Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Síða 29

27
no interest for the Kálfr episode, took over the Skúta
episode only, either from X or from a source into which
it was copied from X.
As we shall see later (section 16 and 17) the introduc-
tion of ch. 16 most probably was added either by the
author of V.Gl., or by the writer of X.
3. The problem with which several scholars were con-
fronted, and which is also our theme, is:
which of the extant versions of V.Gl. and R. is
nearest to the original þáttr? Is it one of the longer
versions R. and V, — a longer version of V.Gl. is
supported by ms C, — or is it the shorter version
M? This implies the question: what did the þáttr
look like?
A summary of sections 1 and 2 gives the following
picture:
M shows all four features throughout ch. 13-16.
These four chapters derive from one written source
X, the combined þættir I and II. These features are not
characteristic for the rest of M, except the use of direct
speech.
As to its contents, the story in M is self-contained
and straight-forward. R. ch. 26 shows all features, but
some of them are less pronounced. They are not charac-
teristic for the rest of R., and neither for ch. 23-25,
which contain the fuller story of part of ch. 16 V.Gl.
R. does not contain þáttr I.
V shows some of the features in a still less marked
degree than R. does.
Both V and R. have a notable surplus of contents as
compared with M. In part this surplus is common to
both V and R., in part it is only R.’s property. But this
surplus does not contribute anything essential to the
story as told in M (cf. section 8).