Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 70

68
derance of the present tense in those parts which
correspond with V. Gl. are derived from it (sec-
tion 10.2).
3. The use of the svá er sagt formula (section 13).
4. The inexplicable omission in both V and M of im-
portant details found in R., to the detriment of
composition and logical flow of the narrative, as
well as the wrong choice of two different versions
of a detail as given in R. This can be seen in sec-
tion 16 (Þorlaug), 17 (einhleypingr), 18 (Fluga),
even in 8.4 (addition in R. at the end of ch. 26).
5. Superfluous repetitions in R. over against M (sec-
tion 8).
6. The flaw in the opening passage of ch. 26 (sec-
tion 8.5).
7. Should V. Gl. derive from R., its author would have
borrowed ch. 16, the second þáttr contained in X,
from R., the first þáttr, ch. 13-15 from another
written source, a highly improbable procedure.
19.4. In favour of M being the most faithful representative
of the þáttr the following testify:
1. generally speaking everything which militates
against priority of V. or R.
2. M has incorporated the whole of X, the two þcettir
combined, preserving its salient features through-
out.
3. it is the most homogeneous of the three versions.
4. the use of the asyndeton, most marked in M, has
deteriorated in the other versions (section 12.4).
5. the prefix Víga- marks ch. 16 of M as an indepen-