OULU 2014 B 125 B 125 UNIV ER S IT Y OF OULU P. O. BR[ 00 FI-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND ACTA U N I V E R S I T AT I S O U L U E N S I S ACTA A C TA U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I S S E R I E S E D I T O R S Tero Anttila B HUMANIORA A SCIENTIAE RERUM NATURALIUM THE POWER OF ANTIQUITY Tero Anttila Professor Esa Hohtola B HUMANIORA University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen THE HYPERBOREAN RESEARCH TRADITION C TECHNICA Postdoctoral research fellow Sanna Taskila IN EARLY MODERN SWEDISH RESEARCH ON NATIONAL ANTIQUITY D MEDICA Professor Olli Vuolteenaho E SCIENTIAE RERUM SOCIALIUM University Lecturer Veli-Matti Ulvinen F SCRIPTA ACADEMICA Director Sinikka Eskelinen G OECONOMICA Professor Jari Juga EDITOR IN CHIEF Professor Olli Vuolteenaho PUBLICATIONS EDITOR Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, ISBN 978-952-62-0713-1 (Paperback) HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND IDEAS ISBN 978-952-62-0714-8 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Print) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online) ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS B Humaniora 125 TERO ANTTILA THE POWER OF ANTIQUITY The Hyperborean research tradition in early modern Swedish research on national antiquity Academic dissertation to be presented with the assent of the Doctoral Training Committee of Human Sciences of the University of Oulu for public defence in Kuusamonsali (YB210), Linnanmaa, on 14 February 2015 at 12 noon U N I VE R S I T Y O F O U L U , O U L U 2 0 1 4 Copyright © 2014 Acta Univ. Oul. B 125, 2014 Supervised by Doctor Maija Kallinen Doctor Erkki Urpilainen Reviewed by Doctor Anu Lahtinen Doctor Anna Wallette Opponent Doctor Carl Frängsmyr ISBN 978-952-62-0713-1 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-62-0714-8 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Printed) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online) Cover Design Raimo Ahonen JUVENES PRINT TAMPERE 2014 Anttila, Tero, The power of antiquity. The Hyperborean research tradition in early modern Swedish research on national antiquity University of Oulu Graduate School; University of Oulu, Faculty of Humanities, History of science and ideas Acta Univ. Oul. B 125, 2014 University of Oulu, P.O. Box 8000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland Abstract My thesis focuses on the incorporation of Hyperboreans, a mythical classical race, into the prevailing Gothic or Geatic narrative of national history in seventeenth and eighteenth century Swedish historiography. The beatific Hyperboreans were identified with ancient Swedes to emphasise that the Gothic ancestors of Sweden’s rulers had not been mere mediaeval barbarians. The most extreme proponents of this Hyperborean research tradition claimed that a high culture had thrived in Sweden before classical antiquity. They asserted that traces of this highly-developed northern civilisation could be found in the Bible, classical writings and mediaeval historiography, as well as the domestic antiquities such as runestones and Old Norse writings. By close-reading published and unpublished writings of historians and antiquaries, I examined the overarching and shared distinctive features within this Hyperborean research tradition. This involved an analysis of the main content of this research tradition in its learned, mostly Western European historiographical setting. I focused especially on understanding the Hyperborean research tradition within the intellectual traditions of constructing fabulous pasts. The seventeenth century was a period of institutionalisation of historical and antiquarian research in Sweden and Europe. Hence, I also studied the role of specific politico-historical and institutional conditions in the emergence, development and decline of the Hyperborean research tradition. By combining these two approaches, I attempted to strike a balance between research on long- term intellectual traditions and short-term immediate situations in which the ideas about the Hyperboreans were developed and used. Ultimately my thesis illustrates that the Hyperborean research tradition was a fairly coherent tradition of research. It arose in the early seventeenth century as part of the political pursuits and problems of Swedish monarchs in the domestic front and the Baltics. The tradition dominated Swedish historiography during the period of Swedish absolutism (1690–1720), before gradually crumbling from 1730s onwards. The emergence, development and decline of the Hyperborean research tradition were all a result of complex historiographical and politico-institutional factors. Keywords: ancient history, early modern history of ideas, gothicism, goths, history of historiography, history of Sweden, hyperboreans, national history, nationalism, patriotism Anttila, Tero, Muinaisuuden mahti. Hyperborealainen tutkimusperinne varhais- modernissa ruotsalaisessa muinaistutkimuksessa Oulun yliopiston tutkijakoulu; Oulun yliopisto, Humanistinen tiedekunta, Aate- ja oppihistoria Acta Univ. Oul. B 125, 2014 Oulun yliopisto, PL 8000, 90014 Oulun yliopisto Tiivistelmä Keskityn väitöskirjassani 1600- ja 1700-lukujen ruotsalaisen historiankirjoituksen ilmiöön, jos- sa antiikin kirjoitusten myyttiset hyperborealaiset sisällytettiin niin kutsuttuun goottilaiseen his- torianarratiiviin. Tämä varhaismodernissa Ruotsissa suosittu historianarratiivi perustui näke- mykseen Raamatun Maagogista sotaisten goottien sekä ruotsalaisten kantaisänä. Eurooppalaiset humanistit kuvasivat kuitenkin gootit keskiaikaisina barbaareina, minkä vastapainoksi oppineet Ruotsissa esittivät kotimaiset gootit sivistyneinä ja hurskaina hyperborealaisina. Hyperborealaisen tutkimusperinteen keskeisin tutkimuskohde oli muinaisen Ruotsin kulttuu- ri, jonka väitettiin levinneen Upsalasta aina Välimerelle saakka jo ennen kreikkalais-roomalais- ta antiikkia. Tukeakseen väitteitään oppineet käyttivät lähteinään antiikin kirjoitusten ohella Raamattua ja keskiajan historiantutkimusta. 1600-luvun mittaan he hyödynsivät kasvavassa määrin myös pohjolan alueen muinaismuistoja, kuten muinaisnorjalaisia kirjoituksia ja riimuki- viä. Tutkimukseni lähdeaineisto muodostuu hyperborealaiseen perinteeseen kuuluneiden oppinei- den julkaistuista ja julkaisemattomista kirjoituksista. Tarkastelen tutkimusperinteen yhtenäisyyt- tä analysoimalla sen keskeisimpiä yhdistäviä ja erottavia käsityksiä. Analyysini kattaa myös sen opillisten, lähinnä historiantutkimuksellisten puitteiden määrittämisen. Pyrin erityisesti ymmär- tämään hyperborealaista tutkimusperinnettä osana varhaismodernille ajalle tyypillisiä histori- anarratiiveja tarunomaisesta kansallisesta muinaisuudesta. Ruotsalainen historian- ja muinaistutkimus institutionaalistui 1700-luvulla. Täten tarkastelen työn pääasiallisen tutkimusongelman ohella, kuinka poliittiset ja institutionaaliset olosuhteet myötävaikuttivat hyperborealaisen tutkimusperinteen kehittymiseen, vakiintumiseen ja asteittai- seen murenemiseen. Osoitan tutkimuksessani, että hyperborealainen tutkimusperinne syntyi 1600-luvun alussa liittyen Ruotsin kuninkaiden poliittisiin pyrkimyksiin sekä kotirintamalla että Itämerellä. Sen valtakausi sijoittui aikavälille 1685–1720, jolloin Ruotsin itsevaltiaat kuninkaat hyödynsivät hyperborealaisiin liitettäviä teemoja propagandassaan. Tutkimusperinteen vaiheittainen murene- minen tapahtui 1700-luvun puolivälissä. Sen taustalla oli useita poliittisia, institutionaalisia ja opillisia tekijöitä. Asiasanat: aate- ja oppihistoria, gootit, goottilaisuus, göötit, gööttiläisyys, historiankirjoituksen historia, hyperborealaiset, muinaishistoria, nationalismi, patriotismi, Ruotsin historia, Ruotsin suurvalta-aika, varhaismoderni historia DEDICATED TO MY MUM AND DAD 8 Acknowledgements It is time to thank the major contributors to this thesis. I am very grateful to the following foundations for providing the necessary financial prerequisites for this research project: Alfred Kordelin Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Faculty of Humanities at the University of Oulu, The University of Oulu Graduate School, The Science Fund at the University of Oulu, Swedish-Finnish Cultural Foundation and Oskar Öflunds Foundation. This thesis has been carried out in the “division” of History of Science and Ideas at the University of Oulu. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Maija Kallinen and Dr Erkki Urpilainen, my research supervisors, for introducing me to the early modern universe. Your encouragement and guidance has been most appreciated. I am also grateful to Professor Petteri Pietikäinen. Your kindness and assistance have been critical in wrapping up my thesis. I am grateful to my re-examiners Dr Anu Lahtinen and Dr Anna Wallette for your many valuable comments and excellent suggestions. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr Timo Sironen for introducing me to the intriguing world of classical antiquity and always generously guiding me through it. Thank you to Dr Heini Hakosalo, Dr Kari Väyrynen, Dr Jarmo Pulkkinen, Dr Henry Oinas-Kukkonen and Professor Olavi K. Fält for your many good criticisms, perspectives and advice. In fact, I would like to express my gratitude to everybody at the “Department” of History at the University of Oulu. For years you all have heroically endured the pestering of this overly inquisitive and talkative student. Many thanks for Päivi and Leena for your friendly help and support with everything imaginable. Many thanks also for Kari Kaskela, the Chief Academic Officer in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Oulu for your professional and kind help in the more practical matters related to the thesis. During the research project, I have had the financial support and opportunity to be able to live and work in the beautiful Swedish city of Uppsala. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Karin Johannesson for welcoming me to the Institution of History of Ideas and Science at Uppsala University. My gratitude also extends to Professor Mats Persson and other friendly and supportive staff members, researchers and students at the institution. Tackar! The comments, support and criticisms from my fellow postgraduates in the research seminars, both in Oulu and Uppsala, have been beyond valuable. There 9 is nothing like the help of one’s peers during the moments of doubt and stagnation. I am grateful to Dr Susanna Åkerman for her kindness and generous help. Our meeting in Stockholm provided me with new perspectives and ideas. In retrospect, this research project has been twofold. The finalisation of my thesis has been an ill-starred and long process. Then again, as a consequence of this project, I have been living in three beautiful countries. On top of learning to appreciate the funky flavours of Vegemite and Surströmming, I have met amazing people across the globe. Most importantly, without this thesis, I would not have met my incredible wife, Casey. So all things considered, I have clearly finished as a winner. To my surrogate family at Sysslomansgatan in Uppsala, I want to say thank you so much for taking care of me during that inspiring and happy period in my life. Songül, we all miss you. A special thanks to Dr Gabriel Söderberg (Gabe) for our fruitful discussions in the lunch seminars. My gratitude naturally extends to all my amazing old friends back in Oulu and elsewhere in Finland. Thank you so much for putting up with this restless “Space-Väinämöinen” who keeps coming and going. I would like to express my appreciation to Mikko Myllykangas. Dr Myllykangas has provided me valuable criticisms and ideas of how to improve my thesis. I am eternally grateful for your support and care as a friend and travelling companion. No matter whether it is music, football, pains in the lower mid-bottom or our journey from the West to the East, you are a true inspiration. I have been blessed with supportive families on both sides of the planet. Heaps of thanks for Helen and Paul (and the Smiths on the whole), for welcoming me to Down Under. Without the support and love of my family back in Oulu this project would never have materialised. Therefore I would like to express my deepest gratitude and love to my parents, Arja and Lauri Anttila for always supporting me with my choices, even when they may not have been the wisest. I am also grateful to my brother Ari Anttila for his encouragement and understanding of this noise-making “mountain gorilla”. 10  Finally, my wife Casey has been my anchor in the moments of desperation during this project. I am still baffled by the endless patience you have shown to your mercurial husbo. Thank you for always being there for me rakas. 20.11.2014. Ascot Vale (Melbourne), Australia Tero Anttila 11 12 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 9  Table of Contents 13  Introduction 17  1  The Hyperboreans & the Late Renaissance Tradition of the Research of National History (ca 1600–1640) 49  1.1  Johannes Bureus and the Emergence of the Hyperboreans ..................... 49  1.1.1  The Hyperboreans and Ancient Geography .................................. 50  1.1.2  The Genealogical Origins of Ancient Scandinavians ................... 53  1.1.3  Bureus and the Late Renaissance Tradition of Ancient Religion ........................................................................................ 57  1.1.4  The Hyperboreans and the Ancient Civilisation of Scandinavia .................................................................................. 63  1.2  Bureus and the “Politicised” Methods .................................................... 70  1.2.1  Strategies for Constructing a Fabulous Past ................................. 70  1.2.2  The Neo-Platonist Concept of History ......................................... 73  1.3  The Political-Institutional Framework .................................................... 76  1.3.1  Political Power and the Scandinavian Antiquity .......................... 76  1.3.2  “Dominium Maris Baltici” – the Territorial Antiquarianism ............................................................................. 85  1.3.3  The Esoteric-Patriotic Antiquarianism of Bureus ......................... 90  1.4  Summary ................................................................................................. 97  2  Georg Stiernhielm & Olaus Verelius: The Development of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1640–1680 99  2.1  Stiernhielm and the Hyperboreans .......................................................... 99  2.1.1  The Hyperboreans in Stiernhielm’s Historical-Linguistics .......... 99  2.1.2  The Hyperboreans and the Ancient Scandinavian Civilisation ................................................................................. 106  2.1.3  The Political Context of the Re-Emergence of the Hyperboreans ............................................................................. 115  2.2  Olaus Verelius and the Old Scandinavian Writings................................118  2.2.1  Verelius’ New Approach to Scandinavian Antiquity .................. 121  2.2.2  Verelius and the Ancient Scandinavian Civilisation ................... 123  2.3  The Hyperboreans in the Battle of Swedish Antiquities ....................... 130  2.3.1  The Prelude to the Dispute over the Antiquity of Uppsala ......... 130  2.3.2  The Culmination of the Dispute ................................................. 135  13  2.3.3  The Finale of the Dispute – The Honour of the Fatherland ........ 138  2.4  Summary ............................................................................................... 140  3  The Atlantis of the North: The Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1680–1700 143  3.1  Rudbeck the Elder’s Fabulous Uppsala................................................. 143  3.1.1  Atlantic Geography and Etymology ........................................... 147  3.1.2  The “Yfwerborne” – not “Hyperboreás” .................................... 151  3.1.3  The Famous Dynasties of the “Yfwerborne Up-Svear” ............. 154  3.2  The Historiographical Framework of Atlantica .................................... 161  3.2.1  On Atlantica’s methods ............................................................... 161  3.2.2  Atlantica’s “Philosophy of History” ........................................... 165  3.3  Carolus Lundius and the Sacred Laws of the Geats .............................. 170  3.3.1  Lundius and the Origin of the Geatic Laws ................................ 171  3.3.2  The Hyperboreans and the Geatic Laws ..................................... 173  3.4  The Dominance of the Hyperborean Research Tradition ...................... 178  3.4.1  Networks & the Institutionalisation of the Hyperborean Past ............................................................................................. 179  3.4.2  The Hyperborean Research Tradition and Public Institutions .................................................................................. 182  3.5  Political Applications of the Hyperborean Antiquity ............................ 189  3.5.1  Swedish Absolutism and the Hyperborean Research Tradition ..................................................................................... 189  3.5.2  The Hyperborean Emblems of the Empire ................................. 193  3.6  Summary ............................................................................................... 196  4  Windy at the Top: the Dominance of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1700–1720 199  4.1  Atlantica under Attack........................................................................... 199  4.1.1  Leibniz and the Scandinavian Antiquity ..................................... 199  4.1.2  Torfaeus and the Scandinavian Antiquity ................................... 202  4.2  Johan Peringskiöld and the Hyperboreans ............................................ 208  4.2.1  The Hyperboreans of Gamla Uppsala......................................... 209  4.2.2  The Genealogy of the Boreades .................................................. 215  4.3  The Historical-Linguistics of Olof Rudbeck the Younger ..................... 220  4.3.1  Ancient Scandinavia – the Underworld of the Myths................. 222  4.3.2  Hebrew Lapland: the Lost Tribes of Israel ................................. 226  4.3.3  The “Atlantica” of Rudbeck the Younger ................................... 228  4.4  The Institutional and Political Contexts ................................................ 232  14  4.4.1  Power Struggles: Johan Peringskiöld’s Relationship to Rudbeck the Elder ...................................................................... 232  4.4.2  The Hyperboreans and Political Applications ............................ 241  4.5  Summary ............................................................................................... 245  5  The Decline of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1720–1760 247  5.1  Erik Julius Biörner and the Hyperborean Norrland............................... 247  5.1.1  The Antiquity of “Gotunheimia” ................................................ 249  5.1.2  The Line of Fornjót–Boreás–Japheth ......................................... 252  5.1.3  The Early Civilisation of Ancient Scandinavians ....................... 254  5.2  Johan Göransson and the Chosen Northerners ...................................... 258  5.2.1  The Two Faces of Göransson’s Research ................................... 258  5.2.2  The Scandinavian Antiquity & Gomer the Progenitor ............... 261  5.2.3  The Beatific Hyperborean Civilisation ....................................... 266  5.3  Gustaf Bonde: The Last Hyperborean “Hub” ....................................... 270  5.3.1  Bonde: the Scholar and the Patron ............................................. 270  5.3.2  Bonde and the Hyperborean Research Tradition ........................ 272  5.4  The Hyperborean Research Tradition under Pressure ........................... 276  5.4.1  The Developing Diversity in the Research into Swedish Antiquity..................................................................................... 276  5.4.2  Transformations: the Political & Institutional Prerequisites ....... 287  5.4.3  The Hyperborean Research Tradition Crumbling or Changing?................................................................................... 298  5.5  Summary ............................................................................................... 304  Conclusions 307  Sources and Literature 313  15 16 Introduction Early modern European historiography featured a trend of writing “national histories” in which construction of fabulous antiquity was the main objective. The starting point of national history was usually the events subsequent to the Flood in the Bible, when the world was inhabited by the sons of Noah. Historians were engaged to derive the line of current monarchs from the sons of Noah, whose later descendants were described as having a connection to the key events of universal biblical and classical history. In early modern Sweden, research on national histories followed general (Western) European developments. At the core of the research were mediaeval “German” traditions of Gothic origin. The Vasa- and Pfalz-dynasties (1523–1720) were claimed to descend from Magog, the grandson of Noah and the supposed forefather of the belligerent Goths of the Migration Period. The proclamation of the Gothic origins of Sweden became problematic after the classical ideals of Humanism spread to Northern Europe. The historical fact that the “mediaeval” Goths had contributed to the destruction of the Roman Empire, and hence classical civilisation, featured in Humanist literature. As a result, the term “Gothic” was viewed as synonymous with “barbarous”. During the seventeenth century, a tradition of research developed in Sweden to solve the problem of Gothic barbarism; the Swedes were identified with the Hyperboreans, a mythical race of pious and happy people described in classical writings. A string of scholars compared the accounts of the Hyperboreans with Old Norse writings and argued that the Humanist claim for Gothic barbarism was unfounded. According to them, the Hyperborean Goths of Sweden had been a highly civilised people who ruled the Baltic region before the time of the classical Greeks and Romans. Although it has been rightly concluded that this “Hyperborean idea” epitomises the extravagant early modern historiographical traditions of constructing fabulous antiquities, it played a central role in early modern Swedish politico-historical discourses. My research sought to discover the reasons for the emergence, development and crumbling of this Hyperborean tradition. Historical Background The historiographical phenomenon studied in this thesis, the Hyperborean research tradition, was a part of early modern intellectual history. The “early 17 modern” period can be defined as extending from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the French Revolution in 17891. Among the most notable events of that time were the discovery of the New World and the subsequently accelerated dispersion of Christianity2. In intellectual history, it has been characterised as a period of gradual movement from the “scholastic” towards the modern period – from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment3. As D. C. Allen and Anthony Grafton have noted, the revision of the biblical-classical framework4 was the most common method of explaining the discrepancies between old and new ideas. The development of scientific thought (i.e. natural philosophy) and new empirical methods by scholars such as Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes weakened the influence of the scholastic worldview5. In some cases, similarities between modern and early modern concepts are ostensible. The concept of “history” serves as an edifying example of this. History was a liberal art on the one hand, and affiliated to political philosophy on the other. Knowledge obtained through historical research or the “historical method” was used as “particular examples” in theology, jurisprudence, philology, rhetoric, philosophy, and politics6. Additionally, historical research could focus on such subjects as historia naturalis, historia profanis, and historia sacra7, and moreover, concepts of history were inspired by interpretations of Cicero8, Aristotle9, Plato10, and Pyrrhon11. The early modern concept of history was hence a combination of tradition and ideas12 in which the revival of classical antiquity played a significant role.13 In addition to the strong classical influence, mediaeval ideas still played a role in early modern historiography and constructions of fabulous national 1 I have used the temporary definitions in Cameron 1999a, passim. 2 Cameron 1999b; Chapter 2. 3 Cameron 1999b, Chapter 2; Briggs 1999, Chapter 5. 4 Allen 1949, passim; Grafton 2007, Chapter 3, but especially Chapter 4. The term is my own definition. 5 The role of science, see Rossi 2001, passim; in the biblical framework see, Allen 1949, Chapter V. 6 Landgren 2008, 43–162; see also Johannesson 1991, 74–75. 7 Landgren 2008 passim; Grafton 2007, 27–28; Landgren 2008, 118–123, (an example of classification in the case of a German scholar, Reinerdus Reineccus (1541–1595). 8 On Cicero’s influence see Kristeller 1988, passim; on his ideas of history, see Kelley 1988, 236–239; Landgren 2008, 16; 25–39; the rhetoric dimension, check Grafton 2007, 35. 9 Asher 1993, 17. 10 Landgren 2008, 25ff, 26n, refers to William Maurer, Der junge Melanchton zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Band 1 Der Humanist. Göttingen 1967. 11 Grafton 2007, 126–141; Cornell 1995, 1–14; Urpilainen 1993, 101–104. 12 Vine 2010, 13–16. 13 Kelley 1988, 236–270, discusses the spread of Humanist historical research in Europe and the role of the study of national histories in it. See Kelley 1988, 246–247; 259. 18 antiquity in particular. The paramount role of the Bible in early modern historical research epitomises this phenomenon. The Bible determined the chronological structure of the universal history: most scholars recognised Creation (Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden), the Flood (Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth), the Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues, and Moses’ receipt of the Decalogue and the Nativity as authentic historical events.14 A telling example of the dominance of the Bible in early modern discussions of the (early) history of the world is the sixteenth-century scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger’s (1540–1609) invention of the term “proleptic time” to explain chronological discrepancies between the Bible and ancient Egyptian writings15. The Study of National Histories in Early Modern Europe “National history” is a modern concept which does not fully apply to early modern historical research16. Instead, the principal research subject was the early history of the world as part of universal history. In the mediaeval and early modern “nationalisms”17, the constructions of fabulous antiquity were limited to political and literal elites and there was a strong emphasis on the origin of dynasties or aristocrats18 in the research. The avid construction of royal genealogies is the best, though not the only19, example of dynastic or biblical nationalism20. Thus, although the term “nation” has existed since classical antiquity, it did not usually refer to a body of people that consisted of all the citizens living within a “country” before the modern period. The affinity between individuals was delineated by social class21, and besides, with regard to ethnic or 14 Allen 1949, Chapters 4–6; Urpilainen 1993, Chapter V. 15 Grafton 2007, 245–251. 16 See Ranum 1975, passim; in Sweden, Ingemarsdotter 2011, 37–39. 17 Smith 2003, has argued that biblical nationalism existed in early modern protestant monarchies. 18 Highlighting the role of one’s ancestors is not unique to the early modern Europeans. The ideal of that time was the Old Testament, which is full of genealogies of the Kings of Israel, and the New Testament, which includes, e.g., the genealogy of Christ, as in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (1:1– 17; 3:23–38), which derives from David, Solomon, Abraham and Adam. In early modern historiography: Grafton 2007, 147–163; Allen 1949, Chapters IV–VI, Bietenholz 1998, Chapter V. 19 This reminds of Collingwood’s particular idea of Christian historiography, in which an individual or a nation could function as a vehicle of God. They could suddenly arise (or disappear) in history. Up to a point, this idea applies to early modern research on national history. Collingwood 2003, 48. 20 Borchardt 1971, 17–19. 21 I.e. Nobility (old aristocracy ‘frälse’ with prerogatives and ennobled neo-aristocrats), Clergy, Burgesses, Peasants, and the largest group of all, i.e. the commoners. The four estates formed the “parliament”, which was in Sweden called as the Riksdag of the Estates. 19 linguistic uniformity, empires in early modern Europe were multiethnic22. Moreover, the term “fatherland” (patria) existed and was used in Swedish historical research. However, it did not, for example, identify a “Swedish people” as the people living within the borders of Sweden23. As Alkarp noted within the Swedish context, the concept patria signified the “juridical fatherland”, which was identified with the legal state24. Arnaldo Momigliano, an Italian historian of classical historiography, was one of the leading scholars on the early modern practice of the writing of national histories, that is, the tradition into which the Hyperborean research tradition can be categorised. He suggested that the practice had its background in the research of the third century BC Roman historian, Fabius Pictor, whose annals of Rome were subsequently combined with Judaeo-Christian historiography25. After the Renaissance, Italian historians, imitating Livy, sought to trace the origin of Florence or Pisa, for instance, to Troy or the Gauls26. They were soon challenged by their Spanish, German, English, French, Dutch, Polish and Scandinavian colleagues27. The practice of presenting a particular region or dynasty as having a Trojan origin (from the exiles of the Trojan War who had migrated northwards) was a popular early mediaeval remnant of the idea, and the works of Isidorus of Seville and Jordanes were widely utilised.28 The appreciation of classical culture in early modern historiography is exemplified in an additional observation of Momigliano (one that has great importance to this thesis). In his view, the early modern phenomenon called antiquarianism or the antiquarian movement also harked back to classical historiography. The rise of antiquarianism can be linked to the Italian Humanists such as Petrarch, who became interested in the ruins of Rome in the fourteenth 22 I have used e.g: Geary 2002, passim; Hastings 1997, passim; Smith 1999, passim; Smith 2003, passim; Smith 2008, passim. 23 Nurmiainen 2003, 264–267; Viroli 1995, passim; Nordin 2000, passim; Wallette 2004, 55–84, from the differences of writing a history of an empire, people, and nation. All in all, being a patriot involved contributing to the common good of the crown, state or commonwealth (the idea of civic virtue). 24 Alkarp 2009, 107–109. 25 Momigliano 1990, 80ff, 88f, 107. 26 Momigliano 1990, 81–83; Kelley 1988, 236–241. 27 Such terms as Sweden, Swede, German, etc. are rather analytical constructions than “actual terms” in this study. 28 Momigliano 1990, 83–84. See also the thesis of Ghosh 2009, electronic, on the role of Barbarian history in early mediaeval historical narrative. It discusses e.g. the Trojan and Gothic origins. 20 century29. The significance of antiquarianism has been acknowledged in earlier and contemporary European and Swedish research on national histories30. Early modern antiquarianism had three specific characteristics. Firstly, it involved the study of ancient myths, laws, ruins, documents, landscapes, genealogies, customs and religion31. Secondly, it was methodologically open; antiquarian research could entail almost anything from archaeological excavations to esoteric numerological comparisons of the earliest alphabets32. Thirdly, early modern antiquarian (and historical) research involved a diverse range of approaches: some scholars examined the events of antediluvian history, whereas others were critical of the reliability of even mediaeval history33. As Grafton has stated in this connection34: No single writer, no single genre held a monopoly on the general form of criticisms; fantasists on some points were the grimmest and most exacting of realists on others.35 Bo Bennich-Björkman and Johanna Widenberg among others have convincingly illustrated the role the political elite of Sweden36 played in early modern Swedish discussions of national antiquity. Other historians have suggested that the emergence of state-appointed historian-antiquaries played a part in the gradual institutionalisation and formation of modern “nation states”37. As Anna Wallette has demonstrated in the Swedish context, this involved attempts to monopolise Old Norse writings38, which were to become an increasingly important part of the study of national histories also elsewhere in Northern Europe39. 29 Grafton 2007, 29–30, 180. 30 The studies of Momigliano 1950, passim; 1990, 54–79; Vine 2010, passim; In Sweden, see e.g. Schück 1932–1936, passim; Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapter III; Widenberg 2006, passim. 31 Landgren 2008, 116–118; Bennich-Björkman 1970, 152n1, has told that antiquitates could refer to A) cultural matters, i.e. laws, customs, religion etc. of the past societies B) knowledge of these cultures and C) texts and material remains describing them. 32 Vine 2010, introduction. 33 Borchardt 1971, 10. 34 Broadly speaking, ars historica refers to the attempt to define the general “methodological” premises in the Humanist historiography. See Grafton 2007, passim. 35 Grafton 1990, 115; Grafton 2007, Chapter 2 (Method and Madness in the ars historica). 36 Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapter. III; Widenberg 2006, passim; Donecker electronic, passim. 37 Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapter II; Chapter III–V; Hansson 1984, 61–84, 112–113; Hall 2000, 75–76. 38 The Old Norse literature refers to a body of vernacular Scandinavian writings. In this study, the most important are Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda (eddic poems) as well as the Icelandic Sagas (on Sweden), that is, the king’s sagas, i.e. Heimskringla and the manuscript of Flateyjarbók. 39 Wallette 2004, passim (in Sweden); Krebs 2011, 170–180 (in the continent). 21  Factors additional to the Humanistic traditions of historical and antiquarian research were related to the rise of the writing of national histories in North and Western Europe. Kristopher C. Krebs has suggested that one of them was the political crisis of the Catholic Church in the fifteenth century. He has claimed that the idea of Germans as a homogenous people arose from the discovery of Germania, by the Roman historian Tacitus (56–117), in the 1450s. The Catholic Church put the ideas of Tacitus to use when Christendom was under attack from the Ottoman Turks after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. To simplify Krebs’ idea, Rome promoted Tacitus’ idea of the ancestors of the peoples of the German principalities as a free, belligerent, and homogenous people in order to gain the help of the northerners40. Another powerful influence on the rise of national histories in Northern Europe was the forgeries of Annius of Viterbo (ca. 1432–1502). Annius claimed to have found a collection of ancient books, of which the one attributed to Chaldean Berosus41 was the most important within the context of constructing fabulous national histories42. His contemporaries soon questioned the authenticity of the writings, but scholars were still using them as late as the seventeenth century because of the dearth of better information43. In Annius’ Antiquities, Berosus the Chaldean described how Noah and his son Comerus had inhabited ancient Europe and settled in Etruria (near Viterbo). Thus, as the forefather of Etruscans, Noah was the Pontifex maximus of the earliest church. The purpose of Annius’ fabrication was to “prove” that the Etruscans44 were succeeded by Latin people, the Romans, and finally the Italians45, and furthermore, that the antiquity of the dogma of the Roman Church could be derived from the rites of Noah. Therefore, the Antiquities proclaimed not only the antiquity (and holiness) of “Italy”, but of the Catholic Church. Additionally, Annius made Berosus recite how Noah had possessed various names among the peoples of antiquity, such as Janus, Deucalion, Ogyges and Saturn46, and, moreover, that the Egyptian gods Isis 40 Krebs 2011, 78–92. 41 They are referred to as the Antiquities. I use Annius 1552, (Latin) & Asher 1993, (Latin-English). They purportedly consisted of ancient books from such authors as the Chaldean Berosus, Egyptian Manetho, and Persian Metasthenes, who were known indirectly from ancient sources Asher 1993, 43. 42 Allen 1949, 114. Annius claimed that he had found texts of Fabius Pictor, too, and hence the emphasis in his works was strongly on national histories. 43 Asher 1993, 44–60; the Swedish case will be discussed in the empirical chapters. 44 The ancient people of the region. Annius claimed to be able to read their language. They were sometimes called as “Tuscans” in Swedish research. 45 Stephens 2004, 208. 46 Allen 1949, 83. 22 and Osiris were in fact human descendents of Noah and had played a role in the history of Viterbo47. This “History of Berosus the Chaldean” was influential, for it gave scholars some desperately desired genealogical material about the “mythical progenitors” of European peoples. In the eyes of Northern and Western Europeans, such data was almost too good to be true. Previous classical – not to mention biblical – accounts of Northern European peoples were virtually non-existent. In a sly manner, Annius had ensured his History of Berosus contained elements that contemporaneous scholars would have either expected or desired to find in an ancient book48. He utilised the newly published Germania to argue that Berosus and Tacitus agreed that Tuiscon (or Tuisto, the fourth son of Noah) was the progenitor of Germans49, which increased the German (and Scandinavian) historians’ regard for the Antiquities50. Krebs has provided examples of the contributions of Annius to the emergence of the idea of “German” or “Germanic” in the early modern period51. He claimed that the idea of Germans (Krebs calls them Germanen) as a homogenous people did not exist before the early modern period (Renaissance). In the mediaeval German principalities of the Holy Roman Empire, if a genealogy was traced back from a Trojan or biblical forefather (for instance), it usually involved tribal and dynastic entities (e.g., Bavarians or Hapsburgs)52. The argument for the rise of Germans as homogenous people around 1500 can be supported by such a trivial fact as the official name of the Holy Roman Empire, which was changed to “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” in 151253. Annius was not the only Humanist introducing fabrications connected to dynastic histories. In Hapsburg Vienna, Wolfgang Lazius (1514–1565) claimed to have found ancient inscriptions which bore witness to the Hebrew origin of the German tribes of the region. He argued that these inscriptions proved Noah and his sons had settled in Austria soon after the Flood54. In fact, the incipient idea of the “Germans” and, to a lesser degree, using dubious texts were articulated already in the research of the German Humanists, Conrad Celtis (1459–1508) and 47 Grafton 1990, 61; Stephens 2004, 208. 48 On the strategies of Annius, see Stephens 2004, 215–216; Allen 1949, 114f; Grafton 1990, 60–61. 49 Krebs 2011, 97–98. 50 Borchardt 1971, 28–39; Skovgaard-Petersen 1998, 95–100. 51 Krebs 2011, 16–22 (the definitions of the Germans as an ethnic group); Chapters 3–5 (the Renaissance and Early Modern cases). 52 Krebs 2011, 102–104. 53 Whaley 2012, 17. Italicised by T.A. This name was first used in a document already in the 1470s. 54 Allen 1949, 117–118. 23 Johannes Trithemius (1462–1516). Like Annius, they based their ideas of fabulous German antiquity on Tacitus as well as varied mediaeval traditions55. Another important scholar from the Swedish perspective was the Bavarian Johannes Aventinus (1477–1534), a student of Celtis whose idea of the German origin of the Celtic Druids was widely debated still in the seventeenth century56. He highlighted and normalised the abovementioned traditions of tracing back the origin of Germans to Tuiscon57 and other forefathers of towering reputation, such as Magog, Gomer and Albion, who had supposedly inhabited Europe and the British Isles. True to form, Aventinus did not forget to mention the German origin of Hercules as well as other mythical heroes, such as for instance, Ulysses, Osiris, Isis, Mars and Mercury58. Similar development of constructing fabulous histories occurred in Britain and France. In Britain, the Tudor- and Stuart dynasties were extremely interested in promoting their own genealogical glory. The Society of Antiquaries (1580), orbiting around William Camden (1551–1623), epitomised the spirit of the British research59, whereas in France the study of national histories was at its most vital in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The patrons of the research were King Francis I and the brother of King Henry III, Francis Duke of Anjou, who gathered a circle of learned men who studied national histories, among other things60. The Trojan origin and the Celtic-Gallic or German (Anglo-Saxon/Frankish) past was usually highlighted in early modern research into British and French antiquity61. In seventeenth century Europe, a new tradition emerged in which the origin of the British was linked with the Phoenicians; this was based on the theories of the French scholar Samuel Bochart (1599–1667). In his work Geographia Sacra (1646), Bochart argued that the Phoenicians had colonised ancient Europe62. Essentially, the theory was founded on a then-common methodological practice of comparing the names of ancient geographical features, such as cities, rivers, mountains, and so forth, across languages and historical writings. Bochart believed that Moses was the most reliable source (by oral traditions and divine 55 Borchardt 1971, 106–109, 127–135. 56 In his Annales Bojorum (The Annals of Bavaria) and the German version Bayerische Chronik (1554). The role the Druids played in the discussions will be elaborated in each empirical chapter. 57 Krebs 2011, 98–104. 58 Borchardt 1971, 166–168. 59 Parry 1995, 22–48; Vine 2010, 53–55. 60 Walker 1972a, 64. 61 Asher 1993, passim; Walker 1972a, Chapter III; Kendrick 1950, passim; Kendrick 1966 passim; Parry 1995, passim; Vine 2010, passim. 62 Bietenholz 1994, 232–235; Parry 1995, Chapter 11; Kendrick 1950, 132–133. 24 revelation) and hence the names in classical and other ancient writings about the mythical lands and peoples, needed to be verified through Genesis63. Constructing a fabulous past was also a common practice in the Low Countries64. One text related how people of Indian origin had wandered via classical Greece (and were taught “the secret knowledge” by Plato) before they arrived at Frisia, vanquished the mythical giants living there, and founded the city of Groningen65. The fabulous Anglo-Frisian and Kimbrian pasts of the Dutch- origin Richard Verstegan and especially the Batavian scholar, Johannes Goropius Becanus (1519–1572), are well-known. Becanus’ ideas will be discussed in detail later because of their impact on the Hyperborean tradition66. Constructions of Fabulous Antiquity in Early Modern Baltics and Sweden In mediaeval and early modern Sweden, a fabulous national antiquity was constructed with reference to the history of the Goths and hence, the ancient “Germans” among whom they had been placed since the classical antiquity and early mediaeval period67. The earliest example of the use of Gothic history in Sweden took place in the 1330s and, unsurprisingly, within a biblical-dynastic context. The unknown author of the Swedish translation of the Books of Moses stated that other European nations descended from the (Swedish) Goths. The author was inspired by Isidore of Seville’s chronicle and mediaeval traditions of the Goths68. However, the origin of Swedish Gothicism is usually regarded as the Council of Basel in 1434, at which the Bishop of Växjö, Nicolaus Ragvaldi, spoke of the deeds of the Goths. Sent to Basel by the Swedish monarch, Ragvaldi demanded that the Gothic past of Sweden ought to be reflected in the ranking order of the seating of the council.69 The first historiographical example of Swedish Gothicism was the “Gothic chronicle” of Ericus Olai (ca 1420–1486), Chronica Regni Gothorum. This work 63 Bietenholz 1994, 232–234. 64 Parts of modern Belgium, Low Countries and Northern France were fiefs of the Habsburg and the Holy Roman Empires that comprised several modern countries. 65 Grafton 1990, 121. 66 Parry 1995, 49–69 (Verstegan); on Becanus, Parry 1995, 56, 65; Nordström 1934a, 111–115. 67 Momigliano 1990, 83–84; Nordström 1975, 52–83. 68 Nordström 1975, 60–73, has demonstrated how the Spanish monarchs stressed their Gothic origin in the early and high middle ages. On the mediaeval and Renaissance use of Gothic history, see Borchardt 1971, 28–29, 136ff; in Sweden, Johannesson 1991, 22. On the history of Gothicism in Sweden and Europe, see Nordström 1975, passim. 69 Nordström 1975, 52–83. He also provides information about speculation regarding the “Goths” in the runestones, Beowulf and other Old Norse texts. For the oration in Swedish, see Ragvaldi 1991, 297–301. 25 exemplifies the nexus between the political power and the early modern practice of constructing fabulous histories. It was commissioned by the King of Sweden, Karl Knutsson Bonde (also known as Charles VIII of Sweden), who sought to use Gothic history in propaganda in the mid-fifteenth century70. Nonetheless, Swedish historians were still citing the work in the latter part of the seventeenth century within the context of the study of national antiquity71. In more ways than one, Ericus Olai’s Gothic chronicle was the last example of Gothicism in Sweden based predominantly on mediaeval sources on the Goths. The sixteenth-century works of the two last Catholic bishops of Sweden, Johannes and Olaus Magnus72, became the paramount manifestations of Swedish Gothicism. Nordström, who is virtually the only modern scholar who has scrutinised Johannes Magnus’ Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque Regibus (1554)73, has argued that it was the most influential work of Swedish historiography before the modern period74, despite the fact that his brother Olaus Magnus’ Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (1555) has achieved most fame among non-Swedish scholars. In addition to the coeval Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii (1549), a similar work on Russia by the (Habsburg) “Austrian” Baron Sigismund von Herberstein, the works of the Magnus brothers provided new information to European readers about the remote Northern European regions, their people and history75. The influence of Annius, Tacitus and earlier contemporary works of national history were clearly featured in Johannes Magnus’ Gothic history76. Annius had argued that Tuiscon, the German progenitor, was also “the King of Sarmatae” 77, which naturally, did not escape the attention of Johannes Magnus or historical scholars in the Baltics, Germany, Balkans and Russia who discussed ancient geography as part of their constructions of fabulous antiquity78. In fact the post- Renaissance Gothicism was an international phenomenon, and the new ideas of Johannes Magnus cannot be fully understood without acknowledging this context. After the Renaissance, Polish-Lithuanian79, Danish80 and Swedish historical 70 Nordström 1975, 99–104; Doctor Ericus Olai Upsaliensis (died 1486). 71 Lindroth 1975a, 160–172. 72 On their Episcopal and political careers, see Johannesson 1982/1991, passim. 73 Nordström 1975, passim; Johannesson 1982/1991, passim. 74 Nordström 1975, 14–17. 75 See e.g. Baron 1991, part III, 245ff. 76 Johannes Magnus 1558, 18, 29, (Sarmatism, Cimbri, Germans); 24 (Berosus); 250; (Tacitus); 260 (Tuiscon). 77 Annius 1554, Lib. IV; on a more general level, see Krebs 2011, 102. 78 Neville 2009, 219ff, 228ff. 79 Nordström 1975, 40; Kidd 1991, 26. 26 scholars attempted to appropriate the history of the Goths81 and combine it with other nations of antiquity such as the Kimbri82 in Denmark and with the Sarmatians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Tsardom of Russia83. Johannes Magnus argued against the abovementioned views on the Sarmatian origin of the Goths as expressed by a Polish scholar, Matthias de Miechow (1457–1523) (among others)84. Johannes Magnus pointed to de Miechow’s “temerity” in situating Goths in Poland and Asia, as well as his inability to cite any reliable authors, concluding de Miechow was envious of the glorious antiquity of the Germans (Goths included)85. In addition, Johannes Magnus was the first in Sweden86 to question previous and contemporary European views on the etymology of the name “Goths”. According to him, the original form of the name Goths was Geats (Swed. göter) and it encompassed the Goths, Scythians and Thracian Getae. After Johannes Magnus’ identification it became generally accepted in Swedish research into national antiquity87. I will henceforth refer to this early modern Swedish historiographical tradition as the Geatic view of history88 to differentiate it from Gothicism, the broader international cultural term. Like most of his contemporaries, Johannes Magnus was a genealogist89. The focus of his work was the line of the Geatic monarchs of Sweden. He related the Geats to the line of Japheth, whose son Magog he claimed to have arrived in Scandinavia 88 years after the Flood. This grandson of Noah was hence the first king of Sweden and among the first in Europe.90 This idea rested on the biblical monogenesis: Japheth was seen as the forefather of all Europeans, whose sons were to come to rule distinct areas of Europe. A few daring scholars suggested 80 Skovgaard-Petersen 1995, passim. 81 The ‘Gothic discourse’ in Europe summarised by Neville 2008, 219ff, 228–229. 82 The Kimbri or Cimbri, a Germanic tribe originating in the Danish Jutland described by Tacitus and Strabo. They were known for their military prowess. 83 On Sauromatai, Sarmates: mentioned e.g. by Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus, who divided them from German tribes. Neville 2008, 228–229 (within the context of Gothicism). 84 Matthias de Miechow was a Polish scholar who wrote two studies on the Sarmatians. See e.g. De Miechow 1521, 17–20, (the link between the Goths and Sarmatia, and how Sarmatia could be identified to Russia). In the 17th century Swedish-Polish context, see Johannesson 1991, 87. 85 Johannes Magnus 1558, 18. 86 The identification between Goths and Scythians is made already by Isidore of Seville in his Historia de regibus Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum. 87 Nordström 1975, 168–173. 88 The term ‘Geatic view of history’ was coined by Erkki Urpilainen in Urpilainen 1993, see the English Summary. My application of the term is analytical, and refers to the early modern study of national histories in which the Geats encompass also the Scythians and Thracian Getae. 89 On genealogy, see Krebs 2011, 96–104; Allen 1949, Chapters IV–VI, Bietenholz 1998, Chapter V. 90 Johannes Magnus 1558, 28–32. According to him, “German” is a personal name. This German was a son of Magog who was the progenitor of Germans in the continent. 27 that Adam was of German origin or that the early Germans had spoken the original language of the Garden of Eden91. Even though Johannes Magnus did not go this far, he conducted research within the framework of the continental study of national histories. The political-theological aim of the work was to provide Sweden as splendid a past as possible in order to awaken the interest of the Roman church in making the Lutheran Swedish monarchy Catholic again92. Perhaps the most important notion in Johannes Magnus’ work was his presentation of ancient Scandinavia as a bountiful “Womb of the Nations” from which numerous nations of the classical world had descended. He developed this idea by exaggerating the account of Jordanes’ early mediaeval work De origine actibusque Getarum. According to Johannes Magnus, at least 30 contemporaneous peoples originated in Scandinavia. The most famous exodus happened around 800 years after the Flood, at the time of King Berik93. Jordanes and Isidorus and their predecessors Cassiodorus and Josephus were all important sources for Johannes Magnus94. As Momigliano has shown, these historians were often cited in the tradition of universal history and writing of national histories95. Nordström has conclusively proved that although the ancient culture of the Geats was not stressed in the work of Johannes Magnus, the bishop did make mention of their piety. Additionally, he referred to Zalmoxis, the Ge(a)tic sage associated with the Greek Pythagoras in classical literature. Johannes Magnus also suggested that the runestones and idolatry of Old Norse divinities were evidence of a domestic Geatic civilisation. As modern historians have shown, the reflections of Johannes Bureus (1568–1652) and Georg Stiernhielm (1598–1672) about the Hyperboreans were, to a certain extent, founded on Johannes Magnus’s discussions about the Geatic culture96. In general, they can be placed within the established intellectual traditions of investigating the origin, diffusion and nature of early civilisations. As Goulding has pointed out, scholars across early modern Europe discussed the history of natural philosophy, which included domains that are deemed to be pseudo-sciences according to modern classifications97. This practice was interlaced with the Renaissance practices of studying the history of 91 Borchardt 1971, 16–18, 23–24. 92 Johannesson 1991, passim: Nordström 1975, passim. 93 Johannesson 1991, 76–77, 89–90; Chapter III (66–138) describes the history of Johannes Magnus; Hall 2000, 23–37; Urpilainen 1993, 187. 94 Johannes Magnus 1558. See the main sources he listed at the beginning of the study under the title: ‘AVCTORES QVORVM TESTIMONIIS IN HAC HISTORIA USUS [...]’. 95 Momigliano 1990, 83–84. 96 Nordström 1934a, 110–130; also within a slightly different context, Åkerman 1998, 30ff. 97 Goulding 2006a, 33–40, summarises the main lines of the modern research in the field. 28 theology and philosophy within such early nations as the Chaldeans, Hebrews, Persians, Phoenicians and Greeks98. As Allen and Popper have shown, Renaissance scholars such as Annius and Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) believed that the arts and sciences were first introduced by Adam or Seth and Enoch99. The Hyperboreans My thesis is a reception historical study of the understanding and use of the classical accounts of the Hyperboreans in early modern Swedish historiography. I am not, in other words, interested in the original or “true” interpretation of the classical Hyperboreans, but the meanings this mythical race held for early modern Swedish scholars. Therefore, instead of discussing the whole body of classical texts on the Hyperboreans in detail, I have decided to outline only the main aspects of them100. As Bridgman has demonstrated, in classical literature the Hyperboreans belonged, firstly, to the mythical golden age of gods, legends and utopias101. Secondly, the Hyperboreans were discussed by classical logographers and geographers, such as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny the Elder and Strabo102. In Greek mythology, the land of the Hyperboreans was located between the shores of the northernmost part of the river Okeanos and the half-mythical Rhipaean Mountains in the south. In these mountains dwelled the personified North Wind, Boreás103, whose freezing breath was the source of winter for the Scythians, Thracians, Celts, Italians and Greeks. The land of the Hyperboreans was described as an evergreen region with bountiful harvests and as a blessed land free from disease and the burdens of old age. The gold-hungry Griffins (eagle-lions) and the one-eyed Arimaspi, among other mythical peoples, lived near the Hyperboreans104. In addition, the Greek heroes, such as Perseus and his alleged descendant Heracles, had visited or met the Hyperboreans during adventures portrayed in epic and lyric poetry.105 98 Popper 2006, 87–88; Schmitt 1966, passim; Walker 1972a, Chapter III; Nordström 1924, VXL–LX. 99 Allen 1949, 114–119, gives examples across Europe; Popper 2006, 87–97. 100 Bridgman 2005, passim, has been my handbook on the Hyperboreans. 101 Bridgman 2005, introduction. 102 Herodotus IV.4.13, IV.32–36; Diodorus II.45–47; Strabo I.3.22, VII.3.1, IVV.3.8; Pliny the Elder IV.26, VI.13, VI.17, VI.34. 103 Boreás (Latin Aquilo), the winged wind-god (Anemoi) of the North Wind and winter. 104 Herodotus IV.4.13, IV.32–36. 105 The Greek poet Pindar mentions Perseus’ visit in the X. Pythian Ode. On Heracles, see Pindar Nem. III.V.19–25, Pyth. X.V.29–30; and the Golden Apples of Hesperides: Apollodorus 2.5.11. Check also Hesiod II.211–225. 29  The Hyperboreans were closely associated with the divinity Apollon, whose (human) mother Leto (Latona) was said to have been a native Hyperborean. Apollon was said to be the only god the Hyperboreans worshipped, and that he visited them at intervals of 19 years. Otherwise, the realm was ruled from the capital by the priest-kings called Boreades, descendants of Boreás, characterised occasionally as half-giants of the golden age106. In their capital was a golden temple of Apollon around which pious people danced and sang to praise their god. Hence, some classical Greeks appear to have believed that the Hyperboreans were culturally elevated and pious. They had their own kings and a language distinct from Greek.107 When Apollon was absent, the Hyperboreans sent secret offerings to him at Delos (Greece), where his cult was celebrated. The offerings were delivered by Arge, Opis, Loxo and Hecaerge who were the most famous of the Hyperborean Maidens. These maidens were frequently described as oracles and seers108. Another famous and mysterious Hyperborean (at times Scythian) was the sage Abaris, whom Herodotus already mentioned in his Histories109. Abaris was said to have restored the ancient tradition between the Hyperboreans and the Greeks during the classical period, as he journeyed around the world with his magical wand110. Generally speaking, classical writings conveyed an idea of the Hyperboreans as beatific, pious people. This was the source of certain writers of Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity who touched upon the theological knowledge the Hyperboreans might have possessed111. There were also non-mythological classical writings about the Hyperboreans. The accounts of such scholars as Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Apollodorus, Pausanias, Strabo, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela and Pliny the Elder constituted a near-continuous tradition of classical geographers discussing the Hyperboreans and Hyperborea112. In fact, some of them doubted if Hyperborea existed, whereas others, though sceptical, suggested that the term “Hyperborean” referred to the 106 Aelian XI.1, as Diodorus II.45–47, refers to Hecataeus, when he tells about the Boreades. He told they were sons of Boreás and Khione (snow), priests of Apollon and very tall. 107 Diodorus II.45–47. 108 Apollon was also the divinity of divination, as proves the famous oracle of Delphi, Pythia. Pausanias wrote that there were no male priests of Apollon in this connection. 109 Herodotus IV.36. 110 Herodotus IV.36; Diodorus II.45–47. 111 From 1st to 4th century. See e.g. Iamblichus De Vita Pyth. Cap 23, which was later discussed by the Renaissance Neo-Platonists of Florence in the context of Pythagoreanism. See Nordström 1934a, 127–128. 112 E.g. Herodotus IV.4.13, IV.32–36; Apollonius II.669–719, IV.592–626; Pomponius Mela De Chrorogr. I.12, I.31, III.31, III.3.32–37; Diodorus II.45–47; Strabo I.3.22, VII.3.1, IVV.3.8; Pliny the Elder IV.26, VI.13, VI.17, VI.34; on Mela and Ptolemy, see Dilke 1984, 347–351; Aatsma 2000–2011, electronic. 30 people living in the northern parts of Europe113. Therefore, “Hyperborean” could mean “north from Greece”, which included extreme north-westerly or -easterly cardinal points, that is, anything from Ireland to the Himalayas. Moreover, some classical authors argued that Hyperborea could be identified or associated with other terrae incognitae of the classical world, such as Ultima Thule, Helixoia, Elysion and Atlantis, in which case the mythical contents of the accounts did not point to particular points of the compass, let alone the north. As to the Rhipaean Mountains, classical geographers variously interpreted them as the Alps, the Himalayas, Asian (Russian) Mountains and even the Atlas Mountains in North Africa.114 Several post-classical references to the Hyperboreans can be found within academic and cultural contexts115. The selectivity of interpretations is the common denominator among the academic scholars that have studied the Hyperboreans from a historical point of view. Usually, a specific classical author or tradition of authors is highlighted in order to appropriate an attractive element of the myth. Only a handful of scholars have noted the inconsistent and contradictory nature of the classical accounts116. This applies equally to the references to the Hyperboreans in early modern Swedish historical research. As noted first by Nordström, and later Eriksson, the work of the Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus117, and the account of (Pseudo-) Apollodorus, were the sources of greatest importance in the emergence and development of the “Hyperborean idea”118. However, the historian Johannes Messenius (1579–1636) made the first attempts to identify the Hyperboreans with ancient Swedes. He discussed the Hyperboreans in his work Scondia Illustrata and in a eulogy on the ancient names of Scandinavia119. Messenius, although touching upon the Hyperboreans in close 113 Herodotus IV.36; Pliny the Elder IV.26; Strabo I.3.22. 114 Smith & Others 1873, 1104–1106. 115 In modern times, academics and amateurs have reflected on the possibility of texts on the Hyperboreans describing the antiquity of a modern nation. See e.g. Langemets 2006, electronic; Haavio 1965, 176–177. The Hyperboreans were used in Nazi ideology and varied esoteric theories. They were described as ancestors of a Northern Aryan Race. See, Goodrick-Clarke 1985, 20–21; Goodrick-Clarke 2002, 59, 61, 80, 117–118, 143–146, 180–182 (the Hyperboreans, Atlantis etc); see also Grachev 2006, electronic; Pozdnyakova 2009, electronic. 116 The geographical details situate the Hyperboreans from the perspective of Greece in Western, South- Western, North-Western, North-Eastern and Northern direction. See Bridgman 2005, passim 117 Nordström 1934a, 139ff; the (Greek) work of Diodorus Bibliotheca Historica (circa 50 BC). In the account of the Hyperboreans he drew from the lost work of the 4th century BC Hecataeus of Abdera. 118 Nordström 1934a, 143, 147; Eriksson 2002, 325–326, on the Apples in the Garden of Hesperides which Apollodorus placed among the Hyperboreans. Thus, even this mythical region could be identified with ancient Sweden. The characters of the myth, Atlas, Zeus, etc. are analysed in the Chapter 3. 119 Nordström 1934a, 121–122; n77. 31 connection with Scandinavia, cannot be seen as anything but a historical scholar following the learned tradition of discussing ancient geography. He did not return to the subject in his later works, all of which can be categorised within the tradition of constructing fabulous national histories120. Thus, as I will argue later, the identification of the Hyperboreans with the ancient Geats cannot be explained only on the basis of early modern learned traditions. The proliferation of classical literature in Western Europe after the Renaissance gave impetus to the identification of the Hyperboreans as ancient Swedes in early modern Swedish historiography. In practice, the manuscript of the paramount source for the Hyperborean research tradition, Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca Historica, for instance, was translated into Latin in 1472121. Thus, his account was not available to the earliest proponents of the Swedish Gothicism in the fourteenth and the fifteenth century. Besides, this applied to many other classical writings and domestic antiquities such as runestones and Old Norse writings. The new texts provided data about peripheral areas of the classical world, such as Northern Europe, of whom the Bible had little or nothing to say122. In the early modern biblical framework, the classical and Old Norse descriptions were interpreted as derivative manifestations of the nations and figures in the only true source of universal history, the Bible. Therefore, as with Annius’ forgeries, this new material was a dream come true for the writers that constructed fabulous national histories. Existing Research on the Subject The principal context of preceding research on the Hyperborean idea in early modern Swedish intellectual history is the abovementioned phenomenon defined as Swedish Gothicism. Swedish Gothicism123 has been a major topic for modern 120 Nordström has offered a list of scholars for Messenius sources, for he had mentioned Hyperborea or the Hyperborean/Rhipaean Mountains and identified it with the Doffrafiel Olaus Magnus had mentioned in his work on the history of the northern peoples. See Nordström 1934a, 110–111, e.g. the Flemish cartographers as Gerardus Mercator (1512–1594) and Abraham Ortelius (1527–1598). Hieronymus Cardanus (1501–1576), an Italian scholar concurred with Olaus and placed the Hyperborean Mountains in Scandinavia. Their source could be Jacobus Zieglerus’ (1470–1549), Schondia, who had combined details of the Hyperboreans with data he received personally from the Magnus-brothers during their Italian exile. 121 The earliest versions of the Book II (I have found) from Uppsala and Stockholm are from 1516. 122 Grafton 2007, 240–243. 123 Nordström 1934a, 55–76; Nordström 1975, passim; Stenroth 2002; on the longer time span, see the more theoretical Hall 1998, Chapters 3–7; and Hall 2000, Chapter 1–2; Hall 2000, 72–79, illuminates the modern research of, and has formulated distinct explanatory models, for the phenomenon. 32 Swedish historians since the early twentieth century. The significance of Gothic history has been acknowledged especially in research on the history of ideas124. Henrik Schück dealt with the role of the Goths and the Hyperboreans in his works on the history of antiquarian research in Sweden almost 100 years ago125. He was followed by a string of historians of ideas, such as Johan Nordström, Sten Lindroth and Gunnar Eriksson. Nordström studied the background of Gothicism126, and wrote a treatise on the Hyperboreans127. Lindroth examined the subject in his works on the history of Swedish erudition128, whereas Eriksson scrutinised the intellectual activities and historical research of Olof Rudbeck the Elder129. More recently, Tore Frängsmyr discussed the significance of Gothic history in his research on the Swedish history of ideas. He has confirmed and revised the validity of the results of the earlier studies of historians of ideas, such as for instance, Nordström and Lindroth in the light of more recent research on Gothicism130. Jenny Ingemarsdotter, a Swedish historian of ideas, has shed light on the role of Gothic heritage in early seventeenth century educational reforms in her intellectual biography of Johan Skytte131. Anna Wallette’s dissertation is the most comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Old Norse sagas on Swedish historiography from the seventeenth to twentieth century132. Her study, along with the works of Jonas Nordin, Patrik Hall, and Johanna Widenberg, analysed the influence of Gothic history on the rise of national identity in Sweden133. Most recently, Per Landgren described the institutionalisation of academic historical research and Gothicism as part of it in relation to the European setting134, whereas 124 Johannesson 1968, Chapters II–IV & VII; Johannesson 1991/1982, passim. (English/Swedish). See also the studies of Allan Ellenius on the Gothic history in the context of the emblematics, visual arts, and Latin poetry. Ellenius 1957, 59–74: Ellenius 1960 265ff: Ellenius 1984, Chapter I. 125 Schück 1932–1944, passim. Schück has written the history of the academy of antiquarian research. The first 5 parts (1932–1936) of altogether 8 tomes encompass the role of Gothicism in it. 126 Nordström 1934a, passim. The work includes three studies and a speech on different sides of the Gothicism. Lejonet från Norden; Götisk historieromantik och stormaktstidens anda; Tal vid Gustav Adolfsfesten 1932; De yverbornes ö. The background, check the published lectures on the historical work of Johannes Magnus in Nordström 1975, passim. On a general level, Ingmar Stenroth 2002, passim. 127 Nordström 1934a, 91–154, n181–198 (De yverbornes ö). 128 Also his study on Swedish alchemy touches upon the Gothicism of Bureus and Stiernhielm: Lindroth 1943, Chapter II (82–252), 469–483, 501–503; Lindroth 1975a, 81–86, 160–172, 288–310; Lindroth 1975b, 152–178, 235–375; Lindroth 1978, 643–658. 129 Eriksson 1994, passim. (in English); Eriksson 2002, passim. 130 Frängsmyr 2000, 41–44, 56–60, 88–102, 323–330. 131 Ingemarsdotter 2011, 96–101. 132 Wallette 2004, 55–72, 85–108, 127–223/264. 133 Hall 1998, & 2000, passim; Nordin 2000, passim; Wallette 2004; passim; Widenberg 2006, passim. They all discuss the Hyperboreans to a certain degree. 134 Landgren 2008, 163ff. The second part (Svenska scenen) studies the Swedish conditions. 33 Magnus Alkarp examined the interpretations of the city of Uppsala and notably the Gamla (Old) Uppsala135 in the Swedish history of archaeology. In the first part of the work, Alkarp has demonstrated the role of Gothic history and Hyperborean idea played in the process136. The research of non-Swedish historians has also contributed to our notions of the Hyperboreans. Of these, the doctoral thesis of the Finnish historian of ideas Erkki Urpilainen and the work of the American historian David King137 are the most important. The latter touched upon the Hyperboreans in Rudbeck the Elder’s research, whereas Urpilainen has analysed the process of the crumbling of the “Geatic view of history”, as he calls it, and the Hyperborean research tradition as part of that138. The work of Urpilainen, alongside the theses of Wallette and Widenberg, have been essential in helping me to comprehend the role of antiquarian research in the Geatic view of history and the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition in the eighteenth century. If their results are combined with the works of Susanna Åkerman and Thomas Karlsson, which analysed the links between Swedish Gothicism and the early modern esoteric trends of ideas139, a complex reality of politico-historical discourses is revealed. It is this domain of intersecting political, historiographical and religious contexts to which my study aspires to contribute. A substantial body of research into Swedish Gothicism exists, but I find it surprising that there is no systematic analysis of the role of the Hyperboreans in it. Granted, Nordström has analysed aspects of the background and early development of the phenomenon in his De yverbornes ö140; however, since its publication virtually every modern scholar who mentions the Hyperboreans has cited his study and little else141. The only historian who has not done so is Anna Wallette; perhaps this is why her approach seems fresh and reveals new information on the matter. But, although Nordström’s analysis is meritorious to say the least, it is hardly a full account of it (in fact, the author himself admitted 135 Situated ca. 5 km north from the Modern City of Uppsala (earlier named as Östra Aros). The Gamla Uppsala region has three large grave mounds and lots of archaeological remains. 136 Alkarp 2009, passim. Part I (1600-talet) contains the analyses on the Geatic view of history. 137 King 2005, passim. 138 Urpilainen 1993, passim. (with an English summary); Urpilainen 1998, passim. 139 Åkerman 1991, Chapters II–III; Åkerman 1998, & 2007; Karlsson 2005 & Karlsson 2010, passim. 140 Nordström 1934a, 91–154, n181–n198. Originally in Rudbecksstudier: [...], ‘De yverbornes ö: bidrag till Atlanticans förhistoria’ [259–337] (’contributions to the prehistory of Atlantica’), Uppsala 1930. 141 E.g.: Schück 1933a, 124–125, 129–131; Eriksson 2002, 265f; Stenroth 2002, 121; King 2005, 70–77; Alkarp 2009, 160–166, 194–197; Widenberg 2006, 164ff; Josephson 1940, 7–8; Urpilainen 1993, 190–199; Ellenius 1957, 2; as an exception, Wallette 2004, 148–156. 34 that this was the case142). More importantly, Nordström’s text143 does not fully convey the complex historical reality behind the Hyperborean research tradition. It seems to me that the interpreters of Nordström’s study have chosen to stress the coherent elements of the phenomenon, which, as historians of ideas know very well, can lead to methodological problems. If the actual historical writings and their contexts are not reassessed, the image of any historical phenomenon may become “ossified”144. I have come across a few examples of such ossification. Ragnar Josephson discussed the influence of “the Hyperborean theory” on seventeenth century Swedish architecture in his study almost a century ago145. Additionally, Katarina Schough, a geographer, has analysed the contribution of the idea to Swedish geographic-geopolitical discourses and formulated a concept called “the Hyperborean figure of thought”146. She defines it as a figure of thought in the world of ideas. The figure is ‘an arch-idea’, that is to say, it has its roots in the pre-scientific world of ideas and it is also manifested in the generic Swedish discourse […] the Hyperborean figure of thought operates as a fundamental, a key of interpretation for that (person) who perceives the world from the Swedish position147. Schough concluded that this figure of thought was a component of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ideologies of Pan-Germanism, Pan-Scandinavianism (Nordism) and the Swedish Neo-Gothicism148. All in all, I find many parts of Schough’s analysis of the phenomenon she calls the “Hyperborean figure of thought”149 compelling and perceptive. I share with Schough a belief in the existence of long-term intellectual structures and that the phenomenon she has studied exists in itself. However, the notion of a Hyperborean “arch idea” (which she has traced to Bureus) that penetrated the Swedish intellectual history from the early modern to the modern period to such a degree that it has entered into “the generic Swedish discourse” seems slightly too reductive – even in the light of the 142 Nordström 1934a, 112. 143 Something that the erudite and extensive footnotes prove. 144 Persson 2005, 30–31 (From the Swedish term ‘fossileras’). 145 Josephson 1940, 8, talks about the influence of the Hyperborean theory, and several others have not either defined it in any way or have confused it with Rudbeckianism etc. About Schough, check below. 146 In Swedish: Hyperboreiska tankefiguren. 147 Schough 2008, 9. 148 Schough 2008, 12–19. She has been inspired by Bernd Henningsen, Die schwedische Konstrution einer nordischer Identität durch Olof Rudbeck, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 1997. 149 Schough 2008, 21–24; see also Appendix 1 in her work, in which the methodological framework of the study is explained. She has applied the ideas of Ludwig Fleck and James Blaut. 35 results of existing research on the phenomenon. Thus, there exists a need for a systematic analysis of whether this Hyperborean research tradition eventually transformed into an arch-idea or, alternatively, declined and disappeared from the Swedish intellectual history. I will argue that, in addition to the problem of ossification, there is a conceptual problem related to the Hyperborean research tradition. It has been designated the Hyperborean “idea”, “motive”, “figure of thought”, “theory” and most importantly, “Rudbeckianism” (which rests on the impact Olof Rudbeck the Elder’s historical work Atlantica had on the contemporary and subsequent views about the Hyperboreans). In my view, this conceptual multiformity has led to unnecessary complication. Although the term “Rudbeckianism” has potential validity, nobody has defined it adequately and hence it is often used in an inexact fashion; moreover, the use of the concept tends to overplay the dominance of Atlantica. Therefore, not only is there a need for a systematic, updated empirical study of the Hyperborean tradition, but also for a revision of the conceptual framework used to refer to it in present-day historical research The Objectives of the Study My general objective in this dissertation is to study the different manifestations of the Hyperborean research tradition in early modern Swedish discussions about national antiquity, and how the phenomenon was related to the development of the practice of constructing fabulous histories elsewhere in North and Western Europe. The more detailed foci of the research can be expressed as follows: 1. What kind of overarching or shared distinctive ideas and approaches can be found in the writings of the scholars that can be categorised into the Hyperborean research tradition? In other words, how coherent was the tradition? The second, significantly lesser objective of the study is to investigate: 2. Did specific political and institutional conditions facilitate the emergence, development, and crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition? If so, what were they and how did they operate? 36 Methodological Approach The general approach of this study is pragmatic. By this I mean that will not apply a theory or attempt to find solutions to any specific methodological problems. Instead, I have looked for new material about the Hyperboreans, and furthermore, posed new questions to the key texts on the Hyperboreans that previous modern historians have analysed. As to the more detailed foci, they have been constructed as an attempt to find a balance between the study of the intellectual traditions in the texts and the more immediate contexts within which these ideas (of the Hyperboreans) were manifested and used in action. In order to tackle both the long- and short-term contexts of the Hyperborean research tradition, I have employed certain methodological and analytical definitions. The overall methodological approach of the thesis can be seen as belonging to the tradition of the history of ideas. Although the historians of ideas do not agree on all things, most of them have reached consensus over what the study of ideas should not involve. In my view, Quentin Skinner and Michel Foucault have developed some of the best solutions to the challenges of the history of ideas. As Martin Kusch, a more recent historian of ideas and science, has stated, some of these challenges are still unsolved150. Thus, in order not to stumble right at the beginning, I will outline below the major challenges the study of historical ideas faces from the viewpoint of the research subject and objectives of this thesis. In his famous article Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas, Skinner (1969) analysed the flaws that have affected the study of the history of ideas. Two of these flaws are “the mythology of doctrines” and “the mythology of coherence”. They consist of a metaphysical belief in the unity or coherence of an “idea” or “work”. Skinner was essentially saying that the historians of ideas have tended to deem past ideas to be rigid and unchanged151. Skinner labelled a third flaw “the mythology of prolepsis”, criticising the practice in which “the historian is more interested – as he may legitimately be – in the retrospective significance of a given historical work or action than in its meaning for the agent himself”152. Skinner was arguing that such an attitude could yield research which traces back “the origin of an idea”. The past agents are hence explained to have either 150 Persson 2005, 22–34, has summarised and specified – alongside Kusch 1991, Part I, Chapters 1 & 4 – some of the problems which I try to avoid. On the similarities between Foucault and Skinner in the broader methodological framework of the history of ideas and science: see Kusch 1991, introduction, 48–58. 