Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Page 41

39
Some of these passages are discussed in this para-
graph.
As one instance Turville-Petre cites the statement of
R. (passage 3 in section 7.2): Þat var þann dag, er þeir
skyldi finnask, Glúmr ok sendimaðr Skútu, for which
V reads: Þat var þann dag, er Glúmr ok sendimaðr
SJcútu áttu at finnask. ‘In M, on the other hand, no
such statement is made’ (Introd. xxvii).
At closer inspection an interesting state of affairs is
revealed.
After agreement is reached between Skúta and the
sendimaðr R. relates: En er at líðr þessum tíma, which
is the appointed day, þá býsk Skúta heiman (passage 1
in section 7.2). Only after Skúta has discovered Glúmr
riding through the valley, has left his horse in a clearing
and Glúmr has gone into his shed, the above-mentioned
statement is made.
M says: Nu líða stundir. Ok er þar kemr tíma, sem
Glúmr hafði heitit sendimanni, at þeir mundi finnask,
þá býsk Skúta heiman.
V: ok er at því líðr, at þeir (Glúmr sTadu) finnask,
býsk SJcúta heiman.
Again, as in R., we have to hear later on: ‘this was
the day, when Glúmr and Skúta’s sendimaðr should
meet’.
Unquestionably M is more to the point in avoiding the
tiresome repetition. R. is somehow neutral in respect to
V, which does not shrink from a stylistic blunder, in re-
peating even the verb finnask.
We remark in passing: what can be the reason for R.
not to speak of Ásbjqrn, whom he has introduced to us,
but of Skúta’s sendimaðr instead? It remains uncertain
whether V knew Ásbjorn’s name.
From the available texts we are inclined to consider
V as the most verbose version, R. as the one which