Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Síða 57

55
speech of ch. 7-9. M here has 21 cases of parataxis, 64
of hypotaxis, a proportion to be expected where in the
narrative the figures are almost equal.
C however has 23 cases of parataxis and hypotaxis
each.
Should M derive from a longer V. Gl., represented by
C, then the proportion parataxis — hypotaxis would
have been altered drastically, but in general agreement
with the rest of the saga.
Should M derive from a prototype R., the use of para-
taxis in ch. 16 would also have been altered considerably,
in the narrative as well as in direct speech. Such altera-
tion then would have brought the proportion para-
taxis/hypotaxis in line with that in ch. 13-15. This,
however, is highly improbable.
12.2. R. ch. 26 occupies a position of its own.
In opposition to M V ch. 16 it shows, in the epic part,
parataxis and hypotaxis in equal frequency, in direct
speech a preference for hypotaxis.
As we know, a strong preference for parataxis is a
characteristic of X, the combination of the two þættir.
This characteristic of the þáttr (M V) apparently has
been levelled out in R. by its author in conformity with
his usage in the rest of the saga.
R. ch. 26 wiZZ not be the source of M V ch. 16.
This divergence of R. with regard to M must be
ascribed to a difference in style between the extra pas-
sages in R. which do not occur in M. In all these extra
and lengthier passages — those where R. has a more
complicated phrasing in comparison with the parallel
passages in M — R. has 10 cases of parataxis in the
epic narrative, and 20 cases of hypotaxis; in direct
speech: 4 cases of parataxis, 30 of hypotaxis. In the
nucleus of ch. 26, represented by M, the figures are: