1. Professor W. Hovgaard’s _Voyages of the Norsemen to America_ (New York, 1915), and 2. Professor H. P. Steensby’s _The Norsemen’s route from Greenland to Wineland_ (Copenhagen, 1918). Of the two treatises the second is on the whole the more revolutionary. For Professor Steensby, after locating both Helluland and Markland in Labrador, and identifying Bjarney with Newfoundland, brings his explorers into the gulf of St. Lawrence, with southern Labrador for Furdustrands, Keelness (_after Furdustrands_) at Point Vaches by the mouth of the Saguenay, Straumsey at Hare Island in the St. Lawrence river, and Hóp, still in the St. Lawrence, at St. Thomas on the southern side. Though entertaining widely different views as to the relative value of the sources—Professor Steensby altogether rejecting the Flatey Book, whose authority the other author upholds—both writers agree in certain respects which are somewhat novel. Both make Karlsefni’s first landing-place, in Helluland, at a point in Labrador which is almost in the same latitude as southern Greenland, involving a course very far to the west of south; and both insist on a coasting voyage throughout, with no intervals of open sea between the different lands visited. It seems to me that both these theories rest on a substitution of what their authors regard as inherent probabilities for the express language of the sagas. More especially is this the case with Professor Hovgaard’s treatment of Bjarni. He brings him first to Newfoundland, and carries him back along the Labrador coast to Resolution Island off Baffin Land, in order to substantiate the ice (_jökul_, understood as glaciers) of the story. The effect of this treatment, when the author comes to consider Leif’s and Thorvald’s voyages, is to leave an enormous unexplained stretch of coast between Helluland (Resolution Island) and Markland, which he agrees cannot be reasonably identified with any place north of Cape Sable in Nova Scotia. (As regards Leif’s Markland and Wineland, indeed, Professor Hovgaard comes to substantially the same conclusions as myself.) But, considered apart from this difficulty, there are still formidable objections to this reconstruction of Bjarni’s voyage. 1. The text either expresses or implies an open sea passage out of sight of land between the various landfalls. From the first to the second land this is implied in the statement ‘after sailing two days they saw another (or the second) land’. From the second to the third land it is expressly stated that the ship sailed ‘_out to sea_ for three days, when they saw the third land’. In the remaining case ‘they turned the bows _away from_ the land and held out to sea’.