Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 250

230
NOTES
marks heltedigtning II, 1910, pp. 230-2; Gering-Sijmons, Edda-
Kommentar I, 1927, pp. 367-8. In the preserved text of Rigsjmla
it is not expressly stated that Danpr was the son of Danr or that
Rigr married a daughter of Danpr, but it can still scarcely be
doubted that the reconstructed form given above is correct. It
also agrees with AJ as far as it goes, apart from the faet that
AJ omits the first Danr.
It is more difficult to reconcile the information given in Yng-
linga saga with that in AJ and Rigsfmla. Ynglinga saga disagrees
in two points: 1) Rigr’s son is named Danpr, not Danr; 2) Danr
mikillåti (= Dan II in AJ) is Rigr’s grandson, whilst AJ inserts
more unspecified links between Dan I and Dan II.
Olrik (Aarb. 1894, p. 140) decided that AJ had misunder-
stood his source (Skjpld.), supposing that, while in reality there
was only one King Danr, Skjpld. had referred to an older king
of that name (= Rigsfmla’s Danr), “which it forgot to mention
at the correct place”. On the other hånd, Olrik rejects the pos-
sibility that AJ made direct use of Rigs^ula, maintaining that
there is no evidence to show that he was using Cod. Worm.
(which contains the poem) in 1596.
Probably no final answer to this question is attainable. In reply
to Olrik’s views, it can be pointed out that AJ was using Cod.
Worm. at any rate in 1597 (for the introduction to Supplemen-
tum), and as far as that goes, there is nothing to make his
knowledge of Rigsjmla in 1596 an impossibility. On the other
hånd, we do not know whether the end of Rigsjmla was in the
manuscript at that time, nor do we know which of Rigr’s descen-
dants were named there. Here only conjecture is possible. But it
is by no means necessary to believe that AJ used Rigs{)ula. It
is fairly certain that Snorri’s genealogy was based on Skjpld.,
and we have therefore grounds for assuming that AJ’s source
also made Danr mikillåti the grandson of Rigr. Olrik is certainly
right when he says that AJ’s Dan I and II are in reality the same
character; on the other hånd, it is uncertain how the confusion
arose. In itself it is extremely probable that Skjpld. had the same
genealogy as Rigsjmla; in that case there would be ampie op-
portunity for confusion to arise between the many characters
whose names are either exaetly the same or very similar (Danr —