Runes from Trondheim and a Stanza by

Egill Skalla-Grimsson
James E. Knirk

Source:​​ ​Studien zum Altgermanischen: Festschrift für Heinrich Beck,​ 1994, pp. 411-420.

Egill Skalla-Grimsson and runes

Egill Skalla-Grimsson is the Icelander from the Saga Age most often and most closely connected
with runes and runic inscriptions. Four major incidents involving runes and Egill are related in
Egils saga Skalla-Grimssonar, each one also involving skaldic poetry.

In chapter 44 during a celebration at Atløy in Norway where King Eiríkr blóðøx (Blood-Axe)
and his retinue are present, Egill is the only one who, although he drinks excessively, does not
get drunk. His capacity disturbs the host, the king's steward Bárðr, and also Queen Gunnhildr,
and they mix poison in the horn with his next drink. Egill then (1933: 109) "grabbed his knife
and stuck himself in the palm; he took the horn and carved runes on it and nibbed them with his
blood". The stanza he then speaks is quoted in full and begins with a retelling of these actions (st.
9); thereafter the horn breaks into bits and its contents run into the straw. The runic lore
evidenced here reminds one of various comments in Eddie poetry, specifically statements in
Hávamál​ st. 144 concerning the carving and coloring of runes and the mention in ​Sigrdrífumál
sts. 7-8 of "beer-runes" (​ölrùnar​) which protect against mead mixed with poison.

The mutual hostilities between the Norwegian royal couple and the protagonist escalate during
Egill's two subsequent trips to Norway and culminate in his being outlawed and his killing of
Rögnvaldr, the son of Eiríkr and Gunnhildr. Before departing for Iceland, Egill in chapter 57
erects an "insult-pole" (​nidstöng​) directed toward the king and queen. Poles of insult are known
from Icelandic laws and other family sagas, especially ​Vatnsdæla saga ​(see Meulengracht
Sørensen 1980: 33-37 (1983: 28-32)). Egill takes a hazelwood pole up to a promontory on the
island Herdla, places the head of a horse on the pole, and recites a curse in which he bids that the
guardian spirits of the country might be confused and powerless until the royal couple are
banished from the kingdom. "Afterward he thrusts the pole into a crack in the rock and let it
stand; he also turned the head in toward land and carved runes on the pole, and they contain this
entire statement" (1933: 171). The saga phrases Egill's curse in direct discourse, and his quoted
words must be the saga-author's idea of what was written with runes, but Magnus Olsen has
argued that the text was instead the two occasional verses (​lausavísur)​ recited according to the
saga shortly before this scene, namely at the end of chapter 56 and earlier in chapter 57 (sts. 28,
29; see Olsen 1916: 235-39 (1938: 12-16)). Magnus Olsen's own transliteration of these two
stanzas into Viking Age runes is presented as an insert facing p. 163 in the Íslenzk Fomrit edition
of ​Egils saga.​ The first of these stanzas begins with a wish that the gods might repay King Eiríkr
for his robbery of Egill's wealth by driving him from the country, and this would agree in content
with the stated incantation of the guardian spirits; the rest of this stanza and the other one,
however, have little to do with the curse. Anders Bæksted (1952: 204-12) has strongly criticised
Magnus Olsen's arguments, and he finds no reason to accept the identification of the two stanzas
as the contents of the runic inscription. Magnus Olsen was interested in demonstrating
intentional numerical relationships, and in his transliteration each half-stanza consists of
seventy-two runes, which as a multiple of twenty-four (the number of runes in the older runic
alphabet, or ​fuþark​) supposedly was a preferred magical number. However, in Magnus Olsen's
own notes for his 1916 paper (now in the Runic Archives in Oslo), one finds that he somewhat
tailored his solution so as to arrive at the desired number (cf. also the criticism in Morgenroth
1961). The next incident concerning runes is related in chapter 72 during Egill's journey to
Vermaland to collect taxes for the king of Norway during the 950s. Egill and his small company
have taken lodgings with the farmer Þorfinnr, whose daughter Helga is lying sick in bed. Egill
discovers that healing runes on a piece of whalebone placed in her bed were wrongly carved by
the boy from a neighboring farm, corrects them and then recites a stanza which begins thus (sL
48, 1933: 230; see Olsen 1962: 33-39):

One should not carve runes (​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta,​

unless one can interpret them well; ​nema ráða vel kunni​,
it happens to many a man, ​þat verðr mörgum manni​,
that he makes a mistake with a dark ​es of myrkvan staf villisk​.)
(rune-)stave.

