Atlantica; Thomas Gale was asked, according to the minutes for 26 October 1681, and Cluverus on 7 December 1681.
Glad to hear the praise from London, Rudbeck informed the count of the Royal Society’s view of his work (24 May 1682), and forwarded a copy of their letter (4 June 1682, RA, Kanslers embetets handlingar for Uppsala universitet arkiv E.11:7). The student who brought Atlantica to the Royal Society, Johan Heysig, is treated by Carl Harald Eugene Lewenhaupt in “Johan Heysig-Ridderstjerna,” Samlaren, vol. 10 (1889) and vol. 14 (1893).
Atlantica was hailed as Rudbeck’s own Herculean labor by G. Cuperus, 20 June 1690 (Nelson [1950], 97). The claim about the many heroic and warlike nations pouring out of Sweden like a Trojan horse comes from a speech delivered in Kiel by S. H. Musaeus, 26 April 1688 (Nelson [1950], 100). The reference to the Swedish Heracles who restored light to an area where Cimbrian darkness prevailed is in O. Bergius, undated (Nelson [1950], 43).
It would be unreasonable to expect Rudbeck’s theory to sail through the learned world, especially in Uppsala, where he had so many enemies, without at least some opposition. One detailed critique of Atlantica appeared in W. E. Tentzel’s journal, Monatliche Unterredungen einiger Guten Freunde von Allerhand Buchern . . . , a 200-page review running through the February to July issues. (See Nelson IV [1950], 293, and Eriksson [2002], 425–27). Many other critiques are noted in the later volumes of Atlantica.
Notice of Rudbeck’s lecture series “On Nothing,” appearing in Uppsala University’s catalog in October 1679, was printed in Annerstedt’s Bref II, 177, and discussed in Eriksson’s article “Om Ingenting: Olof Rudbecks forelasningsprogram 1679,” Lychnos (1979–80). Rudbeck’s explanation is found in a letter to De la Gardie, 3 November 1679 (Annerstedt, Bref II, 178–79). Annerstedt discusses this episode in Bref II, ci–ciii; and Eriksson (2002), 146, interprets De Nihilo as serious, joking, and having fun with the enemies all at the same time. The description of Schefferus’s reaction is in Rudbeck’s letter to Count de la Gardie, 5 April 1679, printed in Annerstedt, Bref II, 166. The rest of Schefferus’s words were taken from Elias Palmskold, Palmsk. samlingen XV: T.15, 557; thanks to Annerstedt for this information, Bref II, cxxv, n. 2.
The slow sales were already noted in Rudbeck’s letter to De la Gardie, 5 April 1679, Annerstedt, Bref II, 165–69. The continued slow rate is seen in his letter of 14 September 1679, Annerstedt, Bref II, 173–75. Two hundred forty copies were sold by March 1682. This did not count the twenty that were lost at sea when the ship carrying them went down outside of Rostock. Rudbeck to De la Gardie, 2 March 1682, RA, Kanslers embetets handlingar for Uppsala universitet arkiv E.11:7.
Verelius was showing signs of ill health at least by the late 1670s, and Rudbeck described his friend standing at the doorway short of breath, exhausted by even a short walk, 5 April 1679, Annerstedt, Bref II, 168. Punishment of Norcopensis for allegedly neglecting university duties is in Arrhenius’s letter to De la Gardie, 2 January 1683, copied in UUB, U40:5. The last years of De la Gardie’s life were “full of misfortunes, sorrows, and humiliations” (“olyckor, sorger, och forodmjukelser”), Annerstedt, Bref III, clxxxvi. This episode is discussed in Fahraeus (1936), 282–319; and Magnusson (1993), 132ff. Rudbeck’s loyalty to the count is well known and was praised by Atterbom, who saw this as one of the “more beautiful” sides of Rudbeck’s character ([1851], 82).
The reduction is defined by Anthony Upton in Charles XI and Swedish Absolutism (1998), ix, as “a legal process, based on the principle of the inalienability of the crown’s lands and revenues. The principle meant that even if a ruler made a grant to a subject in perpetuity from these lands and revenues, he, or his successors, could recall the grant at any time on grounds of public necessity.” Information about the political culture of this period also comes from Kurt Agren’s “The reduktion,” in Roberts (1973). Strindberg (1937), 79–87, discusses the Crown properties sold, bestowed, and dispersed to meet the needs of Swedish warfare, and the background to the reduction, 110ff.
