Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 251

RERUM DANICARUM FRAGMENTA
231
Danpr — Dana), so that it is impossible to see for certain where
the error lies. The responsibility for it may as well rest with AJ’s
source as with himself, or it may be due to them both.
A combination of the genealogies given above might well re-
present the original tradition in Skjpld., from which both AJ’s
text and that in Ynglinga saga could be explained (cf. Bugge,
Norræn fornkvæSi, p. 151) :
Danr (Rigsf).)
Danpr (Rigsjx, AJ)
Dana (AJ) ~ Rigr (RigsJ)., AJ)
Danpr (Yngl., Dan I AJ)
Drott00 Domarr (Yngl.) Danr mikillåti (Yngl., Dan II AJ).
Finally, we should note that AJ calls Danprus “dominus in
Danpsted” (I 33625) ; this he must certainly have obtained from
Skjpld., since it is mentioned in no other source. But the explana-
tion which he adds in parenthesis (I 3371-4) is certainly his own
deduction, and the source undoubtedly HeiSreks saga, where
DanparstaSir is said to be in ReiSgotaland (see HeiSreks saga,
1924, pp. 85, 88, 141, 143). As we shall see below, AJ used a
manuscript of this saga (see note to I 35015~35325), so it is na-
tural to conclude that this identification of the place-names is his
own work. The explanation of ReiSgotaland as being the same
as Jotland could have been taken from Snorra-Edda (it is found,
for that matter, in the Hauksbåk text of HeiSreks saga, see
HeiSreks saga, p. 41, but AJ used a manuscript of the U-recen-
sion, see below).
If the hypothesis here advanced is correct, then Skjald, repre-
sented the same tradition about Danr mikillati’s ancestors as is
found in Rigsjmla, and consequently all need for the assumption
that AJ used Rigsfmla itself vanishes.
33714 Aleifus: Certainly the same as Åleifr (Glåfr) litillåti in