Öpir's Teacher Thompson, Claiborne W Fornvännen 16-19 http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/1972_016 Ingår i: samla.raa.se

Smärre meddelanden

Öpir's Teacher
Perhaps the most productive a n d least problematical of the rune-carvers we know from eleventh-century U p p l a n d is ö p i r . M o r e than förty runic monuments have been preserved which bcar his n a m e ( u b i R , y b i R , y b i r , now normalized as Rune-Swedish 0piR), a n d a study of ö p i r ' s distinctive style as exhibited in these signed works permits scholars to attribute to him about förty additional (unsigned) monuments. Chronologically Öpir's production seems to occupy a position near the end of U p p l a n d s ' great runic development; this appears evident both on stylistic-typological grounds and from a study of the internal relationships of the U p p l a n d i c runic monuments and the familic-s that erected them. (It was, for example, Ö p i r who executed the memorial to J a r l a b a n k i , to whose family pride a n d personal egotism runology owes so much.) Erik Bråte dated ö p i r ' s activity ca. 1070-85 a n d O t t o von Friesen from about 1070 to the end of the century. 1 According to von Friesen, the n a m e Ö p i r was originally a nickname ("skrikhals", cf. epa 'cry, shout') which the carver adopted and preferred to his given n a m e OfxigR. Evidence of this is found, argued von Friesen, on the stone at M a r m a in Lägga parish (U 485) which bears the signature in o f a l g r y b i R r i s t i En OfxigR 0piR risti. This knowledge in turn allowed von Friesen to link Ö p i r with another Upplandic runecarver by the n a m e of Viseli, since both names occur in the signature on a rune-stone (now löst) at Kålsta in Häggeby parish (U 669): u i s t i n u k • ufoih • b e i R h i e k u Viseti ok OfxigR pxiR hioggu. T h e relationship between the two, maintained von Friesen, is one of teacher a n d pupil; Viseti is the master ("läromästare, lärare") a n d Ö p i r his apprcntice ("lärjunge").' Such a theory is imprcssive by virtue of its neatness a n d ingcniousness, a n d is a tribute to von Friesen's brilliant if speculative treatment of the U p p l a n d i c runes. W h a t is troubling is the relative absencc of any similarity in the styles of Viseti and Öpir, despite von Friesen's claims to the contrary. Both carvers have highly distinctive styles, a n d yet very few traits in common. T h e connection between the two would therefore seem to depend solely on the assumption that the OfxigR a n d 0piR on U 485 are one and the same person and that this person is identical with the OfxigR on U 66g. Even if one discounts the objcctions raised by Erik Brale (pp. 98-99), these assumptions are not without risk, as may be illustrated by citing a presumably unrelated inscription from Ramsjö, Björklinge parish (U 1056): Viseti ok Jqfurr letu rxisa stxin xfliR Ofxig, fadur sinn. W h o are the Viseti and OfxigR of this inscription? It would be böld indeed ' B r å t e , Svenska runristare (Stockholm, 1925), pp. 111-12; von Friesen, Runorna, Nordisk Kultur 6 (1933), pp. 223-24. 2 Upptands runstenar (Uppsala, 1913), pp. 64, 69; Runorna pp, 221-24.

