USA > Minnesota > Douglas County > History of Douglas and Grant counties, Minnesota : their people, industries, and institutions, Volume I > Part 11
USA > Minnesota > Grant County > History of Douglas and Grant counties, Minnesota : their people, industries, and institutions, Volume I > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
Professor Flom contends that a writer of the fourteenth century would have written varom skipum. We find however that case endings were not so invariably respected as is commonly supposed. Even in the Icelandic sagas, which show a far more precise literary practice than the Swedish of the four- teenth century, the case endings are sometimes violated. For instance, in the Vinland saga (A. M. 552) we read: "Lata their i haf fram tvennum skipum thegar their eru bunir" (Vigfusson's, p. 123, line 23). haf is there nominative and should be dative, while tvennum skipum is dative and should be accusative.
Such disregard and confusion of case endings is still more common in the Swedish of the fourteenth century. Molbech says of this period: "The old mother tongue's declensions and endings, which in the fourteenth cen- tury but meagerly remained, almost completely disappeared at the close of the century" (Molbech's Ordbog, p. xlvii). We find therefore that the expres- sion in the inscription is not out of harmony with fourteenth century usage.
No. 13. This shows the same irregularity of declension as we find above to be characteristic of the period.
No. 17. rise. Kalkar gives this spelling as an Old Swedish noun (mean- ing journey) of the middle ages. The modern form, reise or reysa, occurs more commonly in the literature of that period.
No. 18. These quotations from the standard literature exhibit the usage (8)
114
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
of scholars, among whom there was great dissimilarity of standards. The Kensington stone shows rather the usage of the common people, and, as already stated, the two cannot be expected to agree in detail.
No. 19. The runes used are not precisely like those common in 1362, as illustrated by the Mariaklagan and the Scanian Law, these being of about that date, but embrace novel characters, thirteen in number (including punctu- ations). It cannot be understood why an unlettered Swede of the nineteenthi century, attempting a fraud of 1362, should invent, or import, thirteen characters not in common use; since this variation from the common use would hardly be expected to further the acceptance of the fraud. The proper comparison would be with other inscriptions of West Gothland, which the two runic documents referred to are not.
No. 20. It is certainly true that a scant and waning knowledge of runes continued till the nineteenth century.
No. 21. This particular alphabet, according to Professor Flom, appears to have been in use in the sixteenth century in Elfdalen, in central Sweden, though with some divergences. How much earlier it was used, we do not know ; but as people from Gothland ("8 Goths") were of this party and also used this alphabet, it is evident that it was used in Gothland or West Goth- land.
This energetic discussion brings out important new facts which every- one who is seeking only the truth will welcome; but everyone will be at liberty still to make such application of the facts as his own judgment dictates. There are curious anomalies in the arguments of the author, such that the facts presented seem not to be used in their logical sequence, nor in the bear- ing which they have on each other and on the main issue.
The rune character (thorn) is confounded by Flom with a similar character having the upper and lower ends of its semicircle continued some- what to the left of the vertical bar. This form is said to have taken the place. in part, in the modern Dalecarlian runic alphabet, when, on the disappearance of the sounds dh and th, a special character was required to represent the sound of d, which grew into prominence and persisted. The character thus used does not appear on the Kensington stone; and hence only the sounds represented can be fairly ascribed to the stone. Professor Flom's new translation, on pages 25-26 of his address, seems to be based wholly on his confusion of these rune forms. In 1362 the thorn must have represented the sound.of d in those cases where the d sound in spoken language had supplanted dh or th, though it had not yet been given a special character in
115
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
written language. The modern runic alphabet, according to Flom, employs only the new form which represents the sound d.
On the stone the "thorn" character occurs fourteen times, distinctly cut, without any suggestion of the modern rune character representing d. Yet nothwithstanding this the author assumes that the scribe, a man of the latter half of the nineteenth century, as he supposes, and hence familiar with that modern rune for the sound of d, ignorantly inscribed the "thorn" in these fourteen places. It is not intimated that the use of the old character was due to the scribe's cleverness, to make the inscription seem ancient, although that would be a consistent view for Professor Flom to take, but he says distinctly that that the scribe was ignorant of the character used for d. As a matter of fact, the modern sound of d was only beginning to be used in spoken language in 1362, and was very rarely recognized then in runic script the character for t punctuated and thus changed to indicate the d sound.
