3 Though said by its author, Johann Wonnecke von Caub (Latinized as Johannes de Cuba), to have been composed from a study of the 2 This is Sundevall's estimate; Drs Aubert and Wimmer in their excellent edition of the `Io-ropiac 1repi "c;iwv (Leipzig, 1868) limit the number to 126.
Wimmer, Die Ostmark (1917); Munin, Oesterreich nach dem Kriege (1915); W.
Wimmer (1868), the Ethics by K.
P. Wimmer, Kaiserin Adelheid, Gemahlin Ottos I.
Wimmer, Runeskriftens Oprindelse (Copenhagen, 1874); Die Runenschrift (Berlin, 1887).
See Wimmer, Sammelblatter zur Geschichte der Stadt Straubing (Straubing, 1882-1884), and Ortner, Straubing in seiner Vergangenheit and Gegenwart (Straubing, 1902).
Wimmer, in his great work Die Runenschrift (Berlin, 1887), contends that the resemblance, though striking, is superficial.
Wimmer's own view is that the runes were developed from the Latin alphabet in use at the end of the 2nd century A.D.
Wimmer supports his thesis with great learning and ingenuity, and when allowance is made for the fact that a script to be written upon wood, as the runes were, of necessity avoids horizontal lines which run along the fibres of the wood, and would therefore be indistinct, most of the runic signs thus receive a plausible explanation.
On the other hand, several of Wimmer's equations are undoubtedly forced.
It is very unlikely that a people borrowing an alphabet which was uniformly written from left to right should have used it in order to write from right to left, or (30uvrp04riOOP. Hence Hempl contends 3 that Wimmer's view must be discarded, and that the runes were derived about 600 B.C. from a western Greek alphabet which closely resembled the Formello alphabet (one of the ancient Chalcidian abecedaria) and the Sabellic and North Etruscan alphabets.
Wimmer, Die Runenschrift (Berlin, 1887), p. 61 ff.; G.
Wimmer (1842-62) and in Usener's Analecta Theophrastea.
That Wimmer postdates the introduction of the runic alphabet seems clear from the archaic forms and method of writing.