Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 246

226
NOTES
reproducing the evidence of the Icelandic source in a more or less
chronological order. But it is indeed precisely because of this that
his version of Skjqld. gains so much in value for us when we
attempt to reconstruct the lost saga from it, cf. ch. IV above.
As was said in the Introduction (pp. 71-2), the contemporary
Danish historians made no use of Rerum Danicarum fragmenta
in their printed works, even though a few of them acquired
copies of it (see pp. 182—3 above). Not even Ole Worm and
Stephanius seem to have realised that AJ had given in it an ab-
stract of Knyti., for Stephanius more than once asks Worm for
information about this saga. Worm indeed, who never refers to
AJ’s version, actually owned an Icelandic manuscript of the saga
but was unable to get it translated (see Bibi. Arnam. VII 34731,
34819, 34910’20, 35625>32, 3576, 35920)- The result was that Ste-
phanius made no use at all of Knyti. in his notes on Saxo.
As was mentioned earlier (p. 184), Th. Bartholin had a copy
made of Rer. Dan. fragm. and so saved the work from total loss.
He did not however cite it in his Antiqvitates Danicæ, an omis-
sion which was doubtless due in the first instance to his use of the
original sources. Neither do later writers appear to have made
use of it until Axel Olrik published parts of Skjgld. in his essay
in Aarbøger 1894, see ch. IV above. The parts printed by Olrik
are these:
I 331-3So14 = Aarb. 104-120.
(But with the omission of these passages: I 33324—3344,
334"~17, 33517"22. 3372 -3389» 33832-33915, 34011-30).
I 35324-36o28 = Aarb. 121-126.
I 4571-46633 = Aarb. 127-136.
The printed text in Aarb. is not perfect—there are various
minor inaccuracies in transcription and certain mistakes in the
manuscript are either emended unhappily or are allowed to stand
unnoticed (see e.g. the errors mentioned in the footnotes to the
text, I 3466’22, 3 5 5 29, 4575'13, 46210, 46333, 4658). Further, the
omissions noted above are not always indicated. On the other
hånd, Olrik also made several good emendations which have been
adopted in the present edition.
Despite such critical errors, Olrik’s edition was of fundamen-
tal importance in demonstrating the work’s value as our most