the yew-rune and the runes g i in the old english...

1 It should be noted that the rune has two “allographs” § and c as Odenstedt (1990:77) callsthem; in the Scandinavian inscriptions from 400 to 750 they are “used indiscriminately,without regard to the direction of writing” and this seems to hold true for the Eichstätt OErunic corpus.

2 For a detailed overview of both the origin of and the research on the yew rune see B. Mees(forthcoming).

3 The scanomodu solidus is also included, even though it might be Frisian. 4 Coins are not included.

385

The yew-rune and the runes ¥, G, h and i in theOld English Corpus (Epigraphical Material)

Gaby Waxenberger

Introduction: Intentions and Aims of this Paper

The yew-rune c, §1 – and also the so-called star-rune h – have been the subjectof controversy. It is neither my intention nor my aim to deal with the origin ofthese two runes and their original sound values in the older fuþark and theirdevelopments to the Anglo-Frisian fuþorc.2

The reconstruction of the yew-rune’s original sound value has proved diffi-cult and there has also been difficulty in describing the sound values and theirdistribution in Old English (OE), as can be seen in table 1.

It is my intention to focus on the Old English side of the problem. This istherefore a synchronic study within the Old English corpus of epigraphical ma-terial, although the runic material is occasionally compared with the non-runicdata presented in the Microfiche Concordance of Old English (MfC).

Before I can tackle the problem, it is necessary to say some words about theOld English runic corpus itself. At present, the corpus of the OE Runes Projectat Eichstätt University consists of 95 items.3 In general, we have included genu-ine inscriptions consisting of more than one rune.4

386 Gaby Waxenberger

Table 1Dover Stone Thornhill

Stone IIRuthwell Cross Great Urswick

Stone

Bugge (1905-1913:118f.; 121)

Bugge transliterates the i-sound represented by the rune § as “ I” incontrast to the “i” of the )ıs-rune.

“i-Lyd”(gIslh8eard)

i-sound(“eateInne”)

palatal spirant(“alme§ttig”)

Dickins(1932:16)

i (“j¥slhêard”)

g “(probably repre-senting the secondelement of thediphthong ei)”(“êate¥nne”)

h (“alme¥ttig”)

h (“toro¥tredæ”)

Derolez(1954:xxi)

i “g, or rather j” h h

Page (1973:48;1999:47).

vowel palatalised g voiceless pala-tal fricative

voiceless velarfricative

Page (1973:48) comments: “This variety of values that led Dickins to thecompromise transliteration ‘¥’” and Page (1973) follows Dickins’ transli-teration.

Schwab(1973:68)

For the whole OE corpus (epigraphical and manuscript material): “eo, e, i,h, ¥ [gO]”

Sanness Johnsen(1974:35)

§ has sometimes been read as a vowel but mostly as a fricative.

Seebold(1991:512)

§ occurs “unregelmäßig” for i and for the voiceless palatal fricative [ç] inNorthumbrian.

Looijenga(1999:83)

§ represents two sounds, [e] or [i:] and the voiceless palatal fricative [ç].For [i(:)] she assumes that the yew rune was “designed to represent acombination of a vowel, i, and a semi-vowel j. (… ) One may havewanted at a later stage to merge i and j into one rune, because it soundedmore like a monophthong than a diphthong (…). Thus, § rendered aglide, īj or jī. Both graphically and phonologically, it appears that §combined the sounds j and i( ı)). A little later perhaps, § could have beenand was used to denote just [i] and [i:].”

5 Pape (2000:23;33) comments: “Die erhoffte eindeutige Klärung über das Alter diesesRahmens konnte mit Hilfe naturwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen nicht erbracht werden”and after comparing the mounts on the casket with the metal frame, Pape arrives at the con-clusion that the latter might have been produced in the 19th century.

6 In earlier approaches the dating of the London Thames scramasax varied from as early as400–500A.D. [Stephens 1884:111], c. 550–c. 600 [Nerman 1959:289] to around 700 [Harder1938:146; Krause & Jankuhn 1966:11], until the 9th century [Elliott 1959:79], whereas morerecent approaches agree on a later date ranging from (the end of) the 9th century. [Wilson1964:38;146; Page 1973:115; Elliott 1989:43], the 9th–10th cent. [Haith 1984:101; Mitchell1994:ThS1] or as late as the 10th century [Page 1999:29]. For the runes themselves, Seebold(1991:511) considers “eine Zeit nicht allzulang nach 700 am wahrscheinlichsten”. Thisperiod, however, seems too early according to my catalogue of rune forms [see Waxenberger(2000); Waxenberger (forthcoming)].

387The yew -rune and the runes ¥, G, h and i in the Old English Corpus

The yew-rune

As can be seen in table 2 below, the yew-rune c, § occurs nine times on ninedifferent objects in the OE epigraphical corpus, not counting the four attestedforms on the metal frame of the Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket. This casket isproblematic in several respects, as can be seen from the papers given at thesymposium in Braunschweig (at the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum), March1999. Suffice it to say that the casket itself is dated to the (early) 9th century (c.800), whereas the metal frame was probably produced in the 19th century.5

The yew-rune occurred between the 5th and the 9th or 10th centuries,6 as canbe seen in table 2 below, although I would like to stress the fact that the datesshould not be taken as absolute for they vary to some extent, for instance thedates given for the Ruthwell Cross (7th to the late 8th or even 9th centuries). Forthe various suggestions as far as the dating of the Gandersheim Casket is con-cerned see Waxenberger (1999:216–217) and Marth (2000).

The table shows that the yew rune was in use for a time-span of at least fourcenturies. Geographically the yew-rune is fairly equally distributed over the run-ic areas, which cover the dialect areas of Northumbria, Mercia and Kent (Fig. 1).


Fig. 1. Distribution of the yew-rune in the Old English corpus.

7 The Hunstanton Brooch is not included because it is not clear if the characters on the broochare runes or rune-like characters. If they are runes there is no agreement on the question asto which runes they represent (s or yew runes): see for example Page (1987:188; 1999:93),Hines (1990:449f.) and Schwab (1998:391).


Table 2Attested forms of the yew rune §, c in chronological order. (The special position of theGandersheim/Brunswick Casket within the OE corpus is indicated by thicker frame-lines).

OBJECT INSCRIPTION DATE OF OBJECT OR RUNES

Caistor-by-NorwichAstragalus

rA§hAn c. 425–475

Loveden Hill Urn s§þAb"Ad 5th or 6th cent.

Great Urswick Stone toro§tredæ 750–850

Thornhill Stone II äte§nne 750–850

Ruthwell Cross alme§ttig 8th cent.

Brandon Pin fuþorchwhniÃcpXs Late 8th–early 9th cent.

London Thames FittingMount

[-] * sb8erædht§bcai *8er)ha}dæbs

(Late) 8th–9th cent.

London Thames Scramasax fuþorcGwhni+cpXstbeñdlmœaæyä

9th–10th cent.

Dover Stone + ºh§slhärd 9th or early 10th cent.

Metal frame of theGandersheim/BrunswickCasket (4x)

Long Sides: h§ræ (2x)Short Sides: "hæl§h (2x)

Frame: probably 19th cent.Casket: probably 9th cent.(c. 800)

The material of the runic corpus

The material of the runic corpus falls into four categories7 when we consider thesounds represented by the yew rune §, c. We have seven attested forms in total:four of which, however, appear on the problematic Gandersheim/Brunswick

8 Page (1999:18) modifies this statement in as much as “it was at first assumed that the in-scription was North Germanic in inspiration. This theory was convincing until thereemerged, in England, several other inscriptions with single-barred h.” For the single-barredh see Waxenberger (2000:94;98).

