We are consequently justified in all probability in imagining that the common origin of the two versions must be assigned to a period considerably earlier than either. Finnur Jónsson, an excellent critic of Icelandic styles, considers that we may give the common archetype as early a date as 1200. As regards the date of the extant manuscripts, to which, for reasons already given, too much importance should not be attached, it is sufficient to state that Hauk died in 1334, and as his own hand concludes the saga it must have been written some time before that date. The clue given by the mention of Bishop Brand ‘the first’, noticed above, is common to both manuscripts, and fixes the period before which neither manuscript was completed at 1263. In the case of Hauk’s Book these limits are further narrowed by the mention of Hallbera with her title as Abbess of Reynisness. We know that this lady attained this position in 1299, so that Hauk’s Book cannot have been completed before this date. _Hauk’s Personal Authority._ Mr. W. H. Babcock, in his clear and valuable treatise on the subject,[68] lays considerable stress on the fact that Hauk was a descendant of Karlsefni, as enhancing the authority of this version of the narrative. To some extent this is a good point, but it may be doubted whether Hauk’s knowledge of his ancestors was sufficient to check the written records accessible in his day. He follows the demonstrable error of Landnámabók in making Thorbjörn Vifilson the son of Aud’s freedman, which a close examination of the chronological data shows to be an altogether untenable theory. (See Genealogical Table, p. 20.) He was separated from Karlsefni by no fewer than eight generations, and any reader who takes the trouble to consider how much he knows of the achievements of so distant an ancestor will no doubt form the conclusion that Hauk was not in a position to throw much additional light on the subject, though it was naturally of peculiar interest to him. All we can say is that he regarded the saga as historical and not romantic, and his wide experience of Icelandic literature, quite apart from his family connexions, made him a good judge. That he had no special private sources of information is clear from the fact that he transcribed the saga practically as it stood. It cannot be sustained that he discarded the Flatey version, or preferred the alternative; it seems much more likely that the editors of the Flatey Book tapped sources to which he never had access. Hauk, had he deliberately compared the two authorities, would for example inevitably have selected the Flatey version of the stranded-whale episode, as this tallies much better than his own text with the older verses incorporated. (Cf. next chapter, p. 132.) Hauk, in fact, merely copied, with more or less intelligence, the only version of the story which he knew, and his manuscript, therefore, stands on exactly the same footing