Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Blaðsíða 30

28
Our first impression is: the Skútu-þáttr, together with
the Kálfr episode, is most faithfully represented in M.
Both V and R. are derived versions, V from M, or
possibly from R., R. either directly from X, or from M,
or from the longer V.GI., as represented by V.
4. Of a longer version of V.Gl., which probably once
existed in a complete form, the Vatnshyma ms (A.M.
564 a, 4to) is a representative, with five fragments; we
call this ms V. Besides, one leaf of V.Gl. is preserved in
ms A.M. 445 c, 4to, namely parts of ch. 7-9; this ms
is called C.
All fragments are printed as appendixes in Turville-
Petre’s edition of the saga.
Turville-Petre, Introd. p. xxx, assumes the existence
of two longer versions of V. Gl. in the Middle Ages. This
of course is a possibility, but we hardly have the means
at our disposal to prove that this indeed was the case.
Partly this view depends on what one is inclined to call
a version, a form of the saga with a character of its
own.
The only fragment of which no parallel is contained
in M is the Ogmundar þáttr dytts, inserted in V im-
mediately after Ingólfs þáttr.
Should a longer version containing this þáttr have
been the prototype of M, the writer of this ms would
have left it out. Why, we cannot see.
For our problem it is in itself of no great conse-
quence whether or not two longer versions existed. The
less so, because the Qgmundar þáttr, having no parallel
in another ms, does not offer us the opportunity of
making a comparison and eventually reaching a conclu-
sion. Its features are tabulated in the statistics of sec-
tions 10.1 and 11.1.