Professor Flom shows that a rune system was used in Dalarne in the sixteenth century and later, but fails to show how much earlier. Doubtless runes were well known there in 1362, since their use seems to have prevailed throughout Scandinavia from a much earlier time. To except Dalarne would be without reason, unless some special condition can be shown to have operated against runes in that district. The inference therefore is that they were the ancestors of the Dalarne system of 1600. It remains to ascertain how the ancient runes used there differed from those of 1600 or those of more recent time, and whether they manifested those characters that do not agree with the modern Dalarne system, nor exactly with that of the Scanian Law. Finding important divergences of the Kensington stone from modern runes, Flom abruptly attributes them sometimes to the ingenuity and sometimes to the ignorance of the scribe, not even considering the possibility of their being due to their archaic date.
It is unlikely that a faker with the keenness necessary to guide him in injecting into the inscription certain ancient forms of language should so far forget himself as to leave off the old inflections of the verbs (om, um, etc.), thus giving his work a decidedly modern look. It is more probable that in 1362 those endings had already been dropped in speech, but that a skillful impostor familiar with ancient literature would retain them in his inscription.
The conclusions set out in the appendix seem not to be based on the facts brought out by Professor Flom's address. No. I is deficient because his address does not treat of "the language as spoken at the time." He only discusses it as written and especially its inflexions, which were dropped -
I16
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
much later in the written than in the spoken language. No 2 is faulty for he does not at all discuss "the runic series of the time" (1362). He finds that the Kensington inscription agrees substantially with the recent Delecar- lian system, and where it shows discrepancies (which may arise from greater age) he regards them as evidences of forgery by the scribe. No 2 is further faulty because of the uncertain significance of the word "modern." Some things that are modern, say of the nineteenth century, began to exist in the fourteenth but are still "modern," which indeed may be the case of the Delecar- lian rune system as a whole. The verdict of the committee who reviewed Flom's arguments, being founded on evidence not proven, or only assumed, is therefore not conclusive.
The genuineness of the Kensington rune stone must be determined, if Professor Flom's identifications be accepted, by an investigation directed to the question whether the Delecarlian system of runes existed at the date 1362; for the linguistic objections are largely swept away, and the runic objections appear to be turned into probably evidence in favor of the stone.
INVESTIGATION OF THE RUMOR RELATING TO SVEN FOGELBLAD.
The following article, reporting an investigation of an alleged forgery of the Kensington Rune Stone, contributed by Mr. H. R. Holand, is reprinted from the Minneapolis Journal, in which it was published August 9, 1910:
Since the famous rune stone of 1362 was found near Kensington, Minnesota, twelve years ago, it has been subject to a close scrutiny, and many persons have been accused of having forged it. These have, however, been acquitted one after another until now only one remains. This man is one Fogelblad, who was formerly a Swedish Lutheran pastor.
According to the statements of Professors R. B. Anderson and G. T. Flom, the leaders of the opposition against the genuineness of the inscription, Fogelblad was a Lutheran clergyman who later was deposed. He is said to have turned against his former faith and written books against Christianity, among which was one entitled "Age of Reason." He made his home at Kensington, where he is reported to have carved runes on window casings and doors, etc. One of his favorite subjects of discourse was a strange narra- tive of how "Scandinavian explorers had visited that region (around Kensington) hun- dreds of years ago." When he suddenly died. "Fryxell's famous book on the Runes of East Gothland" was found in his trunk. This book was later given by one Andrew Anderson, in whose home Fogelblad died. to Olof Ohman. the finder of the stone. According to Flom and R. B. Anderson this book is a complete commentary on the inscription of the stone.
Such is the rumor published in several newspapers, and now latest in a pamphlet published by the Illinois State Historical Society. It must be admitted that. if this is true, it is serious circumstantial evidence against the truth of the inscription.
Although I have made four or five earlier trips to Kensington and vicinity, I had
II7
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
not heard this rumor, and I have therefore just made a special trip thither to see what could be learned of this man's life and character.
I have spent a week in following the trail through Douglas, Grant, Pope, Meeker' and Carver counties. I have talked with persons who knew him in Sweden, with farmers who entertained him for years, with men and women whose entire schoolings had been received from him, and, finally, with those who were with him when he died. Although I have interviewed more than a hundred persons, there has been perfect harmony in all their accounts, especially concerning his character.
