This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a reason no one has put up a copy of the rune poems yet? Yasha
"Prominently" might be a bit overstated. But thanks for the clue by four. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasha ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 March 2005 (UTC)
Does any one know the origin of the poems? As in where the documents were found, on clay or paper, etc? Seems everywhere I look I find nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.12.187 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 October 2005 UTC
I don't think this is necessarily correct:
"The fact that some Anglo-Saxon runes were given names of trees (ᛇ Eoh "yew", ᚪ Ac "oak", ᚫ Æsc "ash", c. f. also AS thorn vs. Norse thurs) may be related to the names of the Ogham signs, all of which are called after trees."
According to some Ogham experts, notably Peter Berresford Ellis, Ogham signs were not all named after trees. Here is a link to an article by Ellis that elaborates.
http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html
There was lively discussion of the whole "tree" thing on the main page for Ogham, and it was more or less agreed that the arboreal connection should be presented pro and con.
Suggest we put a "." after "signs" and strike the "all of which were named after trees" from this article.
-- dragonflykarate 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What character encoding do I need to use to see these runes? In UTF-8 (for me), they all appear as question-marks. - Casey
Runic verse, rune verse and/or some other similar expressions could redirect here. 62.65.237.196 ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Rune Poems → Rune poem – It isn't capitalized in the body of the article or in the title of Old English rune poem. It is not treated as a proper noun in A Companion to Medieval Poetry nor in The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition. (When it is treated as a proper noun, it is as the name of one of the poems and it is italicized.) Srnec ( talk) 23:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support downcasing, as the title is clearly descriptive. Also, per MOSPLURAL, the singular is our preference. Primergrey ( talk) 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Ingwina: A few months ago, you added information about the Swedish version given in a letter written 1600 (exactly, according to the SBL source). You also added a short new section Rune poem#Swedish, where you (properly and well sourced) played down its importance; you wrote: "Due to its age, it has received relatively little attention from runologists." However, both in the lead and in that section a reader now would get the impression that this Swedish version were an independent record of a fourth version of the old poem. The extant lead text stresses this: "Four different poems have been preserved...". Unless you can provide a source that confirms that this view of the Swedish version is supported by extant scolars, or that the letter itself contains something to this effect, I think that the lead should be changed. We then should go back to mentioning "three different poems" in the first paragraph of the lead, but mention the Swedish version in the second paragraph (together with the Abecedarium).
Now, I do not know more about these things than what I found in the wp variants Rune poem and is:Rúnakvæði, the article by Inmaculada Senra you provided as a source, and the two SBL articles [1] and [2] on sv:Nicolaus Granius and Johannes Bureus, respectively. The information/impression I get from these sources/articles is that on the one hand "the Swedish (extant) version" actually is not the youngest one; it exists in a preserved letter from Nicolaus Granius to Bonaventura Vulcanius written 1600, while for the Norwegian version we only have the 1636 edition by Ole Worm. However, on the other hand, the Norwegian version was based on a considerably older manuscript which unhappily burned in the disastrous Copenhagen Fire of 1728; but Granii letter was presenting the poem as part of a description of the ongoing work of his old school mate, Johan(nes) Bure(us), who was the central person in the start-up of Swedish rune-research. Now, Bure had access to (and could read, and even to some extent edited 'modern' Swedish versions of) the central Swedish collections of older Nordic manuscripts; including most old Norwegian or Icelandic ones then in Sweden. He also to some extent was an artist and a (bad, according to SBL) poet; and even experimented a bit with old Scandinavian poetry forms, as far as I understood. He certainly also investigated and started catalogising Swedish runestones, and also collected some popular 'oral history'.
On the basis of this, I cannot completely exclude that Bure actually found some pheasant reciting a version of the old poem, and recorded it; but I don't find it likely. There are several much more likely variants. He may well have known about the Norwegian version then extant in Copenhagen; he might even had access to some variant of it (although the SLB article does not indicate that there was much direct contacts between him and Danish colleagues, at least not friendly ones). He may have made a translation of that, or a new poem (in old form) inspired by that. He even may have come up with the idea quite independently, and while being quite ignorant of the older poems. (Recall that this was the guy who created "Runakänslones lärospån"!). He also indeed may have had access to some now lost old manuscript, from Sweden or some other Nordic country, containing an older version of the theorem (and in that case the talk of the preservation of four different poems would be justified).
In any case, Granius probably didn't write down the poem in that letter without also write at least a few words of its background. Thus, just reading his letter might solve the mystery directly, or at least provide some definite clues. Unhappily, the published 1908 edition was titled "Een runendicht" (a rune poem), and thus perhaps only contains an extract of that letter.
Thus, @ Ingwina:, I would like to ask you not only if you have references to some 'secondary' or 'tertiary' sources mentioning "the Swedish rune poem", but also about primary sources. Do you have access to the poem version? Do you even (better!) have access to Granii letter?