Many aristocratic families were ruined in the reduction, literally reduced to begging for clemency at the palace gates where they had formerly been welcomed as guests. Voltaire described this sight in his History of Charles XII, translated by Winifred Todhunter (1908), 13, and many others have noted it as well. Michael Roberts has printed many documents about this period in his Sweden as a Great Power 1611–1697: Government, Society, Foreign Policy (1968). Besides the effects of the war on morale, the council was losing influence through the deaths of its prominent members and the king’s slow replacement of them (and then with his own favorites). Surviving members were often sick and elderly, if not also away from the capital on various activities (Rystad, Karl XI: En biografi [2001], 147–48). The council’s demotion was already a fact before 1680 (179).
In addition to Makalos, De la Gardie owned the following castles and properties at one time or the other: “Drottningholm, Karlberg, Jakobsdal (Ulriksdal), Venngarn, Ekolsund, and Ekholmen in Uppland; Frovdi with Hinseberg in Vastmanland, Kagleholm in Narke. Lacko, Traneberg, Mariedal, Katrineberg, Hojentorp, Synnerby hospital, Sladene, Magnusberg, Rada ladugard and Jonslunda in Vastergotland. Along with these came large areas in Finland and Livonia, among others Pernau and Arensburg on the island of Osel. He also had property in Pomerania and Mecklenburg” (Gunda Magnusson, Magnus Gabriel [1993], 62). See Fahraeus (1936), 236–62; and Sten Karling’s “Slott och tradgardar,” in Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie: Nationalmusei utstallningskatalog nr.434 (1980), 29–40. De la Gardie’s words from the Swedish hymnal were translated by Goran Rystad in Roberts, ed., Sweden’s Age of Greatness 1632–1718 (1973), 236.
In contrast to Rudbeck, Hadorph and the College of Antiquities were quickly choosing other powerful men as patrons, including De la Gardie’s own rivals, Sten Bielke, Goran Gyllenstierna, and Claes Fleming (Schuck, Hadorph, 160–62).
CHAPTER 15: AND THEN THE SNAKE THAWED
Olof Rudbeck’s words forming the epigraph to this chapter are found in his letter to Count de la Gardie, 29 November 1670, Annerstedt, Bref II, 77. Professor Henrik Schutz’s background comes from Annerstedt, UUH II, 207–8, as well as Annerstedt, Bref III, cxxxvi ff. The students’ dislike of Schutz is discussed by Annerstedt, including their chanting outside his window, Bref IV, ccviii, n. 1. Rudbeck’s appeal for the library position appears in his letter of 13 January 1682, Annerstedt, Bref III, 188–89. Jonas Rugman’s manuscript-hunting missions are analyzed in Schuck, KVHAA I, 203ff., and in Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 280; Hadorph and the College of Antiquities are treated also by Schuck KVHAA and also Hadorph. Annerstedt’s UUH II, 208–13, discusses the struggle for the library.
That Hadorph began to see Rudbeck as the main opponent for the college, and fear that he would put the college’s work “in the shadows,” is shown by Schuck in Hadorph, 167–68. Hadorph’s vanity is also discussed, though Schuck believed it was not as pronounced as in others of the day, such as Verelius, Hadorph, 87–89. The praise of Atlantica, however, “jarred the ears” of the College of Antiquities members Ornhielm and Hadorph, 170.
Schutz’s attempt to obtain Verelius’s position and Schutz’s trip to Stockholm while Verelius was on his deathbed are found in Annerstedt, Bref III, cxxxvii. The relative who probably helped him gain the position was Johan Bergenhielm, one of the royal secretaries in Stockholm. Rudbeck’s clashes in the consistory and his defeat are shown in Annerstedt, Bref III, cxxxvii–cxxxxv. Rudbeck’s hiding of the keys is in Annerstedt, Bref III, cxxxix, n. 1. According to Annerstedt, Uppsala was in a “true state of war” (cxxxviii).
Rudbeck’s words in the narrative come from his letter dated 13 January 1682, printed in Annerstedt, Bref III, 73–74. Rudbeck’s answer to Schutz’s demand that he return the manuscripts was printed by Godel (1897), 168. Rudbeck’s arguments for a chance to defend himself against the charges of forged documents are found in, among other places, his letter of 26 February 1684. Some of Rudbeck’s responses to the Inquisition Commission were published in Annerstedt, Bref III, 206–26, 256–65. Another response to the chancellor, full of information about the university, is on 226–51. Rudbeck’s requests for
