Talk:Erik Sparre

Curious about specific translation
A passage under the "Pro lege, rege et grege" mentions the concepts "accidents and conveniences" which is translated from "tillhörigheter och nyttigheter". Obviously, these are historical terms and should in no way be confused with contemporary use and their translations.

That said, I'm very curious where this article finds it's claim to these severely deviating translations of the stated Swedish terminology. The link in the source note rendered nothing.

Arcsoda (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The source cited (Roberts 1968, p. 304) contains the passage and translation, just as cited: "Sparre argued that the dukes had only a dominium utile in their duchies: their claim to enjoy their rights 'as freely as the king does in his dominions' applied therefore only to the 'accidents and conveniences' (tilhörigheter och nyttigheter), and by no means implied a sovereign authority." Roberts was a well-regarded historian and the book was published by a reputable academic source; I'm more willing to take that translation over virtually any other without good cause. ThaesOfereode (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That you for responding. It wasn't the legitimacy behind the source that raised interest, it was how the translation was transfered from the source, when said source gives no explanation for the specific translation. Original material (e.g a source's own translations) is usually not welcome in Wikipedia articles.
 * Arcsoda (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have asked a question at Reference desk/Language. TSventon (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At a pure guess, the phrase might have originated in Latin and the Latin may have a standard English rendering. Errantios (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, but I am not convinced that "accidents and conveniences" is modern English, it reminds me somewhat of Agents and Patients. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My educated guess is that "accidents" applies to the sense of "something inherent to the object" (in this case, noble status; cf. Accident (philosophy)), whereas "conveniences" applies to the rights and privileges of the nobility. Is it possible this is English/British legal jargon? ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion. I thought I might have mixed up two of my sources so I double-checked. As for how Roberts got that translation, I'm not certain how he translated it. I don't have any background in Swedish law, so I can't be helpful in that regard either. I did double check through my Swedish dictionary to confirm the translations, but legal jargon can be so damn thick, that – since I had no reason to doubt the author – I assumed it was translated into established English legal jargon. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a legal background—albeit nothing to do with Swedish law—and suggest as follows. (1) If Sparre speaks of dominium utile, taken from  Roman law, it is very possible that his meaning of tilhörigheter och nyttigheter also has a Roman-law source and maybe he points to one.  (2) If tilhörigheter och nyttigheter is a legal expression at all (and it does have an oldish legal ring), its meaning is to be sought in the legal terminology with which Sparre was familiar.  Here there is no substitute for consulting Swedish law books or at least a dictionary of Swedish big enough to give historical usages. Only after this should an English translation be sought.  Swedish and English meanings might be found to match, but that would be a historical coincidence; perhaps Swedish law was influenced in this respect by English law, although the reverse is unlikely. (3) An English translation should be into today's English, choosing terms that suit the meanings found in Sparre.  But English-language legal terminology should be avoided unless it satisfies that criterion.  (4) All that said, however, an English and sometimes legal term that might fit this bill is 'appurtenance'.  Errantios (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There were several lawcollections used in parallel, but my impression is that the rights and privileges of the nobility was not generally codified in what in Sweden would be considered law, rather in ordinances and royal grants.
 * Anyway, for dictionaries there is the Svenska Akademiens Ordbok. It does not list these kind of phrases generally. It also does not give any particular meaning of "tillhörighet" (or rather: "tillhörig") apart from the modern, meaning 'belonging' . "Nyttighet" has two meanings which could be relevant: either concrete things that generates economic gain, or privilege.
 * Andejons (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I searched for "tilhörigheter och nyttigheter" in Google books and it seems to be part of a quote from Gustav Vasa's will (Gustav Vasas testamente) about his sons' inheritance of lands " med alla deras tillhörigheter och nyttigheter lika som vi dem på kronans vägnar själva innehaft " [with all their belongings and benefits just as we ourselves held them on behalf of the crown - via Google translate].
 * TSventon (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Ordinances, royal grants and wills—all of them types of formal legal instrument—are likely to have employed standard legal language, especially to avoid challenge some years later. A Swedish legal historian might be able to resolve this problem quite quickly. Errantios (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For "med alla deras tillhörigheter och nyttigheter lika som vi dem på kronans vägnar själva innehaft", DeepL (a better translation programme than Google) gives "with all their goods and chattels as we have held them on behalf of the Crown".


