The Norse discoverers of America : $b the Wineland sagas translated & discussedGathorne-Hardy, G. M. (Geoffrey Malcolm)
History
The Norse discoverers of America : $b the Wineland sagas translated & discussed
Gathorne-Hardy, G. M. (Geoffrey Malcolm)
America -- Discovery and exploration -- Norse
Dr. Nansen, however, writes (vol. ii, p. 77): ‘I am unable to read
Ari’s meaning in this way. He uses the present tense: “calla”, and
what one “calls Skrælings” must presumably be a people one knows, and
not one that one’s ancestors had met with more than a hundred years
ago.’ On this line of reasoning, if I speak of ‘the man whom Carlyle
_calls_ the Sea-Green Incorruptible’, I mean to imply that Robespierre
and Carlyle were contemporaries. Dr. Nansen further refers (loc. cit.)
to the parallel passage in Ari, mentioning the Irish monks in Iceland
‘whom the Norwegians call (calla) Papar’.[85] ‘From these words’, he
says, ‘it might be concluded, with as much justification as from the
statement about the traces of Skrælings, that the newcomers did not
come in contact with the earlier people; but in the latter case this
is incredible, and moreover conflicts with Ari’s own words.’ Let us
examine this statement. In the first place it is clear from Ari’s
statement, ‘they went away afterwards’, that none were left at the time
of writing, yet he still says, in conformity with normal grammatical
usage, that the Norsemen ‘call’, i.e. speak of, them as Papar. It is
obvious, therefore, from the very passage to which Dr. Nansen appeals,
that the use of the present tense does not denote the contemporary
presence of the Irish monks, and it need not therefore indicate in
the other passage the presence of any Skrælings in Ari’s time in the
Greenland colony.
In the second place, whereas in the Skræling passage Ari only mentions
traces from which their former presence could be inferred, he begins
his reference to the ‘Papar’ with the words, ‘_There were then
Christians here_, those whom the Norsemen call “Papar”, but they went
away afterwards ... and left behind’, &c. This passage therefore cannot
be taken as affording any support to Dr. Nansen’s construction of the
statement about the Skrælings.
In another place (vol. ii, p. 16) Dr. Nansen suggests that the mention
of traces of Skræling occupation without recording a meeting with
the men themselves has an uncanny significance, suggesting that the
Skrælings are treated as trolls. It seems more natural on the whole to
construe the passage as meaning what it says—that the traces were there
but not the men.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account