The following is a summary :
Sven Fogelblad was born about 1820-25 in Sweden. He studied theology and the necessary classic studies that went with it in Upsala. His first public appearance is some time before 1860 when we find him a jolly curate under Rev. Mr. Rolander in Tomberg parish in Westgothland.
He resigned his pastorate and came to America. Here he was almost persuaded to re-enter the ministry as pastor of a Swedish congregation at Litchfield. But at the critical time his old. enemy, drink, tripped him np.
He made his first appearance around Kensington about 1885-90. He is described as a short, thickset man of about 70 years of age, always cheerful and neat. He must have overcome his drink habit, for none of the people around Hoffman and Kensington ever saw him drink or under the influence of drink. He had no permanent home here, but as itinerant schoolmaster nsed to sojourn for a few weeks at different farmhouses, getting 50 cents per month for each child taught. His classes used to number six to eight pupils, giving him an income of $3 to $4 per month, which was all he needed for clothes. When the times and the seasons were inconvenient for schooling he used to quarter himself upon a farmer. He was extremely lazy, and was never known to have assisted in the harvest or carried in a pail of water or an armful of wood. He preferred to repair old pipes, bind books, make kitchen knick knacks, etc.
In spite of his laziness the farmers were always glad to see him because of his wealth of local news. He knew of births and deaths and other doings far and wide, and was the forerunner of the village newspaper. Moreover he was always absolutely reliable in all his gossip, conscientious and kindhearted in all his narratives, and clean and agreeable in person. He was without any ambition and never studied. He wrote neither books nor pamphlets, his literary efforts consisting of humble doggerels, which rarely if ever were printed. He, however, boasted to several that npon one illustrious occasion long ago in Sweden he had written an article for which a paper had paid him ten kroner (about $2.50).
Although he always seemed contented, there was an undercurrent of melancholy in him. and those who know him best say he was never happy after he left college. Those days evoked his liveliest memories, and his eyes always overflowed with tears when he told of the times when he with 300 or 400 other students used to sing the stirring Swedish songs. On the whole, he appears to have been a tenderhearted, superficial person in general, with a deep conscientiousness which prevented him from squaring his creed with the doctrine of the church, wearing his sorrows as well as his joys upon his sleeve, inspiring confidence in all by his openhearted ways. '
He had been visiting for a year with a nephew in Scott county, when he in 1895 returned to Kensington to visit friends. On approaching the house of one Andrew Anderson, he suddenly felt ill, whereupon he went in there and died after a three days' attack of an unknown malady.
Those who knew him best in Grant and Douglas counties are Messrs. Oslund. Thompson and Simonson of Red Rock Lake, Hendrickson of Hoffman, Ekberg of Her-
118
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
man, and Moen, Carlson, Benson, Ohman and Oberg of Kensington, all among the most respected farmers of that section. To these persons and many others I put the following questions :
Did you ever see or hear of Fogelblad making runes on window casings, doors, or elsewhere? Did he ever speak of American discovery, or of Scandinavians having visited this section long ago? Do you believe he could have bad a hand in making the Kensington inscription ?
To all of these questions I received an invariable and unequivocal "no." Not one had seen him make runes, not one had heard him speak of Scandinavian explorers in Minnesota, not one believed he could possibly have had anything to do with the Kensington stone. Many of these persons doubted the stone's genuineness, but, no mat- ter who had chiseled it, they said, they were sure Fogelblad was innocent. He was, they said, too honest and conscientious to have perpetrated such a fraud; be had no aptitude whatever for practical jokes and deceptions; be was too lazy to have executed it, and too garrulous to have concealed it if he had. Furthermore, it is plain from the limitations of his early training and later opportunities that he was entirely ignorant of the fine runological and linguistic points involved in this inscription. Finally, he did not make his appearance around Kensington until many years after the tree above the stone had wound its roots around it.
As to "Fryxell's famous book on the Runes of East Gothland," which, according to Professors Flom and Anderson, contains all the material for this inscription, I assert Fogelblad uever possessed or saw this book, for one excellent reason-such a book never existed except in the overwrought minds of these gentlemen of imaginary rune lore. Fryxell never wrote any book whatsoever on runes. For information on this, see every Swedish encyclopedia. The only nut of truth in this entire bag of husks is that Andrew Anderson, in whose house Fogelblad died, found an old Swedish grammar (by Alm- quist) among his books. On page 34 are two lines of runes to illustrate the develop- ment of the language. This book he gave to Olof Ohman, the finder of the stone, who by its help tried to make out the inscriptions, but without success. Three years ago I looked over Ohman's books in his absence and found this work, but saw at once that it had nothing to do with the inscription, as the runes are different. Last spring this book was again brought into the discussion by suspicious persons, and I then asked Professor Winchell, the state archaeologist, to send for the book, which he did. He then laid it before Norse scholars, who said it would be quite impossible to have constructed the inscription from this alphabet. .
