In order to judge what historical value should be assigned to the narrative here translated, it is necessary for the reader to have a clear idea of the nature of saga literature, and some notion of the process by which such stories were transmitted from the time of their occurrence to the period, more than three centuries later, when they assumed the form which is now known to us. In view of the fact, which must be at once conceded, that we are dependent upon an interval of oral tradition before any written account of the Wineland voyages can have come into existence, we must first of all consider how the special characteristics of story-telling in Iceland affect the reliability of such tradition; next we should look for any early corroboration bearing upon the questions involved; and finally we must consider the manuscripts which form the basis of the story, and inquire into any circumstances which may make one source preferable to another. _Oral Tradition in Iceland._ None of the Wineland voyages which form the subject of our inquiry can have taken place later than—say—A.D. 1030, and the earliest would appear to date from as early as 986. Until the inconvenient runic alphabet, suited only to short inscriptions, was superseded by something better adapted to the requirements of fluent literary composition, the history of such events could be preserved only by word of mouth. This change did not occur till at any rate nearly a century had elapsed from the time of the occurrences with which we are dealing. Oral tradition, however, may, under favourable conditions, show a fidelity to the actual facts which is at first sight surprising. Mention might be made in this connexion of the Scottish Highlands, where, in spite of the Celtic imagination, the ‘shenachies’ or prose annalists attached to the more important families have been found to have transmitted historical facts which have been most exactly confirmed by subsequent investigation of documentary evidence. A little consideration will show that this is not so extraordinary as one might superficially be disposed to imagine. The distinction, recognized by our law, between libel and slander is partly at any rate based upon a consideration which should be borne in mind in this connexion. The written word remains, even though contradicted and disproved; nay, it may not infrequently survive its contradiction. The verbal narrator of contemporary events, however, is always liable to have among his audience those who are as thoroughly conversant with the facts described as he is himself. An inaccuracy may be suddenly and unpleasantly brought to book; the lie is no sooner uttered than it is denounced and exposed. We find a good illustration of the embarrassing predicament in which a story-teller might find himself placed (though the hero in this instance came out of the ordeal with credit) in the episode of the Icelandic saga-man at the court of King Harald