Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Blaðsíða 49

47
solution to explain the divergence between V and R. M,
as discussed in the foregoing paragraph. It would be
stretching the argument, would one ascribe the mis-
taking of the verb sér for the reflexive pronoun to a pre-
possession on the part of V (or its original) to use this
pronoun wherever its author considered it to be good,
or even necessary idiom.
9.3. A blundering repetition in V we observe in passage
11 of section 7.2. í
V starts by omitting the first phrase of M R. After in
R. Skúta spoke en vér munum hér bíða, he adds ok dt-
ask eigi lengra. V has the same addition, but on top of
it, at the beginning of the period, the phrase nú mun ek
eigi renna lengra. This is a repetition of a repetition,
both in contents and style.
In passage 9 of section 7.2 V omits the last phrase:
ök beitt eigi Skútu against M R. This phrase is exactly
what one expects Skúta to say after he first asked
Glúmr to wait (bíða) in passage 7.
This omission in V clearly is a deterioration of the
dialogue.
9.4. The corruption and omissions in V justify the con-
clusion: this manuscript, a representative of a longer
V. Gl., must be considered as a version deteriorated in
several respects.
As remarked in section 7.3 smaller deviations may be
accounted for by the assumption of a text having been
dictated to a writer.
The corruptions discussed in this section however are
to be explained in a different way. They are symptoms
of the meddling by a revisor who had a written text
before him. But he was a man lacking the gift of clear
intellect and literary feeling.