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there a reason no one has put up a copy of the rune poems yet? Yasha
"Prominently" might be a bit overstated. But thanks for the clue by four. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasha ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 March 2005 (UTC)
Does any one know the origin of the poems? As in where the documents were found, on clay or paper, etc? Seems everywhere I look I find nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.12.187 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 October 2005 UTC
I don't think this is necessarily correct:
"The fact that some Anglo-Saxon runes were given names of trees (ᛇ Eoh "yew", ᚪ Ac "oak", ᚫ Æsc "ash", c. f. also AS thorn vs. Norse thurs) may be related to the names of the Ogham signs, all of which are called after trees."
According to some Ogham experts, notably Peter Berresford Ellis, Ogham signs were not all named after trees. Here is a link to an article by Ellis that elaborates.
http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html
There was lively discussion of the whole "tree" thing on the main page for Ogham, and it was more or less agreed that the arboreal connection should be presented pro and con.
Suggest we put a "." after "signs" and strike the "all of which were named after trees" from this article.
-- dragonflykarate 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What character encoding do I need to use to see these runes? In UTF-8 (for me), they all appear as question-marks. - Casey
Runic verse, rune verse and/or some other similar expressions could redirect here. 62.65.237.196 ( talk) 20:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Rune Poems → Rune poem – It isn't capitalized in the body of the article or in the title of Old English rune poem. It is not treated as a proper noun in A Companion to Medieval Poetry nor in The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition. (When it is treated as a proper noun, it is as the name of one of the poems and it is italicized.) Srnec ( talk) 23:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support downcasing, as the title is clearly descriptive. Also, per MOSPLURAL, the singular is our preference. Primergrey ( talk) 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Ingwina: A few months ago, you added information about the Swedish version given in a letter written 1600 (exactly, according to the SBL source). You also added a short new section Rune poem#Swedish, where you (properly and well sourced) played down its importance; you wrote: "Due to its age, it has received relatively little attention from runologists." However, both in the lead and in that section a reader now would get the impression that this Swedish version were an independent record of a fourth version of the old poem. The extant lead text stresses this: "Four different poems have been preserved...". Unless you can provide a source that confirms that this view of the Swedish version is supported by extant scolars, or that the letter itself contains something to this effect, I think that the lead should be changed. We then should go back to mentioning "three different poems" in the first paragraph of the lead, but mention the Swedish version in the second paragraph (together with the Abecedarium).
Now, I do not know more about these things than what I found in the wp variants Rune poem and is:Rúnakvæði, the article by Inmaculada Senra you provided as a source, and the two SBL articles [1] and [2] on sv:Nicolaus Granius and Johannes Bureus, respectively. The information/impression I get from these sources/articles is that on the one hand "the Swedish (extant) version" actually is not the youngest one; it exists in a preserved letter from Nicolaus Granius to Bonaventura Vulcanius written 1600, while for the Norwegian version we only have the 1636 edition by Ole Worm. However, on the other hand, the Norwegian version was based on a considerably older manuscript which unhappily burned in the disastrous Copenhagen Fire of 1728; but Granii letter was presenting the poem as part of a description of the ongoing work of his old school mate, Johan(nes) Bure(us), who was the central person in the start-up of Swedish rune-research. Now, Bure had access to (and could read, and even to some extent edited 'modern' Swedish versions of) the central Swedish collections of older Nordic manuscripts; including most old Norwegian or Icelandic ones then in Sweden. He also to some extent was an artist and a (bad, according to SBL) poet; and even experimented a bit with old Scandinavian poetry forms, as far as I understood. He certainly also investigated and started catalogising Swedish runestones, and also collected some popular 'oral history'.
On the basis of this, I cannot completely exclude that Bure actually found some pheasant reciting a version of the old poem, and recorded it; but I don't find it likely. There are several much more likely variants. He may well have known about the Norwegian version then extant in Copenhagen; he might even had access to some variant of it (although the SLB article does not indicate that there was much direct contacts between him and Danish colleagues, at least not friendly ones). He may have made a translation of that, or a new poem (in old form) inspired by that. He even may have come up with the idea quite independently, and while being quite ignorant of the older poems. (Recall that this was the guy who created "Runakänslones lärospån"!). He also indeed may have had access to some now lost old manuscript, from Sweden or some other Nordic country, containing an older version of the theorem (and in that case the talk of the preservation of four different poems would be justified).
In any case, Granius probably didn't write down the poem in that letter without also write at least a few words of its background. Thus, just reading his letter might solve the mystery directly, or at least provide some definite clues. Unhappily, the published 1908 edition was titled "Een runendicht" (a rune poem), and thus perhaps only contains an extract of that letter.
Thus, @ Ingwina:, I would like to ask you not only if you have references to some 'secondary' or 'tertiary' sources mentioning "the Swedish rune poem", but also about primary sources. Do you have access to the poem version? Do you even (better!) have access to Granii letter?