access to university records appear as supplements to this letter. Annerstedt saw the creation of the Inquisition as a response of Rudbeck’s angered enemies (Bref III, cil). Strindberg basically agrees on this point, claiming that Schutz and Arrhenius intended to use the Inquisition to blame Rudbeck for the university’s problems (254).
All the Inquisition’s demands are outlined by Annerstedt, Bref III, cil–cl; UUH II, 223–35; and Rudbeck was treated as their main goal, II, 230. Annerstedt called Schutz the “grand inquisitor,” Bref III, cxxxxvii; and Atterbom ([1850], 423) made a comparison to the Spanish Inquisition, not least in turning on its own members. Rudbeck’s irony about their honor is found in Annerstedt, Bref III, cil ff.
Rudbeck describes Schutz storming the press in an undated letter of 1685, LUB, De la Gardie slaktarkiven: Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie 93:1, reprinted in Annerstedt, Bref III, 266–69. Sithellius’s letter, 20 May 1684, was published in Nelson (1950), 51. Although originally written in Swedish, this letter had been translated into Latin and its claims intensified. The dispute with the College of Antiquities is found in Annerstedt’s UUH II, 235–40, and Bref III, clxii–clxvi, as well as in Schuck, KVHAA III, 366–401; Atterbom, Minne II, 41ff.; Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 299–300; and Strindberg, Bondenod och stormaktsdrom, 259.
Rudbeck paid the expenses for the publication of the Collections. The first one, De viri clarissimi Olavi Rudbeckii Atlantica Diversorum Testimonia, appeared in 1681; and the second, Auctarium Testimoniorum, in 1685 (Rudbeck to De la Gardie, 25 March 1685, Supplement, printed in Annerstedt, Bref III, 226–51, particularly 251). Another controversial letter in the collection was from Jena professor of law Schubartus, who claimed that Rudbeck’s theories would correct some of Schefferus’s errors about the Goths, 18 January 1683, printed in Nelson (1950), 46.
The right to censorship was found in the 1655 constitution (Schuck, KVHAA III, 373). All of these challenges set Rudbeck back in his plans. Before the crisis erupted, for instance, Rudbeck believed that the second volume would be done by the summer of 1684 (letter of 26 February 1684, RA, Kanslers embetets handlingar for Uppsala universitet arkiv E.11:8).
Rudbeck’s economic sacrifices are clear from glancing at his letters at this time, including, for instance, 27 March 1683, RA, Kanslers embetets handlingar for Uppsala universitet arkiv E.11:8, and 23 March 1682, E.11:7. The expenses and Rudbeck’s own contributions are noted in his supplements to a letter dated 25 March 1685 (Annerstedt, Bref III, esp. 240–51). Rudbeck’s words on being too shy to beg and having no strength to quarrel come from a letter to De la Gardie, 31 March 1685, reprinted 254–56. This is also the source for not daring to string the bow any tighter. In 1685, when Rudbeck was in bad economic straits, a merchant refused to extend him any further credit. In outrage, Rudbeck immediately took off his coat in the market and used it as collateral (Rudbeck to De la Gardie, 16 July 1685, LUB, De la Gardie slaktarkiven: Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie 93:1.
On threatening to sink a second time like Plato’s Atlantis, Rudbeck certainly feared the risks of De la Gardie’s planned retirement (Rudbeck to De la Gardie, 22 October 1684, reprinted in Annerstedt, Bref III, 204).
Jacob Arrhenius as a treasurer, Annerstedt’s UUH II, 204–7; his comments to the Bref III, cxxxv–cxxxvi. Rudbeck had moved more quickly in his career than Hadorph, and then helped him (Schuck, Hadorph, 57–58, also 98). The relationship between Rudbeck and Hadorph, however, was under great strain even before the conflict over antiquities (Rudbeck’s letter of 14 December 1679, copy in KB, Ornhielmiana, and printed in Annerstedt, Bref II, 179–82). Part of the background, too, was the hostility between Verelius and Hadorph. Their relationship had moved from positive to disintegration: salary disputes, antiquarian rivalries, the Curio lawsuit, and the dispute over Verelius’s support of his nephew, Isthemius-Reenhielm, as a member of the college (as Hadorph wanted his son Johannes). Schuck, Hadorph, 97–108, and the Isthemius dispute, 119–22.