9 The form raïhan seems archaic to Looijenga (1996:115f.) because the Gmc. diphthong ai > a)in OE and in North-Gmc. before r, h “should have rendered *ra)(h)an.” On the grounds thatOE lost /ai/ at an early stage and that the astragalus (4th cent. according to the urn) wasfound in a cemetery with clear signs of Scandinavian influence Looijenga states: “Theastragalus could therefore have belonged to any Scandinavian” and comes to the conclusionthat “there are no runological or linguistic reasons to take the astragalus for the bearer of theoldest OE runic inscription” and suggests its removal from the OE runic corpus.

10 Eichner (1990:319) is not certain whether or not the language represents a direct predecessorof what can be found later in OE dialects. He holds the view that a version of North-Germanic could possibly be assumed, which was not continued in England and thereforedied out.

11 Page (1968:133) translates ‘(the property) of *Raiho’ and regards raihan as a PrON obliqueform. Bammesberger (1991:403; 1994:13) reads ‘(this is) Raiha’s (piece)’ (< raih-an-az).On the assumption that the ankle-bone was a “playing piece”, Bammesberger (1991:403)thinks it possible that it was a genitive form that was inscribed.

12 Page (1968:132f.) derives ‘scratcher, cutter’ (< *rei- ‘scratch, cut’) or ‘colourer’ (< *rei-

‘dappled, coloured’, “which might mean ‘rune-master’ and so be appropriate for cutting inrunes”.

13 Page links “raihan to Gmc. *raiho” whence OE ra)ha, ra) , ‘roe-deer’ and finds it a “curiouscoincidence” that the Caistor astragalus belongs to a roe-deer.

14 For Seebold the sound value is “i before h” – and for him this is clearly due to the influenceof the rune name.


Casket. The remaining forms belong to the Caistor-by-Norwich Astragalus, theLoveden Hill Urn and the Dover Stone. The Caistor ankle-bone inscription isalso problematic with respect to its find-spot, a cemetery with signs ofScandinavian influence [Page 1968:130, 1973a:115, 1995a:139; Looijenga1996:116], its language (“North Germanic in inspiration” [Page 1973:19],8 OldNorse, Old English [see Looijenga 1996:115f.]9 or possibly a version of North-Germanic which was not continued in England [Eichner 1990:319]),10 the inter-pretation of the inscription and last but not least the yew-rune itself.

The Caistor inscription has been looked upon as a personal name,11 a nomenagentis12 or an animal name.13 Most scholars, however, agree on the sound-valuei [Page 1968:132; Odenstedt 1990:76, 1991:373; Seebold 1991:46914]. On the

15 For further details see Eichner (1990:319 footnote.31).16 Wrenn’s (1962:30) reasons for his rendering are the name of this rune, hÆgel, in MS. St.

John’s College, Oxford, 17 (“probably of the earliest eleventh century”) and its renderingas h in the Ruthwell Cross and the Great Urswick inscriptions and as i on the Dover Stoneand the Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket. Wrenn concludes: “One might, therefore, possiblywish to transliterate it as either h or i: but in the absence of any recognition of the word orwords of the inscription, and since the date is so very early”, he prefers to take it as hw.

17 Wrenn (1962:310f.) also takes the “single magic word “rah(w)han” (Prim. OE equivalentof ON regin in the sense of divinely established magical powers)” as an “attractive con-jecture” into consideration.

18 Page (1973:184) argues: “Its lower stroke is out of place and runs back perilously close tos, and may be a rune master’s error.”


assumption that the diphthong ai had been monophthongized by around 400 orat least was on the way to it, Bammesberger (1991:402) holds the view that itis “actually /ra)han/” that “the inscription wants to render.” In Eichner’s andWrenn’s approaches the sound values of runes 2, A, and 5, A, play an importantpart.

Eichner (1990:319) lists three possibilities: 1. North-Gmc. “/rai=han/” later“*ra)ha”; 2. “frühengl. /rÆi=hcn/” with three possible values (a, Æ, c) for thesecond and the fifth rune, and 3. “frühengl. /rÆi=hÆn/” already showing Æ for theold a-rune but with “analogischer Lautung” of the word ending (following adifferent case “*rÆi=hÆ?”).15

Regarding hw, h and i16 as possibilities, Wrenn (1962:308) offers rÆh-

hÆn/rahhan; rÆihan/raihan; rÆh(w)-han/rah(w)-han.17 According to Page(1968:131f.), Wrenn’s suggestions 5 and 6 cannot be accepted.

The value i [Odenstedt 1990:76] and more specifically [i:] [Odenstedt1991:373] as well as the transliterations i [Elliott 1989:50], ï [Nedoma 1991–1993:115; Mitchell 1994:LovI2; Looijenga 1997:166; Parsons 1999:55], v [Page1999:179] and § [Page 1973:184; Bammesberger 1991a:128, 1994:16] havebeen assigned to rune 2 of the Loveden Hill Urn inscription.

But other possibilities have been discussed as well: For Page (1973:184) andMitchell (1994:LovI2) rune 2 could also be l,18 with Mitchell (1994:LovI2) evenconsidering the possibility of a bindrune (al. Generally, the sequence á§êAb"ADof the Loveden Hill Urn inscription is seen as a personal name [Bammesberger

19 Bammesberger (1991a:128) states “that the precise shape of the name can hardly be deter-mined.”

20 Parsons stresses the fact, that it is not known “where the inscription stands in relation to anumber of linguistic changes”; therefore he considers “S)ıþabad or Sı)þÆbÆd, or even (...) arather more archaic Sinþabad” as the forms “underlying the inscribed name”.

21 Elliott (1959:83; 1989:108) sees rune 2 as “presumably the high front vowel between e andi generally denoted by this rune already in common Germanic usage”.

22 See also table 1. 23 They analyse the sound value of the rune as “mit einiger Sicherheit als der eines i-Lautes”.24 See Waxenberger (1999:224–229) for an overview of the various readings.25 Harder (1932:227) defines it as the consonant [¡].


1991a:12819]: either in its masc. form siþabad/siþabld/siþæbæd/siþæbld[siþabld suggests Sīþabald “with omission of the vowel before ld”: Page1968:134], SīþÆbad [< *sinþabaðu = OHG Sendebad: Odenstedt 1980:29;1990:76; 1991:373], SīþÆ-bad [Gmc. *-baduz: Nedoma 1991–1993:121],siþæbld SīþÆb(a)ld [Looijenga 1997:166: “-bald, OE beald ‘bold’, nsm. a-stem”], sïþabad [< Gmc. *sinþaz, ‘journey’, and Gmc. *baðwa-, ‘battle’: Par-sons 1999:55f.]20 or in its feminine variation siþæbæd [Bammesberger 1994:17;Looijenga 1997:166: “nsf. w)o-stem” consisting of “OE (ge)sīđ ‘companion’ andbæd beadu f. ‘battle, war’”].

In the case of the Dover Stone there has been a consensus that rune 2represents the high front vowel, which is transliterated either as i [Derolez1954:xxi; Schwab 1973:76; Bruggink 1987:51; Odenstedt 1990:76f.; Elliott1959:83, 1989:10821], I [Bugge 1905–1913:119],22 ï [Sanness Johnsen 1974:35;Mitchell 1994:DS2; Krause & Jankuhn 1966:No13323], § [Page 1973:48;Flowers 1999:15] or v [Page 1999:47] and the inscription is regarded as themasc. personal name “Gislheard” [Page 1973:141f.; Bruggink 1987:51; Elliott1989:108; Flowers 1999:15].

Many differing interpretations have been offered for the problematic inscrip-tion on the Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket24 but with one exception25 they allfavour a high front vowel, mostly i, for the long and the short sides [Bugge1905–1913:119: I; von Grienberger 1909:432; Holthausen 1910:333; Krause &Jankuhn 1966:No133; Schwab 1973:75; Mitchell 1994:Brunsw.3; Looijenga &Vennemann 2000:116: ï; Page 1991:178; 1998:424: v].

