Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana. Supplementum - 01.06.1958, Qupperneq 292

290
and shows that, when the collected material from Skonvig’s hand, the conditions of his research
etc, are taken into consideration, it will be found that Skonvig’s drawing gives an extremely
reliable basis for reading.—A lesser contribution to the interpretation of the inscription on the
Listerby grating (Skonvig II, 80).
SECTION TWO. THE PIONEERS, p. 105-152.
Chapter 4. Ole Worm, Torhen Ilasebard and Berlel Knudsen (Aqvilonius) p. 105-113. On the
basis of Ole Worm’s letters an account is given of the early study of runes in Denmark (discussed
previously by Fr. Orluf, 1921), and it is shown that Worm had not originally thought of dealing
with runic inscriptions so thoroughly. Time and time again (for the first time in 1619) he urges
the learned rural dean in Lödderup, Scania, Bertel Knudsen, to undertake their study and to
publish them “together with other similar epitaphs on ancient heroes”. In a little book (1621)
by one of Knudsen’s pupils, Laurentius Asserous, which contains the oldest collection of Latin
epitaphs published in Denmark (Inscriptionum Selandicarum Dania antigrapha), there is to be
found at the end a runological treatise by Knudsen, written on the basis of material he received
from Worrn. This consisted mainly of Albert Holst’s very defective copies of runic monuments
(cf. p. 293 below), and the result was rather pitiful. In 1622 Worm—for it was certainly he who
was behind it all—managed with the help of the chancellor, Christian Friis of Kragerup, to have
a royal ordinance sent to the bishops in Denmark and Norway requesting them to make the
priests provide copies of all runic monuments, and in 1623 Knudsen, by royal command and
again probably on Worm’s initiative, travelled around Scania, Halland and Blekinge copying
runic inscriptions. The drawings resulting from these trips (1624-25), now lost, were sent (via
the chancellor) to Worm, and indirectly it can be established that they were so paltry that
Knudsen’s reputation as a runologist must be considered as dubious. After this, Worm really
applied himself to the study of runes, and as early as 1626 he published his first work, Fasti
Danici; the next year he sent Skonvig out on his first trip in search of runes.
In Scania Worm had another rune collector, Torben Hasebard, who in 1621 became pastor
primarius, rural dean and canon in Lund. From him Worm received only 5-6 inscriptions, but
while Knudsen apparently was satisfied with copying the inscriptions themselves, Hasebard also
drew the monuments. It is shown that three of the runestones engraved on the title page of the
Fasti (done by Simon de Pas, engraver to the University and the king) originate from Hasebard,
whose reproductions of runes do not compare with Skonvig’s. The title page was used again in
the Monumenta in 1643.
Chapter 5. Ole Worm, p. 114-127. The development of Worm’s activities as a runologist up to
the publication of his work on runes in 1643: Monumentorum Danicorum libri sex, is discussed
mainly on the basis of his letters. Judging from its composition the book is not very impressive,
published as it was during a decadent period for printing. Wimmer’s objection that Worm’s
treatment of the individual monuments is not based on his personal investigations is not sup-
ported. It was not as a practical runologist in the field that Worm’s strength lay (cf. above, Chap.
1). Apart from his unusually fine (yet faulty) reading of the Tryggevælde stone, the rest of his