Note 57 — GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

The fact that Mr. Bancroft has in times past expressed opinions in opposition to this view will hardly have weight with those persons familiar with the subject. When that writer composed the first chapter of his History of the United States, he might have been excused for setting down the Icelandic narratives as shadowy fables; but, with all the knowledge shed upon the subject at present, we have a right to look for something better. It is therefore unsatisfactory to find him perpetuating his early views in each successive edition of the work, which show the same knowledge of the subject betrayed at the beginning. He tells us that these voyages "rest on narratives mythological in form, and obscure in meaning," which certainly cannot be the case. Furthermore they are "not contemporary;" which is true, even with regard to Mr. Bancroft's own work. Again, "The chief document is an interpolation in the history of Sturleson." This cannot be true in the sense intended, for Mr. Bancroft conveys the idea that the principal narrative first appeared in Sturleson's history when published at a late day. It is indeed well known that one version, but not the principal version, was interpolated in Peringskiold's edition of Sturleson's Heimskringla, printed at Copenhagen. But Bancroft teaches that these relations are of a modern date, while it is well known that they were taken verbatim from Codex Flatöiensis, finished in the year 1395. He is much mistaken in supposing that the northern Antiquarians think any more highly of the narratives in question, because they once happened to be printed in connection with Sturleson's great work. He tells us that Sturleson "could hardly have neglected the discovery of a continent," if such an event had taken place. But this, it should be remembered, depends upon whether or not the discovery was considered of any particular importance. This does not appear to have been the case. The fact is nowhere dwelt upon for the purpose of exalting the actors. Besides, as Laing well observes, the discovery of land at the west had nothing to do with his subject, which was the history of the kings of Norway. The discovery of America gave rise to a little traffic, and nothing more. Moreover the kings of Norway took no part, were not the patrons of the navigators, and had no influence whatever in instituting a single voyage. Mr. Bancroft's last objection is that Vinland, the place discovered, "has been sought in all directions from Greenland and the St. Lawrence to Africa." This paragraph also conveys a false view of the subject, since the location of Vinland was as well known to the Northmen as the situation of Ireland, with which island they had uninterrupted communication. It is to be earnestly hoped that in the next edition, Mr. Bancroft may be persuaded to revise his unfounded opinions.

Washington Irving has expressed the same doubt in his Life of Columbus, written before the means of examining this question were placed within his reach, and in the appendix of his work he mixes the idle tales of St. Brandan's Isle with the authentic histories of the Northmen. A very limited inquiry would have led him to a different estimate.