“Then Gunnarr Lambi’s son, who had taken part in the burning was got to tell the tale, and a stool was set for him to sit upon…
“Now King Sigtryggr asked: “How did Skarphethinn bear the burning?”
““Well at first for a long time,” said Gunnarr, “but still the end of it was that he wept.” And so he went on giving an unfair bias to his story, but every now and then he laughed aloud.
“Kári (Kjall’s friend who was listening outside) could not stand this and he then ran in with his sword drawn… and smote Gunnarr Lambi’s son on the neck with such a smart blow that his head spun off on to the board before the king and the earls.
“… Now Flosi undertook to tell the story of the Burning and he was fair to all, and therefore what he said was believed.”[233]
For the way in which such stories were preserved from generation to generation we may refer to the end of _Droplaugarsona Saga_ (Ljósvetninga): “Thorvaldr (born c. 1006) son of Grímr”--one of the chief actors in the story--“had a son called Ingjaldr. His son was named Thorvaldr, and he it was who told the story.”[234]
The passage quoted from _Njála Saga_ and _Fóstbroethra Saga_ seem to show that the art of story-telling was already developed at the beginning of the eleventh century. In these instances, it is true, we have only the records of events given by the actors themselves or by eyewitnesses, and we cannot be certain that such stories had assumed anything like a fixed form. Far more important is the passage from _Haralds Saga Hardrada_,[235] for there the story-teller was not an eyewitness, but had obtained the story, or the material for it, from Halldór Snorrason, an Icelandic follower of King Harald. From what is said about the length of the saga, there can be no doubt that it had been worked up in a very elaborate way. For such elaborate secondhand stories we have no other definite evidence, but again, considering the time which the recital is said to have occupied, it would be unwise to conclude that this later form of the art was entirely new.
We have, therefore, clearly to distinguish two stages in the history of the oral saga; (i) the story as told by someone who had taken part in the events described; (ii) the secondhand story. The story was soon embellished, especially in the second stage, not merely with such devices as the records of conversation, but even by the introduction of imaginary adventures. Indeed we need not assume that even in the first stage the stories were told in strict accordance with fact. Reference may be made, for instance, to the passage quoted above from _Njáls Saga_, where Gunnarr Lambi’s son is said to have told the story of the burning unfairly. Even in the _Íslendinga_ and _Konunga Sögur_ fiction forms a not inconsiderable element: in the _Fornaldar Sögur_ it is obviously much greater.