Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 32

30
To avoid unnecessary speculation the only solid basis
is to compare the extant versions, all deriving from a
common source, in order to establish which of them is
closest to the original. Herein we have to rely on inner
evidence.
As a last possibility we should indicate: all three, or
perhaps two of the versions derive from the þáttr inde-
pendently. This supposition however does not materially
influence or alter our line of research (cf. sections 5, 2
and 3).
5.2. Here we have to mention the schemes proposed by
Lotspeich1 and Turville-Petre.
Lotspeich compared only R. and M. He states four
possibilities:
a. R. ch. 26 is copied from V.Gl. (so Möbius).
b. V.Gl. ch. 16 is copied from R.
c. both V.Gl. and R. are renderings of an oral tradi-
tion (so Finnur Jónsson).
d. both V.Gl. and R. derive from one and the same
written source.
It is this last alternative Lotspeich wants to prove as
probable. The written source he calls X.
He argues: not the whole of X is contained in V.Gl.,
only its last part. X began where R. ch. 23 begins, it
was a longer þáttr.
I think Lotspeich is right in considering R. ch. 23 as
the beginning of a þáttr, which however in my opinion
only included ch. 23-25.
He is not right in his assumption of one written text
containing ch. 23-26 (cf. section 2. 1,2).
Furthermore: according to Lotspeich his þáttr X con-
tained both versions about Skúta and Þorlaug’s divorce,
1) Zur Víga-Glúms und Reykdœlasaga, C. Lotspeich, 1903.