Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Side 146
126
Part One
wamed of the dangers of apriorism, and called attention to “the scholars
who are satisfied only by a strictly inductive method”.31
Neckel continued to work at Eddie studies, publishing in 1914 a
handy text edition, with a glossary added in 1927, which in Hans Kuhn’s
revised version (1962, 1968) has become one of the most widely used
Edda editions, recommendable among other things because of its relat-
ively conservative text (cf. Neckel 1916: 5). In the wake of this edition
Neckel published an excellent survey of Eddie studies in Zeitschrift fur
den deutschen Unterricht in 1916, while serving - according to the in-
dex of the Zeitschrift - in the armed forces (cf. p. 105 n. 3 above). In a
survey of the history of scholarship from the 17th century onwards he
concentrated on the continuous development in the direction of ascrib-
ing a later date to the poems, but since, apart from a reference to Ami
Magnusson’s insightful biography of Sæmundr froSi, he overlooked the
older sceptical tradition from Huet to Riihs, the permanent antagonism
existing throughout the history of Eddie scholarship was rendered invis-
ible, and Jessen’s fresh approach looked even more radical than it really
had been.
This essay is in my opinion particularly valuable for a series of
sensible remarks conceming the general methodology of dating. With-
out referring to his own work from 1908, he once more underlined the
crucial importance of the concurrence of different dating criteria and
31 “I flere retninger, navnlig hvad den gammelgermanske digtnings form angaar, uddyber
og fuldstændiggjor hans ‘Beitrage’ paa en meget fortjenstfuld maade de resultater, som
ved Ker’s og Heuslers’s skrifter er vundet med hensyn til den relative kronologi for denne
digtnings hovedarter: det korte heltedigt (‘das epische Einzellied’) og epos’et, hvilket sid-
ste tilhorer en skrivende tid (ritold)- Men ved den nævnte fremgangsmaade ligger faren for
vilkaarlighed nær, og flere steder i N.’s arbeide synes mig at vise, at Boer nok har nogen
ret til i sin ‘Auseinandersetzung mit Andreas Heusler’ [Boer 1911] og dennes elever at ad-
vare imod ‘die Gefahr des Apriorismus’. Lidt ængstelig tilmode bliver man unegtelig, naar
man hos N. stoder paa udtalelser som ‘es diirfte von vomherein einleuchten’, og naar der-
paa den folgende argumentation ikke ganske overbeviser én. Men paa den anden side er
det let at indse fordelene ved at gruppere kjendsgjemingeme efter en arbeidshypothese,
naar man bare kommer ihu, at selv oldtidens liv undertiden kan vise sig lidt for rigt og
sammensat til, at det kan faa plads indenfor de theoretisk optrukne udviklingslinjer. Og
man vil da forstaa og fuldt ud vurdere de forskeres arbeide, hvem kun den strengt induk-
tive methode tilfredsstiller” (Olsen 1912: 278).
Cf. Sijmon’s judgement: “[...] bei langerer Durcharbeitung der zahllosen Einzelfragen,
bei entschlossenerer Resignation und scharferer Trennung der methodischen Schlussfol-
gerung von dem biossen geistreichen Einfalle hatte er zu minder imposanten, aber festeren
Ergebnissen gelangen konnen” (Sijmons 1912: 365).