26 Sweet (1885:125 and footnote 1) transliterates “alme.ttig” and comments on the yew runethat it has “the shape of the old eu-rune, which is impossible here, although Stephens readsalmeyottig; we should expect almecttig or almehttig, and it is possible that the latter is theactual reading: h would easily become eu by the wearing away of some of its strokes.”Wimmer (1887:134) comments on the sound value of the yew rune in alme§ttig: “wo esalso am ehesten die bedeutung h zu haben scheint”.

27 Odenstedt dates the Ruthwell Cross to “c. 650–750". See also table 2.28 According to Seebold (1991:469) the yew-rune denotes a tectal spirant in Northhumbrian.


As can be inferred from table 2.1 the yew rune denoting a high front vowelpresumably /i(:)/ is attested from the 5th to the 9th or early 10th centuries. Fromthe inscriptions discussed here the conclusion can be drawn that the yew rune isnot only problematic with respect to its sound value but it is also found inproblematic texts with respect to their meanings and language.

Table 2.1The yew rune represents a (high front) vowel, probably i

Vowel: 3x + [4x on the Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket]

Caistor-by-NorwichAstragalus

rA§hAn c. 425–475

Loveden Hill Urn s§þAb"Ad 5th or 6th cent.

Dover Stone + ºh§slh8eard 9th or early 10th cent.

Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket: (4x)

Long Sides: h§ræ (2x)Short Sides: "hæl§h (2x)

Frame: probably 19th cent.Casket: probably 9th cent. (c. 800).

The two attested forms reflecting a consonant in the OE runes corpus (epi-graphical material) are found on the Ruthwell Cross and the Great UrswickStone. This consonant has been categorized as a palatal spirant26 for the Ruth-well Cross [Bugge 1905–1913:119; Elliott 1959:88, 1989:46,114; Page1973:48; Odenstedt 1990:7627] and as a velar spirant [Page 1973:48; Elliott1989:46] for the Great Urswick inscription.28


Table 2.2The yew rune represents a consonant

Consonant: 2x

Ruthwell Cross alme§ttig 8th cent.

Great UrswickStone

toro§tredæ____

+tunwinisetææftertoro§tredæbekunæfterhisbæurnægebidæsþe rs au læ“+Tunwini set up a monument after Torhtred his son. Prayfor his soul”. [Page (1973:145) takes bæurnæ “as a form ofbearn, ‘son’, though beorn, ‘chief, prince’, is also possible”]

750–850

As a result, I feel it is safe to say that the yew rune was used for both thevoiceless palatal and the voiceless velar fricative in the 8th and 9th centuries.

It should be pointed out that the name Torhtred [see Searle 1897:457.; MfC

s.v.] is also attested in the OE non-runic corpus.More or less contemporary with the inscriptions in table 2.2 are two further

problematic texts, the Thornhill Stone II and the London Thames FittingMount since their meanings are not very clear and, as a consequence, thesound values of the yew runes are difficult to determine as well.

The yew rune of the Thornhill Stone II inscription is seen as “(i?)” byChadwick (1901:82) who renders the name as “Eate(i?)nne” = “Eatthegn”.Bugge (1905–1913:121) reads the rune as I and he interprets eateInne as apossible dative (cf. “gyden dat. gydenne”) of a woman’s name. Bugge alsowonders if “eat-eInne” should be seen as a compound consisting of eat-,possibly belonging to “Éata”, and eInne related to “eh ‘Hest’”.

29 Page (1962:904;1995:100) sees in “ 9eate§nne” for Ēadthegne consonant shortening after along diphthong. He follows Campbell (1959:§§480.3;481.3;458) who suggests: d + þ > t +þ : tþ > tt: tt occasionally simplified to t after a stressed vowel.

30 The passage “or a carelessly carved G influenced by the preceding n-rune” was added inElliott’s second edition (1989).


Table 2.3The sound value of the yew rune is not clear

Sound value: uncertain 2x

Thornhill Stone II 8eate§nne_______+8eadred sete æfte 8eate§nne“Eadred set up (this memorial) after 8eate§nne”. [Mytransliteration follows Page (1973:144) but leaves § in8eate§nne]

750–850

London ThamesFitting Mount

[-]*sb8erædht§bcai*8er)ha}dæbs (Late) 8th–9th cent.

According to Dickins (1932:16) § (“êate§nne”) was used for “g (probablyrepresenting the second element of the diphthong ei)”. Derolez (1954:xxi)assigns the sound value “g, or rather j” to the yew rune of the Thornhill StoneII inscription.

For Page (1973:144) “there is no reason to doubt the identification withEadþegn(e)”29 in the Thornhill II inscription although he considers the use of theyew rune to render “the palatal g, almost vocalic, in the second element” as“notable and unexampled.” Elliott (1959:88; 1989:114) admits that neither thehigh front vowel of table 2.1 nor the voiceless spirant [ç] “fits”: if the nameintended was Eata, it should have appeared as Eatan since it represents an objectin the text (see table 2.3). A possible solution for Elliott would be to assume thatthe name Eatinge, the ‘son of Eata’ was intended. In that case, he thinks that,“the second n is either simply an error for g”,30 or else “the rune h was originallycarved here with the value g” but is now no longer visible as such; this, how-

31 Sanness Johnsen (1974:36) quotes Elliott (1959:88), who erroneously ascribes theinterpretation Eadþegne to Dickins instead of to Chadwick and Page. See also Elliott’s(1989:114) corrections in his second edition.

32 MfC (1985:E6.214) has “eateinne”. 33 Page (1964:78f.) takes the inscription as possibly incomplete owing to the fact that the

“left-hand edge of the mount is broken away”.


ever, “presupposes that the carver used the two runes n and g instead of thenormal ing-rune Å [õ] = ng.” The insertion of the rune E e after the t-rune is ex-plained as “a mechanical error prompted by the sequence tE te in the line im-mediately above” by Elliott.

Although favouring Dickins’ transliteration êate§nne (Ēadþegne31), San-ness Johnsen (1974:35f.) regards the rune § as a velar spirant. Schwab reads“êateinne”,32 which is to be interpreted as “Eateinge” (1973:78).

In the OE non-runic corpus both Ēata (see Searle 1897:215; MfC s.v.) andĒating (see Searle 1897:216; MfC s.v.) as well as Ēadthegn (see Searle1897:189) are attested within the Old English non-runic corpus.

The runes of the London Thames Fitting Mount make “no obvious sense”according to Page (1973:186; 1999:182)33 but Page (1964:78f.) does not thinkit “coincidental” that the sequence sb9erædh (R1-R7) is repeated in the last eightrunes 8er)ha}dæbs (R14/15-R21) in a different order “which suggests deliberateinterchange of letters”. Therefore Page considers it “likely” that there is ananagram involving these eight runes or even the whole group and he alsoconsiders the possibility of an amuletic text based on alphabet magic [Page1964:79]. Bugge (1905–1913:120) regards the yew rune as I but his reading ofthe inscription is not shared by modern runologists.

Table 2.4The yew rune as part of a fuþorc

Rune appears in a fuþorc: 2x

Brandon Pin fuþorchwhniÃcpXs Late 8th–early 9th cent.

London ThamesScramasax

fuþorcGwhni+cpXstbeñdlmœa æy8ea 9th–10th cent.

34 Odenstedt (1990:76f.) has already pointed out that after “750 it can also represent a velarspirant and a palatalized g (...). These secondary sound values are clearly English inno-vations.”

35 /j/ (< Gmc. /j/) occurred in OE only at the end of a word or syllable after a complex vowel[Sievers & Brunner 1965:§175f.; Lutz 1991:154].

