Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Qupperneq 72

70
Even this picture may well be a simplification, sug-
gesting more or less than the whole truth. As a drawing
in space it does not necessarily imply a chronological
order of the extant texts. V. Gl. for instance, of which V
is a corrupt version, might, just like M, derive directly
from X. M, being the best of all versions, may have been
written down at a later stage than V. Gl. from a manu-
script which then was still extant.
20. The original Skútu-þáttr
was written by an author who also wrote the Kálfr epi-
sode and who combined both stories into a greater unit.
He may have taken down both þættir directly from the
mouth of one story-teller, thereby preserving the fea-
tures of the oral tale most faithfully. Or he may have
put the stamp of his own individual style on two pieces
of oral tradition, told by two people in their own re-
spective, probably different styles.
His work, especially the Skútu-þáttr, reveals a strong
feeling for dramatic action and movement. The story is
told in a straight-forward manner with remarkably
short periods and phrases. In combining phrases into
larger units he shows a striking preference for para-
tactical conjunctions and the asyndeton. Both features
are characteristic of plain language. So is the pro-
nounced preponderance of the present tense, preferable
in a dramatic tale.
No breaks in the narrative bring the story to a tem-
porary halt. Tiresome repetitions and remarks on dif-
ferent versions of a detail are avoided. No observations
of a psychological nature are explicitly made.
The nucleus of the Skútu-þáttr is most faithfully pre-
served in M; both V and R. are deviations, in contents
as well as in style, from this nucleus. While the þáttr
was copied, in all versions, from a written source, the