Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana. Supplementum - 01.06.1958, Qupperneq 295

293
tains few wood cuts of runestones (used in earlier publications), and an examination is made to
see if it technically possible to differentiate between these and the metal cuts. With the actual
material as a basis the result tends to be rather negative, except when it is a question of dam-
aged “blocks”. It is also pointed out that the work of Stephan Stephanius: Saxonis Grammatici
Historiæ Danicæ libri XVI (1644-45), contains metal cuts. The author submits therefore that,
considering that two of the most important works in Denmark dating from tlie 1640’s used this
technique for illustrating, the question of so-called wood cuts from older times should be taken
up again.
Chapter 8. Who were Worm’s hlock-cutiers? p. 166-169. The author attempts to prove that the
work of illustrating Worm’s book was contracted for by H. A. Greys, who was appointed the
first block-cutter to the University in 1640.
Chapter 9. The engravings in Worm’s Monumenta, p. 170-174. Although the engravings in the
Monumenta are executed generally according to Skonvig’s drawings—the exceptions are men-
tioned—they are nevertheless often so different from them that they might be takcn to be of
different runestones, both in respect of shape and inscription: horizontal stones can be “erected”,
fragments completed, perspective added everywhere, sometimes even on a stone where Skonvig
folded the edge with runic inscription out around the contour of the stone (Skonvig I, fig. 151),
or on stones where he carefully indicated that parts of them were hidden (Skonvig I, fig'. 118).
The block-cutter normalised the runes (he will permit of no special forms), indeed he spaces the
runes evenly on the inscribed surface without respecting Skonvig’s indications of varying degrees
of proximity at the beginning and at the end of the inscription. When in addition there may be
one, two or even more mistakes in the cutter’s copies of the inscriptions in every illustration, it will
be understood that the engravings have lost their runological value as sources after the discovery
of the Skonvig drawings, although they give a striking insight into the attitude of those days
towards scholarly illustrative material. Accordingly it is certain that the block-cutter changed
Skonvig’s drawings with Worm’s approval, or in any case without his objection. Meanwhile the
wood-carver’s independent attitude to Skonvig’s drawings is not taken to be the common denom-
inator of the relationship between an artist and a reproducer in the 17th century. The reason
for the radical changes is that Skonvig’s drawings were so inartislic, so childish and naive, that
the professional craftsman shrank from reproducing them in all their wretchedness. It was his
self-respect as an artist and as a craftsman that compelled him to make the radical “improve-
ments”. In all honesty and good faith he sought to make the best of Skonvig’s material, and
Worm, who personally was not acquainted with the monuments in question, was no doubt glad
to realise how much his block-cutter could make out of so little. But he did not bother to read
the proofs of the engravings.
SECTION FOUR. THE OTHER DRAUGHTSMEN, p. 175-250.
Chapter 10. Albert Iiolst, p. 176-178. Albert Holst was a glazier in Hornslet (Randers County)
and has left to us eight drawings (one romanesque gravestone, two suspect and five genuine rune-
stones), which are to be found among the reports from the priests of Árhus diocese 1623. The