become more frequent. Gunnar Eriksson is another person who believes the origins lie in the late 1660s (Atlanticans naturalhistoria: En antologi, 7).
The study of Norse sagas in Sweden essentially opened with Verelius, according to Godel (1897), 216, and more in depth, 241–55. Verelius used Rugman’s manuscript for Gotrek and Rolf’s Saga (251) and Herraud and Bose’s Saga (254). Verelius’s title, position, and background are summarized by Lindroth, 275–82, and more fully in KVHAA. Godel also printed the official list of Verelius’s duties as Professor of the Antiquities of the Fatherland (1897), 245–46. Verelius’s lectures were assessed by Schuck as among the “very best held at Uppsala University in the seventeenth century,” KVHAA I, 231–32. Beginning at 8:00 A.M. and the few students in attendance come from Godel (1897), 246. Rudbeck’s appreciation of Verelius’s insights can be found in many places in Atlantica, particularly his dedication, unpaginated in the original, page 3 in the modern 1937 edition. It is no coincidence that the first volume of Atlantica would be dedicated to Verelius, “its first cause” and “its beginning.”
Excerpts of Verelius’s letter to the chancellor on behalf of Rudbeck’s project, written 20 December 1673, are cited in Atl. I, 3–4. Another, though smudged, copy is found at UUB, Palmsk. samlingen (344). Loccenius’s letter in support of Rudbeck’s project, 22 December 1673, can be found in the same two places. Loccenius’s reaction was noted in Rudbeck’s letter of 12 November 1677, in Klemming (1863), A, and Loccenius’s words on Atlantica’s potential in his letter of 22 December 1673. As for the Saxo and Shakespeare stories, compare Amleth, Gurutha, Feng, and an unnamed “fair woman” with Hamlet, Gertrude, King Claudius, and Ophelia in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
My discussion of the Norse Renaissance is based on the work of Godel, Schuck, and many others, including Thor Beck’s Northern Antiquities in French Learning and Literature 1755–1855 (1934), Anton Blanck’s Den nordiska renassansen i sjuttonhundratalets litteratur (1911), and Frank Edgar Farley’s Scandinavian Influences in the English Romantic Movement (1903). Jorgensen has discussed the Danish context in Historieforskning og historieskrivning i Danmark indtil aar 1800 (1931). Gifts, exchanges, and piracy, among other things, caused the sagas to circulate in early modern Scandinavia. The phrase “dragon brooding” comes from Lee M. Hollander’s commentary (citing a contemporary) in Poetic Edda, xi.
The great infusion of sagas and eddas in the seventeenth century, including the seizure of Jorgen Seefeldt’s library at Ringsted, and De la Gardie’s purchase of Stefanus Johannes Stephanius’s large collection of books and manuscripts, is discussed in many sources, e.g., Godel (1897), 104–6, 90–95. Rugman’s manuscripts are analyzed here, too, 95ff., 113–22, and 122ff. On Rugman selling many manuscripts to Verelius, see Godel, 158. Rugman’s arrival in Uppsala as a “gift of heaven” comes from Schuck, KVHAA I, 203–4.
My account of the relationship between the Greeks and the barbarians is based on many works, including Momigliano’s Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (1975), Paul Cartledge’s The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (1993), and E. J. Bickerman’s “Origines Gentium,” in Classical Philology 47 (1952). Edith Hall’s Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy (1989) shows the richness of the material by focusing on the stage of Attic tragedy. Rudbeck’s analysis of the ancient term barbarian 
is elaborated more fully in Atl. I, 433–34. Of the many works providing an understanding of early modern Gothic romanticism, Svennung’s Zur Geschichte des Goticismus (1967) overviews both the European phenomenon and its impact in Sweden (68–96). Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 249–74, was also very helpful, as well as his Medeltiden: Reformationstiden, 166–72, 288–309. Strindberg recounts the history of the phenomenon against a background of poverty and want (1937), 40–77. See also Nordstrom (1930); Greenway (1977), 73–82; and Kurt Johannesson, The Renaissance of the Goths in Sixteenth-Century Sweden: Johannes and Olaus Magnus as Politicians and Historians, translated by James Larson (1991), as well as Holmquist, “Till Sveriges ara. Det gotiska arvet,” Stormaktstid. Erik Dahlbergh och bilden av Sverige (1992).
