The article presents a critique of a research method whereby historical sources could not have possibly lied as they were targeted at the addressees who knew the actual course of the events described or referred to. This attitude toward the sources has its antecedence in Snorri Sturluson’s argument on the reliability of skaldic poetry. To his mind, the poems were biased but still valuable, in a way, as they were declaimed before the rulers who would have perceived an untrue account “as a mockery, rather than a praise”. The question arises, what kind of a situation Snorri tried to preclude: one where a mean warrior would have been shown as a great hero? Or, perhaps, one where a defector would have been portrayed as a warrior bravely marching...