Talk:Gesta Danorum

Links

Links only made once and only those links which are most relevant. --Stbalbach 23:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Publication dilemma

The March or May publication dilemma has been solved by the wording of the colophon, anonymously contributed: impressit in inclyta Parrhisorum academia Iodocus Badius Ascensius Idibus Martiis. MDXIIII. Supputatione Roman. Ides of March. --Wetman 20:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I had to go to the library to confirm this. My Helle Stangerup Saxo book list the date as May 15, 1514. I will mail her to hear where she got that date from or if it is simply a writing mistake.

Anyway it is not a colophon of the book, it is the date of a letter included in the book. Specified it is three letters occupying the two first pages on the original release. In all three cases it is the date of the letter and not publication data about the book.

he first a letter, occupying the first half of the first page, is a letter from Lave Urne (bishop of Roskilde) to Christiern Pedersen dated May 10, 1512. The 2nd, the rest of the first page, is from Christiern Pedersen to Lave Urne, dated March 14, 1514 and the last, on the 2nd page, is from Jodocus Badius to Lave Urne, dated March 15, 1514. In all three cases it is the date of the letter.

However the last two letters give a hit to when it was published.

In the letter from Christiern Pedersen to Lave Urne, Christiern says that this very letter he is writing is included on the first page of the book (indirectly saying that Lave here by receives a copy of the book where he can read the letter). That suggest that the book is published March 14, 1514 or before.

Jodocus Badius letter to Lave, says that the book has just been release - in the same days that Christian II is about to receive the sceptre and insignia of Denmark. That is actually a very strange comment!! To receive the sceptre and insignia of Denmark of course is a reference to Christian II coronation June 11, 1514. Without knowing how long the timeframe “in the same days” of the early 16th century is, 3 month seem a bit long stretched, but maybe not. I don’t really know. Comments?

It is also strange that two letters to Lave Urne would just be printed, without him having the time to review them. It does not seem right, not this book. To me it suggests that they are “futurely” written, if you understand me. Written on a specified date, but with info that will happen later, at the release date. It would give Lave time to approve of the letters and side with the coronation of Christian II – who also happens to be the authority that approved the books printing (written in the 2nd letter, with bigtime flattering)

It is strange I have not noticed this before. I have read the letters before. I think I will write the Danish Royal Library to hear what they consider the exact date of publishing (if such one exists).Twthmoses 19:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Date of publication

Why did someone kill my entry (colophon text of the 1514 edition? The old error of the printing date (May instead March) has been spread in many publications, is anybody interested to keep the status quo??

It is not a colophon of the book; it is the date of a letter in the book. It is also not an old error either, cause most page with the 15 may date you find on the net, come or is copies from this wiki page. I wrote it and it aint a long time ago. I will write the Royal Libary to hear what they think, hopefully getting some good info.

is anybody interested to keep the status quo?? - ??? I dont understand ?? I’m intreasted in the right date only, whatever it is. Twthmoses 19:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Colophon

Yes, I saw the letters (first dated 10. May 1512 (!), second 14. March 1514, third 15. March 1514), but I took the date not from those pages, but from the colophon at the very last page of the book. I have cited the full words, and in my opinion the colophon or imprint is the binding source upon the bibliographical description. Full words again, printed on page CXCVIII (=CXCIX) verso: Hactenus Saxo Grammaticus Sialenden. vir disertitssimus. Que accurata diligentia impressit in inclyta Parrhisorum academia Iodocus Badius Ascensius Idibus Martiis. MDXIIII. Supputatione Romana. It is the end of the book. May you trust me?

Enquiry about the auxiliary text

"It is thought that Shakespeare never read Gesta Danorum, and instead had access to an auxiliary version of the tale describing the downfall of the Prince of Denmark, whose real name - Amleth - was used in anagram by Shakespeare for Hamlet. "

This is unclear to me. Does this refer to Ur-Hamlet? If it does, ought it be linked, surely? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 06:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)