151 Skinner 1988, 32–43. 152 Skinner 1988, 44–49. Which leads to the mythology of parochialism. The historian experiences, from his vantage point, ostensible influence between the ideas of the classics from the different time periods. 37 contributed to or anticipated an idea. In the worst case, the task of the historian has been to identify a chain of influence between the manifestations of the idea in “all times of history”153. In short, Skinner, along with some other historians154, claimed that ideas raised by historical agents should be understood within the contexts or discussions in which they are used155. Skinner’s ideas exemplify the attitude that in order to understand past ideas, it is sensible to study them within the historical contexts of their production. However, overly strict methodological definitions or attempts to avoid anachronism can also lead to problems (as Sami Syrjämäki has pointed out, Skinner has admitted this156). Indeed, one may end up stating sceptically that nothing certain can be said about past ideas, because the rationalities that determined the origin, development and use of the ideas are susceptible to change. Thus, by virtue of his different rationality, the modern historian is no longer able to comprehend the significance or the prerequisites of past ideas157. If this were true, it would signify that the historian should ideally first study his or her own rationality and its prerequisites and compare them with the rationality and prerequisites of the studied period, which, in my view, is impossible. However, while past ideas may be lost in the strictest sense, this does not have to result in scepticism. One can still suggest probabilities, as long as the limitations of the concepts and explanatory frameworks employed in the research are admitted and, more importantly, disclosed to the scholars in the field to be discussed and disputed. Naturally, concepts that are developed to describe past discussions – or, as the Swedish historian of ideas Mats Persson has called them, “concepts for historical construction”158 – have their own problems. As shown above in the case of Nordström and Schough, they can become ossified over time: concepts, such as “Renaissance” or the “Hyperborean idea”, may have been used in such a generalised manner that nobody can say for certainty anymore who executed the 153 As the classical case of Lovejoy’s unit ideas, for instance. 154 Persson 2005, 22–25, has described the discussion (in Swedish) mentioning Reinhart Koscelleck’s Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe; Thomas Kuhn’s ideas of paradigms; Michel Foucault’s discourses, episteme; the political history of ideas of the Cambridge School, that is to say, John Pocock and Skinner as well as the post linguistic-turn, narratology, gender history and new historicism. Of the latter, check e.g. Jenkins 1995, passim, the approaches of E. H. Carr, R. Rorty and H. White. On Foucault and his relationship to the Annales School and the so-called Historical Epistemology: Kusch 1991, Part I. 155 As a whole see Skinner 1988, 32–35. Skinner’s contextual method in context, see Burke 2002, passim, and Syrjämäki 2011, 87, and generally, the chapter Idea, concept, and conception. 156 Syrjämäki 2011, 5. 157 On rationalities, I have used a classic of a kind: Lukes 1977, 121–137. 158 Persson 2005, 26. The main idea of Persson is that the concepts of historical construction are in between the concepts of the historical sources and theoretical concepts. 38 original definition, if such existed in the first place. Therefore, the outcome of the use of ossified and/or over-coherent concepts would be research of dubious and potentially unethical nature. By over-simplifying the historical reality, one would make, to cite Skinner again, “history […] a pack of tricks we play on the dead”159. The paramount problem is, perhaps, the one of “vicious anachronism”, as Nick Jardine, a historian of science, has noted. By summarising some of the discussion which Skinner “started”, Jardine has concluded that “[E]xplanatory and analytical frameworks should be tailored to the periods and societies [to which] they belong”160. Thus, when I am writing about the Hyperborean research tradition, I will be referring to the clusters of statements to the Hyperboreans in writings that can be categorised into the early modern European discussions of national antiquity. The reason for such a broad definition is the unformed nature of the early modern discussions relative to the conceptual framework and specialised character of modern historiography. As was pointed out above in the Historical Background section, the early modern writing of national histories was not a discipline in itself, but rather an ensemble of intellectual-political traditions, discussions, and practices of Humanist and mediaeval historiography. Therefore, the concept of the Hyperborean research tradition does not refer to a coherent historiographical theory to which early modern scholars attempted to contribute. On the other hand, although I believe that the Hyperborean research tradition was not a coherent “theory”, I am certain that the scholars studying it in early modern Sweden did share a set of beliefs. The theoretical rationale for the existence of such a set of beliefs stems from the reflections of a long string of French historians of science161 and historians of the Annales School such as Fernand Braudel. They suggested that ideas can be governed by long-term and short-term “structures”. These components or “intellectual structures” are not external to history162 and can change. Thus, I am not pointing to structures that are thousands of years old or which would be true in an objective sense. Instead, I am arguing that there were certain long-term beliefs, attitudes, ideas, and practices (or clusters of all of the above) that most individual scholars had no 159 Skinner 1988, 37, 44–47. As he says, ‘the history of ideas is based on nothing better than the capacity of the observer to foreshorten the past by filling it with his own reminiscences.’ 160 Jardine 2000, 252–253, 263. 161 Called also the Historical Epistemologists. See Kusch 1991, 24–39. 162 They are mental structures in the sense that they structure the historiographical practices such as the selection of topics and sources, the form (periodisation, organisation) of the accounts, the conventions (ideals, practices) of historical narrative and epistemological choices of how the history, knowledge, nature, man and the world are perceived within a discourse, i.e. that on “national antiquity” in this thesis. 39 need or reason to question. Those concepts had such a self-evident role in the background of the discussions of the early history of the world that scholars were bound to take them into account or, alternatively, they took them into account almost “unconsciously”.163 Even though it is possible (and sensible) to study the long-term development of historical ideas, one should not forget that the need for and use of these ideas were always related to actual historical circumstances. Ideas on the Hyperboreans were developed to be ideas in action: they might have been utterances in a learned debate or a political speech. This observation is tightly related to the second methodological objective of the thesis: identification of the political and institutional prerequisites of the Hyperborean research tradition. In Sweden this involved the rise of institutionalised historical research from the 1630s onwards. The best examples of this institutionalisation were two Chairs that were established in the University of Uppsala164, and also, the establishment of the National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet) alongside the Board of National Antiquities (Collegium Antiquitatum)165. The historical scholars constructing a fabulous past were usually state- appointed officials operating in a rigid hierarchic system that derived from the throne. In practice, the monarchs ennobled politically favourable men and named them to posts in which they could control the distribution of information and contents of education166. The state-appointed “middlemen” had circles of politically or academically sympathetic supporters and collaborators for whom they tried to engineer notable positions in court-related institutes. The alliances at the lower level could be confirmed through (for instance) marriages and informal 163 On Historical Epistemology and the Annales school: Kusch 1991, Chapter 3; Burguière 2009, passim; the idea of durations and mental structures see Kusch 1991, 20 and Burguière 2009, 142–159, 186; Braudel 1980, 27–34. The idea of resistant structures has been also inspired by Thomas Kuhn (the paradigm shift is not abrupt for the older ideas always contain power), which in my view, applies to Humanities as well. 164 The development of historical discipline in Sweden, see Landgren 2007, passim. In detail, see Landgren 2007, 163, 177; Bennich-Björkman 1970, 216–221. I will come back to the subject in the empirical chapters, for some of the ‘Hyperborean scholars’ held these chairs, of which the Professor in Fatherland’s Antiquities and Professor Skytteanum were the most important. 165 Of the institutionalisation of the Swedish antiquarian research, see Widenberg 2006, passim; Schück 1932, passim; Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapters II–IV. 166 Wetterberg 2003, passim; Hall 1998, Chapter 6, Ingemarsdotter 2011, passim, have discussed the different sides of the Swedish patrons of relevance in terms of the use of Gothic history, such as e.g. Johan Skytte and Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie whose role will be discussed in the empirical chapters. 40 networks167. Family ties, friendships and informal connections played a role as well; nepotism was rife.168 The abovementioned mechanisms comprise elements of a form of early modern social and political organisation called the patron-client system, or patronage. It encompassed aspects that, to a degree, were not restricted by the rigid social classes of that time, and hence went beyond a simple subsidisation of artistic, scholarly or political activities169. Analytically speaking, it was a system of informal networks based on distinct political and administrative circumstances, depending on the period of history and geographical location. As the German historian Heiko Droste and a string of Finnish historians have noted, patronage could hinge upon kinship and friendship, among other factors170. It could be an institution of utmost formality on the one hand, and an informal circle of political and scholarly collaborators on the other. From the historian’s viewpoint, a patron with political influence and connections could provide them with resources such as books, scholarships and trips abroad171. Conversely, it is fair to assume that the patrons expected their clients to give them something in return. In my study, I was interested in discovering whether this patronage manifested itself somehow in the construction of a fabulous national antiquity and hence in the development of the Hyperborean research tradition. The need to consider this factor is based on Hakanen’s general observations of the strong centralisation of power in seventeenth-century Sweden172 alongside Ingemarsdotter’s observation of the role the Crown and small aristocratic circles played in educational reforms and academic centralisation of that time173. In order to be able to fulfil both of the objectives of this study, and to determine the power-related relationships and connections between the scholars and their patrons as well as among the scholars, along with the influence these relationships had on the spread of ideas, I applied an explanatory concept: network, and derivative concepts from network theory such as hubs and links, 167 E.g. between students who came from the same region (the famous “student nations” of Uppsala). 168 Lappalainen 2007, 48–57; Hakanen & Koskinen 2009, passim, but especially 1–5; see also Hakanen 2011, Chapters 5.2–5.7. 169 Droste 1998, 2–4; on patronage and science: Moran 1991, passim; in Sweden, Lappalainen 2007, ibid; Hakanen 2011, passim, whose thesis includes a great deal of scholarly clients of the Patron, Per Brahe the in the Academy of Turku. 170 Lappalainen 2007, 48–53; Droste 1998, 1–4; Hakanen & Koskinen 2009, passim; Hakanen 2011, Chapters 4.1–2. 171 Åkerman 1990, passim, has studied in the case of the circles of learned around Queen Christina. 172 Hakanen 2011, passim. 173 Ingemarsdottir 2011, passim. 41 among others174. I would like to stress that this does not under any circumstances signify that I conducted qualitative or any other kind of network analyses. In this thesis, the term network is used as a metaphor. The metaphorical use of the network concept refers, as a Finnish historian, Jouko Nurmiainen has proposed, to a certain kind of intellectual attitude in which the researcher is convinced of the difficulty of the conceptualisation of social relations. By applying the term network as a metaphor, one is able to capture something that would otherwise escape the analysis.175 In the case of this thesis, the network concept provides an explanatory mechanism that facilitates analysis of the role the connections between the historical scholars and the political elite had for the emergence, development and crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition. The rationale for choosing “network” as the explanatory term is based on the inchoate nature of the abovementioned institutions of historical research and their relationship to the political elite in early modern Sweden. I sought to reveal “networks” based on the connections the “Hyperborean historians” had with each other and the political elite of that time. This enterprise helped to establish the positions of the historians in the distinct scholarly and political institutions of the Swedish monarchy in which historical research was of importance. As part of establishing the nexus between political power and historical research, I examined the possibility that the ideas the historians within the Hyperborean research tradition developed were the result of the support of a political patron and their needs in actual political situations. Thus, by looking at these networks of scholars and politically influential hubs, I hoped to produce new information about the political conditions of the Hyperborean research tradition. This approach supported the achievement of the second objective of the study – to investigate the political-institutional contexts of the phenomenon. An Overview of the Sources and Disposition of the Thesis In this section I provide an overview of the central sources of the dissertation and the reasons behind their selection (note that the major published and unpublished writings are introduced at length in each empirical chapter). The general principle 174 I have familiarised myself with the theories and concepts in the field. As a “handbook” for such concepts as, hubs, links, nodes, and so forth, I used Barabási 2002, passim. 175 Nurmiainen 2000, electronic. Nurmiainen has defined 3 ways of applying the concept network in historical research and social sciences: (1) as a metaphor; (2); as a method; (3) as a theory. 42 underlying the selection of sources was to focus on material about the Hyperboreans within the context of Swedish Gothicism. I have looked for unpublished and published material written by the central representatives of the Hyperborean research tradition. Almost all the sources I have analysed are to be found either in the Uppsala University Library (Carolina Rediviva) or the Royal Library of Sweden (Kungliga Biblioteket) in Stockholm. However, I also searched for material at the University Libraries of Helsinki and Oulu. To study the European context, I visited the Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel in Wolfenbüttel, Germany. Additionally, I perused the catalogues of the other important early modern Swedish institutions, such as the Universities of Lund and Turku, as well as the writings of the Board and later Archive of Antiquities. The exact locations and specifics of the most important sources are provided in each empirical chapter. In the case of unpublished material, I have analysed many of the writings of Johannes Bureus and Georg Stiernhielm. The rationale behind the selection was to be able to explain the emergence and early development of the Hyperborean research tradition as well as, potentially, discover what impelled scholars to refer to the Hyperboreans in the Swedish context in the first place. In addition, I have examined some of their handwritten manuscripts, diary entries as well as handwritten comments and doodles (in margins of published books). Of course, analysing early modern writings is sometimes problematic because of variations in language and style. Early modern Sweden had no standard language, and even an individual scholar might use several alternatives to write the same term. I have, for instance, come across at least five distinct forms of Zalmoxis (Zamolxis, Salmoses, Salmoxes, Salmhoxes), the name of the god or sage of the ancient Getae. In addition, over the centuries, even the meaning of words has changed: in early modern Swedish the term “wetenskap/vetenskap” signified “knowledge/acquaintance with something”, whereas in modern Swedish it denotes “science” (which encompasses social sciences and arts). Another challenge often encountered in early modern writings is multiple and alternating languages: some of Bureus’ sentences contain both Swedish and Latin. Moreover, in some manuscripts Stiernhielm’s and Olof Rudbeck the Younger’s handwriting is virtually unreadable. The final challenge regarding my sources relates to the authors of particular texts. If there is doubt about the authenticity of a source, such as the printed but unfinished manuscript of Suecia Antiqua Hodierna, the matter is discussed in detail in the empirical chapters. 43  The early modern Swedish scholars who can be categorised into the Hyperborean research tradition were often influenced by European historians. Therefore, if a non-Swedish scholar was of major importance in the development of the Hyperborean tradition, I refer directly to the original texts. In the first two chapters examples of non-Swedish sources include the works of Annius of Viterbo, Alexander Guagnino, Johannes Goropius Becanus, Philippus Cluverius and Elias Schedius176. In the first chapter, in which I outline the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition, I re-examine the earlier results of Nordström and Åkerman on Bureus and Stiernhielm177. The decision to re-examine was a fortunate one: while reading one of Bureus’ unpublished manuscripts, I came to realise that the political preconditions of the emergence and early development of the phenomenon were more intricate that I had expected. The emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition will be revealed to be related to some rather surprising political factors. Hence, the role of the manuscript Cod. Holm. F.a.3, which is designated as Antiqiitates Scanzianae [...], is strongly emphasised in the first chapter of the study, and the data in it are combined, after a critical analysis, with the views in the manuscript N.24 in Linköping, which Nordström perused178. I will argue that a minor change occurred in the intellectual atmosphere of Sweden around the 1650s, which was articulated also in the Hyperborean research tradition. Thus, the presentation of the politico-historical context of the Hyperborean research tradition in the first chapter is slightly more extensive than in the subsequent ones. The reasoning behind this solution is also analytical. I realised that the reflections of Bureus could be used as a baseline for a comparative analysis in which aspects of the latter development of the phenomenon are epitomised. As to the analysis of the “networks” to which Bureus belonged, I use some of his entries179 to study the role of the influential patrons that supported his views in the development of certain views on the Hyperboreans. 176 The history of Berosus in Giovanni Nanni, “Berosi Babylonii Antiqvitatvm Liber I–V”. In Antiquitatem Variarum Autores (23–54). Apvd. Seb. GRYPHIVM. LVGD. M. D. LII. In this study: Annius 1552. I have also used an English-Latin double of R. E. Asher. See Annius 1993; In the case of Guagnino’s Sarmatiae Europeae Descriptio […] (1578), I refer to the edition Guagnino 1581; Becanus 1569; in case of Cluverius his Germania Antiqua libri tres […] (1616), I have used Cluverius 1631; and Schedius Elias De diis Germanis […] is originally from 1648, but I have used the edition Schedius 1728. 177 See Nordström 1934a, n38–42; whereas Åkerman 1998, 30–34, refers to the historiographical side of the Cod. Holm. F.a.3. of Bureus. 178 Nordström 1934a, n41. 179 Published by Klemming on the basis of Bureus’ rare work Sumle; it contains entries, scientific remarks and so forth. It is referred to either as Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886. 44  The writings of Georg Stiernhielm are probably the sources most renowned and studied with respect to the pre-Rudbeck manifestations of the Hyperborean research tradition. Nordström showed the significance of the distinct versions of the manuscript of the treatise published posthumously as De Hyperboreis Dissertatio (1685). I decided to confirm the results of the previous research by perusing Stiernhielm’s unpublished linguistic manuscripts. I will argue that they provide important new data about the emergence and international setting of the Hyperborean research tradition. In the second part of the second chapter the focus is on the saga editions of Olaus Verelius. Even though Schück, Nordström, Ellenius and Alkarp have examined these texts within the context of the Hyperborean research tradition, I decided to reassess Verelius’ published sources. This decision rested on the new observations of Alkarp, which he made within the context of the development of the historical thought of Verelius180 and the dispute over the age and location of the Temple of Uppsala. In this connection, I contribute to the research by introducing a wholly new source. Sten Karlström-Magnus Celsius’ dissertation De Thule Veterum et Hyperboreis Dissertatio (1673), is briefly analysed in the second chapter. I will argue that this study was a part of disputes the historical scholars of that time had over the credibility of certain sources (about the Hyperboreans among others) and approaches to Swedish antiquity. In the third chapter I discuss “the Atlantic construction” of Olof Rudbeck the Elder, which was in more ways than one the zenith of the Hyperborean research tradition. The three tomes of the famous Atlantica, published in 1679, 1689 and 1698181, can be categorised as official state-funded works, for the Crown supported the latter two parts of the work and the first one had a very influential patron. The fourth, unfinished part was published posthumously, but it will be discussed briefly because certain novel and important trends of ideas within the Hyperborean research tradition and the Geatic view of history are articulated in it. Additionally, the objective of focusing on how the idea of ancient Swedes as the Hyperboreans was used in the political propaganda of the absolute monarchs governed my selection of source material to some extent. The most important studies of the matter which are investigated in the chapter are Rudbeck’s Atlantica and the dissertation Zamolxis primus getarum legislator […] (1687) by the professor of the history of law, Carolus Lundius. 180 Alkarp has suggested new contexts within which the texts of Verelius should be interpreted. 181 I have used the modern Swedish edition of Atlantica. The work was first published as a bilingual edition. See Rudbeck the Elder 1938–1950. 45  In chapter three I also analyse some dissertations from the University of Uppsala and a few from other early modern Swedish universities, including Lund and Turku. The objective is to map the immediate reception of Atlantica and the studies of the Hyperboreans in the state (crown) institutes in 1680–1710. In this respect I will concentrate on the dissertations that were either published and/or written by Petrus Lagerlööf182. This professor was also the most likely author of the unpublished but printed historical manuscript that was meant to be attached to the greatest public project of the Swedish Empire, Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. By comparing this formal public project and some of the critical dissertations of Lagerlööf, it was possible to scrutinise the relationship between the historical research and political absolutism. In this connection, I will also highlight other studies of the abovementioned Lundius and their affiliation to the political side of the Hyperborean tradition. After I learned that the Hyperboreans are represented in the existing historical monuments of Sweden, I started to examine the imagery and architecture of public buildings from the period of Swedish Empire183. They provide a compelling example of how one should sometimes look beyond texts, as ideas are equally embedded in monuments, architecture, and other non-learned contexts. These analyses, located at the end of the third chapter, play only a marginal role because I have no expertise in early modern art history. Nevertheless, the analyses of these sources serve as evidence of the potential material applications of the ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition. On top of this, the emblems represent examples of early modern ideas that still exist in the 21st century street scene. Analysis of the reception of the ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition in Sweden is the focus of the last two chapters of the study. That the tradition enjoyed only a short period of dominance among Swedish historians (1685–1720) is revealed in my analysis of the antiquarian and genealogical184 writings of the influential Director of the Antiquarian Archive, Johan Peringskiöld, in chapter four. I examined his published, state-funded writings in order to define the development of the Hyperborean research tradition after the time of Olof Rudbeck the Elder. As part of the fourth chapter, I also introduce and briefly analyse the criticism towards Rudbeck’s Atlantica in a few historical and 182 In early modern period, professors supervising theses often contributed to them significantly. I will come back to this practice in empirical chapters. 183 Many thanks to Susanna Åkerman for alerting me to such imagery in the buildings of the empire. 184 The latter genealogical work Ättartal för Swea och Götha konunga hus, efter trowärdiga historier och documenter i vnderdånighet vpräknadt af [...] is published posthumously in 1725 by his son Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld. 46 linguistic treatises of the famous German scholar Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz185 and in the influential Historia rerum Norvegicarum (1711), a historical work by the Icelandic-origin Royal Historiographer of Denmark, Thormodus Torfaeus186. These scholars’ criticism of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica had a powerful impact in Sweden, and Hyperborean historians strove to respond to their views. In Sweden, the linguistic research on Swedish antiquity is crystallised in the writings of Olof Rudbeck the Younger (1660–1740), who defended and elaborated upon the ideas of his father in his main work Atlantica Illustrata and a few other published works from the turn of the seventeenth century. In these works Rudbeck the Younger articulated many of the ideas then emerging in Swedish research into national antiquity (partially triggered by the criticism of Torfaeus and Leibniz). In addition, I will refer to a few of his unpublished manuscripts in order to show his familiarity with the earlier tradition of Bureus and Stiernhielm187. However, the unpublished writings of Rudbeck the Younger are challenging for two reasons. Firstly, the pages of these writings are discoloured and his handwriting is difficult to read. Secondly, he was a linguistic expert and genius of a kind, who mastered several languages which are mostly incomprehensible to me. Thus, I may have not been always able to fully appreciate the linguistic context of some of his views. The final, fifth chapter of the study encompasses the period from 1720 to the 1770s, when the Hyperborean research tradition and some elements of the Geatic view of history started to lose ground. I have analysed the majority of the published studies of the two major “Hyperborean scholars” of the period, Erik Biörner and Johan Göransson, which comprise publications of the institution of antiquarian research, the Archive of Antiquities. I decided to concentrate on their published writings since my main focus was to analyse the most resistant elements of the Hyperborean research tradition in the discussions about Swedish antiquity. Therefore, I have excluded some smaller studies and unpublished manuscripts: the sheer volume of Biörner’s and his patron’s, Gustaf Bonde’s, works in the archives188 is too broad to analyse in one thesis. Nevertheless, as was usual in those days, their unpublished material reflected developing ideas which emerged fully in their published works. 185 See Leibniz 1768a–1768c; Leibniz 1717. 186 In the case of Torfaeus I used a Norwegian edition on the whole, and confirmed the data on the Hyperboreans from the Latin editions. See Torfaeus 2008; Torfaeus 1711. 187 U.B. R. 12. b. Smärre språkvetenskapliga avhandlingar (‘minor linguistic treatises’). 188 The Säfstaholms collection in the National Archive of Sweden (Riksarkivet). See Schück 1935, 245. 47  Towards the end of the fifth chapter I investigate the influence of the Hyperborean past on works of historians who were critical of fabulous historical constructions such as “Hyperborean Sweden”. Olof Dalin’s Svea Rikes Historia (1747), Jacob Wilde’s Historia Pragmatica (1731) and Sven Lagerbring’s Svea Rikes Historia (1769) are used to illustrate the slowness of the change towards the modern approach. In this connection, I will introduce some Swedish studies in which the “transitional” nature of the research is articulated in a particularly clear sense. This will be exemplified by my analysis of Nils Eurenius’ work, Atlantica orientalis eller Atlands näs, til des rätta belägenhet beskrifwet [...], published in 1751. The author, though immensely critical of the research of Olof Rudbeck the Elder, used very similar arguments, methods and sources to construct a glorious history for Sweden. Finally, in order to find a baseline for the relatively tardy pace of Swedish historiography of that time I have analysed works by non-Swedish historians, notably the Swiss-born historian Paul-Henri Mallet (1730–1807). I use his Histoire de Danemarch189 as an example of the popularity and influence of certain Swedish ideas in Europe, and, furthermore, long-term learned structures and practices in the European study of national histories, even into the eighteenth century. 189 Included 3 volumes, published 1755–1777. Mallet was appointed to a Professor of Belles Lettres in Copenhagen in 1752 and hence he worked in Denmark. 48 1 The Hyperboreans & the Late Renaissance Tradition of the Research of National History (ca 1600–1640) 1.1 Johannes Bureus and the Emergence of the Hyperboreans The emergence of the Hyperboreans in the Geatic view of history can be traced back to the reflections of Johannes Bureus190 (1568–1652). Modern study of Bureus has been extensive, due to his prominent position in the courts of the Swedish monarchs191 and his varied intellectual activities. Moreover, Bureus left behind a substantial amount of written material, including detailed diary notes, unpublished manuscripts and finished works192. This material evokes a down-to- earth antiquary using the written and material domestic remains of the past to strengthen the political standing of the monarchs he served193, and simultaneously a contributor to the Rosicrucian manifesto and a prophesier of peoples’ hour of death and of the end of days194. This duality also manifested itself in Bureus’ reflections about Swedish antiquity in his unpublished manuscripts dated to around 1610. Johan Nordström has traced back the origin of the Hyperborean idea in one of Bureus’ manuscripts kept at Linköping195, alongside the notes Bureus had written in the margins of a specific volume of Origenes Antwerpianae196 (1569) by a Dutch scholar, Johannes Goropius Becanus (1517–1572). In this chapter, I will argue that Bureus’ manuscript197, called Antiqiitates Scanzianae, preserved in the Royal Library of Stockholm, is the key source for comprehensively understanding the emergence of the Hyperboreans in Swedish historiography. There are additional manuscripts Bureus composed both before and after the Antiqiitates Scanzianae situated in Stockholm and the University 190 Johan Bure (his Swedish name was Johan Thomasson, but he took his grandmother’s name). He referred to himself often in the Latin form, Johannes Thomae Agrivillensis Bureus. 191 Charles IX (1604–1611); Gustavus Adolphus (1611–1632); Queen Christina (1632–1654). 192 Lindroth 1975b, 237–245; check Schück 1932, 40–100. 193 See Chapter 1.3. 194 E.g. Åkerman 1998, 31; Enoksen 1998, 154–155; Lindroth 1975b, 155–156. 195 Nordström 1934a, n33–76, cites them in detail in the endnotes of the study. 196 Cap IX: Venetica & Hyperborea (1009–1058). Bureus’ handwritten notes in the work are referred to herein as Bureus–Becanus 1569, but the work of Becanus as Becanus 1569. The notes were written after 1611, for Bureus mentions ‘Regnante Gostavo’ in the margins of Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1038. 197 Referred to in this study as: Johannes Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. The manuscript is designated as ‘Antiqiitates Scanzianae de Upsalici orbis insignibus et Scripturae Mysteriis’. It can be dated between the years 1604 and 1612 after the handwritten notes of Bureus in pages 41, 218. 49 Library of Uppsala198. In these studies, Bureus elaborated his esoteric system of Runic Cabala based on his interpretation of Swedish antiquities, otherwise known as the doctrine of Adulruna. Lindroth, Karlsson and Håkansson analysed some of these manuscripts in their works on Bureus’ esoteric thought199. Since these manuscripts stress rather the theosophical contents of Bureus’ Runic Cabala than its historical background, they are of minor importance in the following analysis. Finally, the analysis in this chapter is more extensive than that in subsequent ones. This is because I chose to use the reflections of Bureus as a reference point for the comparative analyses regarding, firstly, the background and development of the Hyperborean research tradition in Swedish and European research of national histories, and secondly, the institutional and political conditions of the phenomenon. 1.1.1 The Hyperboreans and Ancient Geography Bureus’ main argument was that the classical Greeks had been familiar with ancient Scandinavia and the region around the city of Uppsala in particular200. In Antiqiitates Scanzianae, Bureus discussed several classical accounts of the Hyperboreans201, stressing especially the credibility of the works of Diodorus and Herodotus202, and compared them with domestic antiquities and earlier Swedish historiography. Importantly, this analysis involved a reference to the Gothic history of Johannes Magnus and his identification of the Goths, Scythians and Getae as ancient Geats203. Thus, the historical geographical context in which Bureus discussed the Hyperboreans was related to the earlier domestic tradition of Geatic view of history. In addition to classical and Swedish authors, Bureus analysed the data of earlier contemporary geographers, antiquaries and cartographers in whose works the Hyperboreans and the Geats had been situated outside Scandinavia. As Nordström proved, Bureus had sketched a map of Scandinavia and exclaimed that “if they are not crazy, they could of course see that the Hyperboreans are in 198 Listed by Karlsson 2010, 284–285. 199 Lindroth 1943, 82ff; Karlsson 2010, passim; Håkansson, 2012, passim. 200 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15ff, began with the words ‘Quod Upsalienses Graecis quondam familiarissimi:’ – ‘That with the people of Uppsala the Greeks were once in close contact’. 201 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15. Under the handwritten title “Hyperborei”. 202 Herodotus 4.13; 4.32–36; Diodorus Siculus 2.47–48. 203 Johannes Magnus 1558, 20.E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 97: ‘cy’ is crossed out and replaced with ‘ve’. ‘Scythica’ is ‘Svethica’. The term ‘Scythica’, i.e. ‘Svethica’ is identified with ‘Gothica’. 50 Scandi(navi)a”204. Bureus discussed the views of some of those he referred to as “they” in Antiqiitates Scanzianae205 as well, focussing on three particular geographical traditions. The first group of scholars argued that the Goths had resided in the region of Poland and Denmark. Johannes Magnus objected to this hypothesis of a Polish (Dacian) or Danish (Jutes) origin of the Goths206; thus, in order to incorporate the Hyperboreans into Geatic tradition of Johannes Magnus, Bureus needed to prove these scholars wrong. The second group of scholars situated the land of the Hyperboreans (and particularly the Rhipaean Mountains, which are often associated with the Hyperboreans) outside Europe. The Dutch scholar Goropius Becanus, among others, had placed the Hyperboreans and the mountains in the New World, which Bureus dismissed in a sardonic manner207. Instead, Bureus believed that the Rhipaeans could be identified with a mountain range in central Sweden208. In doing so, Bureus subscribed to the preceding Swedish tradition of Olaus Magnus who had pointed to the Rhipaean or Hyperborean mountains as the Doffrafiel in his Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus. According to both Johannes and Olaus Magnus, this was the location of the earliest settlement of a group of European Scythians, that is, the Geats209. Bureus’ strategy was to follow the work of Swedish cartographers, such as his cousin Andreas Bureus, and relocate the earliest settlement of the ancient Scandinavians closer to the historically significant city of Uppsala and the province of Geatland210. All in all, Bureus was convinced that the temple and capital of the Hyperboreans discussed by Diodorus211 were situated on a certain parallel of latitude where the day was eighteen hours long (at the summer 204 Nordström 1934a, 116, cites the manuscript Cod. Linc. N.24. ‘Om de icke äre galne, kunne de ju see at Hyperborei äre in Scandia.’ ‘If they are not crazy, they can clearly see that the Hyperboreans are in Scandi[navi]a.’ 205 Nordström 1934a, n28–33, n45, proved Bureus’ familiarity with the contemporary literature. I have compared the list of Nordström with Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 11–26. 206 Johannes Magnus 1558, 18–20. 207 Nordström 1934a, n43–44 (cites Cod. Linc. N.24. Fol 100). 208 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. Fol 15; Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1046 (‘At Ridvea in Svecia, Alpes Jemtiae et Angermanniae’). ‘But Ridvea is in Sweden, the Alps of Jämtland and Angermanland’. 209 Olaus Magnus 1555, 75; Johannes Magnus 1558, 18ff, (the Goths as European, not Asian Scythians). 210 The author of the Scandinavian map, Orbis arctoi nova et accurata delineatio (1626), which included a short description of the distinct regions of Scandinavia, Orbis Arctoi Imprimisque Regni Sueciae descriptio. See Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1610, 8 Aug, Bureus describes a discussion with A. Bureus about a sea-compass which is “invented here at Eastern or Baltic Sea among the Hyperboreans [...]”. Bureus affiliated the Hyperboreans with the Province of Eastern Geatland here. 211 Diodorus II.47–48. 51 solstice). This cohered with the city of Uppsala, which, in the earlier Geatic view of history, had been the ancient capital of the King of the Geats212. Nordström pointed out that Bureus was acquainted with the views that associated the Rhipaean or Hyperborean Mountains with ancient Sarmatia or Germany213, i.e. the ideas of the third group of scholars whose claims Bureus needed to refute. The scholars of this tradition had discussed the “Sarmatian” or “German” Alps, pointing broadly to present-day north-western Russia or the actual Alps. This element of the “Sarmatian tradition” harked back to the great cartographic work of Gerhard Mercator, but more importantly, to Alexander Guagnino’s (1538–1614) work Sarmatiae Europae descriptio […] (1578) in which the mountains were situated in the Pezora region214. As Neville has pointed out, the question was equally related to the origin of the Goths. In addition to the Swedes, the Danes, Germans, the Polish-Lithuanians and slightly later the British became occupied with the matter215. Thus, the geographical aspects of Bureus’ reflections about the Hyperboreans were connected to an international discussion on the origin of the Goths in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, which was already articulated in the work of Johannes Magnus216. Bureus’ numerous references to the contemporary international geographical and antiquarian literature in his writings on the Hyperboreans become fully understandable only in the context of the political conditions of the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In fact, one major motive of Bureus’ reflections in Antiqiitates Scanzianae pertained to the origin of the traditional (and present-day) royal emblem of Sweden: the Three Crowns217. Bureus claimed that this emblem could be traced back to antiquity, when the Gothic (Geatic) King of Uppsala had ruled as the Overking of the three Scandinavian kingdoms218. He 212 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15 ‘Quod Upsaliae dies longiss. 18 horam. Elevatio 59 gr. 45. m.’; See also Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1015–1016. 213 Neville 2000. Kidd 1991, 26. Sarmatism adverts to an ideology of the Polish-Lithuanian nobility. They made claims to descend from Japheth; also Annius 1552, Lib. IV, refers to Tuiscon as the King of Sarmatians. The German historian Johannes Aventinus’ idea of Sarmatae as Germans in his Annales Ducus Boiariae (posth. 1554), is not unique. 214 E.g. Alexander Guagnino’s Sarmatiae Europae Descriptio. See Guagnino 1581, 85 ‘quos veteres Riphaeos sive Hiperboreos vocabant’ – ‘which the old authors called Rhipaeans or Hyperboreans’. Bureus on Guagnino in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15; Bureus-Becanus 1569, 1045. (‘vide Guagninum’ – ‘See Guagnino’). 215 Neville 2008, 219ff, 228ff. This will be elaborated in chapter 1.3. 216 Johannes Magnus 1558, 18–20. 217 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3, 1. One of the titles of the manuscript included the words ‘de Upsalici orbis (urbis?) insignibus et Scripturae Mysteriis’, which translates roughly as ‘the emblems and mysterious scriptures of the town of Uppsala’. 218 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 7ff. 52 gave Northern historiography as a source of this view. Bureus made references to Saxo Grammaticus, Johannes Magnus and Ericus Upsaliensis (Olai)219 in order to define the distinct notions of the origins of the Goths and the Kimbri, the two most powerful ancient nations directly associated with the ancient Scandinavians in early modern Sweden and Denmark. Given the rivalry between Sweden and Denmark, it is hardly surprising that Bureus relied on the views of Johannes Magnus in this respect and belittled the antiquity of the Danes220. Interestingly, Bureus used domestic antiquities, such as two documents of legal history221 and runestones222, to support the Swedish origin of the Three Crowns emblem. The inscriptions in the runestones conveyed the journeys of ancient Scandinavians (misdating the Vikings, in truth) to Greece, which Bureus interpreted as evidence of ancient connections between the (Hyperborean) Geats and the Greeks. Thereafter, Bureus linked ancient Scandinavians to the Thracian Getae223, which however, is related more closely to certain other domains of early modern antiquarianism: genealogical origins and ancient religion. 1.1.2 The Genealogical Origins of Ancient Scandinavians In his historical work, Johannes Magnus explained that Magog, whose tribe consisted of the Goths, Scythians and Getae of classical writings, was the first king of Sweden. His purpose was to prove the Goths had a king 108 years before the Italians. Johannes Magnus used the Antiquities of Annius (Berosus), the Bible and the Antiquitates Judaicae by the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus224 to achieve this goal. Bureus’ reflections about the Hyperboreans did not contain same kind of systematic genealogical speculation about the first inhabitants of Scandinavia, but implicitly approved of the idea of the Geatic origin of the ancient people of Uppsala. Bureus referred to “my Berosus” in his diary225, which indicates that he was familiar with this work of Annius. Moreover, Bureus listed certain mythical figures in his Antiqiitates Scanzianae, which rested clearly on Annian constructions: 219 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 7ff, along with other Scandinavian chronicles and historical work. 220 Johannes Magnus 1558, 5, 58, 150. 221 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 12f, designated as ‘Lex Sueorum’ and ‘Lex Vestrogoth.’. 222 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15–16, designated as ‘Monumenta Upsalia’. 223 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17ff. 224 Johannes Magnus 1558, 27–29. His sources are listed at the beginning of the study: ‘AVCTORES QVORVM TESTIMONIIS IN HAC HISTORIA USUS [...]’. 225 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1623 Aug 27 ‘1 pom. kom M. 01. Laurelius, til 4 pom. sin kos. Tog Berosum min’. ‘[....] Took my Berosus’. 53  Cadmus derivant doctissimi a KaDheM i: antiquitas, Oriens Phaeton, a Phut Gens 10 Vulcanus a Tubalkajim Janus a Jajim i: Vino, qui Noah Japetus a JaPheT Scanziam a ASKeNeZ226 The historiographical context of this list of euhemerised names is self- explanatory. In the account of Annius, Noah was presented as the person who had set down the rules of the “pristine religion of Adam”; hence Noah, the most righteous postdiluvian person, founded the religious practice of the people of Viterbo227. Several contemporaneous and subsequent historians interpreted these religious rites as “Druidic”228. Among them were two French orientalists, Guillaume Postel (1510–1581) and Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie (1541–1598)229. Postel had identified, for political reasons, the descendants of Japheth (mainly Gomer and his son Ashkenaz) as the first forefathers of the French monarchs. De la Boderie, for his part, developed views on the spread of the religious music of Druidic Bards who had influenced the psalms of the Hebrews or Orpheus230 and Pythagoras. As Åkerman has proved, Bureus was inspired by their views, and this is reflected in his Northern version of the revival of the ancient wisdom231. Meanwhile, numerous other historical scholars in France and England were discussing this subject232. Usually they focused on Samothes, a descendant of Japheth, as the founder of Druidic rites in Europe. As modern historians have 226 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 37. ‘The Learned have derived Cadmus [the mythical Phoenician inventor of the alphabet] from Kadhem [‘qdm’ which signifies indeed ‘east’ in Semitic languages], which [meant] eastern in antiquity. Phaeton [son of Helios in the Greek myths] from Phut [3rd son of Ham], Vulcan [the Greek Hephaestus, God of the Underworld] from Tubal-Cain [a descendant of Cain in the Bible], Japetus [a Titan in Greek myths] from Japheth [a son of Noah], Scanzia from Ashkenaz [the first son of Gomer]’. The explanations in square brackets by T.A. 227 Annius 1552, Lib. III, called Noah also Janus; Stephens 2004, 208. 228 Allen 1949, 77. See also Annius 1552, 24–34; Annius 1993, 198–203. 229 On Postel check, Asher 1993, 54–57, 96; Schmitt 1966, 528. On De la Boderie, see Asher 1993, 156–166; Walker 1972a, 23–24; 74–75. 230 Whom De la Boderie interpreted as a historical figure on the basis of classical fragments of Orphic poetry Humanists (re)-discovered. He misdated the poems and saw the as texts of significant antiquity. 231 Åkerman 1998, 30–33. On the genealogies deriving from Postel and Annius, see Allen 1949, 117. 232 Kendrick 1966, 17ff. 54 shown, Annius inspired most of them233. The idea of enlightened Druidic priests was also presented elsewhere in Europe. The early German Humanists, Trithemius and Celtis, wanting to challenge the Italians in the field of letters, wrote about the Greek wisdom the German Druids once possessed234. Moreover, Johannes Aventinus, a student of Celtis, whose chronicle was not published until 1554, insisted on the German origin of the Druids and also such peoples as the Sarmatae, Scythae, Galli, Galatae, Celtae and Thraci235. These ideas were elaborated also by Fransicus Irenicus (1494/5–1553) and Hieronymus Gebwiler (1473–1545), who wrote about a German origin of the Celts236. It can be argued that after the proliferation of classical texts in Northern Europe from the sixteenth century onwards, historical scholars were eager for new information and to monopolise certain traditions, such as the Druidic, to support their theories. It is useful to look at the matter from the perspective of early modern “ethnic identities”, for, as it has been shown, the concept German involved elements that would be nowadays perceived as Slavic or Celtic237. However, although affinity between those languages that would be later called as “Germanic” had been detected238, scholars poorly understood the origins of the actual Celtic, let alone Finnish and Sámi languages (Uralic languages) as well as the newly discovered languages of the indigenous peoples in the New World239. These languages seemed to defy the biblical, monogenetic idea of a common origin of all peoples and languages. As I explained in my introduction, older theories often had institutional power behind them and therefore the first reaction to any new information was usually to modify the theory, not to discard it. As a result, most scholars believed that Japheth was the progenitor of all Europeans, and moreover, sought to play down the differences between the ancient and contemporary languages. This approach featured, for instance, in the work of the Dutch Becanus. He claimed that the most ancient people of the New World had been the Hyperborean Kimbri of Atlantis, who had avoided the Confusion of Tongues and thereby spoke the original language of Adam240. 233 E.g. Asher 1993, Chapter II; Kendrick 1966, Chapter I; Walker 1972a, Chapter III; Parry 1995. 234 Borchardt 1971, 106, 127. 235 Borchardt 1971, 168. 236 Borchardt 1971, 153–157. Also a Humanist historian Beatus Rhenanus discussed the matter in Rerum Germanicarum libri tres (1531). He, however, was a more critical representative of these ideas. 237 Krebs 2011, 120–124; Borchardt 1971, 14–17. 238 Campbell electronic, 5ff. 239 This will be discussed in chapters 4.3 and 5.3. 240 Becanus 1569, 1047ff. 55  In this respect, Bureus followed a general (Western) European discussion about the early history of the world and national antiquity in which scholars used etymological derivations to construct a fabulous antiquity. Johannes Magnus had described the first King of Sweden, Magog, ruling around the time of Nimrod241. Bureus, for his part, as Susanna Åkerman has observed, argued that Uppsala was founded before the time of Abraham (2000 BC)242. She has also underlined the etymological affinity Bureus saw between the words “Scandinavia” and “Ashkenaz”, interpreting it as a Postellian, millenarian trait243. It is easy to agree with her on this. However, in my view, not only did Bureus think that the Druidic (Celtic) wisdom that Postel had treated was originally from Uppsala244, but that the Celtic and Scandinavian people were of the same cultural-linguistic origin. My argument is confirmed by the words “Id Bord Scanzianigenis quod Boreades Graecis, Hecataeo, Bardi Celto-Scythis” in Antiqiitates Scanzianae245. This, again, appears to collide with the traditional view on the genealogical origin of the Geats – unless, of course, Bureus deemed Magog and Ashkenaz to be identical. Speculation is meaningless in the end, for the manuscripts offer no answer to the question. Besides, it is the comparative analysis of these ancient Greek/Celtic Boreades/Bards and the etymological significance of the domestic antiquities such as the runestones that make the citation interesting. The runic letter ᛒ “bord” (which also had an esoteric significance for Bureus) explained the etymology of the Greek and Celtic terms. As one may recall, Bureus had interpreted “Scythians” as “Svethicas” and hence reflected the linguistic origin of the ancient Northerners against the French and German (mostly Annian) ideas of the (Scytho-Celtic-Etruscan-German) Druids. It is possible that Bureus, by linking the antiquity of Uppsala with the Scythians, and hence the Celto- Scythians of the earlier contemporary discussion of national antiquity, sought to connect the Geats with the (North)-Western European traditions of people and languages. His attempt to monopolise the Sarmatian tradition is more complex, and will be discussed in the chapter 1.3 due to the political elements related to it. 241 Johannes Magnus 1558, 27. In the Bible Nimrod is Ham’s descendant, Noah’s great-grandson. 242 Åkerman 1998, 34. A common notion in the Geatic view of history. Uppsala was claimed to have been founded at the time of Serug, Abraham’s grandfather. See e.g. Johannes Magnus 1558, 30. 243 Åkerman 1998, 30–31. 244 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 10. ‘Franci similiter, ab adelrunicis docti, aut religionem Upsalicam, aut originem Scandzianam, cum Hebraeis confitentes tribus suis diadematibus […]’. “The French taught similarly of the Adulrunae or the religion of Uppsala or the origin of Scandinavians, confessing with the Hebrews about the His three crowns.” 245 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 170. ‘This Scandinavian Bord, which is (the same) as the Boreades of the Greek Hecataeus and Bards of the Celto-Scythians.’ 56 1.1.3 Bureus and the Late Renaissance Tradition of Ancient Religion The Northern Version of Ancient Theology As Susanna Åkerman has shown, traces in Antiqiitates Scanzianae prove that Bureus used the accounts of the Hyperboreans to affiliate Geatic history with that of early Hebrews in the Bible246. Therefore, Bureus reflected on the possibility that ancient Swedes had been representatives of the tradition of “true theology”. For him, this Northern form of pristine theology was not only a remote ideal but something he thought to have revived. Bureus adverted to it as Cabala Upsalica, Oracula Scythica, Apollonis Mysterium, and Alruna or Adulruna Mysteris247. At the core of this esoteric “system” was a Cabalistic (Christian) interpretation of the Scandinavian runic alphabet. The inspiration for this interpretation came from the runestones Bureus had encountered on his antiquarian trips248 as well as the Old Norse writings and quite possibly Tacitus’ Germania249. The runic Cabala of Bureus has been seen as a manifestation of the Renaissance discussions about the high theological level of the gentiles, such as the Hyperborean Geats with their runic theology250. After the Renaissance, some Western European scholars got interested in the ancient writings that Byzantine scholars had brought from Constantinople and compared the ostensibly Christian aspects in them. The ancients were held to have been familiar with the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity, because it was the natural, true religion, which – as some eager proponents suggested – Adam had practised in the Garden of Eden251. The ancients had thereby attained knowledge of the doctrines of monotheism, the holy trinity and the immortality of the (human) soul. In some studies, the ideas of the creation and destruction of the world as well as reward or punishment in the afterlife were deemed to have been universal.252 246 He saw it as some kind of ideal form of the Temple of Solomon which contained the holy, Cabalistic-Pythagorean proportions of the divine numbers. See e.g. Åkerman 2007, passim. 247 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 16ff, 200, 210. 248 Antiquarianism by Schück 1932, passim; the runic side, see Enoksen 1998, 177–186. 249 Chapter X of Tacitus’ Germania describes the inscriptions carved into fruit or nut-tree boughs and used in religious rituals of the German tribes. On the runes in mediaeval Scandinavian literature (sagas, Eddas, and historiography), see Enoksen 1998, 25–32. 250 The idea is presented e.g. in Nordström 1924 & 1934; Lindroth 1943; Andersson 1997; Åkerman 1998; Karlsson 2005; Åkerman 2007; Karlsson 2010. 251 Discussed regarding Bureus’ influence on Georg Stiernhielm in Nordström 1924, XLIV–LX. 252 Walker 1972a, 1–10. 57  The crystallisation of these syncretistic tendencies is the work of Agostino Steuco (1497–1548), De Perenni Philosophia Libri X253. However, similar ideas were articulated also in the writings of Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), the Italian Platonist, who translated and published the “ancient” Corpus Hermeticum and the works of the Platonist tradition (examples of writings which the scholars of Constantinople had brought to Italy). The Platonised, Hermetic Christianity of Ficino was accompanied by the syncretistic Christian Cabala of Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola (1463–1494), whose ideas were familiarised north of the Alps by Johannes Reuchlin and the abovementioned Guillaume Postel. The reason for stressing these well-known scholars of the esoteric-syncretistic traditions of the Renaissance is that they all played a part in Antiqiitates Scanzianae and hence the runic Cabala of Bureus254. In fact, Johannes Magnus had discussed the idea of “Gothic trinity”, Odin, Thor and Frigg, who were worshipped in ancient Uppsala255 in his historical work in the 1550s. He presented this Gothic religion as a form of idolatry comparable with the classical Greek worship of Mars, Zeus or Mercury and Venus, in which the “natural” doctrine of trinity was featured. Bureus interpreted Thor, Odin and Freya (not Frigg-a) as the Geatic Trinity and conceived them as symbols of esoteric nature. This pristine “Hyperborean religion” had been preserved and concealed in the domestic antiquities, namely the runic alphabet (hieroglyphs): Thor seu [...] DEVS PATER Christianis. [...] Othen seu [...] DEVS FILIVS Christianis. [...] Freia seu [...] DEVS SPIRITVSS Christianis [...]256 Thus, the argument ran, the Geats had been acquainted with the doctrines of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and later preserved them in the runic alphabet. The accounts of the Hyperboreans played a role in this system as well. Nordström observed how Bureus identified Odin with the Hyperborean Apollon in the Linköping manuscript257. In Antiqiitates Scanzianae, Bureus (following probably 253 Schmitt 1966, passim; 515–530 (on Steuco); Nordström 1924, XLIVf. I am aware that some scholars do not regard prisca theologia and perennial philosophy as interchangeable. However, in this thesis they are seen as a strategy using the idea of “true religion” to construct a fabulous past. 254 Schmitt 1966. Nordström 1924, XLIV–LX: Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 196–197 (Reuchlin and Postellus), and the German Platonist, Nicolaus Cusanus are of importance for the Runic Cabala. The list of esoteric (Platonist, Hermetic) scholars, see: Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 125–215. 255 Johannes Magnus 1558, 36–39. 256 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 126–128; 184. 257 Nordström 1934a, 119–120. 58 the account of Diodorus) reflected on the possibility that the cult of Apollon referred to the ancient religion of the Uppsala region, which the classical Greeks had received from the Hyperboreans. Apollon was the divinity of the Sun, which Bureus related specifically to the Hyperborean Apollon. He elaborated Apollon’s ancient manifestations within non-Christian religions258 by analysing the etymological origin and derivations of the name. As Nordström claimed, Bureus did so to argue that the major divinities of the classical Greeks derived from the ancient Uppsala region259. Karlsson has shown in greater detail how Bureus perceived the (Adul)runic letter called “odhen” as an esoteric symbol of Christ260. Identification of Christ with Odin was inspired by the Eddic poem, Hávamál, of which he obviously had some knowledge. In this myth, Odin hung himself261 in the World Tree, Yggdrasil262 thereby attaining knowledge of the runes. In the mind of Bureus this story was a mythological manifestation of Odin receiving the knowledge of the true religion263. In my view, it is plausible to assume that the context of the discussion was the Antiquities of Annius and, specifically, his account of the religion of the Celtic Druids264. My previous argument of Bureus perceiving the Celts or Germans as people of Scythian origin, and that they had received the Druidic rites of the immortality of the soul from the Hyperborean “Boreades” (called “Bardi” in France), needs to be seen in this light as well. I believe the Boreades were (and here I disagree with Nordström265) an integral part of Bureus’ speculation about the Hyperborean Uppsala. Bureus interpreted the term “Bord” or “Börd” as the oldest form. Hence, the words (and implicitly the theological doctrines) of the Greek Hyperborean “Boreades” and the French-English Celtic “Bards” were mere echoes of the original Scandinavian words and the runic wisdom included in them266. In other words, Bureus argued that the achievements 258 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 19. 259 Nordström 1934a, 120n67ff (in Cod. Linc. N.24). He noted how Bureus interpreted the names of Apollo (Äbolle), Hercules (Härkulle), Mercurius (Mörkur), Athena (Åthina), etc. In Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 44, while discussing the rune he called ‘Sun’ (ᛋ), Bureus analysed the etymological origin of Apollon. He interpreted it e.g. as A-Bålle, related to Balthia, and Balder(us) – (from Saxo?). 260 Karlsson 2010, 126; the idea is to be found also in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 108ff. 261 Odin portrayed his sacrifice of himself to himself. He was wounded by a spear, which also some, though not all, modern scholars, have interpreted as crucifixion of Christ (wounded by a spear). 262 Lindow 2001, 319–322; Yggdrasil was at the centre of the universe and united the distinct worlds. 263 How one needed to follow the path of the Christ, as Karlsson 2010, 118, 126, interpreted this. 264 The works of Postel and De la Boderie may have inspired Bureus as well. See e.g. Asher 1993, Chapter II (Annius in France), and Walker 1972a, Chapter III (ancient theology in France). 265 Nordström 1934a, 117. 266 Bureus Cod.Holm. F.a.3 170. 59 of ancient Scandinavians had influenced the culture and theological doctrines of the classical Greeks and Gaul. The Theologians of Sacred Uppsala Within the context of the Renaissance traditions of the prisca theologia and philosophia perennis scholars referred to ancient figures that had received insights of this wisdom. The list of ancient sages who had learned the doctrines of the true religion included such gentiles as the “Egyptian” Hermes Trismegistos, the “Chaldean” Zoroaster, the “Persian” Magi, the Thracian Orpheus, along with the Greeks Musaeus, Pythagoras and Plato, and the Druidic Priests267. Bureus’ suggestions for ancient theologians in Antiqiitates Scanzianae included the abovementioned and numerous other figures from the Persian to the Greek, Chaldean, Indian, Roman and Celtic–Scythian cultures268. The list also contains representatives of the ancient Scandinavians: the Goths, the Scythians and the Hyperboreans269. Bureus’ main method was to restore the personal names of the classical writings to their original etymological form, that is, how they had been, according to him, pronounced in the Northern language. The underlying belief of Bureus here was that the reputation of the Northerners had reached the classical people’s ears, who had mispronounced the original Northern terms. In some cases, Bureus reflected on the possibility of some Chaldean or Greek theologi being originally from the north. His method was etymological comparisons of their names of which “Thorofastes Getarum” (Zoroaster) is a good example270. Bureus studied the Getic Zalmoxis, an ancient theologian of the North, whom he called “Samlhoxes”. Additionally, Bureus paid close attention to the sages, 267 On prisca theologia, Walker 1972a, passim; Schmitt 1966, passim; in Sweden and Northern Europe, Nordström 1924, Chapters III, XLIV–XCIII; Walker 1972a, 3ff, has shown how Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius discussed it. The theology was not always described in a positive light from 1650s onwards. Schmitt 1966, 527ff; Walker 1972a, 20–21; Yates 1978, 15; Grafton 2007, 136–142. 268 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 49ff. E.g. Magi Persarum, Philosophi Graecorum et Sophi, Brachmanes Judaei et Indorum, Druides Gallorum, Sacerdotes AEgyptiorum, Bardi Celtarum, Boreades Hyperboreorum, Daniel, Mose, Salomon, Josephus, Zoroastrem Bactri, Trismegistus Agyptiorum etc. The most curious of these is: ‘Buddas (Virgine Natus) Gymnosophistarum’ – Buddha? (Born from a Virgin) Gymno (naked) sophist (wise)’. 269 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 49ff. ‘Visingi Gothorum, Thorafastes Getarum, Frometheus Spamader (Prometheus), Orpheus Thresiciorum Getarum, Samlhoxes Getarum, Boreades Hyperboreorum, Abaris Hyperboreorum, Latona Hyperboreorum’. 270 Ibidem. 60 Orpheus and Abaris271. In this respect Bureus was likely to have been inspired by the French De la Boderie, whose favourite Orpheus was, and the Dutch Becanus, who had discussed him within the context of the early history of the world272. Besides, Johannes Magnus had highlighted the potential Northern origin of the Thracian Getae273, which, unsurprisingly, Bureus mentioned in his reflections. Basically, he seemed to have regarded Orpheus and the Hyperborean–Scythian Abaris as priests of the Northern “Apollon”, and hence representatives of the slightly corrupted northern form of the pristine religion274. In addition, Bureus was fascinated by the classical accounts of Abaris and his wand in particular as he interpreted it in the light of the northern antiquities. He had encountered several rune staffs during his trips around Sweden as the Royal Antiquary275, and likely saw a connection between them and the accounts of the wand of Abaris. It seems that Bureus interpreted Abaris as a Runic Priest and presented him as a Northern Moses and Hermes Trismegistos, both known for carrying a wand. His handwritten notes in the margins of his copy of the work of the Dutch Becanus, analysed by Karlsson and Nordström, attest to the validity of this observation276. Bureus described additional Northern theologians as part of his analysis of the term “Adulruna”277, which was, according to Bureus, the name of the esoteric side of the runic alphabet. In effect, he traced back one etymology of the term to the Platonically inspired theologian Clemens of Alexandria’s (c. 150–215) account of the Hyperboreans by discussing it within the context of “German” women and how they were told to be able to predict the future from natural phenomena278. Bureus saw this as a version of Pausanias’ suggestion that there were no male priests of Apollon, only prophetesses279. Bureus referred to both 271 Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1048 ‘Abaris vel Orpheus’. However, in Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17, he said that ‘Samlhoxes […], q(u)i Abarim Pythagorae Praeceptorem longe pracessit.‘ – ‘Salmhoxes who far preceded Abaris the Teacher of Pythagoras.‘ His sources are ‘Jordando, Herodoto, Suida, Pico, Scaligero Gotho’. 272 Walker 1972a, Chapters I & III, on the role of Orphic wisdom in the Renaissance thought. 273 Johannes Magnus 1558, 20, 42, 143 (the last two references include Pythagoras and Zalmoxis). 274 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17–19. 275 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1629 Jan. 10 that he received 10 rune staffs from his assistant, Martin Aschaneus. On him, see Lindroth 1975b, 245–246. 276 Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1015, 1016, 1048ff; Nordström 1934a, n72, noted how Bureus sketched the staff of the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistos. Karlsson 2010, 131 (on the biblical comparison). 277 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 29ff. The first part of Antiqiitates Scanzianae discussed the emblems. Now Bureus explains the secret significance of them in Adelrvnici Clypei Qvinarivsmedivs, Trophevm Vpsalensvm, de Qvinqve Adelrvnis Hyperboreis. In Germany, see Borchardt 1971, 31. 278 Clemens of Alexandria, I.XV. mentioned the Scythians, the sacred Hyperboreans and the Rhipaean Mountains as well as German women (priestesses) predicting future. 279 With the exception of Lycian Olen, a poet who was ‘touched by Apollon’. See, Pausanias 10.5.5. 61 authors in his construction of the Apollonian Hyperborean religion280. In short, Bureus identified these Hyperborean Maidens with the Sibylline Oracles of the North, whom he incidentally designated as the “Scythian Sibyllae”281. Bureus interpreted them as priestesses of the Apollon of Uppsala, not of Delphi, an observation confirmed by Nordström and Åkerman282. Hence it seems clear that the Scythian Sibyllae can be identified with the accounts of the Hyperborean maidens283, among whom Bureus included Leto/Latona, the lover of Zeus and the mother of Apollon and Artemis, who was said to have born in Hyperborea284. The general idea of the existence of ancient female theologians was engendered by a collection of ancient texts named the Sibylline Oracles that was published around 1550. These texts were studied carefully along with the Corpus Hermeticum285, the Chaldean Oracles, and the Orphic fragments, as well as some other “ancient manuscripts” which were deemed to be coeval with the Old Testament (and Moses). Thus, the fact that Bureus saw the Geatic women as Sibyllae is hardly surprising. As Walker has noted, some Late Renaissance scholars interpreted the sibyls as ancient theologians, a claim which is confirmed by the manuscripts of Bureus: it is as if he conceived of them as equal to the Prophets of Israel that had predicted the Nativity286. Bureus was not the only scholar to claim a gentile and an Israeli prophet were the same individual287, which in my opinion bears witness to the predominance of the biblical framework in the historical research of that time. The biblical narrative of the early history of the world was the frame of reference Bureus and his earlier contemporaries shared when analysing the mythical figures of national antiquity. The significance of the ancient religion of Uppsala and the Hyperboreans is easy to notice in Bureus’ reflections about the “northern sages”. As Åkerman and Karlsson have pointed out, Bureus went so far as to fabricate a Northern representative of pristine theology whom he called the Rune Master Byrger Tidasson. Bureus claimed that Byrger had also been a legislator and religious 280 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17, 18; the Apollonian religion as Hyperborean, see page 19. 281 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 18, ‘Hinc Sibyllae Scythicae’; page 50, involves ‘Sibyllae’ among other ancient theologians and oracles. See also in N.24, in Nordström 1934a, 120n68–69. 282 Nordström 1934a, 120. Bureus speculated if Leto as a northern Sibylla had taught the Greeks the doctrines of the True God, his Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit. See also Åkerman 1998, 30. 283 Nordström 1934a, n69. 284 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 18, 19, 52, 179. 285 Yates 1978, Chapters I–II. 286 Walker 1972a, 10–21; Schmitt 1966, 507–513. 287 Grafton 2007, 138, Grafton has discussed the writings of Francesco Patrizi (1529–1598). Patrizi saw similarities between the Israeli and Egyptians. He told about Seth (after Josephus), the priest, who preserved Antediluvian wisdom in two columns to whom Annius (Berosus), and Bureus referred. 62 leader of ancient Uppsala. Whether Bureus identified him with Zalmoxis or simply regarded Byrger as a major Northern historical figure cannot be determined from the text. Nevertheless, Bureus argued that Byrger had divided the region of ancient Uppsala between three kings and given each of them a crown – hence the ancient (and modern) emblem of the Kings of Uppsala or Sweden was the Three Crowns288. As Karlsson has noted, it was not only a royal emblem for Bureus but symbolised the esoteric understanding of the holy trinity of the Geats. Bureus defined this as runic TOF: Thor, Odin, and Freya289. The construction of the Geatic sages and Hyperborean Sibyllae, as well as the fabrication of Byrger Tidasson, was a practice characteristic of Late Renaissance scholarship. If one was inclined to believe that a pristine tradition of ancient wisdom, coeval with the events in the Old Testament, had existed and was articulated in Chaldean, Hermetic, Cabalistic, Platonist, Orphic, Pythagorean and Annian writings, it is quite understandable that Bureus interpreted runestones and Old Norse writings as potential Northern manifestations of this same tradition. 1.1.4 The Hyperboreans and the Ancient Civilisation of Scandinavia As certain recent studies290 have proved, Bureus’ reflections about the ancient knowledge of the Geats contained elements of such Late Renaissance trends of ideas as Alchemy291, the Moysaic Philosophy292, Orphism293, Pythagorean number mysticism (astrology)294, and the traditions of (white) magic295. The crux of the construction was an underlying belief in the unity and sanctity of all knowledge: Cusanus, Ficino, Pico and Bruno, for instance, interpreted the true philosophy of 288 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 11; in detail, see Karlsson 2010, 145. The so called Hundreds of Uppland were named as Tiundaland, Attundaland, and Fjärdhundraland. 289 Karlsson 2010, 118, 126. He also shows how Bureus saw Byrger as a Christ-figure of some kind. 290 Åkerman 1998, 48ff; Karlsson 2010; passim: Håkansson 2012, passim. 291 Nordström 1934a, 120n70–n71; refers to N.24 & Sumle; Lindroth 1943, 309–311, on the search of the philosopher’s stone among the Swedish Paracelsistic scholars; see also Håkansson 2012, passim. 292 Blair 2000, passim, she has analysed the subject in relation to Amos Comenius. Comenius stayed in Sweden during the time of Bureus and Georg Stiernhielm. How Stiernhielm was influenced by Comenius and Bureus, see Nordström 1924, introduction. 293 Yates 1978, 78–81; Åkerman 1998, 47ff. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 49, on the musical and medical applications of the wisdom of the Hyperborean Apollon and Geatic Orpheus. Bureus was perhaps inspired by De la Boderie, whose favourite subject, Orpheus and his links to early Hebrews were. See Walker 1972a, 22–25, Chapter II, Orpheus the Theologian. 294 I will come back to this matter in Chapter 1.3. 295 Walker 1958, passim; Walker 1972a, Chapters I & III; Yates 1978, passim; Yates 1979, passim; in Sweden, Johannesson 1991, 177; Lindroth 1943, Chapters II & VII.; Nordström 1924, introduction. 63 nature and man (our science and medicine) as sacred (theological)296. In addition, early modern scholars believed that the sacred hieroglyphs (or in the case of Bureus, runes) had a magical dimension, which signified that the hieroglyphs could be used to influence the material, elementary and spiritual worlds – the three levels of the Adulruna of Bureus297. Thus, for Bureus, everything was connected and overlaid. The culmination of this idea was the symbol of the Rune Cross298, an intricate theosophical symbol analysed in detail by Karlsson299. However, it will be argued in the following section that Bureus’ view of the sacred pristine nature of the runic wisdom was so all-embracing that it infiltrated his reflections about the ancient alphabet and laws of the Hyperborean Uppsala. The Sacred Language and Alphabet of the North? Bureus’ abovementioned ideas about the nature and diffusion of ancient languages are closely associated with Late Renaissance European discussions on pristine theology and perennial philosophy. The Dutch Becanus had argued that the ancient Kimbri had avoided the Confusion of Tongues and still spoke a variant of the Adamaic language300, and the idea of a “German-speaking” Adam was postulated in Renaissance research on German antiquity301. Unsurprisingly, Bureus also believed that it was possible to derive all contemporaneous and ancient languages from an original, Adamaic language. He compared varied ancient languages with each other in Antiqiitates Scanzianae in order to find potential affinities between Hebrew and what he interpreted as Ancient Scandinavian terms. Moreover, Bureus sought to prove that the names of individual runes (what he thought was the sacred Cabalist alphabet of the Geats), such as ᚠ (F “fe”) were closest to the Hebrew and, additionally, of greater antiquity than Near-Eastern, Greek, French and German equivalents302. 296 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 53ff; 146ff, and the second level of the Adulruna relative to the first, theological one in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 109ff. On the European context, see Schmitt 1966, 530; De León-Jones 1997, 6–9. 297 Bureus divided the sacred alphabet into three categories in Antiquitates Scanzianae. Åkerman 1998, 52–61; 44 n32, tells that Bureus, Postel, and Dee believed that the Hebrew letters had a magical dimensions, i.e. the Angelic Magic; Nordström 1924, introduction; Karlsson 2010, Chapter 12. 298 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 148–153; Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1048–1053. In the latter case, Bureus pondered (doodles and writing) if the wand of Abaris was a rune-staff of a Hyperborean sage. 299 Karlsson 2010, Chapter 7. The links to Hermetic Tradition, and the Paracelsistic alchemy. See e.g. Karlsson 2010, 34, 82; Håkansson 2012, passim. 300 Becanus 1569, e.g. 1050, 1055. 301 Borchardt 1971, 17; Krebs 2011, Chapters 4–5. 