The small collection of books left by Mr. Sven Fogelblad at his death, at the home of Mr. Andrew Anderson, was found, on inquiry by the museum committee, to have been disposed of in part to Rev. M. A. Nordstroem, of Riverside, California. In order to push the investigation of this- question still further, inquiry was made of Mr. Nordstroem as to the existence of any works on runes, and especially by Fryxell on runes, in the collection owned by Fogelblad. Mr. Nordstroem replied, after some delay due to change of residence, that the books got by him were on philosophy, that Fogelblad had no work by Fryxell, and added that, in his opinion, Fogelblad could not have made the inscription.
I19
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The chronologic order is followed, as showing best the development of discussion of this subject. The time included extends to September, 1910, giving a considerable number of references later than the date of this report by the museum committee, but preceding its publication. Many minor articles and comments in magazines and newspapers are omitted.
Breda, Prof. O. J. An interview giving an account of the discovery of the Rune Stone. Minneapolis Journal, Feb. 22, 1899.
News Report, the first announcement of this discovery published in the Norwegian press, Skandinaren, Chicago, Feb. 22, 1899.
Aaberg, E. E. Further account of the discovery, written by a local resident acquainted with its details. Skandinaren (semi-weekly), Chicago, March 1, 1899.
Curme, Prof. G. O. Interview presenting in a brief paragraph his objection to the use of the decimal system in the inscription. Skandinaven, March 1. 1899.
Kirkeberg. Rev. O. L. An able translation of the inscription, with argument in favor of the genuineness of the stone. Skandinaven, March 1, 1899.
Curme, Prof. G. O. A lengthy interview, favoring the genuineness of the inscrip- tion, but objecting to the apparently English word from. Skandinaven, March 3, 1899.
Conradi, P. A. Detailed discussion of the inscription, presenting arguments for and against its genuineness. Skandinacen, March 10, 1899.
Editorial Article in Skandinaven, March 15, 1899, summarizing the objections of Prof. Oluf Rygh as published in Morgenbladet, Christiania, Norway. These are the sup- posed English words, from, of, ded, and unusual runic characters.
Flom. P. L. Communication showing that from was in use in Norway in the middle ages. Skandinaven, March 24, 1899.
Breda, Prof. O. J. Interview giving a cablegram from professors of Christiania University, discrediting the inscription chiefly because of its numerous supposed English words. Minneapolis Tribune, April 16, 1899.
This opinion silenced all who had been interested in the Rune Stone, and we find nothing further printed about it until 1908.
Holand, Hjalmar Rued. First account of the stone in the revival of the discussion. containing a detailed defense of its genuineness and a full translation. Skandinaren, January. 17. 1908; printed also in several other Scandinavian newspapers.
Holand. H. R. The second chapter, pages 8-22, in his "De Norske Settlementers Historie" (Ephraim, Wisconsin, 1908), gives an account of the visits to America by the early Norsemen between the years 1000 and 1362, and concludes with a description of the Kensington Rune Stone. A view of the stone is presented from a photograph, and its inscription is printed in the rune characters, with a manuscript transliteration.
Holand, H. R. Notes of correspondence with Prof. Magnus Olsen and Helge Gjessing, of Christiania University, giving Mr. Gjessing's objections to the inscription and answers to them. Decorah Posten, Decorah, Iowa, May 14, 1909.
Gjessing, Helge. Runestenen fra Kensington. The full publication of his objections, in Symra, Decorah, Iowa, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 113-126, September, 1909.
Iverslie, P. P. Kensingtonstenen. An able support of Mr. Holand's arguments in favor of the stone and in opposition to Mr. Gjessing's conclusions. Kvartalskrift, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, July, 1909, pp. 13-21.
I20
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
Editorial Article in La Nature, Paris, France, Angust 14, 1909, giving the history of the discovery of the stone and discussions of it, and presenting the probability of its genuineness.
