| Author |
Message |
|
Håvard Kongsrud
|
 Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 1:54 am Post subject: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effigy? |
 |
|
1316 or 1366?
Citing 'Gardell, Sölve. 1937. Gravmonument från Sveriges medeltid. Elander', Effigies and Brasses dates the effigie of Nils Jonsson in the St Mary's Church, Sigtuna, Uppland, Sweden to 1316. According to Swedish Wikipedia, the effigy is related to Nils Jonsson of Rickeby and from 1319. Most likely it is the same effigy facing Anna Kjellströms 2005 (2014) PhD paper, with the text "Cover illustration: Gravestone from St Mary’s, Sigtuna, in memory of Nils Jonsson, his wife Kristina and daughter Kristern in A.D. 1310" It is based on a drawing from 'Gihl G. 1925. Sigtuna och Norrsunda: tvenne antikvariskt-topografiska manuskript af Martinus Aschaneus. Diss. Uppsala'.
My nonexisting latin makes it a bit diffucult to read the text on the monument. While the two females seem very conservatively dressed, the shields and chains on this coat of plates seem oddly out of date with the date given to ca 1310-1319. Furthermore, his Wife Kristina apparently died in 1349 and the effegy could have been executed in that relation. Moreover, another Nils Jonsson of Rickeby, an Östgöta lawman, is suggested to be dead in 1366 in this source. In my head at least these dates fit better with the presence of chains on the coat of plates in the effigy.
What say you?
|
|
  |
 |
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 5:46 am Post subject: Re: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effi |
|
|
| Håvard Kongsrud wrote: |
1316 or 1366?
Citing 'Gardell, Sölve. 1937. Gravmonument från Sveriges medeltid. Elander', Effigies and Brasses dates the effigie of Nils Jonsson in the St Mary's Church, Sigtuna, Uppland, Sweden to 1316. According to Swedish Wikipedia, the effigy is related to Nils Jonsson of Rickeby and from 1319. Most likely it is the same effigy facing Anna Kjellströms 2005 (2014) PhD paper, with the text "Cover illustration: Gravestone from St Mary’s, Sigtuna, in memory of Nils Jonsson, his wife Kristina and daughter Kristern in A.D. 1310" It is based on a drawing from 'Gihl G. 1925. Sigtuna och Norrsunda: tvenne antikvariskt-topografiska manuskript af Martinus Aschaneus. Diss. Uppsala'.
My nonexisting latin makes it a bit diffucult to read the text on the monument. While the two females seem very conservatively dressed, the shields and chains on this coat of plates seem oddly out of date with the date given to ca 1310-1319. Furthermore, his Wife Kristina apparently died in 1349 and the effegy could have been executed in that relation. Moreover, another Nils Jonsson of Rickeby, an Östgöta lawman, is suggested to be dead in 1366 in this source. In my head at least these dates fit better with the presence of chains on the coat of plates in the effigy.
What say you? |
Actually I'm myself in the process of going through Danish gravestones, so I can come with a comparison.
Gravestones with depictions of people with weapons are actually uncommon in Denmark, until around 1500's.
From the type of inscription it is a Majuskel inscription with a lot of interesting ligatures.
The letters seems to be more evolved than the Romanische Majuskel and is likely (Frühe?) Gotische Majuskel, which was used in epigraphic inscriptions in the 13-14th centuries.
Especially the B(y) written as a ligature is interesting. In one place with a line coming out from the center of the B, and another place from the bottom of the B. This is most likely an aesthetic variation.
You also have the "OR" looking ligature on the left, that actually is an "M".
The top and right part of the inscription says ......IACET NICOLAVS IONS : DE RIRRAB(Y) : ETVX(?)EIVS : C RISCI(A)
What is clear is that you have Nicolaus Ions (Nils Jonsson) of (DE) Rirraby (the letters 1-3-4 seems identical, so RIRRAB(y) is what seems to be written; the problem is that you would normally use a latin C to indicate a K and this really seems to be three R's).
The you have a strange 3 dots on top of each other. Does that mean the end of the text, so the following is actually the start when you read it around?
OR:
We continue the text with ETVX (strange sign)EIVS.
The first ET could be "and" and then follows UX?EIUS.
