Runoscript · Books — summaries

R. I. Page — Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Collected Essays (1995)

Summary

A collection of 23 essays by the doyen of Anglo-Saxon runology, R. I. Page (1924–2012), gathered for his 70th birthday from publications of 1958–1994. Editor David Parsons; bibliography by Carl Berkhout. It reworks Page's Opuscula Runologica; the first piece ("Quondam et Futurus", 1994) was written for the volume, the last ("Runeukyndige Risteres Skriblerier") had not been previously published. Most essays concern Anglo-Saxon runes (the fuþorc: inscriptions on stones, coins, weapons, manuscript runica manuscripta); two concern the Scandinavian (Viking) runes of the Isle of Man.

Page defined himself as a "sceptical, not a romantic, runologist" (preface) — and that is the methodological spine of the whole volume. His school is "field runology", insisting on the study of the artefact-and-text relationship rather than "desk" work on copied readings. The volume matters for the "what is ancient / what is invented" question because Page systematically contests the magical/romantic readings of runes, demanding evidence rather than presumption. The preface cites D. M. Wilson's "laws of runo-dynamics": (1) every inscription has as many interpretations as interpreters; (2) if you don't understand it, it is magic. Page names the second "a well-known epigraphical law: anything not understood is magic" (Magic essay, p. 154) and fights precisely that.

The volume is academic mainstream (T1), written before and apart from modern esoterica; "runes of power", cults and fantasy literature are mentioned in the preface as exactly the wave against which real scholarship is needed.

The essays

(chronological after the introductory one)

Quondam et Futurus (1994, new) — survey introduction: new finds, the debate with R. Derolez on "one world or two" (manuscript vs epigraphic runes).
Northumbrian æfter + Accusative (1958) — philology of the memorial-inscription formula.
Anglo-Saxon Runes and Magic (1964) — the key essay for this track.
Ralph Thoresby's Runic Coins (1965).
The Runic Solidus of Schweindorf… and Related Runic Solidi (1968) — a critique of the "amulet" reading of the rune-coins.
Runes and Non-Runes (1969) — key: cleaning the corpus of false "runes".
How Long Did the Scandinavian Language Survive in England? The Epigraphical Evidence (1971).
On the Transliteration of English Runes (1984) — Page revises the Dickins system.
Some Thoughts on Manx Runes (1980) and The Manx Rune-Stones (1983) — the Viking runes of Man.
New Runic Finds in England (1987).
A Sixteenth-Century Runic Manuscript (1987).
…plus philological studies of the memorial-formula language, the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses, rune-names (ear, eoh/ih), double runes, runic coins, the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem, bi-alphabetic inscriptions (St Cuthbert's coffin), and the limits of dating by inference.

Key claims

Rune-magic — the central debate ("Anglo-Saxon Runes and Magic", 1964)

historical-fact The "rune-magic" theory (an essential connexion of runes with magical power) had become "almost an orthodoxy" in runology by the 1960s. Page describes it but contests it. — Magic, p. 108.
historical-fact The evidence base for rune-magic falls into four types: etymological, archaeological, runological and literary. — Magic, pp. 106–108.
revival-claim (in the academic sense "a reconstruction, not a fact") The semantic chain run → "secret/whisper/incantation/charm/rune" gives "a possible, though not proven, connexion" of the rune with magic. — Magic, p. 106. Page stresses: the etymology links the rune to secrecy/mystery, not to magic in essence and origin.
historical-fact The literary evidence (Hávamál — Odin on the world-tree "takes up runes"; Sigrdrífumál — victory/luck/protection runes; Egils saga — Egil carves runes on a poisoned horn and a healing runescript) is late: the Eddic poems are dated after 800, the prose later still (Egils saga, 13th c.). They are therefore "too late to reveal the Germanic attitude to runes". — Magic, pp. 107–108.
historical-fact The Danish runologist A. Bæksted (Målruner og troldruner, 1952) put much of the "magical" evidence in doubt: runes might be used for magical texts simply because they were the only script available to Scandinavians — "no more magical than the Latin alphabet". — Magic, pp. 108–109.
historical-fact Even the sceptic Bæksted concedes a few indisputably magical inscriptions (e.g. the Lindholm amulet with ek erilaR… and the sequence aaaaaaaaRRRnnn…alu). The magic "words" alu, laukaR, laþu, agla are known from bracteates. — Magic, pp. 109, 154.
historical-fact Page's main thesis: for Anglo-Saxon England the existence of rune-magic "has not been definitely demonstrated, though it has often been assumed". He considers the Anglo-Saxon evidence "weak"; anyone insisting on runic magic in England must lean on Scandinavian material, ignoring the cultural difference (England's early Christianization and the arrival of the Latin alphabet). — Magic, pp. 106, 122.
historical-fact Page cautiously allows that one and the same text could have both a practical and a magical function at once (runes on the sword in Beowulf; The Husband's Message) — his scepticism does not deny magic wholesale, but rejects the presumption "everything runic = magical". — Magic, pp. 122–123.
historical-fact Tacitus mentions notae on lots used for divination among the Germani; these were "identified with runes", but nota can mean any identifying mark — the identification is not proven. — Magic, p. 108.

The solidi: a critique of the amulet reading ("Schweindorf solidus", 1968)

historical-fact Berghaus and Schneider read the runic solidi (Schweindorf, Harlingen, skanomodu) as amulets with magical/religious invocations. Page exposes the circular argument (Berghaus citing Schneider, Schneider citing Berghaus) and "special pleading". — Schweindorf, pp. 148–153.
historical-fact The simplest reading of the legends (hada, skanomodu) is personal names in the nominative (owner/maker/donor), as in a long line of runic name-inscriptions; no magical reading is needed. skanomodu was made by striking, not casting (BM X-ray), i.e. closer to a coin than an amulet. — Schweindorf, pp. 152–154.

