Still it must be admitted that the historians of these early times, in Iceland as elsewhere, were not so scientific in their methods as those of the present day. The word History still retained its derivative kinship with Story; the Muse presiding over this branch of literature had not yet settled down in the humdrum _ménage_ of meticulous professors. Like the classical and scriptural historians, the Icelandic chroniclers considered themselves at liberty to clothe the dry bones of their material, and even to present in the lively form of dialogue speeches of which the substance only could have been known. If, for example, the saga-writer has to chronicle the discovery of wild grapes, it is quite natural for him to assume that a sailor who found the means of intoxication ready to his hand did not neglect his opportunities. This explains the conduct of the German, Tyrker, in the Flatey Book, a great stumbling-block to some commentators. In the same category comes Hauk’s account of the incantations of Thorhall the Hunter; it is an expansion of a stranded-whale episode from the hint given in Thorhall’s verses, and a very careless and inconsistent one at that. Other absurdities can be explained in the same way, and the names of such places as Keelness may have suggested the conflicting stories told to account for them. Again, if the historian had ready to hand a picturesque anecdote from a different source, but manifestly connected with the principal theme, which could be fitted into the main story, he would have little hesitation in using it, though the unscientific joinery would be often painfully evident. Hake and Hekja, for instance, whether or no they have an historical basis, are manifestly introduced in the wrong place, before any vines had really been discovered, and the limits of the inserted passage are made glaringly apparent by the fact that the last words of the preceding matter are substantially repeated immediately afterwards (‘gerðiz vágskorit lanðit’ ... ‘er varð fjarðskorit’). Such interpolations are frequently of great interest, as affording what really amounts to independent confirmation of the story: they show it to have been widely discussed and accepted at an early date, but they hardly redound to the credit of the first amalgamating editor. _Dr. Nansen’s Position._