If that is the case then we have Nils Jonsson av Rirraby (?) and "ux?eius"? [Is this an additional title?]
Is the strange letter a ligature? or a strange M?
EDIT: Found an explanation: It must be ET UXOR EIUS = "and his wife". - Proud of myself 
That can only mean that the "strange letter" is an OR ligature  (man, that is almost impossible to guess)
Nils Jonsson was "lagman" in Östergötland 1364-1366.
Source: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagman
I haven't been able to find out how "lagman" would be translated into Latin in medieval Sweden.
But that title would only appear if the effigy was made in 1366 and not before 1364.
It is further followed by : C RISCI(A), so that must be the wife's name:
I have a really hard time to understand why it seems the first C is separated a bit from the rest of the letters
So is that Kristina?
In rune writings you could omit N and M, so that seems to be the case here as well. CRISCI(N)A ?
Sometimes you can find T's that looks like a C with a "top hat" on swedish swords - here they apparently forgot the "top hat", but it would change the reading into CRISTI(N)A with the N omitted as you did in rune writing.
So it generally leaves us with the pictorial clues. I think also that the chains on his torso must also be indicative of a late date - so maybe 1349 (but not an expert on when the chains start to appear?).
The line before NICOLAVS is damaged. Perhaps the ........IACET could have a reading of "lagman" in latin, that would definitely set the dating to 1366.
After 2,5 hours looking at this, my brain needs a break
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lewis
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 7:48 am Post subject: Re: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effi |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | The you have a strange 3 dots on top of each other. Does that mean the end of the text, so the following is actually the start when you read it around?
EDIT: Found an explanation: It must be ET UXOR EIUS = "and his wife". - Proud of myself
That can only mean that the "strange letter" is an OR ligature (man, that is almost impossible to guess)
Sometimes you can find T's that looks like a C with a "top hat" on swedish swords - here they apparently forgot the "top hat", but it would change the reading into KRISTI(N)A with the N omitted as you did in rune writing. |
Good reading Niels!
Two or three dots are both commonly used to separate words within sentences, so not necessarily an end-of-text marker.
I think the OR ligature is visible twice on the left side, it very much resembles a common Gothic form for the letter M.... confusing and ambiguous as always!
The letter T is also often written like a Greek tau character, which can often resemble a C if not written clearly.
Now I will try to help with the bottom and left of the inscription. Reading from bottom right, counter-clockwise:
....VINQ FILIIS (E?)T QUI NQ FILIAB EOR QUOR AIE SI...
I don't quite get the sense of the phrase but can recognize a few words and suggest some abbreviations:
Filiis = "children"
Filia = "daughter"... not sure about the ending B
NQ = nunquam = "never"
QUOR = quorum = "their"
|
|
 |
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
1311 Inventory of John fitz Marmaduke, Lord of Horden
j gaimbeson rubeum cum tribus cathenis argenteis l s.
1 red gambeson with three silver chains, 50s.
1313 Acquittance of goods seized from the captive, Piers Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall
Item, En un autre Coffre, une Peire de Plates, enclouez & garniz d'Argent, od quatre Cheynes d'Argent, coverz dun Drap de velvet vermail, besaunte d'Or.
Item, in another chest, one pair of plates, nailed and garnished with silver, with four silver chains, covered in cloth of vermillion velvet, bezanty gold.
c.1315 Tournament Rules of Perceval de Warenne, et al.
Item, deux chaînes à attachier à la poitrine de la cuirie, une pour l'espee, et l'autre pour le baston en deux visieres pour le heaume attacher.
Item, two chains which attach to the breast of the cuirie, one for the sword, and the other for the club and two visors to attach to the helm.
The artwork generally seems to be a decade or two behind the written accounts.
BUT....Are we even sure that those are supposed to be chains, rather than some sort of vertical decoration or pattern on the fabric?
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 10:07 am Post subject: Re: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effi |
|
|
| Mark Lewis wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | The you have a strange 3 dots on top of each other. Does that mean the end of the text, so the following is actually the start when you read it around?
EDIT: Found an explanation: It must be ET UXOR EIUS = "and his wife". - Proud of myself
That can only mean that the "strange letter" is an OR ligature (man, that is almost impossible to guess)
Sometimes you can find T's that looks like a C with a "top hat" on swedish swords - here they apparently forgot the "top hat", but it would change the reading into KRISTI(N)A with the N omitted as you did in rune writing. |
Good reading Niels!