Cleaning the corpus: "Runes and Non-Runes" (1969)

historical-fact There is a "primary epigraphical law": signs that cannot be identified otherwise get called runes. The study of Anglo-Saxon runes is "poisoned" by the admission into the corpus of doubtful and plainly non-runic inscriptions. — Non-Runes, pp. 161–162.
ethnographic-data "The more emotive senses of the words 'rune'/'runic' have attracted mystics, muddlers and cranks", "enthusiastically discovering runes where there are none". — Non-Runes, p. 161. (Valuable as Page's early record of pseudo-runic.)
historical-fact Many "runes" in George Stephens's collection and the Marquardt bibliography are not in fact runes: Brough-under-Stainmoor is a Greek inscription; the St Andrews ring is late-medieval; the Aspatria armlet is "neither runic nor Anglo-Saxon". The evidence for "Amesbury runes" goes back to Aubrey alone — "too slender". — Non-Runes, pp. 162–163.
historical-fact The notion of "pseudo-runes": rune-forms in manuscript fuþorcs not found in epigraphy (e.g. stan, gar, cweorð); and on the Ruthwell Cross a runic graph (transliterated as a special "k"/"K") recorded in no manuscript fuþorc. — Quondam et Futurus, p. 9; Non-Runes.

The nature of writing — manuscript vs epigraphy, transliteration

historical-fact The debate with R. Derolez "one world or two": Derolez reduces manuscript and epigraphic runes to a "common stock of runic learning" (one world). Page objects: there were probably more than two permutations of the knowledge (masters who knew runes but not Latin, and vice versa); runes may have survived as an esoteric/locally-English script "against Rome". — Quondam et Futurus, pp. 1–9.
historical-fact The existence of bi-alphabetic inscriptions (Falstone, Lindisfarne, the Franks Casket, St Cuthbert's coffin) long ago proved there were Anglo-Saxons literate in both runes and Latin. — Quondam et Futurus, p. 8; St Cuthbert's Coffin, 1989.
historical-fact The sample of Anglo-Saxon runes is "a tiny, random, incalculable" remnant of what was written; any conclusion must allow for the smallness of the sample (Derolez is pessimistic: testis unus testis nullus). Page is more moderate: a single witness (Worcester, Watchfield) can sometimes legitimately lead to a conclusion. — Quondam et Futurus, pp. 1–4.
historical-fact Transliteration is a practical necessity but risks "sloppy thinking". Until 1984 Page used Bruce Dickins's system (1932), then introduced a modified one (1984 essay) — leaving a deliberate "inconsistency" of conventions across the volume. — Preface; Transliteration, pp. 245–246.

The Viking (Scandinavian) runes of the Isle of Man

historical-fact Page expressly separates competences: an expert in Anglo-Saxon runes is not automatically an expert in Norwegian ones, and vice versa — he calls his own Manx essay "an amateur runologist's report on Viking runes". He criticizes the assumption "read one rune, read them all". — Manx Rune-Stones, p. 225.
historical-fact The standard edition of the Manx inscriptions (Magnus Olsen, 1954) rests on a 1911 visit and work from casts/photos — it contains errors of detail (punctuation, letter-forms); a field revision and assessment of early drawings/casts is needed. — Manx Rune-Stones, pp. 225–226.
historical-fact The Viking runes of Man include variants: "Danish/normal" runes, short-twig (stuttruner), mixed (blandingsruner) and the special Man-Jær runes. — Transliteration, p. 246.

Techniques

The volume contains no direct "practical" techniques (runescripts, spells as instructions) — it is an academic source. What is relevant to the practice track is only the described historical/literary practices that Page examines critically:

Literary "runescripts" in Old Norse prose (Egils saga): Egil carves runes on a poisoned horn and reddens them with blood → the horn shatters; carves a healing runescript under a sick woman's pillow → recovery; in verse warns "do not take up runes without understanding them".
- Claimed effect (in the saga): destroying poison, healing, cursing/compulsion (Skírnismál — the threat of runic harm).
- Status per Page: historical-fact that the text so describes it, but the source is late (13th c.) and does not prove a real practice of the early period; it cannot be passed off as a document of the Germanic attitude to runes.
Odin "takes up runes" (Hávamál): a mystical sacrifice (nine nights on the tree) to win the runes. — a revival-claim/literary motif, not a historical practice; the poem is no earlier than ~800.

Quality of the evidence

T1, the highest academic authority — but a collection of essays 1958–1994: the methodology of the early articles (purely philological) is, by Page's own admission in "Quondam et Futurus", "superseded/marginalized" in favor of "field runology" and questions of literacy and text layout. Hold individual early readings with an allowance for their date.

The volume's chief value is its methodological scepticism and its separation of "proven" from "assumed". Page does not deny rune-magic wholesale (he concedes individual indisputable cases in Scandinavia, allows a text's double function), but he demolishes the presumption "runes = a magical script" and demands contextual evidence. For this track it is a primary academic support against romantic/esoteric and von-List/Thorsson claims of an ancient "runic power": magic is not proven for Anglo-Saxon England, the literary sources are late, many "magical amulets" are in fact ordinary names or coins.

Within the academy there is a live debate, which Page conducts honestly: Derolez (one world of manuscript/epigraphic runes, pessimism about the small sample) versus Page (≥2 worlds, moderate optimism). Record this as different interpretations, without choosing the "right" one.