Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 33

31
as they stand in R. ch. 25; V.Gl. took over only the first
version. He leaves open the possibility of the second
version being an addition in R., because there it says:
‘En hin frásogn er hér hofö’, and frásggn is only used
of oral tradition.1 Mogk remarked already: such double
traditions the author of R. is in the habit of relating.
Hér in this passage Lotspeich takes as an indication
that X was written by someone from Skúta’s district.
But it refers merely to ‘this page’, or ‘this chapter of my
book’. His suggestion that hér also might refer to the
passage in X from which R. was copied is equally super-
fluous and without any conviction.
•3. Turville-Petre, whose argumentation is based on a
comparison of ail available texts, comes to the following
conclusions:
a. the longer text, represented by V and R., is the
oldest one.
a shorter version, an abridgement of that in V, is
represented by M.
b. ‘The þáttr must first have been copied into V. Gl.,
either from a text which was also the source for
ch. 26 of R., or else from a manuscript of R. itself’.
(Introd. p. xxix).
The relation proposed is:
Þáttr Þáttr
V \ i
V.Gl.(V) R. or R.
I I
M V.GI.-+M
The second alternative corresponds with our scheme 4.
The first is essentially the same as Lotspeich’s c and d,
and the opposite of our scheme 9, in that M has its place
at the bottom instead of at the top.
1) Cf. however section 13 on the svá er sagt formula.