302 These comparisons included an impressive list of languages which Bureus apparently more or less mastered, see Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 32ff, 37ff, 190: e.g. Adulrunae (Scandinavian), Hebraeis, 64  In the connection of ancient alphabet Bureus was inspired by the views of Becanus and conducted similar etymological derivations in his manuscripts303. He did not fully accept Becanus’ theories, however. Bureus mocked some of Becanus’ etymologies and asked why the words of the languages of the indigenous peoples of America – where the Dutchman had situated the Hyperboreans – did not resemble the Ancient Kimbri language. Hence, Bureus’ critical attitude towards Becanus rested on the Dutchman’s conclusions, not his methods. In Bureus’ mind, the original language could be restored. However, it is unclear to me how he had received the knowledge of the ancient alphabet. It seems that this was related to some kind of mystical revelation. (Divine revelation was one of the three ways304 in early modern esoteric antiquarianism that I have encountered to gain knowledge of the sacred alphabet.) If Bureus thought he had received it in a Revelation, he was in a minority, for most early modern scholars thought the Cabala or the doctrines of true religion were preserved in a secret tradition305. In Antiqiitates Scanzianae, Bureus also took into account the possibility of the secret alphabet: the runic Cabala originated in the hieroglyphs that Hermes Trismegistos had engraved into antediluvian pillars. According to Bureus, they were later “read by Samloxes and Plato”306. Thus, he interpreted the language of “Cabala Ubsalica” as one of the earliest European variants (dialects) of the original language, coeval with the Ancient Syrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Arabic and Ethiopian307, that was taught to the Hyperboreans by Zalmoxis, and that elements of it were also preserved in Platonist philosophy and later Platonist tradition308. How is this question then, related to the study of national antiquity or the Hyperboreans? In the first case, in my view it is clear that Bureus reflected the origin of the sacred alphabet in relation to the reality of Annius, Postel and Aventinus. Annius had claimed that Noah first colonised Etruria, and described Grecis, Latinis, Levonis, Muscovitis, Syris, Bohemis, Slavis, Aegyptus, Magis, Persis, Arabibus, Persis Hodiernis, Assyris, Hetruscis, Turcis, Indis, Nubianis, Tartaris vagis. Elsewhere in this manuscript (e.g. p. 51), Bureus referred to Finnish and Estonian terms. 303 Nordström 1934a, 114–115, 115n44: n43–n44. See also Becanus 1569, 1048ff, and Bureus– Becanus 1569, 1032, 1048f. Bureus’ comments of the matter are related e.g. to the runic staff of Abaris. 304 These were: (i) revelation, (ii) secret tradition, and (iii) avoidance of the confusion of tongues. 305 Yates 1979, introduction 2ff, Chapter II on Giovanni Pico & Chapter III on Johannes Reuchlin. 306 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 185. 307 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 77–80. 308 Bureus thought that crumbs of the tradition were disclosed by earlier Renaissance scholars: Cusanus, Postel and Reuchlin are the three most frequently cited scholars in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. 65 the stones in which the antediluvian giants had carved some runic hieroglyphs309. He also claimed that the Etruscan language was the original language, older than Hebrew or an ancient dialect of it310. This idea was elaborated by the German Aventinus who demonstrated how Tuiscon (the fourth son of Noah and the progenitor of the “Germans”) had invented the first alphabet. Aventinus even appropriated the tradition of Celtic Bards by insisting that the ancient German folksongs, dances and so forth had been developed by Tuiscon’s follower, King Bardus. Finally, Aventinus suggested that the Gothic alphabet of Wulfila was a corrupted form of the same Tuisconian (from Etruria) letters. In fact, even some of these ideas can be traced back to Annius311. As Allan Ellenius has shown, such ideas of an ancient, sacred alphabet were part of the early modern emblematic discussions of the nature of “hieroglyphs”. The Magnus brothers had speculated about the Swedish runestones being erected by antediluvian giants or that the “runic” carvings consisted of some form of Pythagorean hieroglyphs312. Additionally, as Åkerman has demonstrated, Bureus’ theory about the distinct levels of the runic hieroglyphs was inspired by the English scholar John Dee (1527–1607)313. In Bureus’ view, the original language and the sacred alphabet were known by the earliest theologians of the Geats. “Samlhoxes”, after reading it from the stone pillars, had passed the knowledge forward to Abaris, the teacher of Pythagoras from whom the Greeks received it314. Hence, the Hyperboreans were definitely incorporated into the Gothic narrative, as Zalmoxis and Abaris are representatives of the Northern, Geatic form of the pristine theological tradition. As to the other early theologians of the North, Bureus believed that the Hyperborean maidens (in the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus) were an echo of the seers of ancient Scandinavians who had possessed tentative knowledge of the truths of Christianity (such as the Nativity): under the title “Alphabeti Sacri” (Sacred Alphabets) in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, Bureus reflected on the dimensions of the Rune Cross and how the Hyperborean Oracles (Sibyllae) of Uppsala (Leto) had preserved the name of Christ in it315. In my view, Bureus identified them with 309 Annius 1552, 24; Lib. V; Annius 1993, 194–195. 310 Stephens 2004, 208. 311 Borchardt 1971, 168–169. 312 Ellenius 1960, 272–275; Grafton 2007, 99–102, 137–138. The idea can be found in Johannes Magnus 1558, 20–21, 31 (runes). The idea stems from Josephus Flavius. See also Annius 1552, 24. 313 Åkerman 1998, 4, 16–17, 44f. 314 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17. 315 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 67ff, 108ff, 206ff. Åkerman 1998, 4, 16–17, 44f. 66 the prophets of the Old Testament, and furthermore, considered the possibility that the ideas of prisca theologia were reinvented by the Northern prisci theologi from Samlhoxes to Byrger Tidasson. The idea of avoidance of the Confusion of Tongues presented above was pertinent only to the first postdiluvian form of it, which was then reinvented over and over again – via mystical revelation or secret tradition316. There is even a possibility that Bureus saw the later forms of the knowledge as less pristine. Abaris was hence nothing but the most famous representative of the “Hyperborean wisdom of Uppsala” in the classical writings. This is supported by Antiqiitates Scanzianae, in which Bureus considered the possibility of the wisdom of Adam and Noah being corrupted soon after the Flood317, a common view in Late Renaissance esotericism318. Of course, one should remember that Bureus’ ideas in Antiqiitates Scanzianae were unpublished reflections, which may equally explain the occasional incoherence of his views. The Sacred Laws: the Beatific People of Uppsala As much as Johannes Magnus had praised the ancient connection between the Geats and Greeks through “Salmoxes”, the disciple of Pythagoras319, Bureus was convinced that it was the sage Abaris who had taught Pythagoras the doctrines of the pristine theology and philosophy. Furthermore, as shown above, Bureus believed that “Salmhoxes” had preceded Abaris320. The traditional domain of the wisdom of Zalmoxis in classical writings had been the laws and the immortality of the human soul321. In Antiqiitates Scanzianae, Bureus followed the classical image of Zalmoxis faithfully, as he characterised “Samlhoxes” as the most important manifestation of the legislative side of the pristine theological wisdom of ancient Uppsala. Unsurprisingly, Bureus also discussed “Samlhoxes” within the context the pious and beatific Hyperboreans322. 316 This will be proved and studied in detail in the section 1.3.2. 317 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 185 (Noah and decay). Derives from Annius 1552, Lib. III, Lib. IV, discussing Noah and Ham (Cham); how astrology and ‘magic’ was used for both good and bad. 318 It has affinity with the Hermetic principle of ‘shadow ‘which can be found from Bureus’ paragons, and as Karlsson has shown, is related to the so-called left-hand path magic of the Adulruna that could be used to malign purposes. Karlsson 2010, Chapter 14; see also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 180ff. 319 Johannes Magnus 1558, 143–144. 320 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17; Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1053. 321 Herodotus IV.93–96, argued that Zalmoxis was both a god of Thracians and a man, a slave of Pythagoras in Samos. Jordanes 1861, 30–31, discussed Zalmoxis with other Geatic philosophers, Zeuta and Dicenus. In the research of German antiquity (1300–1550), see Borchardt 1971, 188–191. 322 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17–24. 67  As Kurt Johannesson has demonstrated, Johannes Magnus introduced Zalmoxis while discussing the piety of the Geats. He portrayed the Geats as people respecting their priesthood and gods, and furthermore, claimed that they had been familiar with the sacred alphabet before the Romans323. Of course, Johannes Magnus was a Catholic Bishop and by referring to pious ancestors wanted to stress the authority of the priesthood. In this respect, his historical ideas should be viewed relative to his religious-political goals. Like Annius and Steuco, Johannes Magnus represented the Catholic approach to the national past in which the emphasis on the continuity between the pristine theology of Noah and the Catholic Church and the sanctity of priesthood as guardians of the rites were the motivations for constructing the views324 . As Nordström has shown, Bureus utilised Johannes (and Olaus) Magnus’ idea of the piety of the Geats also in his reflections in the other manuscripts325. However, Johannes and Olaus Magnus had seen the isolated, unyielding land and simple lifestyle of the Geats as a cause of their piety. In my view, for Bureus, the depiction in classical writings of Hyperborea as the land of the blessed was in part a result of misunderstanding. It was not the land itself, in desolate and cold Scandinavia, to which the myth adverted as blessed, but the theological level of the people living in it. The knowledge of the pristine theological laws or doctrines the Hyperboreans possessed had caused the classical writers to assume their immortality stemmed from the fruitful land. In my view, classical accounts of the Hyperboreans led Bureus to conclude that the ancient Scandinavians had literally possessed the piety of Israelites and the theological doctrines of Christianity. Karlsson’s analyses support this perception; he has pointed out how Bureus paid attention to some links between the runic-Cabala and the Law of Israel, by referring to the etymological similarity between the terms “Thor” and “Thora”, that is, the Torah of the Jewish tradition326. The difference between Johannes and Olaus Magnus’ and Bureus’ images of the Geats of Uppsala is significant: for Bureus, they were not pious brutes, but people of truly beatific, biblical character. It is indeed the case that the Hyperborean sages of Bureus resemble in many ways the biblical prophets and leaders of Israel. Then again, Bureus’ views had some precedents even in this respect. As already mentioned, Becanus had argued 323 Johannesson 1991, 90. 324 Schmitt 1966, 516, 522; Annius 1552, 28; Annius 1993, 199, stresses the role of priesthood. 325 Nordström 1934a, 118–119. 326 Karlsson 2010, 119–120; see also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 126. ‘Thora i: Lex Hebraeorum’. It is part of the esoteric (Cabalistic) principles of the pristine religion of Adam. Etymologically he related Thorofastes e.g. with Zoroaster, Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 51. 68 that the Batavian Kimbri had avoided the Confusion of Tongues, whereas Postel and de la Boderie had stressed the revival of the age-old wisdom of the Druidic Bards. At the heart of their proclamations was the same idea of identifying the ancestors of their Kings with the biblical Israelites. Yvonne Pètry, a Canadian historian, has interpreted the religious agendas of Postel. According to her, Postel believed that the French descended from Japheth and were the chosen people with a historic role in the Celto-Gallic revival of the pristine knowledge327. The earlier views of Bureus on the principle of the Scythian or Hyperborean origin of “the Adulruna” and “which they confessed together with the Hebrews”328 should be interpreted within this context. In short, the etymology of the word “Bord”, among others, demonstrated that Uppsala was the cradle of the Celto-Scythian culture. In this sense, Bureus agreed with the Frenchmen and Becanus on the significance of the North-Western Europeans for the early civilisation of the world, but disagreed with them on the place of origin of this civilisation. Finally, and most importantly, Bureus believed that the pristine Adulrunic wisdom was articulated in the past emblems of the Swedish Monarchs. In fact, this was the principal context of the first part of Antiqiitates Scanzianae. Bureus insisted in the text that anciently the emblem had contained the doctrines of the pristine theology. According to Bureus, the origin of an emblem of what he called “SCANDZIANIS AGNUM” (the Scandinavian lamb) substantiated the Israel-like piety of the Geats, which he derived likely from the ideas of “Agnum Dei” in the New and the “Paschal Lamb” of the Old Testament, not to mention “the Lamb of God’, in John 1:29, “who takes away the sin of the world”329. Bureus highlighted also the fact that the Scandinavian lamb could refer to Gotland’s330 emblem (Gotland sheep) in which case he likely reflected on etymological links between the words “Gotland” and “Goth”331. In subsequent pages of Antiqiitates Scanziane Bureus inserted a handwritten note with the title “SCANDZIANA INNOCENTIA” under which he listed the classical sources in which the Hyperboreans were discussed332. Bureus studied also the symbol of the Cross and proclaimed that “the famous emblem of Cross 327 Pètry 2004, 31–32. 328 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 10. 329 As in ‘the Lamb of God’, in John 1:29, ‘who takes away the sin of the world’. 330 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 22. 331 In previous Swedish Gothicism, the Swedish Island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea was sometimes suggested as the original home of the Goths based on etymologies. 332 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 23. ‘“Getas Justissimos nominavit Herodotus. Ad innocentiam omnibus aegale votum. Solinus De Hyperb. […] Mela Hyperboreae Terrae Cultores, IVSTISSIMI. [...]’. 69 was displayed on the Doors of the Temple of Uppsala, the region from whence the emblem of Three Crowns was”333. Thus, the Northern emblems discussed within the context of Bureus so far – that is, the Rune Cross, Lamb, and Three Crowns – all reflected the Geats’ knowledge of the doctrines of the pristine theology and law. The same idea of the beatific and pious Geats is developed further in the following sections. 1.2 Bureus and the “Politicised” Methods 1.2.1 Strategies for Constructing a Fabulous Past Even the most esoteric elements of Bureus’ reflections about the Hyperboreans have a political side. This is rather understandable within the broader European context. In more ways than one, early modern research of national antiquity was heavily politicised. Historical ideas were employed to give credibility and authority to the political elites. However, this did not necessarily signify that the research was fully governed or regulated by its political ends. Rather, using some elements of constructed fabulous antiquity in political connections was a widespread learned tradition itself. Angus Vine’s recent study of early modern (English) antiquarianism provides an example of this tradition by discussing etymology. He correctly argues that although etymology had an intellectual tradition and place since classical antiquity, it became politicised334 in the early modern antiquarian tradition. Vine’s observation is perceptive but slightly reductive. In my view, the “politicised” use of etymologies was such a widespread practice in the early modern period that scholars might not have grasped the present-day distinction between politicised and non-politicised research. In those days, the study of national antiquity was part of a broader discourse in which etymology was employed as a strategy for religious and political ends335. In other words, this signified that the objective of historical research was politicised in the first place. The truth was not the main objective of the research in the modern sense (though this did not mean that 333 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 27 ‘Fores Templi Upsalici, ubi e regione Clypei Trium Coronarum, Clypeus Trophaeo Crucis insignis conspicitur’; Reminds of the Druids in Aventinus’ research, among others, who told that they worshipped gods in groves and had no idols. Borchardt 1971, 169–171. 334 Vine 2010, Chapter II. 335 Vine 2010, ibid; also Allen 1949, 90, supports this idea. According to him, historical etymology was a strategy originally developed to protect the authority of the Bible. 70 mendacity was acceptable) and hyperbole for instance, was one rhetoric practice of achieving a more fabulous antiquity (for the purposes of political elites). Geography, philology and genealogy were other popular methodological strategies336 of the study of national histories. Ancient geography was, for instance, discussed with reference to biblical accounts along with supportive evidence from the classical and non-Christian antiquities. These methods were combined frequently with the euhemeristic337 method. Euhemerism is the practice of interpreting mythical occurrences or persons as rational historical events or figures. In the early modern period, it was a strategy of historical and religious research which developed to explain the supernatural, heterodox details of the non-Christian past in line with the biblical history. Even though this strategy is recognised in previous studies338, Bureus’ reflections about Odin, Thor and other Norse (or classical) divinities bear out how important the euhemeristic constructions were in the study of the early history of the world. Etymological, genealogical and geographical methods were all in use, for instance, in the abovementioned example of Bureus’ reflections on Scanzia– Ashkenaz, and his list of names of mythical figures, such as Cadmus and Japetus, in Antiqiitates Scanzianae339. These figures had lived before the Confusion of Tongues, which made Bureus conclude that the Hebrew names were close to the Adamaic, original language. Moreover, his ideas of the runic hieroglyphs rested on euhemerisms: Bureus interpreted the non-Christian gods (Thor, Odin, etc.) as an echo of the pristine, true religion of the Hyperborean gentiles340. Interestingly, many of the early modern antiquaries who were educated in medicine or natural philosophy subscribed also to the use of what we would call empirical methods. Some scholars referred to the results of archaeological excavations, instead of relying solely on the literal tradition of old authors in fathoming the national antiquity. The rationale behind referring to literal tradition was founded on the idea that the older the source, more accurate the information about the described subject341. Thus, although the antiquarian research of Bureus, for instance, had strong esoteric features342, it did not exclude such down-to-earth 336 Grafton 2007, Chapter 3, studies the methodological variations. 337 The origin of the term derives from Euhemerus, a Greek mytographer from the 4th century BC. 338 See e.g. Widenberg 2006, 65–67. 339 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 37. 340 As e.g. in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 126–128. 184. 341 Vine 2010, 10; Malm 1994, passim; Alkarp 2009, 95–185, showed how the role the methodological approach playd in the literal disputes between some seventeenth century Swedish historical scholars. 342 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 58, 132. 71 empirical analyses. As any early modern polyhistor, Bureus was interested in all kinds of methods and domains of knowledge. Bureus is known to have conducted archaeological excavations in Gamla Uppsala, the “capital of the Hyperboreans”. Other signs of the more empirical, practical side of his research, such as the topographical analyses and excursions to collect material remains, have been scrutinised by several modern historians343. Early modern constructions of (fabulous) national antiquity included strategies reminiscent of – and which may have antedated – the modern discipline of comparative mythology. Bureus, as demonstrated earlier, compared the names and features of classical and those of Northern divinities/sages344. This proves how the Old Testament (and the Northern antiquity interpreted with relation to it) was the baseline for Bureus, and how he tried to minimise and appropriate the classical history at its expense. Although classical history played an integral role in research on national antiquity as a source and ideal, scholars’ attitude towards the Greeks and Romans was ambivalent. In fact, attempts to minimise or appropriate the achievements of the classical culture were also “politicised” strategies manifested in the early modern discussions of national antiquity, and particularly in the more extreme form of it. Bureus’ explanations of the accounts of the Hyperboreans as misunderstandings by classical writers insufficiently familiar with the circumstances of the ancient civilisation at Uppsala epitomise the core principle of the former strategy being to minimise the classical history. The latter strategy to try to appropriate the Greek civilisation is reflected in the claims of Bureus to the Northern, Scandinavian origin of the Greek divinities as well as the alphabet and laws345. Although they may seem outlandish today, Bureus’ minimisation and appropriation of classical civilisations can be deemed to have been moderate by comparison with the Antiquities of Annius346 or the ideas of his later contemporary, the English scholar Edmund Dickinson, for whom the Greeks and Romans were liars who had stolen the religion of the Hebrews in their cult of Apollon347. In fact, the idea of a “Hebrew Plato”, as in the notions of the prisca theologia or philosophia perennis, rested on this very idea. The manner in which 343 Josephson 1940, 44; otherwise e.g. Schück 1932, 40–100; Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapter III. 344 As in section 1.1.3. 345 As the original northern names of Greek divinities, the spread of the runic alphabet, and the laws of Zalmoxis, in sections 1.1.3-1.1.4. 346 Asher 1993, 96; Stephens 1994, tells how Annius loathed the Classical Greeks. As he portrayed the antiquity, he left even Pythagoras and Plato unmentioned as ancient theologians. 347 Dickinson’s work was published in 1665 with the name Delphi Phoenicizantes. See Allen 1949, 83. 72 Bureus, de la Boderie, Postel and Becanus (among others) highlighted the antiquity and anteriority of the Celts or Kimbri to certain classical or biblical people348 exemplifies the “politicised” aspect of the constructions of fabulous national antiquity. 1.2.2 The Neo-Platonist Concept of History I have identified two additional methodological and interpretative practices which were typical of early modern (antiquarian) practice of constructing fabulous pasts: a fixation on the origin and compulsion to compare. In my mind these practices operated on a more fundamental level and were a result of the primacy of biblical history. In other words, the early history of a “nation” or “monarchy” had to be derived from the postdiluvian period and, equally, if one was to find any mythical characters in the early history of the monarchy, these had to be compared with figures in the Old Testament. In case the “national” hero was not a biblical figure, but a classical figure such as a Trojan exile, he or she had to be linked to the genealogical line of Noah at the very least. This strategy was often interlaced with euhemerisms, in which the Old Norse divinities were affiliated with the sons of Noah or the Trojan heroes349. In this thesis I refer to this phenomenon as the Neo-Platonist concept of history, a concept for historical construction consisting of a relatively concise set of ideas of how the early history of the nations was understood. This concept of history was a mixture of Judaeo-Christian and Platonic-Hermetic readings of history350, and in my view, constituted a kind of “philosophy of history” for the constructions of fabulous antiquity. The rationale behind using the term Neo- Platonist (or Platonist) concept of history is based on my observation that the central features of this kind of research into the origin of nations (or civilisations) can be best conceptualised (and understood) in the light of a few central ideas of Neo-Platonist philosophy. Additionally, many Late Renaissance antiquaries were interested in and inspired by the (Neo)-Platonist philosophy and Platonist-esoteric traditions351. The esoteric side of Bureus’ Antiquitates Scanzianae contains 348 As in section 1.1.2. 349 Something that Snorri Sturluson did in Passages 8–13 of the introduction of the Prose Edda, as he described Thor and Odin as descendants of the Trojan Kings and as leaders of the Aesir. 350 The term Christoplatonism (theology influenced by Platonist dualism), is related to my ideas but cannot be discussed in detail here. 351 Schmitt, 1966, passim; Walker 1972a, introd. 73 myriad references to (Neo)-Platonic scholars352, which, as will be shown later, explains some of the Neo-Platonist, esoteric elements that keep re-emerging in the Hyperborean research tradition. The (Renaissance) Platonic-Hermetic interpretations of the early history of the world, such as the idea of history of knowledge formulated by the influential abovementioned Agostino Steuco can be categorised into this Neo-Platonist concept of history. According to Steuco, knowledge had been perfect at the beginning of the world, but degenerated thereafter. In other words, the biblical period in the Garden of Eden was presented as the most pristine period of the world after Creation. Thus, the origin (i.e. the earliest point of history) was interpreted as the Golden Age, that is, “the One” (hen) in Neo-Platonism353, whereas decay (after the original sin) was an intrinsic feature of the later phases of history354. The Platonic side of the Neo-Platonist concept of history arises from the manner in which the sources for early history were interpreted. The Old Testament represents the ideal source (encompassing the true history), whereas due to the decay in history, the Eddic or classical myths for example, were mere imperfect copies of it (but to which the information had to be compared). The idea of the decay of knowledge and how it penetrated the antiquarian research of Bureus is featured in his belief in the degenerate knowledge in the writings of the gentiles (the constantly changing world of phenomena in Platonism), which he explained always relative to the events and persons in the Old Testament (the world of ideas in Platonism). A practical example of this is for instance, his abovementioned list of ancient names in Antiqiitates Scanzianae in which he concluded that the Phoenician (classical) name Cadmus and the Geatic “Scanzia” (Scandinavia) derived from the original biblical, Hebrew words, “KaDheM” and “ASKeNeZ”355. In Bureus’ mind, the later forms of the names proved that the Old Testament and Hebrew were the ideals, with which the later derivative writings and languages needed to be compared. Another manifestation of this tradition was the theory of the Steuco on the Barbarian origin of the Greek philosophy. Some early modern scholars identified these Barbarians with the ideal nation of the ideal source, that is, the ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament356. 352 Cusa, Ficino, Pico, and so forth. These ideas will be elaborated in section 1.3.3. 353 In Neo-Platonism, the reality derives from a single principle (Greek Hén, ‘the One’), which after interpreted in the light of Christianity, is God. The natural world is the material reflection of God. 354 Schmitt 1966, 517–524; Nordström 1924, XLVII; Landgren 2008, 26, (William Maurer, Der junge Melanchton zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Band 1 Der Humanist. Göttingen 1967). 355 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 37. 356 Schmitt 1966, 520; Walker 1972a, introduction. 74  In my view, for scholars like Bureus and Postel, the ideas defined as the Neo- Platonist concept of history constituted an underlying hermeneutic framework which involved also an interpretation of the Cabalistic tradition. The details of the early history of the world could be studied in great detail because of the divine revelation they experienced to have received. Bureus, like others, viewed the Cabalistic method as orthodox because it confirmed the truth of Christianity, as Yates has demonstrated357. In addition, Vine, has proved that the Cabala inspired the methodologies of antiquarian research358 in the early modern period. In consequence, it can be stated that divine revelation was a valid method of studying national history and early civilisation in the early modern period. However, it was not a common one, and the preference for the “use of reason” in analysis of past civilisations or history in general was already present in sixteenth century European research359. It can be concluded that the broad methodological framework in early modern historiography was one of the main reasons for the versatility of the early modern views of national history and the nature of early civilisations. This versatility was caused by the relatively unformed nature of historical research by 1600. The lack of disciplinary boundaries (in the modern sense) allowed several competing approaches to co-exist. One reason for focusing on Bureus’ “philosophy of history” of to such an extent is that, with certain reservations, he was the only scholar that represented a pure Neo-Platonist concept of history within the Hyperborean research tradition. Even though Bureus was not unique in European terms, in Sweden his views were extreme. His predecessors in the study of Gothic history in Sweden (or construction of fabulous Geatic antiquity), such as Johannes Magnus, though familiar with Neo-Platonism, antiquarianism and the esoteric trends of ideas, relied predominantly on Cicero’s ideas about history360. For Johannes Magnus, only the sacred history was in the realm of the objective truth (in the modern sense). Secular history, of which the national antiquity was a part, was but a probable account of the past. In this kind of history the rhetoric merits of the arguments were the most important feature of the research, though not at the expense of the truth361. In the following chapter I will demonstrate that Bureus did 357 Yates 1979, Chapter II. 358 Vine 2010, 51–64. 359 Schmitt 1966, 516, 522, stressed the reason as the tool for attaining the Christian doctrines, whereas Nordström 1924, XLVII, underlined divine revelation in Steuco’s perennial philosophy. 360 Johannes Magnus 1558, 2, 17. 361 Johannesson 1991, 77–79, 78n44; Kelley 1988, 236–239; Landgren 2008, 16; 25–39; the rhetoric dimensions, check Grafton 2007, 35. The Scepticism, see Cornell 1995, 1–14. 75 not under any circumstances shun the use of rhetoric arguments which could be employed in distinct political situations. 1.3 The Political-Institutional Framework The politicised aspect of early modern research into national antiquity did not confine itself to mere methodological strategies. I claim in this chapter that some of Bureus’ esoteric reflections on the Hyperboreans in Antiqiitates Scanzianae had political dimensions. These ideas were designed as solutions to the political problems and to facilitate the pursuits of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus in the first decades of the seventeenth century. As part of the analysis, I consider the position of Bureus in the learned and political networks of that time. Finally, I will demonstrate how the Geatic and Hyperborean past was connected to Bureus’ millenarianism and that his construction of fabulous northern antiquity was a breathtaking aggregate of esoteric, political, and historiographical elements. 1.3.1 Political Power and the Scandinavian Antiquity Bureus and the Circle of Skytte Bureus left behind hundreds of diary entries describing his personal relationships with four consecutive Swedish monarchs (John III, Charles IX, Gustavus Adolphus and Queen Christina362) as well as politically influential noblemen of the first half of the seventeenth century. Of the latter, the most significant was Johan Skytte (1577–1645)363 with whom Bureus tutored Prince Gustavus Adolphus364. Skytte, who not only shared with Bureus a favourable tendency 362 John III (1568–1690): Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, ‘1590. 7. Aprilis kom iagh I Kon. Joh. kanzelij.‘ – ‘1590 April the 7th I arrived at the Chancellery of King John’. Bureus’ relationship with the subsequent monarchs will be discussed later in this chapter. 363 On Skytte, see Wetterberg 2003, 29–49; within political context, see Runeby 1962, passim; and with regard to his educational reforms, Ingemarsdotter 2011, passim. 364 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1604, ‘Nov 16 Börjede jagh (Johan Skytte til hielp) läsa för Hertig Gustaf och Fröiken’ – ‘I commenced (to help Johan Skytte) to read to (alternatively ‘to lecture’) Prince Gustavus and the Missy’ (Princess Maria Elisabeth 1596–1618). On Bureus-Skytte relationship (families), see Runeby 1962, 48, 87. Also his cousin, Jonas Bureus, provided a link to Skytte and Gustavus Adolphus later. See Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1604 Feb 22, Feb 24. I have perused the relationship between them, see e.g. Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1602 Mars 29, 1604 Jan 30, Aug 1, 1629 Jan 29, Febr 13. 76 towards the esoteric trends of ideas365 and the Geatic view of history, also strongly contributed to the cultural policies of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus366. Skytte’s idea of the role of historical scholar was based on the Humanistic ideals: the historian was to be a good orator and politicus. In fact, the ideal was manifested in the Chair that Skytte founded in the University of Uppsala, i.e. Professor Skytteanus (of Eloquence and Government)367. Nils Runeby has pointed out368 that the historian Petrus Petrejus, who composed a Swedish summary of the Gothic history of Johannes Magnus in 1611 and an antiquarian work of Russian geography in 1615369, was a member of the circle of Skytte and Charles IX. The aforementioned Geatic historian370 Johannes Messenius371 was a key member of the circle as well, and Skytte’s brother, Ericus Schroderus, the translator of the Gothic history by Johannes Magnus in 1620372, and a Royal Translator of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus, also belonged. The Royal Geographer of those two monarchs, and a cousin of Bureus, Andreas Bureus, can also be located in this “network”. Andreas Bureus was the author of the famous map of Scandinavia, Orbis arctoi nova et accurata delineatio (1626), which included a short description of the distinct regions of Scandinavia, Orbis Arctoi Imprimisque Regni Sueciae descriptio. Gothic history and the domestic antiquities were discussed in this important study373, which substantiates my previous claim of a connection between the antiquarian views of Johannes Bureus and the geographical work of his cousin in section 1.1.1. On top of Johannes Bureus’ personal connections with Skytte and the monarchs, he knew Messenius, his cousin Andreas Bureus, and Schroderus personally374. Skytte’s circle was of utmost importance in early seventeenth century cultural activities in Sweden. It proves that Skytte was the patron of many clients who were promoting the Geatic view of history. In addition, it 365 On Skytte’s intellectual preferences and educational reforms, i.e. Ramism and Paracelsism see, Lindroth 1975b, 18–24; Lindroth 1943, Chapter III.4; Ingemarsdotter, 2011, passim. 366 Ingemarsdotter 2011, 95–101. 367 Landgren 2008, 163, 177; Bennich-Björkman 1970, 216–221. 368 Runeby 1962, 59ff. 369 Petrus Petrejus 1611, passim; the latter: Regni muschovitici sciographia (1615): Petrejus 1615. 370 Nordström 1934a, 121–122; n77. 371 Olsson 1944, passim; Schück 1920, passim; Schück 1932, 40–115. Bureus-Messenius: see Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1603 Apr 27, 1609 Martij 26, 1612 Juni 11, 1615 (a letter to Messenius). 372 Svea ock Götha krönika (1620) i.e Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque regibus (1554). 373 Andreas Bureus, 1984, 26–27 (Gothic history, Scandinavia as the womb of the nations), 38–40 (Laws and the Runic alphabet), 48 (Helsinge-runes stavless), 53–56 (Geatland, the original home of the Goths). 374 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, e.g. 1602 Aug 2, 1603 Jan 17, Jan 18, Jan 29, 1604 Mars 31, Oct 21, (A. Bureus); 1595 Jul 16 (E. Schroderus). 77 demonstrates the political and intellectual circumstances within which Bureus operated while he was outlining the ideas in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. Lindroth’s definition of the years 1600–1632 in the Swedish academic setting as the period of “Geatic propaganda”375 supports the argument as well. Moreover, as Landgren has noted, the Geatic view of history was studied and taught in the University of Uppsala in the period 1620–1650. Professors such as Johannes Messenius, for example, introduced motives of Geatic history to the students. He composed historical dramas in Swedish, which his own students later enacted in public in Uppsala376. Messenius was followed by Jonas Magni (1583–1651) as the professor responsible for historical education. Importantly, Landgren observed that since Magni’s time, the history lectures included motifs from the history of the Goths377. This indicates that by the time of Charles IX the history of the Geats had penetrated the public space, and furthermore, that students were exposed to a specific historical ideology on the basis of the Geatic tradition of Johannes and Olaus Magnus. A few intriguing traces suggest that also Bureus contributed to the education of the sons of the noblemen in Charles IX’s reign. As Runeby has pointed out, the King gave impetus to this activity, enquiring whether Bureus could take care of the education of noblemen’s sons. Charles IX had issued warnings that persons not following educational edicts would lose their exemption378 from taxes379. The most telling example of the “Geatic education” of Bureus was a textbook, Runa A-B-C-boken (1611), in which the runic alphabet is taught through examples. The Adulrunic wisdom of the ancient Geats manifested itself on the opening page of the book in the form of the esoteric Rune Cross, which implies that the reflections of Antiqiitates Scanzianae were its foundation. In addition, the work contains Christian prayers and the Confession in runic letters, followed by a Swedish translation380. This combination of Christian Cabala and Geatic history is striking. In my mind, it proves that the political elite must have been aware of his work and, to a certain extent, its contents. Charles IX knew about the runic 375 Lindroth 1975b, 249–256. 376 Lidell 1935, passim; shortly mentioned by Lindroth 1975b, ibidem. 377 Landgren 2008, 271–280. 378 The Scandinavian Seat Farms, i.e. farms where noblemen permanently resided had freedom from taxes and tithes (up to 3 houses) depending on the Rank of the Nobleman in question. 379 Runeby 1962, 48ff. Bureus continued to promote similar ideas later in the introduction of the mediaeval manuscript called En nyttig bok om konungastyrelese och hövdinga in 1634. 380 Bureus 1611, passim; Enoksen 1998, 182–184, pointed out that this was not regarded as heretic as such, for there were some prayers written in runic from the Middle Ages, as well. 78 speculation381, and was proud of Bureus’ prowess in the realm of antiquities, as a graphic note typical of Bureus’ diary entries underlines: Secretary Per Nilsson sent me to the Polish Gentleman Matthias Vioslowski to tell him about our Antiquities. On the following evening I damaged the right side of my head by cold as I lied drunk and bareheaded.382 Bureus belonged to the inner circle of King Gustavus Adolphus, although his unconventional theological views caused him problems with orthodox theologians in the 1620s383. This is unsurprising, considering Bureus was a signatory to the Rosicrucian proclamation384. Then again, Bureus’ relationship with Gustavus Adolphus seems to have been close even after his orthodoxy was questioned. If we choose to believe a diary entry of Bureus, in 1621 the King had asked his opinion on an important issue: On 4 Nov. asked the King Gustavus Bureus If a Christian King can start a war without being a sinner and non solum defensive but also Inferre bellum385. Although their close relationship does not conclusively prove that Gustavus Adolphus was familiar with Bureus’ esoteric antiquarianism, it would be far- fetched to claim that the king was unaware of it. Åkerman has offered examples that show that the key figures of the political elite of the time knew about the runic speculation. She has shown that Bureus gave miniature books of his (runic) Adulruna Rediviva to Gustavus Adolphus, Queen Christina and Axel Oxenstierna. The purpose of the act may have been to do them a good deed386. For Bureus, the contemplation of runic prayers had protective abilities; thus, he may have wanted to provide the paramount figures of the realm with protective amulets387. Whether 381 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1603 Jan. A fascinating note of Bureus which indicates that the Duke knew about his contemplations: ‘The Prince (Charles IX) said that I would become [a teacher] in Strängnäs and teach Hebrew and Runic and would receive 3 barrels of Cereal Grains’. 382 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1603 Apr 15. 383 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1621 from July to September. 384 Lindroth 1975b, 155–156; Karlsson 2010, 106. Bureus tells about his divine revelation, and how he is the last prophet of the Christian world. His entries reveal a change towards millenarian views from 1613 onwards. See Åkerman 1998, passim. This subject will be elaborated in section 1.3.3. 385 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1622 ‘4 Nov frågade migh Konung Göstaf Buree Om en Christen Konung må utan synd föra Krig och non solum defensive utan och Inferre bellum’. 386 Åkerman 1998, 36, 45; Bureus had given his Adulrunic books to Gustavus Adolphus in 1611 and 1643 to Christina. Also Oxenstierna got one, but as Åkerman says, Bureus’ influence on him is unknown. According to the prevailing views, Oxenstierna and even Skytte, were critical towards the Rosicrucianism of Bureus. On Bureus’ esotericism: Åkerman 1991, II.V and III.VI. 387 Karlsson 2010, 139f. See also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 42ff, 49. 79 any of them read the book is a different matter. Nonetheless, the practice of gift giving was an established and important custom between the patron and the client of that time388. Perhaps Bureus wanted to give a gift to his greatest patrons in return for them supporting him earlier, or alternatively, in expectation of favours in the future. A Context: the Geatic-Hyperborean Past & the System of Government? The abovementioned scholars in the Skytte’s “network” were his clients and hence the clients of Skytte’s patron, Duke Charles (King Charles IX from 1604 onwards). Bureus the Antiquary appears to have been an asset to the Duke (King) Charles (IX), although one should always take into account the possibility of exaggeration, as Bureus wrote: “I was commanded by HG [His Grace] that I would not travel abroad and said if you die there the antiquities will vanish”389. On the other hand, the fact that Charles IX had asked Bureus to “derive a genealogy from Adam” in 1604, only six months after the recognition of his sovereignty, proves Bureus’ value to the king390. Clearly, the invocation of antiquities in the form of biblical genealogy was still an important strategy for asserting political legitimacy. The same observation has been made by Patrik Hall, who has shown how the Duke Charles supported the Geatic view of history391. In my view, the use of Geatic history and the Swedish antiquities within the biblical context arose equally from more pressing problems on the domestic front. The political or religious circumstances were unstable, to say the very least. After the death of his brother King John III in 1592, the Duke Charles ranged against his nephew, the Catholic King of Sweden and later Sigismund (III Vasa) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Sigismund was the legal heir after the edict of succession of Gustavus I Vasa in 1544. The Duke Charles had invoked the Protestantism of Sweden to back up his right to overthrow Sigismund in 1595, but interest groups in the monarchy chose not to support him, which led to bitter wars in Finland and the Baltic and Sigismund’s renunciation of the Swedish Crown in 388 Jardine 1996, 418–420; in the Late Renaissance Swedish context, see Lahtinen 2010, 34–65. 389 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1603 ‘Jan 8 Befälte F.N. at iagh intet skulle ferdas utrijkes och sade om du dör der ute så förkomma antiqitates’. 390 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1604 Sept 15. 391 Hall 2000, 33, observed that Charles IX ordered a genealogy in which he descends from Magog, and used motifs from Geatic history in the propaganda in the Kalmar War against the Danes. 80 1600; thereafter, the Duke Charles became the sovereign of Sweden. In 1604 he took the name King Charles IX of Sweden and ruled until 1611392. Duke Charles had turned his attention to the Swedish antiquities before he became King. Bureus recounted in a diary entry from 1602 how “I was drawn from Uppsala to Stockholm to stay there in the Chancellery and to scrutinise old documents after the command of His Noble Grace”393. After Duke Charles had received the authority of the sovereign, he needed to defend its legality against older noble families that had tried to increase their power in the absence of Sigismund394. Runeby has taught us how the role the ideas of a suitable system of government395 played in the development of the Swedish state in the course of the first half of the seventeenth century396. The tension between the monarchs and the nobility was reflected, for instance, in academic dissertations and political speeches in which Humanistic ideas with historical dimensions played some role397. I will argue below that the tension between the monarchs and the nobility also helps to explain certain ideas of Bureus on the Geats and Hyperboreans in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. Runeby pointed out how Charles IX defended himself repeatedly against the criticism of the nobility. His purpose was to show that he was the legal king who had received his power from God, whereas Sigismund, who was a tyrant, had received it from the Devil; hence Charles had been justified in overthrowing him. The ideas of Charles IX did not convince everybody, and he faced opposition within Sweden.398 Charles IX was forced to seek evidence from history and the domestic antiquities to convince the nobility of his legal right to govern the country. When he ordered Bureus to try to revive the historical tradition of the 392 On the political situation by and large, see Runeby 1962, 45–78. 393 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1601 Aug 22, ’drogh iagh frå Vpsala til Stockholm at blifva ther och ransaka i Canzelijet om gamla handlinger efter Frustel. Nådes befalning’; See also e.g. Bureus in Klemming 1599 19 Sept; 1604 Febr. 25-26; 1604 March 9. 394 Runeby 1962, 74–75. 395 The main systems of government were Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Republic. The discussions dealt with the role of laws, and the ideas of contract between ruler and ruled and the division of powers within the state. 396 Runeby 1962, passim; in crystallised form Wetterberg 2003, 45–49. 397 Runeby 1962, 11–25, 45–82. The Period of Charles IX and the relationship of Gustavus Adolphus with aristocracy relative to the other forms of classical systems of government, monarchy and democracy. Ideas encompassed theories from theocratic absolute monarchy to civic republicanism and the mixed forms. 398 Runeby 1962, 44ff, the role of Bureus and the abovementioned circle of Skytte in it and even their political views. Runeby 1962, 67ff. 81 Mora Stones, the ancient custom of electing the king399, it was not, in my view, only a sign of historical romanticism but also of practical political necessity. Further proof exists of the use of antiquities to back up Charles IX’s right to the Crown which illuminates the actual political conditions within which the client of Charles IX, Bureus, developed his reflections on the Geats and Hyperboreans in Antiquitates Scanzianae. As Bureus discussed the emblem of the Three Crowns as the symbol of the Geatic Overking of Uppsala, he also reflected upon its true significance. According to him, in bygone times this emblem had symbolised the three offices of the earliest Geatic monarchs of Uppsala: the priest (sacerdos), king (rex), and judge (iudex)400. Although this analysis was developed to proclaim the biblical antiquity of Uppsala, it was of equal importance within the current political context. In constructing the fabulous Hyperborean past, Bureus also stressed how the ancient Kings of Svear and Geats (of Uppsala) had possessed dominion over the laws and religion even elsewhere in Scandinavia. Apart from being a symbol of antiquity in general, Bureus wanted to prove that the emblem of the Three Crowns had always been the exclusive symbol of the Geatic King of Uppsala401 elected at the Mora Stones. Bureus may have had the immediate political endeavours of his patrons in mind when he began to look for evidence that would situate the ancestors of the Vasa-dynasty in the Baltics and elsewhere in Scandinavia. His reflections about the Hyperborean “Boreades” as priest-kings, affiliated with the tradition of the pious legislator of the Geats (“Salmhoxes”), were powerful images and could be linked to the ideal rulers of Old Testament, Noah and Moses. By proclaiming biblical-classical ancestry, Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus could propagate an idea that their authority over the government, laws and the church had historical justification402. This statement is supported by Ingemarsdotter’s recent study of Johan Skytte in which she proved the existence of an ongoing propaganda war between Charles IX and Sigismund III Vasa (of Poland) in the first decades of the seventeenth century. Skytte was the scholarly figure who constructed the 399 The Mora Stones used to situate close to Uppsala where the King of Sweden, or Svear, was elected, as Olaus Magnus 1555, 243f, described. In the case of Bureus, see Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, 1602 Jun 16 ‘HE commanded that the tradition of Mora Stones shall be revived […]’. 400 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 11. ’An qia Pater Patrum familiarum Scanzianarum termaximus (sacerdos, rex et iudex) Upsaliae consederit, eiusque successores, multis seculis’; page 200, 211ff. he has analysed the emblem in detail. See also the alternative explanation of Karlsson 2010, 146f, and Åkerman 1998, 33. She refers to F.a.3. 41, and has emphasised the esoteric nature of the symbol. 401 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 7ff (5 points of its Swedish origin), 11ff, why it involved the symbol of the Three Crowns; and its links to the laws, church, royalty, 15ff, the role of the Hyperboreans in it. 402 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 10, 23. See section 1.1.4. 82 foundation of educational ideology, which was a combination of Ramistic and Gothicistic ideas403. Thus, some aspects of the emergence of the idea of incorporating the Hyperboreans into Geatic history can be placed within the context of Charles IX’s political propaganda. Bureus was thereby the scholar of antiquarian expertise in the small but influential politico-scholarly “network” of Charles IX and Johan Skytte. They were the hubs of the network, controlling the contents and distribution of the ideas in the new institutions of the Crown. The political context of Bureus’ reflections extended to the period of the follower and son of Charles IX, Gustavus Adolphus: some parts of Antiqiitates Scanzianae were written towards the end of Charles IX’s reign404. Interestingly, Runeby showed that also Gustavus Adolphus disliked (strong) aristocracy as a system of government. After his coronation, Gustavus Adolphus described his father as a saviour who had defended Sweden from a tyranny of the aristocracy405. In my view the contemporary political discussions of the ideas of division of power within the state (i.e. what was the ideal system of government) are manifested in Bureus’ Antiqiitates Scanzianae. The fabulous antiquity, in which the strong and righteous Gothic Overkings ruled the ancient Scandinavia, was perhaps designed to be used in political (rhetoric) occasions to support the monarchs’ right to greater powers relative to the nobility. As shown above, according to Bureus’ exaggerated interpretation of Old Norse writings and mediaeval legal documents, the domestic antiquities gave proof that this is how the ancestors of the current monarchs had ruled Scandinavia. The politicised etymologies of Bureus function as an example of this context. For instance, Bureus reflected on the etymological origin of the term “adel” (“noble”, “nobility”) in connection with the significance of the mystical principle of “Adulruna” and analysed the “true and corrupted” forms of the term, along with adding a title “vbi nobilitas, ibi majestas”, (“where nobility, there majesty”)406. In this case, the etymologies were perhaps designed to demonstrate that the nobility derived from the monarch. The words Bureus outlined in the dedication of Antiqiitates Scanzianae “GVSTAVO ADOLPHO, SVECORVM, GOTHORVM ET VANDAL. REGI ELECTO” can be interpreted within the same political context. The handwritten remark “DESIGN.” is scribbled next to the 403 Ingemarsdotter 2011, 70–75, Chapter 8. 404 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 218, i.e. the last page includes a text ’17 Octob. 9 ant 1612’. 405 Runeby 1962, 79–80. 406 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 35, page 35 is doubled in the manuscript. 83 term “ELECTO”407, which in my opinion, can refer to the “designated” role of the monarch in an esoteric sense408. Alternatively, it could point to Gustavus Adolphus as “appointed” (king), or perhaps both as a chosen and appointed King of the Goths. Another of Bureus’ manuscripts indicates his tendency to construct or render historical data to support the political idea of a strong monarch. This idea, promoted by virtually all the historians in Johan Skytte’s circle409, is presented in En nyttig bok om konungastyrelese och hövdinga (A Useful Book on the Government of the King and Headmen), a mediaeval manuscript which Bureus edited and published in 1634. Two specific elements make this work interesting in the light of the abovementioned ideas about systems of government. Firstly, Bureus explained in the introduction how written laws were to be preferred to oral. He praised how Gustavus Adolphus was inspired by the Greeks, whose ideas were in effect of Egyptian and Geatic origin. The Geatic origin of the Greek laws Bureus explained by insisting that the ancient people of Uppsala had lived in Thrace already at the time of Orpheus.410 The Geatic history is highlighted in the introduction and spiced up with biblical references, which was not a coincidence. Bureus wanted to stress the role of antiquity and the idea of strong royalty (monarchy) within the context of the baseline of the Swedish Law of that time, the Mosaic Law411. Thus, the underlying implications, such as the piety of Zalmoxis in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, were something with which the colleagues of Bureus would have been familiar.412 It is, in my view, possible that this was the initial political context within which the reflections of the tradition of the pious lawgiver Zalmoxis and the beatific Geatic (Hyperborean) sages in Antiquitates Scanzianae were originally developed. The second major element of En nyttig bok om konungastyrelese och hövdinga, as Runeby has clearly shown, is its discussion of the system of government. It stressed the idea of strong, almost absolute monarchy in a manner that, especially after the original manuscript had disappeared from Johan Skytte’s 407 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 3, 7, 15. 408 I will come back to this in section 1.3.3. 409 Runeby 1962, 94–95, said this happened after 1612, that is, slightly after Antiqiitates Scanzianae was written. See also Wetterberg 2003, 45–49. 410 Bureus 1964, introduction: ‘Hans K.M. tight och efterdöme af Grekerna/hwilke ändoch the hemtadhe sin klokskap somt utur Egypten somt ifrå Thracien der Götherna bodde uthi Orphei tidh [...]’. See also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3 21, ‘Getae fortissimi, Thracei Iustissimi’; 23’Getas Justissimos nominavit Herodoto ... Hyperborei justitiam docent…’. 411 E.g. Wetterberg 2003, 33. Charles IX was a strong supporter of the Mosaic Law. 412 Bennich-Björkman 1970, 152–181, argued that the legislative antiquarianism was not affiliated only to the legal history, but to the feuds over the landownership between the Crown and Nobility. 84 library, led to expressions of doubt about its authenticity. Johannes Schefferus, a historian whose ideas are introduced later and who executed a new edition of the study and translated it into Latin in 1669, did not take the accusations seriously. He did not fully rule out the possibility of fabrication, but pointed to the good reputation of Bureus with manuscripts and to the fact that it had been originally found after Gustavus Adolphus had cemented his system of government413. In any case the authenticity of the text is not as important as the fact that Bureus published a historical manuscript which supported the idea of strong monarchy at the expense of the nobility. It can be concluded that political conditions influenced the emergence of Bureus’ reflections about the Hyperboreans. 1.3.2 “Dominium Maris Baltici” – the Territorial Antiquarianism The emergence of the Hyperboreans was also related to the Swedish Crown’s international problems and ambitions in the first half of the seventeenth century. Sweden was at war with Denmark, Russia, Poland and the Holy Roman Empire in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century414. Several modern researchers have studied the use of Geatic history and antiquities in territorial feuds and war propaganda. Nordin and Widenberg pointed out that the Kings of Sweden and Denmark argued over possession of regions such as Gotland and Scania415. In addition, Charles IX wanted to find a route to the White, Baltic and the Norwegian Seas in order to avoid paying tolls to the Danes. Scholars played a role in these endeavours, as he sent cartographers to Lapland around the time Bureus started to work in the chancellery416 (again highlighting the abovementioned nexus between political power and the cartographic work of Andreas Bureus, which Johannes Bureus utilised in his own writings). In 1607, Charles IX declared himself the King of Norrland and Lapland, and invited the people of Jämtland to join Sweden417. The situation became a diplomatic crisis which remained unsolved, and in 1612, after Charles IX had died, Denmark attacked from the south. 413 Runeby 1962, 222ff. 414 Derry 2000, Chapters 5–6. Of the conflicts should be mentioned the Kalmar War (1611–1613), the Ingrian War (1609–1617), The War against Sigismund (1598), The Polish War (1600–1629), and of course the ultimate conflict of the century, The Thirty Years’ War (1630–1648). 415 Nordin 2000, 11–13, Chapter II; Widenberg 2006, 174–181. 416 Johannesson 1991, 179–187; more broadly, see Bennich-Björkman 1970, 154–165. 417 Bennich-Björkman 1970, 165–166, observed how Bureus belonged to the scholars that tried to prove that King of Sweden had had a right to Lapland since antiquity. See Nordin 2000, 11–13. 85  Sweden sought to expand its influence to the Baltic region during the seventeenth century, but the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Dutch and the British, were eyeing off the region as well. The phenomenon has been defined as Dominium Maris Baltici418. In my view, the title of the first part of Antiqiitates Scanzianae provides an example of this context: HEROVM BALTICUM (smeared and handwritten ‘Scanzianum’ unclear word) DE QVINQVE ANVR (handwritten in the margin ‘Sköldenvapna. prof.’) SEV INSIGNIBVS TRIVM REGNORVM (smeared and handwritten ‘Fvlklandia’) SCANZIAE EIVSQ. ECCLESIAE UPSALICAE.419 Bureus edited this text several times, which could imply that he thought to apply it in more than one problematic case related to political circumstances in Sweden and abroad. The historical and emblematic (the Three Crowns, Mora Stones) aspects of the manuscript indicate that they were Bureus’ area of expertise in the propaganda wars, just like the cartographic matters were the domain of his cousin, Andreas Bureus, and Petrus Peterjus420. Therefore, Bureus’ reflections in Antiqiitates Scanzianae can be related to the conflicts Charles IX had with Poland in Ingria and with Denmark in Kalmar. The former war had started earlier, when Sweden was humiliated in Kircholm in 1605 by Poland. However, the major part of Antiqiitates Scanzianae was written closer to 1609, when the political situation had also changed. Russia was in chaos and, as a result, the Novgorodians invited the Princes of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus or Carl Philip, as candidates for the Russian Crown. During this crisis, an idea of a Trans-Baltic Empire was proposed from the Swedish side421. However, the death of Charles IX in 1611 complicated the situation further. Gustavus Adolphus had acceded to the Swedish throne, and continued advocating on behalf of his brother for the Russian Crown but to no avail. After Michael Romanov was elected as the Tsar of Russia in 1613, the situation stabilised in Russia. 418 Derry 2000, 98–108. 419 Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 5. Scandinavian (also Baltic) Heroes Of the Five Anur (Runa i.e. runes?) or the Emblem of the Three Counties (or Monarchies) of Scandinavia and its Church of Uppsala. 420 Prior to these events, the father of Gustavus had sent a group of scholars to Lapland, and the above mentioned, Petrus Petrejus, now a diplomat, was mapping the region. He published a chronicle on Russia in (1615). See Petrejus 1615, 83–84. This “Chronicle on Moscow”, discussed mainly the geography of the land and its neighbouring regions. See also Runeby 1962, 47, 55ff. He made mentions of the Baltic regions related to the Ingrian War and the Commander Jacob de la Gardie. 421 Derry 2000, 103. 86  Was Bureus constructing a form of historical propaganda for the ruler of a potential Trans-Baltic Empire? This possibility is indicated by the facts that, firstly, Antiqiitates Scanzianae was written between 1608–1612, and secondly, that it was not dedicated only to Gustavus Adolphus. Its second part was dedicated to John, Duke of Ostrogothia, and the third part to Prince Charles Philip422. Thus, the analysis of the emblem of the Three Crowns and the Hyperborean Baltics could reflect the grandiose plans of the Swedish Crown on the eastern front. Field Marshal and Count Jacob de la Gardie had suggested Charles Philip as Novgorodian candidate for the Russian Crown423. The reason these reflections of Bureus in Antiqiitates Scanzianae were never published and that the text had several layers may be that the political situation was continuously altering. On the other hand, published or not, the ideas in Antiqiitates Scanzianae clearly prove that some aspects of it were designed for propagandistic purposes in the Baltics. Furthermore, there were economical and territorial reasons for the ideas Bureus outlined in Antiqiitates Scanzianae about the historical presence of the Hyperboreans in the Baltic and Scandinavia. As a result of the Ingrian War, in 1617 Sweden received Ingria and Livonia, which enabled them to cut off the Russians’ access to the Baltic Sea. What Sweden needed to do was to cement their power in Livonia. Not long thereafter, Johan Skytte was sent there to establish a Swedish presence in the region, which resulted in the foundation of a Swedish university in Dorpat in 1632424. Thus, the writings of Bureus, combined with those of the other scholars in Skytte’s network (and hence that of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus), demonstrate that the centralisation of political power brought forth plans of an ideological program directed not only to the domestic elite, but to the elites in the regions of other monarchies in the Baltics, a claim to which I will return in chapter 2. Bureus’ attempts to connect the Hyperboreans to the territorial disputes and endeavours of the seventeenth century Swedish monarchy can be elaborated further by analysing the work of contemporary antiquarian scholars in other North-Western European monarchies. The geographical claims Bureus made for the Western European origin and the Baltic hegemony of the civilisation of the Geats were not coincidental. Bureus clearly presented an idea that “Balthia”, 422 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 1, 30, 69. 423 Eriksson 2007, 75–79. 424 I have found eulogies and orations from the University Academia Gustaviana of Dorpat in which the Hyperboreans emerge. See Matthiae 1638, electronic; Lotichius 1638, electronic. 87 Balderus, Apollo and so forth were terms of ancient Swedish origin425. Thus, Bureus suggested that the language provided clear evidence of the territorial and cultural dominance of the Overking of the Geats in the ancient Baltics. However, the idea of the high civilisation of the “Goths” was not easy to promote. As indicated earlier, Bureus portrayed the Hyperborean Geats as pious people with sacred laws. Ingemarsdotter has proved that the question of Sweden and “muses”, i.e. the cultural level of the Gothic ancestors, was a delicate one in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century426. Indeed, Anthony Grafton has provided a telling example of how early modern scholars outside Sweden saw the Goths. He noted how Francois Bauduouin (1521–1573), a Humanist and historian, used the term “Gothic” in an utterly belittling fashion, as he described the picture of Emperor Justinian: “(the picture) had something Gothic and unintelligent about it”427 Clearly, the discrepancy between the belligerent Goths and civilised Geats was at the core of the construction of a softer, Hyperborean ideology of Gothicism. In fact, even the abovementioned analysis of the origin of the emblem of the Three Crowns in Antiqiitates Scanzianae can be placed within this context of politically motivated territorial antiquarianism. For Bureus this emblem bore witness to the ancient dominance the Overking of Uppsala enjoyed over the monarchies in Scandinavia, Norway and Denmark, and most importantly, their territories. The coeval Kalmar War was therefore one of the political contexts within which the emergence of the Hyperboreans as ancient Geats428 can be explained. The learned debates over whether the Three Crowns emblem originated in Sweden or Denmark also had a long history429, which confirms my hypothesis that the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition cannot be sufficiently explained by mere historiographical factors. All things considered, it is very difficult not to see the Geatic view of history or the emergence of the Hyperboreans as being related to current political situations. With Bureus helping with symbols, genealogy and the history of civilisations, King Charles IX had constructed a certain kind of Geatic antiquity 425 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 44. 426 Ingemarsdotter 2011, 100–103. 427 Grafton 2007, 164, (cited and translated) Bauduoin 1545, 145, ‘indicat quidem corporalis eius effigies quam (in antiquis numismatibus vidimus) quiddam Gothicum ac stupidum’. Italicised by T.A. 428 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 7–19. 429 McKeown & Wade 2007, introduction (I–XXIII) on the emblematic discussions within the Scandinavian and the Baltic context in the early modern period. 88 for the Crown, i.e. a whole ideology. In my view, this Swedish Gothicism can be contrasted with the Polish-Lithuanian Sarmatism – the idea of Sarmatian origin of the Goths (Geats) and that the Sarmatians had been the first settlers in the ancient Baltics. It is perfectly plausible that certain facets of Bureus’ reflections were created for this very purpose, that is to say, to construct for Sweden an ideology superior to those of the other monarchies in the region. All in all, the views of Bureus should be understood within the context of the most patriotic form of early modern antiquarianism, in which the antiquities and reinterpreted classical writings were the major source for constructing a fabulous antiquity. In the same way, the aforementioned English scholar John Dee, for instance, had made claims to an ancient Empire of King Arthur which had extended from Britain to the Northern Sea and Scandinavia430. Dee was far from the only scholar of his time using the past in actual political situations. Examples of territorial antiquarianism also come from the German principalities and the Holy Roman Empire of the Habsburgs. One has to remember that the borders of the peripheral areas of Europe, let alone the continents newly discovered by Europeans, were not yet controlled by the monarchs or defined by “nationality”. Thus, a strong historical chain of evidence that “proved” the presence of the ancestors of a particular dynasty at certain region served as a powerful rhetoric tool. Although such constructions as Becanus’ ancient Trans-Atlantic Empire in Florida may seem ridiculous to us, it was considered a plausible account by some of his contemporaries. The biblical- classical framework provided all the necessary elements for the practice. That Becanus and Bureus focused on Hyperborean wisdom was due to a combination of their personal inclination to the esoteric and the European learned discussions around the antiquity of the German civilisation since the publication of Tacitus’ Germania431. By analysing the ancient languages, divinities and even territorial entireties, Bureus, like many of his earlier and contemporary colleagues, was capable of stretching the sphere of influence of the ancestors of the Vasa- monarchs to the Baltics and beyond. 430 Grafton 2007, 62–66 (Dee); Kendrick 1950, 37, 83; Åkerman 1998, 56, 81. They (Dee, Postel) relied on ideas of ancient language and naval power over the Atlantic, which Bureus applied in the Baltic contexts. 431 Borchardt 1971, 61; Krebs 2011, 98–104. 89 1.3.3 The Esoteric-Patriotic Antiquarianism of Bureus The Historic Role of the Geats The use of the Geatic view of history in the major conflict of that time, The Thirty Years War, is well reported in the literature432. Sweden had intervened in the War in 1630. The campaign to the continent led by Gustavus Adolphus was a success. Before long, a notion of recurring history became part of the politico-historical propaganda. Johannes Magnus’ hyperbolic description of Berik433, the ancient warrior-king of the Goths, was harnessed for the expansionary propaganda. Berik and Gustavus were both portrayed as Gothic kings that were to liberate the rest of the Europeans from the yoke of the heretic Rome. Nordström has outlined, for instance, how Gustavus Adolphus had let himself be portrayed as the reincarnated Emperor Berik434. When Gustavus Adolphus addressed himself as Berik, the underlying contexts of the idea were of greater complexity than are obvious at first sight. Firstly, the identification of Gustavus as Berik rested on a mediaeval idea of the historic role of the Goths as liberators. The Goths were regarded almost as the chosen people in the biblical sense. As Lindroth noted, Bureus stressed the historic role of the Goths (Geats) in his insights about the pristine knowledge, which only Zalmoxis (Thracian Goth), Ramon Llull (Catalan Goth), Paracelsus (Swiss Goth) and Bureus (Scandinavian Goth) had revealed435. A nearly identical list is to be found on the cover of Antiqiitates Scanzianae436. As was clearly shown earlier, these sages were all presented as representatives of the Apollonian, Hyperborean wisdom of Uppsala. Secondly, Bureus’ reflections contain elements that were typical of not only early modern but mediaeval historiography. This is the domain in which the ideas Bureus developed are manifested as a curious combination of sacred and universal history. I am referring to the ideas of decay and the revival of a golden age as qualities of history. In my view, such mechanisms were based on a mixture 432 Åkerman 1998, 8, 12–15 (summary of the discussions). She elaborates the subject further in Chapter 1. On the Geatic propaganda in general, see: Lindroth 1975b, 249–257. 433 Johannes Magnus 1558, 46–51. 434 Nordström 1934b, 1–66; Hall 2000, 37–38; Grundberg 2006, 16 (the picture of Gustavus Adolphus as a Roman soldier sitting on the Throne of the Roman Empire). 435 Lindroth 1943, 100. 436 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. the inner cover: ‘Birger – Lagmadur Sveo. sim Tidas(unclear), Zoroaster – Sveo, Zamlhoxes – Gothus, Paracelsus – Switzer, Lullius – Gothalanus, Scaligeri – Gothi’. 90 of biblical and Platonist philosophy (that of the Neo-Platonist concept of history), whereas the latter notion came close to an idea from early modern historiography: the Four World Empires437. Bureus seems to have believed that the Lutheran Gothic Empire of Sweden had a historic role as the Last World Empire before the Second Coming. The visionary ideas of Gothic, Scythic and Hyperborean prophets as well as the Adulrunic wisdom played a role in this construction, especially after Bureus had received his mystical epiphany in 1613438. He was to be the chosen among the chosen, that is, the last prophet to commence the true restoration of the golden age439. One manifestation of this idea was the myth of emperor redivivus which Peter Bietenholz has studied in detail440. As he has pointed out, on occasion this idea was discussed in relation to the myths of Gog-Magog441. In the biblical prophecies about Gog-Magog, Israel would be destroyed when God (Yahweh) would unleash Gog, a prince from the Northern Land of Magog. The origin of using the myth in politico-theological connections was in the writings of classical and mediaeval scholars. The Jewish historian Josephus and the Church Father Ambrose identified the peoples of the Land of Magog with the Scythians and the Goths442. Bureus simply added the religious Hyperborean element to this, and gave evidence that proved the Geats (as a combination of Scythians, Goths, and Hyperboreans) were both “fortissimo” and “iustissimi”443. Bureus’ suggestion for identification of the Geats as the replacement of the people of Israel can be therefore explained as a typical Late Renaissance and mediaeval strategy of politico-theological historiography in which a nation was given a historic role to be the tool of God in sacred history. In the propagandistic sense, this could be an attempt to describe the Swedish king and his troops in their classical-biblical beatific sense, as the peaceful, beatific Hyperboreans – the Northern Israelites. 437 A complex idea referring to the prophecies in the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible. The early modern idea of the Fifth Monarchy took place in this millenarian framework. In general, see Grafton 2007, 167–173. He tells how Jean Bodin in his Methodus challenged the views of the Golden Age and Four World Empires, typical of the Protestant world histories. Landgren 2008, 25–43, 120f. 438 The idea of metempsychosis of the transmigration of the soul. The reincarnation may have been to Bureus a manifestation of a Geatic sage and king. This belief was of utmost heretic nature, but can be found from the Pythagorean tradition or the Hasidic Cabala (i.e. gilgul ha-neshamo) of the Askenazi Jews in Germany of that time. If Bureus was aware of the idea, is a matter of speculation. 439 Åkerman 1998, 125–173; Karlsson 2010, 241ff. 440 Bietenholz 1994, 121–126. See also Borchardt 1971, 17, 43–45: he uses the myth of the Imperium as a category common to Renaissance research of German antiquity. Asher 1993, 55, and Kendrick 1950, 8, 37, present similar practices in France and England. 441 Mentioned in Genesis, Books of Ezekiel and Revelation, but in fact, also in the Quran. 442 Bietenholz 1994, 121-122. 443 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 21, 23. I.e. ‘the most gallant and just’. 91  The American historian Borchardt has analysed this propagandistic proclamation of the idea of the revival of ancient empire within the context of the Renaissance research on German Antiquity. He has conclusively proved that it could be used in legitimising expansionary policy444, an idea that the French Postel also advanced445. In the case of Bureus, the idea of emperor redivivus combined with the territorial antiquarianism over the Baltic region provides a self-evident context for the rise of such views446. These ideas were not as outlandish to the early modern scholars as they might appear to a present-day student. Swedes, like any early modern European students, were educated in biblical (sacred) and universal history. Josephus was among the most studied authors447. Since Jonas Magni’s time as the Professor of Ethics (a combination of history, theology, and politics) in 1614 at the University of Uppsala, Swedish students learned biblical history as well as theories on the genealogy and historical significance of the Gothic kings, all of which involved the forefather of the Goths, Magog448. One example of this practice occurred during the funeral ceremony of Gustavus Adolphus in 1634. The archbishop of Sweden equated the deceased king with Judas Maccabeus, the second century BC Jewish warrior who fought against the “infidels”.449 The religious-political situation of that time was in a word, tumultuous. Some scholars gazed desperately into the skies looking for omens that would indicate the end of days. Bureus was one of them: he performed eschatological and astrological calculations in Antiqiitates Scanzianae450. The contexts of the calculations were comprised of the eschatological aspects of the Bible, such as for example, the idea of the Second Coming of the Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Some mediaeval and early modern scholars associated certain biblical prophecies with this idea, from which the concept of millenarianism derives451. The religiously dubious side of Bureus’ millenarian views were related to the prophecies of the Lion of the North, which were basically a synthesis of distinct esoteric-astrological predictions of a northern saviour made across Northern Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. 444 Borchardt 1971, 17, 43–45. 445 Asher 1994, 55–56. 446 See section 1.2.2. 447 Landgren 2008, 163–188. 448 Landgren 2008, 277–278. 449 About the funeral ceremony, Grundberg 2006, 27. 450 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. e.g. 37, 71, 184–186; See also Karlsson 2010, Chapter 15. 451 Åkerman 1998, 75ff, 210, 214; Karlsson 2010, 245f (the ideas of Joachim of Fiore); in a slightly different context of German and English research, see Borchardt 1971, 310. 92 Because of the excellence of Nordström’s and Åkerman’s previous work on the subject452, I have not analysed these prophecies453. