Page:The Heimskringla; or, Chronicle of the Kings of Norway Vol 1.djvu/82

 landiæ atque Thulemarkiæ ex Fragmento Runici MS. literis recentioribus descripta cum genuina versione Johannis Peringskoldi," without date, place of publication, or reference to where the original Runic manuscript on skin or paper is to be found, is evidently a translation of a part of the Saga of Hialmar into Runic letters, for the purpose of imposing on the public, and is to be classed with the Korpe Klinte inscription. The controversy concerning the antiquity and historical value of the Runic character and inscriptions ran high in the latter half of the 17th century, and unjustifiable means were used to establish opinions as facts. This fragment of ancient Runic writing on parchment was ascribed by Rudbeck to the 7th century, by Stiernman to the 10th, by Biorner to the 11th or 12th. It was incorporated into Hicks's Thesaurus as a specimen of written Runic. But Archbishop Benzelius, Celsius the elder and Celsius the younger, Erichson, and Ihre, antiquaries of great note and authority in Sweden, expressed their doubts of the authenticity of this fragment at the time it appeared,—about 1690; and Nardin, in an Academical Dissertation, published at Upsal 1774, proves from the language that this Runic manuscript is an impudent forgery.