Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 51

49
At the same time V agrees with M in its preference
for the historic present tense in both ch. 16, the Skútu-
þáttr, and in ch. 15, part of the Kálfr episode.
R. however, although in agreement with M V in ch.
26, differs from V. Gl. in ch. 23-25, wherein the story of
Þorlaug is told.
It follows that V was not influenced by R., not in ch.
15, nor in ch. 16.
This feature of V, then, derives, like in M, ultimately
from the source X, the two þcettir combined.
Preponderance of the historic present tense in V ch.
15. 16 can ohly be ascribed either to M, or directly to X.
The same preponderance in R. ch. 26 also derives
ultimately from the þáttr, either via M or the longer
V. Gl.
Should the author of a longer V. Gl. have had at his
disposal a manuscript of X, or of M, containing ch.
13-16, why should he then have copied ch. 13-15 from
it, and have gone to R. to take over ch. 16 from it?
Supposing of course he had both manuscripts at hand.
The simpler solution, of course, is obvious: ch. 13-16
were incorporated in V. Gl., be it the longer or the
shorter version, as a whole unit. (cf. section 5.3).
!0.3. In R. ch. 25, in that part where the story is told of
the divorce between Skúta and Þorlaug, the author uses
17 times the preterite, 3 times the historic present tense,
two of which are not time-indicators, but functioning as
a ‘timeless' statement.
This tale will not have been part of the þáttr X, the
source of V. Gl.
The brief account of this divorce in ch. 16 of V. Gl.
(M) will come from oral tradition.
10.4. In the extra passages in R. ch. 26, not contained in
M ch. 16, R. uses the preterite 29 times, the historic
4