Page "Heimskringla" Paragraph 11

The value of Heimskringla as a historical source has been estimated in different ways during recent times.

The historians of mid-19th century put great trust in the factual truth of Snorri's narrative, as well as other old Norse sagas.

In the early 20th century, this trust was largely abandoned with the advent of saga criticism, pioneered by Curt and Lauritz Weibull.

These historians pointed out that Snorri's work had been written several centuries after most of the events it describes.

In Norway, the historian Edvard Bull famously proclaimed that " we have to give up all illusions that Snorri's mighty epic bears any deeper resemblance to what actually happened " in the time it describes.

A school of historians has come to believe that the motives Snorri and the other saga writers give to their characters owe more to conditions in the 13th century than in earlier times.

Heimskringla has, however, continued to be used as a historical source, though with more caution.

It is not common to believe in the detailed accuracy of the historical narrative and historians tend to see little to no historical truth behind the first few sagas, however, they are still seen by many as a valuable source of knowledge about the society and politics of medieval Norway.

The factual content of the work tends to be deemed more credible as it discusses more recent times, as the distance in time between the events described and the composition of the saga was shorter, allowing traditions to be retained in a largely accurate form, and because in the twelfth century the first contemporary written sources begin to emerge in Norway.