Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Síða 34

32
In the light of our conclusion (section 2.2) that two
þættir, ch. 13-15 and ch. 16 of V. Gl. once were com-
bined, and existed in the form X, Turville-Petre’s second
scheme would necessarily imply that V. Gl. took over
the second þáttr from R., and then consulted X for the
first þáttr. This procedure does not seem to be the
simpler solution, which of course would be that V. Gl.
took over the whole of X.
Turville-Petre’s schemes, especially the second one,
follow from his reasoning: ‘one of the most striking
characteristics of the þáttr, both in M and R., is the fre-
quent use of the historic present tense. The fact that
this characteristic is more pronounced in R. than it is
in M is, in itself, an indication that R. has better pre-
served the features of the original. In V this tense is
used somewhat more frequently than it is in M., though
its use in V is not everywhere so general as it is in R’.
‘It is evident, then, that in syntax and vocabulary the V
text lies somewhere between M and R., though very
much closer to R’.
In my opinion this reasoning cannot be conclusive.
Turville-Petre himself refers to the figures estimated by
Lotspeich: the proportion of the historic present to pre-
terite in ch. 26 of R. is 75 per cent, and in other parts
of the saga only 28 per cent. In ch. 16 of V. Gl., the
proportion is 73 per cent, and in other parts of the saga
26 per cent.1
This difference in the use of the historic present, 75
per cent in R., 73 in M, is too slight to have any decisive
value. Moreover: these figures cannot be more than
approximate.
A further objection against both Turville-Petre’s

1) Introd. xxiv note 4.