Smärre meddelanden

17

to identify them with our two carvers (always assuming that ö p i r ' s given n a m e was OfxigR), a n d in fact one would hesitate to identify even the two persons bearing the relatively rare n a m e Viseti.3 It may therefore be permissible to search clsewhere for ö p i r ' s teacher. Although runologists have long employed the concepts of "master a n d a p p r e n t i c e " or "teacher a n d p u p i l " and spöken of "schools" or "workshops" of carvers, it is fair to say that we have very little specific information on these matters from the eleventhcentury runic monuments tbemselves. Carvers are generally grouped together u n d e r the notion of a "school" on the basis of stylistic similarity; it is assumed, for example, that the carver Thorfast learned his art u n d e r the influence of Asmund K a r a s u n , since he shares m a n y of Asmund's characteristic features of design a n d orthography. I n a few cases supporting evidence can be gained from the inscriptions: on U 308 a carver n a m e d T h o r g a u t calls himself Fots arfi, indicating that he is the son of the well-known master Fot, from w h o m he n o d o u b t learned his trade a n d whose stylistic influence is apparent. W h e n two or more carvers have a p p e n d e d their names to a runic inscription, one is probably justified in assuming the existence of a school or a teacher-pupil relationship, though it is not always clear who is to be deemed the master a n d who the apprentice. I n general, scholars are in the habit of designating the least familiar one an assistant; thus the Ingiald whose n a m e appears with Asmund's on U 932 is called a " b i t r ä d a n d e ristare" (assistant carver) by Erik Brale (p. 33), a n d the Svxinn who s i g n e d U 1149 with Asmund is "en medhjälpare till h o n o m " (his collaborator) according to Elias Wessén. Explicit testimony concerning the actual division of labor a m o n g the carvers of a single m o n u m e n t is rare indeed; an example is the Eskilstuna sarcophagus (Sö 356): Tofi risti runaR a; Nxsbiorn hiogg stxina. Neverthelcss, the trained runologist can occasionally distinguish between the efforts of co-carvers by virtue of differcnces in style, technique, or form. T h u s a careful examination of the rune-forms on the above-mentioned U 1149 (Fleräng, Älvkarleby parish) reveals that Svaein has carved the runes on the left and Asmund those on the right side of the stone. 4 It is possible that in the runic tradition of elevcnth-century U p p l a n d the notion of a school was designated by the term Hå 'troop, retinue, body of m e n ' . Such appears to be the meaning of I i b on the interesting rune-stone at Altuna Church (U 1161), which bears a somewhat d a m a g e d signature, presumably reading: En [pxiR) Balli, Freystxinn, lid Lif stxin (s ristu). In this inscription, then, the carver Balli (as well as the otherwise unknown Freystxinn) would be bearing witness to an association with the master Lifstaein.6

An attractive speculation might be that the Viseti on U 1056 is identical with the carver of U 669, and that the Ofaeig of U 669 is Viseti's son and therefore the grandson and namcsakiof the Ofaeig on U 1056. * That Svaein's name appears first in this signature (as well as in the one on the Söderbystone, L 1049) could indicate that he was Asmund's teacher, though less well-known than his famous pupil. ' See also von Friesen in U F T b . 39 (1924), pp. 339 f. There is a similar occurrence of the word /iö on a rune-stone at the parsonage (Prästgården) of Alsike parish (U 479), in the signalnre Ulfkell hiogg ru(naR), Lofa Udi. Nothing prevents us from maintaining here that the carver
2—711681 Fornvännen H. I, 1972

3

i8

Smärre meddelanden

A far more interesting term which appears in the runic inscriptions a n d which bears enormously on the question of teacher-pupil relationships a m o n g the carvers is the verb rada. It is to Elias Wessén that we owe the most insightful terminological discussion of the occurrence of this word in the Swedish inscriptions. Wessén notes that the signature red runaR 0piR on U 940 can scarcely be equivalent to 0piR risti runaR, since it is out of the question that ö p i r himself carved the rather poorly-exccutcd U 940. It is more fruitful, says Wessén, to interpret the verb rada here in the sense 'compose, formulate, supervise', ö p i r was then responsible for the general conception of the m o n u m e n t and the formulation of the inscription; the actual carving, however, was carried out by another, less experienced m a n . T h e notion that the verb rada can indicate the activity of the master not only clarifies some lexical difficulties of Old Scandinavian poetry (see Wessén under U 940, Genzmer in A N F 67 (1952), 39 f.) but also explains the signatures red runaR 0piR on U 896 and Svxinn red petla on U 913. It is surprising, therefore, to observe that Wessén neglects to interpret a further occurrence of this word, on a stone at Vaksala Church, in the same m ä n n e r . T h e inscription in question (U 961) reads, in its entirely: hul-a + l i t + r a i s a s t a i n i bina a t k i t i l b i a r n • f a b u r • sin + a u k r u n f r i p • a t • b o n t a • a u k i h u l f a s t r • r i b • in • ubiR h u l - a let rxisa stxin penna at Kxtilbiorn, fadur sinn, ok Runfrid at bonda, ok Igulfaslr red, en

