Runes [first Edition]
RUNES [FIRST EDITION]. The modern English word rune (Dan., rune; Swed., runa; Icel. pl., rúnar; Ger., Rune) signifies any character in the ancient Germanic, and especially Scandinavian, alphabet. The word is seemingly derived from a hypothetical Germanic form, *runo-, meaning "secret" (cf. modern Ger. raunen, "whisper"; Icel. rýna, "speak confidentially"; Goth. rûna, "secret"; AS rún, "rune, secret whispering"). The Finnish word runo, meaning "song," is an early borrowing from Germanic.
Comprising the earliest known form of writing in any Germanic tongue, runic inscriptions can be documented for as early as 200 CE. What is known of cultural, and especially linguistic, development in general leads to the supposition that runes must have been in existence for some generations by the time the earliest preserved inscriptions were carved. Numerous theories concern the date of their creation, the tribal identity of their inventors, and the models by which they were inspired. Much discussed also is the original purpose or purposes of the runes: were they invented and used initially to serve religious (and magical) ends or were they primarily conceived of as a mode of communication? It is attested that during the period of their employment—for a millennium and longer—they served both these purposes.
The geographical distribution of the earliest brief inscriptions points strongly to early Denmark as the primary center for the first important use of runes. From Denmark the loci of early Germanic inscriptions radiate outward to southern Norway and Sweden, to northern Germany, Poland (Rozwadów), and the Ukraine (Kowel), and ultimately to Hungary (Szabadbattyán) and Romania (Pietroassa). Later the runes spread to England, undergoing in time characteristic modifications and additions and eventually awakening the interest of monks and bishops.
The geographical evidence for a centralized origin of the runes is reinforced by a linguistic consideration. From the outset, as evidenced by all known examples, there was no faltering or sign of experimentation: whether created by an individual genius or by a group, the runes were made full-blown, not only in their graphic and phonetic values but in their unique order and arrangement. Made up of twenty-four characters divided into three groups of eight, the runic "alphabet" is now known, after its first six characters, as the futhark. During the Viking age, commencing around 800, and through a second act of decisive linguistic creativeness, the Scandinavian futhark was shortened to sixteen characters, still arranged in three groups. This took place first in Denmark, then in Norway and Sweden.
The earliest inscriptions, from 200 CE or so, appear on small objects such as spearheads, buckles, amulets, and horns, apparently as marks of ownership. Their angular shape indicates the practice of carving onto wooden tablets. By the fourth century they were being chiseled into stone, particularly in Norway where rocks are plentiful. With that step, the runes acquired additional scope and permanence, chiefly as memorial inscriptions, which frequently have historical value of note. The oldest of this new type, dating from 350–400, is the brief inscription of Einang, Norway, reading "[I, Go-]dagastiz painted the rune" (i.e., carved the inscription). The longest inscription (720 runes) is that of Rök, which is partly versified and is filled with mythological and semihistorical allusions. The westernmost, and northernmost, inscription is the fourteenth-century carving from Kingiktorsoaq, Greenland, far above the Arctic circle.
Of five thousand known inscriptions, more than three thousand are Swedish, most of which were carved before 1100. Lacking a cursive form and hence unhandy for manuscript use, and imperiled after 1100 by the spread of Latin letters, the runes nevertheless persisted, especially in Sweden, for several centuries. Ultimately, they fell into disuse save as an occasional pastime or for such limited purposes as marking the calendar or, recapitulating their earliest use, indicating ownership. In Sweden a form of runic shorthand enjoyed a limited vogue.
Conflicting theories derive the runes, via some early Germanic-speaking tribe, from the Greek alphabet, the Roman alphabet, or from North Italic (Etruscan); even Celtic influence has been posited. Suggested intermediaries are the Goths around the Black Sea and the Marcomanni, who were resident in Bohemia until their destruction at Vercellae in 18 CE. But the Gothic alphabet of Bishop Ulfilas (fourth century) itself shows runic influence, and the Marcomanni or their fellow Germans would simply have adopted the Latin alphabet entirely. The greatest number of similarities is between runic and Latin, and that accords well with the intense early relations between Rome and (pre-Danish) Jutland, "the long-time heartland of Germania" (Haugen, 1976).