The girl is cured, and when Egill returns after collecting the taxes, it is told that the boy who had
carved the runes was actually a spurned suitor who had tried to write love-runes (​manrúnar)​ ,
"but he was not knowledgeable enough, and he carved for her that which caused her to get sick"
(1933: 238)

The last major incident with runes occurs in chapter 78 after Egill's son Böðvarr has drowned.
Egill decides to starve himself to death but is tricked by his daughter Þorgerðr into breaking his
fasting, and she then persuades him to live a bit longer and write an inheritance poem which she
will record with runes on a stick. After composing the poem ​Sonatorrek,​ Egill has overcome his
grief and gives up his suicidal plans. Rune-sticks were not that well known until they began
turning up in great numbers during the archaeological excavation at Bryggen in Bergen during
the late 1950s. Some of the most interesting inscriptions found there were poems, a few in Latin
but the majority in the vernacular and employing skaldic as well as Eddic meters (see Liestøl
1964: 22-50, Liestøl 1965).

A runic inscription from Trondheim In the course of archaeological excavations during the past
two decades, several hundred thousand finds have been uncovered from the first centuries of
Niðaróss (now Trondheim's) existence, and among them were about one hundred objects with
runic inscriptions. Although many of the runic finds were tools, utensils or parts of crafted
objects, a large number were sticks whittled with flat surfaces, usually four sides and a square or
rectangular cross-section, and intended to serve no other function than as writing material.

One of the rune-sticks found in 1975, find number N-25803, is 89 mm. long and has a
cross-section of 10x12 mm. There are runes on three faces, and the inscription is registered as
number A 142 in the Runic Archives in Oslo. The runes were first recorded by an archaeologist
in Trondheim, who drew and partially transcribed the two long lines but did not identify as runes
the two marks cut on a third side; these were identified by the runologist Aslak Liestøl.
Apparently keeping the archaeologist's order of lines, Liestøl called the runes on the one 10 mm.
wide side line a, the ones on the adjacent side below, line b, and the two on the adjacent side
above, line c; thus line a lay between line b and line c. His reading was as follows (bind-runes
are indicated by a bow over the transliterated runes, uncertain readings by a dot under the
transliteration):

The surface of the stick is so badly damaged toward the end of line b that only remains of the
tops of the runes can be seen. The two uncertain l's in this section could therefore, according to
Liestøl, just as easily be ​r, b, ​or ​u.​​ The colons are word-dividers consisting of two or three short
vertical lines rather than dots; the short lines are so long and close together after runar that
Liestøl read them as a single line or stave. Liestøl suggested in notes in the Runic Archives the
following normalization and interpretation of the inscription: ​unni​ ​þat verðr mörgum manni​ ​at ​/
sá skyl(d)i rûnar rísta er ráða vil (​ with ráða spelt ), i.e.: "Many liked it poorly that he
should carve runes who wishes to interpret/compose (them)".

A transliteration of inscription A 142 was published in 1986 by Jan Ragnar Hagland, Trondheim.
His reading, slightly revised in the 1990 reprint (and in other unpublished presentations), was:
No specific interpretation was offered in this published overview, but Hagland has worked with
the inscription in a report for the National Antiquary's Excavation Office in Trondheim about the
runic finds from the dig in 1974-75 in Kjøpmannsgata and also in preparation for the publication
of all the new materials from Trondheim in the corpus edition ​Norges innskrifter med de yngre
runer (​ hereafter ​Niyr)​ . In his report of 1984 and in subsequent preliminary manuscripts for ​Niyr
he discusses basically the same interpretation as given by Liestøl (not including the uncertain
readings and restitution at the end of line b) and suggests an alternative interpretation in which
uirr ​in line a could be read as ​hverr:​ ​unni​ ​þat hverr mörgum manni​ ​at sá skylli rûnar rísta
("Might each and every one allow many a man that he should carve runes ...").

