# Talk:Erik Sparre

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)

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)

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:

but it is likely that he studied abroad between 1569 and 1573; a 1570 record at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder lists a student as Ericus Sparr, nobilis, Suecus ('Erik Sparre, noble, Swede') -- 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.
During his time abroad, Sparre developed exceptionally strong language skills, particularly in Italian, French, and Latin. -- 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.
On 30 November of the same year, he proposed to Ebbe Brahe, daughter of Per Brahe the Elder, who was first cousin to John III of Sweden and a highly influential figure in the Swedish court. -- I don't see the relationship between Per and John in Scott, is it there somewhere?
and had a special interest in the organization of the National Archives. -- This part has to go if we remove Nordisk Familjebok.
Despite the honor, Sparre never requested the title nor petitioned the king to have it recognized as legitimate. -- 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.
Sparre is considered one of the most learned men of his time, particularly in Sweden. -- If we lose NB we can only claim "in Sweden" and not worldwide.
Courtesy ping ThaesOfereode. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Draken Bowser: 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)
I've been off on vacation for a few weeks, but will have time to resume on Sunday. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Further comments:
I think we can remove "Leffler 1854" from "it is generally accepted that Sparre wrote the Pro lege in 1582", it's a bit too old to verify what is generally accepted.
Is there a reason to present in Swedish som dödelig är and som ödedelig achtas, since they're essentially how you'd translate "is mortal" and "is immortal" to old Swedish?
Draken Bowser (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@Draken Bowser: Thanks again for doing this; I really appreciate it.
Re: Leffler – Removed
I left them in because the English-language source I was using also felt it was important to use the Swedish, but I've removed it since it serves no real purpose here.
Thanks again for giving this article your attention. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
deprived of their fiefs in the presence of the Estates, and imprisoned. we're any of them imprisoned at that point? I'm trying to find the corresponding passage in the sources. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Nvm, now I got it. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
In February and March 1592, Sparre escaped custody twice. since he was presumably free at the time, should we go with "avoided arrest" or "escaped capture"? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Boom, done. Thanks a ton, Draken! ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Draken Bowser: Wait, I remember why I phrased it this way. Wouldn't he have remained imprisoned in Stockholm Castle until he was fully acquitted, per the preceding paragraph? ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
SBL is certainly a bit confusing here, because the preceding paragraph doesn't mention him being released after the trial. The language of the source here "Om S vägrade skulle han föras till Sthlm och placeras i fängsligt förvar. S vägrade både att lämna ut krönikan och att följa med till Sthlm. Även i mars skickade kungen en tjänare med uppdrag att beslagta skriften och föra S till fängsligt förvar, men han lyckades ånyo klara sig undan." doesn't quite make sense unless he was free at the time, how could he avoid being taking into custody if he was already in custody? Draken Bowser (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that pretty much unambiguously puts him outside custody at the time and I've fixed the wording to reflect that. Good catch. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erik Sparre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Heidi Pusey BYU (talk · contribs) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, ThaesOfereode. My name is Heidi Pusey (BYU) and I am a student editor at the BYU library; I am paid hourly to edit Wikipedia. The review may take several days, as I am also dedicating time to classes and homework. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Heidi. Thank you for taking the time to review this article! During the reference check, it may be of use to you to see the talk page; a Swedish-speaking user was kind enough to double-check my translations and he left some comments there that may be of use to you, especially since much of this article relies on the Janbrink source. I'm looking forward to your comments in the coming days! ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll take a look at those comments. I had been wondering about the Janbrink source, so I'm hopeful they will clear up my questions. If I still have questions after reading them, I'll let you know. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


### Criteria 1: Well-written
A. The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. ✅

“While in prison, he complained in letters that he had been unable to attend his father-in-law's funeral, that his brother had been imprisoned, and that he was not a heretic in spite of accusations to the contrary.” This is the first mention that the father-in-law died. As a reader, this took me by surprise. I think a word or two of context somewhere in the previous two sentences would help.
Soft pushback: I don't think saying "Per Brahe the Elder died in 1590" is any less jarring; Brahe's death isn't really telegraphed to the reader and his importance to Sparre is mostly sympathizing with the Catholic Church and Sparre's second major connection to the royal court. If you feel strongly about it, can you suggest a less jarring way to introduce Brahe's death?
No, I don't feel strongly about it. It can be left the way it is.
“In February and March 1592, Sparre avoided arrest twice.” Do we know how he avoided arrest?
Unfortunately not. Janbrink says the first time he just refused to accompany the court servant the king sent and the second time, John sent a servant to seize him and some documents, but Sparre "again managed to escape".
“When the judgement was read, Sparre tore up his speech in protest and attempted to console his fellow condemned with another speech.” Kinda a nit-picky suggestion: The reader has to infer from this that Sparre was condemned, but it should probably be made more clear. (Example: “When the judgment was read…” becomes “When the judgment condemning Sparre was read…”)
Fair enough. Fixed.
The lede mentions that Sparre was executed during the Linkoping Bloodbath, but this fact is not mentioned in the body of the article. The section on his execution mentions Linkoping and points to the Linkoping Bloodbath as the main article, but I’m wondering if it could also be mentioned in the body. Do you think that would be too redundant?
Good catch. No, I don't think it would be too redundant. I've added a source from the Nordic Museum and reused Lind 2021. I think that should fix it.
Overall, the writing is spectacular. It is clear, the vocabulary is simultaneously strong and accessible, and the flow of ideas is smooth.
Very kind words! Thank you very much.
B. It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. ✅