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that these predictions, along with Bureus’ other religious-political views, can also be explained in the light of a specific historical philosophy. The Philosopher King and the Revival of the Golden Age The last part of this chapter focuses on elaborating further the nexus between royal power and the historical construction Bureus outlined mainly in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. The following example deals with the historical ideal of the kingship in Bureus’ runic Cabala and, furthermore, is linked with the esoteric interpretation of the emblem of the Three Crowns. As I showed earlier, Bureus interpreted the Scandinavian antiquity within a curious framework of the Christian Cabala. He saw the Three Crowns as the esoteric symbol of the beatific people of ancient Uppsala, who were portrayed as the Hyperboreans in the classical literature. This people had reached the religious level of the Hebrews in their Adulrunic theology, because “Samlhoxes” had given them the sacred laws. They had further affinity with the Hebrews through the Adulrunic principle of “Thor”, which was (for Bureus) etymologically related to the Hebrew term “Torah”. In addition, the emblem of the Three Crowns symbolised the Geatic trinity materialised in the runic symbols of Thor, Odhen and Frigg. The political significance of the Three Crowns was reflected in the three offices of the Overking of Uppsala (sacerdos, rex, and iudex). According to Bureus, Byrger Tidasson (the Rune Master Bureus fabricated) had revived the meaning of the emblem around classical Greek antiquity and used it in the division of the province of Uppland, or alternatively, the ancient Scandinavian Kingdoms454. The origin of this idea can be traced back to Antiqiitates Scanzianae, in which Bureus wrote that “Salmoxis”, the first postdiluvian Geatic sage, had read (alongside Plato) the antediluvian engravings of Hermes Trismegistos on a stone pillar455. Interestingly, when Bureus discussed Zalmoxis elsewhere in the manuscript, he adverted to him as a Rex Platonicus456, a concept with a long history in European politico-intellectual traditions. The origin of the concept of 452 In Sweden, see Nordström 1934b, passim; Åkerman 1998, passim; Karlsson 2010, Chapter 15. 453 Interestingly, just after the introduction of the prophetic qualities of the Hyperboreans, Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 20, analyses the emblem of ’Leo Scandziavs’. 454 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15; compare with the interpretation of Karlsson 2010, 145. 455 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 185. 456 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 213. He is presented as mediator of the true wisdom of Uppsala. 93 Rex Platonicus is closely related to that of the philosopher king in Plato’s work, The Republic. It was later elaborated by Augustine in his influential City of God, as he referred to Saint Paul accepting gentile philosophers. However, Bureus clearly interpreted Plato in the lines of the Italian Platonist, Marcilio Ficino who saw Plato above all else as a religious, theological writer457. For Bureus, Rex Platonicus also referred to something with Christian-Cabalistic content. He had studied the Cabalistic proclamation of Postel, but was also familiar with Pico and Reuchlin, whose ideas of the ideal ruler were associated with biblical examples. Recently, Melamed has demonstrated the Cabalistic- Platonist ideal of the king in the Late Renaissance, and demonstrated how it included such figures as Noah, Solomon, Abraham and Moses458. Thus, Bureus’ mentions of biblical figures in the introduction of Konunga Styrelse459 should be seen within the context of the philosopher king or the tradition of Rex Platonicus. The reflections in the last section of Antiqiitates Scanzianae strongly support this conclusion460. The international context and sources of inspiration of Bureus also reinforce the idea that he was constructing an ideal for a king within the framework of his Runic Cabala. In fact, Annius had already presented the postdiluvian antiquity in a similar manner. He described Noah, and later Saturn, as ideal rulers. More importantly, Annius introduced Tuiscon, the King of Sarmatae, who gave laws to the people in the postdiluvian years. Usually this law-giving also involved the religious, Druidic (“Platonic”) rites of the golden age, a subject which the Western (and Northern) European scholars of national antiquity studied keenly in the sixteenth and seventeenth century461. In this respect, Becanus and his views on the history of the Batavian Kimbri as the Hyperboreans can be used as a point of reference. He discussed a group of ancient theologians as rulers in the last pages of his account of the Hyperboreans462. He wrote of Silenus, a mythical classical figure known for his drunkenness and wisdom. In Orphic Hymns Silenus was mentioned as a tutor of Orpheus, and at times related to Midas, the famous King of Phrygia463. Becanus, 457 Walker 1972a, 9–12. 458 Melamed 2003, passim; but especially Melamed 2003, 122ff. He discusses the ideas of the Philosopher- King of the Jewish scholar Yohanan Alemanno (ca. 1435–1504), born in Constantinople, but ended up teaching Cabala (which he saw as ‘Divine Magic’) to Giovanni Pico in Florence. Bureus referred to Pico, Reuchlin and Postel in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, albeit it was not his most Cabalistic text. 459 Moses and the Idolatry of wicked people, David teaching Solomon in Chron. 29:9. 460 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 213–214. 461 Annius 1552, 27ff, 32; Annius 1993, 199ff, 205. See ‘Historical Background’ in my Introduction. 462 Becanus 1569, 1022ff. 463 The Orphic Hymn LIII To Silenus, Satyrus, and the Priestesses of Bacchus. 94 believing in the authenticity of the concealed wisdom of the Orphic texts, emphasised Silenus as one of the “perennial philosophers”. As part of this, he adverted to the myth of Midas and his golden touch. Becanus interpreted the golden touch of Midas as a symbol of good government, which Plato later described in his concept of the philosopher king. Becanus’ ultimate purpose was to prove that Silenus, Midas’ teacher, was of Kimbrian origin and had possessed crumbs of the pristine (Platonic) wisdom464. Bureus commented on this idea in the margins of Becanus’ work, writing “Plato said, where”465. Bureus also cited Becanus in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, proving he had the Dutchman’s ideas in mind while reflecting on the nature of the Hyperborean Apollonian wisdom of Orpheus and Latona (Leto) in this text466. This idea of the political philosophy of the Rex Platonicus can be elaborated further by analysing some other views contained in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. Bureus argued that the emblem of the Three Crowns had symbolised the three offices of the Geatic Overking as king, priest and judge (rex, sacerdos and iudex)467. It is therefore possible that, for Bureus, the esoteric-political contents of the emblem were a manifestation of the biblical-Platonic ideal of the king. Since the pristine knowledge of Adam entailed Platonist undertones for Bureus (and Becanus), it indicates that he perceived the Geatic Overkings, who had been familiar with this knowledge, as Reges Platonici. Logically, this entailed that they also operated as kings, priests, and legislators of the monarchy. Whether Bureus presented this kind of idea to Gustavus Adolphus is a different matter, but it is easy to see the advantages of such an idea from the monarch’s perspective. If the philosopher king concept is examined within the intellectual-political context of the Late Renaissance, it can be claimed that the idea was affiliated to another prevailing concept governing the study of the early history of the world: the golden age468. Some early modern scholars had detected resemblances between the myths of the classical or Near-Eastern peoples and those of the Bible469. The foremost classical manifestation of the idea was the works of Hesiod. In Theogonia, for instance, Hesiod outlined the history of the Greek gods as well as the monstrous Titans and Gigantes in the golden and silver ages. The Roman poet Ovid familiarised this notion, whereas Virgil presented a new 464 Becanus 1569, 1022ff. 465 Bureus–Becanus 1569, 1022, ‘Dictum Platonis, unde’. 466 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 19. 467 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 11. 468 Bietenholz 1994, e.g. 207, and the whole chapter Genealogy and the Myth of the Golden Age. 469 Allen 1949, 114–115. 95 interpretation of it. Virgil identified the era of the divine Emperor Augustus as the beginning of the revival of the golden age, and situated the golden age in the future with his prediction of the Child that would restore an era of peace and harmony470. Moreover, Seneca, the Roman philosopher, stressed the idea in relation to the tradition of Platonism. He portrayed King Posidonius, who had travelled to Gaul to learn the doctrines of religion from the Druids, a detail appreciated by early modern French historians471. Bietenholz has noticed that the early modern scholars tended to combine Plato’s ideas on the philosopher king with the pristine knowledge of the Druids into a coherent ancient tradition of the rulers of the golden age472. The manner in which Bureus tried to appropriate the traditions of Druids (with other Northern European scholars) to prove high theological level of ancient Scandinavian priests has been discussed earlier473. Bietenholz also showed how the Hyperboreans belonged to the same tradition, in which the golden age is situated either in the peripheral areas of the world or the remote antiquity474, and furthermore, that it was articulated frequently in different learned discussions of the Renaissance: It [the idea of a golden age] is present everywhere in many versions and disguises, evoked under its own name or associated with other mythical loci such as Elysium, the Parnassus, Arcadia, Atlantis the abodes of the Hesperides and the Hyperboreans […] It was seen either proudly as a goal to be achieved in the near future, if not indeed already accomplished, or as a remote ideal to be held against a sadly inadequate reality.475 The idea of the restoration of the Geatic golden age which Bureus had now revived or, in an analytical sense, reconstructed, is not an impossible thought when considered alongside the Postel and de la Boderie’s ideas of cyclic history, as well as the ideal kings of the golden age of Saturn in Annius’ Antiquities476. Also, the millenarian ideas of the time that rested on Christian mysticism have a similar connection to the restoration of the golden age in the form of the Fifth 470 Åkerman 1998, 1, 33, 56, mentioned this cyclical aspect of the idea of recurrent golden age in Bureus’ (and other early modern scholars’) writings. 471 Walker 1972a, Chapter III. 472 Bietenholz 1994, 210. 473 In section 1.1.2. See also the background in Allen 1949, 117f. 474 Bietenholz 1994, 210 n59, refers to Piggott 1960. 475 Bietenholz 1994, 297. 476 Annius 1552, 34; Annius 1993, 205. 96 Monarchy, following its Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman equivalents477. This framework explains the later propaganda of the Gothic Berik and the idea of the Four World Empires along with the millenarian proclamation of Bureus. The practical applications of Bureus’ ideas are yet to be fully revealed, although Åkerman has made some progress478. However, as Karlsson has suggested, some of Bureus’ ideas were too intricate (and dangerous, in my view) for contemporaneous and subsequent scholars, if viewed in the context of the Hyperborean research tradition. Visionary, millenarian ideas of a Gothic world empire or revived Hyperborean wisdom disappeared with Bureus, at least from discussions of Swedish antiquity. The shift in the intellectual, political and religious atmosphere after the Thirty Years’ War and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 might explain this disappearance479. 1.4 Summary For Bureus, classical accounts of the Hyperboreans bore witness to the high civilisation of the ancients of Uppsala. He identified the Hyperboreans with the Geats of Johannes Magnus, which encompassed Goths, Scythians and the Thracian Getae. According to Bureus, domestic antiquities, predominantly the runic alphabet in Scandinavian runestones, explained the main elements of the accounts. In his description of the esoteric runic Cabala of the people of Uppsala, he argued that the Greeks and Western Europeans had received aspects of their civilisation from Northerners. Their characteristics can be interpreted within the Late Renaissance intellectual traditions of prisca theologia and philosophia perennis. The more general principles of the esoteric antiquarianism of Bureus entailed a belief in a pristine period or golden age during which the world was in an unspoiled and highly sophisticated state. The general methodological approach of Bureus to ancient history drew from the “politicised” antiquarian tradition in which strategies such as etymological and mythological comparisons, as well as royal genealogies and euhemerisms, 477 Champlin 1910, 722ff, a comparative example from England of the mid-seventeenth century. See also in the case of early modern scholarship in general: Grafton 2007, 176–180. 478 Karlsson 2010, passim; Åkerman 2013, passim. 479 Foucault 1988, 151–152. Michel Foucault has made an interesting suggestion related to the matter. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the idea of the return of Christ was an important constituent of political philosophy. This led to a belief that all nations would be unified under one Empire, i.e. the reconstituted Roman Empire, before Christ’s return. As the example of Bureus and other scholars show, the idea was still present in some form in the political-theological philosophy of the Reformation prior to the Treaty of Westphalia. 97 were rife. His genealogical and etymological derivations were components of a strategy of minimising the role of classical peoples to glorify the Northern Europeans. In this sense, Bureus continued the historiographical trends of the Late Renaissance manifested specifically in the research of Annius of Viterbo, the Germans Celtis and Aventinus, and the French Postel and de la Boderie, to whose studies he referred. Bureus was very connected with the political and scholarly elite of his time. His ideas of the Hyperboreans cannot be fully understood without knowing the contemporary political circumstances. Some of Bureus’ ideas of fabulous antiquity were designed to be used in politico-emblematic and territorial contexts in Sweden and the Baltics. The emphasis Bureus frequently put on the pious (legislative) and beatific (theological) nature of the Hyperboreans, rather than any belligerent Gothicism, can be seen as part of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus’ agendas to historically justify the Swedish presence in the new provinces. The apex of the esoteric-political antiquarianism of Bureus was the revival of the idea of the pristine knowledge of the ancient Hyperborean Geats of Uppsala. This took place during the Thirty Years’ War, when Bureus, by combining elements from the prophecies of the Lion of the North, his millenarian ideas of the revival of the sacred Hyperborean wisdom and the historic role of the chosen Geats (Goths), proclaimed that a new golden age was looming. The golden age never came true. Nonetheless, some of Bureus’ unique views were elaborated further by his followers later in the seventeenth century. 98 2 Georg Stiernhielm & Olaus Verelius: The Development of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1640–1680 2.1 Stiernhielm and the Hyperboreans Georg Stiernhielm480 (1598–1672), a pupil of Johannes Bureus, was the next scholar to discuss the Hyperboreans in connection with Swedish antiquity. Stiernhielm, who was also a typical early modern polyhistor, treated the subject in his diverse published and unpublished writings481. Stiernhielm’s reflections on the Hyperboreans have been explained previously within the context of early modern European historical linguistics482. It will be argued below that, although philological discussions feature strongly in his analyses of the Hyperboreans, one should not exclude other intellectual and political contexts. One reason for this is that Stiernhielm was likely inspired by the Antiqiitates Scanzianae of Bureus, an observation recognised, but not systematically studied, in the preceding research483. Therefore, in addition to the historical linguistics and the importance of Bureus for Stiernhielm, the following analysis focuses on some new elements Stiernhielm brought to the topic. 2.1.1 The Hyperboreans in Stiernhielm’s Historical-Linguistics The Nexus of Geography and Etymology Stiernhielm reflected on the Hyperboreans in several manuscripts, notably the Runa Suetica484. This unfinished manuscript was, according to Nordström and 480 Originally Georg Olai Lilja. He married Cecilia Burea, a daughter of Andreas Bureus. 481 Nordström 1924, passim. Stiernhielm was familiar with the ideas of Giordano Bruno and Bacon. See Nordström 1924, CCXIXff. The latter he had met in Stockholm. Stiernhielm was intrigued by the Hermetic tradition, the Neo-Platonist, Moysaic and Perennial Philosophies. 482 Burke 2004, 23–25. 483 Lindroth 1943, 481–484; Åkerman 1998, 59, both noted that Stiernhielm’s Runa Suetica relied on Bureus’ Antiqiitates Scanzianae. See also Nordström 1975, 122, n78–n79. 484 Regarding the dating of Stiernhielm’s unpublished writings, see Lindroth 1910, 24–28. Runa Sueticas are published in Schück 1933a, 129–131. There are two versions of the manuscript, one in Stockholm with handwritten notes, Cod. Holm. F.d. 5, and other in Uppsala: U.B. Palmsk. 356. In this thesis, the both manuscripts are referred as Runa Suetica. The work was ready around 1645 and printed in 1651. See, Åkerman 1991, 92. It appears to me though, that it must have been commented after 1646, for Stiernhielm’s handwritten notes include Bochart’s Geographia Sacra (published in 1646). 99 Åkerman, a table of contents of the major work of historical linguistics that Stiernhielm planned. This assumption is plausible, for the author appears to have valued the initial work highly, as witnessed by him sending a printed version to the Royal Society of London and linguistic scholars on the Continent. Hence, although his reflections were not published, they were printed and familiar to the circles of Swedish and European intellectuals485. On top of this, Stiernhielm wrote of the Hyperboreans in miscellaneous unpublished manuscripts on the history of language486, which he likely utilised in the later printed writings. Within the context of the developing Hyperborean research tradition, the single most important of Stiernhielm’s manuscripts was De Hyperboreis Dissertatio487. Early modern antiquarian discourses run through the manuscript. One trigger for composing the manuscript came from outside Sweden; it was the antiquarian work of Philippus Cluverius (1580–1622), Germaniae antiquae libri tres (1616), to which Bureus had previously referred488. Cluverius had a reputation as a reliable author because of his travels in the areas he described489, and this study was frequently cited in seventeenth century Europe490. As Löw noted already a century ago, from Stiernhielm’s viewpoint, Cluverius’ views were problematic with respect to the origin of the Goths and the location of Hyperborea. Cluverius did not credit Sweden, and his tone regarding the historical work of Johannes Magnus was unfriendly491. Recently, Krebs has proven that Cluverius’ views were based largely on Tacitus, as he referred to Tuisto/Tuiscon (the ancestor of the Germans) as Teuto, and otherwise bestowed the Germans a fabulous antiquity characteristic of that time492. In regard to the Hyperboreans, Cluverius’ maps and comments show that he believed the land was situated in north-west Russia. Such conceptions shared insights with the Sarmatian tradition, which Bureus had criticised493. In a sense, as Krebs has argued, Cluverius revived the Annian-Tacitean tradition in Germany494, and, in 485 Nordström 1934a, n81–84; Åkerman 1998, 59. 486 Stiernhielm’s historical-linguistic manuscripts at the Kungliga Biblioteket in Stockholm: Cod. Holm. F.d. 11–13; Cod. Holm. F.d. 14.a; Cod. Holm. F.d. 21; Cod. Holm. F.d. 14. 487 The unpublished manuscript of Stiernhielm was later edited and published by Johan Hadorph. It will be referred to as Stiernhielm 1685. In my view, the differences between the unpublished and published versions are not that significant. Thus, I have used the published version. 488 Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886, Apr. 15, 1625. 489 Krebs 2011, 136. On travels in antiquarianism: Widenberg 2006, 93–100; Vine 2010, Chapter 5. 490 Krebs 2011, 136–139. 491 Löw 1908, 55n2. 492 Krebs 2011, 136–139. 493 Cluverius 1631, 5–16; Tabula I & Tabula II. The history of German(ic) peoples and northerners (e.g. Suevi and Gothi) in Cap VII–XI. On Guagnino see section 1.1.1. 494 Krebs 2011, 136ff. 100 my view, presented it within the context of overlapping discussions of philology and antiquarian research. In De Hyperboreis Dissertatio, Stiernhielm discussed the Hyperboreans in the light of the same sources as Bureus, including the accounts of Diodorus and Pliny the Elder. Stiernhielm also used the domestic antiquities, but compared with Bureus he stressed the Old Norse writings – the Eddic and Skaldic Poetry, as well as the Icelandic sagas – rather than the runestones or the runic alphabet495. On the other hand, Stiernhielm interpreted the “antiquissimis historiis nostriis”496 in the same way as Bureus, Annius, Becanus, Postel and de la Boderie. As stated earlier, they all explained the varied “ancient” writings or hieroglyphs, such as runes in the case of Bureus497, as echoes of the sacred history of the Bible. Stiernhielm (and Bureus) was mostly unaware of the influence of Christianity on Skaldic and Eddic poetry498, so he took them to be authentic sources of antiquity. It will be demonstrated that this belief in the Old Norse writings as genuine sources that rested on oral traditions deriving from antiquity was a sine qua non of the rise (and a century later, once their value was challenged) of the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition. On the basis of comparisons between the “ancient” Northern writings and classical literature, Stiernhielm argued that the accounts of the Hyperboreans “were not a fable”499. According to him, the reason most classical writers studying the question had not recognised the resemblances between Scandinavia and Hyperborea arose from a misconception: they portrayed Hyperborea as an island, which had led later scholars to dismiss Scandinavia as a possible location. This originated in the poor knowledge the classical authors had of the region, which Stiernhielm put down to the natural and linguistic circumstances. The fact that Scandinavia was a peninsula had escaped them as well500. Stiernhielm thought that other classical myths of terrae incognitae portrayed occurrences, place names and persons from ancient Scandinavia501. He provided examples of this obscurity in classical writings by comparing place names in the 495 Stiernhielm 1685, 140, 144, 155, 163. Diodorus and Odin are also mentioned in the handwritten margins of Runa Suetica 1.14, and in Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.21. 10–11. 496 Stiernhielm 1685, 144–147. 497 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15–19. 498 Lindow 2001, Chapters 1–2, explains the most recent results related to the history of the Norse literature and their links to mediaeval historiography. In the 13th century, Snorri (the Prosaic Edda) presented a biblical-classical (Trojan) origin of Odin by portraying him as a euhemerised king. 499 Stiernhielm 1685, 142. 500 Runa Suetica, 1.10–13; Stiernhielm 1685, 129–135. 501 Runa Suetica, 1.13–14; Stiernhielm 1685, 139, 145–147. 101 Old Norse writings with the classical “equivalents”. He argued, for instance, that “Helixoia”, a place Heracles had visited, could be identified with a real place on the Norwegian coast called “Heligsö”. The Greek word was an echo of the original Northern variant, which the classical Greeks had again, though quite understandably, misinterpreted502. To Stiernhielm, the etymological and the phonetic form of many geographical terms verified an ancient connection between Scandinavia and the Mediterranean. In De Hyperboreis Dissertatio, Stiernhielm located such half-mythical places as Abydos, Acheron, Basileia, Balthia and Outermost Scythia in ancient Scandinavia. Of these place names, the most important was Scythia. Like Bureus earlier, Stiernhielm was certain that the Scythians could be identified with the Hyperboreans503. In his reflections however, the Scythians had a specific linguistic significance, as I discuss below. The Scythian Language, the Original Language? Although Stiernhielm shared with some of his contemporaries a critical attitude towards a recklessly patriotic use of etymology in research on ancient history, he was not always able to avoid it himself504. As argued above, Stiernhielm was interested in the circumstances of the development of the early languages505 and paid attention to the theories on the original language (protolanguages)506. According to him, Outermost Scythia was one of the classical names of Scandinavia and thus, the Scythian or Scythic language adverted to the speakers of ancient Scandinavian, that is to say, Geatic language. Stiernhielm’s belief in original language is exemplified for instance, in his etymological comparisons between several ancient languages in Runa Suetica. He concluded that ancient Hebrew names such as God, Adam and Eve were almost identical to their equivalents in Scythian language (which Stiernhielm called “Svethica”)507. 502 Stiernhielm 1685, 131. One account of the connection between Helixoia and the Hyperboreans living there was derived from Hecataeus. It was cited by Euhemerus and Diodorus. 503 Stiernhielm 1685, 130–134. He used Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, and Ptolemy as sources, and pointed to the notion of the Rhipaean Mountains as the Doffrafiel by Olaus Magnus and the map of Ortelius. 504 Runa Suetica, 2.2, Stiernhielm says that: ‘Tradit Observationes & Axiomata, quæ proprie spectant ad Scientiam hanc novam Etymologicam.’ The European background, see Considine 2008, 244. 505 This is deducible from Runa Suetica and the prior manuscript Georgii Stiernhielm, Magog aramæo-gothicus serenissimæ reginæ Svecorum Gothornmq́ ;(!) Christinæ, Gustavi Magni f., dedicates [ca. 1643], as well as Cod. Holm. F.d.14a. 1–8. 506 Considine 2008, 307ff. 507 Runa Suetica, 1.20. ‘Voce Adamæas, cujus generis sunt Adam, Eva, Cain, Seth, Noah & c.quas pro antiquitate linguæ Hebrææ, vulgo, ejus Assertores adducunt; non minus Scythicas, imò Svethicas esse magis, quàm Hebræas.’ Comp. with Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 97. ‘Scythica’ into ‘Svethica’. 102  Whether Stiernhielm thought that “Swedish Scythian” was the language closest to the original language is hard to say. He seems to have accepted Bureus’ notions expressed in Antiqiitates Scanzianae of the emblematic nature of the ancient Hebrew alphabet and the phonetic similarity between the Scythian and Hebrew names508. In my view, this suggests that Stiernhielm, too, thought that the original language and the pristine tradition of theology were reflected in the runic alphabet (a question I will discuss later). It appears that Stiernhielm indeed saw the Scythian (Japhetic) language as one of the closest variants of the original language509, a reasonably common idea in those days. One of Stiernhielm’s sources of inspiration was a work called Geographia Sacra (1646) by the French scholar Samuel Bochart (1599–1667), who argued that the ancient Phoenicians had been the early colonisers of Europe. His theory was founded on comparisons of the names of ancient geography in distinct languages and sources. Bochart believed that Moses was the most reliable author in this regard because he had based his account on oral and written traditions as well as the divine revelation; thus, the geographical place names of classical writings should be verified through Genesis510. There are certain facts suggesting that Stiernhielm applied Bochart’s theory on Phoenician place names within the context of Ancient Swedish (Scythic)511. At the same time, if the frame of interpretation is extended, it can be asked if the notion of original language is articulated in Stiernhielm’s text in the first place. It appears that he deemed the original language to have been an ideal language that had never existed in reality512; ancient Scythian, Hebrew and so forth were but dialects or derivatives of this “ideal”, constructed language513. In fact, Stiernhielm was among the first Swedish scholars to subscribe to theories of the natural development of languages and dialects. A French scholar, Claudius 508 A mention to Cabala in Runa Suetica, 1.26. ‘Deorum Nomina, pleraque omnium Gentium, origine esse Scythica, & in illis Sanctum Dei Nomen Tetragammaton [Hebrew signs] Origine esse Scythicum, nec ullum hactenus Hebraeum aut Cabalistam [...]’; the Adulrunic contemplations which Bureus develops in Bureus F.a.3. 29ff. also Åkerman 1991, 91ff. has proven that Stiernhielm was familiar with the idea of his teacher’s Adulruna. See Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15ff, 190ff. 509 Runa Suetica 1.6–7. E.g. in the handwritten notes: ’Scythicam intelligo linguam Primam Noachidas’. ‘Scythian in my mind was the first language of the Noachides’. 510 Bietenholz 1994, 232–235; Parry 1995, Chapter 11; Kendrick 1950, 132–133. 511 Firstly, Bochart was invited to Stockholm by Queen Christina. Stiernhielm, the Poet Laureate of Christina has likely discussed these matters with Bochart in the court. Secondly, Bochart’s name is (handwritten) in the margins of Runa Suetica. 512 Burke 2004, 19ff, the chapter on the ideas of the history of language. 513 Runa Suetica 1.4. ‘Hebræam, Phœniciam, Chaldeam, Syram, Arabicam, Ægyptiam, Æthiopicam, Phrygiam, Persicam, Dialectorum, non linguarum esse vocamina.’; 1.5. ‘Temporum, & Locorum intervallis, Dialectos abire in Linguas’; Runa Suetica 1.18–19, 1.26; Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 190ff. 103 Salmasius (1588–1653), had introduced a similar theory. He believed that the Greek, Germanic, Indic and Persian languages derived from a common Northern, Scythic protolanguage514, which recalls, and has been argued to have entailed, early ideas of the modern concept of the Indo-European language515. Not unlike Bureus, Stiernhielm thought that the speakers of the Scythian language had been ancient Northerners and all Western Europeans from the Scandinavian to the Iberian Peninsula516. Whether he saw the spread of the Scythian language as part of the migrations of the early Northerners in general cannot be deduced from his unfinished manuscripts. In any case, for Stiernhielm the ancient Swedes were the people speaking the northern Scythian language517. In the postdiluvian centuries, he believed, this people had resided in an area called Outermost Scythia or Scythia Minor. Stiernhielm belonged, therefore, to the same group of scholars that emphasised the “Japhetic-Scythian” language within the tradition of Gothic or rather, Geatic history518. It is interesting how modern historiography and the linguistic disciplines have depicted these theories as antecedents of the Indo-European hypothesis, given that the theory of Japhetic language is predominantly a late mediaeval construction. Thus, in addition to Humanistic elements, the Hyperborean research tradition still contained ideas of mediaeval historiography. Stiernhielm’s ideas of the Hyperboreans as Scandinavian Geats speaking the Northern Scythian language were an important contributor to the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition. However, one should not fail to recognise the paramount importance of Bureus’ ideas in it. In particular, Bureus’ idea of Hyperborean “Boreades” as original Bards, as reflected in the runic term “Bord” or “Börd” had a powerful impact on Stiernhielm’s theories. Stiernhielm viewed the Celtic people (Gauls included) as part of the same “linguistic group” as the Scythians whom he, interestingly, also identified with the Germans, that is to say, 514 Runa Suetica 1.8–9, in the margins (Salmasius). On Salmasius, see Dekker 1999, 62ff, 228ff; Campbell 2007, electronic, Chapter 4.1. ‘The Scythian hypothesis and the notion of Indo-European’. Salmasius is best known for quarrelling with another Leyden-Professor, the Dutchman, Daniel Heinsius (1580–1655), with whose work and editions of classical writings Stiernhielm was acquainted. Even Salmasius and Heinsius visited the court of Christina. 515 Campbell 2007, electronic, Chapter 4.1. ‘The Scythian hypothesis and the notion of Indo-European’. 516 Runa Suetica, 1.6–7. ‘Ex Scythica ortas Linguas Primas, non minus Orintales, quam Semptentrionales, & Occidentales; Thraces & Getas fuisse Scythas’; 1.10. ‘Scytharum propaginem praæterea esse Europeos; Germanos, Gallos, Iberos, Britannos, Aborigines, sive Vmbros, primos Italiæ incolas. Hisce omnibus unam Linguam fuisse Scythicam, in varias Dialectos post modum scissam.’ 517 He uses the term also in De Hyperboreis Dissertatio: Stiernhielm 1685, 135. 518 Burke 2004, 25; the similarity with the Adamaic German or Kimbrian language (Becanus) in the earlier German and Dutch research of historical linguistics here, is striking. See Dekker 1999, passim. 104 the speakers of Germanic languages. As he analysed the name “Galazia”, he stated: “Hyperborei sunt Galli boreales, hoc est Germani”519. In addition, Stiernhielm echoed the views of the German scholars Aventinus and his adversary Cluverius on the German origin of the Druids and Celtic people (note that Bureus had already subscribed to this popular theory520). When the chronological and genealogical context is considered, it becomes clear that Stiernhielm thought that the purest form of Scythian language was preserved among the people of Magog, the son of Japheth, the first forefather of the “Swedish Geats”, who was also the first Odin521. Hence, most European languages derived from it522. In this respect, the ancient Thracians, Getae, and logically the Hyperboreans, were speakers of a Northern Scythian language523. This corroborates my prior argument that Stiernhielm identified the Hyperboreans with the generic term Geats, encompassing thereby the Goths, Scythians, and Getae whose original home was the Uppsala region. Stiernhielm’s views were clearly developed within the domestic tradition of Johannes and Olaus Magnus as well as Ericus Olai. In fact, Johannes Magnus had already presented in his historical work a notion of Scythians (after Herodotus, who situated them adjacent to the Hyperboreans) being linguistically Swedish (Geats)524. Stiernhielm believed that the accounts of the Hyperboreans were important classical descriptions of the ancient Scandinavian civilisation in the Uppsala region, i.e. the Geatic people of “Northern Scythia”. He argued that the proper term for the people classical Greeks had called the Hyperboreans would be “Outermost Northerners”. By this Stiernhielm appears to be asserting that the Swedish (Scythian) terms525 were the origin of the Greek “Hyperboreás”. Becanus had previously ridiculed such an explanation526, but it struck a chord in the following Swedish discussions. Stiernhielm’s idea rested on the assumption of the preservation of the terms of the Scythian language in the Greek, Norse and German myths. Eddic-Greek place name such as “Heligsö” (“Elysium”, “Helixoia”), for instance, are found in both mythologies and once signified the 519 Stiernhielm 1685, 138. ‘The Hyperboreans are Northern Gaul, which is German’. 520 See Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 170. 521 E.g. Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.14a. 522 Runa Suetica, 1.6–7. ‘Ex Scythica ortas Linguas Primas, non minus Orintales, quam Semptentrionales, & Occidentales; Thraces & Getas fuisse Scythas’. This idea was typical of the mediaeval myths of origin. 523 Also Salmasius equated e.g, Goths with Getae seeing the transformation as a historical process. 524 Johannes Magnus 1558, 21–22. ‘Scytha lingua Gothica sagittarium peritum designat.’ 525 Stiernhielm 1685, 138. ‘Ytternorske & Öwfer-Nordlingar’. 526 Becanus 1569, 1012. 105 Holy (Blessed) Island527. In Stiernhielm’s view, the same pattern could be used in the analysis of ancient religion and in particular, the names of the ancient god- kings of Scandinavia. 2.1.2 The Hyperboreans and the Ancient Scandinavian Civilisation Odin and the Ancient Religion of Scandinavia Like Bureus, Stiernhielm applied euhemerisms in his interpretations of the divinities of the “ancient” writings of the non-Christian civilisations. Stiernhielm was particularly interested in Odin528. After he had become aware of a new source on Odin, “the northern mythology, called Edda”529, Stiernhielm compared the data of these Eddic myths with the classical accounts of the Hyperboreans530. In some Eddic poems, Odin is portrayed as a one-eyed god travelling with an eight-legged horse, Sleipnir. According to Stiernhielm, the characteristics of Sleipnir and the swan-chariot of the Hyperborean Apollon in the classical Greek myths were too similar to be coincidental. In addition, he associated Odin’s description as one- eyed with “the eye in the sky”, i.e. the sun, as Apollon represented for the Greeks and Osiris for the Egyptians531. On top of Apollon and Osiris, Odin was for him the same god the Greeks had called Zeus, the Romans Juppiter (Iovis), the Phrygians Attyn and the Tuscans532 (Annius’ Etruscans) Aesir.533 In other words, for Stiernhielm the uniformity in the writings of most ancient peoples, among whom he included the Scandinavian Scythians (Geats), bore witness to a coherent religion in the classical world. Although the idea of the myriad ancient manifestations of Odin/Apollon was presented in a systematic manner in De Hyperboreis Dissertatio, it becomes fully comprehensible only against the template of Runa Suetica: the Scythian language was the oldest in the world, which had flourished among the Hyperboreans in the 527 In Swedish ‘helig’ (‘holy’, ‘blessed’), the -s is genitive and ‘ö’ signifies ‘island’. 528 Cod. Holm.F.d.21. De Othino (Afskrift). The study is in Swedish but also a Latin version exists in the Royal Library of Stockholm (Kungliga Biblioteket). 529 E.g. Stiernhielm Cold. Holm. F.d.21. 6; Stiernhielm 1685, 158. ‘…Mythologia Borealium, quam Edda vocant […]’ – ‘The Northern Mythology which is called as the Edda’. 530 Stiernhielm 1685, 136ff. It consists of comments on the account of Diodorus Siculus II.47ff. 531 Stiernhielm also noted that these gods had links to the myths of afterlife and underworld. 532 His sources were Annius and Postel, to whom he refers in the unpublished writings. 533 Stiernhielm 1685, 137, 158; 161; check also Cod. Holm. F.d. 21. De Othino. 106 North. The migrations of these Geats534 from the Orient to the North occurred after the Flood, and subsequently some people migrated back to the Continent and the Mediterranean535. Because the classical Greeks had received the cult of Apollon from the Hyperboreans and Abaris536, it indicated that they were among the last nations to practise monotheistic worship of a sun-god. Stiernhielm seems to have thought that Odin/Attyn was the oldest etymological variant of this god’s name537. If this is the case, it would imply that he interpreted the Northern Scythian language as being the nearest to the original Adamaic one, for the Hebrew equivalents of Odin/Attyn/Apollon/Baal are substantially different from the Scythian form of the names538. Stiernhielm also compared the names of other gods in the Eddic poems and the accounts of the Hyperboreans. He concentrated on Frigg and Thor, the other prime gods of the Aesir family539. The wife of Odin, Frigg was interpreted as a variant of the Hyperborean Leto/Latona, and, additionally, compared with the Oriental–Mediterranean mother-goddess Cybele540. As in the case of the first Odin (Japheth), Stiernhielm allowed the possibility that the Aesir were of Phrygian (Scythic–Aramaic) origin and that they had left traces of the languages of that region before they had reached Scandinavia541. Stiernhielm composed a short study of Thor in which he analysed his ancient manifestations and concluded (in the light of Old Norse writings) that this god-king may have played a role in Trojan history542. Stiernhielm reflected likewise in his unpublished manuscripts on the origin of the goddess Freya543. She was identified with the Greek mother-goddess, Rhea, Egyptian Isis and the Greco-Roman Aphrodite/Venus. Sometimes Stiernhielm seems to have considered that some kind of father and mother divinities had 534 I.e. the Geats of Uppsala that worshipped Apollon were speaking the Northern Scythian language and were known as the Hyperboreans among the Greeks. 535 Stiernhielm 1685, 135, 158–160, (the description of Odin). 536 Stiernhielm 1685, 161. 537 Stiernhielm 1685, 157ff. Odin as a representative of the Northern Scythian language that is. 538 A view traceable to the manuscript of Bureus Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 32ff, 127. 539 Frigg or Frigga, Goddess, wife of Odin and mother of Balder; Thor, the son of Odin and the destroyer of the Giants and divinity of thunder. 540 Cybele, i.e. the Phrygian origin Mother-Goddess with Earth-Mountain epithets. 541 Considine 2008, 244; Åkerman 1991, 92, told Stiernhielm started this in his Magog arameo- gothicus (1643), but also Cod. Holm. F.d.14a. in which he discussed the “Scythica-Aramaca” and the sons of Noah. In Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 126ff; on how Bureus thought the Scythian names of Thor and Odin. He has mentioned Thor as the ‘Scythian Pappa’, i.e “Scythian Father” after the work of an Italian Gregorius Gyraldus, De Deis Gentium (1554), which is interesting in relation to Stiernhielm’s idea of “Fadur”, “Father” as a sign (the first rune) of the oldest names of the Scythic language. 542 Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d. 14. a. 27ff (De Thorro), 8–16 (on the Hyperboreans). 543 The Norse goddess of love, fertility, and beauty. She was a member of the Vanir-family. 107 existed among the ancient Scythian nations: Odin/Attyn/Apollon/Osiris was the father, whereas the mother was either Leto/Latona, identified with Frigg/Cybele, or Freya/Rhea/Venus/Isis. In addition, he made an interesting remark about Frigg and Freya, suggesting that they were both fertility-divinities whose names originated in the Swedish word for “seed”, “Frö”.544 It is important to understand that although Stiernhielm had new Old Norse sources which he used to identify the Norse gods with the classical equivalents and derive the classical names from the “Northern originals”, the framework of the practice was similar to that displayed in the reflections of Bureus, and therefore Aventinus and Annius545. The linguistic side of the views of Stiernhielm represented the Neo-Platonist concept of history, an intellectual tradition of early modern historiography, which I have constructed to capture the underlying “philosophy” of the most patriotic traditions of early modern study of national histories. As was argued earlier in the case of Bureus, in this tradition the origin was seen as pristine, which is why Stiernhielm tried to convince the reader of the antiquity of the Old Norse writings and hence the civilisation they portrayed. As previously noted, in the neo-Platonist concept of history the Old Testament was interpreted as the pristine source to which the other more or less blurred “ancient” writings should be compared (in the sense that the further the source was from the origin, more blurred was the information about the event in it). This concept of history features in Stiernhielm’s comparisons between certain Eddic poems and the Bible. In one of Stiernhielm’s unpublished manuscripts, the son of Noah, Japheth, is identified with Odin and the mythical forefather of Germans, Tuiscon546. This identification also links Stiernhielm to the Tacitean- Annian tradition547 of Celtis, Trithemius, Aventinus548 and, most importantly, the observations of the German Cluverius549. In this connection, another interesting passage in his unpublished writings on ancient languages is a mention of the academy of the Druids that existed soon after the Flood. In a similar manner to his teacher Bureus, Stiernhielm identified the Druids with Bards (Boreades) and affiliated them with the ancient Scandinavians on the basis of the classical 544 Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.21. 9–10. 545 As in the section 1.1.3. 546 Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.21. 7ff, but mentioned repeatedly in his other manuscripts as well. See also Annius 1552, Lib. IV, Tuiscon was the fourth son of Noah. 547 Krebs 2011, 98–104. 548 A Pseudo-Tacitean tradition: Borchardt 1971, 16, 89–91; see also section 1.1.2. The name of Aventinus is written in the margins of Runa Suetica & Stiernhielm 1685, 138 (printed margin). 549 Krebs 2011, 137–139. 108 accounts of the Hyperboreans550. Stiernhielm therefore considered the possibility that not only were there similarities between the distinct ancient Scythian peoples across Europe, but that the people of the Uppsala region were alone in preserving remnants of the pristine religion of Noah and Adam. Most importantly, Stiernhielm interpreted the Geatic trinity, Odin, Thor and Frigg/Freya, as both mythological-theological and historical figures551. Although he did not develop any explicit theory about the names of Odin or Apollon, he applied euhemeristic theories by explaining these names as honorary titles.552 In this regard, it is important to note that Stiernhielm wrote the name of a Dutch scholar, (Gerardus) Vossius (1577–1649), in the margins of Runa Suetica. Vossius’ work De Theologia Gentili, and particularly the section on idolatry553, was cited widely in works on the history of the religion of the non-Judaeo- Christian peoples. The history of religion was no minor issue in the seventeenth century, and such a major Baroque scholar554 as Isaac Newton mentioned the topic in his writings555. The work of Vossius was significant in the general discussions of the ancient tradition of theology from the 1650s onwards. He criticised the Platonist- syncretistic tradition of the Renaissance (philosophia perennis and prisca theologia), which Bureus represented with Annius, Aventinus, Postel and Steuco. In fact, it can be said that in this respect, Vossius’ work signalled a broader alteration in the European intellectual climate556. Thus, Stiernhielm was shaping the earlier ideas of Bureus relative to this alteration and, in some sense, represented a middle ground between the views of Vossius and Bureus. In addition to De Theologia Gentili, Stiernhielm and his followers referred to another important work of ancient religion, De Dis Germanis (1648) by Elias Schedius (1615–1641)557. Schedius had compared classical, Hebrew, Egyptian and “German-Celtic” religions and analysed for instance, the idea of Gothic “alioruna”. Schedius adhered to the German Humanist Johannes Trithemius, a 550 Cod. Holm. F.d.14a. 1–16; Stiernhielm 1685, 157–159. On Bureus, see 1.1.2-1.1.3. 551 E.g. Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.21. 1–12. 552 The male Priest-Kings, but the priestesses of Leto-Frigga are women. Stiernhielm has used the works of Gerardus Vossius and Elias Schedius. See Runa Suetica’s handwritten notes. E.g. Runa Suetica 1.17. 553 Gerardi Joannis Vossii, De Theologia Gentili, et Physiologia Christiana; sive de origine ac progressu idololatriae; deque naturae mirandis [...] 1642. See also De Deis Gentium by Gyraldus (1554) which Bureus used in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, and has been mediated to Stiernhielm. 554 Eriksson 1994, 149ff, 162. 555 On Newton, see Popkin 1990, passim. 556 Schmitt 1966, 527. The other explanation may be the rise of Aristotelianism relative to the Ramism in Europe and Sweden. See Landgren 2008, 170. 557 Kendrick 1966, 21–24. In England, e.g. the abovementioned Edmund Dickinson commented it. 109 source of Aventinus, and his idea of the “Hyperborean Bards in the West”558. In this respect, it is possible to categorise Schedius into the group of scholars (containing Stiernhielm) who had partially distanced themselves from the previous, esoteric-syncretistic tradition of ancient theology. This mixture of older views and new ideas is discernible in Stiernhielm’s other analyses of the euhemerised gods. At the core of the strategy was an attempt to synchronise some of the genealogical lines of the Old Norse with the account of Diodorus and the Bible. As a result, Odin-Apollon was portrayed as the master of sacred, runic knowledge, and moreover a prominent figure among the ancient people of Uppsala. Stiernhielm used Diodorus as his source for the identification of the Norse god Niord559 as the Greek personification of the North Wind, Boreás. Intriguingly, the idea is founded on etymology: the Scythian (Swedish) word “Niord” means “north”, as does the Greek word “Boreás”560. As did his teacher Bureus, Stiernhielm stressed the role of (Gamla) Uppsala in this connection; he also identified the Eddic Bure or Bur and Niord with each other561. Stiernhielm went even further in arguing that Frey, the son of Niord (Bure, Boreas), had dedicated the Uppsala Temple to Odin/Apollon562. These reflections entail a view that the Hyperborean Temple of Hecataeus–Diodorus and the Uppsala Temple mentioned in the Old Norse and other Northern writings were identical563. Stiernhielm also wrote about the Hyperborean maidens, his main source being the account of Herodotus. Stiernhielm interpreted the Hyperborean Maidens as daughters of the abovementioned celebrated King of Uppsala, Boreás/Niord on their pilgrimage to Greece. Hyperborean maidens such as Opis, Loxo and Hecaerge were thereby of royal blood. He claimed that the maidens delivered secret offerings to Greece from their father, who was also the high-priest of Odin/Apollon564. The nature of the offerings was not scrutinised to the same extent as in Bureus’ earlier manuscript. Whether Stiernhielm thought that the maidens had revealed the secrets of the Adulruna to the Greeks cannot be 558 Schedius 1728, 431ff. 559 Stiernhielm 1685, 145–146. In the Norse myths, Niord is a member of the Vanir, and was the god of seafaring and motion of the winds. 560 Stiernhielm 1685, ibidem. ‘Jam Niordus Ille primus post ODEN Rex Svecorum, idem est qvi Boreas; enim NORD & NIORD, nostra lingva Boream significant […]’; ‘So this Niordus was the first king of Svear after ODEN, he is the same as Boreas, for NORD and NIORD signifies North in our language […]’. 561 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 170. The idea of Bord, Börd, Bards, Boreades, could be the source of inspiration for Stiernhielm. The Eddic Bore/Bure was a father of Bur, and grandfather of Odin. 562 Stiernhielm 1685, 139. 563 Stiernhielm 1685, 145. 564 Stiernhielm 1685, 147. Odin-Apollon also in Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.21. 10. 110 deduced from the text565, although as Nordström has noted, Stiernhielm mentioned the matter elsewhere566. In more ways than one, Stiernhielm laid greater emphasis than Bureus on the classical texts of the Hyperboreans. Stiernhielm’s identifications of Odin with Apollon and Niord with Boreas influenced how contemporary Swedish scholars understood the Old Norse writings. The paramount feature of this concept of history was a belief that the Eddic and Greek myths were manifestations of the true history to be found in the Old Testament and the account of the descendants of Noah. Whether Stiernhielm believed that the first Japheth/Odin was the same king as Niord/Boreás of Gamla Uppsala is unclear to me. Nordström has noted that Stiernhielm seemed to think that the Temple of Uppsala was built later than the one at Sigtuna (another old Swedish city where some Old Norse writings had situated Odin’s temple)567. If so, the idea of an ancient temple of Odin of Uppsala and a later temple of Odin of Sigtuna clearly collide with each other. Perhaps Stiernhielm thought they were not the same person568, and moreover, that an earlier temple had existed in Uppsala. In any case, he did refer to the matter in the previous manuscript in which he had addressed the topic569. The confusion might be merely a sign of the difficulties caused by the many roles of Odin as the All-Father and a man of Trojan origin in the Old Norse writings570, a subject that would occupy Stiernhielm’s followers later in the century. What can be stated authoritatively though is that Stiernhielm was the first Swedish scholar who made a serious effort to place the Old Norse writings in the monogenetic, biblical framework of universal history. The Hyperborean Arts and Skills For Bureus, the runic alphabet was a manifestation of antediluvian hieroglyphic wisdom in which was preserved the pristine truths of ancient theology that could be traced back to Noah and even Adam. This idea is expressed also in Stiernhielm’s writings571, although for him the runic alphabet was not a system of 565 Stiernhielm 1685, 147ff. 566 Nordström in Nordström 1924, CCIII, has mentioned a text called Adulruna Sveo-Gothica. 567 Nordström 1934a, 112n. In this case, he followed the original text of Ynglinga Saga in which Odin had first settled Sigtuna, and from where Freyr moved to Uppsala (See Ynglinga Saga, Chapter III). 568 Stiernhielm 1685, 145–146. Nordström 1934a, n112. 569 In Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d.14a, the speculation includes a notion of Odin, Attin as Japheth. 570 On Odin, see Davidson 1964, Chapters 1.1–2, 2.1, 6.1–3. 571 Nordström 1924, 166–168. 111 such complexity572. On top of the ancient Greek–Hyperborean connection, he thought the runic and the Greek alphabet were fairly similar573, which followed from the belief that the Greeks had received the letters from the Hyperborean Geats of Gamla Uppsala. Stiernhielm also pointed out that the people of Uppsala were skilled in the “Arts of Apollon”. His principal source for this idea was (again) the account of Diodorus, after which Stiernhielm claimed that the Geats had been known for prognostication, following the tradition of the mother of Apollon, Leto/Latona. In my view, the only sensible explanation for the matter is that Stiernhielm was influenced by Bureus’ idea of the Scythian Sibyllae in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, probably based on their tentative knowledge of the Old Norse writings, such as Eddic poem Völuspá. Other arts the ancient people of Uppsala had mastered were medicine, music, poetry and archery574. Tracing the origins of these arts to the sage Abaris, known for his wand and mastery of several strands of knowledge in classical writings575, is understandable576. In addition, Abaris was usually portrayed as either a Scythian or Hyperborean sage577; as demonstrated above, Stiernhielm regarded these terms as linguistically synonymous. Additionally, these four arts had obvious correlations with the esoteric, Neo-Platonic and Hermetic trends of ideas of that time, and at the same time, different forms of magic, as it was shown in the case of Bureus578. Finally, it is very likely that Stiernhielm related the wand of Abaris to the Swedish antiquities that already Bureus had been interested in, i.e. the rune staffs. Stiernhielm therefore shared with Bureus an idea of the Geats of Uppsala possessing a runic knowledge and that the wand of Abaris was a classical manifestation of this579. In early modern discussions, the art of music was frequently associated with dancing, playing instruments, poetry and religious magic. Apparently Stiernhielm 572 Stiernhielm’s philosophical writings, Nordström 1924, has shown that Stiernhielm developed a (Neo)- Platonic theory on the phonetic significance of the letters in alphabet. Its Hermetic-Platonic (Pansophic) and Anti-Aristotelian nature: Lindroth 1943, 469–491. 573 Stiernhielm 1685, 141. ‘Literas Runicas nostras Graecas alibi demonstro’. The ‘alibi’ (‘elsewhere’) here pointed in my view, to Runa Suetica. He also referred Stiernhielm 1685, 140, to Johannes Magnus’ views of the Greek and Scandinavian alphabets. See also Nordström 1934a, 126. 574 Stiernhielm 1685, 135–136. ‘Qvatuor facultates eximiæ illi præ reliqvis, tribuuntur: Divinatio, Medicina, Musica & Sagittandi Peritia, easqve Eum a Matre Latona accepisse, ferunt. Iis artibus Septentrionales Scythæ super omnibus Gentibus, claruerunt.’ 575 E.g. Herodotus IV.36; Strabo 7.3.8; Iamblichus De Vita Pyth.28.136. 576 Nordström 1934a, 106–107. In the (Neo)-Platonist literature of the Late Antiquity the Scythian and/or Hyperborean Abaris was described possessing different strands of knowledge. 577 E.g. Herodotus IV.36, but in particular, the Platonist, Iamblichus in his work on Pythagoras. 578 The rune magic of Abaris was discussed in the section 1.1.3. 579 Stiernhielm 1685, 141; Stiernhielm 1685, 161 relates Abaris to Athens of 400 BC. 112 believed, like Bureus, that the Thracian Orpheus was of Geatic (Scythian) origin. This would explain the origin of the Orphic magic, highly valued by certain early modern scholars of the traditions of ancient theology and philosophy580. The context for this view was the European discussion on the mythical Druidic Bards (of Annius and others), but Stiernhielm cited the actual classical sources of the Druids: Tacitus and Caesar581. In practice, his analysis of the subject was based on a comparison between the details of Diodorus’ account of the Hyperboreans, who were supposed to have been priests of Apollon singing his praise in sacred groves, and the Edda of Snorri (i.e. the Prose Edda), in which the Uppsala Temple and the nearby groves were portrayed. Snorri had designated the Skaldic priests of the Old Norse writings582 as the “diar” or “drottar” in Ynglinga Saga583. Stiernhielm concluded, in a similar manner to Bureus (Bord-Börd), that the Skaldic priests were the original “Northern Druids” who were religious leaders among their peoples584. The fourth art, archery, pertained to the rune staff of Abaris. This art can be linked with several types of magical skills, mostly by virtue of the mysterious nature of the wand of Abaris on which Bureus and Becanus had reflected. Apparently, Stiernhielm thought that Apollon/Odin (euhemerised) was acquainted with the magical arts in the same way as the other Geatic sages, i.e. Abaris, Zalmoxis and Orpheus. Even Nordström was perplexed about how Stiernhielm comprehended the relationship between Abaris and Pythagoras585. Was Abaris a priest of Apollon who had been familiar with the pristine wisdom of Adam, as Bureus had suggested? Some information on the matter is contained in Stiernhielm’s other unpublished manuscripts. Like Bureus, Stiernhielm deemed Abaris to have been one of the high priests of Odin/Apollon in Gamla Uppsala. He was initiated in the runic magic of Odin, who was, in Stiernhielm’s view, a philosopher and a magus just as “Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistos, Pythagoras, Plato, Democritus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, Jamblichus […]”586. Here, it seems that Stiernhielm either thought that the first Odin (Japheth) had practised white, “good” magic or that it was one of the later Odins who established the art. 580 Yates 1978, 72. 581 Stiernhielm 1685, 140. 582 Stiernhielm 1685 140. Lindow 2001, 15, 18–19. Scalds or Skalds were Scandinavian (‘court’) poets of the Viking Age. As in the case of Bureus in section 1.1.2, they were regarded as ‘northern Druids’. 583 In Chapter II of the Ynglinga Saga. 584 Stiernhielm 1685, 136, 139; Nordström 1934a, 125. 585 Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d. 21, 3–4; See also Nordström 1934a, 127–130. 586 Cod. Holm. F.d. 21, 3–4; also Becanus 1569, 1052, contemplates Abaris in the same context as Bureus in Bureus-Becanus 1569, 1049–1053. 113 Whatever Stiernhielm thought about the nature of the magic of Odin, Abaris was the high priest of this divinity, and hence a later figure of Swedish antiquity. Stiernhielm presented these euhemerised figures as magicians which should not come as a surprise. For him, magic referred also to the white magic of Pico and Bruno, and as the case of Bureus confirms, white magic was linked to natural philosophy, alchemy and mathematics. Nordström has proved that Stiernhielm was quite representative of the “Moysaic” or “Mosaic” philosophy, which affiliates his views of the natural philosophy of the Hyperboreans to those of Bureus587. Some of their comments imply that they both believed that the ancient Northerners had possessed the tradition of theurgic magic, a mystical (but an extremely heretical) form of contemplation588. Aspects of Stiernhielm’s research into national antiquity were inspired by Hermetic-(Neo)-Platonic ideas of pristine theology and the perennial philosophy of Steuco589. Thus, in relation to the ancient civilisation of the Geats, Stiernhielm still represented the Late Renaissance, esoterically emphasised discussions on pristine knowledge. Despite Stiernhielm’s apparent regard for esoteric and theological, his reflections also contain worldly knowledge. The last part of the De Hyperboreis Dissertatio was devoted to the scrutiny of the runic calendar (which was probably the original purpose of runic staffs used for marking solstices and equinoxes). He described an alphabet with 19 runes, containing 16 basic and three additional runes. Stiernhielm suggested quite correctly that the rune calendar of the ancient Geats was used to determine distinct cycles, i.e., the change of seasons and such major festivals as Christmas (Yule) and Easter. Each rune had a specific significance or symbolic value, which Stiernhielm specified590. In addition to this, he claimed that the calendar was no secret among the ancient people of Scandinavia: the peasants were familiar with the knowledge and had calculated the annually changing equinoxes and solstices.591 On top of the seasonal changes, an emblematic analysis of the classical accounts of the Hyperboreans revealed the runic calendar had other implications. 587 Nordström 1924, CLXXIII (Bureus); CCXLV (treatise on angels and demons); CCLLXX (Moysaic philosophy); CCLXXXIX (Paracelsism). See also Blair 2000, passim. She has analysed the subject in relation to Comenius, who Stiernhielm knew personally and whose ideas Bengt Skytte developed. 588 Karlsson 2010, passim. Theurgic magic and Metempsychosis were dimensions in the Adulrunic ideas of Bureus. See also De León-Jones 1997, 8–10, 84; Yates 1978, 249, 382. 589 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17–18 & Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d. 21. 3–4. 590 Stiernhielm 1685, 155–157. 591 Stiernhielm 1685, 147ff, compares the Hyperborean calendar with the English equivalents Beda had introduced in early mediaeval period. Stiernhielm identified the Yule-festival with the Swedish term ‘Jul’, i.e. ‘Christmas’, and etymologically related it to the term ‘hjul’, ‘wheel’, denoting the calendar. 114 Firstly, the total number of the runes, 19, signified the interval in years between Apollon’s visits to the North. In the Scandinavian rune calendars592 the nineteenth rune was Φ (tors), which Stiernhielm named the “Belgebunden Thor”. For him, this rune was developed to inform that Odin was “letting the horses to pasture”593, which pointed to the ancient knowledge of seasonal changes594. The number 19 had further significance for the ancient connections between the Hyperboreans and the Greeks. The Greeks called the 19-year period the Metonic cycle595, after the invention of the Greek astronomer, Meton (circa 432 BC). Stiernhielm believed that Meton had formulated the system on the basis of Pythagorean wisdom596. Thus the origin of the invention was in Hyperborean Uppsala, for, according to the classical authors, Abaris taught Pythagoras. Although purpose- oriented, the argument is sharp. Most classical accounts of Abaris can be chronologically placed before Meton’s invention597. Thus, in Stiernhielm’s view, the Greeks had forgotten the cycle’s Northern roots. In this argument is articulated the abovementioned “northern European” research strategy of “minimising the Greeks”, a method his teacher Bureus had employed keenly. In the broader context, Stiernhielm’s ideas about the runic calendar were inspired by a work on historical chronology (including the Metonic cycle) by the French scholar Joseph Scaliger (1540–1609). However, the most revealing aspect of Stiernhielm’s views is the combination of older Annian texts and the broad selection of contemporary writings he applied to incorporate the Hyperboreans into the Geatic tradition. To obtain a full understanding of what motivated Stiernhielm to revive and extend the earlier ideas of Bureus, certain immediate political factors need to be introduced. 2.1.3 The Political Context of the Re-Emergence of the Hyperboreans As demonstrated earlier, Cluverius’ antiquarian work, in which the German had attacked Sweden’s honour by disputing its rulers’ Gothic origin, inspired 592 Nordström 1934a, 129, argued that Stiernhielm had found runic calendars in the royal archive. 593 Stiernhielm 1685, 157; ‘Belgebunden Thor: Tå sägs af gamul Saga Wijsa mannum oc tidapröwarom: at Odin beter sina Hestar i Φ Belgebunden.’ 594 To explain this sufficiently, Stiernhielm had actually studied Finnish: Stiernhielm 1685, 159, ‘oculus’ (Latin), ‘silmä’ (Finnish) – ‘eye’ (Engl.), and his unpublished Cod. Holm. F.d. 11–13, designated as Specimen Lingua et Philologica Finnonica. It seems that Bureus had paid attention to the Finnish and Sámi. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 51, mentions Abaris, ‘sun’ (Bureus in Finnish ‘auringo’ i.e. ‘sun’). 595 The Metonic cycle: nineteen solar years are equal with the 235 lunar months and 6940 days. 596 Becanus 1569, 1049, speculated if the Greeks had glorified their own history by making Abaris the disciple of Pythagoras and not vice versa, as he (and the Swedes) regarded it. 597 The earliest source of Abaris is Herodotus (5th century BC). Meton made his invention in 432 BC. 115 Stiernhielm to extend Bureus’ ideas on the Hyperboreans. In fact, Stiernhielm was so displeased by Cluverius’ conclusions about the authenticity of the Swedes’ Gothic origin that he composed a specific work to refute his views598. Generally speaking, Cluverius belonged to the Sarmatian tradition, believing the Hyperboreans had inhabited present-day north-western Russia. This tradition, as Bureus claimed, stemmed from the works of the sixteenth-century Polish and Italian writers De Miechow and Guagnino599. In my opinion, one explanation for the origin of Stiernhielm’s ideas about the Hyperboreans is the earlier politico-historical context of territorial antiquarianism related to control over the Baltic region and the propaganda war between Charles IX and Sigismund600. It is significant that Cluverius had worked in the court of Sigismund III Vasa601, the hereditary monarch of Sweden before Charles IX came to power. Additionally, in the 1630s Stiernhielm spent long periods in the new Baltic provinces of Sweden with Bureus’ patron Johan Skytte, and made a career as a jurist. In the 1650s Stiernhielm was working as a legislative official and hence was a client of the first Swedish King of the House of Pfalz, Charles X, in the newly conquered Norwegian Province602. It is plausible that Stiernhielm decided or, alternatively, was requested to re-examine the earlier reflections of Bureus. In either case, it seems likely that Stiernhielm revived Bureus’ ideas in order to provide the Vasa and Pfalz dynasties with an historical presence and glory in these Provinces, not only as belligerent Goths but also as civilised, pious Hyperboreans. Some evidence for this analysis exists. The ideology of presenting the Swedes as the ancient Hyperboreans had been introduced in speeches at the University of Dorpat in late 1630s603, an educational institute designed to spread the message and cement the power of the monarchs in the Baltic region to which, as shown below, Skytte’s network was connected. This indicates that Stiernhielm gained a similar hub-like role in the network of Skytte in the Baltics as Bureus did in Uppsala and Stockholm. Stiernhielm’s special charge was to take care of the 598 The name of the manuscript is actually Georgi Stiernhielm Anticluverius sive Scriptum breve, Johannio (a mistake, should be Philippi) Cluverio Dantiscoborusso oppositum: Gentis Gothicae Originem […]; check also Lindroth 1975b, 268. 599 De Miechow 1521, passim; Guagnino 1581, passim. 600 Nordström 1924, CLXXXIV–CCII; Ingemarsdotter 2011, 70–75. 601 Krebs 2011, 136–139. 602 Runeby 1962, e.g. 458–460. Stiernhielm was a client of the great patron of the latter half of the century, Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie, who was tightly connected to Christina and the Pflaz- family. Of Stiernhielm’s connection with de la Gardie, see e.g. Nordström 1924, CCLV–CCLVI. 603 I.e. Matthiae 1638, electronic; Lotichius 1638, electronic. 116 legislative, educational and historical matters of the Crown, first in the Baltics and subsequently in Norway in the late 1650s. In fact, the origin of the manuscript De Hyperboreis Dissertatio can be dated to around the time when the Swedish Crown was trying to find the passage to the Norwegian Sea in the 1650s. After this finally took place, and Sweden received the Danish-Norwegian province of Trondheim in the Treaty of Roskilde (1658), Stiernhielm was planned to be sent there as a legal official. In this light, the ideas Stiernhielm developed in his manuscript around this time about the ancient dominion of the Hyperboreans of Uppsala in the Baltics and the Norwegian provinces604 is unsurprising. The reason Stiernhielm did not finish his manuscript can be perhaps explained by the fact that Sweden could not cement its presence in the region and that the province was returned to Denmark in the peace accords of Copenhagen in 1660. This context of territorial antiquarianism cannot be underestimated in the analysis of the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition. Bo Bennich- Björkman has studied the Swedish Crown’s use of domestic antiquities in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. He has proved how the philological preparations of Stiernhielm and Bureus had a practical side, namely, to help their noble patrons to advantageously interpret old (mediaeval) legal and other documents, a domain which belonged to Stiernhielm in this network. Stiernhielm and Bureus were also preceptors either of the sons of Skytte or the Swedish monarchs605, which bears out my earlier argument for them as significant scholarly hubs distributing a certain kind of idea about the fabulous antiquity of Sweden. Clearly, against this background it would be far-fetched to claim that the emergence of the Hyperboreans in Swedish historical research was unrelated to political factors. The evidence suggests that the antiquaries were experts that helped the Crown to cement its power by providing data on delicate practical political issues such as the system of government, the origin and nature of its laws, and issues related to land ownership. The Geatic history and the Hyperboreans as part of it provided the elite a fabulous biblical-classical framework to employ in distinct political connections. Thus, if the historical writings of Bureus and Stiernhielm are examined only from the perspective of “the development of history writing”, one risks neglecting the political dimensions related to the emergence and early development of the phenomenon. 604 Stiernhielm 1685, 133, 139. 605 Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapters II–III, (187ff, as teachers). Nordström 1924, demonstrated how he was a legal scholar and an assessor of the court in Dorpat and later meant to be one in Trondheim. 117  The continuity between the politico-historical “networks” is important in this respect as well. Both Bureus and Stiernhielm were clients of Swedish monarchs from Charles IX to Queen Christina. The latter had a prominent role as a Laureate of Christina606, and later in the service of her successor, Charles X Gustav. In addition, their ideas of the Swedish antiquity were developed in Johan Skytte’s close-knit circle. Johan Skytte’s son Bengt (1614–1683) “inherited” the links of his father in the 1640s607, and followed his father’s footsteps in making a career in politics as a Chamberlain and Royal Adviser of Queen Christina. Later he became a County Governor and the Chancellor of Dorpat University in 1648608. After the death of Charles X, Bengt Skytte fell into disfavour. Thereafter, he became famous for trying to persuade scholars to participate in his visionary Pansophic project Sophopolis in England and Brandenburg609. He also seems to have been among the Swedish hubs who promoted the historical linguistics of Bureus and Stiernhielm in Europe610, which implies that scholarly and political mediators distributed ideas generated by members of their own networks internationally. On the other hand, it seems that the ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition were not well known outside Skytte’s circle and a few European scholars by the 1650s. This was about to change during the subsequent decades. 2.2 Olaus Verelius and the Old Scandinavian Writings The antiquarian research of Olof Verelius (1618–1682) brought the identification of the ancient Scandinavians (Geats) with the classical Hyperboreans to the attention of broad intellectual circles in Sweden and Europe. He had had a rocky road to success. The only academic position the talented Verelius received before 606 Stiernhielm’s most renowned work is Det Svenska Hercules in his Musae Suethizantes (1668). On the learned in Christina’s court, see Åkerman 1991, passim. 607 Runeby 1962, 74ff, frequently mentions of his political role and opinions in the circle. 608 Nordström 1934a, 121–122, 122n78, proved the close connections between the earliest scholars that studied the Hyperboreans, so there is no point repeating the same chain of evidence. 609 Nordström in Nordström 1924, CCXV, Chapter VI. Amos Comenius was a Czech scholar who developed a pedagogical system called Pansophism. He was in Sweden in 1640s, met Axel Oxenstierna to help him with a pedagogical plan for Swedish schools. Bengt Skytte had got interested in Comenius’ ideas in the 1640s, which he developed into a vision of a City of Wisdom, Sophopolis. In this city there would be a universitas universitarum (University of Universities), open for all people of science (and religion!). 610 There is a mention of Bengt Skytte and Stiernhielm in the letters of the 17th century scholars, Kircher and Leibniz related to the universal language. Leibniz mentions Skytte as a traveller collecting the roots, (i.e. origins) of the known languages in the world. Skytte appears to have been distributed certain ideas of language and history from Bureus and Stiernhielm abroad. See Considine 2008, 245, n190 in which he cites the letter from Leibniz to Kircher. Leibniz was interested in the minor treatise of Stiernhielm, Magog Arameo-Gothicus (1643) Åkerman 1991, 91–92. 118 the 1660s was Treasurer of the University of Uppsala, a position engineered for him by his patron, Axel Oxenstierna611. Although the office of Treasurer was a decent post in itself, Verelius’ colleagues belittled his achievements. The turning point of his career was his recognition by the great patron of Swedish historical research, Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie (1622–1686). In 1662 Verelius was appointed as the first Professor of Fatherland’s Antiquities and later as a member of the Board of Antiquities (1666), both creations of de la Gardie.612 Verelius’ translations and commentaries on Icelandic sagas made him famous in the eyes of his contemporaries, even outside Sweden. His editions of Icelandic sagas clearly illustrate his talent as a historical scholar.613 Certainly, Jonas Rugman614, an Icelandic migrant, had assisted him with the translations, and Stiernhielm, Bureus615 and Messenius had set the scene by analysing a few Old Norse texts. Nonetheless, Verelius was among the few Swedish scholars of his time with the knowledge about both the historical circumstances and language of Old Norse writings616. It is hard to overemphasise the significance of Old Norse writings in Scandinavian and Swedish research into national antiquity in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century. In Denmark, the “Icelandic Renaissance” had taken place a few decades earlier. Eddic and Skaldic poetry as well as Icelandic sagas were scrutinised by Ole Worm (1588–1655) in his studies of Danish antiquity. Worm criticised Johannes Magnus and Bureus’ interpretations of Gothic history and the runic alphabet.617 The rivalry between the Danes and the Swedes continued to reverberate in the Hyperborean research tradition for the whole of the seventeenth century. One of the quarrels pertained to the right to use (and hence the origin of) the emblem of the Three Crowns618. In this connection, it is important to remember the political situation as well: Denmark and Sweden were at war 611 Axel Oxenstierna (1583–1654) was the famous Lord High Chancellor of the Realm from 1612 onwards. He is said to have disliked the esotericism of Stiernhielm (Bennich-Björkman 1970, 187– 192) and his studies of legal history in which the views of the system of government may have played a role. Oxenstierna preferred the ideas of Monarchia Mixta relative to the ideas of a strong monarch in the network of Skytte. See section 1.3.1. See also Nordström 1924, CCIII. 612 Schück 1932, passim, on the workings of College of Swedish Antiquities. Alkarp challenged his interpretations. Alkarp 2009, 91–96, 117. Count De la Gardie’s role will be discussed in detail later. 613 Alkarp 2009, 112–115. 614 Lindroth 1975b, 278. Rugman was an Icelandic student who had travelled towards Copenhagen with old manuscripts. The Swedish Navy transferred him to Gothenburg. After that he was supported by Per Brahe the Younger and De la Gardie, both interested in the research of the northern antiquity. 615 Lindroth 1910, 15–23, proposes a possibility that the young Verelius and Bureus would have met. 616 Alkarp 2009, 112–115. 617 Wallette 2004, 85ff; Schück 1932, 67; Enoksen 1998, 186–194. 618 This recurring and interesting topic will be discussed later in this chapter. 119 several times in the course of the seventeenth century619, as were Sweden and Poland in the Baltic at the beginning of the century620, when Bureus developed his views on the Hyperboreans (discussing the historical emblems of the Geats) and Stiernhielm developed views against the German Cluverius. The right to the emblem of the Three Crowns was not the only subject over which Swedish and Danish scholars disagreed. The race to find as many Old Norse manuscripts as possible, and to appropriate the writings as a source of the ancient history of their respective monarchies, is perhaps the best example of the politicised side of the study of national histories. The fact that Icelandic manuscripts were published and interpreted in Denmark did not go unnoticed in Sweden. As a result, in the latter half of the seventeenth century, Count de la Gardie used his influence and wealth to furnish the Swedish scholars with Old Norse and Icelandic material621. As Wallette has pointed out, this material did not apply only to Sweden and Denmark, but also to Britain622. The British Isles are frequently mentioned in these writings, and scholars had identified linguistic similarities between what are currently called the Germanic languages (which include e.g. German, Dutch, English, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish)623. The idea of using the Old Norse writings as a source of British antiquity and accompanying the analyses with etymological comparisons between the ancient languages is manifested particularly well in Robert Sheringham’s Gothicistic or “Scythicistic” work, De Anglorum Gentis Origine Disceptatio (1670)624. Thus, attempts to appropriate certain Old Norse writings can be explained within the abovementioned context of politicised territorial antiquarianism in the Baltics. The mechanism was to prove that the ancient rulers of the regions described in these writings were ancestors of the current monarchs. 