Two or three dots are both commonly used to separate words within sentences, so not necessarily an end-of-text marker.
I think the OR ligature is visible twice on the left side, it very much resembles a common Gothic form for the letter M.... confusing and ambiguous as always!
The letter T is also often written like a Greek tau character, which can often resemble a C if not written clearly.
Now I will try to help with the bottom and left of the inscription. Reading from bottom right, counter-clockwise:
....VINQ FILIIS (E?)T QUI NQ FILIAB EOR QUOR AIE SI...
I don't quite get the sense of the phrase but can recognize a few words and suggest some abbreviations:
Filiis = "children"
Filia = "daughter"... not sure about the ending B
NQ = nunquam = "never"
QUOR = quorum = "their" |
Have also a possible explanation.
In the bottom you have ?VINQ - the first letter could be a partly preserved Q?.
The reason I guess this is that QVINQ actually occurs on the left side again.
So QVINQ must be short for Quinque = 5.
It fits in the bottom: QVINQ FILIIS (E)T QVINQ FILIA
-> 5 sons and 5 daughters.
The B-ligature just following the FILIA is still quite perplexing for me.
EDIT: The answer is FILIABUS - a variation in the dative plural.
So the B is here a "BUS" ligature.
The rest is really hard.
If the OR is not a ligature for M, but really OR then we in the following have EOR QVOR AIE SI?
EOR could be passive indicative 1st person present of Ire (to go).
QUOR could be an adverb meaning "on account of" or "because"
AIE
SI(?) - probably SIT.
I have no clue at the moment.
I think the sentence after SI(?) probably continue with the second line on top IN PACE, AMEN (= in peace, Amen), so the whole sentence is read from the top left of the first upper line.
The problem is that the inscription has something that looks like IN DACE, AMEN, but that doesn't make any sense.
But what could "AIE SIT IN PACE" mean??
EDIT: If we go with runic writing of being able to omit N's and M's we can actually get
A(N)I(M)E SIT IN PACE AMEN = Soul(s?) is at peace, amen!
ANIME must be the medieval latin version of animae, where -ae is shortened to -e.
So either genitive or dative singular, or nominative plural of anima (in the female = soul).
[If it was masculine Animus = soul/mind, Anime would only fit singular vocative, which doesn't make sense in the sentence].
SIT is third person subjunctive present of sum (= am).
Someone really expert in Latin could probably figure this out; but I think I'm on the right track as it fitting as an end to a grave stone.
So could EOR QUOR A(N)I(M)E SIT IN PACE, AMEN mean something like this
"I have gone (passive voice) because soul(s) is/are at peace, Amen".
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Sat 23 Apr, 2016 6:32 am; edited 4 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lewis
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effi |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | So QVINQ must be short for Quinque = 5.
It fits in the bottom: QVINQ FILIIS (E)T QVINQ FILIA
-> 5 sons and 5 daughters.
The B-ligature just following the FILIA is still quite perplexing for me.
EDIT: The answer is FILIABUS - a variation in the dative plural.
So could EOR QUOR A(N)I(M)E SIT IN PACE, AMEN mean something like this
"I have gone (passive voice) because soul(s) is/are at peace, Amen". |
You're definitely right about the five sons and daughters, nice job. The rest of the sentence sounds good too... I think quorum may still fit here though, so it would read something like "...five sons and daughters, whose souls are at peace".
| Mart Shearer wrote: | The artwork generally seems to be a decade or two behind the written accounts.
BUT....Are we even sure that those are supposed to be chains, rather than some sort of vertical decoration or pattern on the fabric? |
Great sources Mart... that time lag is worth remembering! Do you also post about these inventories at armourarchive.org? Are many inventories accessible online elsewhere?
I also agree that it is not certain chains are depicted here at all... even the right-hand "chain" doesn't really appear to be attached to the sword hilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: What is correct date for the Sigtuna Coat of Plates-effi |
|
|
| Mark Lewis wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | So QVINQ must be short for Quinque = 5.
It fits in the bottom: QVINQ FILIIS (E)T QVINQ FILIA
-> 5 sons and 5 daughters.