Rudbeck described his carriage accident and vertigo in a letter to the chancellor, 24 May 1684, Annerstedt, Bref III, 199. As the crisis deepened, Rudbeck’s dizziness became worse (9 May 1685, Annerstedt, Bref III, 274). Rudbeck’s great disappointment and the image of the snake come from his letter to the chancellor dated 1 July 1684, Annerstedt, Bref III, 202. This story is also found in an Aesop fable, in Olivia and Robert Temple’s edition of Aesop, The Complete Fables (1998), fable 82, 65.
CHAPTER 16: THE ELYSIAN FIELDS
This struggle is outlined in Annerstedt’s UUH II, 235–43, and Bref III, clxii–clxvi; Atterbom (1850), 425ff.; Schuck’s Hadorph, 174–82; and many places in Schuck’s KVHAA. Hadorph’s intentions for printing Stiernhielm’s work, De Hyperboreis, come from Schuck, KVHAA III, 320; and Lindroth, Stormaktstiden, 269. Like Atterbom ([1851], 58–59), I think it would have been interesting to see what Hadorph and his friends, including the royal historiographer and natural law theorist Samuel Pufendorf, would have written.
Arrhenius’s comparison of Rudbeck to a crow is an old device, found in Aesop, The Complete Fables, translated by R. and O. Temple (1998), fable 162, 119. Credit for founding the College of Antiquities was disputed, and both Hadorph and Rudbeck claimed the distinction. One possible resolution, offered by Schuck, is that Hadorph proposed the institution and Rudbeck secured De la Gardie’s support (KVHAA II, 2–3; and Hadorph, 65).
Rudbeck’s comparison of his response to the college’s letter and drinking the best liquor is found in his letter of 11 June 1685, Annerstedt, Bref III, 285. His response to the college attack came three days later (Rudbeck to De la Gardie, 14 June 1685, printed in Annerstedt, Bref III, 287– 93). The words about the French ambassador and other praise also come from this letter (289). The king freeing Rudbeck from the censorship is noted by Annerstedt, Bref III, clxiv; and Atterbom (1851), 38–39. The college’s accusations are in a letter from the Collegium Antiquitatum Patriae to De la Gardie, 4 June 1685, copy, KB, Ornhielmiana O.20. Rudbeck’s defense was taken from his own letter to the count, 14 June 1685, in Annerstedt, Bref III, 287–93. Rudbeck’s words on the college, not wanting to obtain their subsidies, which Schuck cited and believed, are on pages 173–74. De la Gardie’s response, dated 18 June 1685, was printed in C. C. Gjorwell, ed., Den svenske Mercurius, February 1760, 105–14.
The clash between Rudbeck and the College of Antiquities is treated in Schuck, KVHAA III, 366–401; Schuck, Hadorph, 174–82; and Annerstedt, Bref III, clxii–clxvi. The college’s move to Stockholm was perhaps not as radical as it might seem today. After the deaths of many older members and the move of others to the capital, few were still in Uppsala (Schuck, Hadorph, 118). This was not the way it appeared to De la Gardie, however.
The tryckeritunna was a considerable fund for antiquities, the money based on 2,221 kyrkoharbargen across the country contributing a bushel of grain (valued at three daler silvermynt) to equal some 6,000 a year. The problem, of course, was collecting the money in the large country, where many people resented the tax, if they did not outright resist it. Many disputed its legality, “revocerad” back in 1637 (Schuck, Hadorph, 111–15, 122–26). Additional insight on the history of the tryckeritunna is found in Abel Ahlquist’s “The History of the Swedish Bible,” in Scandinavian Studies, vol. 9 (1926).
Hadorph was one of the best-paid officials in Sweden, earning theoretically over 2,200 daler silvermynt, compared with a professor at 700, an assessor in court at 900, and even a landshovding at 1,500 (Schuck, Hadorph, 117 and 127). A landshovding was a local governor whose power in most parts of Sweden could be compared, in the words of one observer, with a combined lord lieutenant and sheriff (John Robinson, Account of Sweden, 1688 [1998], 13). Hadorph’s official salary, though, was in reality
