Dear Brother, Gracious Maecenas. Latin Letters of the Gyldenstolpe Brothers (1661-1680).
However, if the main purpose of Sarasti-Wilenius's book is to make a beautiful edition of these letters, it also accomplishes much more than that. The material is contextualized in several ways, by introductory chapters containing biographical information on members of the Gyldenstolpe family, as well as by discussions of the letters themselves, on aspects such as language (orthography, syntax, morphology, vocabulary) and style, topics and thematic elements. Alongside the letters in the edition, the editor always presents a summary in English for those readers who are not well-versed in Latin. After the text, there is a brief commentary that explains peculiarities in the Latin texts. The book ends with the relevant indices. Considering the huge amount of textual material that is edited, the decision to have summaries instead of full translations of the letters, and a rather concise commentary treating the most urgent matters, seems to be a wise one. The focus here naturally lies on the edited texts.
It is therefore also very satisfying to see that the letters have been edited for the most part according to sound principles, with preservation of the original spelling, retention of capital letters, and modernization of the punctuation, among other things. Personally I would also have left out the accents, which just as the editor says are "inconsistent and incomplete" (64). If this may be a matter of personal taste, however, there are more reasons to doubt if some of the corrections of "clear misspellings" (64) can be justified. In many places, for instance, the editor has 'corrected' features that reflect an orthographical uncertainity and that are typical of the time, as she herself acknowledges (26-30). The corrections of promtiorem to promptiorem and assumsi to assumpsi (78), exolvere to exsolvere (214), and concilium to consilium (344), among others, all violate her own principle, since the features they represent can be found in her list of typical deviations from classical usage, and accordingly could not be called 'clear misspellings.'
In the valuable introductory chapters and in the commentary, the reader may detect a certain degree of inconsistency in treatment as well. Several words in the section on vocabulary, for instance, lack supporting references to other dictionaries or books. A word like ocrea, in the sense 'boot' (35), can be attested in both Hans Helander, Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620-1720. Stylistics, Vocabulary and Characteristic Ideas (Uppsala, 2004), 135 and Jonas Petri Gothus, Dictionarium Latino-Sveco-Germanicum ... (Linkoping, 1640), s.v. ocrea, but is left without further references, and it is difficult to understand why, when other words have them. The latter dictionary, which must be regarded as the most relevant of all for the edited letters, on the whole seems to have been somewhat underused. The word hypocaustum, for instance, on 375 is explained as 'a warm room,' with a reference to Henrik Florinus, Nomenclatura Latino-Sveco-Finnonica (Turku, 1678). But here it does not refer to a warm room in general, but to the sauna in particular, I would argue. This sense can be attested in Gothus.
Be that as it may, such trivial details are on the whole quite insignificant. Raija Sarasti-Wilenius's fine edition of the Latin letters of the Gyldenstolpe brothers is in all respects an important and very valuable contribution to our knowledge of epistolary practice and daily life in an up-and-coming family on the outskirts of seventeenth-century Europe. (Peter Sjokvist, Uppsala University, Sweden)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||NEO-LATIN NEWS|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Michel de l'Hospital. Carmina. Livre I.|
|Next Article:||Napoleo Latinitate vestitus. Napoleon Bonaparte in lateinischen Dichtungen vom Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, vol. 2:...|