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
P e r h a p s 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 t h a n förty runic m o n u m e n t s 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 a t t r i b u t e to h i m a b o u t förty additional (unsigned) m o n u m e n t s . Chronologi- cally 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 a n d from a study of the internal relationships of the U p p l a n d i c runic m o n u m e n t s and the familic-s that erected t h e m . (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 d a t e d 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.
1According to von Friesen, the n a m e Ö p i r was originally a n i c k n a m e ("skrikhals", cf. epa 'cry, shout') which the carver a d o p t e d a n d 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 t u r n allowed von Friesen to link Ö p i r with another U p p l a n d i c r u n e - carver by the n a m e of Viseli, since both names occur in the signature on a rune-stone (now löst) at Kålsta in H ä g g e b y parish (U 669): u i s t i n u k • u f o i h • b e i R h i e k u Viseti ok OfxigR pxiR hioggu. T h e relationship between the two, m a i n t a i n e d von Friesen, is one of teacher a n d pupil; Viseti is the master ("läromästare, l ä r a r e " ) a n d Ö p i r his apprcntice ( " l ä r j u n g e " ) . '
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 t r e a t m e n t 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 a n d Öpir, despite von Friesen's claims to the contrary. Both carvers have highly distinctive styles, a n d yet very few traits in c o m m o n . T h e connection between the two would therefore seem to d e p e n d solely on the assumption that the OfxigR a n d 0piR on U 485 are one a n d the same person a n d that this person is identical with the OfxigR on U 66g. Even if one discounts the objcctions raised by Erik Brale (pp. 9 8 - 9 9 ) , these assumptions a r e not without risk, as m a y 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 a n d 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 t h e m with o u r 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 r a r e n a m e Viseti.
3I t m a y therefore be permissible to search clsewhere for ö p i r ' s teacher.
Although runologists have long employed the concepts of " m a s t e r a n d a p p r e n t i c e "
or " t e a c h e r a n d p u p i l " a n d spöken of "schools" or " w o r k s h o p s " of carvers, it is fair to say t h a t we have very little specific information on these matters from the eleventh- century runic m o n u m e n t s tbemselves. Carvers are generally g r o u p e d together u n d e r the notion of a "school" on the basis of stylistic similarity; it is assumed, for example, t h a t the carver Thorfast learned his art u n d e r the influence of A s m u n d K a r a s u n , since he shares m a n y of A s m u n d ' s characteristic features of design a n d o r t h o g r a p h y . 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 t h e well-known master Fot, from w h o m h e n o d o u b t learned his t r a d e a n d whose stylistic influence is a p p a r e n t .
W h e n two or m o r e carvers have a p p e n d e d their names to a runic inscription, one is p r o b a b l y justified in assuming the existence of a school or a teacher-pupil relationship, though it is not always clear who is to be d e e m e d the master a n d who the apprentice.
I n general, scholars are in t h e h a b i t of designating the least familiar one a n 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 t h e Svxinn w h o s i g n e d U 1149 with A s m u n d is " e n 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 occasion- ally 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-men- tioned U 1149 (Fleräng, Älvkarleby parish) reveals t h a t Svaein has carved t h e runes on t h e left a n d A s m u n d those on the right side of the stone.
4It 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 m e a n i n g of I i b on the interesting rune-stone at A l t u n a C h u r c h (U 1161), which bears a somewhat d a m a g e d signature, presumably r e a d i n g : En [pxiR) Balli, Freystxinn, lid Lif stxin (s ristu). I n this inscription, t h e n , t h e carver Balli (as well as the otherwise u n k n o w n Freystxinn) would be bearing witness to a n association with t h e master Lifstaein.
63
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 namcsaki- of the Ofaeig on U 1056.
* That Svaein's name appears first in this signature (as well as in the one on the Söderby- stone, 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 — 7 1 1 6 8 1 Fornvännen H . I, 1972
i8 Smärre meddelanden
A far m o r e interesting term which appears in the runic inscriptions a n d which bears enormously on t h e question of t e a c h e r - p u p i l relationships a m o n g the carvers is the verb rada. I t is to Elias Wessén that we owe the most insightful terminological discussion of the occurrence of this word in the Swedish inscriptions. Wessén notes t h a t the signa- ture 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, formu- late, supervise', ö p i r was then responsible for the general conception of the m o n u m e n t a n d 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 clari- fies some lexical difficulties of O l d Scandinavian poetry (see Wessén u n d e r U 940, G e n z m e r in A N F 67 (1952), 39 f.) but also explains the signatures red runaR 0piR on U 896 a n d Svxinn red petla on U 913. I t is surprising, therefore, to observe that Wessén neglects to interpret a further occurrence of this word, on a stone at Vaksala C h u r c h , 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 b i n a 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 • i n • u b i R
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 a w a r e of the relevance of his discussion of rada u n d e r U 940, he declares t h a t the expression Igulfaslr red "i d e t t a s a m m a n h a n g måste inne- b ä r a , 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 w o m e n ) . 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 " d e t omtalas icke, h u r u v i d a Igulfast stod i nägot släktskaps- förhållande till d e m eller till den d ö d e . V a d m a n n ä r m a s t skulle k u n n a tänka är att h a n h a r varit Kättilbjörns m å g , gift m e d hans dotter h u l - a " (it is not revealed w h e t h e r Igulfast was related by kinship to them or to the deceased. H e may have been m a r r i e d to Kättilbjörns d a u g h t e r hu I-a-
lt is of course clear t h a t U 961 is o n e o f ö p i r ' s works, a n d would doubtless be attri- b u t e d to h i m even if his abbreviated signature en 0piR did not a p p e a r . (Öpir often a b r u p t l y 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, a n d U 940, a n d t h a t we have in U 961 the n a m e of ö p i r ' s teacher.
Such an assertion a p p e a r s 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 a w a r e of this, I believe there is sufficient corroborative evidence to rendcr m y 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 p r o b a b l e , a n d p e r h a p s more plausible t h a n von Friesen's. For while the alleged connection of ö p i r with Viseti is u n s u p p o r t e d 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 t r e a t m e n t 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 ' l i t 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 • u k • 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 t h e 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, o r t h o g r a p h y , a n d formulation. N o t e for example the abbreviated signature en Igulfaslr, as on Ö p i r ' s U 961 (en 0piR). I n d e e d , Sven B. F. J a n s s o n has noted in his report of the discovery of the Kummelby-stonc
7t h a t "Igulfast, som är en hittills o k ä n d ristare, är som konstnär i släkt m e d ö p i r "
(Igulfast, a hitherto u n k n o w n carver is artistically related to Ö p i r ) .
Clearly the claim t h a t the Igulfast on this stone is identical with the one on U 9 6 1 , a n d t h a t 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), a n d 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, r a t h e r 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 p å e f t e r m i d d a g e n b e f u n n o sig ett a n t a l h e r r a r i övre p l a n e t av Visby H e l g e a n d s k y r k a s b e r ö m d a o k t o g o n . Det var d e l t a g a r n a i Visby-symposiet för historiska vetenskaper, som u n d e r l a n d s a n t i k v a r i e 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 p å r u n d v a n d r i n g b l a n d stadens m e d e l t i d a m i n n e s m ä r k e n . Symposiets tema var d e t t a är >Kyrka och samhälle i Östersjöområdet och i N o r d e n före m i t t e n av det i 3 : d e å r h u n d r a d e t . »
1Det är begripligt att k y r k o r n a tilldrogo sig
7
Fornvännen 48 (1953), p. 225.
1