It is obvious that the vocabulary in inscription A 142 resembles closely the vocabulary in Egill's
poem ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​ and equally obvious that the order in which Liestøl and Hagland
have read the lines, i.e., middle-below-above, has no basis. The natural order is as follows, with
the two runes in line c forming an incomplete final line (three runes are reconstructed in brackets
here; see Figs. 1 and 2):
Line b is here above line a, and line c above line b. The fifth rune in the new line Λ Λ a is neither
a bind-rune of (Hagland, who mentions the tbranch), but rather a special form

for y, namely , indicated here by transliterating γ. This form also occurs in an inscription
excavated in Bergen in 1982 (inscription Β 625 found in Finnegârden 3A on object BRM
110/1711), possibly used there like a "capital" letter in the formal (plural) second-person form
dative and accusative ​Yðr; ​the standard ​y​ also occurs in the text of this business letter, e.g., in
fyrst​​ and also in ​yþr​​ 'you (pl.)', and the carver switches back and forth between the formal and
the familiar second-person forms. The surface of the stick on which A 142 is located has
deteriorated so much that possible dotting of ​i​ (thus producing​ e​​) cannot be determined with
certainty for ​ir​​ nor ​uil​​ in line a, nor for ​uirr​​ in line b. The first letter in line b must be a
somewhat damaged long ​s,​​ not a colon (Liestøl) nor a short ​s​ followed by a colon (Hagland).

In Norway, long ​s​ frequently stands for z in Old Norse inscriptions and c in Latin inscriptions
from the High Middle Ages; here the long​ s​​ is transliterated ​c​ (see below). The inscription can
thus be normalized as follows:

Sá skyli rúnar rísta, ​ He should carve runes

er ráða(?) vel kunni; ​ who can understand^) them well;
þat verðr mörgum marmi, ​ it happens to many a man,
at…​ that...(?)

The damaged section has been reconstructed and therefore the word ràda is uncertain, but it fits
well with the remains of runes, the space available, and the possible traces of carved lines in the
damaged section. Of runological interest are: (1) the rare form ​Y,​​ which is probably related to the
mainly Icelandic variant of the letter, namely (with the possible typological development:
), and (2) the use of the long​ s​​ (here transliterated ​c​) for the initial sound in ​kunni.
The latter spelling may indicate the employment of the "palatal rule" in Old Norse (based on the
pronunciation of c in Old English and Romance languages): c could be written for /k/ except
before palatal vowels (in Old Norse /i(:)/, /y(:)/, /e(:)/, /ø(:)/, and /ae:/), where k had to be written,
as in sky li. The use of this rule might well indicate a Latin-alphabet literary background for this
particular runic inscription. The spelling​ uirr ​(or possibly ​uerr​​) can stand for verðr. In Norway
the combination rðr is sometimes spelt ​rþ​​ or ​þr ​in runes, but according to either the
"three-consonant rule", whereby the middle consonant of three can be elided, or a special
development of​ ð​ (cf. Seip 1955: 157-59), the result could be ​rr​​ or ​r. ​This spelling occurs often
in Swedish runic inscriptions from the 1000s, where, for instance, ​-gærðr​ is spelt​ -kir/-ker​​ in
two-thirds of the occurrences (Peterson 1981: 60-61, 68; but cf. Samplonius 1993: 113-14).