619 Sweden and Denmark were at war frequently from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century. 620 Derry 2000, Chapters 5–6. 621 Wallette 2004, 88; about this rivalry see Considine 2008, 244; Neville 2009, 220–221; about the Old Norse literature see, Lindroth 1975b, 277–278. 622 Wallette 2004, 88, refers to the work of Robert Sheringham. But already the case of Bureus and John Dee with his Arthurian Northern Europe in the previous chapter is related to this. 623 See chapter 2.1.2. Lindow 2001, 2–6, 30–33; also Campbell 2007, electronic, chapter 4.1. 624 Sheringham 1670, the introduction part 6, in which Snorri and Eddas are mentioned; see also e.g. Sheringham 1670, 148, 179, 186. 120 2.2.1 Verelius’ New Approach to Scandinavian Antiquity Once Verelius had received the Chair in Fatherland’s Antiquities in 1662, he worked mainly on the editions of the Icelandic sagas that referred to Sweden625. Within the context of the developing Hyperborean research tradition, there were three commentaries of particular importance: the editions of Gautreks Saga (1664), Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks (1672) and to a lesser extent, Bósa saga ok Herrauds (1666)626. The cornerstone of Verelius’ views was that the account of Hecataeus-Diodorus, which Stiernhielm and Bureus had cited as a source in identifying the Hyperboreans with the Geats of Uppsala, could be used as a source of Swedish history. However, his approach to this account was slightly more moderate. Verelius believed that the etymological or religious characteristics of the myths expressed in ancient writings were not enough, but that one needed to confirm the information through textual comparisons between the Old Norse and classical writings627. By applying this method, Verelius performed comparative analyses between Old Norse writings and classical accounts about the Hyperboreans. As Nordström has shown, he took notice of the sacrificial steep in Western Geatland mentioned in the Gautreks Saga628, from which the ancient people had used to leap to their deaths, sacrificing themselves to Odin. Verelius claimed that the account of Pliny the Elder of the suicide of the blessed race of the Hyperboreans was an echo of this saga that had somehow reached the Mediterranean culture629. Suicidal tendencies aside, the Hyperboreans were claimed to be free from all illness and hence to be able to live virtually forever. As Verelius later observed, a similar story appears in Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, which tells the story of Gudmund, the ancient King of Jotunheim (or “Glysisvall”). This king was depicted as wise, very rich and old, and it was written that his men had longer lifespans than others. Verelius concluded that it was conceivable that the accounts of Pliny the Elder and Diodorus could describe events in ancient Scandinavia.630 This exemplifies the new aspects of Verelius’ research. His analyses of such place names as 625 Wallette 2004, passim, has studied the sagas (on Sweden) and Verelius’ role in it. 626 These have been translated into modern Swedish: Verelius 1990, passim. English translations of the sagas: Gautrek’s Saga; The Saga of Hervar and Heidrek and Saga of Bósi and Herraud. 627 E.g. Verelius 1664, 40ff, 60, 61; Verelius 1672, 18ff; Verelius 1681, 17ff. 628 The Swedish term ättestupa refers to the steeps in Scandinavian folklore from the pre-Christian era. People were told either to have plunged or cast into death from the steeps. Gautreks Saga is one of the main sources of this notion. See, Nordström 1934a, 130–131, 131n138–142. 629 Verelius 1664, 7–16: The account of Pliny in Historia Naturalis. 4.88ff. 630 Verelius 1672, 23–24. 121 Jotunheim, Glysisvall, Mannaheim, Gudheim and Asgard are systematically compared with potential classical equivalents631. Granted, Stiernhielm had performed similar comparisons, but they were tentative analyses based on linguistic theories, and more importantly, never published. Actually, Stiernhielm had attempted to convince his pupil Verelius to attach the manuscript De Hyperboreis Dissertatio to his commentaries, but to no avail632. Although the account of Diodorus-Hecataeus was the foundation for scholars of the incipient Hyperborean research tradition, this did not necessarily mean that they would have agreed with each other on everything. In my opinion, this was a result of constant new publications of Old Norse material (not only those of Verelius), which seem to have led to minor transformations in the interpretative methods of the research as well. Earlier, because of the relative scarcity of the Old Norse writings, Bureus, and Stiernhielm to a lesser degree, tended to view them against the uniform framework of postdiluvian civilisation. This was manifested, for instance, in their belief in the value of the Hermetic, Orphic and Sibylline writings and etymological derivations of place or personal names in ancient languages. Verelius was above all else, a text-centred scholar, at least at the beginning of his career. Thus, as it will be shown below, he rarely ventured beyond the actual sources to find evidence in order to be able to prove an initial point. The best example of the different approaches of the generations can be found in the commentary on Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks. Verelius dealt with the role of the Hyperboreans in Swedish history in much more analytical manner than his predecessors. He referred to the views of geographic scholars such as Ortelius, Mercator and Ziglerus, incorporated information from Herberstein and Guagnino on the Sarmatian peoples, and mentioned the tradition of Cluverius. Verelius referred also to the works of Isaac Vossius and Goropius Becanus. In many ways, he simply evaluated the value of different contemporary traditions that had discussed the place names of ancient geography and used etymological derivations as a secondary, supportive aid. Instead of providing towering conclusions, he gave a probable explanation of the past633. In this Verelius’ works compare favourably with those of Stiernhielm and Bureus, but this could be due 631 Verelius 1672, 4, 15. Idea to be found in Stiernhielm’s De Hyperboreis Dissertatio. 632 Verelius did use Stiernhielm’s manuscript (De Hyperboreis Dissertatio), which had been offered to him in order to attach it to the saga commentaries. He thought it was a too unfinished to be added. Verelius 1672, 18ff. Nordström 1934a, 131–132. 633 Verelius 1672, 4ff. 122 to the nature of the texts: the editions of Verelius were finished products, whereas Bureus and Stiernhielm had not published their reflections. On the other hand, Stiernhielm did send his printed manuscripts around Europe for scholars to utilise, and Bureus published educational books in which the ideas of the Hyperboreans were manifested. Therefore, I argue, and will elaborate the point later in the chapter, that the differences can best be explained as being due to a change in the practice of historical research that was taking place in Europe around 1650s. 2.2.2 Verelius and the Ancient Scandinavian Civilisation The Ancient Religion and God(s) Verelius did not execute any traditional genealogies of the Gothic kings, or present Noah and his sons, Magog, Gomer and Ashkenaz, as the Swedish progenitors (which, of course, does not have to mean that Verelius would have not subscribed to the notion634). As it was shown in the case of Bureus, royal genealogies were important in the early modern Northern and Western European politico-historical discourses. I will show later in this chapter that few scholars were bold enough to question the validity of the Gothic genealogies, although they would have been otherwise sceptical towards the Geatic constructions. Historians tended to either keep quiet about their doubts or construct new, glorious suggestions. Was Verelius a critical scholar, say, compared with Bureus and Stiernhielm, when he did not discuss the Geatic genealogies? The answer is not quite: he simply stayed within the limits of the source in question. Verelius’ comments on genealogies can be found in the edition of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, and they do not encompass postdiluvian times. At the same time, these genealogies do have a revealing link to the Hyperborean research tradition. In (Verelius’ commentary on) Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, the two Odins have various generations between them635. Preceding Northern European scholars were cognisant of the question of the separate Odins in the Old Norse and mediaeval writings. The chronicle of the Danish Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum (ca. 1210), discussed “Odin the 634 It is not always easy to define whether Verelius described the earlier views or agreed with the ones he mentioned in the text. See e.g. Verelius 1664, 46–47; Verelius 1672, 4, 15. Magog and the Scythian-Geats are discussed here in the context of Swedish history. 635 Verelius 1672, 5–11. 123 Sorcerer”636, whereas Adam of Bremen (ca. 1070) linked the heathen god Odin (Wodan) to the Temple of Uppsala637. Around the same time as Saxo, Snorri Sturluson described Odin as a formidable man descended from the Trojans in the foreword of the Prose Edda, which is also the source of the idea of Phrygia named after his wife, Frigg638. This was probably a source of Stiernhielm’s abovementioned idea of the linguistic link between Scythic and Phrygian languages. He reflected on this idea in several unpublished manuscripts as part of the discussions on the religion of the Hyperboreans and the euhemeristic construction Odin/Attyn/Apollon/Japheth. Indeed, the different manifestations of Odin had caused a major headache for Stiernhielm and Bureus. They had either euhemerised Odin and presented him as an ancient king, or alternatively seen him as a Northern variant of a postdiluvian sun-god whose worship had spread from Scandinavia to Europe and the Mediterranean639. In the light of the scarce Old Norse material and the context of interpreting the ancient writings as tokens of a uniform postdiluvian antiquity, both conclusions were understandable. However, once the amount of Old Norse writings available to scholars increased, the question of the historical and mythological Odin became more and more intricate. The Prose Edda seemed to profess that Swedish antiquity could be traced back only until the time of the Nativity, when Odin, as the leader of the Aesir, had migrated northwards from Asia640. If this notion was correct, it was then plausible to assume that the myth of the Hyperboreans was not a valid source of Swedish antiquity. Hecataeus, from whom Diodorus received the information about the Hyperboreans, had lived a few centuries before the Nativity. Thus, the Hyperborean Temple could not be identified with the Gamla Uppsala Temple of Odin which Adam of Bremen had discussed, and which Snorri had said was erected later to praise the memory of Odin. As Johannes Schefferus, a contemporary of Verelius, and a Professor in the University of Uppsala pointed out, there was a chronological discrepancy between the groups of writings on Odin and the Hyperborean Apollon.641 636 Saxo Grammaticus 1998, Book. 1. Odin as sorcerer with Thor, and his wife, Frigga. 637 Adam of Bremen 1846, 200–203. IIII.26ff. ‘Wodan and the Temple of Ubsola’. 638 I.e. Passages 8–13 of the introduction of the Prose Edda. Odin is mentioned in the Chapters II & III of Ynglinga Saga, i.e. 1st part of Heimskringla and some Eddic poems. The idea of the linguistic link between Gothic-Scythian and Ancient Phrygian was introduced earlier (Becanus and Stiernhielm). 639 Which is also touched upon in the introduction of the Prose Edda along with the biblical-Trojan history that is given in the introduction before it is told how Odin escapes to the north 1–9. 640 Nordström 1934a, 132–133. Odin in Prose Edda and the Chapter II of Ynglinga Saga. 641 The matter will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2.3. 124  Unsurprisingly, Verelius, the expert on Old Norse literature, put great effort into solving the question of the two Odins and, in addition to comparisons between the geographical aspects of the writings, the lion’s share of his saga commentaries dealt with the ancient religion of the Scandinavian peoples before Odin and the Aesir had arrived in Uppsala from the “Asian Scythia”. Verelius had already finished a general examination of the ancient deities of the Scandinavian and Mediterranean peoples in his commentary on Gautreks saga642. These ideas were elaborated later in two distinct commentaries on Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks in which details about the Hyperborean Temple of Apollon that Hecataeus and Diodorus had introduced were compared with the account of Adam of Bremen and other earlier information about the matter643. Verelius tackled the chronological problem in a traditional yet ingenious manner. The sagas implied that Odin (Aesir) had arrived in Scandinavia relatively late. Verelius could thus argue that this Odin had appropriated the name of an ancient Odin (Apollon) that was mentioned in the account of the Hyperboreans. This trick could also be applied to the other god of the accounts, namely Niord/Boreás, the priest-king of Uppsala, for he had “usurped the name of the older Niord”, as Nordström stated in his analysis of Verelius644. These conquerors, i.e. the Aesir, had monopolised the honourable names of the pre-existing gods. Consequently, Diodorus’ account described the allegedly Swedish circumstances before the Aesir had migrated to Scandinavia. The temple of the Hyperborean Apollon had been the Uppsala Temple of Odin of Old645. For Verelius, the attributes of this divinity as the one-eyed Odin, the sun-god, resembled the manner in which the ancient Mediterranean peoples had viewed Apollon. Evidently, the manuscript of De Hyperboreis Dissertatio Stiernhielm had lent to Verelius was the inspiration of his ideas here after all; even though he regarded it was not ready to be published646. On the other hand, similar views were articulated already in the euhemeristic speculation of the introduction of the original Prose Edda647. Therefore, Verelius might have wanted simply to contribute to and clarify the literal tradition. He also reflected the etymological origin of the ancient Northerners in a small but significant study, De Fanin, which is attached to the second edition of Hervarar 642 Verelius 1664, 35–64. 643 Verelius 1672, e.g. 5–11, 18ff. 644 Verelius 1664, 64; Verelius 1681, 17–18; check also the view of Nordström 1934a, 133. 645 At times also called as Odin All Father (Alfader). 646 Verelius 1672, 6–7; Nordström 1934a, 131–133. 647 See the Introduction 1–8: Saturn is said to have changed his name to Niord and so forth. 125 saga ok Heiðreks648. Incidentally, Verelius conducted the study together with a newcomer in the field, the famous anatomist and later historian, Olof Rudbeck the Elder649. The conclusion of De Fanin was that not only did the gods of the classical world originate in Scandinavia, but their peoples too. The cult of the Norse God of Thunder, (Asa-) Thor, was identified with the Greco-Roman cults of Zeus/Juppiter. Additionally, the Scandinavian divinity Frigg was compared with the cults of Magna Mater (Cybele) and the Divinity of Fertility, Freya with the classical Venus and Gaia (Earth). The authors detected similarities between Thor and Zoroaster, and between Odin and his German equivalent, Wodan. The idea of identifying Thor with the Persian Zoroaster came from Bureus650, whereas the comparisons of the other divinities are likely to derive from Stiernhielm. The latter had died in 1672, leaving behind a pile of unpublished manuscripts, which included several of those analysed previously in this chapter. Inevitably, given the similarities in their work, the question of whether some of them651 were in Verelius’ and Rudbeck’s possession springs to mind652. The greater part of De Fanin focuses on the god Fanin (or Fan[en]). For Verelius (and Rudbeck), this pre-Christian Scandinavian divinity had been “the Lord and God among the people”. They believed that after Christianity had been adopted in the North, the prior god(s) were denigrated and identified, as in the case of Fanin, with the Devil of the Bible653. Verelius and Rudbeck provided etymological examples of the use of the term “fan” in the Old Norse literature. “Fan” was identified with the god of heaven, and linked to certain characteristics of the Norse Thor and Odin and even the biblical Japheth654. In the last case, their conclusions were almost identical with those of Cluverius on the ancestors of the Germans, Tuisto/Tuiscon and Mannus, in his Germania Antiqua. As Krebs has shown, Cluverius had explained the first as the “Christian God”, that is, the doctrine of monotheism of which he, (like Verelius and Rudbeck), were surely aware. Mannus was identified with Adam and, on a euhemeristic level, Noah and 648 This text was printed in 1674, but published in 1677 as part of the commentary of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks. Here, referred to as Verelius 1677. Check also Alkarp 2009, 214 n474. 649 Most of Chapter 3 is dedicated to his writings. 650 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 51. 651 Stiernhielm Cod. Holm.F.d.21; Cod. Holm. F.d.14.a 27ff (Thor); Verelius 1672, 5–11. 652 Schück 1933a, 124. 653 Eriksson 2002, 389. The question was discussed in relation to Vossius’ work, De Theologia Gentili. In modern Swedish, fan is used in the sense of damn, devil. Verelius 1691, 63 (‘Fan, Herre, dominus’) i.e. in English ‘Lord’, a posthumous work, which was edited by Rudbeck the Elder. 654 Verelius made a reference to his comparisons in the Gautreks Saga 1664, 46, but the idea likely originates in Stiernhielm’s unpublished manuscripts. 126 his three sons655. Apparently, Verelius and Rudbeck shared Cluverius’ views, but replaced Mannus with Fanin and Odin All-Father, as well as the Germans with the Scandinavian Geats. Verelius and Rudbeck argued, in other words, that the earliest Northern forefathers had been familiar with Fanin and Odin All-Father. In their view, the anterior quality of the Swedish antiquity could be derived from the history of language. The most significant non-Scandinavian tokens of Fanin were the Greek god Pan and the British (Celtic) Tan. Such terms as “faunus”, “profanes”, “fanum”, “fanaticus”, which Stiernhielm already illustrated, had their origin in the Scythian language of Sweden656. Thus, either the authors supported Stiernhielm’s theory that the Scythian language was one of the oldest in the world or, alternatively, that the earliest forms of the non-Christian religion had spread from the North to the south. On the other hand, ten years earlier Verelius had stated that of old, the language of the English and Scots, as well as Saxons and Scandinavians (Goths), was the Scythian language of “Odin and the Asians”657. Thus, the generic idea of the diffusion of ancient language(s) of North-Western Europe is the context of these views. There is no particular need to trace it back to only Stiernhielm’s writings. Verelius and the Runic Civilisation The brief study on the runic alphabet Verelius released in 1675658 (Manuductio Compendiosa ad Runographiam Scandiam Antiqvam) indicates that his views in the De Fanin were influenced by Rudbeck, for the attitude towards the ancient religion in this work is very moderate. The treatise was intended to be a textbook for students, which might explain this moderation659. In it, Verelius proclaimed the cultural level of the Geats to have been of notable age, and the runes are said to be of greater antiquity than the Greek alphabet. However, unlike Bureus or Stiernhielm, Verelius discarded the slight possibility of Ancient Swedish as the original language. Intriguingly, Bureus is cited in the text as a “Rune Master” who 655 Krebs 2011, 139–140. Ashkenaz as the forefather of Germans was speculated. 656 Verelius 1677, 31. 657 Verelius 1664, 2–5. 658 Verelius 1675. A Latin-Swedish edition, Olai Vereli Manuductio Compendiosa ad Runographiam Scandiam Antiqvam. Recte Intelligendam / En kort underwisning om Then Gambla Swea-Görha Runa-Ristning [Olaus Verelius’ short treatise on ancinent rune carving of Svear and Geats]. 659 Another possible explanation: the text was written earlier and published later. 127 had gone slightly too far afield with his runic Cabala660. This confirms, firstly, that different historiographical approaches could produce similar conclusions. In this study at least, Verelius was a text-centred Humanist historian, whereas Bureus had been a representative of the “Neo-Platonist concept of history” with an esoteric tendency. Secondly, the study conclusively proves that the scholars of that time were familiar with the unpublished insights of Bureus661. In fact, Verelius wrote this study on the runic alphabet as a response to certain continental scholars who had belittled the Scandinavian antiquity. He was convinced that the runic alphabet was not developed from the Gothic Alphabet by Wulfila, as the German scholar, Hermann Conring (1606–1681) had suggested on the basis of Aventinus. Interestingly, Verelius explains that the cause of his irritation was not the affront to his patriotism, but the simplistic nature of the “diffusion theories” that had taken hold in European historiography. Whether this is true is another question. In any case, Verelius’ theory is slightly different from the fabulous postdiluvian theories of Bureus and Stiernhielm. Usually, either the Hebrews or the Greeks were credited with the first alphabet. For Verelius, it was equally possible that some other prisci nationes had invented the alphabet independently. For him, the Geatic (runic) and Hebrew alphabets had no interaction. However, Verelius suggested that the Greeks had received their alphabet from the Geats662. As to the inventor of the runes, Verelius used his expertise in Eddic poetry and concluded that it was the first Odin663. In regard to the second Odin and the “Asian” Aesir, he claimed that they had been the introducers of the runic necromancy and witchcraft664. Thus, the Asian Odin had perverted the earlier, more pristine form of religion. In this respect, it seems quite clear that Verelius thought that the first Odin was an older figure and that he had lived before the introduction of the classical alphabet. This indicates that it was, after all, patriotism that directed Verelius’ quill in this connection and that his theory was in fact not that different from Stiernhielm’s. Subsequently, Verelius presented a curious notion of the domestic Geats, (meaning those that had not joined the expeditions to Europe in the “migration period”). He viewed them as sophisticated people, in which case the writings of Bureus and Stiernhielm on the Hyperboreans may have been the implicit source 660 Verelius 1675, 2–4. 661 Which will be shown in the case of Schefferus and Rudbeck later. 662 Verelius 1675, 8–9. 663 In Hávamál it is said that Odin gained understanding on the runes after self-sacrifice. 664 Verelius 1675, 16. 128 of the views. He saw those Geats that had wandered to the Continent were on the one hand belligerent, and on the other willing to assimilate. According to Verelius, they wanted to live in peace and not to impose their laws upon the inhabitants, which seem a slightly contradictory conclusion665. As to the Gothic alphabet, Verelius believed that Wulfila had developed a wholly new alphabetical system on the basis of the Greek letters. In his view, Wulfila was aware of the prior runic equivalent, proven how he had preserved the nineteenth (Hyperborean-Apollonian) rune, Φ “Belgthor” in the alphabet666. The source for Verelius’ view must have been Stiernhielm’s manuscript667. The fact that Verelius stressed this affinity is important, for Stiernhielm had interpreted it as proof of the ancient connection between the Geats of Uppsala and the classical Greeks668. Thus, Verelius followed the views of Stiernhielm as to the ancient religion and runic civilisation quite closely. So, was he a scholar of new approach after all? Verelius has received a reputation of being a scholar that changed his mind towards the end of his career. Recently, Magnus Alkarp, a Swedish historian, has studied the matter. His results rest partly on Gunnar Eriksson’s new data about Verelius in his extensive study of Rudbeck the Elder669. Both have observed that certain former views of Verelius have arisen from misunderstandings670: the early views are explained by the influence of Stiernhielm and the later through Rudbeck671. In my view, the relationships between Stiernhielm and Verelius, and especially Verelius and Rudbeck, were not straightforward. In the latter case the admiration was mutual, so Verelius did not suddenly become “smitten with” Rudbeck’s ideas.672 Additionally, Rudbeck and Verelius did not agree on all aspects. Alkarp has proved that Verelius viewed his Scytho-Scandinavian dictionary, which was edited and posthumously published by Rudbeck, with ambivalence673. This, among other things explained in the following chapters, demonstrates something important about Verelius’ attitude towards the use of 665 It could be an explicit reference to Johannes Magnus and the pious Geats. 666 According to the modern view, the Greek Φ (phi) was the origin of this letter. Verelius believed that this letter had developed from the Scandinavian rune. 667 See section 2.1.4. 668 Stiernhielm 1685, 155–158; Verelius 1675, 8; 12–14. Verelius stressed the ancient alphabetical- cultural link between these two peoples by referring to his own saga edition in which he had discussed the possibility. Similar contemplations can be found already in Verelius 1664, 40ff. 669 Eriksson 2002, e.g. 271–280; Alkarp 2009, 89ff. 670 Alkarp 2009, 96–97. 671 Alkarp 2009 140. Especially Ellenius 1957, 63, has stressed Rudbeck’s influence. 672 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, dedication. The first part of Atlantica is dedicated to Verelius and De la Gardie. Of the admiration of Rudbeck, see King 2005, 66, 71–72. 673 Schück 1933a, 131ff, 136, 139; Alkarp 2009, 214–216. Verelius planned to burn the work in 1675, but Rudbeck persuaded him not to. 129 etymologies. Bureus, Stiernhielm and Rudbeck all made “politicised” interpretations of the significance of the term “Hyperboreans”, Stiernhielm calling them the Outermost Scythians, and Rudbeck describing them as of the “Noblest Birth”. Verelius included “Hyperborean” in his dictionary but did not give it an excessively “patriotic” definition674. How is it possible, then, that Verelius highlighted the role of Odin and Fanin as the Northern forms of Apollon of the Hyperboreans elsewhere? It will be argued in the following chapter that one needs to be familiar with a few matters quite unrelated to historical research in order to answer this question sufficiently. 2.3 The Hyperboreans in the Battle of Swedish Antiquities 2.3.1 The Prelude to the Dispute over the Antiquity of Uppsala The saga editions of Verelius had publicised the idea of the Hyperboreans of the classical writings as ancient Scandinavians. One example of this development is Sven Karlström’s thesis De Thule Veterum et Hyperboreis Dissertatio675. The supervisor of the work was the Professor of Mathematics, Magnus Celsius676 (1621–1679), also a member of the Board of Antiquities677. The objective of the author was to prove that certain classical sources supported a notion that Ultima Thule was situated in Scandinavia and that the Hyperboreans were its inhabitants678. Most of the work focuses on Thule, and the Hyperboreans are mentioned only in the final (fifth) chapter679. 674 Verelius 1691, 303, includes; ‘Uferbod ... suprema potestas’. ‘Supreme power’, related to the term ‘Hyperborean – Yfwerborne’ and Rudbeck in the first part of Atlantica. Discussed in section 3.1.2. 675 Sveno Gustavi Carlström [ennobl. Karlström], (165?–1684) or Sveno Gustavus Carlström Wermelandus. The biographical data on him is scarce and sporadic. He is enrolled on the University of Uppsala from 1663 onwards as a member of Värmland’s student nation (estb. 1666). The thesis is the only scholarly work of his. He made career as a diplomat, was sent to England and accompanied the bride of Charles XI, Ulrika Eleonora, to Sweden from Denmark in 1679. He travelled in the continent. I found two copies of the thesis in the Bibliotheca Augusta in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, with a dedication to the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg Rudolph Augustus (1627–1704). 676 The role of Celsius in the thesis is open for speculation. Many professors habitually intervened or wrote parts of theses. Lindroth 1975b, 32, has claimed that basically in the 17th century they were written by those who defended them, whereas in the 18th century, the professors wrote virtually every line of the theses they supervised. In Turku, check Urpilainen 1993, 83–84. 677 Celsius made a major contribution to solving the enigma of the staveless (Hälsinge)-runes. See Lindroth 1975b, 325–326. The work was later continued by his son, Olaus Celsius the Elder about whom more in Chapter 5.3. Olof Celsius was an uncle of the legendary scientist, Anders Celsius. 678 Karlström 1673, 120. ‘Ex hac tanta antiqvitatum nostrarum cum Graecis Latinisq; convenientia, confidenter pronunciare non dubito Hyperboreos vel in Scandinavia, vel nusqvam gentium reperiri’; ‘About this our ancient authors and the Greeks and Latin writers are in such agreement that with 130  The general approach of the study can be characterised as moderate antiquarianism with strong undertones of Humanist textual comparisons. The work scrutinised classical accounts in the manner of historia fabulosa in which the myths were studied hypothetically as a probable source for ancient history680. In conclusion, the thesis of Karlström was typical of the post-1650s seventeenth- century study of national antiquity and conveyed a probable history. The references to Stiernhielm and Verelius were made to emphasise the new domestic source, that is to say, the Old Norse writings681. In other words, despite the statement of the Scandinavian origin of the Hyperboreans being patriotic in itself, the thesis has no signs of prisca theologia, towering genealogies or imaginary linguistic speculation. However, some seventeenth-century scholars who held chairs in the Swedish universities and had positions in Swedish antiquarian institutes were unwilling to accept the identification of the ancient Geats of Uppsala as the Hyperboreans of classical writings. If, as was claimed previously, the political goals of the Crown played a significant role in the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition, how had the subject become controversial? Firstly, it was related to the fact that the previous reflections of Bureus and Stiernhielm were mostly unpublished and known only a relatively small group of people. Secondly, it was connected to the institutionalisation of the historical research. For the first time several historians of varied scholarly backgrounds were working in the same institute (the Board of Antiquities). It did not help that some of them were not on the best of terms to begin with. Thus, one factor making Karlström’s thesis interesting is that it can be placed within the context of the famous contemporary dispute over the age and location of the Temple of Uppsala between Olaus Verelius and Johannes Schefferus. The dispute, which began in the 1660s, has been described by several modern historians682. Thus, instead of covering every detail of this dispute (which lasted for decades), I decided to examine it from the perspective of the development of the views of Verelius and hence the Hyperborean research tradition. assurance I have no doubt to announce that the Hyperboreans will be found either in Scandinavia or nowhere.’ 679 Karlström 1673, 94–120. 680 The classification of Lipsius’ narrative history, see Landgren 2008, 104, 108ff, 115; Johannesson 1991, 77–79, 78n44, on the probabilistic nature of human history. 681 Karlström 1673, 92–93, 120. He refers e.g. to the Notae of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks in which Thule is located in Scandinavia, and that Verelius is a reliable scholar in his erudite editions. 682 Within the context of the myth of the Hyperboreans: Nordström 1934a, 132–135; Annerstedt 1891, passim; Ellenius 1957, 62–65 (in English); the best description, Alkarp 2009, 95–135. 131  The Strasburg-origin humanist Johannes Schefferus (1621–1679), whom Queen Christina had invited to Sweden, was an opponent of Verelius and cannot be said to have belonged to the Hyperborean research tradition. In the 1660s, Schefferus lectured and published studies on the classical and Swedish history that became popular on the Continent.683 Schefferus’ historical study Upsalia (1666), first addressed the question of the location and age of the Uppsala Temple along with the saga editions of Verelius. In this work, Schefferus discussed the history of Uppsala in the light of the oldest literal authors, and commented on their reliability. Most of his statements focused on the heathen Uppsala and its divinities Thor, Odin and Frigg684. Verelius, for his part, had first studied the data on the temple in his commentary on Gautreks Saga (1664). As I showed previously, Bureus and Stiernhielm had identified it with the Hyperborean Temple of Apollon/Odin685. As Nordström noted, in the early phase of the dispute Schefferus situated the temple in Gamla Uppsala, but did not claim that the prevailing (and still existing) Christian church would be a precursor of the alleged pre-Christian temple686. Schefferus made no mention of the value of the myth of the Hyperboreans. Instead, he was convinced that the heathen temple introduced by Adam of Bremen in his mediaeval chronicle had resided in the actual city of Uppsala, upon the hill within the city where the Church of Holy Trinity stood (and stands). Then again, Schefferus did not hesitate to concede that a temple and a royal burial ground had existed in Gamla Uppsala the time of the Nativity.687 In his commentary on Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks (1672), Verelius extended his critique. He used Snorri’s Heimskringla688 to claim that Gamla Uppsala had been an ancient venue (for law) as well as a cult centre and marketplace, which had been abandoned later and its functions transferred to the (current) New Uppsala (earlier Östra Aros)689. As argued previously, in this commentary Verelius suggested that the Hyperboreans could be identified with ancient Scandinavians690, which, though implicit, could be interpreted as criticism against Schefferus views. However, Verelius’ work was a minor aspect of the complex 683 Schefferus published e.g. a small study on classical Italian (Pythagorean) philosophy (1664) before Upsalia Antiqua (1666) and the popular Lapponia (1673) on the Sámi people. Landgren 2008, 287– 317, studies Schefferus as a historian. In general, see Ellenius 1960, 99–263. 684 Schefferus 1666, Cap. V–VIII. 685 Verelius 1664, 35–64, in fact, referred to Stiernhielm’s manuscript. 686 Nordström 1934a, 132. 687 Alkarp 2009, 110–111. 688 To be precise, the Independent Saga of Saint Olof. 689 Alkarp 2009, 116. 690 Comments in Verelius 1672, 20ff; 24 (Old Norse writings and Schefferus), 63–64 (the temple). 132 web of events that escalated from a disagreement into a full conflict. The Board of Antiquities, of which both Verelius and Schefferus were members, had turned into a battlefield. Nobody supervised the institution in a proper sense and division into two disagreeing parties was starting to take place. Both parties sent letters to the primus motor of the institution, Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie, who complained that the parties were writing their replies out of spite691. Around this time, Karlström had commenced his thesis. As noted earlier, he treated the Hyperboreans in a moderate manner and took both sides into account. Intriguingly, Karlström’s study contains postscripts from his supervisor Magnus Celsius692 and other distinguished scholars; Schefferus wrote a brief outline of the subject matter that does not include a word about the Hyperboreans of Uppsala, but rather focuses on the methodological principles of the research693. In addition, Petrus Lagerlööf694, the prominent poet and a Professor of the University of Uppsala, wrote a eulogy in which the author is praised in a fairly fulsome and poetic manner. All postscript authors were representatives of the party that more or less rejected the views of Verelius. A second feature of Karlström’s thesis that might be important is its year of publication (1673), the year after Stiernhielm died. In other words, what was the supervisor, Magnus Celsius’ role in the publication: did he want to support Schefferus, in whose party he has been traditionally placed, by asking a student to write a thesis on the Hyperboreans? Stiernhielm had been an influential scholar in the field of antiquities and, as Schück suggested, the views of the old master and tutor of Verelius probably annoyed Schefferus after the culmination of the dispute695. However, Stiernhielm was mentioned in Karlström’s text in a neutral light696, and moreover, as Runeby has observed, when Schefferus ran into trouble with theologians Stiernhielm supported him697. In addition, as Lindroth has shown, while Stiernhielm was still the Director of the Board of Antiquities in 1666–1672, he withdrew from the research and tried to delegate his duties to his assistants698. In other words, Stiernhielm did not seem that interested in taking part of the research of Swedish antiquity in the 1660s anymore. Asking Verelius 691 Alkarp 2009, 95–98, 116–119. 692 Karlström 1673, 126. 693 Karlström 1673, 121–125 (Schefferus). 694 Karlström 1673, 126–128. His role as historian will be discussed in section 3.4.2. 695 Schück 1933a, 320. 696 Karlström 1673, 111–117. 697 Runeby 1962, 458, argued they were close friends. 698 Lindroth 1975b, 246–247. 133 to attach his manuscript on the Hyperboreans to Verelius’ saga editions was, in my view, an example of attempts to make his scholarly clients to finish his manuscripts, so he could focus on other aspects of his scholarly projects. Thus, the works of Schefferus and Karlström were probably not composed to counter the views of Stiernhielm, which – though Schefferus was familiar with them – were not even published by that time. Even if they were critical towards the views of Stiernhielm, the impetus for the criticism was not personal grudges. Firstly, there were no enmities between Stiernhielm and Schefferus, and secondly, they shared patrons and a circle of scholarly acquaintances699. In this light, the statement of Schück seems unlikely, albeit it is always possible that he has had an additional (unnamed) source at hand. Even though Schefferus may have disagreed with Verelius on certain matters, the publication of Karlström’s thesis implies, in my view, that the dispute was not particularly serious in 1673. But what was Magnus Celsius’ role in the dispute? Celsius has been usually seen as a sceptical scholar who rejected the conclusions of the crystallisation of the Hyperborean research tradition, Rudbeck’s Atlantica. He also opposed Rudbeck in other disputes taking place in Uppsala in the 1670s. This is mostly true700; however, one should not let later incidents colour the early phase of this dispute. Celsius may have thought that some of Stiernhielm’s and especially Verelius’ views on the Hyperboreans (and runic calendars in which he was interested) were plausible701, something that even Schefferus had initially considered. As he analysed the ancient religion of Uppsala in his Upsalia in 1666, Schefferus cited Vossius, who had linked the deities of Uppsala to the generic German gods, which in turn were derived from the classical writings, (mostly Tacitus). Moreover, he referred to the Geatic tradition and the linguistic theories of Salmasius and Stiernhielm without belittling their views on the antiquity of Sweden702. This argument is supported by Nordström. He proved almost a century ago that it was not prior to 1677 that Schefferus voiced his doubts about the melding of the chronologies of Diodorus and Old Norse writings703. 699 Nordström 1924, CCIV–CCV. Stiernhielm made an impression on the continental Humanists Vossius, Boxhornius, Heinsius and Salmasius at the head, who all knew Schefferus as well. 700 Alkarp 2009, 175, discussed the role of Celsius. According to Rudbeck, Celsius admired Atlantica, which perhaps was, as Alkarp suggests, a sign of politeness, not necessarily agreement. 701 The next generation of Celsius family and Rudbeck along with his many followers may have not had anything to do with the matter before the second tome of Atlantica, in which Rudbeck went against the runic-mathematical studies of Celsius. Alkarp 2009, 175, also tells that the myth of the Hyperboreans might have been a sticking point in the Board of in 1674, which was introduced by the very Magnus Celsius. Unfortunately the original marking of it has not survived. 702 Schefferus 1666, 314–315. 703 Nordström 1934a, 133n147, cites the arguments of the original texts. 134 2.3.2 The Culmination of the Dispute Antiquarian versus Historian? The harsher tone in the extended commentary on Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks704 Verelius released in 1677 can be explained by the intervention of Olof Rudbeck the Elder (1630–1702) in the affair. In this commentary, Verelius extended the Swedish antiquity to remote antiquity705, as he argued that Rudbeck’s excavations in Gamla Uppsala had revealed over 600 graves, of which the most ancient were 3700 years old706. This clearly indicated that Diodorus’ account could be used as a source about the antiquity of Uppsala, since the temple and civilisation the Greek described seemed to have existed long before his work. Schefferus ridiculed this explanation as nonsense, on which basis Alkarp has suggested that the dispute was essentially a matter of methodological approach707. Indeed, data acquired with the help of archaeological methods were unusual in the early modern period708. In my view, the juxtaposition of the antiquarianism (i.e. with archaeology as its method) and the traditional history should not be overplayed in the dispute. Schefferus was not against using antiquities709, and moreover, according to Josephson, he had studied the churches of Uppsala with this very question in mind in the 1650s710. Thus, in my view, Schefferus may have ridiculed the results of Rudbeck because he had conducted similar studies in the region without finding any tangible evidence. The subject can be looked at from a wholly different academic perspective. As King has argued, this topical matter was discussed in the consistory of the University of Uppsala711. In 1677, Petrus Hoffvenius712 (1630–1682), Professor of Medicine and a colleague of Olof Rudbeck, suggested that the members of the consistory make an excursion to Gamla Uppsala and see if the evidence (of the excavations) would stand examination. None of the members of the consistory (all professors) were interested in doing this, for it could injure Schefferus’ 704 Verelius 1677, which is also called as Auctarium Notarum and has been written between the years 1673-1677. It includes also smaller studies such as the abovementioned, De Fanin (1674). 705 Verelius 1677, 15, refers to Diodorus II.47, and the architecture and shape of the Temple. 706 Verelius 1677, 14. 707 Alkarp 2009, 138ff. 708 Momigliano 1990, 54–79 (few examples of archaeology). 709 Ellenius 1957, passim. 710 Josephson 1940, 44, argued that Bureus did the same earlier. 711 King 2005, 181–182. 712 Lindroth 1975b, 454–457 (on Petrus Hoffwenius). 135 honour713. Thus the dispute had become a matter of personal chemistry, and was not effectively between Verelius and Schefferus. Schefferus, like many of his colleagues, had a chequered history with Rudbeck. As Eriksson has pointed out, Rudbeck had been insulted when Schefferus and his colleagues ignored him when choosing an architect (one of Rudbeck’s fields of expertise) for a university project in 1670. In addition, a member of the Board of Antiquities had questioned Rudbeck’s methods when Rudbeck was helping Verelius in 1674714. It should be said that, when under attack, Rudbeck played rough. His response to criticism from Schefferus, for instance, was tasteless at best; in 1677, he took some Danish and German prisoners of war, including a priest, to Gamla Uppsala. He wanted these “enemies” (and countrymen of Schefferus) to confirm the results of his excavations715. Asking outsiders to evaluate evidence may appear an acceptable method from the modern point of view, but Rudbeck’s deed was utterly insulting in the rigidly hierarchic, honour- and reputation-centred early modern society. To a certain extent, an intricate web of grudges sparked off the dispute. In the ultimate analysis, it hinged upon the looming publication of Rudbeck’s historical work, Atlantica, in which the main hypothesis of the antiquity of Uppsala was based on Diodorus’ account of the Hyperboreans. As a result of the dispute, Rudbeck complained to de la Gardie in 1677 and pointed to the honour of Sweden abroad, which he thought, could be damaged by Schefferus’ criticism716. He was not totally in error. As previously mentioned, Schefferus was very popular on the Continent. Hence, if writings disputing Rudbeck’s credibility as a historian spread across Europe, his work would be doomed to obscurity before its publication. Moderate Gothicism versus Excessive Gothicism? As Alkarp has noted, another possible explanation for Rudbeck taking the prisoners of war to Gamla Uppsala was that he wished to stress the German origin of Schefferus717. This was not an accusation to take lightly within the context of the contemporary Scanian War (1675–1679) against Denmark and Brandenburg. The Swedish response to anything “German” was a trifle hostile in 1677. Even 713 King 2005, 181–182; Alkarp 2009, 123. The distance between the University buildings and Gamla Uppsala is about five kilometres. 714 See Eriksson 2002, 112ff; Alkarp 2009, 124–126. This historian was Claes Arrhenius. 715 King 2005, 181. Verelius 1681, 14, still mentioned the remains. 716 King 2005, Chapter 12, is called ‘Hanging by a thread’, the expression Rudbeck used in the letter. 717 Alkarp 2009, 127–128. 136 Schefferus’ patron de la Gardie had insinuated that some scholars of German origin residing in Sweden had not fully supported the Crown718. Therefore, Rudbeck may have wanted to divert attention from the historiographical side to the political side of Geatic history during the bitter Scanian War and to imply that, once again, Schefferus was not giving his full support to the Crown719. Whatever the case, it is obvious that Swedish Gothicism tended to become more aggressive in times of crisis. This had occurred at the turn of the century (the propaganda wars of Charles IX and Sigismund) and later in the Thirty Years War, when the Geatic view of history was of a belligerent and millenarian nature (Bureus). Although Stiernhielm revived the idea of the civilised Hyperboreans during the more peaceful period of Queen Christina, who was not a supporter of military Gothicism in general, the construction was nonetheless used by the Crown to justify and establish the Swedish presence in the Baltics and Norway. In my view, this idea of change in political conditions influencing the contents of historical research in late seventeenth century Sweden should be taken seriously. Schefferus, for instance, published a work in 1678 in which the idea of the Swedish origin of the emblem of the Three Crowns was proclaimed720. As Lindroth noted, this work was written to use against the Danes721, and, although Schefferus was critical towards some of Bureus’ observations in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, incidentally mentioned in the text, the core motives of the Geatic view of history were part of the account722. The political conditions could also explain the shift in Verelius’ views on Swedish antiquity between his early and later works. In Runographia (1675), Verelius demonstrated his annoyance with the Danish Worm(ius), whom he called “Ormius” (“orm” means “snake” in Swedish). The source of irritation was the manner in which the Dane had dealt with the literal history of other Scandinavian peoples “like they would have no sense at all”723. Thus, it could be that Schefferus, and to a lesser degree Verelius, both servants of the Crown, were using historical ideas to support the Swedish Crown in the war against Denmark 718 Alkarp 2009, 125, 128. 719 Runeby 1962, 461–469. Schefferus was accused for writings against the concept of strong royalty in the early 1660s. Thus, it was not related to his patriotism, but his loyalty to the system of government. If this was reflected in the dispute, is hard to confirm. 720 De Antiquis verisque regni Sveciae insignibus (1678). This is elaborated in chapter 3.5. 721 Lindroth 1975b, 316; Schefferus 1678, 189ff (the Danish case). 722 Schefferus 1678, 72ff, 74–76, 144–150, 181–183. The matter will be elaborated in chapter 3.5. 723 Verelius 1675, 8ff. 137 that had commenced in 1675. Prior to the breakout of hostilities, they had not had any particular need for such hyperbole. My point is that although the identification of the Hyperboreans and the Geats was an open question, no sane historian would have questioned the Gothic origin of the Swedish monarchs at the time of conflicts against Denmark. Not even Schefferus, as Alkarp and Landgren agree, would have criticised the Gothic history724. Due to his German origins, Schefferus was perhaps at risk of finding himself in the same situation as his colleague and father-in-law, the (German) Professor and historian Johannes Loccenius (1598–1677), who, after turning a blind eye to the Gothic pre-history in his work Rerum svecicarum historia, was advised to add the Gothic Kings (after Johannes Magnus) to the second edition of his work, (1662)725. Since Schefferus was a patriot in the early modern sense, which had little to do with ethnicity or nationality, he supported the patria juris, that is, the Swedish Crown726. Thus, when appropriate, he used his expertise by constructing a fabulous Gothic past for political purposes. In this respect, Schefferus followed the Humanist ideal of good historicus being also an orator and politicus727. 2.3.3 The Finale of the Dispute – The Honour of the Fatherland Schefferus had responded to the criticism of Verelius and Rudbeck in 1677 in his work De Situ et vocabulo Upsaliae – Epistola defensoria. Thereafter, he had clearly had enough of the debate. As Alkarp wrote, “he was tired of arguing over historical matters with a Treasurer and a Crazy Anatomist”728. However, he had sent a letter to Count de la Gardie just before the publication of De Situ to complain that the matter had got out of hand. De la Gardie could not have agreed more, and as a result, forbade writings that could ignite the flames afresh.729 Verelius was devastated by de la Gardie’s proclamation and asked permission to reply, which the Count denied. Rudbeck, a favourite of de la Gardie, complained to his patron in typically hyperbolic terms730. It was not easy for de la Gardie to balance the views of these famed and influential scholars (Schefferus 724 Alkarp 2009, 125–128; Landgren 2008, 287–317. 725 Lindroth 1975b, 306f. 726 Alkarp 107–109. 727 Landgren 2008, 163, 177. 728 Alkarp 2009, 122–124. 729 Alkarp 2009, 123. 730 Nordström 1934a, 134–136. 138 and Rudbeck). Besides, the dispute was far from over. In 1678, Verelius informed his colleagues about a new piece of evidence related to the debate over the age and location of the Uppsala temple. This manuscript, Annotationes ex scriptis Karoli episcopi Arosiensis excerptæ. Ex ms. membraneo vetusto nunc primum in lucem prolatæ, turned out to be a forgery. As shown by many modern historians, Schefferus subsequently cracked jokes at Verelius’ expense in his De Excerptis Annotationibus (1678). Verelius protested his innocence, and, more importantly, asserted that he had received the dubious manuscript from Olof Rudbeck731. The reason that Verelius received a bad reputation is related to the events after Schefferus died in 1679. Schefferus’ death did not prevent Verelius from replying to De Excerptis Annotationibus. His Notae in Epistolam Defensoriam was published in 1681732. The work was regarded as an abomination in the light of the contemporary social codex because of the manner in which Verelius referred to Schefferus in the text. He addressed him as “you”, instead of using a term such as “the illustrious late Schefferus”. This casual form of address was extremely insulting in a society which placed enormous value on titles as well as personal and collective honour, and more so when the person in question was deceased. Not long after its publication, a letter arrived from the Royal Chancellery informing that the Crown had confiscated the work. The consistory informed Verelius that if any copies were sold, a fine of 1000 thalers would be imposed.733 Verelius soon fell ill, and died on the third of January 1682. Prior to his death, he complained that he had earned a reputation equal to that of “Annius of Viterbo”734, a statement which also illustrates the decline in the credibility of the Antiquities of Annius by this time. It is not hard to understand Verelius’ feelings. The situation had become impossible after he was taken in by the forgery, and, more importantly, after his collaborator and friend Rudbeck had released Atlantica in 1679. Whatever Verelius might have thought about the antiquity of Sweden and the role of Hyperboreans in it, after the publication of Atlantica he had no opportunity to alter his views or others’ perception of them. Rudbeck had named Verelius on his opening page as one of his greatest sources of inspiration, and at the same time, used him as authority in the study of Swedish antiquity. 731 Alkarp 2009, 129ff; King 2005, 182–187, describe how this question is still unanswered. 732 Verelius 1681, 1–2, (accuses Schefferus of seeing the people of Uppsala as barbarians); Verelius 1681, 13–14 (the prisoners of war in Gamla Uppsala); Verelius 1681, 15 (the shape of the temple), 17ff, the Hyperboreans after Hecataeus-Diodorus. 733 Alkarp 2009, 132–135. 734 Verelius 1681, introduction; Alkarp 2009, 132–133 (translated by Urban Örneholm). 139 According to the early modern social codex, this was a great honour. The problem was, from Verelius’ point of view, that in case he would not fully subscribe to the most extreme interpretation of Swedish antiquity (Atlantica), he would have to criticise his friend Rudbeck. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why he accurately followed Atlantica as to the antiquity of Uppsala in his notorious work, Notae. Verelius asserted that the prefix “As” in “Aesir” was not from “Asia”, as Snorri had claimed in the Prose Edda and Ynglinga Saga, but instead derived from the ancient Scandinavian “as”-, a reference to “divine”. This was also one of the etymological arguments for the Northern origin of the word “Apollon” in Rudbeck’s Atlantica735. In other words, Rudbeck’s Atlantica had changed the situation: although Verelius would have personally disagreed with Rudbeck on some matters, he could not have voiced his thoughts in public anymore736. This would have denigrated the reputation and honour of his friend as well as their patron de la Gardie and, most importantly, the honour of the fatherland, which meant the Swedish Crown. 2.4 Summary In contrast to the esoteric-political reflections of Bureus about the revival of the Geatic Hyperborean wisdom, Stiernhielm’s views on the Hyperboreans were determined by the comprehensive use of historical linguistics and reflected the Western European antiquarian discourses in which attempts to define and appropriate German, Celtic and Gothic history were discussed. However, Stiernhielm’s idea of the Old Scandinavian writings and classical writings as sources of equal value was the most important from the perspective of the following research on Swedish antiquity and the developing Hyperborean research tradition. This novel trend was manifested in the saga editions and commentaries of Olof Verelius. As part of the intellectual change, linguistic speculation was losing ground, and the new generation of scholars looked askance at the esotericism of Bureus. While Late Renaissance esoteric-syncretistic ideas about ancient religion were losing adherents, the empirical side of the early modern antiquarianism and more natural, less esoteric interpretations of the ancient religion were gradually coming to the fore. 735 Verelius 1681, 17–19, 22; compare also with Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 44. Rudbeck’s side will be discussed in the next chapter. 736 Verelius 1681, 13, mentions Rudbeck’s Atlantica. 140  In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Danish historians and the German Cluverius had been sources of irritation for Bureus and Stiernhielm, as their popular works on the origin of the Goths and Hyperboreans did not credit Sweden. In the second half of the century, as research on Swedish antiquity received more resources from the Crown through the institutionalisation of the research, some discordant notes against the most extreme form of the research (Hyperborean research tradition) emerged on the domestic front. However, from the analytical point of view, the disputes over the Temple of Uppsala between the parties of Verelius and Schefferus reflect a vibrant and diverse research culture. Some interpretations of Swedish antiquity were still open, the Hyperboreans being one of them. Some subjects were not to be disputed. The Gothic origin of the Swedes was one of them, as manifested in the discussions of the emblem of the Three Crowns. Even the historians critical of the identification of the Goths with the Hyperboreans were willing to give in with regard to this topic. Historians, who were very tightly connected with the political elite, thus played a part in the propaganda wars between the Swedish and European monarchs. Sweden had gradually gained a greater foothold in the Baltics and Scandinavia (by seizing parts of Norway from Denmark), something against which the emblematic discussion and the ancient dominion of the Hyperboreans, and, to some degree, even the saga editions of Verelius, as part of monopolising the events and figures of ancient history in the region, should be measured. 141 142 3 The Atlantis of the North: The Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1680–1700 3.1 Rudbeck the Elder’s Fabulous Uppsala It will be argued in this chapter that the research of the abovementioned Olof Rudbeck the Elder (1630–1702) made the Hyperborean research tradition famous in Sweden and abroad. Rudbeck had remarkable talents. As a result of his discoveries in medical anatomy in the 1650s and subsequent studies of medical anatomy in Leyden University in the Netherlands, some European monarchs offered Rudbeck positions in their courts. The world was open for this young genius, yet he chose Uppsala, the town of his heart. Over the following decades, he worked on several engineering, planting and building projects in Uppsala.737 The role of Uppsala was pivotal also in Rudbeck’s historical work Atlantica, in which he enthroned the Gamla Uppsala region and its inhabitants as the linchpin of the rise of classical civilisation. Rudbeck became interested in the idea after Verelius had asked if Rudbeck could draw him a topographical map of the ancient Uppsala region after the account of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks. As a result, he had noticed certain resemblances between the details of “the histories of the Greeks and Romans” and our ancient history. Rudbeck decided to share his epiphany with the experts in the field, such as Professors Loccenius and Verelius, who showed tentative interest and gave their blessing. These two historians could not have anticipated what lay ahead. The three completed monumental tomes of Atlantica were released in 1679, 1689 and 1698, respectively.738 Atlantica is not a standard historical work. In a sense, even contemporary scholars viewed it as unique. Many subsequent scholars enthused over the work, not to mention the group of students in Sweden who cited the celebrated work of the great Professor Rudbeckius in their dissertations739. Atlantica was, in my view, nearly as influential in the Swedish historiography of the turn of the century as the Gothic history of Johannes Magnus. Contemporaneous appreciation of the 737 Rudbeck in general: Eriksson 1994, passim; Eriksson 2002, passim; King 2005, passim. On his other activities, see Dahl 1995, passim. Such projects of Rudbeck as the Anatomical Theatre (1662) and the Botanical Garden (as well as bridges and trees) still embellish the quaint academic quarters of Uppsala. 738 E.g. Eriksson 2002, 279; Nordström 1934a, 136ff. The last unfinished part was published in 1863 but was known among the contemporaneous scholars. Referred in this study as Rudbeck the Elder 1937 (1679); 1939 (1689); 1947 (1698); 1950 (posthumous); Rudbeck the Elder 1938, refers to the maps, tables and pictures of Atlantica I (published separately in the modern edition). 739 See section 4.5.2. 143 work manifested itself, for instance, on his tombstone in the nave of the Cathedral of Uppsala, the most important church of Sweden at that time and today. The inscription carved on Rudbeck’s tombstone reads: OLAVUS RUDBECK THE ELDER. IMMORTALEM ATLANTICA, MORTALEM HIC CIPPUS TESTATUR740 Nordström’s and Eriksson’s extensive studies741 mean there is no point in me comprehensively analysing the foundation of Atlantica. Instead, I will use the manner in which Rudbeck discussed the Hyperboreans in his work as an example of the general set of beliefs of early modern research into national history. More importantly, I will show that despite the fact that Rudbeck devoted little explicit attention to the Hyperboreans in the 2000 pages of Atlantica, the topic was nonetheless at the heart of the work. The classical accounts of the Hyperboreans per se were only mentioned in the short, ninth chapter742 of the first part of Atlantica; however, in order to understand how Rudbeck analysed and used the myth of the Hyperboreans in the work, one has to be familiar with his ideas the early history of the world and the part the ancient Scandinavians played in it. Therefore, a short general introduction of Atlantica is provided below, before commencing analyses of his main ideas. The analyses are exhaustive, which is necessary because the work was the major source of inspiration and irritation for later researchers of the Hyperboreans and Northern Antiquity on the whole. The statement at the core of Atlantica is that Sweden had been inhabited soon after the Flood by the descendants of Noah (notably Magog, Japheth’s son) who journeyed through Russia and Finland to the Uppsala region743. They had been attracted to the North by the vast waters surrounding Scandinavia brimful with fish, which were, according to Rudbeck, the only “species” that had not become extinct in the Flood. Thanks to the bountiful natural resources of the North, the population proliferated and a civilisation emerged.744 Thus far, the views of Rudbeck are little different to those of his predecessors, save for the emphasis on natural resources, such as fish as a motivation for migration. 740 ‘Olof Rudbeck Father. This tombstone bears witness of his mortality, Atlantica his immortality.’ 741 Nordström 1934a, passim; Eriksson 1994, passim; Eriksson 2002, passim. 742 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IXff. ‘Om Sweriges nampn kalladt dhe Yfwerbornes Öö’, i.e. ‘On Sweden’s name called the Island of the Hyperboreans’. 743 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap.III; e.g. 42, 94–95, 491. He saw Japheth as the progenitor of Europeans. 744 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 29, 30, 34, 56ff; 164 (about the two rye yields in the north which are abundant), 264 (of the fruitful and lovely land). See also Eriksson 2002, 286, 288–290. 144  The rest of Atlantica can be regarded as an enterprise to prove that the ancient Northerners had travelled back to the Continent, Mediterranean, Egypt, Near-East and India, which they mostly reached during the first postdiluvian centuries. Rudbeck thought that the classical accounts about the Hyperboreans described a specific people, the ruling class of peoples in ancient Scandinavian empire, and he called them with their etymologised, original northern name “Yfwerborne Up- Svear”. Once the mighty Scandinavians had encountered the Mediterranean and Near-Eastern peoples, they established settlements such as Troy, and taught the local inhabitants certain civilised arts745. Eventually the ancient Scandinavians subjugated most of ancient Europe as a result of their military and cultural superiority. The Mediterranean regions were divided between the noblest Swedish families. According to Rudbeck, members of the ruling classes of celebrated ancient civilisations, such as the Egyptian, Trojan, Phoenician, Greek and Etruscan peoples were hence of Northern origin746. In a sense, the postdiluvian world had been an empire ruled by the Overking(s) of the Hyperborean Up-Svear from Gamla Uppsala: And all these names are given because of the reason that, in part, Plato and others have in detail known, and even more in detail henceforth will be shown, that at the first times after the flood was Atles [Magog, the first King of Atlantis/Uppsala] descendant always the overking over all the other northern Kings, and had established his reign in the whole Europe as far as Etruria and in Africa as far as Egypt.747 Thus, Rudbeck argued that the golden age of Swedish history took place in such antiquity that the classical authors had forgotten it. There were traces of these events in classical myths, but they needed to be analysed in relation to the Old Norse writings and domestic antiquities as well as the natural circumstances. Like Stiernhielm earlier, Rudbeck was in effect saying that classical peoples had not 745 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 482 (summarised), Cap. VIII (218–223); Cap. XXXIIX–XXXIX, the diffusion of the runic alphabet as well as art of writing with its myriad implications (magic). In ATL. II-IV, to which I will come back, the diffusion of beliefs, symbols, the (runic) calendar, laws etc. are elaborated. 746 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 482, Cap. XXXVI–XXXVIII, Cap. XXXL; the religious connection in Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. V–VIII; the trade connections (from Scandinavia to the Phoenicians with their military expeditions to Mediterranean in Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XII–Cap. XIII; Rudbeck the Elder 1950, Cap. III. 747 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 229–230. ‘Och äro alla dhesse namnen gifne af dhen orsak som endeles redan Platone och andra widlyffteligen är wiist, och widlyffteligare här efter wisas skal, at i första tiider effter floden war Atles afkomne alltid öfwerkonung öfwer alla the andra nordeska Konungar, och hade underlagdt sig heela Europam til Etrurien och uti Africa in til Egypten’. 145 understood the origins of their own mythologies748. Like Postel, de la Boderie and Becanus earlier, Rudbeck proposed that classical civilisations were influenced by the peoples north of the Alps. All these scholars represented the extreme form of the Northern European antiquarianism. They believed that the Greeks had appropriated the achievements of other peoples of antiquity and not vice versa. Like Bureus and Stiernhielm, Rudbeck suggested that the classical writings could be used as a source of the ancient history of Western and Northern Europe749. The main reasons for the success of Atlantica among some of the contemporary European scholars rested firstly on the ideas of Verelius, that is, the comparison between the classical and Old Norse writings750, and secondly, Rudbeck’s innovative, empirically inspired antiquarian methods. In regard to the latter, he referred to a specific method: the awareness of natural circumstances751. In other words, the historical scholar should get out of the library and explore the natural environment and material remains. In Atlantica this referred to the general features of Nordic nature, specifically in the region of Gamla Uppsala. Essentially, he meant that the historian needed to know the special characteristics of the Northern peoples, their customs and languages, as well as the North’s unique natural features in order to interpret the data reliably. The central point of this approach was to demonstrate how the mythological and historical (literal) data became understandable mainly in the light of these natural circumstances752. By comparing textual evidence with the topography of the area, Rudbeck claimed for instance, that the Island of Atlantis had been situated in Gamla Uppsala753. He understood, of course, that this was a controversial statement. As Rudbeck argued in Atlantica, he was well aware of the incongruities the hypothesis of Gamla Uppsala being the Island of Atlantis presented in the light of classical literature. By this he meant details in his source material that would seem to rule them out as accounts of Northern antiquity, such as elephants or wine at Atlantis. However, he regarded these characteristics as nothing but degenerate accounts of the classical writings, which turned out to be perfectly rational when 748 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 256, 492. The manner he has treated nature, myths, sources etc. is discussed in chapters I & II (of Atlantica Tom. 1). I will come back to the details in the following. 749 See introduction and section 1.1.2. 750 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. II–III. The methodological-interpretative framework of Rudbeck is crystallised in the (English) article of Malm 1994, 1–27; Eriksson 2002, 270–272. 751 Rudbeck 1937, 13ff, 21–22; and e.g. 228. 752 Ibidem. 753 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. VII, provides 102 pieces of evidence about this hypothesis. 146 reinterpreted for Northern circumstances. The elephants were walruses or massive northern wolves, and the wine was “northern wine”, that is to say, mead754. In fact, Rudbeck’s interpretative theory on explaining mythical occurrences in Old Norse and classical writings in the light of natural history was based on a long intellectual tradition on the exegetical value of natural world in the scripture. The most famous proponent of the theory is Augustine of Hippo. It was probably mediated to Rudbeck by the abovementioned Samuel Bochart and his work on the animals (and the role of nature) in the Bible755. According to Bochart, such events as the talking snake in Genesis were emblematic and needed to be interpreted in the light of reason, an idea which Rudbeck employed in the context of Old Norse and classical writings. Thus, Rudbeck’s theory to refer to Northern nature and peoples within their textual contexts was not a sign of “modern” source criticism or science, but followed a long exegetic tradition of biblical scholarship. 3.1.1 Atlantic Geography and Etymology As in the earlier research of Bureus, Stiernhielm and Verelius, comparative analysis of the geographical accounts of the classical and Old Norse writings had a role in Atlantica756. However, for Rudbeck it was no longer a matter proving that the accounts of the Hyperboreans could be identified with the history of the Geats, Getae and Scythians of the Uppsala region. Instead, Rudbeck disclosed a formidable amount of new place and personal names in the classical writings that not only supported but completely upstaged his predecessors’ hypotheses. The question of geographical place names will be discussed first757, followed by Rudbeck’s etymologies of the euhemerisations of the prominent persons of early Scandinavian and world history758. 754 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 184ff; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. I, responds to criticisms against Tom.1. 755 Killeen 2009, 43–46. Bochart’s work is called, Hierozoicon sive bipartitum opus de animalibus sacrae scripturae (1663). 756 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 12. It is closely related to the etymological-geographical method of Bochart in Geographica Sacra, with whom, as Rudbeck says, he had discussed in the court of Christina Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 39; and to whom he refers on occasion. E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 530. 757 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. VIII–XXV. E.g. Atlantis, Hyperborean Island, Ogg’s Island, Scythia, Kings Island, Baldur’s Island, Manheim, God’s Island, Holy Island (Helixoia), Blessed Islands, Scan Island, Geat Islands, Kalland (Gallia), Tylo (Thule), Middle Earth (Midgard), Hell, Underworld, The End of the World, Asparlund, Glysisvall, Swearike and so forth, are analysed and translated. 758 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXVIII–XXXIV. Cap.XXVII ‘Om Gudarnas och Konungarnas namns ursprung och härkomst’ (‘On the origin and diffusion of the names of the gods and kings’. E.g. cap XXVIII & XXIX ‘Om Sadur eller Bore’ (‘On Sadur [the original northern form of Saturnus] and Bore’) and ‘Om Jo-fur, Jo-mala eller Jo-pitter, som och kallas Thor, och Tyss’ (On Jo-fur, Jo-mala or Jo-pitter that is also called Thor, and Tyss’). The term Jo- is a prefix, and Jo-mala referred to Finnish ‘Jumala’ which the 147  One of the numerous ancient Northern place names presented in a degenerate form in the classical literature was “Hyperborean Island”. According to Rudbeck, its original Northern name was “Yfwerbornes Öö”759. Rudbeck’s views on the land of the Hyperboreans differ slightly from those of Stiernhielm and Bureus. Rudbeck thought that the reason for the various, even contradictory suggestions of the location of the land arose from a misconception by Ptolemy. He claimed that if one slavishly followed Ptolemy’s data, the map of the northern part of Europe would end up looking crooked760. In short, because Ptolemy was not familiar with the North, he could not provide a precise cartographic depiction of the area or the land of the Hyperboreans either. It is also noticeable that Rudbeck deemed Diodorus, who had based his account on Hecataeus, to be a more reliable than Ptolemy due to his greater antiquity761. While Rudbeck gently corrected Ptolemy’s mistakes, his true critique was aimed at the German antiquary Cluverius, with whom Stiernhielm had disagreed in his De Hyperboreis Dissertatio. Cluverius had followed Ptolemy and placed the land of the Hyperboreans in north-western Russia762. Regarding the geographical place names related to the Hyperboreans, Rudbeck made references to contemporary scholars and also proposed to have solved the traditional problem with the Rhipaean or Hyperborean Mountains763. For Rudbeck, instead of being a particular mountain range in the ancient world, the names adverted to two distinct mountain ranges in ancient Scandinavia. In the maps of Atlantica, the Rhipaean Mountain is situated in south-eastern Finland, whereas the Hyperborean Mountain is located in the hilly areas of middle Sweden764. His interpretation was based on the special knowledge he claimed to possess of Northern geography. This explanation should be seen within the context of Cluverius, who had argued the mountains were situated in Russia, and more importantly, had dared to suggest that the Goths were not originally from Scandinavia765. Therefore, if the matter is Bjarmians of the Icelandic sagas had worshipped. This was the original northern form of the Roman Juppiter, i.e. Jo-pitter. 759 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IX (228–264). 760 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 237: ’Hwarföre måste man först wrida Ptolomaei senda werld til rätta’: ’Wherefore one must first turn the world of Ptolemy to the right (position)’. 761 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 236. 762 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 234ff. 763 Which has been introduced in the cases of Bureus, Stiernhielm, and Verelius. 764 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 237–250 & Cap. XXV; check also Rudbeck the Elder 1938, Tab. I. fig. 1; Tab. II. fig. 2; Tab. VI, fig. 14 (the maps of ancient Scandinavia). 765 Cluverius 1631, Caput Primum 5–16, discusses the location of the land of the Hyperboreans in 1st chapter. He depicted it in Tabula I & Tabula II as well. The history of German peoples (e.g. Suevi & Gothi) is treated in chapters VII–XI. See also Rudbeck the Elder 1938, ibid. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 97. 148 analysed wholly on the level of scholarly disputes between the Swedes and other Northern Europeans, there is a clear coherence between Rudbeck and his Swedish predecessors. In order to understand the place of the Hyperboreans in Rudbeck’s ancient Scandinavia, one should be aware of the comparisons he conducted between the etymological and geographical details of the accounts of the Underworld and Land of the Blessed in Old Norse and classical mythologies. Basically, Rudbeck proposed that the luminous Fields of Elysion and murky Underworld in the Greek Tartaros could be situated in Scandinavia766. His self-proclaimed but actual knowledge of the natural environment of the North was central in relation to this statement, too: the excessive darkness and light described in the myths, for instance, indicated the large seasonal variation in sunlight in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle, as the classical geographer Pomponius Mela (among others) had suggested occurred in the land of the Hyperboreans767. Besides, according to Rudbeck, the origin of such place names as “Heligsö” and “Glysisvall”, which Stiernhielm and Verelius had discussed, pointed etymologically to the North768. For Rudbeck these names adverted to words of the Scythian language. The etymological root of the term “Hel”- was related to “Helheim”, the underworld in the Old Norse writings; terms such as “helig” and “glys” referred to the attributes “light”, “blessed”, “sacred” and “glow”. Thus, the terminology of the myths pointed to the blessed, sacred nature of the land and the people769. Although these etymological ideas drew from Stiernhielm’s Scythic theories, they harked back similarly to the Phoenician theories of Samuel Bochart in Geographia Sacra. In this work, it was asserted that the languages of the “prisci nationes” had spread across the world after the Confusion of Tongues770. Eriksson has correctly argued that Rudbeck generally did not support the theories of Salmasius and Stiernhielm on the original language771. Rudbeck’s theory was that the original language was Hebrew and that the Scythian language was quite different from it. All in all, his theory was quite liberal yet within the limits of the sacred history of the Old Testament. Rudbeck explained that at some point of the 766 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XV, Cap. XXII–XXIII, e.g. 359–360. Part of the Greek myths of Tartaros, the Underworld, which Epic poets, e.g. Hesiod, whom Rudbeck highly valued, had portrayed. 767 Pomponius Mela; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 257ff. 768 Stiernhielm 1685, 130–134; in the notes and commentaries of Verelius 1664 & Verelius 1672. 769 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 293ff, 351ff; the Swedish terms related to ‘Heligsö’ (hel, helig, helg) and Glysisvall (g)lysa, lysas upp = holy, sacred, holy day, shine, glow, illuminate, enlightened etc. i.e. the Blessed Gardens of Uppsala. 770 Rudbeck surely knew the theories of Stiernhielm as attests Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 32. 771 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 32–34, 41ff. On their theories on languages, see Eriksson 2002, 285–288. 