Abecedarium Nordmannicum — the contexts and functions of the medieval mnemonic verse on the runic alphabet

Summary

An article by the medievalist Kathrin Chlench-Priber (Bern) in the Polish journal Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae, vol. 24 (2019), pp. 5–22 — a source-critical and historical-contextual reading of the Abecedarium Nordmannicum (hereafter AN). Not magic and not esotericism, but classical runology/palaeography set within the Carolingian Scandinavian mission.

AN is a short mnemonic "rhyme" for memorizing the names and order of the 16 runes of the Younger Futhark (long-branch / "Danish normal runes"), preserved in a single manuscript — the Vademecum of Walahfrid Strabo (Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 878). The author revisits the "standard" hypothesis (a Danish model → an Old Saxon translation), drawing on recent scholarship — above all the linguistic analysis of Thomas Klein and the recent palaeographic/codicological work of Wesley M. Stevens (2018) on the Vademecum — and concludes that the text is most likely an originally Old Saxon composition, created in a monastic learned milieu on the Continent, rather than a translation of a ready-made Nordic rune verse.

The main lines of argument: (1) the linguistic layers of AN; (2) the network of comparative manuscripts (Leiden, Emmeram/München); (3) the relation of AN to the treatise De inventione litterarum; (4) the dating of Walahfrid's hand; (5) the context of the Northern mission (Ansgar, Corbie/Corvey); (6) the function of the text as a mnemonic device for monastic schoolchildren.

This is a secondary scholarly source about AN — it complements rather than duplicates the existing summary of the AN text itself (the Abecedarium Nordmannicum summary, after the edition Dickins 1915).

Key claims (tags + locators)

• historical-fact AN is preserved in a single manuscript — the Vademecum of Walahfrid Strabo, Sankt Gallen Cod. 878. It is the oldest runic "verse" (Alessia Bauer calls it a "preliminary stage" of the rune verse), giving the 16 signs of the Younger Futhark. — p. 5 (intro).
• historical-fact The linguistic layers: the runic signs and names are Old Norse (the oldest layer); most of the text is Old Saxon, with a few Old High German forms (probably entering during copying, including by Walahfrid). — p. 6.
• historical-fact The second-oldest record of long-branch runes is the manuscript Leiden, Univ.-bibl. Cod. Voss. Lat. Q. 83 (Fleury; the provenance "Gallia ad orientem vergens," i.e. the eastern margin of West Francia). The runes were probably entered in the 10th c., but the archaic forms point to a 9th-c. model. — p. 7.
• historical-fact The order of the runes in AN (a division of 5 + 6 + 5: f-rune, k-rune, t-rune) is closer to the epigraphically attested row — Hedeby (~800–1000), the Gørlev, Malt, Rök stones (all 9th c.) — than to the "regular" three ǽttir of 6 + 5 + 5. — p. 7.
• revival-claim The Lachmannian reading of the 5 + 6 + 5 division as an "error" (especially the start of the second ǽtt with the k-rune) is outdated; the author considers it inapplicable: variability of the layout = flexibility in handling the rune row in the monastic milieu, not arbitrariness. — pp. 7, 9. (historical-fact about the historiographical position; the conclusion itself is the author's interpretation.)
• historical-fact In the Leiden Codex the rune names are written in runic script (the sign stands for both the phoneme and the name) — unusual. Derolez: probably a rune master who had no command of the Latin alphabet, or a person literate in Latin learning the runes. — pp. 7–9.
• historical-fact The manuscript München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14436 (11th c., "Emmeram"): on fol. 1r — two runic alphabets; the names feu, naut, sol coincide with AN, and there is a parallel caon/chaon, birca/brica. Baeseke, Derolez, Klein: the link between the manuscripts is real, but not precisely identified. — pp. 9–10.
• historical-fact AN is textually linked with the treatise De inventione litterarum: Derolez showed the reverse relation — the alphabets of Cod. 878 are not a consequence but the basis for De inventione; both versions go back to a common model, with Walahfrid's being the more original form. This removes Baeseke's old hypothesis of Hrabanus Maurus as an intermediary. — pp. 11–13.
• historical-fact The palaeography of Bernhard Bischoff: Walahfrid is the owner and in large part the scribe of the codex; AN is assigned to the end of the last phase of the writing (between 829 and 849). This means it was not entered during Walahfrid's Fulda period (827–829). — p. 13.
• historical-fact Wesley M. Stevens (2018) refined the phases of the writing and the order of the quires: the layer with the rune verse is the last, dated to roughly 842–849 (Walahfrid at this time on Reichenau, in Aachen, Compiègne). Stevens doubts that AN was written by Walahfrid himself, but without justification. — pp. 13–14.
• historical-fact The context of the Northern mission: Corbie and its daughter house Corvey (founded 822) trained Saxon missionaries; Ansgar ("apostle of the North"), tutor of the Danish king Harald Klak (826), archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen (~831/832); schools for Scandinavian children (Torhout, Welanao near Itzehoe). Both texts and knowledge of Danish runes could have migrated along this network. — pp. 14–16.
• historical-fact A magical use of AN is ruled out (contra Friedrich von der Leyen): the text does not cover this (Baeseke). Only in recension A of De inventione is there a passage about runes in pagan practices — but it was not included in the Vademecum. — p. 18.
• historical-fact Interlinearly in AN are entered 6 Anglo-Saxon runes (f, h, n, a, m, y) — evidence of a comparison of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc and the Nordic runes (the forms differ for h, a, m, y). — p. 18.
• historical-fact In the Vademecum AN follows excerpts from Isidore (Etymologiae I), the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, and the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (under the heading Anguliscum) — i.e. it is a learned compendium of alphabets, reflecting scholarly interest in the Younger Futhark, previously unknown on the Continent. — pp. 11–13.
• practice-instruction The function of AN is a mnemonic device: staving rhymes (alliterations) break the short text into rhythmic units; the runic sign is placed next to the Latinized name so that the reader, reading aloud, memorizes both the order of the names and the letterforms at once. The addressees are monastic schoolchildren/scholars who do not need prior runic knowledge (only Latin literacy is required). — pp. 19–20.
• revival-claim The author considers the thesis of business/diplomatic motives for teaching the Frankish clergy the Nordic script to be unconvincing; more probable is a scholarly-didactic and, possibly, missionary interest (understanding/performing runic inscriptions). — pp. 20–21. (A dispute of interpretations; counted as the author's historiographical position.)

Links

• Complements the Abecedarium Nordmannicum summary (a summary of the AN text itself, ed. Dickins 1915): there — the text and reconstruction (damage by 19th-c. reagents, Grimm's 1828 facsimile drawing); here — a modern scholarly reading of the contexts, dating, and function. The reconstructed text in the article is cited after Düwel with Klein's emendations (p. 19).
• A parallel with the theme of the Younger Futhark / the 24→16 rune transition — AN records precisely the 16-rune row (see the materials on the evolution of the futhark).
• A parallel with the theme of the rune poems: the author contrasts AN with the four "real," more developed rune verses (Old Norwegian, Old Icelandic, Swedish), which semanticize the rune names; AN, by contrast, does not gloss the names.
• A historiographical thread: Baeseke (1939) → Derolez (Runica Manuscripta, 1954; Scandinavian Runes, 1965) → Klein (1977) → Bauer (Runengedichte, 2003) → Düwel (Runenkunde) → Bischoff → Stevens (2018) → Chlench-Priber (2019).