The B-ligature just following the FILIA is still quite perplexing for me.
EDIT: The answer is FILIABUS - a variation in the dative plural.
So could EOR QUOR A(N)I(M)E SIT IN PACE, AMEN mean something like this
"I have gone (passive voice) because soul(s) is/are at peace, Amen". |
You're definitely right about the five sons and daughters, nice job. The rest of the sentence sounds good too... I think quorum may still fit here though, so it would read something like "...five sons and daughters, whose souls are at peace".
|
If we go for the "quorum" the case is genitive plural (masculine & neuter) of "qui" (who, that, which).
So "whose" is perhaps a correct translation, if anime then is the medieval version of animae (plural nominative).
So Quorum Anime = "whose souls".
So:
EOR QUOR(um) ANIM(a)E SIT IN PACE could perhaps mean
EOR? + Whose souls be at peace.
Sit is subjunctive of "Sum": In English the indicative = am the subjunctive = be.
SIT IN PACE = be at peace.
Still leaves the problem with the EOR to make the sentence fit.
EDIT: What about EORUM QUORUM (that would fit the OR ligature used in the same way).
Eorum is genitive masculine & neuter pluralis of latin "is".
So if we have EOR(um) QUOR(um) ANIM(a)E SIT IN PACE; AMEN, so this translation is the best I can do.
"Those whose (both in the same genitive plural neuter case I think, since you refer to both sons and daughters?!) souls (nominative plural) be/(is) at peace, Amen."
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Mon 25 Apr, 2016 9:39 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Sat 23 Apr, 2016 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have a possible explantation for the first part
??? IACET NICOLAVS IONS
"Iacet" is actually third person singular present of Iaceo (a verb meaning to lie down).
IACET could then be translated to "He lies (dead)", which does make sense on a gravestone.
Have a very hard time to guess the first letters ? I and then a "broad" letter?
So I'll throw out HIC IACET NICOLAVS IONS = "Here lies Nils Jonsson".
Furthermore modern Rickeby is from old "Rinkeby" (= Warrior-village). It seems that in the sacred landscape around a King or Jarl the soldiers (at least in Sweden) were settled in a special village. You have many Rinkeby around Sweden.
Still don't know why it seems to be spelled RIRREB(y/-us) with 3 identical letters in the inscription, but it seems the meaning is Rikkeby?
The ??? between Kristina and the 5 sons could look like CV... (CU..?) and then a total hole, where we can't see any signs of letters.
So I will guess latin CUM = "with"
So we have the full meaning now:
[HIC] IACET NICOLAVS IONS(on) DE RIKKEB(us) ET UXOR EIUS CRISTI(n)A [CUM] [Q]VINQ(ue) FILIIS [E]T QVINQ(ue) FILIAB(us) EOR(um) QUOR(um) A(n)I(m)E SI[T] IN PACE AMEN
[.] Lost letters, hard to read or purely guessed.
(.) Omitted letters in the text OR ligature endings indicated.
So here is my (almost?) finished translation:
"Here lies Nils Jonsson of Rickeby and his wife Kristina with 5 sons and 5 daughters, those whose souls be/is at peace, Amen".
CONCLUSION: So it is really up to the clothing to know which of the two Nils Jonsson's it is, but he is clearly dead so either 1316 (first Nils) or 1366 (second Nils); but not 1349.
CLUE: The wife on the left have a different coat-of-arms, than Nils and his daughter? on the right (the Rickeby silver star). So to figure out which family has it, one could perhaps figure out which Nils Jonsson (if we know about the wives from other sources than this gravestone?).
According to these two genealogical webpages.
1) The first Nils Jonsson married Kristina Kristiernsdotter (Vasa)
Source: https://www.geni.com/people/Kristina-Kristiernsdotter-Vasa/6000000003827765384
2) The second Nils Jonsson married Kristina Ulfsdotter (Sparre av Tofta)
Source: https://www.geni.com/people/Kristina-Ulfsdotter-Sparre-av-Tofta/6000000006127322690
Neither Kristina's fathers coat-of-arms seems to be a clear fit in my opinion, but Vasa is "closer" than Sparre av Tofta?!
