2] believes that the explorers
came in contact with American Indians; Vigfusson, on the other hand,
believes that the sagas describe Eskimos. Here, however, the American has
the better right to an opinion.
On this point, it is of importance to call attention to the fact that the
Norse colonists in Greenland found no natives there, only vestiges of
them. They were at that time farther north in Greenland; the colonists
came in contact with them much later,--too late to admit of descriptions
of them in any of the classical Icelandic sagas, in which the Greenland
colonists play no inconspicuous part. Ari, the great authority on early
Norse history, speaking of the Greenland colonists, says in his
_Libellus Islandorum_:[11-1] "They found there men's habitations both
east and west in the land [_i.e._, in both the Eastern and Western
settlements] both broken cayaks and stone-smithery, whereby it may be
seen that the same kind of folk had been there as they which inhabited
Vinland, and whom the men of Greenland [_i.e._, the explorers] called
Skrellings."
A sort of negative corroboration of this is offered by a work of high
rank, the famous _Speculum Regale_, written in Old Norse in Norway in the
middle of the thirteenth century. It contains much trustworthy
information on Greenland; it tells, "with bald common sense," of such
characteristic things as glaciers and northern lights, discusses the
question as to whether Greenland is an island or a peninsula, tells of
exports and imports, the climate, the means of subsistence, and
especially the fauna, _but not one word concerning any natives_. Moreover
Ivar Bardsen's account[11-2] of Greenland, which is entirely trustworthy,
gives a distinct impression that the colonists did not come into conflict
with the Eskimos until the fourteenth century.
There is consequently no valid reason for doubting that the savages
described in the sagas were natives of Vinland and Markland. But whether
it can ever be satisfactorily demonstrated that the Norse explorers came
in contact with Algonquin, Micmac, or Beothuk Indians, and just where
they landed, are not matters of essential importance. The
incontrovertible facts of the various Norse expeditions are that Leif
Ericson and Thorfinn Karlsefni are as surely historical characters as
Christopher Columbus, that they visited, in the early part of the
eleventh century, some part of North America where the grape grew, and
that in that region the colonists found savages, whose hostility upset
their plans of permanent settlement.
According to the usually accepted chronology, Leif's voyage from Norway
to Greenland (during which voyage he found Vinland) was made in the year
1000, and Karlsefni's attempt at colonization within the decade
following. On the basis of genealogical records (so often treacherous)
some doubt has recently been cast on this chronology by Vigfusson, in
_Origines Islandicae_[12-1] (1905). Vigfusson died in 1889, sixteen years
before the publication of this work. He had no opportunity to consider
the investigations of Dr. Storm, who accepts without question the first
decade of the eleventh century for the Vinland voyages. Nor do Storm's
evidences and arguments on this point appear in the work as published.
Therefore we are obliged to say of Vigfusson's observations on the
chronology of the Vinland voyages, that they stand as question-marks
which call for confirmation.
We are surprised, moreover, to find that _Origines Islandicae_ prints the
Flat Island Book story first, apparently on account of the belief that
this story contains the "truer account of the first sighting of the
American continent" by Biarni Herjulfson.[12-2] It is impossible to
believe that this would have been done, if the editors (Vigfusson and
Powell) had known the results of Dr. Storm's work, which is not
mentioned. There is, furthermore, no attempt in the _Origines Islandicae_
to refute or explain away an opinion on AM. 557 expressed by the same
authorities, in 1879,[12-3] to the effect that "it is free from grave
errors of fact which disfigure the latter [the Flat Island Book saga]."
We are almost forced to the conclusion that a hand less cunning than
Vigfusson's has had to do with the unfinished section of the work.
In regard to the extract from Adam of Bremen, which we print, it should
be observed that its only importance lies in the fact that it
corroborates the Icelandic tradition of a land called Vinland, where
there were grapes and "unsown grain," and thus serves to strengthen faith
in the trustworthiness of the saga narrative. The annals and papal
letters that follow need no further discussion, we think, than that
contained in the annotations.
Besides the texts in Icelandic, already described, by Rafn, Reeves,
Vigfusson and Powell, and Storm, it may be mentioned that the Flat Island
text is given in Vol. I. of _Flateyjar-bok_, ed. Vigfusson and Unger,
Christiania, 1860. There are translations of both texts in Beamish,
_Discovery of North America by the Northmen_ (London, 1841), in Slafter,
_Voyages of the Northmen_ (Boston, 1877), and in De Costa, _Pre-Columbian
Discovery of America by the Northmen_ (Albany, 1901). But most of these
are confused in arrangement, and the best is that by the late Mr. Reeves,
which by the kind consent of his representatives we are permitted to use
in this volume.