36 See Sievers & Brunner (1965:§175) for more detailed information. 37 The following inscriptions or parts of them are either badly weathered or worn so that they

were not taken into account: Bingley Font, River Yare/Keswick Runic Disc, Gargano/MonteS. Angelo Inscription B; Falstone Hogback and the sequence [.]dæGisGæf[.] on theRuthwell Cross (Upper East Border: panel E3) because its meaning is not clear.


My last group of attested yew runes can be taken under the heading fuþorcs.They represent a relatively late group (8th to 10th century) as can be seen fromtable 2.4. Whereas there is only a part of the fuþorc on the Brandon Pin, theLondon Thames Scramasax shows a complete fuþorc but both have the yew runein the thirteenth place.

Having discussed these four categories, I think it is safe to say that i was theoriginal sound value in the OE corpus and secondly, that the vowel andconsonant qualities of the yew-rune existed side by side at least from the 8thuntil the 9th or 10th centuries.34

Before drawing any further conclusions, I think it necessary to look at thegraphemes <¥>, <h> and in the OE non-runic material and compare themwith the corresponding runes (gyfu, hÆgel and īs).

Comparison of the graphemes <¥>, <h>, in the OE non-runicmaterial with the corresponding gyfu, hægel and īs runes

– <¥> denotes the palatal semi-vowel /j/ (< Gmc. /j/),35 the voiced plosive /g/,the voiced palatal [j] and velar [p] fricatives.36 In the OE runes corpus(epigraphical material) there are at least 6437 attested forms for the gyfu rune.It is used for the voiced plosive /g/ (e.g. god: Whitby comb; good: MortainCasket; greut: Franks Casket), the voiced palatal fricative [j] (e.g.gewarahtæ: Mortain Casket; gibidæþ: Lancaster Cross) and the voiced

38 The following objects are not included because the runes are not (clearly) visible: BingleyFont, Falstone Hogback, Wakerley Brooch.

39 See also Sievers & Brunner (1965:§212).40 In Gmc. words is rare and if used at all, it appears almost exclusively in front of u/ū as

in iū, iun¥ [Sievers & Brunner 1965:§175.1]. 41 ma[r][i][a] on the Ruthwell Cross has not been taken into account.42 I would like to thank Prof. R.I. Page for informing me about a new find (Strap-end from

Northamptonshire: 8th cent.) showing the sequence ¿ht. Page (2001:11) takes it as part ofc and suggests the “common element -berht/-briht, or the monothematic Berht/Briht”, aspossible readings. The new find is of interest in as much as the inscription reveals another


velar fricative [p] (e.g. [...]"olburg: Wardley Plate). So it seems that the useof the gyfu rune corresponds with the non-runic character <¥>.

– <h> represents the breathing [h] as well as the voiceless palatal and velarfricatives ([ç], [¡]). In the runic corpus the h (at least 48x38) is used for thebreathing and for the voiceless velar and palatal fricatives.

– is used for the vowel /i(:)/ and also for the voiced palatal fricative [j]normally spelt <¥> (iarwan beside ¥earwan).39 In initial position isalmost exclusively used in loans: Iūdēas, Iōhannes.40 There are at least 13941

attested forms for the īs rune in the OE epigraphical corpus. With onepossible exception (St Cuthbert’s Coffin: [j] in [.]ohann[.]s), there are nohints of any irregularities. The īs rune, too, is in concord with its non-runiccounterpart . Where does the yew rune come in?

The consonant clusters: voiceless palatal/velar fricative [ç]/[¡] + t

Since the yew rune occurs in the cluster voiceless palatal fricative + t [Schwab1973:70], I have checked the material in the OE epigraphical corpus in orderto obtain more information on both the cluster in question and possible textinternal distributional patterns of other runes such as the gyfu- and gār-runeson the one hand and the cēn- and calc-runes on the other.

There are no further examples of the yew rune before -t in the corpus butthere are cases where the voiceless palatal spirant [ç] and its velar counterpart[¡] are expressed by h.42

example of the yew rune (“a vowel in the neighbourhood of [i(:)]” [Page 2001:11]) followedby the cluster -ht.


Table 3Attested forms for -ht(-) in final and non-final positions. (I have underlined thesequence ht. The texts of inscriptions no. 1–4 are presented en bloc).

OBJECT INSCRIPTION DATE

1. KirkheatonStone

eoh:worohtæh = [¡] (eoh)h = [¡] (worohtæ)

According to Page (1973:31;1999:31f.) the text has no cleardating features and the object’sdecoration is too crude for subtledating analysis. Flowers (1999:23): 8th cent.Tolson Museum: Date about AD875–925

2. London National PortraitGallery Bone

Inscription 1: tatberhtInscription 2: drich = [ç] (tatberht)ñ = ? (dric) [Page (1999a:10)thinks d to represent the rune-name dÆg, therefore we shouldread dÆgric.]

Page (1999a:10): “Excavationrevealed evidence of a semi-ruralcommunity with a group of quarryand waste pits, one of which con-tained domestic materials andartefacts datable to the eighth/ninth century.”

3. Gargano/-Monte S. AngeloGraffiti Inscrip-tion D

Inscription A: wiGfusInscription B: [...] smæGu [...] or[...] sbiæGy [...]Inscription C: herrædInscription D: ±her)eb8er)ehñtG = [j] (wiGfus)A

h = [h] ( ±her)eb8er)ehct; herræd)hñ (hc) = [ç] ( ±her)eb8er)ehct)

Derolez & Schwab (1983:113):“between the late 7th and the mid-dle of the 9th century.”Mitchell (1994:GG1): c. 750-850

4. MortainCasket

+ Good helpe : æadan þiiosneciismeel gewarahtæG = [g] (good) and [j](gewarahtæ)h = [h] (helpe) and [¡](gewarahtæ)ñ = c (ciismeel)

Page (1973:22; 1999:21): notearlier than the beginning of theseventh century. Mitchell (1994:Mort1): late 8thcentury.

5. ThornhillStone III

+ hilsuiþ: arærde : æft [.] berhtsuiþe * bezunon berGi Gebi)ddaþþær : sauleB

h = [j] in stressed syllable(hilsuiþ)G = [j] unstressed syllable in pre-fix ge-: (Gebi)ddaþ)G = [γ] (bergi)h = [ç] (berhtsuiþe)z = velar k (bezun)

Page (1973:145; 1999:141): 9thcentury.Elliott (1989:115): at the end ofthe 8th or in the first half of the9th century. Mitchell (1994:ThIII1): c. 750-850

6. LondonThames FittingMount

Page (1964:77)sb8erædht§bâai8er8ha)dæbsh = ?§ = ?â = ?

(Late) 8th–9th cent.

A The gyfu rune in Inscription B has not been considered since the meaning of the text is notclear. It is worth noting that wiGfus does not show the tendency observed in early OE whereŸ [j] is vocalized and forms ī (< ī j) if the [i(:)] and [j] belonged to the same syllable; but thereare many forms where [j] did not belong to the same syllable as the preceding vowel, andtherefore did neither become vocalized nor did it merge with the preceding vowel. The ī musthave been removed by analogy of such forms [Campbell 1959:§266].B For matters of convenience the inscription is presented without brackets. The state the inscrip-tion is in, is demonstrated below: the raised brackets indicate that the runes cannot be seenclearly whereas the normal brackets in line 4 indicate that only the upper parts of the runes arevisible.

+ (h)(i)lsui(þ) (:) arærde : æ(f)t [.]berhtsuiþ(e) * bek(u)(n)

o(n) be(r)Gi Gebi)dda(þ)

(þ)(æ)(r) (:) (s)(a)(u)(l)(e)

The Old English Runes Corpus reveals 6 clear examples of the sequence -ht(-).There are 4 ambiguous examples (Cramond Ring, Falstone Hogback, LancasterCross, Thornhill Stone I) which can be neglected here because the runes inquestion are no longer visible.