149 postdiluvian history, God realised that all people living in the vicinity of Babel would lead to an economic disaster. Thus, a rational God confused the tongues. Rudbeck reasoned that if people did not understand each other, they would start looking for new regions to settle.772 Rudbeck claimed that there had been three groups of languages in ancient Europe: Greek, Celtic and Geatic (Scythian). In practice, he saw these languages as hypothetical: over the centuries they had become intermingled, and hence nobody spoke the original forms anymore773. Thus, this idea of hypothetical languages harked back to the previously mentioned theories of Stiernhielm and Salmasius on the development of language. Rudbeck thought that after the Confusion of Tongues, the Scythian (Geatic) language had possessed a close affinity to the original language, that is, it was nearer to the original language than the later forms of Hebrew. The unique nature of ancient Scythian language was a result of the preservation caused by the long isolation of the Northern people. The language of the Germans, Rudbeck said, was not as old, but a corrupted, later form of Scythian (Swedish)774. Another method typical of Atlantica was to pair distinct place names in the Mediterranean with locations in ancient Scandinavia. This idea was based on the earlier claim of Scandinavian rule over the ancient Mediterranean. For example, the original form of the term “Libya” was “Lybia”, and, according to Rudbeck, it situated in Scandinavia. Rudbeck’s explanation for this phenomenon was that it was the custom of the Scandinavian conquerors to rename their Mediterranean conquests after their home regions775, but over the centuries, “Lybia” had become “Libya”. According to Rudbeck, numerous other names in the classical myths were of Scythian (Geatic) origin. Similar theories on the development of ancient names776 were manifested in the works of his predecessors. Becanus had claimed that the ancient Kimbrian colonies in the New World held several names in the Kimbrian language, a view which Bureus had mocked777. In England, Aylett Sammes insisted that Britain had place names of Phoenician origin. He believed 772 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 32–33; 27–40. 773 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 32ff, 41ff; Cap III, in general. 774 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 42ff; Cap. III. See Eriksson 2002, 285–288. Not vice versa as Cluverius said. 775 Eriksson 1994, 28, 74. Also “Ethiopia” falls into the same group of northern and southern names in the ancient writings. Mostly elaborated in Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XI & Cap. XII. 776 Rudbeck 1937, 228. ‘People have greatly taken names from the Fathers, as the Jews from Judah, Israelites from Israel […] At times from the illustrious Emperors and Kings honorary titles names, as even today is the habit, as all the troops and pawn of the Roman Emperor are called Imperials, although they are not Emperors; Papists all who belong to that religion, although they are not Pope’s.’ 777 Nordström 1934a, n43–44 (cites Cod. Linc. N.24. Fol 100). 150 the colonisers of Britain had given Phoenician names to the regions of their new home, just as the British did in their colonies in the New World778. Thus, Rudbeck’s theories and methods were not only similar to those of Bureus, Stiernhielm and Verelius, but operated within a recognisable framework of the etymological tradition of European study of national history. 3.1.2 The “Yfwerborne” – not “Hyperboreás” Rudbeck believed that the myths of the Mediterranean and Old Norse civilisations could be traced back all the way to postdiluvian times. This theory involved an idea that some place and personal names in the writings were of Northern origin. These ancient words had been transformed due to degeneration – the decay in history caused by the long centuries between the original events and their recording. The new element of Rudbeck’s analysis of the Hyperboreans or “Yfwerborne” rested thereby on the concept that the original meaning of the term was not of Greek but Northern origin, and that the term represented the oldest stratum of the Scythian-Geatic language. The original Northern form of the word had signified of “noble birth” or “noble blood” and not “beyond Boreás”.779 Rudbeck suggested that certain geographical and topographical facts related to the term “Hyperborean” inextricably excluded that it was originally a Greek word. Secondly, he believed that the ancient languages had had a more direct link to the original significance of the word. Hence, he could claim that it had originally referred to the characteristics of the inhabitants of the land instead of its location. After the etymologisations, Rudbeck concluded that the term Hyperboreans/Yfwerborne had pointed to and signified the noblest people among the ancient Scandinavians, “Up-Svear” (High-Swear): 5. Our Yfwerbornes’ Northern landscape has not been situated above the axis of the Earth, nor under the Northern Star’s point, nor in the utmost north, as some believed, (but it is) derived from the Geatic word Yfwerboren, of which it then transformed to the Greek word Hyperboreans.780 778 Parry 1995, 309; regarding Sammes, see Parry 1995, 308–330. The Phoenician trait in the European and also British research was predominantly of Bochart’s influence. See Bietenholz 1994, 232–235. Rudbeck (and Stiernhielm) had discussed with Bochart, as mentioned earlier. See Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 39. 779 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 233ff. See the citation in the next footnote. 780 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 232–233. ‘And they are the same, which are in the Northern Kings’ Sagas called High-Svear or Up-Svear, and the land thereby Upland, since they summoned (to a meeting) all the Kings and the whole Swedish Empire, as well as Treasure Kings from abroad […] As for Upland one cannot indeed say that it lies higher, because it is the lowest site in Sweden (Svealand?) near the Sea and 151 In fact, Rudbeck went even further and argued that both of his key geographical terms, “Hyperborean” and “Atlantis”, along with their derivatives, resembled the etymological root, adverting to the noble character of the ancient people of the Gamla Uppsala region. When Rudbeck introduced these “noblest Up-Svear”781, he pointed to an old Swedish folksong as a source. Typically, Rudbeck used the term “Yfwerborne” in its modified, translated form in order to confirm the etymological affinity before he had proven his point that the term “Hyperborea” was of northern origin: De Yfwerborne Swear Som herdska alla Land782 Rudbeck’s fabrication of the “Yfwerborne Up-Svear” was founded on a belief that the contemporary name of the Swedish province of Svealand, and its inhabitants, Svear, derived from ancient times. Since the early mediaeval period Sweden had consisted of Geatland and Svealand, a fact of which Rudbeck was surely aware. Most historians stressed the role of the Geats (Goths) in the universal history, whereas the history of the Svear was not a matter of any particular significance, apart from sporadic mentions of the Temple at Uppsala783. In fact, as Nordström has noted, Bureus may have identified the Hyperboreans specifically with the people of ancient Svealand and Gamla Uppsala784. The provincial implications of the fabrication (and the tradition of fabulous antiquity in general) – if Rudbeck endeavoured to present the Hyperboreans (Svear) as the equivalent of the Goths (Geats) – cannot be studied in detail here. However, it can be speculated that for Rudbeck, the myths of the Hyperboreans and Atlantis were echoes of the former glory of the Svear in the Uppsala region785. In any event, Rudbeck elaborated the etymological comparisons and identified other words in the ancient languages that bore out the etymological affinity between the terms “Atlantis” and “Hyperborea”. Rudbeck suggested that Lake Mälaren […] Therefore, is also this land Upland and its people [...] with its noble (royal) of origin Kings and children they had at the seat, righteously called Yfwerborne […]’. 781 Rudbeck had a tradition behind him. The Germanic tribe of ‘Svear’ that appears in the Old Norse literature is traditionally seen as one of the most powerful tribes in Sweden with the Geats. However, there is no evidence of High Svear. The modern theories see e.g. Lindstöm-Lindström 2006, 16–40. 782 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 232–233. ‘The Svear of Noble Blood that rule all lands.’ 783 Even the Overking of Uppsala was regarded as the Geatic or Gothic King. 784 Nordström 1934a, 116. 785 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXIV (‘Om wårt Lands nampn Swearike’ i.e. ‘On our Country’s name Swearike’), in 376–378, Rudbeck identifies the Scythians, Geats, and Thracians with the people of Uppsala. The influence of Heimskringla and Tacitus (Germania) in this was significant. 152 the name of the first King of Atlantis (i.e. the Gamla Uppsala region) was “Atle”786. He claimed that the name of this king was the etymological root and reason for the name “Atlantis” in the classical Greek myths. He claimed “Atle” was etymologically related to ancient Northern terms meaning “noble” and “nobility”, among others. Rudbeck was convinced that the contemporaneous Swedish terms “adel” and “ädel” were echoes of these ancient words787. Hence, if “Yfwerborne” referred to “noble origin” and “descent”, words related to “Atlas” related to the same ancient events and civilisation in Scandinavia. Not surprisingly, Rudbeck pointed to the Eddic gods Bore and Bur(e) in this connection, which (in my view) referred to the Hyperborean Boreás too, although as King and Eriksson noted, the matter is not that simple in Atlantica788. The original significance of the terms “Yfwerborne” and “Atlantis” was not confined only to the explanations above. According to Rudbeck, the myth of the Hyperboreans involved several other personal and place names which confirmed his etymologisations. Some examples of the mythological terms Rudbeck saw as having equivalent etymological significance and equally confirming the glorious Scandinavian antiquity, were among others, Bore-barn, Apollo/Balder and Abaris/Habor789. Rudbeck was convinced that the name “Bore” and its original etymological significance, “noble”, had found its way into some other ancient languages as well. For instance, such Latin place names as Terra Borealis and Mare Borealis signified the “Land of Bore” and “Sea of Bore”790 and thus echoed the high status of the noblest Up-Svear in the ancient Baltic region. In addition, Rudbeck suggested that the names Bore/Boreás had given the impetus to calling the first Up-Svear “Borebarn” (“the Children of Bore” and “the Noble Children”). According to him, this king had been so well known in antiquity that he was mentioned both in the Eddic (Bur, Bore) and classical (Boreás) myths, and additionally, that the peoples and place names in the Northern regions he had once ruled had received their name from him.791 If this breathtaking proclamation is considered alongside the earlier territorial antiquarianism of Bureus and 786 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, e.g. fig. 128. ‘Atle eller Thor Atlas’. See also King 2005, 134–136. 787 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 139–140, presents the idea of the’Atleborne’ (‘of noble birth’) of Gamla Uppsala i.e. Atlantis-Hyperborea. Swed. ‘adel’, ‘ädel’ is in English ‘nobility’, ‘noble’ etc. 788 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 230, 128 fig., 262 (‘Bore’s ätt’ i.e. ‘Line of Bore’), 352 (‘[…] wår Norska Kongung Bore som röfwade Orythiam […]’ i.e. ‘Our Northern King Bore who kidnapped Orythia’, whereas Rudbeck the Elder 1937, fig. 128, includes both Bure (Caelus) and Bore (Saturnus). The personal names Bore or Bor refer to the Eddic gods. See Lindow 2001, 90; compare with King 2005, 72–73. 789 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IX. 790 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 231ff. 791 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 231, 434; see also the analysis of King 2005, 72–73. 153 Stiernhielm, the continuity is easy to see: even the language, in the form of place and personal names, was harnessed to prove that Swedish monarchs and nobility had ruled the Baltics since time immemorial. Rudbeck’s analysis of the classical Boreás as the personification of the North Wind was related to the abovementioned identification between the mythical Underworld and Scandinavia. Rudbeck had located the distinct parts of the Greek/Eddic Underworld792 in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle because of the region’s extreme seasonal variation in natural light793. In the process, Rudbeck stressed the ancient connections between the Greeks and the Noblest Up-Svear (Hyperboreans). He claimed that Orpheus, Hercules and Perseus (among others) had journeyed in ancient Scandinavia794, which was but additional proof that Hades (or Elixoia) of the Greek myths was an actual place in the North. In this area had dwelled the Cimmerians who had given their name to the town and the river Kimmi (Kemi) in the northern part of Finland795. Thus, Rudbeck argued that the noblest children of Bore had resided south from the Underworld, as he thought it was called in most classical myths.796 The fact that Rudbeck included vast areas of the northern part of Scandinavia along with the Baltic region in his Atlantica should be seen as a strategy of territorial antiquarianism to appropriate certain areas by placing the ancestors of the current dynasty in them. 3.1.3 The Famous Dynasties of the “Yfwerborne Up-Svear” One of the most important subjects of Atlantica was royal history. The euhemerisations and etymologisations of the gods and heroes of the Old Norse and classical myths was such an integral part of Atlantica that it is easy to forget the genealogical aspects of the work. Despite the use of imaginary methods and (admittedly clever) interpretative strategies, and strong focus on praising the ancient culture in Scandinavia, its military conquests and pious “others” (i.e. the ancient Sámi and Finns), it is still a work which details a long line of the kings. Rudbeck constructed various highly elaborate genealogical tables of the ancient 792 In some Greek myths (e.g. Virgil’s works) Elysion is situated in the Underworld. Thus, the underworld had happy and sad as well as dark and light sections. 793 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, e.g. 257ff, within the context of the accounts of the Hyperboreans. 794 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 538. 795 King 2005, 71–74, 94–96, has analysed their complex nature. 796 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXII; especially Cap. XXXVIII and Cap. XL. 154 kings in distinct parts of Atlantica, which underwent significant modifications as response of new observations and criticisms from other scholars.797 Rudbeck’s genealogies were based on euhemeristic strategies. Compared with Bureus and Stiernhielm, Rudbeck’s euhemerisms were more systematic and, in fact, he employed (at least) three distinct strategies to interpret these god-kings of ancient writings. In addition to rational explanations of the supernatural or emblematic accounts of the writings, he expounded upon the incongruities and contradictory characteristics in them. Firstly, he claimed that ancient kings or heroes, effectively the euhemerised gods and demigods of the myths worldwide, had each possessed several distinct names798. This was mostly a result of the misconceptions of the classical authors, who had confused historical events and constructed imprecise genealogies. Secondly, the names of certain gods (e.g. Bol, Balder, Thor and Odin) were “honorary titles”; several individuals with these names had lived and even, at times, simultaneously. Thirdly, the ancient kings were also generals, priests and legislators. One king could be called both Hercules/Härkulle (Warlord) as a warrior-king and Apollon/Balder as a legislative ruler.799 The idea of presenting the ancient kings as king-priest-legislators reminds of the ideas of the Reges Platonici of Bureus in Antiqiitates Scanzianae (rex- sacerdos-iudex), who had possessed almost absolute power among their peoples. Rudbeck’s main method of acquiring knowledge of the ancient kings was a comparative analysis of the mythological writings. This led to the identification of god-kings such as Atle/Bore(as)/Saturnus/Magog. The majority of the data on the most ancient kings, however, came from his analysis of Hesiod’s Theogonia and such Eddic poems as Völuspá, which were perceived as reflections of Genesis. In addition, Rudbeck reflected – almost in an Annian fashion – whether the first King of Gamla Uppsala, Atle/Bore/Saturnus, had been Noah himself. This would imply that the myths of the golden age of Zeus/Juppiter, Poseidon/Neptune, and Hades/Pluto as well as their Eddic equivalents, Atin, Vile and Ve, could be identified with Shem, Ham and Japheth as Gunnar Eriksson has suggested800. Thus, Odin (Atin) the All Father (Alfader) would be identifiable as Noah or 797 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 128; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 147, 150–151; Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 18–19 (mistakenly 20 and 21 in the modern translation); Rudbeck the Elder 1938, Tabula Chronologica I–II. 798 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXVII–XXXIV, (evidence of the distinct names of ancient gods). 799 This practice is to be found in numerous chapters of the gods. See Eriksson 1994, 32; one example is how Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 475, says ‘… Baldur was the son of Atin or Neckun the Third … his (Balder’s) righteousness and honour was spotless. That is why therefore all righteous Kings in Sweden were called as Bol and Baldur, even those who followed him as a judge’. 800 Eriksson 1994, 20; also Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 124, 246ff, which does imply something like this. 155 Magog, an alternative Rudbeck considered801. Noah was the progenitor of all postdiluvian people so he could be reasonably called Alfader, but Magog, since he was the father of the line of the Yfwerborne Up-Svear, could also have borne that title. On the other hand, as Eriksson has concluded with regard to Rudbeck’s elaborate genealogies, Rudbeck referred to Magog as an honorary title and hence several ancient persons had existed with the name Magog802. In any case, the most important point of Rudbeck’s genealogies is that he identified the earlier Gothic tradition, in which Magog was the progenitor, with the Hyperboreans of Gamla Uppsala. However, the Hyperborean Apollon was not a manifestation of Magog or Odin, that is to say, the progenitor of the Hyperboreans. Rudbeck identified Apollon with the Near-Eastern god Baal, and referred to this divinity as “Ho-Balder” (High-Balder) on the basis of the Eddic god Balder. In fact, Rudbeck was so intrigued by the “Hyperborean Baal” that a whole chapter was dedicated to him803 in the first part of Atlantica. In addition, on the bases of the Old Testament, Eddic poems, Homer, Hesiod and Apollodorus, Rudbeck described Balder’s genealogy in a surprisingly detailed manner. He was identified as the third son of Atin/Neckur and the Hyperborean goddess-oracle- queen (?), Leto/Latona. Moreover, Rudbeck argued that this Balder/Apollon had been worshipped across the ancient world, and that the Mediterranean names were derivatives of the original Northern ones804. In his view, the origin of the Cult of Baal/Apollon was in the religious practices of the Hyperborean Up-Svear of Uppsala. In short, the King Balder/Apollon was deified after his death. Later, his cult was transferred to the Mediterranean and the Near-Eastern peoples (and their writings) as a result of the conquests or expeditions of the ancient Kings of Uppsala. In this connection, Rudbeck also made mention of the Hyperborean maidens. His sources were the Greek myths described by Hesiod, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus and Apollodorus805. Although Rudbeck did not identify the Hyperborean divinity Apollon with Magog, he did discuss in detail the role of the descendants of King Atle/Bore/Saturnus/Magog in the rise of classical civilisations. The nephew of the King Atle/Bore/Saturnus/Magog was perhaps the most famous of them. He 801 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, XXVIII; Eriksson 2002, 304–305; King 2005, 72–73, a different interpretation. 802 Eriksson 1994, 68, analyses Rudbeck 1947, Cap. X. 803 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXXIV: On Bal or Boldur. See also Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 536–539 (the complex and detailed family relations). 804 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 475–476; See also Eriksson 2002, 325–326. 805 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXVII (‘On the Origin and Diffusion of the Names of the Gods and Kings’), but he developed the matter in the following chapters of the names of the specific Gods. 156 received a name “Mercurius/Merkesmän” after Rudbeck’s etymologisation and was described as the classical equivalent of the Norse god, Heimdallr. Both of these gods, as Rudbeck remarked, took the souls of the death to the underworld806. Incidentally, Merkesmän was a cousin of Apollon/Balder, a sage, king and legislator807 whom the peoples from ancient Scandinavia to Babylonia had worshipped after his deification. The greatest accomplishment of Mercurius/Merkesmän was the invention of the first alphabet. Rudbeck, in other words, claimed that the Scandinavian alphabet was introduced soon after the Flood and it was older than the Phoenician or Greek equivalents arguing that this conclusion is supported by two distinct myths in Old Norse and classical writings, which Eriksson has analysed comprehensively808. Interestingly, Rudbeck discussed numerous women of ancient Scandinavia as part of the geographical and genealogical analyses of Atlantica. In general he portrayed them as strong and independent, and argued that the accounts and myths of the classical warrior women, Amazons, were a degenerate variant of them809. As to the noblest Hyperborean women (i.e. the women of the Yfwerborne Up-Svear), Rudbeck claimed that two of them had an impact on the early history of philosophy, or the “worldly wisdom” as Rudbeck defined it810. The runic alphabet and magic were delivered to the Greeks and the Egyptians by Disa/Diana/Minerva/Isis. According to Rudbeck, she was also the sister of Balder/Apollon811. The other famous woman of the “Hyperboreans” was called “Sibylla”, the Eddic seer, a construction, which Bureus had introduced. Rudbeck portrayed her as the mother of the Hyperborean maidens in the classical writings, who was “father Thor’s companion, Sifhella”, and admired by “Father Attin who loved Sybillam”. True to form, Rudbeck explained the name “Sibylla” as a classical derivation of the original Northern personal name, and furthermore, 806 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 538–539. Rudbeck’s etymology means roughly put, ‘The Man of the Signs’. He discussed this Heimdallr in detail in Cap. XXXII. 807 In which case the Burean idea of ‘rex, sacerdos, iudex’ in Antiqiitates Scanzianae, springs to mind. 808 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 527ff, 536–542. See also Eriksson 2002, 324, 372, 405 (in the case of Queen Disa who taught singing to the Mediterranean peoples). Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 625ff, however, explains the adulrunor that Bureus discussed, as Atle Runor, ‘runes of Atle’. This implies that the runes were named after Atle. They entailed also the etymological significance “noble”. If Bureus influenced on Rudbeck in this, is hard to say. It proves that Rudbeck was aware of Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 29, 170. He made references to Bure, Wormius, Stiernhielm, and Verelius within this context. 809 Anttila 2009, passim; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XII. 810 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 692. 811 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 537, 542, Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 652; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 44, 58ff. the term ‘trollkonsten’ O.R. uses in Isis’ runic magic refers to ‘witchcraft’ not to the ‘good white magic’. 157 identified her with Leto, the Hyperborean mother of Apollon in classical writings, and the Freya of Eddic poems812. Rudbeck’s views on the mythical gods and non-Christian religions recall the ideas of Stiernhielm, Vossius, Schedius and Bochart. Of these scholars, the first two were clearly Rudbeck’s favourites813. He also keenly elaborated the earlier ideas of Bureus, Stiernhielm and Verelius, though made relatively few references to them in the text. Rudbeck most likely had access to the unpublished manuscripts of Bureus and Stiernhielm via Verelius, his friend and collaborator814. As the reader will recall, Rudbeck had discussed the religious aspects of the euhemerised gods together with Verelius in De Fanin815, in which they, argued that the cult of Fanin had spread from Scandinavia to the British, German and Celtic peoples816. However, Rudbeck had moved a long way from the emphasis he laid on the role of the ancient Scandinavians in the ancient world since De Fanin. In the first and second parts of Atlantica, Rudbeck strove to prove that the Greeks, Romans and Near-Eastern peoples (e.g. the Phoenicians, Trojans, Cretans and Egyptians) had received their religion and kings from the ancient conquerors of Uppsala817. The sphere of influence of the ancient Geats and their noblest kings extended to most regions of the known ancient world in the third and fourth part of Atlantica. In these sections, Rudbeck analysed the Icelandic sagas and insisted he had found evidence showing how the people of the sagas had moved around the world founding cities, harbours, and trading with or stealing from the locals818. 812 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 43. In passage 5. he refers to Saemundr Edda and Diodorus as equivalents of the same events and in passage 4, Freya as mother goddess, who cannot be anyone else. In classical myths Apollon and Artemis-Diana were sisters, whose mother was Leto-Latona and father, Zeus-Juppiter. 813 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 229, 254, 482–483; see also Eriksson 1994, 59–61: i.e. Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 692, cites the manuscript of Stiernhielm. 814 King 2005, 221ff. Part of the literal feud, in which Johan Hadorph, a contemporary historian accused Rudbeck sitting on the Icelandic manuscripts and that he would not let anybody else to look at them. 815 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 24–25; Verelius 1677, 28–29; Stiernhielm 1685, passim. & Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. of the ideas of Fanin and Sun, as the sun god are presented. Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 692. See section 2.2.2 and also the influence of Cluverius. Krebs 2011, 139–140. 816 See section 2.2.2. 817 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 475, 479, shows that the King Baldur, Balder, Baal, HoBalder, Apollon, i.e. the Hyperborean, was later known and worshipped among the Greeks, Phrygians, and even the biblical peoples. Cap. XXXVff. One example of this is e.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 491ff, how he claimed that Utgarda-Loki in the Norse mythology in which Thor (disguised) travels with Loki to Jotunheim is a ‘gåta, i.e. deliberate ‘enigma’ that revealed their trip to the King of India. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 256, argued that some Hyperboreans travelled in India and Guinea! India is mentioned in such saga as Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar, which was published by Curio, the father-in-law of Rudbeck, in 1680. 818 Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 283ff. (the naval power); Cap. XI; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XII, 456ff. ‘Of the Regiment of Jofur or Thor and his Departure and War An. Mund. 2100.’ describes how he was known across the ancient world. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 152, 251, 254ff, explains the ‘gold-hungry 158  One might think that Rudbeck overplayed the antiquity of the sagas. However, if the premise of Rudbeck (and Bureus or Stiernhielm) of the uniform nature of the early civilisations of the world (in the mythical writings and the Old Testament) is accepted, his views are completely rational. At the same time, the political conditions within which these views were developed explain some of his interpretations. This was, after all, the period of European colonialism, and Sweden was at the height of its political greatness. In my view, Rudbeck was not outlining a strategy to justify the establishment of Swedish colonies in the New World. Instead, the discovery of new lands and peoples, whose languages and culture could not be explained within the prevailing biblical framework, manifested itself in Rudbeck’s theories. In more ways than one, Atlantica is a prime exemplar of the inventive strategies which the early modern scholars developed to harmonise new and heterogeneous details with the older worldview. The rhetoric capital that Atlantica generated on the European stage was due to the ingenuity of the views of the author, Rudbeck, the scholar serving the Swedish monarch, not any comprehensive ideology he had developed. The Wisdom of the Northern Mercurius’ & “Abaris/Habar” Rudbeck appropriated several classical figures to the history of the noblest Up- Svear. As noted earlier, Rudbeck claimed that Mercurius-Merkesmän (Heimdallr) had introduced the runic alphabet and other civilised arts. He also wrote about another, later Mercurius, the nephew of Mercurius I819. Mercurius I stayed in the North, whereas the second one delivered the alphabet to the Egyptians and Phoenicians. It is implied in Atlantica that the second Mercurius could be identified with the famous ancient figure Hermes Trismegistos820. Rudbeck described another five (!) Scandinavian individuals called Mercurius in the last and unfinished part of Atlantica821. Rudbeck interpreted the Greek significance of Hermes Trismegistos (thrice- great) emblematically, explaining the name as an allusion to the three offices of Griffins’ from Herodotus as the neighbours of the Hyperboreans on the basis of the Swedish word, ‘gripa’ (to seize) and tells they were pirates. Apparently, the preserved lots of gold in Gamla Uppsala (as Plato described the golden Atlantis). 819 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 540–542. Interpretation of many Hermes’ is supported by classical writings. 820 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 540ff. 821 Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 98–100. He reflects the wisdom of Paracelsus (chemical signs & the planetary equivalents) p. 94ff, and the links of Abaris to the wisdom of one of the ‘Mercurs’ in p. 102ff. 159 the noble Kings of Gamla Uppsala (the Three Crowns), as Eriksson has shown822. In fact, for Rudbeck, the coat of arms of Sweden, the emblem of the Three Crowns (which Bureus had analysed earlier) seems to have been originally the esoteric-political symbol of the domains of the Overking of the noblest Up-Svear of the Gamla Uppsala region823. Surprisingly, none of the numerous interpreters of Rudbeck has stressed the continuity between the emblematic interpretations of Rudbeck and Bureus824, and particularly, the political (strong to absolute monarchist) undertones of the idea of King-Priest-Legislator. As part of the diffusion of the civilisation of Uppsala, Rudbeck argued that the Hyperborean or Scythian sage Abaris played an important role in this. His account followed rather traditional825 sources, to which (for instance) Bureus had referred826. Typically, Rudbeck claimed that the classical Greek name “Abaris” was a derivative northern term. The original form was “Habar”, which was, in his view, etymologically closely related to such terms as “Yfwerborne”, (“of noble descent”), as well as “Haboren”, “Högboren” and the Old Norse, “Hagbard”827. Rudbeck also discussed other ancient theologians in the context of Abaris. He pointed to Orpheus828 and Pythagoras as figures familiar with the Hyperborean wisdom of Apollon or “ijwerborne Norrske Baldur”. It had reached Pythagoras through the northern Kaller829 (Gauls), an idea clearly based on the ideas of Bureus and Stiernhielm of the Northern Bards (the “Druidic” Skaldic Priests). Rudbeck interpreted the famous Wand of Abaris as a source of witchcraft that had helped Abaris to fly and do other miraculous things. Interestingly, the witchcraft of Abaris is presented in the light of Rudbeck’s knowledge of Northern cultures. He proposed that it was the same black magic that the indigenous people of the North, the Sámi, had practiced since ancient times830. This comment proves 822 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 541, 541fig; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 29, fig. 10. See also Eriksson 2002, 491. 823 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 482, 559. Rudbeck also gives an esoteric interpretation how this symbol signified the roles of Shem, Ham and Japheth in bygone, so the symbol must have been appointed by Noah. 824 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 5–28, it is a recurring matter in the manuscript. Though not being able to prove it, I do not believe it is a coincidence. 825 In Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 42. E.g. the early theologians, Clemens of Alexandria and Hieronymus but also the Platonist, Iamblichus and the Byzantine Encyclopaedia, Suidas from the 10th century. 826 Nordström 1934a, 120ff. 827 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 231, 245. 828 If Rudbeck perceived him as a person with Geatic origin (Getae), who simply was a descendant of the ancient Geats, who now returned back to the north, cannot be deduced from this passage. According to Rudbeck, Orpheus had visited Scandinavia as part of the trip of the Argonauts to the north Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXVI & XXXIV. See also Eriksson 2002, 319–320, 467. 829 They were told to have left in Tom. 1. of Atlantica (Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXXVII). 830 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 42. 44. Rudbeck mentions that there was an Eddic equivalent of this story of flying with a runic staff. The magic of Sami is discussed in the rest of the work, especially in Cap. X. 160 that the later form of the runic wisdom of Uppsala had no sacred connotations for Rudbeck (unlike Bureus and to a lesser extent, Stiernhielm). It was but a form of idolatry that had spread from Scandinavia, having perhaps originally had some affinity with the pristine religion of Noah and Adam. 3.2 The Historiographical Framework of Atlantica Previous analyses of what Rudbeck wrote about the Hyperboreans and the Swedish antiquity in Atlantica provide only summarised image of his gargantuan historical description. Besides, as I stated earlier, it is hard to come up with new descriptive data on Atlantica, because of the comprehensive studies of Eriksson. This applies to the methodological framework of Atlantica as well: Patrik Hall, Anna Wallette, Mats Malm, David King, and Magnus Alkarp, have elaborated the views of Eriksson. However, it will be shown in this section that some interesting methodological aspects of Atlantica remain to be illuminated if the work is analysed from the angle of the Hyperborean research tradition. The main point I will make below is that although Rudbeck used a plethora of methods, he rarely managed to combine their results into a systematic chain of evidence. In addition, I will analyse his “philosophy of history”, if the reader excuses the anachronism, and will compare some of its elements with his predecessors and contemporaries. 3.2.1 On Atlantica’s methods If Atlantica is studied using the framework of the early modern discourse of national antiquity and its “politicised” research strategies, notable methodological features emerge. The strategies of appropriation and minimisation of the classical culture are obviously manifested in the work. Hence, Atlantica followed the Northern European tradition motivated by the Italian Humanists’ contempt for the Gothic or “German”831. Rudbeck was not necessarily accusing the Greeks and Romans of being liars and stealers, as some of his earlier contemporaries did832, Rudbeck did refer to the Sámi and the Finns as instructors of witchcraft. The broader discussion, see Eriksson 2002, Cap 17. & Cap 18. 831 Discussed in the introduction and chapter 1.1.4. See e.g. by Krebs 2011, chapter 3; Ingemarsdotter 2011, chapter 3; Walker 1972a, 76. 832 See chapter 1.3. 161 but instead, explained (rather patronisingly) that they had not understood the true significance of ancient events, place names and persons833. Not only had Rudbeck appropriated features of the classical culture to his own ends, but he virtually claimed that every single aspect of it, languages, mythologies, and the lines of the kings, had a more or less direct link to ancient Scandinavia. If the figures of the story he was studying were not related to ancient Scandinavia, such as Noah and the Flood for instance, Rudbeck argued that the event at least manifested itself in Old Norse writings. Even though Rudbeck was not sure if Saturnus/Atle/Bore was Noah, he was certain that the Eddic figure Bergelmer contained a memory of the biblical Noah834. In some ways, Rudbeck had appropriated the whole European tradition of historical research of the preceding two centuries. He modified the Geatic idea of the Gothic “Vagina Gentium” in which numerous peoples known from classical writings had spread around ancient Europe835. This idea would become one of the most established ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition with the publication of the first part of Atlantica. As Atlantica grew in popularity and influence, Rudbeck’s colleagues abroad likely felt that they were being dispossessed of their glorious pasts. Thus, what is defined as the Hyperborean research tradition was among the most extreme examples of the construction of fabulous antiquities, if it is compared with some other Northern European scholars who had highlighted piety as a virtue of the ancient Germans836. Presumably, it was not easy for European scholars to swallow the notion of the progenitors of their empires and the ancestors of their monarchs as being mere latter, less noble descendants of the kings of the Hyperborean Uppsala. Most importantly, it was not easy for non-Scandinavian scholars to 833 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 492: ’Utan wåra Sagor och Gåtor kunna de Greker och Latiner intet förstås [...]’; ‘But the Greeks and the Latins (Romans) could not understand our Traditions and Myths.’ 834 Eriksson 2002, 282, 304. 835 The whole Name of Atlantica is actually: Atland eller Manheim Dedan Japhetz afkomne, de förnämste Keyserlige och Kungelige Slecther ut til hela werlden, henne att styra, utgångne äro, så och desse efterföliande Folck utogade, nembligen Skyttar, Borbarn, Asar, Jettar, Giotar, Phryger, Trojaner, Amaizor, Traser, Lyber, Maurer, Tussar, Kaller, Kiempar, Kimrar, Saxer, Germen, Swear, Longobarder, Wandaler, Herular, Gepar, Tydskar, Anglar, Paiktar, Danar, Siökampar, och flera de som i werket wisas skola. ‘Atland or Manheim [...] and also this following people have left, namely Scythians, Hyperboreans, Asar, Jotuns, Geats, Phrygians, Trojans, Amazons, Thracians, Lybians, Moors, Thussar, Gauls, Kiempar, Cimmeri, Saxons, Germans, Svear, Lombards, Vandals, Heruli, Gepar, Tydskar (Germans in Swedish), Angles, Picts, Daner, Sea-Kiempar, and several others as it is shown in the work’. As the reader may notice, Rudbeck has etymologised many of the names above so it is hard to translate them. 836 Nordström, Krebs 2011, 136–152, the case of Cluverius and Opitz; Wood 2013, 41–45, has shown most recently that it was a tradition that went all the way from Machiavelli to Montesquieu. 162 criticise Rudbeck’s views, because they could not easily dispute assertions based on remote Northern evidence of customs, nature and material antiquities. Meanwhile, Rudbeck’s emphasis on the unique characteristics of the North, combined with his empirical antiquarian methods, gave the work credibility among the polymaths of the time. Rudbeck conducted numerous experiments in Uppsala, which led Eriksson to call Atlantica “not only a work of historical research but also a work of science”837. His archaeological and topographical experiments at Gamla Uppsala and the experiment of measuring the depth of the humus layer838 at the Castle of Uppsala in order to be able to prove the great antiquity of certain runestones are clear signs of a novel approach to the past. Nevertheless, he did not invent the approach; he simply applied in a radical manner what he had learnt from Verelius and his predecessors, the Swedish antiquaries, who had travelled across the monarchy in the first half of the century839. Rudbeck was critical of the Humanist tradition of old authors. He thought that one should not rely on other people’s accounts of matters they had not witnessed with their own eyes, a sign of his Cartesian-inspired empiricism840. As Eriksson has proved, Rudbeck had some rather profound notions on the nature of sources. His interpretative methods were founded on a theory of the preservation and transmission of data in the sources. Rudbeck thought that the accounts of remote antiquity, which included the sacred history of Moses (Genesis), were a result of older, orally transmitted traditions841. As well as differentiating between oral (saga) and written (traditio) sources, he defined methodological principles of handling the data from the sources. The idea of oral transmission was not unproblematic in the contemporary context that emphasised the textual authority of Old Testament (or divine revelation as a source of Moses’ views), particularly considering that Rudbeck thought that Moses had misinterpreted some ideas in “inspiration”842. This idea was daring in the context of the Lutheran Orthodoxy, although the doctrine of “accommodation” (or “condescension”) with regard to 837 Eriksson 1994, 45. 838 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 81ff; Rudbeck the Elder 1938, Tab. 31. Fig. 104; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 526ff, implies that this method led him to conclude that the oldest runic stones existed at the time of Noah. 839 Eriksson 1994, 98–103; Josephson 1940, 44, on Bureus; Alkarp 2009, 94f, 152f. 840 King 2005, 42–46; Rudbeck’s ‘Cartesian scepticism’ will be discussed in the next chapter. 841 Based on Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8; Eriksson 1994, 133–134. 842 Ibid. 163 the reliability of biblical writers had been used in European theological discourses since the Reformation and in response to the challenges of natural science843. Therefore, even though his references are often coloured by the fundamental vision of Atlantica, that is, the glory of Scandinavian antiquity, Rudbeck had, unlike some of his domestic followers, well-considered ideas about source criticism. As his comparative analysis of Atlantis and Gamla Uppsala shows, he made references to the incongruities or nebulous details of the mythological writings. In fact, he called them “gåta” (Swedish for “enigma”), as Eriksson has pointed out844. Rudbeck saw multiple reasons for the existence of enigmatic details, including misconceptions, ignorance, deliberate concealment or the need to allegorise a politically difficult issue. This analysis is conducted mostly in the second chapter of the second part of Atlantica which is the chapter that mostly elucidates his method and interpretative strategies.845 In the ultimate analysis, Rudbeck’s method of interpretation in Atlantica was all-embracing846. He believed past events, persons, places and so forth should be interpreted by using the written, oral, and material sources, which then, should be compared with each other and finally, explained within the framework of Northern circumstances. As long as the historian or antiquary had proper knowledge of the (natural) circumstances in which the myths were produced, their supernatural details could be explained naturally and rationally. As the famous picture of Rudbeck reveals, he saw himself as a historian-anatomist847. His attitude towards the myths as “rational” implies an intriguing notion. Rudbeck thought that a historian aware of the circumstances was capable of revealing the true course of history by “surgically removing” the mythological layer848. This reflects a Platonist concept of history (and reality), and can be explained within the context of Baroque scholarship, a category that includes Rudbeck. 843 McGrath 2013, 177–181. 844 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8–12. 845 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Ibidem; e.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 232, 492, and Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. II. 846 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. II. He gives an example how a ‘physicus, astrologicus, antiquarius’ would understand the same events according to their own approach. He used all these approaches in Atlantica, too. 847 Eriksson 1994, 147ff; Rudbeck the Elder 1938, the opening image of the Tables. 848 Rudbeck has revealed the glory of ancient Scandinavia by slicing the map open with his surgical instrument while the gobsmacked classical authors surround him. 164 3.2.2 Atlantica’s “Philosophy of History” I will claim below that although Bureus’ and Rudbeck’s ideas were based on different theories, if their approach to the past is looked at on a more profound level, some of the differences turn out be superficial. I will argue that they shared a Neo-Platonist concept of history, at least with regard to their research on the early history of the world. Secondly, it will be suggested at the end of the chapter that the conditions of the truth on which Atlantica rested were rather typical of Baroque scholarship. The following analyses elaborate upon ideas from modern scholars in the field849. Eriksson proved that Rudbeck was an eclectic Baroque scholar850 whose thought shared major aspects with such contemporaries as Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon851. From another famous contemporary, Descartes, Rudbeck drew his sceptical attitude towards authority and Neo-Aristotelian views, although he would not discard these traditions entirely852. Rudbeck’s eclecticism had certain similarities with that of contemporary polyhistors such as Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680). Kircher abseiled to the crater of Etna, Rudbeck prepared a soil- layer experiment at the Castle of Uppsala853. They put their faith in the moderns rather than the ancients854, testing what the old authorities (e.g. Pliny the Elder) had written about the function of volcanoes or the age of the Gamla Uppsala grave mounds instead of simply believing what had been written by a towering authority855. Secondly, although they shared a dislike of esotericism, this feature should not be overplayed, as Eriksson has pointed out. Rudbeck, Bacon and Kircher were all keen on interpreting the enigmatic emblems of the myths and speculated on the nature of language and the traditions of wisdom856. It was, I speculate, not the 849 E.g. Malm 1994, 3; Eriksson 1994, passim. Eriksson 2002, 549–560; Wallette 2004, 127ff; Alkarp 2009, 93–94, 101–102. Besides, Rudbeck has met some of them in the court of Christina. 850 Eriksson 1994, 149ff, and 162 (the 4 factors common to the Baroque science). 851 Eriksson 2002, 549–560; Eriksson 1994, 158–162; Malm 1994, 3. 852 King 2005, 42ff; Eriksson 1994, 142–144. 853 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 81ff, Rudbeck the Elder 1938, Tab. 31. Fig. 104; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 524–527, demonstrates how he proved the age of a runestone by measuring the age of the humus layer in his experiment based on another experiment. In detail, see Eriksson 2002, 515, 518, 560–562. 854 With the exception of the interpretative theory of Rudbeck above. The broader context of the matter, see Grafton 2007, 248–249. The issue itself, ‘the Quarrel of the Ancients & the Moderns’ in France or the ‘Battle of Books’ in England, reflects the attitudes towards the achievements of the classical culture. The matter is intriguing and not as simple as it seems at the first glance. Check Levine 1991, passim. 855 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. VII, 525ff. See the erudite analysis of Eriksson 2002, 515, 518, 560–562. 856 Eriksson 1994, 142–143, 159–162. On Kircher, see e.g. Bietenholz 1994, 238ff; Eriksson has used Bacon’s works, The Advancement of Learning (1605) and De Sapientia Veterum (1609). 165 esotericism but the revolutionary mysticism, such as the millenarianism of Bureus or Postel that looked suspicious to Baroque scientists such as Bacon and Rudbeck. Perhaps it was the proclamation of the apocalypse that felt foreign to them857. The reader will remember from chapter 1.3 that Johan Skytte, though interested in intellectual trends such as Paracelsism and Hermetism, disliked the Rosicrucianism of Bureus. Even Verelius, who surely valued Bureus’ antiquarian work on runes, regarded the runic Cabala as far-fetched858. Thus, the scholarship of the Baroque shared some principles and structures with the earlier ideas of the Late Renaissance, but saw the “mastery of nature” in a less mystical manner. How is this related to Atlantica and its role as part of the Hyperborean research tradition? In the case of Rudbeck, it was not divine revelation but an understanding of natural phenomena that provided the tools for apprehension859. In some ways, as Eriksson has proved, Rudbeck shared with Bacon a belief in the power of reason in explaining the “Book of Nature” or the “Book of Works of God”860. The idea of the goodness of nature can be detected in Rudbeck’s description of God as a rational, “principal gardener” (Swed. “trädgårdsmästare”) who took care of balance in the world861. The same applies to his celebration of how ancient Scandinavian peasants adjusted their runic calendars to keep track of the changing of the seasons and sacred festivals862. Instead of a mystical revelation or secret tradition, they needed to observe, deduce and operate863. In any case, for Rudbeck the ancient religion of the Scandinavians, as Eriksson’s analysis confirms864, was not a sign of pristine theology or perennial philosophy, even though he might have believed in such concepts. This is supported by his words in his analysis of the idolatry after the Flood865 and the black magic of Abaris referred to earlier. 857 The ideas of Joachim of Fiore or of the Franciscans during the mediaeval period (12th century to 14th) in which the idea the emergence of novel spiritual abilities anticipated the apocalypse. Quite obviously, Bureus represented both traditions (see chapter 1.3). 858 Verelius 1675, 2–4. 859 This will be shown below. 860 Eriksson 1994, 159, proved that they used such terms. In fact, the idea of the non-Christian people having grasped some basic truths from the nature, such as certain signs of the true religion or God, was seen to have had foundation in the Bible, as Walker 1972a, 8–9, has shown. See Rom. 1:20. 861 Rudbeck 1937, 31, 563, mentions the Gardener as he develops a story filled with Baroque symbolism in which he snipes at domestic critics for their trust in the old auctores instead of their own eyes. 862 Rudbeck 1937, Cap. V. 863 Eriksson 2002, 418–422; Stiernhielm’s De Hyperboreis Dissertatio, and De Emendatione Temporum of Justus Scaliger, must have inspired in the 2nd part of Atlantica. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. V; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. IX; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. V.ff. This factor should not be overemphasised, for traces of Paracelcism and Moysaic philosophy existed in the views of Baroque scholars. 864 Eriksson 1994, 61, refers to Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 692. 865 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 149. Caused by ‘[…] Satan’s artifice or the evil and weak nature of man […]’. 166  Against this background, the differences between the views of Bureus and Rudbeck seem dramatic; their notions of the golden age and tradition of knowledge diverge widely. For Rudbeck, the golden age was a happy age, but at the same time, “boring”. The population was small and people knew little or nothing of each other. There was no need for culture, because life was simple and filled with piety. For Rudbeck, civilisations developed in the course of silver, bronze, stone and god ages866. Thus, for him the golden age was an innocent, not sophisticated period; it was progress that led to the development of civilisations. Interestingly, this did not necessarily signify happier times, as Rudbeck stressed war as one of the causes that had led to progress and “writing of histories”867. As Eriksson has suggested, for Rudbeck the tradition of perennial philosophy refers to the universal nature of knowledge and its prerequisites868. Thus, that Bureus and Rudbeck could be categorised into the same group with respect to their idea reality or their concept of history seems unlikely. But the matter is not that simple. Despite the fact that they had divergent opinions on the key for understanding reality and the truth, the underlying principle was identical: the goodness of God means the truth is attainable. In a sense, they both represented an attitude that Landgren has called a “retrospective concept of knowledge” or a “chronological-sequential idea of history”869. The chronologies of the third part of Atlantica and Rudbeck’s division of world history into the golden, silver, stone and copper ages, both attest to an underlying belief in decay as a fundamental part of history. The knowledge was perfect during the pristine period in the Garden of Eden (or soon after the Flood) but tended to gradually degenerate after that due to original sin (Adam)870. This notion expresses the (Neo)-Platonist concept of history that I constructed with respect to Bureus and Stiernhielm. For Bureus knowledge was attainable through divine revelation, which helped one to realise the multilayered nature of reality871, whereas, in my view, for Rudbeck, man had an innate need to reach the truth since God had created nature by using language which could be 866 Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. IV–IIX. Rudbeck made a chronological distinction to the Golden, Silver, Stone, Copper, and God Age. The Golden Age is from the Creation to Noah. The period he treats in Atlantica covers the time from the Mid-Silver Age to the end of God Age. 867 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 39ff. 868 Eriksson 1994, 142ff. 869 Landgren 2008, 25–42. 870 It has been proven, albeit by using other arguments, by Eriksson 1994, 142. 871 The multilayered and -level Rune Cross of Bureus above which he described for instance in Cod. Holm. F.a.3. & Bureus 1611, electronic; see also Karlsson 2010, Cap.VII; Åkerman 1998, 47–52. 167 interpreted872. For them, the knowledge, whether it was about the world or the past, was intelligible, for the origin of it was benign. In the ultimate analysis, it could be traced back to the Creation (conducted by God, using language), and God. In the Hyperborean research tradition the Platonist idea of history was closely related to the strategy for interpreting the sources. The Old Testament was the baseline, that is, the ideal world of Platonism, whereas the myths (i.e. sagas for Rudbeck) represented the debris that needed to be penetrated. Rudbeck appears to have been sceptical that the power of reason could attain the pure truth. It could reach only to a certain point, as shown by his idea that Moses, though the best source, had misunderstood certain things while writing his books873. Eriksson has deemed Rudbeck to be a representative of “moderate pyrrhonism” rather than “critical pyrrhonism”. The former form of this trend of ideas was based on the idea of verisimilitude (the appearance of truth), whereas in the latter form, the truth, or the origin or essence of the things, was seen as impossible to acquire874. The manner in which Rudbeck saw the truth as both attainable and an ideal is interesting, because this notion was shared by Bacon and Descartes875. In other words, although they all were sceptical towards the ultimate truth, they nonetheless thought that it was attainable due to God’s benign nature and the plan which was part of the Creation.876 Similar optimism about a benevolent God (who always chose the best possible world and had ordained a pre-established harmony) can be found also in the philosophical thought of Leibniz. It is possible, therefore, that these ideas represent profound intellectual structures, typical of the epistemological side of the thought of the seventeenth century scholars. Rudbeck & Leibniz: the Truth in the Pre-Established Harmony? The question of Rudbeck’s attitude to the truth is interesting. First of all, if we return to the more practical side of his thought in Atlantica, Rudbeck clearly believed that he could lead the reader closer to the truth of Swedish antiquity. 872 Rossi 2000, Cap. 13, 14, 17. 873 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8, 12. Conversely, as his mention of the non-biblical writers of the myths proves: they were only in agreement on the main points and hence, revealed only crumbs of the truth. 874 Eriksson 1994, 146. 875 Eriksson 1994, 142, has argued that Rudbeck saw Descartes as a scholar who had revived the ancient philosophy. The scepticism did not exclude its antiquity. 876 Eriksson 1994, 159–163. 168 Secondly, the politicised side of the early modern discourse of national antiquity, and especially the manner in which Rudbeck applied the politicised etymologies and genealogies by praising the endless line of Swedish monarchs from the Hyperborean Uppsala of Magog to the Hyperborean Sweden of Charles XI, is often seen as on the verge of hyperbole and mendacity. Granted, as Alkarp has revealed, Rudbeck’s reputation as a forger who had an open relationship with the truth has some foundation. He did “adjust” some sources and cited others with a flourish, as Alkarp has revealed877. However, as I have shown, Rudbeck did see the truth as a key requirement of historical research. The same applied to Stiernhielm and Verelius, who saw reckless patriotism (as their ideal Lipsius) as a burden for historical research878. It has been also pointed out that Rudbeck at least claimed to be a keen friend of truth in Atlantica879. Moreover, he was willing to admit the complex nature of Atlantica and the weakness of some of his arguments. He begged the reader politely not to read Atlantica only “here and there” or once but “ten times” in order to understand the message. In fact, Rudbeck described the work as a “chain which would not concatenate if even one of the links was forgotten”. At any rate, Rudbeck acknowledged that the chain (work) was hardly strong enough880. This can be a sign of moderate pyrrhonism, for Rudbeck indeed appears to leave room for probability, which of course applies to many aspects of early modern historiography881. On the other hand, the idea of Rudbeck’s chain of evidence as a “chain” can be interpreted as a reference to a firm belief in the truth. This metaphor and the concatenating chain are familiar; in my view, Rudbeck’s statement of an argumentative chain, in which every single argument mirrors the ensemble, almost like a monad, reminds of the metaphysical rationalism of Leibniz882. It is almost as if Atlantica was based on a pre-established harmony of some kind, 877 Alkarp 2009, 136–144, 186–223. 878 Alkarp 2009, 108, tells that Rudbeck stated that, if he would be writing a work under the protection of a powerful patron, (which he was incidentally doing) the glory of the fatherland might be exaggerated. 879 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 4: ‘Ty kan intet saningen det förswara, wil iag ingen bokstaf skal förswaras’. (’If the truth cannot defend that (the work), I would not want a single letter to be defended.’). 880 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 5: ‘bediandes honom der han intert hafwer tijd, att detta werket en gång igenomläsä han och intet blad der af läser, och der han hafwer tijd det tijo gänger läsa [...]Ty hela werket är som en keed, på hwilken om en länk är förglömd, så binder hon intet, fast hon aldrig så stark vore [...]’. 881 As Johannesson 1991, 77–79, 78n44–46, many early modern historians saw the historical truth or facts as probabilistic explanations. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 5, also excuses that he has only began the massive work and cut through only some of the trees wherefore there are stubs left and the road is uneven. 882 Leibniz developed these ideas in his varied writings, such as Monadology, Essais de Theodicé and Discours de métaphysique, 1686. I have used the English translation: Leibniz 1992. 169 which is mirrored by every argument, but only as far as each argument is perceived to be interconnected as part of the ensemble. This is not to say that Rudbeck was influenced by Leibniz while he stated his idea; instead, the analogy demonstrates the similarities between their approaches to the reality and the truth: their epistemological framework of knowledge. In the metaphysical philosophy of Leibniz and in the background of the “historical philosophy” of Rudbeck, the idea of a pre-established harmony, or harmony in general, is similar: the language (statements) form a closed (harmonic) system in which each element (monad) resembles the entirety and vice versa. It appears that Rudbeck believed in a historical truth which was not completely attainable but which he had nonetheless attained to the degree it was possible. One can sardonically state that Rudbeck’s arguments seem to rest on his earlier arguments, which he based on the unproven premise of the glorious antiquity of Sweden. In a sense, they were ricocheting around his enclosed and constructed reality. The chain of argumentation leaves them “trapped” in their own pre-established harmony883. As a result, for instance, the myth of the Hyperboreans or any other myth did not prove anything in itself, but rather reflected the (assumed) events of Swedish antiquity among myriad other myths. Thus, ultimately, Rudbeck’s propositions were deduced from an initial, unproven assumption: the glory of the Scandinavian antiquity884. 3.3 Carolus Lundius and the Sacred Laws of the Geats Rudbeck’s Atlantica was not the only major work from the perspective of the development of Hyperborean tradition, published during the last decades of the seventeenth century. The thesis Zamolxis Primus Getarum legislator (1687) by the jurisprudent and historical scholar Carolus Lundius (1638–1715), was highly influential in the contemporary and following research. During his career, Lundius wrote controversial works on which the impact of the Atlantica of his brother-in-law, Rudbeck, was substantial. Although the ideological proclamation of the absolutism of Charles XI and Charles XII is said to have culminated in Atlantica, it was the works of Lundius in which this nexus truly emerged885. 883 I am aware of the fact that my idea reminds of the analysis Michel Foucault executed on the painting of Velázquez and his Las Meninas in his Order of Things, Part I.1. 884 Mats Malm 1994, 23, made a similar observation and contemplated, ’if Rudbeck believed in his truths or only his arguments’. 885 Lundius 1687, introduction and epilogue. 170 3.3.1 Lundius and the Origin of the Geatic Laws Although the methodological framework of Zamolxis can be defined as “Rudbeckian”, it contained also several original ideas uncharacteristic of Atlantica886. Unlike Rudbeck, Lundius referred broadly to philosophical and theological themes887 as he focused on his main interest, the history of Geatic laws. The leading character of the abovementioned thesis is Salmoses888, to whom Johannes Magnus and Bureus889 had previously paid attention. In fact, the Salmoses of Lundius is in many ways a combination of Bureus’ pious and beatific giver of the sacred laws, “Samlhoxes”, and Rudbeck’s fairest, most righteous king among the Hyperborean Up-Svear, Apollon/Balder890. However, Lundius did not simply describe this combination in the light of previous domestic research. The broader international context of the history of law played a large role in the study, a domain of history that had become increasingly popular in Europe since the fifteenth century. By the seventeenth century, the discussions had acquired a status of a discipline. In Sweden, the beacons of the prior century had been Olaus Petri as well as Olaus Magnus and Johannes Magnus, who had provided details of the laws of the ancient Geats but from opposite perspectives, a factor which is is manifested in Lundius’ work891. The leading seventeenth-century historians of law in Sweden were the German-origin scholars Johannes Loccenius and Johan Stiernhöök892. Broadly speaking, their works can be aligned with those of Olaus Petri, being critical of the mythical Zalmoxis and resting mainly on fragmentary mediaeval documents of Swedish provincial laws. Over the seventeenth century these documents were translated into Latin and made available for European scholars. As Lindroth has proven, Loccenius had scrutinised the provincial laws and compared them with the German tradition of laws (Tacitus), the Icelandic so-called kings’ sagas, and the chronicle of Adam of Bremen893. Stiernhöök, for his part, claimed that of old the Swedes were but one Germanic tribe (Suevi/Svear). Even if their laws were 886 He supervised another ‘Rudbeckian’ work in 1687: Legius Hyperboreis. Lundius 1687b, passim. 887 Alkarp 2009, 189, told that Lundius had studied four years of theology and philosophy. It shows in Zamolxis. 888 Like Bureus, Lundius called Zalmoxis with an allegedly ancient ‘Swedish’ name, Salmoses. 889 Johannes Magnus 1558, 143–144; e.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 17. 890 Lundius 1687, studies the divine manifestations of Salmoses in the Cap. V; the analysis of Rudbeck is in Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXXIV; compare with Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. e.g. 17, 45, 51. 891 Lindroth 1975b, 305–310. 892 Loccenius: Lexicon juris sueo-gothici (1651); Rerum Sueciarum historia (1654); Stiernhöök: De jure sveonum et gothorum vetusto (1674), which existed as a manuscript earlier. 893 Lindroth 1975b, 305–310. 171 enacted by a legendary figure, the mythical history (antiquities) was obscure by nature and could not be trusted. A probable explanation was that the laws had developed gradually instead of having their origin in Zalmoxis. However, up to a point, Stiernhöök followed what Lindroth called a “confused mediaeval tradition” in which Swedish laws were derived from the Flocks of Viger Spa.894 Bureus and Stiernhielm (who was a jurist) had also worked on mediaeval legal writings. However, they had a tendency to interpret them in the light of the Geatic tradition. Certainly, the manuscripts of Bureus should not be overlooked in researching the role of legal history and Zalmoxis in the Geatic view of history. Not only had he studied the role of “Samlhoxes”, but also presented the idea of the ancient Kings of the Geatic Uppsala as king-priest-legislators (rex-sacerdos- iudex)895. Bureus’ source was probably fragments of Icelandic sagas on Sweden in which the idea of king-priests was presented896. The only textual problem is to prove that subsequent scholars and Lundius in particular, used the manuscript of Bureus. Indirect sources, such as Schefferus’ work on the emblem of the Three Crowns, indicate that Antiqiitates Scanzianae was known in the small circles of historical scholars897, to which Lundius belonged. Loccenius and Stiernhöök dismissed the role of Zalmoxis and challenged the identification of the Goths as the Getae in their mid-seventeenth century works. However, from the 1670s Loccenius held his peace in relation to the matter, which is unsurprising considering the ongoing dispute over the Uppsala Temple (and the political undertones) that had divided the Board of National Antiquities. In fact, Loccenius had been asked to expand upon his views as to the Geatic antiquity in the second edition of his Swedish history in the 1660s. Besides, Loccenius seems to have amended his outlook on the antiquity of Sweden in the 1670s898. The extent to which the German origin of Loccenius (and Schefferus) or the prevailing political situation influenced this change is speculation899. In conclusion, as shown in the case of the dispute over the Temple of Uppsala, 894 Lindroth 1975b, 310. Viger Spa is held to have lived in Birka, the mediaeval trading centre on the Island of Björkö in the Lake Mälaren (e.g. Uppsala, Västerås, Sigtuna, and Stockholm are its coastal towns). 895 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 5ff. 896 The king of Sweden (Svear) performed the rite of Disablót e.g. in Ynglinga Saga. 897 Lindroth 1975b, 305–310. Thus, it is a bit on the speculative side to claim that Lundius used it. On the other hand, he does make a reference to the Laws of Western Geatland which Bureus and Stiernhielm had edited. When Lundius 1687, Cap. III.5. and Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 12f, designated as ‘Lex Sueorum’ and ‘Lex Vestrogoth.’, are compared, it is clear they at least share a view. 898 Lindroth 1975b, 306; Landgren 2008, 283, mentions the legendary anecdote that Loccenius burst into tears (gladly) after reading Rudbeck’s Atlantica. 899 See section 2.3.2, and within broader context: Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapter 3. 172 various political reasons made criticism of the Geatic view of history, (which had existed since the sixteenth century), more difficult in the later 1670s. The abovementioned Swedish discussions closely followed development in Germany, where research on the tradition of German laws had emerged as part of Humanistic history writing. The German laws were chiefly treated in relation to Roman laws, the most celebrated ancient tradition of legislation. Of the scholars discussed in Sweden, Grotius and Cluverius were the most important. However, it was De origine juris Germanici (1643), the work of a German scholar, Herman Conring that was most commonly cited within this context900. Conring was one of Lundius’ adversaries, claiming, for instance, that the Goths had neither an alphabet nor a high civilisation before the letters of Wulfila in the Gothic Codex Argenteus (Silver Bible)901. Lundius’ response was to refer to the antiquity of the runes, which he thought, had been also the foundation of Wulfila’s alphabet902. As to the civilisation of the Geats, Lundius pointed to the studies of Stiernhielm, Verelius and Rudbeck. He reminded Conring of the moral philosophers of the Goths who had, according to some classical writers, stressed the piety and righteousness of this people, an idea that Bureus had developed earlier. The arsenal of Lundius’ sources included also the works of Johannes Magnus and Jordanes, whose authority and accuracy as historians he confirmed by comparing them with several Old Norse writings903. 3.3.2 The Hyperboreans and the Geatic Laws Before Lundius could begin to describe the features of his “Salmoses”, he needed to prove beyond dispute that the ancient Goths could be identified with the Thracian Getae among whom the famous lawgiver had emerged904. As a result, the first three chapters of the study concentrated on the varied manifestations of Scandinavians in the early history of the world. His foundation was the identification of the Scythians and Hyperboreans, after Stiernhielm and 900 Krebs 2011, 271n, describes Conring and the role of Tacitus in his work. Lindroth 1975b, 308–309 about the Swedish case; see also Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 526ff, how he refers to Conring in the question of the age of the alphabet and laws of the Goths (Ulfilas). 901 Munkhammar 2011, passim; Lindroth 1975b, 272–274. This valuable work had been restored (looted) back to its “original home” from the continent during the Thirty Years’ War. 902 Lundius 1687, Cap. III.1. 903 Lundius 1687, Cap. III–IV; Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 23f. 904 The English Camden and Sheringham as well as Postel and Becanus suggested alternative origins to them, which is the reason for Lundius to mention them in his work. See Lundius 1687, Cap. II. 173 Rudbeck905. Interestingly, Lundius emphasised Rudbeck’s Up-Svear fabrication, which proves that this Hyperborean construction was already established in the Swedish research. Lundius presented them as the noblest people among the ancient Scandinavians, who encompassed such classical peoples as the Goths, Getae and Royal Scythians. Japheth was their progenitor906. Lundius also relied on Rudbeck in arguing for the Northern (Uppsalan) origin of certain other famous peoples of the classical world, such as the Trojans907. It was the Rudbeckian concept of the ancient Scandinavian god-kings and sages of the myths that ruled the postdiluvian Europe in which Lundius’ interpretation of Salmoses operated. When Lundius explained the euhemerised Salmoses as the first ancient lawgiver of Geats, he underlined that two individuals named Salmoses had existed during distinct stages of early history. Along the lines of Rudbeck’s euhemeristic strategies for Odin, Apollon and Abaris (among others), Lundius perceived the name of Salmoses as an honorary title. The first Salmoses had been a philosopher king who had invented the laws. Interestingly, Lundius argued that the laws were the reasons for the success of the ancient Svioner908 (Svear), whom he identified with the Hyperboreans. This argument recalls the earlier account of Rudbeck’s Merkesmäns (Mercurius) in Atlantica, in which this figure was presented as the original northern Hermes Trismegistos. However, there is another alternative: Lundius’ work (1687) could have influenced Atlantica. Rudbeck introduced this idea in the last, fourth and unfinished part of Atlantica, a work that Rudbeck wrote after the publication of the third part of Atlantica in 1698. The idea of Salmoses as a philosopher king may also stem from the reflections of Bureus in his Antiqiitates Scanzianae909. In other words, the close-reading of the texts illustrate that in some cases, the term Rudbeckianism does not adequately describe the “Rudbeckian Gothicism”. As to the reputation the Hyperboreans had earned in the classical writings, Lundius seem to have believed that it resulted from the sacred nature of their laws. This idea in effect, bound together the recent ideas of Rudbeck and the notion of the Goths as pious people which the earlier Geatic historians had 905 Lundius 1687, I.11. The chapter is designated as: Who were the Hyperboreans. 906 The Hyperboreans are also discussed in Lundius 1687, 11, 14–17. On genealogies in general, see Lundius 1687, 9–10, Lundius 1687, Cap. I.2–I.14. 907 Lundius 1687, Cap. II discusses the genealogical origin of Scandinavians following Rudbeck’s view on the original Troy, and the classical Trojan line alike (!), in Gamla Uppsala. 908 Lundius claimed the name originated in Odin’s son, Svifdage. The ancient Svear-Geats were also identified with the Scythians and Arimaspi “for they used bow and arrow”. 909 See section 1.3.3. 174 introduced910. However, Lundius took the idea to its greatest extension by claiming that the first corpus juris had been developed by the first Zalmoxis, who could be chronologically dated around the year 2200 BC911. Moreover, Lundius not only argued that the ancient people of Uppsala had possessed the sacred laws, but also that the Egyptians, Syrians and Greeks received the laws from them during the postdiluvian conquests of the Svear-Geats. In my opinion, although the origin of his idea could be traced back to Bureus’ Antiqiitates Scanzianae912, the chronology and thus the historical reality of Salmhoxes/Zalmoxis derived from Rudbeck’s Atlantica. Interestingly, Lundius used Rudbeck’s interpretations of the myth of the Hyperboreans in relation to the Hyperborean sage Abaris. He argued that the high priest of Salmoses was called “Habor/Abaris”, on the basis of the etymological analysis of the term Rudbeck had performed in Atlantica. Lundius mentioned the Hyperborean Maidens in this connection, claiming that they had accompanied Habor/Abaris on his journey to Greece. As a result of their journey, the Greeks had received the pristine theological doctrines, liberal arts, medicine and music. Thus, unsurprisingly, Lundius thought that the earliest postdiluvian civilisation had arisen in the Gamla Uppsala region from where it later spread to the Mediterranean.913 In this sense, his views represent a coherent continuum in the Hyperborean research tradition. The Sacred Laws and the “Eddic-Hyperborean” Theology In the fifth chapter of Zalmoxis Lundius noted that most ancient civilisations had their sages, such as Moses and Hermes Trismegistos914. In his view, Salmoses and his priest Abaris/Habor were the best-known Northern embodiments of the prisci theologi915. However, on top of his statement, Lundius gave little information about the origin of their wisdom; thus, it is hard to determine how Lundius thought they had received the truths of pristine theology. Perhaps he wanted to 910 Nordström 1934a, 98–101. 911 According to him, this took place 1900 AC (after the Creation) around the time of Serug, the grandfather of Abraham, an idea mentioned by most Geatic historians. Lundius 1687, 43–47. 912 Such ideas that 1) Zamolxis was Salmoses or Samlhoxes 2) He developed sacred laws can be found in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. 3) Lundius suggested that the first Salmoses could be associated with the early cults of the Sun and Health: compare Lundius 1687, V.1–2; Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 49. 913 Lundius 1687, V.8–10, V.12. Chapter V is essential for these arguments and provides further evidence of the knowledge of Bureus’ Antiqiitates Scanzianae, and the Sibyls by the following generations. 914 Lundius 1687, 140–146. 915 Lundius 1687, e.g. III.12 (monotheism, holy trinity), IV.3 (immortality of soul), V.3–5 (textual comparisons between holy books), V.16, (three crowns, holy trinity), V.21. (Jahwe). 175 emphasise the contents of their wisdom instead of focusing on whether it was a secret tradition or deduction from the book of nature, as Bureus and Rudbeck explained it respectively. Lundius linked, for instance, Salmoses II to the classical Greeks, and Pythagoras in particular, pointing to “Our Incunabula” (Lat. “earliest writings”) as his source. He was in effect claiming to have unearthed an ancient runic document, which featured his heroes of the Geatic-Hyperborean culture (Salmoses II, Habor/Abaris and Pythagoras). However, few (if any) of Lundius’ colleagues had seen the manuscript, and when it was finally published a few years later916, it caused a great stir. The stir was caused by the sudden emergence of a domestic literal product which confirmed the ideas that Bureus, Stiernhielm, Verelius and Rudbeck had deduced mostly from classical writings. As a result, their hypotheses of the Northern origin of classical civilisation appeared to hold true. Lundius’ sudden discovery of a runic manuscript in which the ancient theologians Zalmoxis and Abaris appeared side by side seemed rather too convenient, as some contemporaries noted. What made the scholars suspicious was the spelling of the sages, “Salmoses” and “Habor”917. In other words, as well as supporting the generally-accepted connection between ancient Uppsala and Greece, it appeared to confirm the validity of the original northern etymologisations of the classical Abaris and Zalmoxis by Rudbeck and Lundius (i.e. Salmoses and Habor). Just like the forgeries of Annius, the runic manuscript provided data that previously existed only in the daydreams of scholars. Unsurprisingly, the authenticity of the manuscript of Lundius has not been conclusively established due to a dearth of tangible evidence918. Whatever the truth, it is interesting that Lundius sought to validate the tenets of the Hyperborean research tradition by referring to domestic antiquities, that is, a runic source. This conclusively proves the value that the scholars gave to the antiquarian sources and etymologisations in the field. Otherwise Lundius would not have cited such a text, which he must have known would appear dubious after the dispute over the temple of Uppsala and the forgery Verelius had used. Lundius described certain additional expressions of the early civilisation of the Geats of the north in Zamolxis. As did Stiernhielm, he highlighted the Norse 916 Lundius 1687, 95–96. It was claimed that a student, Lucas Halpap, had found a runic manuscript in 1690. Rudbeck refers to this text in Atlantica II. 917 Alkarp 2009, 196–199 (illustrates this manuscript and the forgeries of Lundius). 