Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 37

35
5. ok með því 7. ok með því at Glúmr er arm-
vitigr ok vel skapi farinn,
kann vera, at hann leggi kann vera at þar leggi hann
npkkur ráð til. til npkkut ráð.
5 periods, 92 words, 121 syl- 7 periods, 159 words, 216 syl-
lables, per period: 24.20. lables, per period: 30.86.
This passage in itself is clear evidence of the agree-
ment between M and R. The author of R. spends a good
many extra phrases in drawing a more detailed picture
of Glúm’s character and the einhleypingr’s state of
mind. It is hardly necessary to elaborate these things in
Skúta’s speech, the aim of which it is to persuade the
einhleypingr to go on his errand. We may take it for
granted that this man, who, as stated in R., is a relative
of Þorlaug, Glúm’s daughter, knows quite well with
whom he will have to deal. The author is really drawing
our attention to his hero Skúta’s insight rather than to
Glúm’s personality.
The nucleus of the common source in my opinion is
M’s concise text.
A point of difference between M and R. was discussed
by Lotspeich, p. 44. In Skúta’s speech R. makes him
say: ‘ok þess skcdtú biðja at fimia hann í Mjaðmárdal,
er gengr upp frá bœnum at Þverá, ok sél hans standa’.
M here has the only correct Icelandic idiom: ‘ok sel
hans standa í’. As Lotspeich puts it: either has the scribe
of R. omitted í, possibly because it stood in a damaged
line, or í was not found in the original, the author of
V. Gl. added it. Then follows his conclusion: ‘here is
another proof that the author of R. kept closer to the
original than the author of V. Gl. did’. This baffling con-
clusion, devoid of any logic, is symptomatic for Lot-
speich’s reasoning, inspired as it is by his thesis.
Although V. Gl. has the better text, we cannot attach
much weight to this difference; the omission of í in R.
can safely be ascribed to a copyist’s error.