Table 3 includes all 6 forms of -ht(-) and also the distribution of the otherrunes in question (G and also c/k). For reasons of completeness, I have also

43 Page (1994:182) points out that “hereberehct, with its hc rendering of the voiceless fricative,seems to employ a pair of runic graphs in a Roman-type spelling convention”.

44 Several explanations have been brought forward but none is totally convincing. For adiscussion of the following suggestions see Page (1973:166): Mediaeval Latin chrismal(e),‘box for the host’; chrismarium, ‘reliquary’; Mediaeval Latin cimelium, ‘treasure’, OE*cistmÆl.


listed the London Thames Fitting Mount, even though the meaning of itsinscription is not clear.

While the Kirkheaton inscription (no 1) and the London National PortraitGallery Bone (no 2) only reveal evidence for the hÆgel rune representing thevoiceless palatal and velar fricatives, more data is available in the Gargano/Monte S. Angelo Graffiti (no 3) where the gyfu rune is employed to render thevoiced palatal fricative besides h for the breathing [h] and for the voicelesspalatal fricative [ç] in the cluster hct for the sequence -ht.43

The Mortain Casket (no 4) uses h for the voiceless velar fricative ingewarahte but also for the breathing in helpe, the gyfu rune occurs for boththe voiced plosive (good) and the voiced palatal fricative in the prefix ge- ingewarahtæ and a form of the rune cēn ñ is used for the initial sound in thehapax legomenon ciismeel.44

The Thornhill Stone III (no 5) offers the most interesting data: the starrune is used for the voiced palatal fricative [j] in a stressed syllable, whereasthe gyfu rune is limited to the same sound in an unstressed position, the prefixge- of Gebi}ddaþ, and to the voiced velar fricative [p] in berGi. The h is usedfor the voiceless palatal spirant. The calc rune z denotes the voiceless velarplosive k.

When we compare table 3 with the Ruthwell Cross where the yew-rune wasused to express -ht- [çt] in alme§ttig, two other points must be taken intoaccount before any conclusions can be drawn.

First, can we be sure that the yew-rune represents the voiceless palatalfricative here? Since the Old English runic corpus does not reveal any furtherinformation, I have checked the c. 2,000 entries of eall-mihtig, Æl-mihtig in theMfC and found no hint of any deviations. The overwhelming majority show<ht>; the spelling <gt> can be found in some late forms.

45 bu¡a and bi¡ot are therefore not taken into consideration.46 For the explanation of the form see Bammesberger (1994a:141).


Second, I have looked at the distribution of all the other runes in questionin the Ruthwell inscription. Schwab (1973:70) asks if the gyfu rune is used todenote the palatal fricative because it occurs in palatal environments, namelyin clusters such as ge-, gi- and -ig, whereas the new gār-rune ¡ is employedwhen g is followed by a consonant or a velar vowel and therefore Schwabwonders if it could stand for the plosive /g/.

It is assumed that the same principle – palatal v. velar – also dominates thedistribution of c/k sounds. As Page (1973:46) puts it, the Ruthwell Cross rune-master produced “a further refinement ®” in order to render “back k/c followedby a secondary palatal vowel, as in words like cyning.” Unfortunately, thename of this rune is unknown. Schwab states that the new k rune ® is used inpalatal environments, the calc rune ö occurs before consonants and velarvowels and a form of cēn ñ is limited to final position. According to Page(1973:48) the new k rune ® stands “for a back consonant preceding a frontvowel.” King (1986:60) holds the view that ® is used before secondary frontvowels, that is -y < -u by means of i-umlaut ($®y$niñc).

The distributional pattern of the runes in the Ruthwell Crossinscription: gyfu, gār, cēn, calc, the new rune ® and hægel

Even though the text on the Ruthwell Cross is damaged, the following distri-butional pattern can be observed on the basis of what is still visible today:45

– The gyfu-rune G is used for the voiced palatal fricative [j] in the followingpositions: In the prefix gi- in the following instances: Gi"drœ[.]d (SW 26.1-28.1); Gisti¡a (NE 18.1-20.3); Giwundad (NW 6.2-9.3); Gistoddu[.](gistoddun) (NW 16.3-19.1).

– The gyfu-rune G is also used for [j] in […]Geredæ (ondgeredÆ46) (NE 1.1-2.2), for the suffix -iŸ in alme§ttiG (NE 6.2-10.1), $mo"diG (NE 21.1-22.2),

47 According to Campbell (1959:§703note1) “-et appears not to be for older -it, because thereis no mutation in uncet; it is perhaps transferred from an accented nom. *wet, beside un-accented wit.” On the assumption that unc and (for the second person) inc were inherited andused for both Dat. and Acc., then the differentiated Acc. forms would be secondary ac-cording to Bammesberger (1994a:145); -et (possibly from the Nom., which originally was*wet) was then adopted in the Acc. The -e- in u2ñ"ket would then be “quite regular” accor-ding to Bammesberger.


limwœriGnæ (NW 14.1-16.2) and in aleGdun (NW 10.1-12.1), the 3.plural preterite of the weak verb ālecgan ‘lay down’. (Dream of the Roodin the Vercelli Book: ālēdon (Swanton 1996)).

– The gār rune ¡ is used for the voiced plosive [g] in æt¡ad[..] (Ætgadre)(SE 21.3-23.2); ¡od (NE 5.1-6.1); ¡al¡u (NE 16.1-18.1); and the samerune is consistently used for the voiced velar fricative [p] in s[.][.]¡u[.](sorgum) (SW 24.1-25.3); h[.]a¡ (hnāg) (SW 28.2-29.2); ¡al¡u (NE16.1-18.1); Gisti¡a (NE 18.2-20.3).

Regarding /g/, the Ruthwell Cross seems to distinguish carefully between velarand palatal environments [see also Ball 1991:117].

Taking the c/k sounds into consideration it is safe to say that the calc runeis used before consonants [.]zris[.] (NW 1.1-1.6); zwomu (SW 12.1-13.2)and the cēn rune ñ denotes the affricate /t•/ iñ (SE 3.1-3.2; SE 13.3-13.4; SE23.3-23.4; SW 17.1-17.2; SW 22.1-22.2); riiñnæ (SE 3.3-5.1); [..]$ñæs (licÆs)(NW 21.3-22.3) whereas the place of the new rune ® is before the secondarypalatal vowel $®y$niññ (SE 5.2-7.1) and for the velar k in u2ñ$®et47 (SE 18.2-19.3). With the exception of the last rune ñ in $®y$niññ (SE 5.2-7.1), the c/ksounds, too, seem to follow the same distributional patterns as have alreadybeen observed in the case of /g/.

After having checked the g and c/k sounds, it is important to look at thedistributional pattern for h. It can be said, that h was generally used for thebreathing [h]: hinæ (NE 3.1-4.2); $he (NE 11.2-12.1); h$9eafunæs (SE 7.2-9.2);h!lafard (SE 9.3-11.3); $hælda (SE 12.1-13.2); hweþræ (SW 4.1-6.2); h[.]a¡(hna)g) (SW 28.1-29.3); hiæ (NW 12.2-12.4); $hinæ (NW 13.1-13.4); $h"im (NW19.2-19.4).

48 Page (1973:48) comments on these language-conscious rune-masters: “they are exclusivelyin north-west England” and they “developed the new symbols ‘k’ and ‘g’ for the back conso-nants, restricting ‘c’ and ‘g’ to the fronted ones. ‘k’ occurs as far south and east as Thornhilland Bramham Moor in the West Riding of Yorkshire, ‘g’ only at Bewcastle and Ruthwellin the very north-west, while the more subtle variant ‘k’ [=®] (…) appears only at Ruth-well.” Page (1973:48 footnote 7) stresses the fact “that all our evidence for ‘k’ comes froma single stone, Ruthwell, which may be untypical.”


