Talk:Erik Sparre

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 16:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A 1595 painting of Sparre, holding his treatise Pro rege, lege et grege

• ... that Erik Sparre was godfather to Gustavus Adolphus, but Gustavus' father had Sparre beheaded at the Linköping Bloodbath shortly thereafter? Source: For the claim that he was godfather to Gustavus Adolphus: Sparre's relations with Duke Karl, after the death of Johan III, were at first good, and he even stood as godfather to Gustav Adolf in 1594. For the claim that Charles IX of Sweden had him executed: On March 20, 1600, the executions were carried out in the Linköping marketplace. Among those beheaded was Erik Sparre. (NB: Charles is referred to by his Swedish name, Karl, in this source.)
  • ALT1: ... that Erik Sparre is known as "the father of Swedish constitutional law"? Source: Sparre attempted to take into consideration the common welfare of all Sweden. He has become known as the father of Swedish constitutional law.
  • ALT2: ... that Erik Sparre has been called Sweden's James Madison? Source: Sweden did not produce a Jean Bodin or a James Madison, but it had Erik Sparre (1550–1600).
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I know the first hook is a bit clunky so I'm open to better wording. If not, this page is absolutely lousy with DYK material so if none of these ALTs are good, I'll happily find a new one!

Created by ThaesOfereode (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

• QPQ not needed, ALT1 probably the best followed by ALT2. ALT0 is not great. Sourcing good, new enough no copyvios. All's good Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review @OlifanofmrTennant:! I've added the {{subst:DYKtick}} since it looks like you forgot it, but if you need to change it, feel free. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Arcsoda: 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)

@ThaesOfereode and Arcsoda: I have asked a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#"accidents and conveniences". 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)

@Arcsoda: 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' [1]. "Nyttighet" has two meanings which could be relevant: either concrete things that generates economic gain, or privilege [2].

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)

References

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)