The inscription A 142 is thus unfinished, ending midway through the statement of what "happens
to many a man". The final at in line b corresponds to the variant ​ad for es/er i​ n the Ketilsbók
manuscript (AM 453 4to) of ​Egils saga​ (1933: 230 n.; see also ​Skjaldedigtning​, A, I: 58). In spite
of the damage in line a and the resulting academic uncertainty of the reconstruction of ràða, it is
clear that the inscription is a positive statement of the contents of the beginning of Egill's poem
Skalat maðr rúnar rísta.​ The two texts correspond so closely that one must assume that the final
missing short-line of the half-stanza on the rune-stick can be reconstructed based on the words of
the poem in ​Egils saga,​ probably as follows: ​at um myrkvan staf villisk.​ The runes so at the
beginning of line c on the runestick are apparently a mistake, and the error was seemingly reason
enough for the carver to cease his work. Among the runic inscriptions from medieval Norway
there are several instances of texts that were not completed after a carving mistake was made.
The blunder in this case, resulting in the letters so, may conceivably have been caused by some
confusion with the main variant in​ Egils saga​ at the beginning of the fourth short-line, i.e., ​es of
​ he missing fourth short-line would fill most of side c, and there would be only limited
or​ 's of. T
room for additional material on side d. It appears then that the rune-stick was intended to record
only one half-stanza.

Neither ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​ nor the text of the runic inscription from Trondheim has all the
trappings of standard court meter (​dróttkvœtt​), the major skaldic verse form. The number of
syllables in each short-line is indeed fixed at six, or seven with resolution, there are two props
(​stuðlar)​ in each odd-numbered line which alliterate with the main stave (​höfuðstafr​) in the
following even-numbered line, and each line ends with a trochee, but internal rhymes
(​hendingar)​ are lacking, and the main alliterative stave is not on the first syllable in the
even-numbered lines. This poetic structure is, however, recognized as a valid variation of court
meter. In his poem ​Háttatal,​ which comprises the basis for the discussion of skaldic meters in the
third and final part of his ​Edda,​ Snorri Sturluson first illustrates standard court measure and then
proceeds with fifty-nine examples of various variations. Several examples demonstrate instances
of more internal rhyme than standard drôttkvœtt verse prefers, either additional partial rhyme
(​skothending​, standard in odd-numbered lines) or extra complete rhyme (​aðalhending,​ standard
in even-numbered lines), whereas some lack complete rhyme and a few want for partial rhyme.
The last example, the variation of ​dróttkvœtt​ measure in stanza 67, is totally missing internal
rhyme and is termed ​háttlausa​ 'meter-less'. This stanza (and one other, stanza 54, which lacks
partial rhyme in the odd-numbered lines) does not have the main alliterating stave on the first
syllable of the even-numbered lines either. The metrical structure of the poem on the rune-stick
from Trondheim, and in ​Egils saga,​ constitutes thus a simplified form of court meter.

The relationship between the runes and ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta

Authenticity has long been an area of interest concerning skaldic poetry preserved in saga texts,
and one of the major contributions to this topic was Finnur Jónsson's ​Kritiske studier (​ 1884).
Finnur Jónsson discussed in particular the poetry in ​Egils saga,​ both the larger poems and the
occasional verses, and especially the authenticity of the latter (1884: 172-83); he concluded that
most of the​ lausavísu​r attributed to Egill were indeed composed by him, but that ten stanzas, and
among them ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta,​ were probably composed by the saga-writer. Finnur
Jónsson later revised his views, however, and felt that this stanza and others which he had
previously doubted could be authentic (see, e.g., 1920: 491-95, esp. 494). In Per Wieselgren's
evaluation, the first half-stanza is spurious but the second is genuine (1927: 261-64, esp. 264).
The discussion of authenticity up to 1933 is summarized in the introduction to the Íslenzk Fornrit
edition of ​Egils saga​ (1933: v-xvi, esp. vii-viii; see also most recently Bjarni Einarsson 1992:
38-40).