In order to render the voiceless palatal fricative in alme§ttiG, the rune-master chose the only other possibility the fuþorc had to offer: the yew rune.Keeping in mind that the rune-master chose his characters very carefully, I donot think it very likely that the yew rune is employed to make the inscriptionlook archaic, as Wrenn (1943:21) suggests.

Compared to the Franks Casket – where the gyfu rune G is used indiscrimi-nately in palatal and velar environments (see below) and furthermore inpositions where it is not expected (unneG, feGtaþ), the Ruthwell Cross givestestimony of a phonetically conscious attempt to present language as preciselyas possible.48

I have attempted to show the complexity of the situation we have to dealwith when approaching the yew rune in the Old English runic corpus. For theearly inscriptions we can neither be certain that they are written in Old English(or its direct predecessor) nor can we be sure that we understand themcompletely.

The star rune h

Apart from the problematic Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket, where the runein question occurs four times, the star rune is very thin on the ground.Moreover, it is attested relatively late (only from the 8th until the 9th or early10th centuries).

49 Interestingly, the fuþorcs differ in their shapes of c and j.50 For the transliteration of the Thornhill Stone III below: In line 4 only the upper parts of the

runes are visible, therefore they are in regular brackets. The runes are put in raised bracketswhen they are worn.


Table 4The star rune h: 3x + [4x on the Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket]

OBJECT INSCRIPTION DATE OF OBJECTAND/OR RUNES

Brandon Pin fuþorchwhniÃcpXs Late 8th to early 9th cent.

Thornhill III + (h)(i)lsui(þ) 9th cent.

Dover Stone + ºh§slh8eard 9th or early 10th cent.

Gandersheim/-Brunswick Casket

Long Sides: -sih- (2x)Short Sides: $hæl§h (2x)

Frame: probably 19th cent.Casket: probably 9th cent.(c. 800)

The star rune is found in the incomplete fuþorc on the Brandon Pin and, com-pared with the more or less contemporary London Thames Scramasax, it holdsthe position of the gyfu rune (= no 7).49

von Grienberger (1900:295) considers the star rune h as a “graphischestilisierung” of the normal gyfu rune G but von Grienberger and Schwab(1973:76) disagree with Viëtor (1895:22 and footnote 1) and Fowler inStephens (1884:416), who believe it to be a bindrune of i and G. Elliott(1959:82, 1989:108) assigns the sound value j to it; in his opinion the rune is“probably best explained as a formal variant of the j rune.”

On the Thornhill Stone III50 and on the Dover Stone the star rune is usedfor “palatal g followed by stressed i” according to Page (1973:141f.).

Schwab (1973:76) assumes that the ornamental character of h might havefavoured its use in names (Fig. 2). As Schwab (1973:76) points out, the gyfurune is used in Thornhill, too. It represents the voiced palatal spirant [j] in theunstressed syllable (prefix) ge- in Gebi}dda(þ) and the voiced velar counterpartin be(r)Gi.


+ (h)(i)lsui(þ) (:) arærde : æ(f)t [.]

berhtsuiþ(e) * bek(u)(n)

o(n) be(r)Gi Gebi)dda(þ)

(þ)(æ)(r) (:) (s)(a)(u)(l)(e)

Fig. 2. Thornhill Stone III. Photo: author.

51 It occurs 43x in other positions and in 9 cases the gyfu rune can be ignored for our purposeshere because it occurs either in inscriptions which have not yet been deciphered or infuþorcs.

52 Gibœtæ (Caistor-by-Norwich Brooch); Gecaþ (Derby(shire) Bone Plate); Gebidæs (GreatUrswick Stone); Gibroþær (Franks Casket); Giswom (Franks Casket); Gibidæþ (LancasterCross); Gewarahtæ (Mortain Casket); Gi"drœfid (Ruthwell Cross); Gisti¡a (RuthwellCross); Gistoddu[.] (Ruthwell Cross); Giwundad (Ruthwell Cross); Gebi)dda2þ (ThornhillStone III).


The Thornhill III Stone and the Dover Stone have certain features in common:they are approximately contemporary, they are both name-stones and show thestar rune h in the sequence [ji-] of a stressed syllable. In the OE runes corpusthe gyfu rune G occurs 12x51 in the prefix gi-, ge-.52 As a conclusion one cansay, that the star rune is never used in an unstressed syllable such as the prefixgi-, ge-.

Although two new and very interesting readings of the Gandersheim/-Brunswick inscription have been presented by Seebold (2000:105–109) andLooijenga & Vennemann (2000:111–120), the discussion is still controversial.But one thing should be pointed out here: the ornamental character of the starrune has repeatedly been emphasized [Schwab 1973; Seebold 1990:410; Page1991:178, 1998:424; Bammesberger 2000:311] and its position, in the middleof all four sides is, indeed, eye-catching. A “chrism or form of the sacredmonogram, perhaps marking text division” is suggested by Page (1998:424).

Conclusion

Keeping this in mind, it could be argued that a Christian symbol was intendedon the Dover and Thornhill grave stones, too. It could further be argued thatthe Gandersheim/Brunswick Casket has been looked upon as an ecclesiastical(be it as a reliquary or a box for holy oils) rather than a profane object.

53 Page (1973:144f) comments: “this type of commemorative formula is expanded, with a re-quest added for prayers for the soul of the dead. Complete examples are on the Great Urs-wick and Thornhill III stones.” Naumann (1998:705) also comments on these stones: “Es istaufschlußreich zu sehen, wie diese (...) angelsächsischen Zeugnisse sowohl metrisch-stilistisch wie nach der inhaltlichen Seite gestaltet sind.”

54 von Grienberger (1900:297), Whitbread (1948:156), Schwab (1973:76), Page (1973:153),Robinson & Stanley (1991:28) and Naumann (1998:705) label the text as a metrical inscrip-tion.

55 See also Schwab (1973:76): “Dass Verse beabsichtigt waren, hat bereits von Grienbergergesehen; sie lesen sich jedoch auch ohne Stab in der ersten Hebung.”:

Gílsuiþ arÆ1 rde Æfter Bérhtsuìþebékun on bérgi gebíddaþ þÆr saùle

56 Page (1973:60) comments on the inscription presented in the way above: we have stoppedthinking of Great Urswick as a runic text. It has become part of the Anglo-Saxon poeticcorpus.”


The genre of the Thornhill Stone III deserves attention in this context aswell, in as much as it differs from the ‘regular’ grave stone memorialinscription,53 for it is written in alliterative lines.54

von Grienberger (1900:297) presents the inscription as follows:55

Gílsuiþ arÆ1 rde Æfter Bérhtsuíþebékun on bérgi gebíddaþ þÆr sáule

The Great Urswick inscription and – to a certain extent also the other Thornhillstones must be mentioned here, too.

According to Page (1973:59f.)56 and Naumann (1998:705) the GreatUrswick text can be read as follows:

Tunwini settÆ Æfter TorhtredÆ.becun Æfter his bÆurnÆ: gebiddÆs þer saulÆ.

It seems to me that texts such as the Ruthwell Cross and the Thornhill StoneIII do not only reflect a sophisticated literary standard but also make use of allthe possibilities offered by the runic script. May this be owing to the wish torender the text in a phonetically accurate manner as is the case on the Ruthwell


Cross, or may it be owing to the ornamental character of the star rune, whichfits a grave-stone inscription so well.

