It it now well over half a century since René Derolez published his brilliant Runica Manuscripta – The English Tradition in which he argued that the subject of runes found in mediaeval manuscripts should be treated as a subject in its own right, related to but separate from epigraphical runes. Building on this principle, he presented not only the content of all then known substantial examples of Anglo-Saxon runes in manuscripts, but placed them in their codicological context; such as detailing which other real or invented scripts they were placed amongst.
He limited himself to Anglo-Saxon runes, as this was a smaller area than that of the younger (Scandinavian) runes, and at the time less well published and analysed. In many ways, his work turned the latter point on its head, and still today there is no similar work available for the younger runes. In recent years, however, more and more of the manuscripts in question are made available online in digital facsimile. This has made it possible for me to rectify the situation somewhat, by using this material to produce the kind of presentation and analysis of the material that I would like to be available.
The value of this digital availability is highlighted when I as an amateur am able to correct Derolez on several points where our paths cross, simply because of the possibility to enlarge images and adjust the brightness, contrast and colour balance of sometimes extremely worn manuscripts, teasing out details not visible to him. Of course, lacking his formal background, I might easily have overlooked relevant scholarship that has long since illuminated areas where I stumble in the darkness. Once in a while even this might be a boon, though, as I avoid the risk of trusting too much in the sometimes fallible authority of previous writers; not out of deeper knowledge or greater skepticism, but out of ignorance.
Tor Gjerde