918 I will come back to this a bit later in section 3.5.1, and provide more detailed sources there. 176 Skaldic Priests919 as ancient sages (Northern Druids) who recorded oral traditions and observed nature. They had been aware of truths of theology and natural philosophy. The emphasis on natural philosophy indicates that Lundius shared an approach with Rudbeck, as to the method how the ancients had attained their knowledge (by observing nature). Furthermore, the knowledge of the Skaldic priests included the laws; Lundius mentioned the tradition of the laws of Viger Spa. Unlike Stiernhöök, Lundius deemed Viger Spa to be an ancient, not a mediaeval character. However, it is not easy to determine whether Lundius saw Viger Spa as an actual person or merely as one of the titles of the twelve legal authors/advisers appointed by one of the ancient priest-kings of Gamla Uppsala, Odin/Salmoses/Abaris920. Lundius’ etymologisation of the name “Viger Spa” suggests the latter explanation: he claimed that it referred to ancient scholars among the Geatic-Svear who had knowledge of future consequences.921 From the point of view of the Hyperborean research tradition, the most important part of Lundius’ Zamolxis was its connection to the theology of the ancient Geats. Like Rudbeck, he compared the Old Testament and the Eddic- classical myths of the Creation and Destruction of the Cosmos. His starting point was the Eddic poems922. In these writings, the creation of the world is explained as the clash between the ice from the misty land of Nifilheim and the heat from the land of Fire-Giants, Múspellsheimr, which took place in the great abyss, Ginnungagap. As a result of that clash, life was born. In variants of the myth, the ancient Giant (Jotun), Bergelmer, and his wife were mentioned. They were depicted as the only persons surviving the great flood that resulted from the death of the water-giant Ymir who had been killed by the three brothers, Odin (Atin), Vile and Ve923. Already Rudbeck had identified Eddic, classical and biblical persons during and after the Flood924 with each other. However, the unique aspect of Lundius’ analysis was the resemblances he detected between the biblical-Eddic-classical accounts and Plato’s dialogue Timaeus, along with some other (Stoic) currents of 919 Skaldic Poets in Stiernhielm’s De Hyperboreis Dissertatio published 2 years earlier in 1685. 920 Lundius 1687, 78ff. This he draws from Prose Edda and Gladsheim, part of Asgard, where he had 12 diars helping him. This Lundius, it seems, connects with Odin-Salmoses and Uppsala. 921 Lundius 1687, 78–84. From ‘spa, i.e. Swedish ‘spå’- to ‘foretell’. 922 Gylfaginning and Völuspá. Of the versions of these texts, see Lindow 2001, 317–319. 923 Lindow 2001, 90, 247, 316; Odin, Vili and Ve were brothers and sons of Bur (or Bor). They raised the Earth and shaped the Midgard, the world of humans, and one of the nine worlds in Norse mythology. 924 Rudbeck identified this Noah-Bergelmer with Bore and classical Saturnus-Sadur, whose sons Atin, Vile and Ve, were, Seem–Jupiter (Jofur), Poseidon-Neptunus-Japheth (Neckur) and Hades-Pluto-Ham (Blotr). Later, when Rudbeck used Plato’s account on Atlantis, Atin was Atle. See Eriksson 2002, 282, 304. 177 classical philosophy. In fact, his main interest was the mythical accounts of the destruction of the world and in particular the Ragnarök of the Eddas. Astonishingly, Lundius related this myth to the Stoic principle of the cyclical, purifying world fire925 (conflagration). Thus, it seems to me that he pondered whether this mythical philosophical-theological doctrine was introduced among the Geats, as well as transferred to the Greeks from Salmoses. In practice, Lundius concluded that comparisons between the Eddic myths and classical writings yielded data about the ancient Scandinavian civilisation. The interpretation of the Eddic myths as a compendium of pristine theology and the sacred religious laws related to them is of vital importance in the last works of the Hyperborean research tradition in the eighteenth century. The fact that they were a token of the high moral standing of the ancient Scandinavians is an important observation as well. At the heart of Lundius’ notion was the idea of the continuity (manifested in the runic alphabet and Eddas) between the first ancient Scandinavians and the later Goths. The teachings of Salmoses and Abaris were thereby a crystallisation of laws, morality, and (natural) theology, along with their knowledge of the destiny of cosmos and reward and punishment in the afterlife. The vision of Rudbeck’s Atlantica was in some ways affiliated with the Late Renaissance context of prisca theologia by adding the testimony of the Eddic writings to Bureus’ views in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. 3.4 The Dominance of the Hyperborean Research Tradition The four decades between 1685 and the early 1720s can be characterised as the period of the hegemony of the Hyperborean research tradition in Swedish historiography. Although Bureus, Stiernhielm and Verelius were the main drivers of this hegemony, Rudbeck’s Atlantica and the studies of Lundius were the public manifestations of it. However, as in the case of Verelius and Schefferus earlier, I will show that the reason for the popularity of the Hyperborean research tradition was not a result of its general acceptance among the learned. The vitality of ideas, such as the “Atlantic vision” of Rudbeck (among others), was equally dependent on the support it gained in the political and institutional networks of the time. 925 Lundius 1687, 164–169. Eriksson 2002, 451, on Rudbeck arguing one of the Merkesmän’s and Isis- Disa-Diana teaching Völuspá’s theology, and the idea of World Conflagration, in the classical world. 178 3.4.1 Networks & the Institutionalisation of the Hyperborean Past It took a while for Rudbeck to be taken as a serious historian. His patron, Count de la Gardie, the Lord High Chancellor, fell from grace after Charles XI showed his true colours in the early 1680s and changed the power balance in Swedish politics926. As a result, the Count and his favourite, Rudbeck, were vulnerable to attack. Ironically, the historians opposing Rudbeck had been clients of de la Gardie prior to the Count’s fall; now, when Rudbeck could no longer cry to de la Gardie for help, and more importantly, when his opponents had a man inside the Royal Chancellery, the power balance in the networks altered.927 This case is a prime exemplar of a downfall of a patron, which, as Hakanen has argued, was one of the main dangers of early modern patronage from the client’s point of view928. For the most part, the attacks against Rudbeck came from a network of influential scholars with institutional power. Of them, Johan Hadorph (1630–1693), the new Director of the Board of National Antiquities, was the most prominent929. One of Hadorph’s attacks was connected to the Hyperboreans and the publication of Stiernhielm’s De Hyperboreis Dissertatio in 1685. Previously, Hall and King have suggested that the publication of Stiernhielm’s manuscript can be interpreted as Hadorph slandering Rudbeck. He wanted to spotlight Atlantica by showing that it was not a work of such originality as the domestic dilettantes and foreign admirers thought, since Stiernhielm had introduced the main lines of it930. Their suggestion is plausible; however, Hadorph’s deed should not be deemed to be critical of Stiernhielm and Rudbeck’s general idea of Swedish antiquity. Hadorph supported the Geatic view of history. This was shown during one of his summer expeditions to northern Sweden, organised to discover and collect national antiquities. Hadorph had found a runestone in the Tornio region near the Arctic Circle. The inscription on the stone is unclear but seems to be depicting antlers, in my view931. Hadorph and his assistant, Johan Peringer, interpreted the 926 Since 1630s, the Monarch was meant to take into account the advice of the Council, a mandatory practice which Charles XI abolished. From 1680 onwards, he was bound only by Himself. Lappalainen 2007, 40–45, 100ff, 115–116. In 1st chapter Lappalainen shows how De la Gardie was no Johan Skytte who was a keen supporter of a strong monarch. De la Gardie had been authoritative during the Regency. He attempted to collect the members of Privy Council against the law, but without success, as the lower nobility had allied with Charles XI. On his political ideas before the absolutism, see Runeby 1962, 248ff. 927 Eriksson 2002, 153. 928 Hakanen 2011, 158–159. 929 Lindroth 1975b, 275–284; 320–325; 327–332. 930 King 2005, 209–210; Hall 2000, 209–210. 931 Schück 1933c, 257–262. 179 picture as the emblem of the Three Crowns. Their reasoning rested on a notion that the runestone marked the northern frontier of the ancient Geatic Empire932. In this respect, they belonged to the tradition of Bureus and Schefferus’ previously mentioned works on the subject933.They all saw the emblem of the Three Crowns as a symbol of antiquity which the Geatic Overking of Uppsala had used. Hadorph’s personal grudge against Rudbeck934 concerned, among other things, how the latter had meddled in Hadorph’s realm of antiquities (the reader will remember that Rudbeck was primarily an anatomist) and planned to continue with the second part of Atlantica935. Hadorph disliked the novel methodological aspects936 of Atlantica, but otherwise subscribed to contemporary views on Swedish antiquity. This view is substantiated by the fact that Hadorph published several of Stiernhielm’s manuscripts, including De Hyperboreis Dissertatio and Stiernhielm’s other Geatic work, Anticluverius, a work comprised mostly of criticisms of the German Cluverius and his Germania Antiqua. This indicates that the context of the publication was once again, the territorial feuds in the Baltics. The aftermath of the Scanian War (ended in 1679) and notably the feuds over the Pomeranian region can be considered the major stimuli for the publication937. Ideas of the ancient dominance of the Hyperborean Geats, as represented in Bureus’ emblematic discussion and Stiernhielm’s and Verelius’ appropriation of the sagas, tended to arise whenever there was conflict in the Baltics. At the centre of the issue was the “Cluverian” view of the German origin of the Geats, which saw the Baltic region as historically German, not Swedish. Thus, Hadorph’s denigration of Rudbeck’s reputation was probably just a by-product of his desire to draw attention to the historical presence of the ancestors of the current Swedish monarchs in the controversial regions. Other members of the network that opposed Rudbeck were Claes Arrhenius and Jacob Arrhenius, who both worked in the historical and antiquarian institutes of the time. The former was a member of the Board of Antiquities and the latter a Professor of History in Uppsala. In short, the former had indirectly criticised the mythological constructions of Atlantica, which led to minor incidents938. The 932 As far as I know, the ‘Tornio Stone’ has not survived. See the inscriptions in Schück 1933c, 257–262. 933 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 11; Schefferus 1678, passim. There is no reason for speculating if he knew Bureus’ unpublished work. After Schefferus’ work it was public knowledge. He was also the Secretary of the Board of Antiquities, so if somebody had it in their possession, it was Hadorph. 934 King 2005, 223, tells how Hadorph had disputed with Rudbeck earlier. 935 In broader context, see Annerstedt 1908, Chapter IV; Eriksson 2002, Chapters 10–11. 936 See Malm 1994, passim. 937 This is supported by earlier and coeval, but also later publications. See sections 3.4.2 & 3.5. 938 Alkarp 2009, 125, has shown how he had called the author of ‘recent works’ as a ‘fable historian’. 180 attempts to make Rudbeck’s research on the ancient Scandinavia more difficult were usually organised by an opponent of Rudbeck, Henrik Schütz, a young theologian who both coveted the same office as the Librarian of the University of Uppsala939. In 1686 Schütz challenged Rudbeck’s etymology of Gamla Uppsala in Atlantica, which, as Alkarp has argued, must have annoyed Rudbeck. It whittled away the argument for the Uppsala region as Atlantis and the location of the Hyperborean Temple940. This was, however, to be the last attack against Rudbeck before 1698. By 1686 Rudbeck’s circumstances had changed dramatically. De la Gardie still had influence in the court and ably defended Rudbeck from several attacks (including the one from Schütz described above). This apparently sparked King Charles XI’s interest in Atlantica, and as a result he granted Rudbeck a stipend enabling him to concentrate on the study of Swedish antiquity full time. Rudbeck secured the support of the most significant political actors (and hubs) of the time after Bengt Gabrielsson Oxenstierna (1623–1702), the President of the Royal Chancellery941 and a follower of de la Gardie, admitted to be an admirer of Atlantica942. Why Charles XI changed his mind and decided to support the concept of an Atlantic-Hyperborean past is important, because it provides insights of the mechanisms of the spread and institutionalisation of ideas in early modern hierarchic networks. In my view, once Charles XI (or someone in his chancellery) understood Rudbeck’s vision of ancient Sweden, he would have grasped the benefits of the idea in political propaganda. Perhaps de la Gardie introduced Atlantica to the king. De la Gardie was known as an urbane and educated man943. The Count fostered the esteem in which the softer Hyperborean research tradition – relative to belligerent Gothicism – would be held among European audiences. The fact that the image only poorly reflected reality944 was beside the point. 939 As King 2005, 220. De la Gardie had told Schütz that he had no chance for the position, which Charles XI did not take too well and put De la Gardie to his place. Rudbeck and Schütz had history of quarrelling already earlier. See King 2005, Chapter 15, is the best (English) description of the matter. 940 Alkarp 2009, 160–165. 941 The previous office, Lord High Chancellor was replaced with the office in question in 1680 by the King. Bengt Oxenstierna was appointed as the President of the Chancellery in 1680 and as the Chancellor of the University in 1686. Annerstedt 1908, 244–246. 942 Eriksson 2002, 475, 601. Eriksson has demonstrated how Rudbeck the Elder had asked if the Chancellor could “mention” his promising son Olof Jr. in the court as a candidate for the open professorships. 943 Lappalainen 2007, 45, 100ff. She has described the role of the family De la Gardie. His library was legendary and his exquisite manners and looks (he was called as ‘the most beautiful man in the world’) were widely known. This seems to have been the reason Queen Christina favoured him earlier in the century. Christina was not the greatest supporter of the military side of Gothicism. 944 Sweden was rather aggressive in the Baltics and Scandinavia. Moreover, as Lappalainen 2007, 53– 58, has shown, the foreign visitors did not deem the state of Swedish monarchy and its nobility to be 181 Sweden and de la Gardie, though both in their glory during the latter half of the seventeenth century, were parvenus in the strictest sense of the meaning945. Thus, during a time when a noble lineage was of paramount significance, it is obvious why de la Gardie and Charles XI decided to support Rudbeck’s fabulous interpretation of Swedish antiquity. The glory and honour of the fatherland would be increased significantly if Rudbeck’s image of Hyperborean Uppsala as a cradle of classical civilisation was discussed in the royal courts of Europe, instead of the brutish Goths who were usually regarded as the destroyers of this very culture. In fact, there are further examples of the application of the new ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition in the court culture and imagery of Charles XI and his follower, Charles XII. Before outlining a few of these examples in chapter 3.5, I will discuss examples of the popularity of Atlantica and the Hyperborean research tradition gained in the academic setting of 1680–1700. 3.4.2 The Hyperborean Research Tradition and Public Institutions Rudbeck and the Hyperboreans in Academic Dissertations As Kurt Johannesson has stated946, after the publication of the first part of Atlantica the Geatic view of history became increasingly popular within distinct intellectual contexts. This development can be detected in academic dissertations between roughly 1685 and 1720. During that period several students wrote treatises that made references to the Atlantica of the illustrious “Professor Rudbeckius” as he was often called, despite some having almost no relevance to the research on Swedish antiquity947. It is plausible to surmise that some of them used the contemporaneous celebrity of Rudbeck as rhetoric leverage with the purpose to give their theses fashionable appearance. elevated. They were seen as belligerent Gothic people with no sense of sophistication. Ingemarsdotter 2011, chapters 3.1–3.2. The same inferiority complex of the north-south axis applies to the “German” – “Italian” discourse of antiquity (Tacitus), shown by Krebs 2011, Chapters 2–3. 945 Count De la Gardie, though now humiliated, constructed a genealogical line of greater antiquity for himself. This was founded on the fact that his roots were in France and his power was a result of his wealth and connections. Hence, though had connections with them, he was not a member of the older aristocracy of Sweden, i.e. Uradeln, i.e., families that had been ennobled before the year 1400. 946 Johannesson 1968. Especially Chapter III, but also Chapter VII. Also e.g. Lindroth 1975b, 297–305, observed the diffusion of the main ideas in Atlantica. 947 I have read a number of theses supervised by professors affiliated to De la Gardie or Rudbeck in 1680– 1710. It was quick to establish that Atlantica was a rhetoric tool. Instead of listing myriad names and years, I will be presenting certain titles of the most interesting dissertations in the footnotes. 182  Carolus Lundius was a prime exemplar of the devoted supporters of Atlantica, as shown by his Zamolxis and a dissertation on the history of law, Legius Hyperboreis, which he supervised in 1687948. Other members of this Rudbeckian network were the brothers Salanus (Petter and Jonas) who were preaching the tidings of joy on the Continent and Petter, Rudbeck’s nephew, who helped him with the Latin translation of Atlantica, came up with a thesis on Swedish antiquity949. A slightly less keen supporter of Rudbeck’s Atlantica was Andreas Stobaeus (1642–1714), a poet950 and the Professor of Poetics in the University of Lund. Moreover, the case of the two Professors of the University of Uppsala, Fabian Törner (1666–1731) and Petrus Lagerlööf (1648–1699), and their affinity with Rudbeck is more complicated. The former disagreed with Rudbeck as to the location of the ancient Uppsala Temple951. Then again, Törner supervised several academic dissertations in which, if not fully supported, Rudbeck’s point of view was at least taken into account. Of course, it is to be kept in mind that the supervising professors did not always write the theses and that the students could decide to defend views to which the professors would not subscribe entirely. Perhaps the most engrossing of Törner’s dissertations were those published in 1706952 and 1707953. Petrus Lagerlööf, who was briefly introduced within the context of Karlström’s thesis, supervised two dissertations in which Atlantica is cited. In the early 1680s he became de la Gardie’s librarian. The Count, as the Chancellor of Uppsala University (and the Monarchy), supported the talented Lagerlööf and was instrumental in him receiving the Professorship of Logic (1682). Later he was Professor of Poetics (1685) and Eloquence (1687) at the same University. Before Lagerlööf received the title of Rikshistoriograf in 1695, he had supervised several theses on subjects ranging from poetry to history and philosophy. I have 948 Dissertatio Upsaliensis Legius Hyperboreis prasidie Carolo Lundio[...]. See Welt 1687, passim. 949 Lagerlööf 1691c; Lindroth 1975b, 282, 295, 297, 300. Also Peter’s brother, Jonas Salan was a member of the network. He visited England and familiarised Rudbeck’s work there in the antiquarian circles. 950 Johannesson 1968, 42–51, 83–85, 107, 295; Stobaeus 1697, passim; Stobaeus 1706, passim. 951 Alkarp 2009, 96, 139, analysed a study, Samtal mellan tvenne studenter Rufus och Crassus om G:la Uppsalatemplets verkliga läge, that is, Conversation between two students Rufus and Crassus on the actual location of the Gamla Uppsala Temple. 952 E.g. Törner 1706, passim (Lundius, and other legislative issues, though not the Hyperboreans as such). 953 Törner 1707a, e.g. thes. II–III; Törner 1707b, passim; Törner 1720, passim. Considering the amount of theses Törner either wrote or supervised, it is baffling that he is not mentioned in any major modern work on the Swedish history of ideas. 183 analysed 13 of these studies, focussing naturally on theses that contain reflections about the Geatic view of history or Rudbeck’s Atlantica954. Lagerlööf had some reservations about Atlantica, but he broadly supported the views of Stiernhielm and Verelius in relation to, say, the value of Old Norse writings as a source for Swedish history. In one of the important theses Lagerlööf supervised, the Old Norse Drottar or Skalds were identified with the Celtic Druids955. In another thesis from the same year, Eddic wisdom was compared with the doctrines the classical writers had associated with the Druids; the author referred to the works of Schedius, Becanus, Sheringham, Camden, Picard and Lundius956. In my view, these two works can be placed within the earlier tradition of the unpublished writings of Bureus and Stiernhielm. They had identified the Hyperborean Boreades as the priests of the Geats of the ancient Uppsala region and as the original Druids, thus attempting to appropriate the Druidic traditions of the early modern British, French and German research on national antiquity957. Moreover, the abovementioned study of the Skaldic priests adhered to the pristine tradition of theology in arguing that such figures as Odin, Zalmoxis, Orpheus and Musaeus had been its “Geatic” manifestations958. The views in the theses may naturally originate in the minds of the students’ writing them, and Lagerlööf may have just accepted their views. However, this is in the end, a side issue; the most important fact is that these theses represented Stiernhielm’s line of the Hyperborean research tradition. The question of whether the Geatic view of history, spiced up with Rudbeck’s Atlantica, was as dominant in the “non-Swedish” universities of the Empire (i.e. Turku, Dorpat, and Greifswald) as in Uppsala is still to be studied. However, Erkki Urpilainen, the Finnish historian of ideas, discussed the matter relative to Turku in his doctoral thesis959 and in a shorter study on the ideas of the origin of civilisation in the Geatic view of history. He has shown only a few dissertations submitted at Turku in 1611–1720 examined the origin of culture and such topics as Pythagoras and Zalmoxis. Torsten Rudenius (1661–1729), first Professor of 954 The most interesting ones, i.e. such that make mention to the Goths, Geats, Rudbeck, Lundius, Atlantica, etc: Lagerlööf 1687, Cap. III; Lagerlööf 1688, 33; Lagerlööf 1689a, e.g. 3, 11; Lagerlööf 1689b, 17–18; Lagerlööf 1689c, e.g. 1–4; Lagerlööf 1690a, (On the seafaring of the Goths); Lagerlööf 1690b, passim; Lagerlööf 1691a, e.g. 20, 39; Lagerlööf 1691b, passim; Lagerlööf 1691c, passim; Lagerlööf 1692, Cap.1, & e.g. 16, 34, 45, 53, 54, 58. 955 Lagerlööf 1685a, passim. 956 Lagerlööf 1685b, passim. 957 See sections 1.1.2 and 2.1.2. 958 Lagerlööf 1685a, 1–13. 959 Urpilainen 1993. This study concentrates on the Professor of History in Turku, Algot Scarin. 184 Poetics and later, after ascending in the hierarchy, the Professor of Theology, supervised studies in which Atlantica and the Hyperboreans were articulated960. Even though one should not jump to conclusions in this connection, it seems that Rudbeck’s Atlantica had gained a hub-like position in the Swedish universities in Sweden. Scholars maintained personal connections (horizontal networks), which clearly helped in the distribution of the Hyperborean research tradition. The evidence indicates that, although the antiquarian institutes and publications were central to the spread of the Hyperborean research tradition, purely academic networks also played some role in it. The Manuscript of Suecia Antiqua Et Hodierna The most interesting public project launched to proclaim the glory of Sweden in the latter half of the seventeenth century was Erik Dahlberg’s (1625–1703) architectural-topographical work Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna (Ancient and Modern Sweden). The three volumes contain hundreds of pictures and engravings of monuments in contemporary and ancient Sweden. The vicissitudes of this project deserve investigation, for it took over 50 years before Dahlberg’s original idea crystallised as a book (1715/1716). It was decided early in the project that text was needed to accompany the images, the purpose being to depict the history of the Empire. I take a closer look at the textual part below, as some interesting historical scholars were involved in the writing process. Initially, the task was given to Johannes Loccenius, the German legal historian and Royal Historiographer, who collaborated with Dahlberg in writing an introduction and chapters on the historical provinces of Sweden. Loccenius died in 1677, leaving the project largely unfinished. A few years thereafter, Charles XI asked the Board of Antiquities to find somebody to finish the work, but nobody was interested. Eventually, Claes Arrhenius was appointed, and soon made a new plan for completing the work. Unfortunately, Arrhenius died in 1695.961 Next, it was Petrus Lagerlööf’s turn to try. He wrote an introduction containing ten chapters on the ancient geography of Sweden. Although he never finished the manuscript, a print of it exists in the University of Uppsala. Lagerlööf died suddenly in 1699. The next scholar was Olof Hermelin (1658–ca.1709), a professor in the University of Dorpat in the Baltic Province of Sweden. He 960 Urpilainen 1998, 8–11. Rudenius was incidentally married to Rudbeck the Elder’s granddaughter. 961 Bring 1937, 1–67; Lindroth 1975b, 333–335. The brief outline of the history of the authors of the manuscript below rests on these modern studies. 185 followed Lagerlööf as the Rikshistoriograf, and at first went along with his predecessor’s plan. He proposed minor changes which were not accepted by the Crown, for, too many delays had been taken place already. Soon Hermelin became busy with new assignments, including accompanying King Charles XII as Secretary of State962, and had no time to concentrate on the work. Samuel Auseen, the Professor of History at the University of Dorpat (relocated to Pernau during 1699–1710), took over the task in 1720s963. Although the role of the Baltic professors in this process and the politicised geographical antiquarianism of the project964 would be interesting to study, in this section I focus on Lagerlööf’s Suecia Antiqua Et Hodierna965. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, it is more relevant to my overall purpose to understand the impact of the Hyperborean research on public projects after Charles XI had taken Atlantica under his wings. Secondly, as I will show, Lagerlööf was not an unreserved supporter of Rudbeck, and I wanted to determine whether this difference between his personal and public roles is reflected in the text. The first chapters of Lagerlööf’s manuscript examine the varying geographic names of ancient Sweden and Scandinavia. Using etymological arguments, Sweden was identified with Scandia, Basilia, Balthia, Thule, Scythia and Suecia. Places such as Atlantis, Ogygia and Elixoia are also mentioned in the text; Stiernhielm and Rudbeck being the obvious sources of these views. In addition, the works of Lundius (and Rudbeck) are cited in stating that the term Atlantis (Atlas) had once signified “noblemen”966. Confusingly, certain views expressed in Johannes Magnus’ historical work are refuted, but others are accepted elsewhere967, and it is almost as Lagerlööf would have been undecided with regard to the validity of some traditional Geatic motifs. Subsequent chapters examine the analyses of Kircher and Rudbeck the Elder within the context of the reliability of the myths of the Underworld as sources of 962 In Poltava, Hermelin wrote lampoons about the Tsar Peter of Russia. By the year 1709 he seems to have vanished in the air. Presumably, Hermelin was executed after getting caught. 963 Bring 1937, 22–48. 964 Donecker electronic, has mentioned a study Hermelin wrote on the origin of Livonians in 1693 (De origine Livonorum) in which role of the local serfs and their Roman and Herulian background was emphasised against the Sarmatian ideology of the nobility. 965 The printed manuscript is designated as Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. A handwritten note is added to the text ‘Lagerloevii Commentarius in com. Dahlbergii Svec. Ant. Et Hodier.’ It has no year of publication. I would date it 1695–1697, for the author notes Lundius’ forthcoming Flocks of Viger Spa on pages 85–86. Of this forgery of Lundius see Lindroth 1975b, 301f; Alkarp 2009, 193–196; another noteworthy fact is that the pages 105–124 are missing. Here the text will be referred as Lagerlööf Suecia. 966 I.e. ‘Yfwerborne – Atlas’ as ‘of noblest birth and noble’ in Atlantica I, and section 3.1.2. 967 Lagerlööf Suecia, 36–39, 97. On ancient geography in general, see Chapters I–VII. 186 ancient history. The traditional views of Olaus Magnus are mentioned here as well. On this basis, Lagerlööf stated that the Hyperborean Mountain could be identified with the Doffrafiel (Mountains) in the northern part of Scandinavia968. In fact, this mention is the only direct reference to the Hyperboreans in the whole manuscript. At the same time, the author remarked upon the North Star in the light of the accounts of the Hyperboreans in Atlantica while dating and tracing the genealogy of the first inhabitants of Sweden. He even speculated if the fixed nature of the star may have attracted people to the region969. Lagerlööf is generally critical towards the prevailing view of fabulous antiquity. He does not view it as a time of pristine civilisation, but as a simple and happy period, not that different from Rudbeck’s view970. Otherwise his view diverged from Rudbeck, as to the value of studying the early history of the world. According to Lagerlööf, the unreliability of the sources meant it was folly to try to establish which country was the oldest971. Moreover, Lagerlööf was not an admirer of Atlantica. As Johannesson has noted within the context of Lagerlööf’s other writings, he was critical towards the practice of tracing back the Old Norse writings to the postdiluvian period, claiming (quite correctly) that they had been written in the early part of the second millennium972. Surprisingly enough, he admitted next being an admirer of Rudbeck and Lundius, and expressed views based on the Atlantica and Zalmoxis.973 Thus, once again Lagerlööf’s manuscript has a strangely divided nature. Would it be possible that some views can be traced to the earlier manuscripts of Loccenius and Arrhenius and Lagerlööf had left them unchanged? Or did this work in fact have two distinct writers? According to Bring, chapter 11, which contains most of the Rudbeck-related references, was probably written by Hermelin; this is a plausible explanation for its incongruities. On the other hand, Bring has pointed to earlier studies and a letter from Hermelin in which he wrote that he had followed Lagerlööf’s original plan974. It is also possible that Lagerlööf wrote the original text and Hermelin edited it thereafter; this would account for 968 Lagerlööf Suecia, 41. 969 Lagerlööf Suecia, 71. The role of the North Star as a Swedish symbol is discussed in Chapter 3.5. 970 Lagerlööf Suecia 69–70; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 39ff. 971 Lagerlööf Suecia, 72–73. 972 Johannesson 1968, 268n7. 973 Eriksson 2002, 430–431, too, has noticed the same ambivalence. 974 Bring 1937, 41–42. 187 the twofold attitude towards Johannes Magnus and the claims to Sweden being inhabited already at the time of Serug, the grandfather of Abraham975. Lagerlööf seems the most probable author of the cultural views in the printed manuscript. In the spirit of the Zamolxis of Lundius, the text presents the Skaldic priests as the Northern, original representatives of the Druidic wisdom, a subject on which Lagerlööf had written/supervised the two abovementioned theses976. He claimed that the Skaldic priests had taught the civilised arts, religious beliefs, sacred laws and so forth to the ancient Celts and Germans. The ancient Swedish- Greek connections, as well as the Northern origin of the names of the euhemerised kings and queens, are explained in the light of Atlantica.977 Thus, after a few critical pages, the manuscript outlines a largely orthodox Geatic history enlivened with the fundamentals of Atlantica. The political situation of the time and the fact that this was a work intended to be distributed across Europe allow us to decipher the incongruities. It is possible that the views have their origin in Lagerlööf’s role as a state-appointed historian. He expressed views that the Crown wanted to present on the domestic front and abroad. Besides, Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna was of such political importance that Lagerlööf could not have stated his “true” opinion, whatever that may have been, of the insights of Rudbeck or Lundius. From the late 1680s to the 1720s, some aspects of their image of Swedish antiquity were not debatable. Thus, it was the glory of the fatherland that directed the quill, whomever the author of the text. As demonstrated in the case of Verelius, it was impossible to be critical towards the Geatic origin and, to a lesser degree, Hyperborean research tradition without embarrassing patrons and the honour of the fatherland. The manuscript contains many examples that support this conclusion. Swedish is presented as one of the oldest languages in the world; Sweden is identified with the Island of Scandza of Jordanes, a gushing pot from which the Geats had spread around the world. Additionally, the ancient Swedish monarchs are presented as the progenitors of the dynasties of Norway, Denmark and continental Europe978. The most interesting and telling part of the manuscript is the chapter which has a name that translates roughly as On the Differences between Ancient and Current Borders of the Swedish Empire / as well as its significant size/ [...]979. In 975 Lagerlööf Suecia, 36 (critical towards Johannes Magnus); 86–88 (Serug, time of Abraham). 976 I.e. Lagerlööf 1685a; Lagerlööf 1685b. 977 Lagerlööf Suecia, Cap. X & XI. 978 Lagerlööf Suecia, 42–44 (Vagina Gentium); 81–85, 88–89, (language); 86–88 (Genealogies). 979 Lagerlööf Suecia, Cap. VII, Om Swea Rijkes forna och för tijden warande gräntseskildnader / samt om des märkeliga widd / [...]. 188 this chapter, the borders of Scania, Ingermanland and Karelia are insisted to have been part of the Empire since early ages, and, furthermore, that the Danes had invaded some of these areas at a later date980. Moreover, the author claims elsewhere in the text that the Swedish Navy had ruled the Baltic Sea since time immemorial981. The proclamation seems quite comical against the background of the scandalous and famous sinking of the warship Vasa in 1628. In any event, the aforementioned case of territorial antiquarianism operating within the political context of the Baltics and Norway, and this time, the Scanian War, is self-evident in the manuscript. It provides further support for my earlier conclusion about the political conditions in the Baltics as one of the key factors in the emergence and, in this case, the development of Hyperborean research tradition. Therefore, this explanation applies not only to Bureus and Stiernhielm or Verelius before the 1660s, but also to the political conflicts in the region from the 1670s onwards. 3.5 Political Applications of the Hyperborean Antiquity 3.5.1 Swedish Absolutism and the Hyperborean Research Tradition I will argue in this chapter that the softer side of the Geatic view of history was epitomised in the Getic philosopher and lawgiver Zalmoxis and that the Hyperborean research tradition was the “politicised” manifestation of this endeavour. The political context that explains the rise of the tradition is self- evident. It is not surprising that the sacred laws of the Hyperborean philosopher- king-judge Zalmoxis had emerged during the last years of the reign of Charles IX and the first years of the reign of Gustavus Adolphus982. In Charles IX’s period, the Geatic view of history was designed for reinforcing the constitutional rights (and power) of the monarch relative to the strong nobility. In those days, rule of law in Sweden was weak on the whole983. Technically, Charles IX had been a usurper of power whose legal right to the crown the nobility questioned in the light of the Swedish constitution. Although the political situation was rather different during the latter half of the seventeenth century, Charles XI had announced in 1680, with the support of 980 Lagerlööf Suecia, 39–42. 981 Lagerlööf Suecia, 60–62. 982 In chapter 1.3. 983 E.g. Bureus and the Hyperborean Sweden, Laws, and Gustavus Adolphus, and the battle over the antiquities. See chapter 1.3, and broadly, Bennich-Björkman 1970, Chapters 2 and 3. 189 certain members of the nobility, that the Crown’s authority now overshadowed that of the Riksdag of Estates, the traditional diet comprising of the Four Estates of Sweden984. More importantly, he commanded the Royal Chancellery, which supervised academic research, to send a letter informing the consistories of the realm’s universities that discussions related to the nature of political power were not encouraged985. This development also sheds light on the views and origin of works such as Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna which were, after all, commissioned by the Crown. Moreover, it also illuminates the emphasis that was put on the history of the sacred laws, the legal rights of the monarch and his territorial claims. In addition to these subjects, the idea of the Gothic Overking (of Uppsala) and the historical arguments supporting a strong (hereditary) monarch featured in Lagerlööf’s (or Hermelin’s) version. Added to this, in Suecia the line of succession is viewed as a custom “among the ancient Geats”, which was argued to have manifested itself in the Old Norse writings986. Finally, the historical justification of the absolute monarchy is mentioned in the work, as the author gave historical examples of the constitutional right of the Swedish monarch since antiquity to legislate as well as appoint the clergy and judges987. In more ways than one this idea was based on overinterpretation of Icelandic sagas on Sweden, in which the King of Uppsala performed the religious rites as a high-priest of the Temple of Uppsala988. In fact, the same tone was present in Lundius’ thesis on Zalmoxis, which is the clearest example within the Hyperborean research tradition of support for the idea of absolute monarchy. By referring to biblical and classical texts, among others, he highlighted the eternal right of the monarch to change the laws989. Additionally, when Rudbeck discussed “the Laws of Atlantis” in Atlantica, he stressed the power of the Geatic Overking of Uppsala in a traditional manner, despite making a curious mention of Plato and the current absolute power of the Uppsala (Swedish) King990. In any case, as Alkarp has shown, the context of these views is that the idea of the monarch taking part in the legislative process991 or 984 Lappalainen 2007, 40–45, 100ff, 115–116; Runeby 1962, 248ff. 985 Alkarp 2009, 194. The King effectively gained absolute power by the year 1693. The Financial Restoration, in which De la Gardie lost most of his wealth, Charles XI conducted in 1680. 986 Lagerlööf Suecia, 100–102. 987 Lagerlööf Suecia, 92–99. He repeated ideas of Lundius 1687, introduction, by exaggerating the antiquity of the sagas of Odin, telling how Odin-Attyn had started this in Sweden after arriving from Asia. 988 E.g. Cap. 16, 29 and 33, 40 of Ynglinga Saga. Also mentioned in Saga Hervor. 989 Lundius 1687, introduction; see also the propagandistic chapter: Lundius 1687, Cap. III.7. 990 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 173–174. 991 Alkarp 2009, 194. 190 religious appointments can be supported historically. The major classical source of the Hyperborean research tradition contains the following passage: And the kings of this city and the supervisors of the sacred precinct are called Boreadae, since they are descendants of Boreas, and the succession to these positions is always kept in their family.992 Diodorus was one of the main sources Bureus used when he discussed “Salmhoxes Rex Platonicus” in the context of the royal emblems of the ancient Geatic-Hyperborean Kings in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. He highlighted the role of the city of Uppsala as the seat of the Overking of the Geats, and furthermore argued that this Overking was simultaneously the legislator (iudex) and the high priest (sacerdos) of the Geats993. In Bureus’ view, this was articulated in the esoteric emblem of the Three Crowns. For Rudbeck, the symbol of the Three Crowns was derived from the postdiluvian centuries and pointed to Shem, Ham and Japheth. Save for Schefferus, a line of scholars from Bureus to Rudbeck and Lundius provides arguments for the biblical origins of the contemporary emblems of the Swedish monarch. This must be comprehended in the light of the appreciation and status of Mosaic Law at that time. It was linked to the general intellectual framework of the sacred, biblical origin of everything994, which in my view, was utilised as an argument for political power – in this case, absolute monarchy. A learned practice of this kind of assurance existed in the politico- historical side of the early modern writing of national histories in Sweden. Lundius adverted to this topical subject while analysing the sacred nature of the laws in his Zamolxis995; in addition, as Alkarp has shown, he left certain old texts unpublished and “modified them” because they supported the notion of election996. Moreover, there is also the case of the previously mentioned runic forgery from the year 1690, in which essential features of the Hyperborean research tradition were epitomised; it contains a mention of the Geatic Zalmoxis and the Hyperborean Abaris. The most startling aspect of this is the nature of the source in which the mention is made: it is national antiquity. Schück and Alkarp have discussed this parchment. It is in fact, written in runic letters997: 992 Diodorus Siculus II.47. 993 I.e. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. in section 1.3.2. 994 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 482; Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 995 Lundius 1687, e.g. III.12 (monotheism, holy trinity), IV.3 (immortality of soul), V.3–5 (textual comparisons between holy books), V.16, (three crowns, holy trinity), V.21. (Jahwe). 996 Alkarp 2009, 193–196. 997 It was claimed to have been found by a peasant from Rasbo, 20 km from Uppsala. 191  From Greece came Abor and Samolis with other excellent men, and were welcomed. Their leader became a chieftain at Glysisvall.998 Basically, the first runic manuscript (parchment) ever found in Sweden seemed to prove that much of what was “known” about the Hyperborean sage Abaris and the Ge(a)tic lawgiver Zalmoxis overlapped. They had visited Greece and returned to the north – to “Glysisvall”, one of the suggested names for ancient Sweden in the earlier writings of the scholars categorised into the Hyperborean research tradition. Because this parchment confirmed the results of the earlier work of 999 Lundius , it is almost certain that it was a result of his penmanship. It is important to understand that he did not fabricate the parchment only to be able to present “the Hyperborean and Gothic past” in unison. It gave also credibility to Alkarp’s statement (mentioned earlier in this section) on the nature of his writings: Lundius wanted to convince scholars that classical writings were a reliable source of Swedish antiquity, and that they included credible knowledge of the nature of the system of government and laws. This could be used to justify the status quo. The intriguing part of this is that, although the tradition of historical research is the same, the idea that is supported is different from that of the time of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus. The discussions of the separation of powers (that is, the power balance between the monarch and nobility) had changed substantially in the 1680s. In a sense, the political change reverberating into historical research was already incipiently present in the works of Schefferus and Verelius from 1675 onwards. A good example of how political change influenced the content of the historical research is Schefferus’ study of the origin of the emblem of the Three Crowns (see section 2.3.2.). As Sten Lindroth has shown, King Charles XI had ordered Schefferus to undertake the work. The immediate politico-historical context of the study was the Scanian War (1674–1679), that is, the fight over the southernmost region of modern Sweden which had been under Swedish rule only for a couple of decades. The work of Schefferus, De Antiquis verisque regni Sveciae insignibus (The antiquity and truth of the emblems of the Kingdom of 998 Alkarp 2009, 196–197, cites: ‘Fra Girkia gumi Abor auk Samolis meÞ margi agitaeum mannum, cori Þekar vinsaele. Þeris griÞmaÞur vart herse a Glisisvollir.’ 999 E.g. classical sources do not support a view that Abaris and Zalmoxis were coeval figures. Thus, it confirmed the etymologies but also the euhemerisms of Rudbeck and Lundius: that the names were “titles” of the King-Priests of the Ancient Geats. 192 Sweden) was obviously directed against Denmark1000, a motive which would be elaborated later in the manuscript of Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna1001. However, the most striking feature of De Antiquis verisque [...] is that the somewhat critical Schefferus made several mentions of the works of Johannes and Olaus Magnus as well as Messenius and Bureus’ unpublished manuscript “Adulruna”1002. He concluded that the emblem “belongs to the Kingdom of Sweden”1003, and moreover that the literal tradition going back to Ericus Olai proved that the Stones of Mora were connected to the emblem1004. This is a piece of evidence that proves a change of political climate: Schefferus had felt no constraints in writing about the Stones of Mora, the place where the nobility had elected the Swedish King. As was shown above, in the early 1690s Lundius did not have the courage to discuss the political idea of election. The fact that the practice was dismissed as inferior to hereditary, strong monarchy in Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna1005 is equally unsurprising. It is also quite intriguing that Schefferus discussed the possibility of the three gods, Thor, Odin and Frigga, being somehow related to the origin of the emblem1006. This provides further evidence that the political climate of Swedish absolutism had influence on which ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition scholars chose to develop and discuss. 3.5.2 The Hyperborean Emblems of the Empire The Swedish historian Allan Ellenius has discussed the role of historical emblematics within the seventeenth-century historiographical context. He has shown how (ancient and Geatic) history, emblems and ceremonies were curiously connected with each other in these discourses1007. The same can be also deduced from the abovementioned writings of Bureus and Schefferus. In fact, the popularity of these ancient Hyperborean and Gothic emblems seems to have extended to other political and ceremonial contexts over the period of Swedish absolutism. Kurt Johannesson has described the development of how one of them, 1000 Lindroth 1975b, 316. I am not sure to what passages Lindroth referred. In my version of the work the discussion between the Swedish and Danish fights is in Schefferus 1678, Cap. XV, i.e. 189ff. 1001 Although the emblematic discussion was not in the fore in the manuscript, it was shown how the ancient borders of the empire were defined in relation to Denmark. Lagerlööf Suecia, Cap. VII. 1002 Schefferus 1678, 72ff, 74–76, 144–150, 181–183. 1003 Schefferus 1678, 72ff, 83ff, after his analysis: ‘Tres Coronae igitur ad Sveciae Regnum pertinent.’ – ‘The Three crowns therefore belonged to the Kingdom of Sweden’ (or Svear). 1004 Schefferus 1678, 96ff. 1005 Lagerlööf Suecia, 102. 1006 Schefferus 1678, 154–156. 1007 Ellenius1960, 272–283. 193 namely the North Star (Pole Star), became a symbol of the absolute monarchs Charles XI and Charles XII1008. The custom of using the North Star as the symbol of the monarchs is also manifested in Atlantica, Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna and Zalmoxis1009. As Nordström showed, connections with certain constellations were mentioned in classical accounts of the Hyperboreans, which were obviously the sources for the Swedish historians1010. In fact, the symbol is still depicted in public buildings from the period of Swedish absolutism1011. Clearly, the North Star had now become the symbol of the contemporary “Hyperborean” monarchs of Sweden in Stockholm. They were not unique in Europe, of course, and it has been shown how the Habsburgs used similar imagery while constructing glorious emblems of their Empire1012. The emblematic practice was therefore another politicised tradition and practice of early modern historiography which forms part of the explanation for the emergence and development of the Hyperborean research tradition. In addition to the North Star, other Hyperborean emblems were appearing in Stockholm. Anna-Stina Gröndahl has shown how the Atlantic vision of Rudbeck was inspiring the fine arts of the new Royal Palace of Stockholm in the late 1690s onwards. The Hyperborean divinity Apollon and his classical manifestation as the Solar God1013, for instance, are depicted in the ornamentation of the building1014. Although it is not possible to conclusively prove that the constructions of Ho- Balder or Merkesmän in Atlantica were the source of inspiration for the Apollon in the Royal Palace or for the Mercurius in the fresco of the ceiling of the main hall of the Drottningholm (another royal building of that time), it would be unreasonable to discount the possibility against the background of the emergence of the North Star as a royal (civilised Hyperborean) symbol. There is some evidence that the identification of the Hyperboreans and ancient Swedes was rather well known in Swedish intellectual circles (the 1008 Johannesson 1968, 124–125: The first medal with this symbol was manufactured in 1681, and that both Charles XI and Charles XII took it was their national symbol. 1009 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 191; Lundius 1687, I.11; Lagerlööf Suecia, 71; Diodorus II.47–48. 1010 Nordström 1934a, 107–108. 1011 The North Star can be discovered at both the Drottningholm Palace and the Royal Burial Church in Stockholm. Of the former, the walls of the main hall have the symbol. Of the latter, the symbol is depicted in the tomb of Charles XI (even the external walls) and furthermore, his opulent coffin. 1012 Ashworth 1991, 141–142. 1013 One should not to get the “Hyperboreanised” and classical symbols confused with each other, for the Humanistic ideal of classical symbols was valued in Sweden. Gröndahl 2006, 93–101; the material evidence of the French influences provided by Johannesson 1961, 103–107, 105 (picture). E.g. the Sun was a common motive, and the famous Absolute Monarch Lois XIV had used it. 1014 Gröndahl 2006, 118, 124. 194 “horizontal networks”) of that time. Gröndahl and Johannesson have noted how Count Nicodemus Tessin the Younger (1654–1728), an architect, designer and an organiser of the ceremonies of the royal court as the Chamberlain of the Regent and the Dowager Queen (Hedvig Eleonora, the mother of Charles XI), was involved in this process. Tessin, who was also a client of de la Gardie, was inspired by and utilised the historical ideas of Atlantica in several projects the Crown had commissioned. Tessin had studied “engineering or building” under the supervision of the versatile Rudbeck in Uppsala1015. As Josephson has shown, Rudbeck in particular believed that the Temple of the Hyperboreans may have been the source of certain ideas of classical architecture discussed by the famous Vitruvius. Rudbeck suggested that some of the buildings of classical antiquity were, in a sense, of Northern origin1016. Evidently, his ideas of the Hyperborean Uppsala extended to contexts other than history. The subject cannot be discussed in detail here due to limitations of space, but the fact that ideas of glorious antiquity were such a vital part of public projects, speaks loud and clear of the nexus between political power and ideas of ancient history in early modern Sweden and Europe. In addition to its significance for royal emblems, the Hyperborean research tradition had some impact on the court ceremonies of the period of absolutism. How these ideas of the Hyperboreans became familiar within the court is not hard to discern: Stiernhielm, Hermelin, Stobaeus and Lagerlööf all worked as poets in the Royal Court and/or universities at some point of their careers1017. Moreover, motifs from the Geatic history had been developed and utilised already during the time of Gustavus Adolphus and Christina1018 so there was a history of using the ideas of fabulous antiquity in this fashion. As Eriksson has observed, even Rudbeck scribbled poetry in which the ancient heroes of the myths he had constructed in Atlantica played a vital part1019. Mythological-historical poetry was not unusual among European scholars; for example, de la Boderie, a French 1015 Johannesson 1968, 119–128; Gröndahl 2006, 36–44, 105, 117–118; Dahl 1995, passim. 1016 Josephson 1940, 7–26 37–61, 66–72, 74–76, (he concluded this from Rudbeck the Elder 1938). 1017 E.g. Stiernhielm was the Laureate of Christina, Stobaeus was a Professor of Roman Eloquence, and Hermelin was the lampoonist of Charles XII and a keen poet by and large. 1018 Åkerman 1998, 35, Bureus proclaimed that the King of Goths was the Sun among planets; Johannesson 1968, 94–100, portrayed Stiernhielm’s politico-theological Discursus-Astropoeticus, and Nordström about his ballet dedicated to Christina. She is described as a Gothic Minerva-Amazon. Nordström 1975, 157–158; also Schefferus 1678, passim, is the result of the same discourse. 1019 Eriksson 2002, 573–582. 195 scholar of the sixteenth century, composed poems in which the motifs, such as the Gaul and Orpheus were applied1020. The best examples of the Hyperborean research tradition are the pastorals of Gunno Dahlstierna1021 as well as the poetry of Stobaeus and Hermelin. Stobaeus wrote two panegyrics which Maria Berggren has translated and commented upon; their motives involve Apollon, Sun, Ogygia, and the continuous spring as the symbol of the blessed land of the Hyperboreans1022. In Hermelin’s historical work, Hecatompolis Suionum1023, one can find poems in which Charles XI is praised by the help of the ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition1024. Furthermore, Hermelin’s contributions as an author of the manuscript of Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna are vital in this connection. These emblems and motifs are not only from the classical writings, but arose similarly from the domestic tradition of the idea of Northern Antiquity crystallised in Atlantica and the Hyperborean research tradition. 3.6 Summary The significance of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica cannot be overemphasised within the context of the developing Hyperborean research tradition. Firstly, it combined the earlier results of scholars from Bureus to Verelius with the new observations of the philosophies of the Baroque, from Cartesianism to the ideas of Bacon and Newton. Secondly, it provided challenging new material and methods for studying the early history of the world in Sweden and Europe. Thirdly, and most importantly, it gained a reputation of being a brilliant work not only among the intellectuals but also the political elite of Sweden from 1680s onwards. After Rudbeck’s Atlantica had received “royal acceptance”, two important events occurred for the Hyperborean research tradition. Firstly, royal support led to the crumbling of the scholarly opposition Atlantica had encountered in the 1680s. Secondly, it resulted in studies supporting Atlantica being developed in Swedish universities, among others. As a result, a hierarchic-horizontal, Rudbeckian network with powerful patrons was organised. The learned and 1020 Asher 1993, 156–183. 1021 Johannesson 1968, 266–269, 295. 1022 Berggren 1994, 63, 105–107, 261; Johannesson 1968, 107f. 1023 Sironen 2007, 239–277, discussed Hermelin’s poetry and his Oulu-poem in the work (1684). 1024 Helander 2004, 256: Hermelin identified the Hyperboreans with Swedes. Bergren 1994, 105–106: the use of the word in Stobaeus and how the Danes had depicted Denmark as Hyperborea. 196 political members of the network held positions of power which helped them to control the ideas spreading in the institutions. The political manifestations of the Hyperborean research tradition reached their zenith in their emergence in the public buildings, court ceremonies, architecture and emblems of the absolute monarchy. The research of Carolus Lundius, which stressed the legal history of the Hyperboreans and the Geats, epitomised the politico-historical side of the tradition. As part of this, the classical accounts of the Hyperboreans compared with Old Norse writings and Icelandic sagas was employed to historically justify the absolute monarchy, although it has to be said that some parts of the discussion can be traced back to Bureus’ esoteric interpretations of the Old Norse writings and runes about the threefold nature of the ancient Overkings of Geats as rulers, priests, and legislators. The Hyperborean-Atlantic image of Sweden and the nature of the system of government are explicitly stated in the public project of the crown, the Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. The control the political elite had over the research is epitomised by the fact that the work was written by a scholar who was not altogether sympathetic to Rudbeck’s views. All in all, the public projects of the state underscore the continuity in politico-historical traditions from Bureus to Lagerlööf, that is to say, the significant role of political situations in the emergence and development of historical ideas. Also, the contemporary political crises and pursuits continued to govern the discussions in which the Geats and the Hyperboreans were utilised. 197 198 4 Windy at the Top: the Dominance of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1700–1720 4.1 Atlantica under Attack The influence of the image of Swedish antiquity Rudbeck the Elder and Lundius developed at the end of the seventeenth century reached its apex during the first decades of the eighteenth century. Although this idea was still popular and discussed in subsequent Swedish research, criticisms of these concepts were published in Sweden and Europe. In the light of the limited boundaries of historical writing during the period of Swedish absolutism, it is hardly surprising that the initial genuinely critical addresses occurred outside Sweden. The famed German scholar Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and an Icelandic historian Thormodus Torfaeus were among the most interesting and important critics of Rudbeck’s vision; they both referred to the Hyperboreans in their studies of German and Scandinavian antiquity. The criticism and new ideas of Torfaeus were of vital importance in the subsequent European research on Northern antiquity. Nevertheless, although some of their ideas were critical within the contemporary context, others were representative of the typical practices and beliefs of early modern study of national histories. The ideas of Leibniz, Torfaeus and other critics of the Hyperborean research tradition are discussed in detail below. 4.1.1 Leibniz and the Scandinavian Antiquity Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) discussed German and Swedish antiquity as part of his works on the history of language1025. I have focused predominantly on his two historical-etymological treatises on the origin of languages and of the Germans1026 as well as looked briefly at his etymological works1027. Eriksson, Urpilainen and Lindroth have discussed the main lines of Leibniz’s ideas and 1025 Walker 1972b, passim. 1026 Leibniz 1768a, passim (Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum – Brief description of ideas on the origin of nations, best derived from what languages reveal us) originally published in 1710; 1768b, passim (Dissertatio de origine Germanorum – Study of the origin of Germans) originally published in 1697; also a letter, Leibniz 1768c, passim (Epistola ad Amicum, De Titanis et Gigantibum ex Scythica oriundis – Letter to a Friend, of the Scythian origin of the Titans and Gigantes) from 1699. 1027 Leibniz 1717, passim. I have only used it to confirm that Leibniz’s etymological-lexicographical work followed the practice of Stiernhielm, Verelius and Rudbeck. To see the classification system of Leibniz in crystallised form, see Walker 1972b, 299. 199 correctly pointed out that his insights about Swedish and German antiquity pertain to the credulity and credibility of the Old Norse writings, the use of etymologies, and the patriotism of Rudbeck1028. However, if Leibniz’s views are analysed within the context of the study of German antiquity, certain interesting new factors emerge. At the core of Leibniz’s criticism was his theory on the history of languages, which in fact had clear similarities with previously mentioned ideas of Salmasius, Stiernhielm and Bochart. Leibniz thought Japhetic Scythian was the earliest language of the Germans and Scandinavians. As Walker has shown, this language was not thought to derive from Hebrew, which was seen as a later dialect of Semitic and Sarmatian language groups (relative to Scythic, to which the Germanic languages belonged). The original language had been something different1029. On these grounds, Leibniz argued that the speakers of the Germanic languages had migrated through Central Europe and arrived in Scandinavia relatively late. In his mind, when the Swedes had finally reached Scandinavia, the Finns and Sámi, speaking Sarmatian languages, were already living there1030. Otherwise, Leibniz subscribed to the traditional European discussions of Gothic and German origins. According to him, the Goths were originally from the Vistula region as Cluverius had shown, and hence not from Scandinavia1031. The first inhabitants of Scandinavia speaking Germanic languages were Svear, who were but a tribe of the ancient Germans. In Leibniz’s view, their name originated in the term “svejda”1032. The Germans, who Rudbeck had explained conversely as one of the ancient tribes of Geats of Scandinavia in Atlantica1033, derived from the great tribe “Hermiones” of Tacitus1034. As to the Hyperboreans, Eriksson has argued recently that Leibniz was against Rudbeck’s identification of the Swedes as the Hyperboreans but not generally against the idea of the Hyperboreans as ancient Northern Europeans. According to Eriksson, the source of Leibniz’s idea was Stiernhielm’s De 1028 Lindroth 1975b, 298f; Eriksson 2002, 427–430. According to them, Leibniz, though critical towards the Scandinavian origin of the Germans, would not deny a north-south colonisation from Scandinavia to the Continent at a later date of the history. 1029 Leibniz 1768a, 188, 189; see also Walker 1972b, 299 (picture). 1030 Leibniz 1768a, 194ff; Leibniz 1768b, passim; in Leibniz 1768c, 209, calls Rudbeck a genius, who went too far with the glory of the fatherland (patriotism) at times. On top of Rudbeck, he referred to the views of Stiernhielm and Schefferus. 1031 Leibniz 1768a, 194–196. 1032 Leibniz 1762b, 200f; Eriksson 2002, 428–429; Urpilainen 1993, 180, tells that Leibniz identified the name Sverige (Sweden) and the Latin forms ‘Suedia’, ‘Suecia’, with the term ‘svedja’, i.e. to ‘burn-beat’. 1033 In Rudbeck the Elder 1937, title. 1034 Leibniz 1768b, 200, 203, later on, they spread from the Danish Cimbria to Britain, Iceland, Norway etc. 200 Hyperboreis Dissertatio1035. On this note, Eriksson has interpreted Leibniz’s patriotism as a consequence of the Swedish attacks against the authority of the German Cluverius. I am not sure what source Eriksson has used for the basis of his interpretation. As I noted earlier, Hadorph published Stiernhielm’s manuscript together with another work called Anticluverius1036. Moreover, I have not found evidence supporting that Leibniz would accept Stiernhielm’s idea on the Swedish origin of the Hyperboreans. In that version of the treatise on the origin of Germans which I have used, Leibniz specifically addressed Stiernhielm and Rudbeck’s identification of the Hyperboreans as ancient Swedes. He stated that their identification was based on “Goropian arguments”1037, that is, inventive etymologies Goropius Becanus had made in Origines Antwerpianae. This reference to the “Goropian derivations” probably referred to Rudbeck’s etymology of the “Hyperborea” as “Yfwerborne”, which, as shown earlier, goes back to Stiernhielm’s ideas and manuscripts1038, which Leibniz surely knew well. As Neville has argued, Leibniz wanted to stress that the Scandinavians were of continental German origin linguistically1039 and culturally1040. They were nothing but North Germans, and even the Goths had been but a main tribe of the great tribe of Germans (Hermiones)1041. This idea of Hermiones has similarities to that of Wimpheling and Aventinus for instance, who had started this tradition of German antiquity almost two centuries earlier1042. Thus in a sense it is true that Leibniz was patriotic, as Eriksson implied, but not for the sake of Cluverius1043. The main reason Leibniz criticised Rudbeck was probably his interpretation of the work of Tacitus. Rudbeck had appropriated the German tribes claiming they were descendants of Scandinavian Geats. In his Tacitism, Leibniz surely represented an influential and patriotic tradition of approaching German antiquity1044. Some of Leibniz’s views had a surprisingly long-term influence in Sweden. At the turn of the century the German had met a Swedish traveller1045, Erik 1035 Eriksson 2002, 426f. 1036 Eriksson 2002, ibidem, notes that it was the version of Hadorph. It could be of course, that Eriksson has had some other source or version at hand. 1037 Leibniz 1768b, 205. 1038 Stiernhielm 1685, 138 ‘[…] Hyperboream vocabant. YTTERNORSE/ÖFWERNORDLINGAR’. 1039 Walker 1972b, 298–299, presented a table of Leibniz’s genealogy of languages, in which there is an ‘Urpsprache’, i.e. an Adamaic original language. 1040 Neville 2009, 233–234, showed this citing Leibniz 1717. 1041 Neville 2009, ibidem. 1042 Borchardt 1971,101, 168. 1043 It is true that the views of Cluverius 1631, 58, on language, may have inspired Leibniz. 1044 Krebs 2011, Chapters 3–5. 1045 Leibniz also knew the dictionary of the diplomat of Charles XI Johan Sparwenfelt (1655–1727), who travelled in Russia. The study: Vocabularium germanico-turcico-arabico-persicum (sine anno). 201 Benzelius the Younger (1675–1743), one of the most internationally connected Swedish scholars of that time and a later Archbishop of Sweden1046. Urpilainen and Lindroth noted that Benzelius lectured on some of Leibniz’s ideas, but that Benzelius’ works related to them were not published before 17631047. All in all, Urpilainen’s analysis of Benzelius demonstrates the limits of what could be said in Sweden in 1690–1720 when the Geatic view of history (and the Hyperborean research tradition as part of it) was dominant1048. Although Benzelius was critical towards patriotism and the practice of tracing the antiquity of Sweden to postdiluvian times, he still followed such established topoi of the study of national histories as the fabulous genealogical line of the monarchs and a moderate version of prisca theologia1049 in his works. 4.1.2 Torfaeus and the Scandinavian Antiquity Thormodus Torfaeus (1636–1719) was one of the harshest critics of Rudbeck’s Atlantica and his image of Swedish antiquity. He studied in Copenhagen and was appointed first as the Royal Antiquarian of Iceland in 1667 and then the Royal Historiographer of the Kingdom of Denmark–Norway in 1682 by King Christian V. He lived most of his life in Norway, but was acquainted with Árni Magnússon (1663–1730), the famous Icelandic historical scholar and collector of that time, which also tied him closely to the antiquarian tradition in Denmark1050. As the Royal Historiographer of Denmark–Norway, Torfaeus sustained the tradition of his predecessors, such as Olaus Wormius and Johannes Pontanus1051. They had questioned the Gothic histories of the Magnus brothers, which Messenius, Bureus and Verelius, in turn, defended in Sweden. Similar disputes between the Danes 1046 Lindroth 1975b, 214–220, 297, 345–348; Alkarp 2009, 236–238. He was appointed to the office but died before starting the duties. 1047 Urpilainen 1993, 148–149; Lindroth 1975b, 347–348. His outlook on ancient history was developed as part of the lectures on Swedish history around 1710 as the Librarian of University of Uppsala; one assignment was to describe what we would define as the history of scholarship. Certain lectures were later published (1763) in Utkast til Swenska folkets historia […] by his son Carl Jesper Benzelius. 1048 Urpilainen 1993, 182, 193–196, 198; Urpilainen 1993, 202–204. 1049 Urpilainen 1993, 202–204 on ‘prisca theologia’. Benzelius may have been inspired by the ideas of perennial philosophy and the ancient theology of Leibniz, check Schmitt 1966, passim. 1050 Lindroth 1975b, 420–421, showed that Magnusson had been a secretary of the Professor of Medicine and Royal Historian of Denmark, Thomas Bartholin (1616–1680) and helped him in finishing a work on Danish Antiquities. Bartholin debated with Rudbeck the Elder in the 1650s over who had been the first to introduce the lymphatic system. See Eriksson 2002, 65–66, 430. Clearly, the academic networks of that time were small and interlaced. In the context of the research of national antiquity, Eriksson observed that Magnússon met the writer of Abaris Hyperboreus, Olof Celsius the Elder in Germany. He had revealed to Celsius that he was preparing a critical review on Atlantica, which was never released however. 1051 Lindroth 1975b, 240–244, 276–277; on Pontanus, see Skovgaard–Petersen 1998, passim. 202 and the Swedes were still ongoing in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The controversial topics were the Gothic origin (of the Danes or the Swedes) and in which monarchy the runic alphabet was first introduced1052. Thus the views of Torfaeus, albeit very critical to a point, should be seen also against the background of the “history wars” between Sweden and Denmark. Torfaeus and the Hyperboreans Torfaeus was a productive historian who composed works focusing on the history of Vinland and Greenland, among others. For my purposes, his most important work was Historia rerum Norvegicarum1053 (1711). At the beginning of the work, Torfaeus lists a selection of older and contemporary geographical literature on the settlements of ancient Scandinavia. In his view, traces of Scandinavian history and geography could be found from such authors as Pliny the Elder, Ptolemaeus, Mela, Strabo, Solinus and Tacitus. The Getica of Jordanes is cited often as well, with references to the commentaries on the work from Hugo Grotius and others. As to the antiquity of Scandinavia, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus are cited, although Torfaeus did not see them as particularly reliable authors. He used the Bible as the chronological baseline of early history, made systematic references to Icelandic sagas and, in more ways than one, appropriated these writings for Danish and Norwegian history1054, in a manner similar to his Swedish colleagues’ approach to these antiquities. Torfaeus was familiar with the “Phoenician school”, and the work of Samuel Bochart and the Scythian-Gothic history of Robert Sheringham in particular are frequently mentioned in his work. Sheringham had claimed that the Goths descended from the Kimbri1055, and that of old their realm had extended to the Baltic Sea, Denmark and the Netherlands1056. Torfaeus concurred with Sheringham and argued that the Kimbri could be identified with ancient Danes. Of the other important studies, Torfaeus highlighted his Danish precursor Johannes Pontanus, and the abovementioned enemy of the Swedes, Cluverius1057. 1052 E.g. Lindroth 1975b, 240, 244. 1053 I have used the modern Norwegian translation of the work in general. In the case of the Hyperboreans, I have also used the Latin version: see Torfaeus 1711, 7–9. 1054 Torfaeus 2008, 78–115. 1055 Torfaeus 2008, e.g. 92, 249–250 (the theories of Becanus and Robert Sheringham). 1056 Torfaeus 2008, 261. Peringskiöld, Göransson and Biörner later referred to these views. The Dutch and English views on the Empire of Kimbri (Cimmerian) or the Frisian people (Becanus, Richard Verstegan) he cited less frequently. 1057 Torfaeus 2008, 81–85. 203 Naturally, Torfaeus was acquainted with the Swedish research. He cited the works of Johannes Magnus, Olaus Magnus, Messenius and Stiernhielm, whereas the saga editions of Verelius and Rudbeck’s Atlantica are mentioned throughout the first chapters of the work. As to the latter, the tone is critical. Chapter 11 (in section II) is, for example, named in a self-evident fashion: On the Settlement of the Northern Land and the Crazy Chronology regarding it. It will be pinpointed that Rudbeck is in error when he fabricates Neptune and Odin from Edda’s Fables on Delling. He is also in error when he tries to convince that the Trojans descend from the Scandinavian Goths1058. Here, the criticism of Torfaeus was directed at Rudbeck’s use of Plato’s account of Atlantis, particularly the imaginary etymologisations and euhemerisms which led him to identify Odin with Neptune. Therefore, Torfaeus saw the fabrications of Atlantica including Bore(as)/Saturnus, Odin/Neptune/Necken, and Niord/Niarfe (Narfi)1059 as nonsense. The mythological figure Delling1060, mentioned in the Eddas, was also a fable in his view. Later in the text Torfaeus claims that it was a waste of time and labour to try to compose histories on the bases of the Eddic fables1061. Torfaeus devoted a chapter to an analysis of the value of the accounts of the Hyperboreans as a source of Northern antiquity. Unsurprisingly he treated this matter in relation to Rudbeck’s Atlantica, and scrutinises the way the celebrated Swede used etymologies: Quite recently the distinguished Rudbeck has found another origin for the word, which is particularly useful for his ends. He assumes herein that the people of the Hyperborean Island did not receive their name from the location, as others intend, but according to the rulers […] In Atlantica cap. 12.2. page 365 he tries to prove us that the Greeks reproduced the Gothic word yferborne with hyperboreere.1062 1058 Torfaeus 2008, 278ff: ’Om besettelsen av de nordlige land og om den gale tidsfestningen av den. Det blir påpekt at Rudbeck tar feil når han fabrikkerer Neptun og Odin fra Eddas Fabler om Delling. Han tar også feil når han försöker å bekrefte at Trojanerne stammer fra de Skandinaviske Goterne.’ 1059 Rudbeck 1937, 128. 1060 The father of Dag, (Day) in Eddic myths. Delling married Nótt, a daughter of Giant Narfi/Norfi, who ruled in Jotunheim, and from them descend the Aesir. 1061 Torfaeus 2008, 278–282. 1062 Torfaeus 2008, 87. ’Ganske nylig har den utmerkede Rudbeck hen(m)tet fram en annen opprinnelse for ordet, som er saerdeles nyttig for hans formål. Han antar her at folket på hyperboreernes öy ikke fikk navn 204 Torfaeus proceeded to point out that Rudbeck’s statements were chiefly based on the work of Diodorus Siculus, Icelandic sagas, and rather suspicious etymologies that were derived from classical and Eddic myths. More importantly, he argued that the main premise of Atlantica rested on this particular etymologisation and, furthermore, that if the term was to be restored to its original form and language (Greek), one could understand it in its geographical meaning: the Scandinavian term “nord” and the Greek “boreas” refer to the direction north-(east). The etymology “Yfwerborne” was unjustified and under no circumstances signified “of noble birth” or similar.1063 In addition to the methodological criticism, Torfaeus scolded Rudbeck for lying: On these bases it is clear that Rudbeck not only transgresses the etymological or historical but also the ethical rules [of research].1064 On this basis, Torfaeus concluded that the tradition of research on the Hyperboreans from Stiernhielm to Rudbeck, and how it had been incorporated into the Gothic narrative, had no grounds. Torfaeus actually insinuated that the Swedes had constructed it to use against the Danes in trying to prove that the ancient words for “Goth” (read: gete, gote, gut) had signified “soldier”, but the word “Dane”, (read: dan, than, etc.) meant a “servant” or “slave”. Regarding this etymologisation, he stated that he did not know whether to cry or laugh, and that their reasoning was absolutely ludicrous1065. From the present-day point of view, it is easy to agree with Torfaeus; however, one should keep in view the volatile relationship between the Swedes and Danes at that time. Even though the attack had similarities with Leibniz’s argument about the role of Rudbeck’s etymologies, evidence will be adduced below that his criticism only pertained to certain parts of Atlantica. Although some of Torfaeus’ views seem familiar to us, his criticism of the prevailing ideas about the early history of the world is not “modern”. The Icelander himself still operated within the international Gothicistic discourse. ut fra beliggenheten, som andre mener, men etter folkets herskere. I Atlantica, kap. 12. 2. s. 365 [the Latin version] forsöker han å overbevise oss om at grekerne på sitt språk gjenjav det gotiske ordet yferborne med hyperboreere.’ 1063 Torfaeus 2008, 90–91. 1064 Torfaeus 2008, 107: ’På bakgrunn av dette er det tydelig at Rudbeck ikke bare fritt synder mot etymologiens eller historiens regler, men også mot etikkens.’ 