Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Blaðsíða 65

63
opportunity. In a shrewd manner he prepares an on-
slaught.
The story of their conflict is told in V. Gl. ch. 16 and
Reykdœla saga ch. 26 in much the same way.
In R. Skúta is the hero of part two throughout, in
V. Gl. he is merely Glúm’s adversary in ch. 16.
So it is the more surprising to note, in V. Gl., the lack
of motive on Skúta’s part. Here one would expect Glúmr
to act, and not Skúta.
On the face of things it seems unlikely that any one,
taking over the Skúta-episode from R., would have ab-
breviated the introduction into such an unconvincing
shape.
Should the author who inserted the episode in V. Gl.
from R., or even a revisor after him, have gone about
his business more conscientiously, he could not but have
discovered how unsatisfactory was the link between
introduction and story. In R. this link is convincing,
symbolizing cause and effect.
The introductory lines of ch. 16 in V. Gl. are the ver-
sion criticized in R. It is only fair to observe that these
same lines, with their rather vague phrasing, are not
inapt for the author’s purpose. His readers are not so
much interested in the fact that Þorlaug has had three
husbands. He, and they, are satisfied with two only,
Skúta and Arnórr. From this last marriage have come
men of distinction, as R. and M both state in the same
stereotyped phrase. It will have been well-known in the
North of Iceland. After the last sentence of V. Gl.’s in-
troduction: ‘Síðan var með þeim Glúmi ök STcútu fæð
miTdl’ some time elapsed before Skúta went into action.
It is improbable that the author of V. Cfl. consulted R.
while writing this introduction. As has been observed
above, with the facts before him he could hardly have
mutilated them to such a degree.
And these facts not being part of the þáttr — cf. sec-