Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana. Supplementum - 01.06.1958, Page 291

289
runologist: the ability to see what in reality was not there, or rather the lack of ability to tear oneself
away from a preconceived opinion, a characteristic however which is repeated to a larger or
smaller degree in any epigraphist.
An examination of the Tillitse drawings (Skonvig’s, Abildgaard’s, Kornerup’s and Magnus
Petersen’s) shows that the two first only considered it important to reproduce the individual
runes as types, mainly without consideration of special forms, while Ivornerup and Magnus Pe-
tersen wished to give a naturalistic drawing together with the structure of the stone and the
shape of every rune-stave etc. A comparison with the retouched photograph shows up the limi-
tations of the drawing. With Tillitse as an example Worm’s method of treatment of a runic
monument in his Monumenta is analysed. In general, to subsequent inscriptions there is added
only a short commentary on Worm’s understanding of the contents of the inscription. On the
other hand his translation in Latin is always quoted (with Danish translation). A reconstruction
of the fAvnslev stone is given that deviates from “Danmarks Runeindskrifter” (Denmark’s
Runic Inscriptions, abbr. DR), and it is hinted that the Alebæk stone’s inscription may have
been defective both at the beginning and at the end.
Chapter 2. A.M. 367 in fol., Jutland, p. 41-75. In all 29 inscriptions, four of which are grave-
stones with majuscules. It is explained why Skonvig draws stones in a horizontal plane as some-
times vertical and sometimes horizontal, a question which is not without importance (cf. fHobro
stone 1, Skonvig II, 51 f.). In examining the Jelling monument the relationships between the
oldest reproductions (Rantzau-Lindeberg, Ronaventura Vulcanius) are accounted for, and it is
shown that they go back to the reproduction of the inscription on the golden tablet of Caspar
Markdanner set up in Jelling church, which in distorted form is reprinted in Worm’s Monumenta.
The original text is reconstructed. It is furthermore shown that the originator of Worm’s prospect
of the Jelling monument was the local parish priest, Jorgen Petersen Lemvig.—Appendix on the
Randers stone, at variance with Lis Jacobsen’s view: that the stone drawn by Skonvig and Albert
Holst (Skonvig I, fig. 69, 71) is not identical with the Randers stone 1 still extant. An attempt
is made to show why—with reference to the collected Skonvig material—it cannot be asserted
in support of Lis Jacobsen that Skonvig’s and IJolst’s drawings prove that the stone then bore
a “very clear inscription”; on the contrary it must be assumed tliat the runes were very worn.
The fVrejlev stone is presumed (in contrast to DR) to be a type belonging to the post-Jelling
period; a translation is suggested. Partly new interpretations of the romanesque gravestone in-
scriptions.
Chapter 3.A.M. 369. Scania, Ilalland and Blekinge, p. 77-104. In all 26 inscriptions: Runamo
and 25 runic inscriptions. Of the herostratically famous Runamo inscription in Blekinge, men-
tioned as early as by Saxo Grammaticus, which in the last century was vouched for as genuine
by a Danish scientific commission, the manuscript contains both Skonvig’s sketch and the final
copy. There are considerable differences between them, a hint to treat with circumspection the
other final copies. Worm’s wood cut is executed after a drawing by Charstanus Laurentii, but
with Skonvig’s runes inserted, evidence of a method of working not current in modern times but
often met with in Worm (cf. the Bornholm drawings p. 20). In an appendix on the fGummarp
stone, Blekinge, the author criticises Anders Bæksted’s negative attitude to Skonvig’s drawing
19