Bjarni Einarsson has dealt with Egill's trip to Vermaland (1975: 253-65), and he finds the
episode totally lacking in credibility, considering it to be the literary result of creative fantasy
applied to popular adventure stories. All the occasional verses during the journey are integral to
their context, a context which most likely did not exist until the author of the saga created it, as
Bjarni Einarsson argues. The first half-stanza of ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​, although important for
the situation in which it is presented, is kept in general terms and could have been used on
various occasions. The second half-stanza, on the other hand, corresponds specifically to the
context, since it mentions the ​tálkn​ 'piece of whalebone' which the prose text relates was found in
the bed and specifies the 'secret staves' and the 'long-term grief* that resulted from their use:

sák á telgðu talkni​ I saw on the whittled piece of whalebone

tíu launstafi risina,​ ten secret staves carved;
þat hefir lauka lindi​ that has given the linden of leeks (= woman)
langs oftrega fengit.​ long-term grief.

Two basic relationships between the half-stanzas on the rune-stick from Trondheim and the
half-stanza ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​ seem possible. The runic verse could be a quotation of the
verse in ​Egils saga​, or the first half of the stanza in ​Egils saga ​could quote an older half-stanza.
In the latter case, one might assume that Egill quoted an older half-stanza, keeping it in general
terms, and then added his own half-stanza which was intimately dependent on the context. But
there is little reason to believe that a poet of Egill's stature and ability would need to quote an
older half-stanza, and it would seem more likely than that the saga-author or some link in the
tradition was responsible for the verse. If the runic verse were simply a quotation of the verse in
Egils saga,​ it is strange that only the first half-stanza was intended to be carved on the rune-stick.
The recasting of the text as a positive statement rather than a negative one would also be
inexplicable. That alteration would ring more true for a change in tradition or for a creative
transformation by a saga-author using the freedom of his profession. It appears then most likely
that the runic verse preserves an older half-stanza that was remoulded by tradition or by the
author of ​Egils saga ​into the first half of the stanza ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​. It is indeed
interesting that Wieselgren using his version of Sievers' "sound analysis" (​Schallanalyse)​ arrived
at the conclusion that the two parts of the stanza had different origins. The very existence of the
runic verse from Trondheim would tend to confirm that evaluation.

The composition of​ Egils saga,​ regardless of Snorri Sturluson's possible authorship, is usually
dated to the early 1200s; if Snorri is the author, the composition might date to around 1230. The
rune-stick from Trondheim has an archaeological dating based on the stratigraphy of the
excavation area. The particular layer in which the stick was found is dated to the period
1175-1225. Thus it is slightly older than or roughly contemporary with the composition of ​Egils
saga.​ This dating would perhaps support the general impression that the first half-stanza in ​Egils
saga r​ epresents a reworking of an older poem, to which the last half-stanza was added.

