Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Page 42

40
rather thoughtlessly inserted or kept the superfluous
passage, M as the most consistent one.
Yet there is no reason to bestow on M such high
praise as a man whose style and reasoning are spotless.
Should he have consulted R. or V, he would in all proba-
bility have copied the blamed phrase.
In any case the comparison of the three texts does not
yield any evidence of a priority to be assigned to R. or
V; on the contrary: from a stylistic point of view M
seems to be not only better, but probably also older,
more original at least.
8.2. Should V, and R., indeed be more precise, and not
merely more elaborate, then M would have left some
details out, considering them as being of minor impor-
tance.
On the whole, however, the digressions in both V and
R. do leave much to be desired from the point of view
of relevancy.
After Skúta has posted himself between Glúmr and
the door of his shed, milli hans 6k selsdwranna M, midi
hans ok duranna R., á miUi selsduranna(!) V, both V
and R. make a statement about Glúm’s state of mind:
ok kemr í hug, er maðrinn var eigi djarfr, at hann
mundi eigi traust til bera (at) ganga at sélsdurunum
(passage 5 in section 7.2).
This is a commentary typical of a man pondering
over his text. From a stylistic viewpoint it is a pause,
a break in the narrative with little inner justification.
On the other hand: should M have found this passage
in his source, again he could not have seriously objected
to it. Without much ado he would have copied it.
When Skúta and his companions have reached Rauða-
hjalli, he speaks: ‘here you should wait a while, and I
will ride along and find out whether there will be any-