So there is no text on the gravestone saying that Nils Jonsson was a "lagman" (the second Nils Jonsson) and though lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, with the coat-of-arms I would for factors other than clothing say that my odds for the first Nils Jonsson is 66-33% compared to the second.
PS:
I have to say that this is another example - like on swords - that its not really readable for people unless they almost know what it should say. It is esoteric for those who are in the know.
So its more what is says, than its readability to others that is important!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Håvard Kongsrud
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your hard labour guys! I followed the bibliography trail myself.
As stated, Effigies and Brasses cites Gardell, Sölve. 1937. Gravmonument från Sveriges medeltid, Elander, when dating the effigy to 1316. Gardell mentions a 1316 will and in turn refers to C.M. Kjellberg 1923 in Personhistorisk Tidsskrift, årgang 24, s. 167ff, in the article «Wasaättens härstamming från Öland och vasavapnets uppkomst». In other words, we are dealing with the house that were to rule Sweden through "stormaktstiden". Kjellberg turns out to have a discussion of our effegy. He states that the stone most likely is made by French artists. To him the text reads identical to your findings.
| Quote: | | Hic jacet Nicolaus Jons[son] de Rikkaby et vxor ejvs Cristina cvm qvinq[ue] filiis et qvinq[ue] filiab[us] eour[um], qvor[um] a[n]i[m]e si[n]t in pace, amen. |
Kjellberg, however, does not interpret the text to state that all ten kids are dead. Only the girl to Nils Jonsson's right was suggested to be a daughter who died unmarried. Furthermore, he informs us that Katrina remarried in 1328 and again in 1338. She was outlived by at least one son from her first marriage. Kristina's coat-of-arms is the same as Kristiern of Öland's, who is theorized to be her father. For the effigy Kjellberg refers to Upplands fornminnesförenings tidskrift, book I, hefte 5, p. 50 from 1876, which I'm not been able to obtain. [not on Runeberg or Google Books]
I agree with Rasmussen that the second Nils Jonsson beeing the right one is less likely for all the love the Swedish genealogists has bestowed upon this effigy. The presence of later marriages, in my view reduces the likelyhood of the effigy beeing made later in Kristina's life, and wills profiting the church made in 1316 support this as the date the effigy was ordered from the French.
We seem to be left with Shearer's comment that the "chains" are ornament only, and as Lewis comments the right one is not even visibly attached to the sword hilt. Furthermore, the "tiles" on his "chain" look like the brooches on the females, just as his "mail" is picked up in their sleeves. There is no doubt in my view that he is wearing a coate of plates and I have not seen any ornament remotely looking like this if not a set of chains. But I must admit it looks inconclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The closest effigy with brooch-like decor which is often presumed to be a pair of plates is that of Ermengol X, Count of Urgell now in the Cloisters in New York. Dated to c. 1316 (Sometimes attributed to be his father Alvar):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Sepulchral_Monument_of_Alvar_II_d'%C3%80ger.jpg
Remnants of the original paint remain:
| Quote: | The robes and mantles of Alvaro and Cecelia
are both painted with broad flat areas of vermilion and coppercontaining
green, while the torso of Ermengol X shows traces
of a carefully painted design of lozenges and foliate motifs,
executed in the dark red lead mixture, vermilion and bright red
lead, around carved relief florets and shields. Along the length of
his mantle a more irregular foliate design is painted in red lead
mixed with a small amount of vermilion. |
Beth M. Edelstein, Silvia A. Centeno & Mark T. Wypyski (2006)
ILLUMINATING A COMPLEX HISTORY: THE MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES OF THE TOMBS
OF URGELL AT THE CLOISTERS, Studies in Conservation, 51:sup2, 204-210, DOI: 10.1179/
sic.2006.51.Supplement-2.204
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/sic.2006.51.Supplement-2.204
Perhaps fancy rivet heads or copper-alloy plaques like those used on Wisby Armour #7 with decorative fabric is intended rather than chains?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a6/1c/6b/a61c6b4c9ea8e751de0bba45d6eede55.jpg
http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoas_rust...front.html
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Mon 25 Apr, 2016 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Håvard Kongsrud wrote: | Thank you for your hard labour guys! I followed the bibliography trail myself.
