Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana. Supplementum - 01.06.1958, Blaðsíða 293

291
results are generally inferior to Skonvig’s, and in his reading and interpretation of the so-called
virgula erotica (Skonvig II, 122), a quack’s magic wand covered with scribbles and rune-like
signs, he has provided a “runological” achievement which can be compared with Finn Magnu-
sen’s reading of the Runamo incisions. Of the 11 stones Worm boasts in the introduction to the
Monumenta as having investigated, three may be omitted, since the Stenalt stone (Skonvig II, 122)
with him is merely a revised reproduction of Albert Holst’s transcription (with invented stone
contour), just as the version of the two Jelling inscriptions depend entirely on material sent to
him.—The outline of Worm’s work on runes is discussed; its quality is emphasised by Wimmer
having used the same scheme in his publication on runes, just as this is still used in the author-
itative Swedish and Norwegian works on runes. It is pointed out, with reference to previously
mentioned and subsequent examples, that Worm sometimes revised the source-material sent to
him according to his own judgment without always announcing this fact. Examples are given of
the linguistic difficulties Worm had to contend with, and his attitude to the ancient language is
touched upon. His lack of precision in dealing with the erratic “wood cuts” that make up the
illustrations of his book is criticised, but it is emphasised that the failures and errors are not
those of Worm alone, but of his period. Where Worm, without the handicap of his age, is matched
man for man with later research-workers, he can hold his own. As a methodic scholar engaged
upon research he stands arnong the foremost.
Chapter 6. Jon Skonvig, p. 128-151. Jon Skonvig was born in Skánevik in Norway at the be-
ginning of the 1600’s. Here his father was rural dean. Skonvig studied first at the University of
Greifswald (1622), later at Copenhagen (1626). In 1628 he became ship’s chaplain, andafterseveral
fruitless applications finally became priest in 0ster Broby-Haslev (Soro County), where he
died in 1664. The course of his life and his family circumstances are dealt with in so far as is
possible from the meagre sources available. The runological journeys are studied; they began in
Scania in 1627, then in Lolland-Funen in the same year, while the trips in Jutland, which were
never completed, are assumed to have taken place 1628-9 and perhaps later. Altogether there
are drawings of 67 monuments in the three Danish manuscripts; 59 of these are runic. A survey
of these drawings shows that Skonvig completely lacked artistic ability; he was in no position
to give an exact sketch of a stone’s contour, and his drawings of ornamentation and figures verge
on the ludicrous (cf. Gesing stone, Skonvig I, fig. 46, Jelling stone 2, Skonvig I, fig. 134, Tullstorp
stone, Skonvig I, fig. 156). In addition, his drawings of the Skárby stone (Skonvig I, fig. 172)
and the Hunnestad monument (Skonvig I, fig. 181) show that he lacked to a great extent the
ability to perceive the configuration of a carving in rough granite. His measurements are by no
means exact, and divisional signs are often treated with indifference. It is as a copyist of runes
that he shows his superiority, and handsomely so in comparison with the copyists of runes of
both his own time and later. We do not know how much Skonvig understood of the inscriptions
he copied, but it appears from several drawings that he knew the value of runes and could de-
cipher certain runic combinations. His copies of inscriptions are to be used with great care. There
were many pitfalls awaiting our first practical epigrapliist: insufficient linguistic knowledge could
be a hindrance to the reading of vestigial weathered runes which would offer no difficulty to a
modern runologist. Skonvig knew enough about the contents of the inscriptions to expect in
19*