Some early rune masters, however, had no doubt of the origin of the runes. It is explicitly stated on the Noleby Stone (Sweden, 450 CE), on the Sparlösa Stone (Sweden, 800), and in the Old Norse Hávamál (st. 80; cf. ss. 138–144) that the runes derived from the gods. Whether or not the runes were originally created for religio-magical purposes, they were certainly no less adaptable to such use than were the classical alphabets that preceded and coexisted with them. Early inscriptions repeatedly contain the word alu, meaning "protection, magic, taboo"; on the Stone of Nordhuglo (Norway, 425) the rune master proudly refers to himself as the gudija (priest) "protected against magic."
In time, Christian notions succeeded traditional Germanic conceptions. Inscriptions in the younger futhark, often carved within traditional serpentine patterns, came to be decorated with Christian crosses as well; the serpents were retained partly out of tradition and convenience as line markers and occasionally out of residual resentment or defiance of the "new faith." But as Christianity gained sway in the north, runic incantations, maledictions, and appeals to the Germanic gods yielded to such phrases as "So-and-so made this thing (e.g., built this bridge) for his soul." Late inscriptions are sometimes mixed with Latin phrases; the hammer of Ϸórr (Thor) is paired with a Christian cross; the Virgin Mary is mentioned.
In the British Isles runes were adroitly drawn into the service of the church. One of the finest examples of this is the splendid Ruthwell Cross (Dumfriesshire, c. 800), adorned with evangelical pictures and containing portions of The Dream of the Rood. The tenth-century Jelling Stone (No. 2), that huge royal Danish monument erected by King Harald Bluetooth in honor of his parents and himself, is aggressively Christian; on it, Harald claims credit for having christianized the Danes. Many rune stones have been transported to churchyards and even immured in church walls, as a rule with the inscribed face obscured, a practice that points rather to economic than to religious considerations.
In the sixteenth century the study of runes became a learned preoccupation in Sweden, whence it spread to Denmark, and by the nineteenth century the subject was being pursued to some effect in Germany and Great Britain. In the twentieth century much energy has been devoted to such topics as runic cryptography, speculative theories of Germanic uniqueness, and efforts to derive the runes from early conceptual signs (Begriffszeichen). Little of this has borne fruit, but the systematic study of runology during the past hundred years or so has brought forth works of great distinction.
Bibliography
The important task of photographing, systematizing, and interpreting the great corpus of inscriptions is going forward in several countries. Notable names in modern runological research are, for Denmark, Ludvig Wimmer, Lis Jacobsen, Erik Moltke, and Karl-Martin Nielsen; for Iceland, (the Dane) Anders Baeksted; for Norway, Sophus Bugge, Magnus Olsen, Carl J. S. Marstrander, and Aslak Liestøl; for Sweden, Sven Söderberg, Erik Brate, Otto von Friesen, Elias Wessén, Elisabeth Svärdström, and Sven B. F. Jansson; for Finland, Magnus Hammarström; for Germany, Wilhelm Krause, Helmut Arntz, Hans Zeiss, and Hertha Marquardt; and for Great Britain, R. W. V. Elliott and R. I. Page. Excellent orientations and bibliographies can be found in the following works.
Derolez, R. Runica Manuscripta: The English Tradition. Ghent, 1954.
Düwel, Klaus. Runenkunde. Stuttgart, 1968.
Elliott, R. W. V. Runes: An Introduction. New York, 1959.
Haugen, Einar. The Scandinavian Languages. Cambridge, Mass., 1976.
Jansson, Sven B. F. The Runes of Sweden. Stockholm, 1962.
Musset, Lucien. Introduction à la runologie. Paris, 1965.
Page, R. I. An Introduction to English Runes. London and New York, 1973.
This is the complete article, containing 1,327 words
(approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).
