Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Blaðsíða 67

65
adduces two versions of a detail is in his account of the
weapon Fluga. V. Gl. ch. 16 in both M and V mentions
Fluga as a sword.
R. in the corresponding passage merely calls Skúta’s
weapon Fluga, and continues: ‘some people say this was
an axe, as it is said here’; this here refers either to this
same passage, or else to ch. 20. The conception ‘axe’ is
the author’s throughout. ‘But’, he goes on, ‘other people
say this was a sword; but whatsoever it was, Skúta had
this weapon always at hand, and so it was this time’.
This remark clearly refers to the tradition represented
in V. Gl. Its author either did not know about the other
version, or else he did not bother about it, as it was of
no importance to him.
We are inclined to think that R. has chosen the more
correct tradition. This saga knows about several proper
names of weapons: sverðit Skefilsnautr, spjótit Vagns-
nautr, and its author seems to be interested in these
realia.
Should the author of V. Gl. have read R., or even
have consulted ch. 26, he would in all probability have
taken over the indication 0X or have altered his sverð
into ox, without caring much about which of the two
was correct.
The original Skútu-þáttr will have been recited as a
separate unit, a self-sufficient short story. It would have
been inopportune for the story-teller to give critical
comment on a detail; such a break in the narrative
would have been tedious to his audience. Moreover, he
would hardly have had the means for criticism. Only
when some listener should interrupt with a question the
story-teller might be tempted to some doubt. An author,
when settling down to write an account of what he had
heard, might feel inclined to do justice to different ver-
sions. Such a man was the author of Reykdœla saga; he
put all his cards on the table. But only in ch. 26 he
5