Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 69

67
3. both V and R. are less homogeneous when com-
pared with M, in that they contain unnecessary
breaks in the narrative, some of which are palpably
wrong (section 8).
.2. Against ascribing priority more in particular to V the
following are adduced:
1. V is a corrupt and conflated version, with super-
fluous and even blundering repetitions, some of
which at least are due to a misunderstanding of a
written source (sections 8, 1.3; 9).
2. Should a longer *V. Gl. have existed as the source
for M and R., it should have contained not only
everything of importance which is extant in V, but
besides those passages where M and R. have the
better account, including perhaps even both ver-
sions of the Þorlaug episode and of the weapon
Fluga.
Such a hypothetical * V. Gl., a patchwork compiled
by modern scholars, would amount to nothing bet-
ter than a chimera.
.3. Against ascribing priority to R.:
1. the ascendancy of parataxis over hypotaxis as
shown in ch. 16 of V and M is levelled out in R.
ch. 26, and in R. only.
This levelling out excludes R. as a source more in
particular for M, but for V also.
It is due to, and most evident in the extra pas-
sages of R. over against M.
2. The five extra passages which occur in R. only
show a striking difference as regards length of
periods and use of tenses when compared with the
rest of ch. 26 (sections 11.4 and 10.4). Prepon-