It has been my aim to shed more light on the rarely found yew- and star

runes. Owing to the scarcity of the runic material, it was necessary to takeother criteria into account. It seemed legitimate to me to investigate theproblem in a wider context, this meant looking at general distributionalpatterns within the OE runic corpus (epigraphical material), particularly thecluster -ht. This also involved looking for internal evidence as to why the yewrune is used instead of, for example, h. In order to avoid too limited aperspective, it was advisable to consult the non-runic material as well, as in thecase of ealmihtig in order not to miss any parallels or otherwise unconventio-nal spellings.

The dangers and pitfalls of such an analysis lie mainly in the corpus itself:apart from insufficient linguistic evidence, the exact dating of both the objectsand the inscriptions is not always possible and this in turn may have an impacton the result of such a study. Uncertain readings, such as parts of theinscription on the Ruthwell Cross, make precise statements difficult.


Bibliography

Ball, C. (1991), “Inconsistencies in the Main Runic Inscription on the Ruthwell Cross”, ed. A.Bammesberger, Old English Runes and their Continental Background, Anglistische For-schungen 217, Heidelberg, 107–123.

Bammesberger, A. (1991), “Ingvaeonic Sound Changes and the Anglo-Frisian Runes”, ed. A.Bammesberger, Old English Runes and their Continental Background, Anglistische For-schungen, 217, Heidelberg, 389–401.

— (1991a), “Three Old English Runic Inscriptions: (1) The Lovedon Hill Urn; (2) The Over-church Stone; (3) The Derbyshire Bone Piece”, ed. A. Bammesberger, Old English Runesand their Continental Background, Anglistische Forschungen 217, Heidelberg, 125–136.

— (1994), “The Development of the Runic Script and its Relationship to GermanicPhonological History”, eds. T. Swan et. al., Language Change and Language Structure:Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective, Trends in Linguistics: Studiesand Monographs 73, Berlin; New York, 1–25.

— (1994a), “Notes on Medial and Final Vowels in the Ruthwell Cross Runic Inscription”, ed.J.E. Knirk, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscrip-tions, Grindaheim, Norway, 8–12 August 1990, Runrön 9, Uppsala, 139–148.

— (2000), “Das Gandersheimer Runenkästchen. Internationales Kolloquium. Braunschweig,24.–26. März 1999, herausgegeben von Regine Marth. Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-MuseumBraunschweig, Kunstmuseum des Landes Niedersachsen, Braunschweig 2000, 155 Seiten,Kolloquiumsbände des Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums; Band 1. ISBN 3–922279–49–X”,Historische Sprachforschung 113, 310–311.

Bammesberger, A. & Waxenberger, G., The Old English Runic Inscriptions: The EpigraphicalMaterial (forthcoming).

Bosworth, J. & Toller, T.N. (1882–1898), An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on theManuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth, Edited and Enlarged by T.N. Toller,Oxford.

Brunner, K. (1965), Altenglische Grammatik: Nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik vonEduard Sievers, 3. Aufl., Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte,Hauptreihe 3, Tübingen.

Bruggink, B. (1987), Runes in and from the British Isles, University of Amsterdam,unpublished M.A. thesis.

Bugge, S. (1905–1913), Norges Indskrifter med de Ældre Runer, 1, Christiania.Campbell, A. (1959), Old English Grammar, Oxford.— (1972), Enlarged Addenda and Corrigenda to the Supplement by T.N. Toller to An Anglo-

Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of Joseph Bosworth, Oxford.Chadwick, H.M (1901), “Early Inscriptions in the North of England”, Transactions Yorkshire

Dialect Society 1,3, 79–85.Derolez, R. (1954), Runica Manuscripta, The English Tradition, Rijksuniversiteit te Gent,

Werken Uitgegeven Door de Faculteit van de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, Brugge.


Derolez, R. & Schwab, U. (1983), “The Runic Inscriptions of Monte S. Angelo (Gargano)”,Academiae Analecta 45, 95–130.

Dickins, B. (1932), “A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions”, LeedsStudies in English 1, 15–19.

Eichner, H. (1990), “Die Ausprägung der linguistischen Physiognomie des Englischen anno 400bis anno 600 n. Chr.”, eds. A. Bammesberger & A. Wollmann, Britain 400–600: Languageand History, Anglistische Forschungen 205. Heidelberg.

Elliott, R.W.V. (1959), Runes, An Introduction, Manchester.— (1963), Runes, An Introduction, repr. with Minor Corrections, Manchester.— (1989), Runes, An Introduction, 2nd edition, Manchester.Flowers, St. (1999), A Concise Edition of the Old English Runic Inscriptions, Smithville, Texas.von Grienberger, Th. (1900), “Neue Beiträge zur Runenlehre”, Zeitschrift für deutsche

Philologie 32, 289–304.— (1909), “Drei westgermanische Runeninschriften. 3. Der Braunschweiger Reliquien-

schrein”, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 41, 431–437.Haith, C. (1984), “94. Seax” , eds. J. Backhouse, D.H. Turner & L. Webster, The Golden Age

of Anglo-Saxon Art: 966–1066, London.Harder, H. (1932), “Das Braunschweiger Runenkästchen”, Archiv 162, 227–229.— (1938), “Die Formverschiebung der Runen”, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen

und Literaturen 173, 145–151.Healey, A. diPaolo & Venezky, R.L., eds. (1985), A Microfiche Concordance to Old English

/plus/ The List of Texts and Index of Editions. Repr. with Revisions, Publications of theDictionary of Old English 1, Toronto.

Healey, A. diPaolo, et al., eds. (1986–), Dictionary of Old English, Toronto.Hines, J. (1990), “The Runic Inscriptions of Early Anglo-Saxon England”, eds. A. Bammesber-

ger & A. Wollmann, Britain 400–600: Language and History, Heidelberg, 437–455.Holthausen, F. (1910), “Zwei altenglische Runeninschriften”, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie

42, 331–333.King, Anne (1986), “The Ruthwell Cross – a Lingustic Monument (Runes as Evidence for Old

English)”, Folia linguistica historia 7, 43–79.Krause & Jankuhn (1966): see Krause, W. (1966).Krause, W. (1966), Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark: 1. Text, mit Beiträgen von

Herbert Jankuhn, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen,Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. Folge 65, Göttingen.

Looijenga, T. (1996), “On the Origin of the Anglo-Frisian Runic Innovations”, Frisian Runesand Neighbouring Traditions, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on FrisianRunes at the Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26–29 January 1994, Amsterdamer Beiträge 45,eds. A. Quak et al., Amsterdam, 109–122.

— (1997), Around the North Sea and On the Continent AD 150–700, Texts and Contexts,Diss. University Groningen.


— (1999), “The Yew Rune in the Pforzen Inscription”, ed. A. Bammesberger, Pforzen und

Bergakker, Neue Untersuchungen zu Runeninschriften, Historische Sprachforschung,Ergänzungsheft 41, 80–87.

Looijenga, T. & Vennemann T. (2000), “The Runic Inscription of the Gandersheim Casket”,ed. R. Marth, Das Gandersheimer Runenkästchen, Internationales Kolloquium Braunsch-weig, 24.–26. März 1999, Kolloquiumsbände des Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums 1, Braun-schweig, 111–120.

Lutz, A. (1991), Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenveränderungen in der Geschichte desEnglischen, Linguistische Arbeiten 272, Tübingen.

Marth, R. ed. (2000), Das Gandersheimer Runenkästchen, Internationales Kolloquium Braun-schweig, 24.–26. März 1999, Kolloquiumsbände des Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums 1,Braunschweig.

Mees, B. (forthcoming), “The Yew Rune”.MfC = Healey diPaolo & Venezky (1985).Mitchell, M. (1994), Corpus of Old English Runes, Basle.Naumann, H.-P. (1998), “Runeninschriften als Quelle der Versgeschichte”, eds. K. Düwel &

S. Nowak, Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, Abhandlungen des4. Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen 1995, Er-gänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 15, Berlin-New York,694–714.

