in different writings, interlined and running over into the margin.
These variants are much more numerous in the prose than in the verse.
The first set are in the same hand as the text, the second in another
hand: but both of them have the character, not of variants from some
other MSS., but of alternative expressions put down tentatively. If
either hand is Saxo's it is probably the second. He may conceivably
have dictated both at different times to different scribes. No other man
would tinker the style in this fashion. A complete translation of all
these changes has been deemed unnecessary in these volumes; there is
a full collation in Holder's "Apparatus Criticus". The verdict of the
Angers-Fragment, which, for the very reason mentioned, must not be taken
as the final form of the text, nor therefore, despite its antiquity,
as conclusive against the First Edition where the two differ, is to
confirm, so far as it goes, the editing of Ascensius and Pederson. There
are no vital differences, and the care of the first editors, as well as
the authority of their source, is thus far amply vindicated.

A sufficient account of the other fragments will be found in Holder's
list. In 1855 M. Kall-Rasmussen found in the private archives at
Kronborg a scrap of fourteenth century MS., containing a short passage
from Bk. vii. Five years later G. F. Lassen found, at Copenhagen, a
fragment of Bk. vi believed to be written in North Zealand, and in
the opinion of Bruun belonging to the same codex as Kall-Rasmussen's
fragment. Of another longish piece, found in Copenhagen at the end of
the seventeenth century by Johannes Laverentzen, and belonging to a
codex burnt in the fire of 1728, a copy still extant in the Copenhagen
Museum, was made by Otto Sperling. For fragments, either extant or
alluded to, of the later books, the student should consult the carefully
collated text of Holder. The whole MS. material, therefore, covers but
a little of Saxo's work, which was practically saved for Europe by the