Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Blaðsíða 144

124
Part One
Neckel thus subscribed - wisely, in my opinion - to Ockham’s
time-honoured principle that “entia praeter necessitatem non multi-
plicanda sunt”, but we have seen that this did not prevent him from
dividing the poem into no fewer than six different layers. This faet
obviously creates problems for the dating, and I think there is an in-
herent incompatibility between a sound method of dating and this form
of higher criticism. Neckel also seems to be conscious that there is in
his work a certain tension between these two approaches. At first he
was sceptical about splitting up the text into different layers, he says;
and his statistics conceming forms of binding were based on a con-
ception of the texts as unified entities. His criticism of Atlakx’ida, on
which he worked at the same time, and which was intended merely as
an essay, led him towards another conception; and as the work pro-
gressed he became more and more convinced that his higher criticism
approached the truth.29 He did not provide any theoretical discussion
of the possible conflict involved in his use of these methods, how-
ever.
NeckePs point of departure was the hypothesis that it is possible to
recognize the uniformity in the style and language of each poet, a uni-
form type of binding included. Where there is such uniformity, other
dating criteria point in the same direction, he declared, and where there
is no such uniformity, other criteria will also point in different directions
(cf. p. 115 n. 15 above). His case would be very strong indeed if it had
been possible to prove, but we have seen that a number of the criteria ap-
plied are, in faet, rather weak, in particular his hypothesis of verbal
loans. In addition, the method of higher criticism seems to proceed from
es uns allein ankommen kann, ist, zu zeigen, daG alle strophen, die die langzeilen- und
helminggrenzen nicht achten, auch aus inneren und inhaltlichen grunden fur jung gelten
mussen. Doch ist es nicht bloB erlaubt, sondem geboten, sie nur in so viele iiberlieferungs-
geschichten [misprint for iiberlieferungsschichten?] zu gliedem, als die positiven anhalts-
punkte verlangen” (Neckel 1908: 162-63).
29 “Ich hegte ein miBtrauen gegen textscheidungen, und es kam mir demgemaB zuerst dar-
auf an, die texte als einheiten und in ihren charakteristischen abweichungen von einander zu
erfassen. So entstand das statistische kapitel II. Die kritik der AtlakviSa, die ich etwa gleich-
zeitig niederschrieb (kap. VI), war nur als ein versuch gedacht, und erst der fortgang der ar-
beit hat meine zuversicht so weit gesteigert, daB ich noch jetzt meine, hier im groBen ganzen
das richtige getroffen zu haben; doch wird eine nachpriifung, die hoffentlich nicht aus-
bleibt, wol noch mehreres zurechtzuriicken finden” (from the Preface, Neckel 1908: v).