Nedoma, R. (1991–1993), “Zur Runeninschrift auf der Urne A.11/251 von Loveden Hill”, DieSprache 35, 115–124.

Nerman B. (1959), “The Dating of the Runic-Inscribed Scramasax from the Thames atBattersea”, The Antiquaries Journal 39, 289–290.

Odenstedt, B. (1980), “The Loveden Hill Runic Inscription”, Ortnamnsällskapets i UppsalaÅrsskrift, 24–37.

— (1990), On the Origin and Early History of the Runic Script: Typology and Graphic

Variation in the Older Futhark, Uppsala.— (1991), “A New Theory of the Origin of the Runic Script: Richard L. Morris’s Book Runic

and Mediterranean Epigraphy”, ed. A. Bammesberger, Old English Runes and their Con-tinental Background, Anglistische Forschungen 217, Heidelberg, 359–387.

Page, R.I. (1961), “The Old English Rune EAR”, Medium Ævum 30, 65–79.— (1962), “The Use of Double Runes in OE Inscriptions”, Journal of English and German

Philology 61, 897–907.— (1964), “Appendix A: The Inscriptions”, ed. D.M. Wilson, Anglo-Saxon Ornamental

Metalwork 700–1100 in the British Museum, London, 67–90.— (1968), “The OE Rune Eoh, Íh ‘Yew-Tree”’, Medium Ævum 37, 125–136.— (1973), An Introduction to English Runes, London.— (1973a), “The Runic Inscription From N 59”, eds. J.N.L. Myres, B. Green, The Anglo-

Saxon Cemeteries of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk, Reports of the ResearchCommittee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 30, 114–117.


— (1987), “New Runic Finds in England”, Runor och runinskrifter, Föredrag vid Riksanti-kvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11 september 1985, Stockholm,185–197.

— (1991), “Casket”, eds. L. Webster & J. Backhouse, The Making of England, Anglo-Saxon

Art and Culture AD 600–900, London, 178.— (1994), “English Runes Imported into the Continent”, ed. Klaus Düwell, Runische Schrift-

kultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung:Internationales Symposium in der Werner-Reimers-Stiftung vom 24.–27. Juni 1992 in BadHomburg, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 10,Berlin; New York, 176–194.

— (1995), “The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions” with a Postscript, ed. D.Parsons, Runes and Runic Inscriptions: Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and VikingRunes, Woodbridge, 95–104.

— (1995a), “The OE Rune Eoh, Íh ‘Yew-Tree”’ with a Postscript, D. Parsons, ed. Runes and

Runic Inscriptions: Collected Essays on Anglo-Saxon and Viking Runes, Woodbridge,133–144.

— (1998), “Gandersheim, Kästchen von”, eds. H. Beck et al., Reallexikon der Germanischen

Altertumskunde 10, 2. völlig neu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage, Berlin-NewYork, 424–426.

— (1999), An Introduction to English Runes, 2nd ed., Bury St. Edmunds.— (1999a), “Recent Finds of Anglo-Saxon Runes”, Nytt om Runer 14, 10–12.— (2001), “New Anglo-Saxon Rune Finds”, Nytt om Runer 15, 10–11.Pape, H.-W. (2000), “Das Gandersheimer Runenkästschen – Technische Analyse, Material und

Montage”, ed. R. Marth, Das Gandersheimer Runenkästchen, Internationales KolloquiumBraunschweig, 24.–26. März 1999, Kolloquiumsbände des Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums1, Braunschweig, 19–34.

Parsons, D. (1999), Recasting the Runes, The Reform of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, Runrön 14,Uppsala.

Robinson, F.C. & Stanley, E.G., eds. (1991), Old English Verse Texts From Many Sources: AComprehensive Collection, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 23, Copenhagen.

Sanness Johnsen, I. (1974), “Den runologiske plassering av innskriften fra Caistor-by-Norwich”, Arkiv för nordisk filologi 89, 30–43.

Schwab, U. (1973), Die Sternrune im Wessobrunner Gebet: Beobachtungen zur Lokalisierungdes clm 22053, zur Hs. BM Arundel 393 und zu Rune Poem V. 86–89, AmsterdamerPublikationen zur Sprache und Literatur, 1, Amsterdam.

— (1998), “Runen der Merowingerzeit als Quelle für das Weiterleben der spätantiken christ-lichen und nichtchristlichen Schriftmagie”, eds. K. Düwel & S. Nowak, Runeninschriftenals Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, Abhandlungen des 4. Internationalen Sympo-siums über Runen und Runeninschriften in Göttingen 1995, Ergänzungsbände zumReallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 15, Berlin-New York, 376–433.


Searle, W.G. (1897), Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, A List of Anglo-Saxon Proper Namesfrom the Time of Beda to that of King John, Cambridge.

Seebold, E. (1990), “Die Inschrift von Westeremden B und die friesischen Runen”, eds. R.H.Bremmer et.al., Aspects of Old Frisian Philology, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älterenGermanistik 31–32, 408–427.

— (1991), “Die Stellung der englischen Runen im Rahmen der Überlieferung des älterenFuþark”, ed. A. Bammesberger, Old English Runes and their Continental Background,Anglistische Forschungen 217, Heidelberg, 439–569.

— (2000), “Die Runeninschrift auf dem Gandersheimer Kästchen”, ed. R. Marth, Das

Gandersheimer Runenkästchen, Internationales Kolloquium Braunschweig, 24.–26. März1999, Kolloquiumsbände des Herzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums 1, Braunschweig, 105–109.

Stephens, G. (1884), Handbook of the Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and Eng-land, London-Copenhagen.

Swanton, M., ed. (1996), The Dream of the Rood, 2nd ed., Exeter.Sievers & Brunner (1965), see Brunner, K. (1965).Sweet, H. ed. (1885), The Oldest English Texts, Edited with Introduction and a Glossary, Early

English Text Society. Original Series 83, Oxford, repr. 1938, 1957, 1966. Toller, T.N. (1908–1921), An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Based on the Manuscript Collections of

the Late Joseph Bosworth: Supplement, Oxford.Viëtor, W. (1895), Die Northumbrischen Runensteine, Beiträge zur Textkritik, Grammatik und

Glossar, Marburg.Waxenberger, G. (1999), “The Problematic Inscription on the Brunswick Casket: Research

Summary”, ed. A. Bammesberger, Pforzen und Bergakker: Neues zu Runeninschriften,Beiheft zu Historische Sprachforschung (Historical Linguistics), Ergänzungsheft 41,216–229.

— (2000), “The Inscription on the Gandersheim Casket and the Runes in the Old EnglishRunes Corpus (Epigraphical Material)”, ed. R. Marth, Das Gandersheimer Runenkästchen,Internationales Kolloquium Braunschweig, 24.–26. März 1999, Kolloquiumsbände desHerzog-Anton-Ulrich-Museums 1, Braunschweig, 91–104.

— (forthcoming), A Phonology of the Old English Runic Inscriptions and Catalogue of the

Old English Runes: Graphemes and Phonemes.Whitbread, L. (1948), “The Thornhill Cross Inscription”, Notes and Queries 193, 156.Wilson, D.M., ed. (1964), Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the British

Museum: The Trustees of the British Museum, London.Wimmer, L.F.A. (1887), Die Runenschrift: Vom Verfasser umgearbeitete und vermehrte Aus-

gabe. Aus dem Dänischen übersetzt von F. Holthausen, Berlin.Wrenn, C.L. (1943), “The Value of Spelling as Evidence”, Transactions of the Philological

Society, 14–39.— (1962), “Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery”, eds. N. Davis & C.L. Wrenn, English and

Medieval Studies Presented to J.R.R. Tolkien on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday,London, 306–320.

the yew-rune and the runes g i in the old english...

Documents