Holand, H. R. "An Explorer's Stone Record which antedates Columbus: a Tragic Inscription unearthed in Minnesota, recording the Fate of a Band of Scandinavian Adventurers." Harper's Weekly, October 9, 1909, p. 15.
Fossum, Prof. Andrew. "Hudson Bay Route to Solve Problem." A defense of the inscription by an able presentation of the feasibility of the explorers' route by the way of Hudson bay, the Nelson river, lake Winnipeg. and the Red river. Norwegian American, Northfield, Minnesota, October 22, 1909. This article was printed also in Norwegian in Skandinaren, October 26.
Holand, H. R. "The. Skerries Discovered." An account of the author's discovery of the skerries mentioned in the inscription. Norwegian American, November 19, 1909. The same account in Norwegian, accompanied by a map of Pelican lake, showing the position of the skerries and probable location of the camp of the explorers, was published in Skandinaren, November 26.
Odland, MI. W. "The Kensington Rune Stone is Genuine." Minneapolis Journal, November 29, 1909.
Norman, Rev. O. A. "More about the Rune Stone. by one who was asso- ciated in the Discovery of the Skerries." Ashby (Minnesota) Post. December 3, 1909.
News Report of a meeting of the Minnesota Historical Society, December 13, 1909. giving synopses of addresses by H. R. Holand, Prof. N. H. Winchell, Prof. Andrew Fossum. and Dr. Knut Hoegh, all in defense of the genuineness of the inscription. Pioncer Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. December 14, 1909.
News Report, noting resolutions by the Council of the Minnesota Historical Society, requesting the governor of Minnesota to institute a search in Paris for a supposed rune stone found in the Northwest by Verendrye in his expeditions of 1738-43, related by Peter Kalm in his "Travels into North America" (London edition, 1771. Vol. III, pp. 124-128). The Dispatch, St. Paul, December 14, 1909.
News Reports, more detailed, of the addresses on December 13, in the meeting of this Historical Society, including nearly all of Professor Winfchell's address. Norwegian American, December 17. 1909.
Hoegh, Dr. Knut. Report by the chairman of a committee appointed by the Nor- wegian Society of Minneapolis to investigate the discovery of the stone. The report shows that it had lain where it was found since about 1860, at least, and strongly favors the gennineness of the inscription. Symra, Vol. 5, No. 4. pp. 178-189, December, 1909.
Holand, H. R. A reply in Symra, Vol. 5. No. 4, pp. 209-213, to the arguments of Mr. Gjessing in its preceding number as before cited.
Upham, Warren. "The Kensington Rune Stone. its Discovery, its Inscriptions, and Opinions concerning them." Records of the Past, Washington, D. C., Vol. 1X, Part 1, pp. 3-7. Jannary-February, 1910; with prints from photographs showing the inscriptions on the face and edge of the stone.
Daae, Dr. Anders. Concise summary of the discussion up to date, concluding that the opponents of the stone have not properly investigated the subject before forming their conclusions. Aftenposten, Christiania, Norway, January 18, 1910.
News Report of a meeting of the Chicago Historical Society, February 3, 1910, in which an address relating to the probable genuineness of this Rune Stone was delivered by 11. R. Holand, followed by arguments of Dr. Chester N. Gould, of Chicago University. and Prof. George T. Flom. of the University of Illinois, against it. Skandinaren, Febru- ary 5, 1910.
12I
DOUGLAS AND GRANT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA.
Anderson, Prof. Rasmus B. "Professor Anderson calls it a Fraud," a sharp attack on the Rune Stone and Mr. Holand's integrity. Wisconsin State Journal, Madison, Wisconsin, February 7, 1910.
Holand, H. R. Rebuttal of the arguments presented in the preceding article. Wis- consin State Journal, February 8, 1910.
Holand, H. R. An interview entitled "Wed with Indians," presenting the prob- ability that the blue eyed Mandan Indians are the result of intermarriage of the explor- ers of 1362 with the Indians of that region. Pioncer Press, February 15, 1910.
Anderson, Prof. R. B. Editorial attacks against the Kensington stone and Mr. Holand. Amerika, Madison, Wisconsin, February 18, 1910. In the next issue of Amerika, February 25, are a letter by Warren Upham, secretary of the Minnesota Historical Society, concerning that society's investigation of the stone and its inscriptions, and Professor Anderson's editorial reply.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.