The phrases “most notably” and “most famous” need to go, per MoS/Words to Watch. I’d suggest replacing “most famous” with “most well-known”.
Yep, fixed.
Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)


### Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research
A. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. ✅

I noticed that a couple sources in the first part of the citation section are not consistent with the rest (I mean numbers 1 and 3).
Uh, yeah. Weird. I don't know why I did that. Fixed.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). ✅

I’m a little concerned about the Skibiński source. It is clearly stated as PhD dissertation in the source section. We have to be pretty careful about using these as sources. However, I noticed that you did not put it as a citation by itself but backed it up with other sources. That said, I’m wondering if it could be removed as a source because there are other sources with the same information. For reference, here is what WP: Reliable sources says:
“Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.”
Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was ultimately published as a monograph in 2020, but I don't have access to the monograph itself (and thus don't know if the page numbers will match up, etc.). Moreover, the piece isn't a primary source really; it serves as a secondary historical record for the purposes of this article. I can still remove this if you'd like, but this was the rationale for keeping it.
Okay, so I looked over the guidelines for monographs and I'll accept this as a source, especially since it is a secondary source and in conjunction with other sources.
Overall, great job with sources.
Thank you again!
C. It contains no original research. ✅
D. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. ✅

Note: Parts that need work are italicized.
“Despite the preparation, it was not until January 1588 that it became clear that Sigismund's accession was secure.” Similar sentence structure to the source used.
Yeah, definitely. Changed to "Despite the preparation, Sigismund's accession was not clearly secure until January 1588." Let me know if this needs more.
“John began seeking out a closer alliance with Charles and – in a desperate attempt to curtail such an alliance – Sparre, Sten Banér, and Ture Bielke [sv] all signed an apology, admitting wrong and promising the king that they would not oppose the cession of Estonia if it meant that Sigismund could abdicate the Polish Crown.” This is close paraphrasing of Roberts.
Think I've fixed this one up.
“In 1590, Sparre, Ture Bielke, Hogenskild Bielke, Gustav Banér, Sten Banér, and Erik Stenbock were displaced from the Privy Council, dismissed from their offices, deprived of their fiefs in the presence of the Estates, and imprisoned.” Italicized bits are almost identical to the Roberts source. I understand that some of this might be tricky to reword, but it is possible. Example: “removed from their offices” or “stripped of their fiefs”.
"Displaced" → "removed" and "deprived of their fiefs" → "had their fiefs revoked". Soft push to keep "dismissed from their offices" as-is because I think it has a semantic connotation that is useful here.
“When Sparre was late to the Uppsala Synod, arriving in February, it reignited suspicions of heresy, despite his signing of the declaration, which in part banned Catholicism.” Where did the part about banning Catholicism come from? I couldn’t find it in the source, but I may have overlooked it.
Must have been in my reading and I just failed to cite it. I've removed it for now but may return with an appropriate source if I find it.
“On 8 January 1593, they established an interim government whereby Charles was recognized as the ‘leading personage’ in Sweden.” Close paraphrasing of the Roberts source.
Fixed.
I’m noticing that most of the close paraphrasing is related to the Roberts source. Maybe take a look at the rest of the Roberts references and check for close paraphrasing. If you’re unsure, you can always ask me for a second opinion. And don’t feel bad—we all do this at some point. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got them all. Must've just got swept up in Roberts's wonderful prose! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Perfect! I'm going to go ahead and approve this as a Good Article. Well done. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you so much. Your review was very thorough and helpful! Hope to get you again as a reviewer at GAN (or FAC)! ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)


### Criteria 3-6
#### Broad in its coverage
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic ✅
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ✅


#### Neutral
A. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅


#### Stable
A. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✅


#### Illustrated
A. Media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. ✅
B. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ✅
Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Have responded accordingly above. Looking forward to your comments. By the way, when citing policy/guidelines, you don't have to use the single brackets as you did above; you can always cite with the double brackets internally, like WP:RS or MOS:WTW (in Wiki markup: [[WP:RS]] instead of [WP:Reliable sources] and so on) for the reliable source policy. Figured this might make life a little easier for you. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments above and have added a checkmark to the resolved criteria. Now I just have to check for a couple more things and then the review will be complete. Good work! P. S. Thank you so much for the tip—it really will make things much easier for me. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Happy to help. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)