Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:14:40.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two runic notes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

R. I. Page
R. I. Page
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A runic text that has, as far as I know, attracted little attention lurks at the bottom right-hand corner of Tabella III of part 3 of Hickes's Thesaurus. It has thirteen graphs, labelled ' e Cod. Cottoniano, Otho C. 5.p. 41‘. The graphs are the Anglo-Saxon runes:

Transliterated: ‗conslruieius‘, followed by what appears to be the bindrune ‘, that is, the late additional rune calc bound with ur. The sigel-Tune ‘s’ is a comparatively rare form found occasionally in manuscripts, on coins and in inscriptions. The other runes are common English types.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 27 , December 1998 , pp. 289 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hickes, George, Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archælogicus, III, Grammaticœ Islandicœ Rudimenta (Oxford, 1703)Google Scholar. I thank Dr S. D. Keynes for drawing these runes to my attention and giving me his expert advice on Wanley's ‘Book of Specimens’; also Dr David Parsons and Professor René Derolez for helpful comments on a first draft of this note.

2 Keynes, S., ‘The Reconstruction of a Burnt Cottonian Manuscript: the Case of Cotton MS. Otho A. 1’, Brit. Lib. Jnl 22 (1996), 113–60, at p. 154, n. 116.Google Scholar

3 Letters of Humfrey Wanley, Palaeographer, Anglo-Saxonist, Librarian 1672–1726, ed. Heyworth, P. L. (Oxford, 1989), p. 107.Google Scholar

4 Codices Latini Antiquiores. A Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts prior to the Ninth Century. II. Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Lowe, E. A., 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1972), no. 125Google Scholar; Alexander, J. J. G., Insular Manuscripts 6th to the 9th Century (London, 1978), no. 12.Google Scholar

5 Smith, Thomas, Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library 1696, ed. Tite, C. G. C. (Cambridge, 1984), p. 72.Google Scholar

6 Page, R. I., Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking Runes, ed. Parsons, D. (Woodbridge, 1995), p. 124.Google Scholar

7 Derolez, R., ‘Epigraphical versus Manuscript English Runes: One or Two Worlds?’, Academiae Analecta, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren 45 (1983), 71–93, at 91.Google Scholar

8 As adumbrated in Page, R. I., ‘Runic Writing, Roman Script and the Scriptorium’, Runor och ABC. Elva föreläsningar från ett symposium i Stockholm våren 1995, ed. Nyström, S., Runica et Mediavalia, Opuscula 4 (Stockholm, 1997), 119–40.Google Scholar

9 Page, R. I., An Introduction to English Runes (London, 1973), pp. 195–6 and pl. 14.Google Scholar

10 Wilson, D. M., ‘A Group of Anglo-Saxon Amulet Rings’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 159–70. My thanks to Sir David, to Leslie Webster of the British Museum and to Michael Lerche Nielsen for further scrutiny they gave to this material.Google Scholar

11 Page, R. I., ‘The Finding of the “Bramham Moor” Runic Ring’, N&Q 9 (1962), 450–2Google Scholar, with additional provenances given as Har(e)wood and Sherburn in Elmet.

12 Derolez, R., Runica Manuscripta: the English Tradition, Rijksuniversiteit te Gent, Werken Uitgegeven door de Faculteit van de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, 118° Aflevering (Brugge, 1954), pp. 46 and 48.Google Scholar

13 Page, R. I., ‘On the Transliteration of English Runes’, MA 28 (1984), 22–45, at 32.Google Scholar

14 Ibid. p. 32.

15 Dickins, B., ‘Runic Rings and Old English Charms’, ASNSL 167 (1935), 252.Google Scholar

16 Meroney, H., ‘Irish in the Old English Charms’, Speculum 20 (1945), 172–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Storms, G., Anglo-Saxon Magic (The Hague, 1948), pp. 236, 298, 301–2 and 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, pp. 96–100.Google Scholar

18 Derolez, , Runica Manuscripta, pp. 12 and 13.Google Scholar

19 Ibid. pp. 22 and 25.

20 Hickes, , Thesaurus, III, Tabellæ: II, VI.Google Scholar

21 Though conversely this might lead to more confusion, since at one time or another Thorkelin seems to have known ring 1; as Nielsen, K. M. points out in his ‘Rasmus Rask om de Ældre Runer’, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (1971), 120–45, at 138–42.Google Scholar

22 Dr Alzheimer strikes again! Since this paper appeared in proof form I have reconsulted an article of mine of some thirty years ago: ‘Runes and Non-Runes’, Medieval Literature and Civilisation. Studies in Memory of G. N. Garmonsway, ed. Pearsall, D. A. and Waldron, R. A. (London, 1969), pp. 28–54, at 52–3Google Scholar. There I note, in a sale catalogue of 1778, the item ‘An antient Runic ring, found near the Picts Well, 1773’. From its date and provenance this is almost certainly the ring mentioned in Thorkelin's papers. The ring's runic text is then confirmed, and option (3) above deleted. The catalogue has the intriguing addition, ‘See the account with it.’ Perhaps Thorkelin's paper is this account, or a copy of it.