{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027616774633481077, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012274122059324924, 'mean_word_length': 5.138075313807532, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Celtic Influences in Germanic Religion: A Survey by Matthias Egeler (review)

Jón Helgason (1953) and Gustaf Lindblad (1978). Lindblad’s important studies (1954, 1977, 1978, 1980) of the written transmission of Eddic poetry are not listed in the bibliography. Medieval genealogies, such as the one in Codex Upsaliensis, which includes pagan gods and Old testament figures, is claimed to be “clearly a learned fiction which would hardly have been taken seriously in the thirteenth century” (p. lxxviii). One may not take this seriously in the twenty-first century, but in the thirteenth century, this was perfectly valid as scholarship. As a solution to the stemmatological challenges of the manuscripts of Snorri’s Edda, Heimir Pálsson suggests that it may be possible to construct two stemmas of the manuscripts instead of one. He hypothesizes that before 1218, Snorri had compiled some drafts of the Edda, which included Gylfaginning and Skáldskaparmál, in a form similar to that in Codex Upsaliensis. Afterwards these drafts were revised by Snorri or someone else, and this revised version became the archetype of the Codex Regius version. thus, the importance of Codex Upsaliensis is stressed, since according to this theory, it derives from Snorri’s working copy. It’s a stimulating thought that we might be able to witness Snorri’s work in progress (as, for example, Saxo’s working copy, the so-called Angers fragment, NKS 869 g 4to, of Gesta Danorum, allows us to do), but unfortunately this wishful hypothesis is not convincing. Even within the Uppsala Edda project, another hypothesis has also been advanced about the nature of the abridged text of Codex Upsaliensis in comparison with the Codex Regius. Daniel Sävborg (2012) has argued that by analyzing the shifting percentage of abridgement in the Codex Upsaliensis, one can detect traces of two scribes copying a manuscript of Snorri’s Edda prior to the Codex Upsaliensis. the latter hypothesis is better argued and more persuasive, but the relationship between the manuscripts of Snorri’s Edda will most likely continue to be a matter of debate. Heimir Pálsson makes the point in his Introduction that new scholarly work or hypotheses usually take around fifty years to enter the classroom. With his normalized edition, including the thorough Introduction and Faulkes’s translation, he has made sure that the Codex Upsaliensis will be read and studied by numerous future students of Old Norse without the usual delay. the edition makes the redaction of Codex Upsaliensis easily accessible. Future studies of Snorri’s Edda will without doubt benefit from that. Moreover, the edition will enable teachers to introduce their students (even before they have learned to read Old Norse) to the varity and the unsteadiness of medieval textuality, even of classic texts like the Snorra Edda. this is a considerable achievement. Annette Lassen Arnamagnaean Institute, Copenhagen