As stated, Effigies and Brasses cites Gardell, Sölve. 1937. Gravmonument från Sveriges medeltid, Elander, when dating the effigy to 1316. Gardell mentions a 1316 will and in turn refers to C.M. Kjellberg 1923 in Personhistorisk Tidsskrift, årgang 24, s. 167ff, in the article «Wasaättens härstamming från Öland och vasavapnets uppkomst». In other words, we are dealing with the house that were to rule Sweden through "stormaktstiden". Kjellberg turns out to have a discussion of our effegy. He states that the stone most likely is made by French artists. To him the text reads identical to your findings.
| Quote: | | Hic jacet Nicolaus Jons[son] de Rikkaby et vxor ejvs Cristina cvm qvinq[ue] filiis et qvinq[ue] filiab[us] eour[um], qvor[um] a[n]i[m]e si[n]t in pace, amen. |
Kjellberg, however, does not interpret the text to state that all ten kids are dead. Only the girl to Nils Jonsson's right was suggested to be a daughter who died unmarried. Furthermore, he informs us that Katrina remarried in 1328 and again in 1338. She was outlived by at least one son from her first marriage. Kristina's coat-of-arms is the same as Kristiern of Öland's, who is theorized to be her father. For the effigy Kjellberg refers to Upplands fornminnesförenings tidskrift, book I, hefte 5, p. 50 from 1876, which I'm not been able to obtain. [not on Runeberg or Google Books]
I agree with Rasmussen that the second Nils Jonsson beeing the right one is less likely for all the love the Swedish genealogists has bestowed upon this effigy. The presence of later marriages, in my view reduces the likelyhood of the effigy beeing made later in Kristina's life, and wills profiting the church made in 1316 support this as the date the effigy was ordered from the French.
We seem to be left with Shearer's comment that the "chains" are ornament only, and as Lewis comments the right one is not even visibly attached to the sword hilt. Furthermore, the "tiles" on his "chain" look like the brooches on the females, just as his "mail" is picked up in their sleeves. There is no doubt in my view that he is wearing a coate of plates and I have not seen any ornament remotely looking like this if not a set of chains. But I must admit it looks inconclusive. |
I'm happy to see that my translation is mostly in agreement with a professional point-of-view. 
EDIT: See that Kjellberg has SI(n)[T] which is third person plural active subjunctive of SUM (whereas I had SIT which is third person singular active subjunctive).
Would be another example of an omitted N or M as in rune writings.
So in this Latin text with the many plurals SINT is with all likelihood correct. It doesn't immediately change the English translation as it apparently still would be "THOSE WHOSE SOULS BE AT PEACE, AMEN".
The interesting point in using the subjunctive instead of indicative is that it is "irrealis mood" (instead of "realis mood" for indicative). So using "be" instead of "is" sends a deliberate textual signal.
As far as I know the latin subjunctive is used as an optative (wishing mood) or as a future tense, which actually both fits here.
Hoping that - those who will die will have their souls being at peace - in the future. So the latin text is very unclear as to who many have actually died (maybe in 1316, only Nils Jonsson).
So perhaps a better translation: THOSE WHOSE SOULS WILL BE AT PEACE; AMEN (we hope & have faith in)
I admit that the text is ambiguous in that it states that Kristina had 5 sons and 5 daughters; but it doesn't clearly state that all 5 sons and 5 daughters are dead. Yet just because only one daughter is shown on the gravestone, it neither means that the 9 other children are alive at this point. Children dying young as babies or small children would normally not be shown on gravestones.
In fact since Kristina is not dead (she remarried) it doesn't even prove that the daughter? on the right is dead 
Is it even securely a daughter? It could in theory also be a sister of Nils Jonsson.
Actually it only say specifically, that Nils Jonsson lies here (dead).
Since the article's title is "Wasaättens härstamming från Öland och vasavapnets uppkomst" does the author (Kjellberg) also regard the coat-of-arms of Kristina on the left as a Vasa coat-of-arms?
"Kristiern av Öland" is apparently of the Vasa family, but as we see with many different Scandinavian noble families different lines could have different coat-of-arms. Many different Sparre coat-of-arms for instance.
So the coat-of-arms we see on the left of the gravestone is perhaps thought to be "Vasa av Öland" exclusively?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
Attachment: 1.74 KB