Anatomical dissections are discussed many times in Rudbeck’s letters. The comment about carrots and turnips comes from one of his letters to De la Gardie, July 1658, printed by Anders Grape, Bref af Olof Rudbeck d.a. rorande Uppsala universitet efterskord in Uppsala universitets arskrift (1930), 5–8. One of Rudbeck’s lessons in architecture survives and was printed by Josephson, Det Hyperboreiska Uppsala, 85–89. Given his discussions here as well as in Atlantica, Josephson calls Rudbeck Sweden’s “first architecture theorist,” 12.
Rudbeck’s love of fireworks and his collection of small cannon are related by many sources. Complaints were made about the noise coming from Rudbeck’s workshops, which often disturbed the sleep of the neighbors (Fries, [1896], 11–12). Of the various descriptions of the waterworks, see Rudbeck’s letter of 7 March 1685 (Annerstedt, Bref III, 223–26). For Rudbeck’s many other activities, see Eriksson (2002). For his engineering and technical work, see Per Dahl’s dissertation (1995).
CHAPTER 4: A CARTESIAN WITCH HUNT
Charlie Chaplin’s words were taken from My Autobiography (1964), 320. The debate surrounding the introduction of Cartesian thought was one of the most passionate in Swedish history (“starkaste strid” in Annerstedt’s words, UUH II, 91). “Suspect philosophy” is taken from the letter of protest written by a committee of bishops and theologians to De la Gardie, 19 July 1665.
The Cartesian struggles in Sweden are discussed in Rolf Lindborg’s Descartes i Uppsala: Striderna om “nya filosofien” 1663–1689 (1965). Lindborg gives another account in his essay “De cartesianska striderna,” 17 Uppsatser i svensk ide- och lardomshistoria (1980). Other valuable treatments are found in Annerstedt, UUH II 91–101; Annerstedt, Bref I, xxxvi–xlii; Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 447–58; and Lindroth’s on the later controversies, 458–65. Richard Watson discusses the European controversies, too, in Cogito, ergo sum (2002), 221ff. Descartes’ words “vain and useless” come from his Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, translated by John Veitch (1974), 40, and “sweep them wholly away,” 48.
Uppsala University, like many universities in the seventeenth century, was in service of the Church. See Eriksson (1994), 10, and Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 16, 79. Rudbeck’s defense in the Cartesian dispute is taken from his letter to Magnus de la Gardie, 7 September 1668, Annerstedt, Bref I, 48–49.
The story of the disgruntled professor of law Hakan Fegraeus comes from Annerstedt’s UUH II, 107–8. The student rampage of destruction is related in II, 103, and the storming of the royal palace in Annerstedt, Bref I, xxviii–xxix. Rudbeck described the violence at the palace in a letter to De la Gardie at the end of February 1667 (Annerstedt, Bref I, 45–46). The sentencing of the students comes from UUH II, 104.
As another sign of the deteriorating economy, salaries were reduced in 1668 to about 590 a year. Uppsala University’s financial problems were based in part on the sharp decline in price for grain, plummeting nearly 50 percent in 1666. This caused the university serious concern because those sales represented a large portion of its income. The economic situation was well covered by Annerstedt’s UUH I, 330–41; II, 63; and especially II, 109–22, which chronicles the transition from a budgetary surplus to a deficit. Annerstedt also overviews the problems in Bref I, xliii–liv. In addition to Rudbeck’s letters during the period, particularly one in 1670 (Annerstedt, Bref II, 78–90), additional information on the Community House is found in Annerstedt, UUH II, 126–34, and Bref II, lx–lxviii.
Arrhenius-Ornhielm’s background is discussed in Lindroth’s Stormaktstiden, 327– 28. Rudbeck’s lengthy defense, 1 July 1670, was printed by Annerstedt in Bref I, 52–73. His resignation, however, was refused, and a later direct appeal to the king was also turned down, 20 October 1670 (Annerstedt, Bref II, 75–76). Years later, Rudbeck was still trying to get out of his position as curator.
