Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
Craigie: Anmälan. 365
story of the casket and of the various ’descriptions, illustrations,,
and editions’. A slight correction on p. 3 is now rendered
ne-cessary by the appearance of Vol. IV of Stephens Bunic
Monuments, but beyond this there is no occasion to dwell npon this
part of the subject.
The top of the casket — the Ægili-Bcene — is dealt with
in a few words. In a foot-note Wadstein¾ comparison with the
ballad of Wyttyam of Cloudesle is set aside (as by Napier); and
the objection is so far justified, that any attack upon Egil could
not have been made for the same reason as that on William. As
the motive for the attack thus disappears, it is hazardous to
as-sume that the ballad has preserved a detail of the original
Egil-story; but there seems to be just as little ground for the doubt
raised by other scholars as to whether this Egil is really V^lund’s
brother at all. Neither Napier nor Viêtor discuss Wadstein’s
view that Egil is figured three times in the scene, and the
suggestion seems on the whole unlikely. If the horizontal figures are
not those of assailants, they may be Egil¾ men, killed in his
de-fence. Wadstein further supposes that Egil is shooting ’through
a window in his house’, but it seems more likely that he is in
the courtyard, while the figure behind him is in the house, which
is of the same type as that on the front of the casket.
Of the scenes on the front, only the left-hand one has been
much discussed, yet the other has some obscure features.
Wadstein is uncertain which of the two heads is that of Mary and
which is Christ’s, but surely the artist meant to depict the Virgin
with the child on her knee. No one has commented on the fowl
in front of the magi, and the oval objects (? its eggs) beneath the
Virgin, and child. It may also be worth while to point out that
the circular flower-like object at the top of the scene is no doubt
intended for the står.
In dealing with the inscription on the front, none of the
three writers has properly discussed the question as to where it
begins; all start with hronœs ban. This is necessary if fisc-flodu
is taken as a Compound, but both Napier and Wadstein reject this
view, which is accepted by Viétor. In settling the point, the
other inscriptions must be taken into account. No argument can
however be safely drawn from the back, on which the lettering is
differently arranged. The right side clearly begins with the top
line, and on the left side it seems better to begin with Bomwalus,
while both there and on the front the size and spacing of the
runes accords best with the view that the top-line is to be read
first. That hronœs ban appears at all is perhaps entirely due to
the fact that when the artist had finished carving the couplet, he
found the left end still blank. As to the wording of the
inscription nothing new has been made out, as both Napier and Viétor
agree in rejecting Wadstein¾ explanation of gasric. Viêtor¾ re«
ARKIV fÖB NORDISK Fl LO LO 01 XIX, NT FÖLJD XV.
26
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
