Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Blaðsíða 58

38
Part One
myths, which proved their existence at least in the 12th century, thus
directing his attack at the weakest point in Adelung’s criticism, i.e. his
dating of the Edda to the later Middle Ages (Nyerup 1807: 124).
More important was Peter Erasmus Miiller’s contribution to the dis-
cussion in an article on the authenticity of Snorri’s Edda and the Asa
doctrine (“Om Authentien af Snorres Edda, og Beviset derfra kan hentes
for Asalærens Ægthed”, 1812). This article had been published in Ger-
man translation before it appeared in Denmark (1811), with a slight but
perhaps significant adjustment of its title: “Ueber die Aechtheit der Asa-
lehre und den Werth der Snorronischen Edda.” For the Scandinavian
scholar, the philological assessment of the Icelandic source took pre-
cedence and its consequences for the history of religion were only
secondary, whereas the Germans were more preoccupied with the latter
aspect. Muller devoted a great part of his work to disentangling the
complicated question of the relation between Snorri’s Edda and the
other grammatical treatises together with which it is transmitted, and he
took up the controversial question of Snorri’s authorship. This was a
point where Schlozer had disagreed with Ihre, after the latter had called
attention to the passage in the Uppsala manuscript pointing to Snorri as
its author. Schlozer was not convinced that this proof was compelling,
however, as the passage might possibly be a later interpolation (Schlozer
1773: 86). In Muller’s opinion Snorri was the author of Skaldskaparmål,
but probably not of the Prologue and Gylfaginning. In Snorri’s time
people still had so much knowledge of the ancient mythology that there
was no need for a book like Gylfaginning, whereas the treatise on ken-
nings and their mythological allusions might be useful; the need for a
more comprehensive survey of the myths was felt only later (Muller
1811: 60-66). The importance of Muller’s contribution is that he under-
lined the evidence of Skaldskaparmål more than that of Gylfaginning in
the discussion of the origin of Eddie poetry. Riihs’s contention that
Eddie poems might well have been made by Christian monks as a pas-
time in the long winter evenings is not easily refuted on the basis of
intemal evidence, Muller conceded,25 and a poem like Gudrunarkvida
25 “Es konnte wenig frommen, wenn wir die Mythen von den Asen in einer Art von Sys-
tem erhalten hatten, falis man nicht beweisen konnte, daB sie etwas mehr waren, als wofiir
Einige sie haben ausgeben wollen, nemlich eine Erdichtung islandischer Monche zum
Zeitvertreibe an langen Winterabenden. DaB sie wirklich mehr sind, beweist man nicht so