Now Karlsefni’s voyage, in spite of some statements to the contrary in the sagas, cannot have taken place till about a quarter of a century after Leif’s, whether we date the latter from A.D. 1000, following Hauk, or 1002, accepting the Flatey Book. This, though not generally recognized, is clear from the known dates of the descendants of Karlsefni’s Wineland-born son. Snorri’s grandson, Bishop Thorlak, was born, as we find in the Annals, in 1085; Bishop Brand the first, Snorri’s great-grandson, died in 1201. Brand’s mother therefore, of the same generation as Thorlak, can hardly have been born so early as 1085. Putting the mean date of the birth of Snorri’s children at thirty years before 1085, which is making a liberal allowance, we get the date 1055. Snorri therefore cannot have been born much before 1025. If the Flatey Book is correct, Gudrid was married in 1003, and she certainly was of a marriageable age before leaving Iceland, and was a widow when Karlsefni married her. Karlsefni’s voyage and the birth of Snorri should accordingly be placed rather earlier than 1025, say 1020. At this time Eric would be about 70 years old, and, especially if he was ageing in 1002, it is most improbable that he survived so long amid the hardships of life in Greenland. Again, when King Olaf the Holy, about 1018, wished to get rid of the troublesome blind king Rörek, and commissioned Thorar Nefjolfson to take him to Greenland, it was Leif Ericson, and not his father, whom he designated as consignee. (Vide Heimskringla, Saga of Olaf the Holy, _c._ 85.) Finally, it seems strange that Leif should not have accompanied Karlsefni on his voyage if there was nothing in particular for him to do in Greenland, whereas if the management of Brattahlid and the control of the colony had devolved on his shoulders by his father’s death, the position is quite intelligible.[76] There is accordingly abundant reason to conclude that on this point also the Flatey Book is right, and Hauk is wrong. Other small discrepancies which have not escaped the vigilance of commentators can be explained as clerical slips, and consequently do not go to the root of the matter. The alleged improbability of certain details in both narratives will fall to be discussed hereafter.