Conclusion

Old Norse poetry has previously been found quoted in the runic inscriptions from Bryggen in
Bergen. Karin Fjellhammer Seim identified the inscription Β 88 as a quotation from Haraldr
harðráði ​gamanvísur​ (Seim 1986; cf. Niyr 6: 228-29), and the inscription Β 57, complete but
consisting only of ​eikils:yti:blökum,​​ must contain the kenning for a ship ​Ekkils ýti-blökkum,​
which was used by HallarSteinn in his poem ​Rekstefja.​ Latin poetry is also quoted on
rune-sticks. Liestøl published, for instance, the quotation on one stick of pieces from two Latin
poems preserved otherwise in the Carmina Burana, namely CB 88 ​Amor habet superes​ and CB
71 ​Axe Phebus aureo​ (Ν 603, ​Niyr 6​ : 1-9). Vergil's popular sentiment ​Omnia vincit Amor; et nos
cedamus Amori​ is quoted, in more or less complete form, in three separate inscriptions from
Bergen (see Ν 605, ​Niyr ​6: 11-13, 228). Now one finds that also Trondheim has the distinction of
having preserved a runic record that not only presents skaldic poetry but even apparently
represents the source for the first half-stanza of ​Skalat maðr rúnar rísta​ and thus provides insight
into the composition of this verse in Egils saga and a confirmation of its status as non-authentic.*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I wish to thank Professor Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen, Oslo, and Professor Jonna Louis-Jensen,
Copenhagen, for cogent comments and decisive criticism concerning this article.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bjami Einarsson. 197S. Litter are forudsalninger for Egils saga. Stofnun Áma Magnússonar í
íslandi.
Rit 8. Reykjavik.
. 1992. "SkáldiS í Reykjaholti." In Eyvindarbók: Festskrift til Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen 4. mai
1992. Eds. Finn H0dneb0 et al. Oslo. pp. 34-40.
Ba:ksted, Anders. 1952. Mdlruner og troldruner: Runemagiske studier. Nationalmuseets Skrifter,
Arkzologisk-Historisk Rsekke 4. K0benhavn.
Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern. 4th ed. Eds. Gustav Neckel
and
Hans Kuhn. Heidelberg 1962.
Edda Snorra Sturlusonar. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. Köbenhavn 1931.
Egils saga Skalla-Grtmssonar. 1933. Ed. SigurSur Nordal. íslenzk Fomrit 2. Reykjavik.
Finnur Jónsson. 1884. Kritiske studier over en del af de œldste norske og islandske skjaldekvad.
Kebenhavn.
. 1920. Den oldnorske og oldislandske litteraturs historie. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. K0benhavn.
Hagland, Jan Ragnar. 1984. "Runematerialet frâ utgravingane 1974-75 i Kjöpmannsgata i
Trondheim."
Report for Riksantikvarens utgravningskontor, Trondheim. Unpublished.
. 1986. Runefunna: Ei kjelde til handelen si historie. Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn:
Folkebibliotekstomten,
Meddelelser 8. Trondheim.
. 1990. Runefunna: Ei kjelde til handelshistoria. 2nd ed. Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn:
Folkebibliotekstomten, Meddelelser 8. Trondheim.
Liest0l, Aslak. 1964. "Runer frâ Bryggen." Viking 27 (1963): 1-53.
. 1965. "Runavísur frá Björgvin." Skírnir 1965: 27-51.
Meulengracht Sorensen, Preben. 1980. Norr0nt nid: Forestillingen om den umandige mand i de
islandske sagaer. Odense. Translated 1983 as The Unmanly Man: Concepts of Sexual
Defamation
in Early Norse Society. Trans. Joan Turville-Petre. The Viking Collection 1. Odense.
Morgenroth, Wolfgang. 1961. "Zahlenmagie in Runeninschriften: Kritische Bemerkungen zu
einigen
Interpretationsmethoden." Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität
Greifswald, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 10.3: 279-83.
Niyr — Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer. 6 vols, to date. Eds. Magnus Olsen et al. Oslo
1941- .
Olsen, Magnus. 1916. "Om troldruner." Edda 5: 225-45. Reprinted in Magnus Olsen. Norrene
studier.
Oslo 1938, pp. 1-23.
. 1962. Edda- og skaldekvad: Forarbeider til kommentar. 4. Egils lausavtsur, HçfuSlausn og
Sonatorrek. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Avhandlinger, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse, n.s.
2.
Oslo.
Peterson, Lena. 1981. Kvinnonamnens böjning i fornsvenskan: De ursprungligen stärkt böjda
namnen.
Anthroponymica Suecana 8. Uppsala.
Samplonius, Kees. 1993. "Zum runenschwedischen Namen kiinuar." In Personnamn i nordiska
och
andra germanska fornsprdk: Handlingar frdn NORNA:s artende symposium i Uppsala 16-19
augusti 1991. Ed. Lena Peterson. Uppsala, pp. 109-19.
Seim, Karin Fjellhammer. 1986. "Fragment av Harald Hardrádes gamanvísur overlevert i tuner
pâ
Bryggen i Bergen." Maal og Minne 1986: 30-41.
Seip, Didrik Arup. 1955. Norsk sprákhistorie til omkring 1370. 2nd ed. Oslo.
Skjaldedigtning - Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning. A. Tekst efter händskrif terne, 2 vols.; Β.
Rettet
tekst, 2 vols. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. Kebenhavn 1912-15.
Wieseigren, Per. 1927. Författarskapet till Eigla. Lund.