 * The phrase "goods and chattels" sounds lawyerly - although possibly DeepL has chosen it for that reason rather than for literal accuracy (and I didn't tell it a date). Anyhow, "goods and chattels" can now be a candidate.  Errantios (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think Lambiam's comment here is helpful. Goods and chattels is about movable personal possessions, so I don't think it works here. I am also not convinced that Gustav I's will was unambiguous, though if medieval princes wanted to fight, a sealed document was unlikely to stop them. I am leaning to just appurtenances. TSventon (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are of course right about sealed documents, but medieval princes did argue intensively from them. My focus, however, was on occasions for formal language. And I agree about "goods and chattels"—it is insufficient.
 * The first part of the quotation echoes the distinction in Roman law and in civilian legal systems between immovable and movable property: "tilhörigheter och nyttigheter" all seems to refer to movables. However, if we shift our attention to the latter part of the quotation, "lika som vi dem på kronans vägnar själva innehaft [with all their belongings and benefits just as we ourselves held them on behalf of the crown - Google]", we find ourselves not in Roman law but in feudal law.  For example: in English law, which still employs a feudal framework of 'tenures and estates', firstly the Crown is the absolute owner of all land, and then almost all of it is held by others by way of a tenure or estate, a 'fee' (still BTW called in Scots law a 'feu'). The land is literally 'held ... on behalf of the Crown'. While the relationship to the Crown is rarely important today, for medieval lords it was a substantive relation of dependence;  the lord might, however, assert that the relation concerned the land as such and that things on or of the land ('appurtenances'?) were at the lord's own disposal.  Roman law, which did not  have a doctrine of tenures and estates, does not readily fit this picture.  Yet possibly some if not all Swedish lawyers in Sparre's day attempted to do just that.  If so, the choice of legal framework—with possibly conflicting consequences—may itself have been disputed. Then the initial question for us is not the terminology but the framework of the terminology.  Unacquainted as I am with anything Swedish, I am not equipped to speculate further. Errantios (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Considerably delayed, but finally here! Right off the bat I think we need to do away with Nordisk familjebok; at over a hundred years old its use as a reliable source could reasonably be questioned.

Suggestions:


 * -- Scott: ..after studies in Padua and perhaps Frankfurt, returned to Sweden in 1574. - Scott isn't really verifying any of this, but it's all covered by Janbrink.
 * -- D-S: "Brahe's son-in-law was the brilliant Erik Sparre (1550-1600), who corresponded with his brother in Italian and French" - Janbrink: "utan också mycket goda språkkunskaper, särskilt i italienska och latin, vilket han flitigt använde under resten av sitt liv. - I think we're slightly embellishing here with respect to French.
 * -- I don't see the relationship between Per and John in Scott, is it there somewhere?
 * -- This part has to go if we remove Nordisk Familjebok.
 * -- We might have to say that he claimed this, since it must have been in his self interest to do so, and the fact originates from Sparre himself. We might also say "British king" for clarity.
 * -- If we lose NB we can only claim "in Sweden" and not worldwide.

Courtesy ping. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks a ton for doing this; I was just thinking about sending you a ping yesterday, so I'm glad I waited!
 * Re: the Nordisk familjebok, other than its age, is there any reason to doubt the reliability of the source? It seems to mostly confirm what is found in other sources and doesn't seem to contain the editorial issues of the previous edition.
 * Removed the Scott ref. I agree; no need to add confusion here.
 * I'm not sure why this is embellishing. It seems extremely unlikely that D-S would call Sparre "brilliant" and then allude to his poor French, right? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.
 * Good catch. Removed.
 * I had assumed this meant having the Swedish king recognize it as legitimate since Elizabeth I was Queen of England and Ireland (i.e., not a king) and James VI would have been imprisoned until the summer of that year, despite Sparre's having been awarded the barony in March. Is there anything in Janbrink that I overlooked which indicates a particular monarch? I suppose he wouldn't need it recognized in Sweden if he were already nobility, but I don't really have any background in how nobility worked in Sweden (e.g., could you concatenate baronies for a higher noble rank or more clout?). Otherwise, I've changed the sentence to Despite the honor, Sparre claimed never to have requested the title nor petitioned the king to have it recognized as legitimate.
 * Thanks again. Let me know what you think about my comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the text claiming not only "strong language skills" but "exceptionally strong language skills", which isn't really supported by the source. I'm good with making some such claim off of Janbrink, but it is not clear to me that "brilliant" (in general) followed by "who corresponded with his brother in Italian and French" transfers to "exceptionally strong language skills" (in French)-
 * Oh, it was an assumption based on James being listed as the sovereign of Scotland from 24 July 1567 with his coronation date 5 days later. However, I'm ignorant on the internal mechanics of monarchy and nobility as well as British history in general, which means I don't exactly know what getting the title recognized entails, but it seems like a decision entitled to the Scottish rather than Swedish sovereign. I think the new version is quite nice.
 * Draken Bowser (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll change the sentence to just say he was also conversant in French rather than with exceptional skill. I really appreciate you taking the time to do a source spot-check for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draken Bowser (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll change the sentence to just say he was also conversant in French rather than with exceptional skill. I really appreciate you taking the time to do a source spot-check for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)