0piR.
Although Wessén is of course aware of the relevance of his discussion of rada u n d e r U 940, he declares that the expression Igulfaslr red "i detta s a m m a n h a n g måste innebära, att Igulfast h a r ombesörjt arbetet å de b å d a kvinnornas v ä g n a r " (in this context must imply that Ingulf caused the work to be done on behalf of the two women). It is assumed that the n a m e concealed in the d a m a g e d runic series h u l - a is a feminine one. Wessén goes on to note that "det omtalas icke, huruvida Igulfast stod i nägot släktskapsförhållande till dem eller till den döde. V a d m a n närmast skulle kunna tänka är att han h a r varit Kättilbjörns måg, gift med hans dotter h u l - a " (it is not revealed whether Igulfast was related by kinship to them or to the deceased. H e may have been married to Kättilbjörns daughter hu I-alt is of course clear that U 961 is o n e o f ö p i r ' s works, a n d would doubtless be attributed to him even if his abbreviated signature en 0piR did not appear. (Öpir often abruptly terminates an inscription with little regard for missing syntactic units.) W h a t I would like to suggest is that the sense of the expression Igulfaslr red on U 961 is completely analogous to the similar instances of rada on U 896, U 913, and U 940, and that we have in U 961 the n a m e of ö p i r ' s teacher. Such an assertion appears on the surface to be merely a case of namc-speculation similar to von Friesen's Identification of Ö p i r as Viseti's pupil Ofaeig. Although I a m aware of this, I believe there is sufficient corroborative evidence to rendcr my sugges-

Ulfkell was a pupil of the otherwise unknown Lofi; it is not necessary to assume with Wessén that Ulfkell "har tillhört Loves lib, ett krigarfölje vars anförare har varit en man vid namn Love." 6 For the meaning of the word red cf. U 940.

Smärre meddelanden

ic)

tion at least probable, and perhaps more plausible than von Friesen's. For while the alleged connection of ö p i r with Viseti is unsupported by any stylistic similaritics in their works, we know of a carver n a m e d Igulfast whose work bears an obvious affinity with ö p i r ' s . Until 1953 (and at the time Wessén was writing his treatment of U 961) the carver Igulfast was unknown. O n l y with the discovery of a rune-stone at Helenelund ( K u m m e l by) in Sollentuna parish did explicit evidence of his authorship a p p e a r : e l k a ' lit r a i s a s t a i n • e f t i R • s u a r t i k • b . . . - t • e y s t a i n • uk • a t • e m i n k • s u n i • s i n a • in • i k u l f a s t r Hxlga let rxisa stxin xftiR Svxrting, b (oanda sin ok a) t 0ystxin ok at Hxming, syni sina. En Igulfaslr. T h e resemblances to the work of Ö p i r which this m o n u m e n t reveals are evident in carving technique, artistic design, rune-forms, orthography, and formulation. Note for example the abbreviated signature en Igulfaslr, as on Öpir's U 961 (en 0piR). Indeed, Sven B. F. Jansson has noted in his report of the discovery of the Kummelby-stonc 7 t h a t "Igulfast, som är en hittills okänd ristare, är som konstnär i släkt med ö p i r " (Igulfast, a hitherto unknown carver is artistically related to Ö p i r ) . Clearly the claim that the Igulfast on this stone is identical with the one on U 961, a n d that this Igulfast is therefore the master u n d e r whose direction ö p i r learned to carve is subject to some uncertainties. T h e n a m e Igulfast is not u n c o m m o n in the U p p l a n d i c inscriptions (cf. U 279, 378, 624, 665, 909, 939, 1019), and it would be more convcntional to assume that the Igulfast who carved the Kummelby-stone is merely another late eleventh-century carver whose works attest to the widespread influence of the highly productive ö p i r . Nevertheless, the suggestion that it was Igulfast who influenced Öpir, rather t h a n the reverse, merits serious consideration. Claiborne W. Thompson

Helgeands i Visby — St Jakob?
M å n d a g e n d e n 14 augusti 1967 på eftermiddagen befunno sig ett antal h e r r a r i övre p l a n e t av Visby Helgeandskyrkas b e r ö m d a oktogon. Det var deltagarna i Visby-symposiet för historiska vetenskaper, som u n d e r landsantikvarie G u n n a r Svahnströms samt professorerna Sten Karlings och A r m i n T u u l s e s l e d n i n g voro stadda på r u n d v a n d r i n g b l a n d stadens medeltida m i n n e s m ä r k e n . Symposiets tema var detta är >Kyrka och samhälle i Östersjöområdet och i N o r d e n före m i t t e n av det i3:de å r h u n d r a d e t . » 1 Det är begripligt att kyrkorna tilldrogo sig Fornvännen 48 (1953), p. 225. Visby-symposiet för historiska vetenskaper 1967 (Acta Vishyensia III), Göteborg 1969, 6 (program), 8 (deltagarlista).
1 7