1065 Torfaeus 2008, 108: ’Hvilke fulkomment tåpelige resonnementer!’ 205 Torfaeus and the Ancient Peoples of Scandinavia Torfaeus’ conception of the first settlers of Scandinavia was both traditional and innovative. He believed four distinct waves of people had arrived at the ancient North, one of which consisted of giants. Like any early modern scholar, Torfaeus believed that giants had resided in the ancient world1066. For him, the idea could be traced back to the Old Testament1067. Even the critical Torfaeus appears to have accepted that the idea of the Eddic Jotuns, as well as the classical Titans and Gigantes, were accounts based on real (biblical) events1068. Torfaeus gave a quite graphic description of the giants whose origin he connected to the biblical Ham and the Phoenicians1069. He discussed the subject in relation to the views of Verelius1070 and Rudbeck the Elder in the latter parts of Atlantica. Rudbeck had referred to the Chaldean Berosus (Syncellus) as his “biblical source” confirming the Eddic myths of Jotunheim1071. The question of giants appears to have been of some topicality in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, for Leibniz touched upon giants in his historical–etymological treatises1072. According to Torfaeus, the giants were followed by the descendants of Japheth, the “Scandinavian Goths”, including the Thracian Getae, Kimbri and Cimmerians. The third group of people also descended from Japheth and Magog. They had come from Asia around the time of the Nativity, and were the Scythians in the classical and Aesir in the Old Norse writings. The fourth people had arrived around the same time as these Scythian-Aesir. They were the “line of Fornjót”, whose doings were portrayed in Icelandic sagas.1073 Instead of purely focusing on the sagas of the Uppsala region as the Geatic historians in Sweden had done, 1066 On giants, see Bietenholz 1994, 245–246; Torfaeus’ account of them in Torfaeus 2008, 248–255. 1067 Biblical texts enabled these comparisons: Moses referred to ‘Nephelim’, (ante- and postdiluvian) or other giants such as Goliath. The Book of Jubilees, Chapters 5, 7, 20, 29 (the land of Rephaim), referred to them, which was known through the texts of certain Church Fathers. 1068 Torfaeus 2008, 248–255. 1069 Parry 1995, 27, 303, 319, 327, Chapter 11 (‘Phoenicia Britannica’). The main figures of the tradition were Bochart and Robert Sheringham who had argued that these banished Phoenicians were etymologically of Hebrew origin. Rudbeck appropriated the Phoenicians in Atlantica by arguing that the alphabet was taught to Cadmus by the Hyperborean Merkesmän I and II: Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXXVIII. 1070 Verelius 1672, 4, 12–16, seems to suggest that the giants lived in the mountains or were actually a metaphor for mountains. 1071 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 126, 250, mentions ‘Jotunheim’, ‘Jättehem’, and ‘Nord Jette’; in Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IX, he claimed the Imaus Mountain was named after Yme, which was around Umeå in Northern Sweden. Here, he also referred to this area as ‘Giotum Heim’, which covers the Central and Northern Finland to the Kola Peninsula. Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff; Rudbeck 1947, 252ff, describes the ancient people of Jotunheim as the Nephilim of the Bible. 1072 Leibniz 1768c, 209–210; Leibniz 1717, 280, Collactanea Etymologica Vol. 2. 1073 Torfaeus 2008, 240–243, 252, 261–264, 273–275. 206 Torfaeus adamantly insisted that all Goths had first settled in Denmark (not in “Finland”, as claimed in the Geatic view of history since Johannes Magnus1074). The Island of Jylland, along with the Netherlands (Frisia and Holland), had been part of this ancient empire of the Danish Kimbri1075. In this sense, his ideas are similar to those of Leibniz, who had discussed the German tribes residing in the north at a later date1076. In the latter part of the work, Torfaeus addressed the origin of the Norwegian kings since the legendary Nor. He viewed this Nor as a descendant of Fornjót, who is mentioned in a few half-mythological Icelandic sagas1077. Later Swedish scholars discussed the relationship of the sagas to other ancient writings, their authenticity, and antiquity1078. In fact, Johannes Messenius had referred to the nebulous Fornjót and his line in his Scondia Illustrata almost a century earlier1079 in a chapter focusing on the ancient history of Finland1080. Torfaeus, for his part, presented the different versions of the sagas of Fornjót in chapter 21. Once Torfaeus had admitted that the credibility of the sagas as historical sources had weaknesses, he argued that the main cause of confusion was the name of Fornjót. He translated it as a partaker-in-the-things-that-took-place-before1081. According to Torfaeus, the ancient realm of Fornjót had encompassed parts of modern Finland, the Swedish Västerbotten as well as areas from Lapland to the Kola Peninsula and further.1082 How are Torfaeus’ ideas related to the Hyperborean research tradition? According to Rudbeck the Elder, Nor could be identified with the Eddic giant Narfi and Niord/Boreás, as well as their biblical and classical equivalents. Torfaeus was not against the idea of Narfi being an ancient giant of the North, but 1074 Torfaeus 2008, 273–275, rejected this on linguistic ground (i.e. Finnish was not “Germanic”). 1075 Torfaeus 2008, 261–264. 1076 Leibniz 1697, 203. 1077 Lindow 2001, 118–119: Fornjót is the progenitor of the elements in the Norse myths. Emerges also in the saga Fundinn Noregr (Finding Norway) as part of the Orkneyinga Saga (the Saga of Orkney Islands) and Flateyjarbók, which is sometimes called, Hversu Noregr Byggdisk (How Norway was Settled). He was portrayed as the Ruler of Gotland or Jutland, which is called Finnland (means the Northern, Sámi part of Scandinavia). Fornjót had three sons, Hler (AEgir), Logi and Kári. 1078 Wallette 2004, 169ff. In modern research in Finland, check e.g. Urpilainen 2002 (in Finnish). 1079 Messenius 1702, Cap. X. Chronologia Finlandiae, Livoniae, et Kurlandiae, p.1ff. ‘Forniotus, circa sextum, ante Christum, speculum [...] Nore parenti succesit in Norvegia, Quenlandia, et Vandalia Boreali’. 1080 Messenius perhaps gave the impetus to Torfaeus’ views. Johan Peringskiöld had published Scondia Illustrata in 1700–1705 (discussed in the following chapter). Torfaeus referred to Messenius frequently. 1081 ‘en deltaker I de ting som har vaert för’; alternatively, ‘Ancient-Giant’ (i.e. Jotun). 1082 Torfaeus 2008, 328–330, 339: ‘Since it was accordingly a land so far from the Scandinavian Peninsula that was called as Jotunheim in its actual meaning during the oldest times, it is easy to derive their abodes and realm, that at later date extended, including the Bjarmland and the other provinces around Gandvik, all the way to Karelians and in their surrounding regions.’ 207 simply disputed the identification of Narfi as Nor1083. He came to the conclusion that the genealogies of Odin, Nor and Fornjót in distinct Icelandic sagas should not be linked to events older than a few centuries BC1084. This reduced the credibility of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, the source on which Rudbeck’s identification of Atlantis as the Gamla Uppsala region rested. In consequence, the source critical for the Hyperborean research tradition, that is, the account of Hecataeus-Diodorus of the Hyperborean Temple, could not have referred to the history of Uppsala1085. 4.2 Johan Peringskiöld and the Hyperboreans Johan Peringskiöld (1654–1720) was an earlier contemporary of Torfaeus and Leibniz, thus criticisms of the work of the Icelander and German were present only in his final, genealogical works. Peringskiöld was one of the most influential Swedish historical and antiquarian scholars of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century1086. Peringer (Peringskiöld ennobl.) arrived in Uppsala around 1675, where he studied Icelandic under the guidance of Verelius and became acquainted with Rudbeck. In 1680 he began to work in the Board of Antiquities as an engraver and drawer. He was appointed as the Assessor of Hadorph in 1689, and after the primus motor of the institute died in 1693, the well-connected and talented Peringskiöld was the automatic successor1087. As the head of the Board, Peringskiöld was productive in diverse fields. He edited and published Icelandic sagas related to Swedish history, releasing for instance, Snorri’s Heimskringla (1697). He made archaeological excavations, drawings and excursions. In 1715 he published Wilkina Saga that was related to the Gothic King Theodoric the Great. Prior to this, Peringskiöld had released the biography of the same Gothic king, Vita Theoderici, in 1699, with an erudite commentary. Since this covers only some of his publications, Peringskiöld was 1083 Torfaeus 2008, 252; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 126, 128, 250; talks about the Giant Nore: Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff, & Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252ff, is the context here. 1084 Torfaeus 2008, 317–327. In this chapter, Torfaeus presented the genealogies of the Aesir and Fornjót. He also says that has not found any data on Odin of Uppsala, the fabrication of the Swedish scholars. 1085 Torfaeus 2008, 317. His chronology of the Aesir and Odin in is critical. In addition, he proposed that King Alv, whose line the Swedes had traced back to remote antiquity, was a grandson of King Nor living a few centuries after the Nativity. The chronology also disputed the identification between Niord and Boreás, i.e. the identification between Diodorus and the Sagas on Sweden. 1086 Schück 1935, passim; Widenberg 2006, passim; Alkarp 2009, 235; Lindroth 1975b, 328–332. 1087 Lindroth 1975b, 328–331; the best depiction of Peringskiöld era and his antiquarian activities, is Schück 1935, 1–199. Later, Peringskiöld was appointed as the Rikshistoriograf of Sweden. 208 “singing for his supper” by producing works that would support the prevailing Geatic view of history and provide novel sources for research into Northern antiquity in general.1088 Peringskiöld also published two genealogical works. In the first, Bibliskt slächt-register (1713), he described genealogies from Adam to Christ. The second work, Ättartal för Swea och Götha konunga hus (1725), focused on the royal lines of the contemporary monarchs, which were derived from their alleged biblical forefathers. The latter work was released posthumously by his son and follower as the Secretary of the Board of Antiquities, Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld (1689– 1725). However, the major project that Peringskiöld planned was a series of antiquarian works on Sweden called Monumentorum sueo-gothorum. The preliminary plan was to present the principal antiquities of the provinces of the Swedish Empire; however, only two volumes of the work were ever published. The first (1710) dealt with the Gamla Uppsala region, whereas the second (1719) encompassed the City of Uppsala (Östra Aros) and the Cathedral in it.1089 These two genealogical and antiquarian works are also the ones in which Peringskiöld discussed the role of the Hyperboreans in the early history of Sweden. 4.2.1 The Hyperboreans of Gamla Uppsala As noted above, Peringskiöld wrote about the Hyperboreans in Monumentorum sueo-gothicorum liber primus (1710) and Monumenta ullerakensia (1719). In brief, the former work investigated the ancient history of the Gamla (Old) Uppsala region, whereas the latter concentrated on the contemporary (New) Uppsala and Ulleråker (Hundred). Although the focus of the studies was largely the mediaeval, ecclesiastic history of the region displayed through its antiquities, famous churches, bishops, kings, saints and the like, rather than traditional history, the Hyperboreans and the Geats were briefly discussed in them1090. Peringskiöld highlighted the fabulous Swedish antiquity at the beginning of 1088 Lindroth 1975b, ibidem. 1089 Lindroth 1975b, 330–331. 1090 Peringskiöld 1719, 1–2: the area Ulleråker or the Ulleråker Hundred is related to Uller, the son of Odin and the line of Bore(as) or Boreades; in Cap 6 (39–46) Peringskiöld discusses on the runestones found under the Cathedral of Uppsala in which case he mentions the Greek and Svea-Geatic connection of these peoples. These are related to his Gothic work on Theodoric and not the Hyperboreans; in Cap 27 Thor and the non-Christian forms of the holy trinity are mentioned; in Cap 44 the Trojan affiliation is mentioned in the context of a runestone found in a parish; in Cap 45 and Cap 47, similar arguments on the Greek–Trojan connection of the Geats (Goths in this respect) appear too. They are however, not extended to immemorial antiquity (this discrepancy is discussed further in section 4.4.1.). 209 Monumentorum sueo-gothicorum, relying on Stiernhielm, Rudbeck and Lundius’ interpretations of the account of Hecataeus-Diodorus. The traditional notion of Uppsala as the seat of the Overking of Scandinavia is mentioned as well: For since the ancient times / this land has included the Seat and Court of the Northern High-King; consequently from Diodorus Siculus’ book II chap.2. and Herodotus book IV. and other authors in history / Pliny (the Elder) book IV. chap. 12 Ptolemaeus book I. chap. 2 Solinus and Martianus Capella, called the Hyperboreans or of the Noble Births’ Land; almost in the same sense as our forefathers in their old writings / and even (also) the high authority of the inhabitants over the other lands / and their triumph over the occupied field of the noblest family of Bore(as) occupied, named as Upland/ Opland or Higher Sweden (Swea Realm).1091 In the second chapter, Peringskiöld bound together the accounts of the Hyperboreans with Rudbeck’s reading of the Island of Atlantis as the ancient Uppsala1092. He claimed that the mythical King Necken (also Atle, Aun the Old) or Neptune had divided this region between his sons1093. Peringskiöld had discussed the nexus between the Gamla Uppsala region and Necken earlier in the work. According to him, the symbol of Necken was the trident, in which was manifested also the emblem of the Three Crowns: both emblems symbolised the three regions, called as “hundreds”, of the ancient province of Uppland, Tiundaland, Attundaland and Fjärdhundraland. Clearly, Peringskiöld thought that the initials of each name pointed to the first respective rulers of the regions, that is the (euhemerised) gods: T(hor), A(ttin) and F(rei).1094 The resemblance between the views of Bureus and Peringskiöld or Rudbeck and Peringskiöld in this connection is too clear to be a coincidence1095, and bears out the earlier 1091 Peringskiöld 1710, 2. 1092 In fact, he mentions the idea in the printed but not published Lagerlööf’s version of the text of Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna in the University Library of Uppsala (Carolina Rediviva). It has a short text of Peringskiöld attached to it called Om Swea och Götha Folkets Nordiska Åttland / dess Belägenhet / och Forna Namn (On the Northern Åttland of the Svear and Geats / its Location /and Ancient Names). 1093 Peringskiöld 1710, 19–20. 1094 Peringskiöld 1710, 13. 1095 Peringskiöld 1710, 192, implies that he had the unpublished manuscripts of Bureus in his possession as the Director of the Archive. He cites for e.g. Sumle, i.e. the diary notes of Bureus (published by Klemming 1883–1886) on page 192 of Monumentorum sueo-gothorum. Some of his ideas are obviously taken from the manuscript Cod. Holm. F.a.3, 1–28, in which the symbols of the Gothic Kings were discussed. Of course, also Rudbeck discussed the matter. See Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 540–542; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap.Iff. The deeper analyses see Eriksson 1994, 62–64; Eriksson 2002, 373. 210 observation of the use of Bureus’ manuscripts by the antiquaries of the Crown of the seventeenth century. In the latter part of the work, as Peringskiöld focused on the Vaksala Parish as part of the “Uppsala Vetus” (Lat. Gamla Uppsala), certain aspects of the Hyperboreans emerge again. Peringskiöld described the famous temple and royal seat that had been located in the region. The whole parish is referred to as “Beatorum Regio”, that is, “Land of the Blessed”. In this region “Haballur” had once ruled as the Overking of the Geats, who, however, did not signify for him a divinity-king called Apollon, but instead “the Holy Head of Odin”. Apparently, this rested on Rudbeck’s etymology of the initial letters and the etymological prefix “Ha-”, which had signified “hög”, meaning “high” and “holy”1096. In addition, the euhemeristic strategy of using the names of the ancient divinities as the titles of the kings derived clearly from Rudbeck and perhaps from Lundius’ Zamolxis. Finally, Peringskiöld argued that the royal seat and the court of justice of Odin had been situated in the area where this euhemerised king had conducted religious ceremonies.1097 The Hyperboreans are also mentioned on subsequent pages, where a short piece from the historical work of Diodorus Siculus is cited. The Hyperborean– Greek connections and the unique Northern natural environment – particularly the extreme variation of the light between summer and winter – are depicted. Peringskiöld also claimed that the “Hyperborean Mother”, Leto/Latona and Apollon, whose names he etymologised as “Hladgunna”, and “Baldur”, were originally from Uppsala. This Balder/Apollon is identified by the help of Snorri’s Edda as the second son of Odin, who later ruled the region of Attundaland. His name had been the root for such place names as “Basilia” and “Balthia” in the classical writings. This name signified the “royal”1098 seat, that is, the same events and geographical area illustrated in the accounts of the Hyperboreans. Even Abaris/Habor, the construction of Rudbeck, was introduced in the work as a later figure, who had quickened the connection between the Scandinavians and the Greeks (as in the accounts of Diodorus and Herodotus). Furthermore, like any early modern antiquary, Peringskiöld described the ancient rituals and laws of the people. In the case of the Hyperboreans of Gamla Uppsala he mentioned the work 1096 I.e. the emblematic part of Antiqiitates Scanzianae in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 7–28. 1097 Peringskiöld 1710, 121–124. The etymology of the term Beatorum Regio arises from the Swedish term, Sala (salig i.e. holy, blessed) hundare (land?), which means according to him, this exactly. 1098 Basileos means King in classical Greek. 211 of Diodorus, Old Norse writings, and indirectly (not referring to the author but his views) the Zamolxis of Carolus Lundius.1099 Another matter of interest here is the fact that Monumentorum sueo- gothorum, as any major state-financed work of that time, was published as a bilingual Swedish–Latin edition. The purpose behind this was to trumpet the glory of the Swedish Empire abroad, as was the desire of de la Gardie and Charles XI earlier1100. The popular image of Swedish antiquity was by this time, without a doubt, based on the Rudbeck’s interpretation of the Hyperboreans. The extent of the appropriation of classical history and the role it played in the publications of the Crown of that time is staggering. This can be exemplified by comparing the Swedish and Latin translations of Peringskiöld on the work of Diodorus Siculus: Then högbolde Odens Lund är thär Apollonis lucus ibi (apud Hyperboreos) (hos the Öfwerborne) […] […]1101 Curiously, as Peringskiöld translated the Latin text into Swedish, Apollon is transformed into Odin (Oden), and the Hyperboreans into “Yfwerborne” (Öfwerborne). As a result, the original source, that is the account of Hecataeus and Diodorus Siculus, is ironically presented as a later Greek version of the original Hyperborean antiquity of Sweden. Truly, the Hyperborean research tradition was at its peak. This translation is a great example of the strategies of minimisation and appropriation of the classical (Greek) culture, which were introduced previously in the context of Bureus and his Annian sources. In this connection, the fundamental structures of the research into national antiquity had changed very little. Despite the fact that Peringksiöld’s views had critical and novel elements with respect to the (short-term) immediate historical context of the research, he still shared a long-term context with Bureus and certain Late Renaissance historical scholars. Peringskiöld gave detailed data about the Hyperborean king-divinities in Monumentorum. Odin as the All Father (Alfader), one of the myriad names of Odin in Old Norse writings, alluded to his attribute as the father of all the great traveller kings of the Ywferborne-Upsvear that had journeyed to the Continent and Mediterranean and founded the paramount royal lines of Europe. In this connection, Peringskiöld referred to the Eddic myths of Asgard (which, 1099 Peringskiöld 1710, 121–126. 1100 See the chapters 3.4 & 3.5. 1101 Peringskiöld 1710, 145. In Swedish: ‘The grove of noble Odin is there (at the Hyperboreans)’ [etymologised as (Ö)Yfwerborne]. In Latin: ‘The grove of Apollon is there (at the Hyperboreans)’. 212 incidentally, he, too, called the Northern Troy). This home world of the Aesir- gods was a Northern variant of the same past events as the accounts of the Hyperboreans and the line of Boreades. The Hyperborean-Aesir Odin had built the famous temple and lived there with the mother of the gods, Frigg, the progenitress of this valiant line.1102 Peringskiöld went on to offer further details about this Temple of Odin (“whom the Greeks had called as Apollon”). He introduced the tradition of old and contemporary authors related to the matter. The Northern writers who had described the former glory of Gamla Uppsala were Adam of Bremen, Albert Krantz, Ericus Olai, Johannes Magnus, Rudbeck and Lundius. Most importantly, Peringskiöld designated the temple as the “Hyperborean” Temple of Odin (or Apollon). By doing this, he tried to convince the reader that a temple of antiquity had been constructed in Uppsala soon after the Flood or the Confusion of Tongues1103. Peringskiöld did this by comparing the ancient temples of the North, that is, those described in Icelandic sagas. He mentioned the temple of Balder in Norway, upon which Torfaeus had remarked in his almost coeval work, as well as the temple of the Bjarmians in the northernmost part of Scandinavia1104. What makes Peringskiöld’s ideas so interesting is the fact that Torfaeus’ work was not yet published. The most likely explanation for this is the recent publication of Johannes Messenius’ work, Scondia Illustrata, which had provided several new sources. However, from the analytical point of view, it is compelling to see how notable a distance there could be between the views of two nearly coeval historical works on Scandinavian antiquity. Peringskiöld concluded that the rural village called Gamla Uppsala, founded around 2000 BC and transferred to Östra Aros (New Uppsala) in 1250 AD, had been the centre of the empire of the (Up)-Svear for over 3000 years. In addition to that, the Overking, Odin/Apollon, had ruled his Geatic subjects from there soon after the Confusion of Tongues.1105 Although Peringskiöld described the civilisation of the ancient people of Gamla Uppsala, his analyses were broad. The 1102 Peringskiöld 1710, 135–139. 1103 All in all, it rests on Rudbeck’s idea of the Hyperborean Temple of Apollon also as the Temple of Neptune at Atlantis, and the Temple of Odin of Old (Alfader). 1104 Torfaeus 2008, 89–91, discussed on the bases of the Icelandic Sagas (the King’s Sagas of Snorri). The latter temple is mentioned also by Olaus Magnus and Johannes Schefferus, among others. 1105 Peringskiöld 1710, 211–223; the analysis of the antiquities covers the rest of the work. He was cautious with regard to Schefferus’s side. In his study on Ullerakensia, see Peringskiöld 1719, 11, as he refers to both scholars as famous studies on the subject matter not taking sides. 213 only topic he truly elaborated was the religion of the Hyperboreans1106. Peringskiöld argued that the number three had symbolised the theological doctrine of Holy Trinity, expressed in the coat of arms of the Empire, the emblem of Three Crowns. Moreover, Peringskiöld claimed the Hammer of Thor and the Trident of Neptune (Odin, Atle) were at times illustrated as the Sign of the Cross. Hence, he rejected the notion of the contemporary Olaus Celsius the Elder (of whom more is written in the final chapter of this study) that the cross was a pure Christian symbol. This argument is attested to by a selection of old writings meant to prove that the cross was depicted in the Egyptian Pyramids as well as in Greco-Roman monuments. Peringskiöld mentioned King Ptolemy of Egypt, arguing that during his time this sign was used as the symbol of Jovis-Ammon1107. The main source of Peringskiöld’s analysis of religion was Rudbeck’s Atlantica, but he must have also used Bureus’ unpublished manuscript Antiquitates Scanzianae. Peringskiöld highlighted the two main emblems on which Bureus had focused: the Sign of the Cross and the Three Crowns. As to the latter emblem, Peringskiöld adduced domestic antiquities, a bone-cross of the Sámi people, and a copper cross from the Uppsala region to support the claim of the non-Christian origin of the emblem1108. In fact, he related the shape of the copper cross to the shape of the ancient Uppsala temple in the latter parts of Rudbeck’s Atlantica1109. However, in my view, Peringskiöld did not consider the symbols within the light of Bureus’ esotericism1110. Even though he was surely aware of the idea of the pristine theology of Adam, it is not expressed in the text. The most probable reason for leaving it unmentioned was the unorthodox contents of the runic Cabala. In my view, the purpose of Peringskiöld’s account was to proclaim the glory and the antiquity of the absolute monarchy. In Monumentorum, the role of the emblem of the Three Crowns was to reinforce the established motives of the antiquarian tradition from Bureus to Lundius. Alongside establishing the antiquity and therefore divine right of the line of Swedish monarchy, it is possible that the 1106 Frey was a divinity belonging to the Vanir family. The historical Frey was claimed to have been buried in a grave mound in Ynglinga saga, which was associated with the mounds of Gamla Uppsala. 1107 Peringskiöld 1710, 256–259; in Rudbeck’s analyses, Jovis-Jomala-Jofur, was the representation of Atle–Odin. Pluto–Madr, the ruler of the Underworld took care of the religious sacrifices and rites. Peringskiöld’s emblematic idea of the Cross reminds of Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 27–28. 1108 Peringskiöld 1710, 259, seems to think that the earliest Christian signs of the cross were depicted with the symbol X, not with the Cross. Thus, the sign of the cross as † had developed from the hammer and trident. See also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 27–28; and Widenberg 2006, 90–92. 1109 Peringskiöld 1710, 256–259, 266–267 (the copper-cross). 1110 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 27. 214 underlying political context of the views was to emphasise the prerogatives of the monarch: he was the king (rex), the head of church (sacerdos), and a judge (iudex)1111. Although this idea – which Bureus originally developed in a slightly different political and learned context – seems alien to us, I would argue that the politically inclined scholars of that time were familiar with it. This was a work of the Crown distributed on the domestic and European front, so Peringskiöld followed the prior tradition – not necessarily because he thought it was “true” in the strictest modern sense; he was simply the official historical scholar of highest rank in the realm, so arguing against such paradigmatic ideas, as was shown in the case of Bureus, Verelius and Schefferus, would have been a poor career move during the period of absolute monarchy. This same logic is particularly well articulated in his genealogical writings. 4.2.2 The Genealogy of the Boreades An important factor in the background of Peringskiöld’s genealogical works is the fourth, unfinished tome of Rudbeck’s Atlantica. Rudbeck had introduced a modified genealogy in this work, which Peringskiöld used1112. However, the works financed by the Crown, that is, Atlantica and Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna, were not primarily genealogical works1113. Thus, there was almost a necessity for an updated genealogy of the royal families in Sweden of that time. Through this work, their bloodline and, with the help of Atlantica, their role in world history could be highlighted. It will be shown that Peringskiöld employed the findings (or fabrications) of Rudbeck as well as the proliferating and increasingly fashionable Old Norse material in a clever manner. The context was once again, the literal and political crises in the domestic and foreign front. Peringskiöld presented the sacred history in his works in a very traditional light. He began by describing the key events of the world from Adam to Noah. According to him, some tentative data about this period was preserved also in the Eddic poems, as Adam can be identified with the Eddic giant Yme, the son of Earth and Heaven. Peringskiöld reminded the reader that Adam’s lifespan was unusually long, as he was still alive at the time of Methuselah. As a result, the 1111 If Peringskiöld had the Rex-Sacerdos-Iudex – King-Priest-Judge in mind in Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a. 3. 11f, 211ff, is hard to determine. The manuscript of Bureus was widely known and used, as was proven in section on Verelius 2.2.2; and chapters on Lundius 3.3 & Schefferus 3.5. 1112 Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 18–19 (mistakenly 20 and 21 in the modern Swedish translation). 1113 They had genealogical material (and tables), but the kings and queens were part of a narrative, whereas in Peringskiöld’s works the genealogical tables were the main subject (and content). 215 Patriarchs had learned their knowledge about God, nature, and man from Adam. On this basis, he claimed that such biblical Patriarchs as Seth, the inventor of astrology (with Enoch), Methuselah, Lamech, Jubal and Tubal-Cain, were all featured in Eddic poems1114. He moved on to the subsequent cataclysmic event in the Bible, the Flood, making references to Bochart and Kircher, and subscribing to their euhemeristic theories on the Noachides1115. The classical (Near-Eastern) gods had been but derivative identifications of Noah. He concluded that the accounts of the giant Yme could be equally associated with Noah, and furthermore, that such Eddic figures as Bergelmer and Bure had been his northern embodiments1116. In this sense, it is interesting to see how the Swedish scholars, who were keen on criticising the geographical notions of the German Cluverius, almost invariably exploited his idea of the first forefathers as an echo of both a monotheistic god and the progenitor of the people at the same time1117. After depicting Noah and the Flood, Peringskiöld engaged in the genealogy of the Geats and Svear. In the second chapter he gave the line and names of Japheth, Noah’s son. The genealogy he provided follows, to a large extent, the Geatic view of history, and hence some mediaeval myths of origin. Therefore, it seems that the genealogical side of the discourse was still, to some degree, influenced by the tradition of Annius. Moreover, Peringskiöld referred to the classical, mediaeval and contemporary literature, such as the works of Greek Euhemerus, Church Father Lactantius and Bochart. However, in the ultimate analysis, the main source of the account is Atlantica. In the process, Peringskiöld applied the methodological apparatus of Rudbeck to demonstrate the validity of the Eddic poems as a source of Swedish genealogies. There is a familiar echo in the work when Peringskiöld identifies Japheth with such figures of the classical writings and Eddic poems as Neptune (Necken), Saturnus (Sadur), Bore and Atin. For Peringskiöld, Japheth had: […] after he had with his sons and offspring scattered far and wide after the Flood (which took place around 1759 in the year of the world) brought to Göthem or Scythem, the land of the Hyperboreans / which also in bygone was 1114 Peringskiöld 1713, 4. As Eriksson 2002, 282, 304, has shown, Rudbeck had made this connection. 1115 The best description of this in Allen 1949, Chapters 4–6 & Appendix. 1116 Peringskiöld 1713, 4–11. See e.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 246ff. 1117 Krebs 2011, 139–140. As in the case of Verelius and Rudbeck (De Fanin) in section 2.2.2 earlier. 216  called Jaitland / Jättehem/ as well as / Mannahem and at last Swithiod and Swearike; which can be derived from our oldest histories.1118 As one can see, Japheth is identified with Fornjót. Torfaeus’ Historia rerum Norvegicarum may have been the trigger for the emphasising the identification. The other alternative is that he followed the original sagas or Messenius’ Scondia Illustrata, which he had indeed edited and published1119. On the other hand, the fact that Peringskiöld highlighted the role of Necken and other euhemerised progenitors Torfaeus had criticised bears witness to an additional Swedish-Danish dispute on the literal front. That Peringskiöld gave arguments for the continuity not only between the ancient sources, but also between the place names, such as the Land of the Hyperboreans, Scythia, Jotunheim, and Sweden, indicates that these views were developed to respond to Torfaeus. In my view, it was an attempt to appropriate the classical and Old Norse civilisations by claiming that even the new material about Fornjót and his line were but additional derivative sources of the fabulous Swedish antiquity. Furthermore, Peringskiöld linked not only the ancient geographical place names but the personal names with each other in this context. For example, Magog, the most common alternative to the first progenitor of the Geats, is identified with the mythological figures which Peringskiöld had used to provide the list of places mentioned above. He argued that Magog was called the great Oggi1120, Atin or the Forefather, Thor and Thusse or Tuiscon, Habaldur, Aegi, Nestyr or Neptunus, and Prometheus by the Greeks1121. Peringskiöld, in other words, claimed that this particular case was related to the second Magog, a grandson of Ham, the forefather of the Turkish and Mohammedan (Arabic) peoples. In the context of the two Magogs, the traditional biblical myth of Gog–Magog is introduced, and Peringskiöld has etymologised the very name: Mag- or Magn- signified power and -uggi or -oggur horrible1122. In conclusion, the name of Magog signified “the one with horrible power”. In 1118 Peringskiöld 1713, 12–13: ’[…] efter han med sine söner och afföda efter förskringringen (som skedde vid pass Anno mundi 1759.) uptagit Göthem eller Scythem, the Öfwer-Bornes Land / som och fordom kallades Jatitland / Jättehem / samt Mannahem / och omsider Swithiod eller Swearike; som af wårt landz gamla Historier aftagas kan.’ 1119 It was related to an important feud so it will be discussed in chapter 4.4. 1120 Peringskiöld does not give any explanation. Yggr (‘terror’), one of Odin’s names in Old Norse writings, could be the rationale behind this genealogy. It may be an implicit reference to the Bible (Deuteronomy 3:11) and Og, related to Gog-Magog, the last of the Rephaim (Hebr. giant). The ideas can be derived from the contemporary discussion of Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IIX, as well as of Leibniz and Torfaeus. Already Annius 1552, 26, made mention to ‘Ogygiam’, so the genealogical tradition was long. 1121 Peringskiöld 1713, 11–18. 1122 Which indeed follows the modern explanation of Odin’s name, ‘Yggr’ (Eng.’Terror’). 217 addition, Peringskiöld suggested that Magog was the progenitor of many “European Goths” such as Getae, Massagetae and Sarmatians1123. The learned context of the views is likely to be the linguistic treatises of Leibniz, in whose theories Sarmatians had signified the Finns and Sámi as well as the Slavic people. This is in fact connected to the politico-historical context of that time – the old debate over the historical identity of the inhabitants of the Baltic lands, that is, whether the Sarmatians (speakers of Slavic languages) were Goths (Swedes) or their own, specific people. The Great Northern War (1700–1721) also springs to mind as a more immediate political context within which the revived idea of the historic, biblical role of the Geats and the territories they have possessed since time immemorial can be expounded. In any event, in the case of Magog, the important sources for Peringskiöld were the domestic antiquities. He referred to an ancient runestone, which according to his interpretation, was erected in honour of Oggi (Magog), and was located next to his grave mound1124. The idea of affiliating Oggi-Magog with a grave mound is a direct reference to Freyr in Ynglingasaga. As a result Peringskiöld placed Freyr and Uppsala in the remote antiquity, and hence implicitly suggested that the work of Torfaeus, which was published two years earlier, could not be taken seriously. At the core of Peringskiöld’s argument was Torfaeus’ crushing criticism of the genealogies of Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and its implications for using Diodorus as a source of Swedish antiquity1125. Additionally, Peringskiöld’s idea of ancient Sweden as the land of the giants, “Gigantes Terrarum”, which could be also identified with the land of Goths, “Gothica Terrarum”, is likewise related to Torfaeus’ work. Unlike Torfaeus, Peringskiöld did not believe that this idea of the land of the giants meant real giants; instead, the terms ”Giätteland” or ”Jotunheim” of the Eddic poems adverted to the Goths, that is Geats, which Torfaeus, and to a lesser degree Leibniz, had discussed, and placed outside Sweden1126. Therefore, implicitly again, Peringskiöld argued that Jotunheim and the line of Fornjót (Nor) were but an echo of the “Yfwerborne” Geats of Uppsala. 1123 Peringskiöld 1713, 13–15. 1124 Peringskiöld 1713, 16: ‘Rademun made the grave mound / but Tyr and Typhon as well as Ingri raised these stones above Oggi the great and powerful progenitor, the God of Giätteland / Gunnar carved the stone.” The translations vary between the Latin and the Swedish version. In the latter, Peringskiöld has emphasised “OGYGIO MAGNO, GENITORE, ET JOVE GIGANTICARVM (SEV GOTHICARVM TERRARVM)’, which is ‘the great progenitor and the God of Gigantes (or the land of the Goths / Geats’.) 1125 As in 4.1.2. 1126 Torfaeus 2008, 240–255; Leibniz 1768c, 209–210; Leibniz 1717, 280. Collactanea Etymologica Vol. 2. 218  At the end of the work, Peringskiöld constructed genealogical connections between the Swedish and Trojan, Scythian, Etruscan, Athenian and Roman lines. He concluded that their forefather was Atys, the King of Mannaheim, who descended from the line of Bore(ás) and Sifylla (Leto?), the rulers of Giättland (the Geats, Jotunheim). His follower was Thore–Niord, also known as the Hyperborean Juppiter, or Thor of Noblest Birth1127. The mediaeval myth of the Trojan origin, the Etruscan fabrications of Annius of Viterbo, the myth of Swedish origin of Germans (Tuiscon) and many early modern traditions are subordinated to the genealogical lines of the ancestors of the current Swedish monarchs1128. The fact that the patron of the work was Queen Ulrika Eleonora, the sister of King Charles XII, who ruled Sweden from 1718 to 1720, should not be discounted as a reason for highlighting (rather untypically of that time) a female ruler that stood side by side to Boreás. Although the latter genealogical work was not published until 1725 (by Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld, the successor and son of the author), it does not diminish the original context within which the views were developed. If Peringskiöld’s two genealogical works are compared, some differences appear. The first forefathers, Japheth and Magog, are described in detail in both of them. However, in the latter work Magog is introduced as the inventor of the runic alphabet (as was Merkesmän in Atlantica), who reigned in ancient Scandinavia. The nebulous place names of the classical and Eddic writings, such as the Underworld1129, are explained to have been part of his realm. In addition, Peringskiöld provided a long list of other ancient Kings and their role in the ancient world. Here, the claim of a Northern origin for the Trojans is discussed in greater detail, although in the end, the data of the royal lines is quite identical to his earlier work.1130 Even the latter genealogies are based chiefly on the earlier Hyperborean research tradition in which the linguistic link between the Northerners and the Phrygians was established. Ultimately this speculation rested on the linguistic theories of Stiernhielm (Runa Suetica) who, for his part, had been inspired by the ideas of Salmasius and Bureus1131. In addition, Bochart had discussed the possibility of the Phrygian origin of the Trojans. Peringskiöld often cited Bochart’s works, so obviously he still played a central role in the Swedish 1127 This figure is elaborated slightly further and can be found also in the other genealogical work: Peringskiöld 1725, 5–6: 17. King, Thore Niord. He is followed by ‘Tros or Thor, who came back home to Giätteland or Mannaheim after the destruction of Troy around the year of world 2760.’ 1128 See introduction and section 1.2.2. 1129 Peringskiöld 1725, 1–3, i.e. the Kings 1 & 2. 1130 Peringskiöld 1725, 1–6. 1131 Peringskiöld 1713, 200–201; Peringskiöld 1725, 5ff (Kings 17, 20). See also section 2.1.2. 219 discussions1132. In my opinion, by emphasising Stiernhielm’s Scythic theory and the role of Bochart (Phoenicians), Peringskiöld probably sought to respond to the contrasting views of Leibniz and Torfaeus. As implied above, the institutional and political contexts of the genealogical works of Peringskiöld were complex. Lindroth has shown that the first genealogical work (the lineage from Adam to Christ) was intended to be attached to the new Bible of King Charles XII and to be distributed to parishes across Sweden, an enterprise that had begun during Charles XI’s reign1133. Hence, the work was meant to operate as a pedagogical tool for educating the public about the sacred and universal as well as national history. The purpose of the work was purely propagandistic. Within the political context of the absolutism, it can be concluded that the genealogical works of Peringskiöld were developed as part of the ideological pursuits of Charles XI and Charles XII, in which Lutheranism1134 served as the religious and the “Hyperboreanised” Gothicism was designed to serve as the historical ideology. Other projects shared the purpose of the centralisation and reinforcement of the political power at least among the political and religious elites as well as the literati. Peringskiöld’s second genealogical work was intended (at least in part), as its genealogical-territorial claims attest, to give the monarchs a historical tool for the Great Northern War. As was argued earlier in the case of Lundius and Suecia, the Hyperborean research tradition had become an ideological asset to the absolute monarchs of Sweden. 4.3 The Historical-Linguistics of Olof Rudbeck the Younger Olof Rudbeck the Younger (1660–1740) was the youngest and academically most talented son of the distinguished father. He succeeded Rudbeck the Elder as Professor of Medicine in the University of Uppsala, but was also a proficient natural philosopher, focusing mostly on ornithology and botany1135. Rudbeck the Younger’s historical research subscribed to the conclusions and methods of Atlantica. Firstly, the fabulous history of the noblest Up-Svear was its unambiguous baseline. Secondly, Rudbeck the Younger was an avid philologist, and moreover, frequently applied his expertise in natural philosophy, that is, the 1132 Peringskiöld 1713, e.g. 7. 1133 Löw 1908, 160–168, contains background data and a short analysis; see also Lindroth 1975b, 330. 1134 Rystad 2003, 345–357. Sunday sermons became mandatory, along with knowing the catechism by heart for the commoners. 1135 The work of greatest renown by Rudbeck the Younger is his book on birds that has been translated into the most main European languages. He was also a teacher of the famous Carl Von Linné. 220 Northern nature and culture, in analyses of the ancient languages. His sources included classical and Eddic literature, which Rudbeck the Younger, to a greater extent than his predecessors, analysed against biblical evidence.1136 The idea of using the Old Testament as a source of Swedish antiquity was based on a theory of the relationship between the biblical Hebrew and the Geatic language. Unlike his Swedish predecessors, Rudbeck the Younger thought that there was also an affinity between biblical Hebrew and the other Nordic languages, Sámi and Finnish. The idea of a correspondence rested on the preceding early modern theories on the diffusion and nature of languages in the early communities1137. This indicates that the previously mentioned studies of Leibniz (and the separation of the Sarmatian and Scythic people) gave an impetus to this enterprise: Rudbeck the Younger defended his father’s Atlantica against the criticism of Leibniz and Torfaeus. Therefore, even some of the new elements of Rudbeck the Younger’s research can be traced back to Atlantica and particularly its fourth, unfinished part, in which Rudbeck the Elder had begun to investigate the imprint the ancient Scandinavians had left in the biblical setting1138. The most important difference between the older and younger Rudbeck is a change that took place in the historiographical prerequisites from 1720s onwards. His father’s theories had been mostly celebrated home and abroad, as well as backed by the Crown, whereas the theories of Rudbeck the Younger never caught on in Sweden or Europe. Olof Celsius the Elder, one of the rising Swedish (historical) scholars, questioned the value of Rudbeck the Younger’s research and ridiculed his linguistic theories, calling them an awful Babylonian farrago. Moreover, as Lindroth has shown, Swedish antiquity had become affiliated to the passionate contemporary academic discussions about the relationship of languages and the etymological, orthographic and grammatical rules the languages had in general1139. Ideas representing the Geatic view of history and the Hyperborean research tradition emerge from three of Rudbeck the Younger’s works. The first of them is a journal from 1695, in which he recorded his observations during an excursion in Lapland. Charles XI sent him to the northern Sweden with a handful of other scholars in order to study the midnight sun and the flora and fauna of the region. 1136 Lindroth 1975b, 302–305. 1137 Allen 1949, Chapter 6. Otherwise see Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 652. The idea of the ‘Bochartian geography’ but especially the comparison between the divinity names was at the heart of this method. 1138 Rudbeck the Elder 1950, passim. Eriksson 1994, 77ff, analysed this meritoriously. 1139 Lindroth 1975b, 304. 221 This journal, Iter Lapponicum, is fragmentary, but in it Rudbeck the Younger reflects on the etymology and history of northern Sweden, providing an insight into his early views on Swedish antiquity. This trip to Lapland, and Leibniz’s critical treatises, were the main motivations for Rudbeck’s second (bilingual) work, Nora Samolad sive Lapponia Illustrata (1701), in which Northern geography and place names are interpreted through the lens of his father’s Atlantica1140. However, the last and most significant work from the standpoint of this thesis is Atlantica Illustrata (1733). In this historical–linguistic work, Rudbeck the Younger perfected his father’s hypothesis on Atlantis by referring to the ancient Hebrew terms in the Bible. Similar ideas exist in some of his other linguistic–etymological works1141, which have, however, frequently defied my comprehension1142 with their extensive data about Hebrew, Chinese and other ancient languages. I will refer to these additional studies only to the extent that they illuminate Rudbeck’s ideas in general. 4.3.1 Ancient Scandinavia – the Underworld of the Myths Rudbeck the Younger’s travel journal from the year 1695 describes the regions north of Uppsala intriguingly in the light of the mythological–etymological and euhemeristic explanations of his father’s Atlantica. The connection with the myth of the Hyperboreans is established early. While travelling through the provinces of Sweden, Rudbeck the Younger wrote of the euhemerised ancient Sea-king, Necken/Neptune. When heading farther north, he wrote that the region Bureå received its name from the first ancient king of the north, Bure/Saturnus, that is, Boreás. He also described the king Aun of Old, who – according to Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and Gautreks Saga – had lived for around 300 years1143, an idea 1140 Rudbeck the Younger 1705, in De ave Selav (On the bird Selav) he interpreted the ‘biblical’ bird selav etymologically as a Geatic word, sill and säl (i.e. fish, seal, herring). In this case, he applied theories of Bochart and his father, explained in section 3.1. See also Killeen 2009, Chapter 2. 1141 Rudbeck Thesaurus linguarum Asiae et Europae Harmonicus […] (The languages of Asia and Europe in unison) [1716] in which several languages of old were compared and; Specimen usus Linguae Gothicae […] (The proof of use of the Gothic Language) [1717] which compares the Geatic language with Chinese, as well as Finnish with Hungarian. 1142 Especially the unpublished manuscripts of Rudbeck the Younger have been nothing short of fathomless to me. See U.B. R. 12. b designated as ‘Smärre språkvetenskapliga avhandlingar’ (‘Minor linguistic studies’). It contains 6 small unfinished studies of which number 5 and 6 are the most interesting. In 5 he compared American (native) languages with Hebrew, Scythian, Sámi, and Finnish. In 6, he mentions the term Adulruna, and moreover, in a small paper attached, he has contemplated the Cabala and Zohar as part of the Bible. This trait is absent elsewhere, but shows, that he may have been aware of the ideas of Bureus. 1143 Rudbeck the Younger, 1987, 28–30; (41 on the people with a long lifespan in the Swedish town Luleå). 222 which Verelius and Karlström had discussed, and which the Icelander Torfaeus later dismantled1144. Once Rudbeck the Younger had arrived in the regions where the Sámi people dwelled, he depicted their culture, mental and physical characteristics in relation to the earlier authors in the field, Olaus Magnus and Johannes Schefferus. He was critical towards their descriptions of the plants and animals1145, but otherwise cited their works as reliable1146. The first etymological mention of the language of Sámi in Rudbeck the Younger’s journal occurred after he had reached the Tornio region. He wrote that in this area used to roam the “saterna” who worshipped “Sate”, identified etymologically with Saturnus/Sadur, the ancient Northern king described earlier in the context of his father.1147 It seems to me that Rudbeck the Younger’s main source here was in fact the second part of Atlantica (1689), for in this study the ancient Sámi people were discussed. Rudbeck the Younger was confirming his father’s views, as a travelling antiquarian “looking at the matters” himself, instead of relying on the testimony (and tradition) of old authors. The second part of Atlantica was also the background of his proclamation to the high cultural level of the people living in the area: he regarded the commonplace habit of using rune staffs as calendars, which helped to mark the changing of the seasons and religious holidays, as the clever Swedish peasants reading the Book of Nature1148. Rudbeck the Younger analysed the word “Elysion”, the section of Hades (the Greek Underworld) where the blessed people dwelled, also a topic from the second part of Atlantica1149. In this case, Rudbeck the Younger employed etymological strategy and his special knowledge of the local nature. He related the place “Elysion” etymologically to the Swedish word “sälg”, denoting a certain type of willow, (Lat. salix caprea, i.e. the Great Sallow). Rudbeck the Younger also observed that the Great Sallow had been the dominant tree in the area since ancient times. Next, he suggested that the Latin word for sallow, “salix”, derived from the original Scandinavian (Swedish) word “sälg”. This intricate explanation 1144 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 650ff; Eriksson 1994, 58. 1145 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 42–45. 1146 In Lapponia (1673), Schefferus theorised that the Finns and Sámi were of same origin. The latter were “banished Finns”, whose language had changed due to their long-term isolation. Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 51–54, does not accept this, but gives detailed data on the origin of certain peoples in the area. 1147 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, ibid; Lindow 2001, 265f. Perhaps Rudbeck Jr. referred to the art of seid, of which Odin was told to be aware in the Old Norse writings. Also the Sámi word Sieidi, refers to a sanctum for sacrifices marked by big stones etc. Was it the locals to whom Rudbeck Jr. pointed? Sadur is Bore- Boreas-Magog in Atlantica, so also Rudbeck Jr, thought that Magog had lived in the north. 1148 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 35. 1149 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. IXff. Of course, see, e.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XXII–XXIII. 223 relied on his view that the term “sälg” could be etymologically identified with another ancient Swedish term, “salig” (blessed, deceased). On this basis, he raised the possibility of the words “sol” (sun) and “helig” (holy) being the original etymological significance of the word, since the Great Sallow had been and remained a holy tree among the Sámi people. His conclusion was thereby that the classical accounts of Elysion referred to this particular area of the northern part of ancient Scandinavia.1150. The idea of the Land of the Blessed in the accounts of the Hyperboreans is naturally the ultimate source of Rudbeck the Younger’s views. Most significantly, however, Rudbeck the Younger argued that all the evidence could be found in the Old Testament. He wrote that Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 6: 8) had announced that the Spirit of God went to rest in the northern country (an idea which Rudbeck Senior had introduced). The Spirit of God had rested in the sallow-filled regions of the ancient North1151. In this way, the idea of the North as a holy, sacred country of the Up-Svear, Geats, Finns and Sámi was identified with several classical myths of the golden age and with the Bible. Of old, the Hyperborean North had been both blessed and sacred, and in its biblical sense. Even the languages and nature still reverberated to this sacredness. Moreover, the sacred history of the North could be unearthed by those who possessed special knowledge of the unique northern circumstances and the proper (etymological– euhemeristic, etc.) methods. The journal entries were a preparation for Rudbeck the Younger’s actual study of the matter, Nora Samolad, Lapponia Illustrata1152, in which he repeated with his description of ancient Lapland as the Underworld of the classical myths. The classical source of the account is the sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid, in which journeys to Elysion and Tartaros are depicted. Additionally, he was inspired by the analysis of his father1153. For some reason, he was absolutely smitten with the ferryman of the myths, Charon, who took the souls of the dead across the rivers Acheron and Styx to the Underworld. Apparently, Rudbeck the Younger had used the services of a contemporary ferryman during his Lapland excursion, which was the trigger for the whole account1154. 1150 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 46. 1151 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 46. 1152 The work was meant to have 12 tomes, but only the first was published 1701. The manuscripts of the rest of the work were destroyed by the Great Uppsala Fire in 1702. 1153 E.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. XV, XXII, XXIII. 1154 Rudbeck 1701, 22. 48ff (the analysis), Lindroth 1975b, 302, argued that Rudbeck had met a ferryman during the early stage of the excursion while crossing a river at Älvkarleby north from Uppsala. 224  In a nutshell, Rudbeck the Younger suggested that the mythical rivers and sections of Hades in the classical myths had been actual places in ancient Scandinavia. Charon did not really signify a mythical being, but needed to be euhemerised; it was, Rudbeck wrote, a title for the ancient ferrymen that chauffeured the travellers through “tree eyes”. Thus, the custom described in the classical myths involving Charon – that his passengers needed three coins (danake), of which two were placed on the eyes and one in the mouth – did not in truth point to Charon’s reward for carrying the souls of the dead into the Underworld, but to the price for chauffeuring them to the Elysian Fields (Uppsala)1155. Finally, Rudbeck mentioned that this was a good example of the “enigmas” (Swedish “gåta”), which his father had discussed in Atlantica1156, and which needed to be interpreted in the light of the true Northern nature. Rudbeck the Younger analysed Charon’s name etymologically1157 claiming it had signified “man”, “ferry” and “boat” alike. As evidence he referred to ancient Hebrew and Chaldean words, comparing them with their Geatic, Finnish and Sámi equivalents1158. However, his most outlandish analysis of Charon pertains to the geographical shape of the Baltic Sea. In short, Rudbeck the Younger suggested that if one looked carefully at the map of Scandinavia upturned, it was possible to picture it as a crooked old man1159. In the classical myths, Charon was invariably portrayed as a crooked old man. Thus, if Rudbeck the Younger performed this analysis in full seriousness, he was saying that the myths of Charon were based also on the geographical shape of Scandinavia1160. Whether Rudbeck the Younger’s interpretation of the etymological meaning of Charon was a whimsical, emblematic–poetic depiction in an authentic Baroque style1161 or a serious analysis, I cannot say with certainty. However, if I had to 1155 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 48ff (the danake analysis), 52–58. Öresund was one of these places, which is the strait that separates the Danish Zealand and the southernmost province of Sweden, Scania. 1156 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 24. He belongs to the hermeneutic tradition of Bochart and his father. See section 3.1.1. 1157 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 22ff. Contains Old Norse terms, Hebrew, Chaldean (Persian), etc. 1158 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 31–32. 1159 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 40, 42. Besides, Rudbeck the Younger elaborated this argument by outlining a silhouette of Charon onto the map of Scandinavia. Next, he provided etymological evidence of the place names that he compared with the elements mentioned in the myth of Charon. E.g. Charon’s fiery eyes, situated in the Danish archipelago in his map, symbolised the stormy sea in that region. Charon’s paddle is the oblong Island of Öland. The throat of Charon is situated in Denmark. Rudbeck found a place name “alssen” around that region. For him, the word was etymologically linked with the Swedish “halsen” (throat). On Charon’s thighs, Rudbeck informed that the name derived from the names of (the real Finnish) place names with the epithet “reisi” (Fin. “thigh”). E.g. Reisijärvi (Thigh-lake). 1160 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 34ff. 1161 Lindroth 197b, 302. The analysis, Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 36, suggested that the term ‘Charon’ was etymologically related to the Swedish term ‘karta’ (‘map’), which escapes my comprehension. 225 choose between the two alternatives, I would select the latter. It is a case of analysing “gåtor”, meaning enigmas or puzzles, as his father had done. Rudbeck the Younger even refers to the explanation of analysing emblems in the first part of his father’s Atlantica. Therefore, Rudbeck the Younger’s interpretation of Charon followed the rules of his father’s mythological analyses in the second part of Atlantica1162. It has to be said that they probably did not think that the shape of Charon was truly related to that of Scandinavia in the objective sense. It had an emblematic, rhetoric significance, to which I will return later. 4.3.2 Hebrew Lapland: the Lost Tribes of Israel The interpretation of classical mythology was the main argument of Rudbeck in the Nora Samolad, although he used some biblical Hebrew names in the analyses. He engaged in studying the role of biblical Hebrew in Northern history from 1710 onwards in his two linguistic studies. These studies have very few traces of the Geatic view of history or the Hyperborean research tradition. Instead the idea of Hebrew as the original language1163 is the foundation of the research. Additionally, Rudbeck the Younger examined the similarities between the Geatic and Chinese as well as Finnish and Hungarian languages, inspired, in my view, by the recently published etymological studies of Leibniz, Benzelius, with whom Rudbeck the Younger worked side by side in the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala, and Gabriel Sparwenfeld. The only reference to the myth of the Hyperboreans in these studies occurs when Rudbeck interprets the personal name Habor as the original Northern form of the name of (the Hyperborean) Abaris, following his father1164. Rudbeck the Younger presented Habor as the name of one of the first kings of the Geatic Up-Svear and as related to mystical revelation of the wisdom (or language) of the Hebrews, which means that Habor had been residing among the ancient people of Israel1165. In other words, Rudbeck the Younger argued that the classical accounts of the Hyperborean or Scythian Abaris contained hardly any of the true events or 1162 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 34; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8–9, 246ff, argued that the ancients identified giants with mountains. This idea was already presented in Verelius 1672, 4, 12–16. Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. II, the principles of interpreting the enigmatic emblems in the myths. 1163 Rudbeck the Younger 1717, in the dedication of the work to King Charles XII he says: ‘Nobody that loves the word of God should deny that Hebrew is the oldest language’. 1164 Haboren or Högboren, i.e. ‘of noble birth’, etym. related to the term ‘Yfwerborne’ (Hyperboreans). 1165 Rudbeck the Younger 1717, the dedication: ‘What the Israeli have veiled has Habor now preserved’. In the footnote of the dedication, he stresses that ‘Habor was one of the first and greatest Gothic kings’. 226 epithets of this king-sage who had lived in the biblical setting1166. In addition, though not directly affiliated to the Hyperboreans, the idea of Vagina Gentium, that is, that most of the ancient nations had spread around the world from Scandinavia, linked these linguistic studies to the Geatic tradition. Rudbeck the Younger claimed that traces of Geatic language could be found in Chinese, Indian (Native American1167) and many European languages. The fact that Rudbeck the Younger included the Native American languages in his analyses shows that he believed that even the languages of the New World derived from the Adamaic, or at least postdiluvian languages. Thus, it is obvious that his research still drew from the biblical ideas of monogenism and universality of the Flood1168. Thus, like his father, Rudbeck the Younger was still trying to harmonise recent observations with the biblical worldview. How Rudbeck the Younger saw the relationship between Ancient Hebrew and the Geatic language is difficult to determine. The only explanation I can propose is related to the latter parts of Atlantica, in which Rudbeck the Elder had suggested that the first expeditions of Thor and “our (northern) Resar and Jättar” had named regions in Israel. He claimed that some Ancient Hebrew place names in the Old Testament originated in the Scythian language, one of the earliest languages of the world1169. Thus, in his mind, some books of the (Hebrew) Old Testament could contain information about the Geats because Thor and other famous Scandinavian kings and heroes had resided in Middle-East. A novel aspect of Rudbeck the Younger’s works was his views on the language of Finns and Sámi, which he equally associated with Ancient Hebrew. Rudbeck explicitly mentioned a subject in biblical history which was playing an important role in the linguistic side of the research into Swedish antiquity1170: the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”. The idea had already been speculated upon in mediaeval folklore, in which were described tribes stemming from King David that were exiled after the Kingdom of Judah was destroyed by the Assyrians in about 720 BC. This notion is related to those in other books of Old Testament1171 in which certain tribes of Israel were forced to live outside the biblical world. In 1166 Not an impossible interpretation on the basis of his father’s work. Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 49. 1167 Basically, it could be both the subcontinent of India (place in Atlantica to which the Kings of Up-Swear travelled (as the Gold Stealing Griffins); and ‘American Indian’ as the texts in U.B. R. 12b. imply. 1168 Allen 1949, Chapter V & especially Chapter VI, summarise this idea excellently. 1169 Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XII; Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 49. 1170 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 31–32, elaborated in Rudbeck the Younger 1716, passim & 1717, passim. The results are crystallised in Rudbeck the Younger 1733, passim. 1171 Sometimes early modern scholars used books which are not included in the Bible anymore. 227 the book of Deuteronomy (5:29: 27–29) the idea of the Second Israel is introduced. The Book of Jeremiah (3:6:12, 17–18; 31:5–6, 8) portrays how the Israelites escaped to the desolate North1172. This was sometimes identified with the Land of Gog–Magog or Tubal and Mesech, which the prophet Ezekiel (37:11– 13, 16–19, 21–22; 38:2–3; 39:1–2) described and which some of the prior Geatic historians had mentioned. Moreover, the apocryphal Book of Esdras (4Esdras 13:40–45) recounts how the tribes had been deported in the time of the King of Assyria, Shalmaneser V. In this book is also introduced a notion that they would return to the Promised Land before the end. Furthermore, the highly influential Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, had written about these tribes in his Antiquitates Judaicae.1173 In essence, Rudbeck the Younger tried to convince the reader that the tenth tribe of Israel had migrated to the North and that they could be identified with the Sámi. He asserted that his linguistic–etymological comparisons1174 supported the biblical accounts. Similar theory about the origin of the Finnish and Sámi languages had been proposed in the Academy of Turku in the late 1690s1175. Within the broader context, the discourse reflects the difficulties the early modern scholars had with non-Indo-European languages in the New World, but also in Europe. The theories provided a model of the exploitation of the biblical framework in the early modern discourse of national antiquity. Rudbeck the Younger tried to explain the early history of the world in compliance with the biblical monogenesis. This harmonising tendency (languages, peoples) manifested itself in the works of many other scholars of that time. These ideas represent the final attempts to save the “benign biblical worldview”. In the intellectual atmosphere of the following decades, the phenomenon re-emerged as the Geatic historians tried to defend their views against the rising intellectual currents critical of the fabulous pasts. 4.3.3 The “Atlantica” of Rudbeck the Younger Rudbeck the Younger’s last etymological treatise, and his main work, was called Atlantica Illustrata, sive Illustrium, Nobilium, Principum atque Regum Insula ubi 1172 Johannesson 1991, 179–187. This idea was presented by Olaus Magnus and Rudbeck the Elder. 1173 Flavius Josephus Ant. Jud. I.4–5. 1174 Rudbeck the Younger 1701, 31–32; see also Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 45, 64ff. 1175 Harviainen 2005, 289–306, has studied the linguistic affinity in early modern Sweden and Finland. 228 et Prisci Hesperidum Horti (1733). The title1176 reveals the political1177 context of the work, which was intrinsically rooted in the Hyperborean research tradition. Like Swedish scholars since Stiernhielm and Bureus, Rudbeck the Younger identified the “Germanic”, that is Scythic, languages with Ancient Phrygian1178. In addition, he discussed the claims of Verelius, Kircher, Spelmannus, and Leibniz. He referred to the Bible and ancient Hebrew words, and analysed them in relation to Old Norse writings and certain words of the ancient Geatic language1179. In the first chapters of Atlantica Illustrata Rudbeck the Younger discussed the root of the term “adel”, meaning noble or nobility. In the following 50 pages he analysed of geographical place names, including such terms as Hyperborea, Elysion, Ogygia, Thule, Atlantis, Sve(a)rige, Svithiod, Elixoia, Manheim, Basilia, Gothia, Amazonia, Scythia, Gaul, Teutch, German and Abares, among others, which he compared with Ancient Hebrew words1180. Rudbeck the Younger argued that the relationship between ancient languages proved that the Germans, Goths and Teutch were of Scandinavian origin. The statement was directed at Leibniz and his predecessor Cluverius1181, who had argued that the forefathers of the Goths and Svear came from the continent. Rudbeck the Younger mentioned Leibniz within the context of the analysis of the origin of the term “adel”. As in the case of Rudbeck the Elder, he identified the term “Hyperborea-Yfwerborne” as related to “Atlantis”. Hence, defending his father’s honour against the attacks of Leibniz (among others) was one of the purposes of the work1182. One of Rudbeck the Elder’s main goals had been to prove (through 102 arguments) that Atlantis had been situated in the ancient (Gamla) Uppsala region and that numerous other mythical place names referred to distinct areas in ancient Scandinavia1183. Rudbeck the Younger, repeated this main argument, but concentrated otherwise on pointing out how the place names had signified such epithets as nobility, aristocrat, royal and majestic, which of course, supported his father’s enterprise as well1184. For Rudbeck the Younger, the term “Ogygia”, for 1176 The Illumination of Atlantis or the Island of Officers, Aristocrats, Princes and Kings, where (situated) the first Garden of Hesperides. 1177 The political side of the work is discussed in detail in section 4.4.3. 1178 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 5; the context that traces back to Stiernhielm, see chapter 2.1; on a more general level: Considine 2008, Chapter IV; Dekker 1999, Chapter V; Campbell 2007, electronic, chapter 4.1. ‘The Scythian hypothesis and the notion of Indo-European’. 1179 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 1–6. Virtually the whole work comprises of these analyses. 1180 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 1–13. 1181 I.e. mainly Cluverius, i.e. Cluverius 1631, 65–69, 622–637. 1182 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 1, etymologies of other place names 13ff. 1183 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. VII & VIII. 1184 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. IX (on the terms ‘yfwerborne’ and ‘atland’). 229 example, was identical with “Hyperborea”, and could be compared with words from Hebrew, Sámi, and Estonian. The original etymological meaning of the term was the “Island of Gog”. Consequently, the myth of Gog-Magog could be placed in the North. According to Rudbeck the Younger, Odin’s name1185 was identical with the Geatic (Old Norse) name of Odin, “Ygg” and the Estonian “Ugge” (name of a god)1186. Although the chain of evidence leading to the conclusion that these languages were connected is not always clear to me, Rudbeck the Younger obviously thought there was one. The same confusion applies to his analysis of the Hyperborean word “Boreás”, which he asserted was of Ancient Hebrew origin. Next Rudbeck the Younger explained how the Sámi words “puoremus” and “puorea” denoted “nobles” and hence shared an etymological root with the term “Bore(as)”1187. The logic of this analysis is complex, but very telling. Firstly, he (apparently) surmised that the ancient Geats had preserved the words of original Hebrew language during postdiluvian times. Secondly, the famous Uppsala Kings had moved to the Mediterranean, where the Greeks learnt it from them. This idea largely follows the views of his father. However, the idea that the language of Sámi or Finnish had a close affinity with the original Hebrew, and hence the Geatic language, is a step further. Rudbeck’s train of thought seems to be founded on the idea that the Sámi and Finnish peoples were related to the Tenth Tribe of Israel that had arrived in Lapland around 700 BC.1188 Ironically, Rudbeck confirmed the Geatic affinity to the original language by using the Sámi language (that he had already claimed to be a later form of original Hebrew language, and isolated within Scandinavia) as proof that the Geatic language was the closest to the original language. At the core of this theory was the idea that all “Scandinavian languages” had a unique historical affinity with Ancient Hebrew. If these views are analysed within the context of European historical linguistics, there is no doubt that Rudbeck developed the theory in order to be able to 1185 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 77. He claimed that the original form of the name Odin has been Adon, Hebrew for ‘imperator’ & ‘dominus’ (‘emperor’ and ‘ruler’ & ‘master’ and ‘lord’). See Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 540 who suggested that Auden, Odin, was ‘Adonis and the sun’ in the mythological era (tempus mythologicum). 1186 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 16–17, 24–29. Perhaps the Finnish divinity, Ukko, mentioned by Mikael Agricola in the sixteenth century and later analysed by Arctopolitanus in Törner 1728, passim. 1187 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 13–14; 35–38. Here Rudbeck claims the words pharaoh, Frey and Baldur have the same root: ‘royal’, ‘regal’ and ‘free’ (‘noble’, as free from certain responsibilities). 1188 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 64ff, the broader idea and comparative etymologies related to Habar who travelled across the classical and biblical world. 230 overcome Leibniz’s criticism of the Swedish Geats (and Svear) as later settlers of Scandinavia. The most perplexing idea of Rudbeck the Younger’s Atlantica Illustrata is his interpretation of the myths of the Garden of Hesperides. Already his father had compared the classical form of the myth with the Old Norse writings in Atlantica and concluded that it described events and persons in the ancient Uppsala region1189. Rudbeck the Younger noted the etymological affinity between the classical accounts and the biblical setting by discussing Kirath Sepher, a Canaanite city called a “House of Books” in Jewish traditions. Rudbeck the Younger explained the significance of the term as “the place of letters, academy, the garden of letters, and the capital of letters”1190 before concluding that this place or alternatively its predecessor had once been situated in Uppsala. Diodorus Siculus and Solinus, for instance, had portrayed this place in their accounts about the Hyperboreans. The Old Norse variants of Kiriath Sepher were such place names as Aspalundar and Glysisvall, places that had already been identified with Uppsala and the Hyperboreans by Stiernhielm, Verelius and Rudbeck the Elder. On top of this, Rudbeck the Younger claimed to have found additional traces of this religious and literary centre in the Bible, which he had interpreted according to his father’s emblematic methods. As evidence, Rudbeck the Younger cited King Solomon’s utterance in the Book of Proverbs: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver”.1191 The broader context of the idea is, firstly, the sanctification of Gamla Uppsala and its beatific Hyperboreans. Even Peringskiöld had adverted to the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, which the contemporary scholars viewed as the ideal of ancient temples, when writing of the glories of the temple of Gamla Uppsala. Solomon, as the representative of the chosen people of God, the Israelites, had possessed the tradition of knowledge to build an ideal temple. In addition, Peringskiöld thought that the progenitors of the early nations, such as the Up- Svear, had been aware of this tradition when they built the Uppsala Temple, the northern equivalent of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.1192 Secondly, Rudbeck the Younger’s idea drew from his father’s view on the Swedish origin of the alphabet. The older Rudbeck had compared the myth of the Garden of 1189 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 351–360 (Cap. XXIII, Om Sveriges Aspalundar och Glysisvall). 1190 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 79, ‘Hortos Heperidum, qua vim vocum ita dictos ab Hebr., Kiriath Sepher, in plur. Kiriath Hasopherim, h.e. locus literarum, Academia, hortus literarum, urbs literaturae, vel secundum LXX. (in Greek polygrammatoon), quasi locus fuit vetus Phoenicum Gymnasium‘. 1191 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 79–82. 1192 Peringskiöld 1710, 157. 231 Hesperides with the Old Norse myth of the Golden Apples of Idun, which were part of his analyses of the different sections of the northernmost part of Scandinavia, that is, the Underworld. In Rudbeck the Younger’s case, the production of evidence was of such complexity that it suffices to state here that, according to him, the apples that King Solomon mentioned were runes1193. Hence, Rudbeck the Younger seems to have believed that King Solomon, renowned for his wisdom, had heard about the civilisation of the noblest Up-Svear and consequently, there were traces of the former glory of Gamla Uppsala in the Bible. 4.4 The Institutional and Political Contexts I argued in the previous chapter that the dominance of the Hyperborean research tradition and its most pre-eminent articulation, Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica, arose for two specific reasons. Firstly, patronage and institutional networks were crucial; the backing of patrons and “hubs” such as Count de la Gardie and the absolute monarch Charles XI was a central factor in the approval of Rudbeck’s interpretation of Swedish antiquity. The second reason was explained by employing the concept of “horizontal networks”. It was argued that a non- hierarchic “Rudbeckian network” developed in the 1690s, an idea Patrik Hall has introduced previously1194. From my perspective, the most important members of this network included Carolus Lundius, the Salanus Brothers, Andreas Stobaeus, Olaus Hermelin and Olof Rudbeck the Younger. Thus, though a client of political patrons himself, Rudbeck was also a hub in the network of historical scholars. It will be shown below that in the 1690s, Rudbeck the Elder could refer to his patrons and use their power to control, up to a certain point, what was said or written about the Swedish antiquity. 4.4.1 Power Struggles: Johan Peringskiöld’s Relationship to Rudbeck the Elder My previous analysis of Johan Peringskiöld’s antiquarian and genealogical works (see section 4.2.) suggest that he was a member of the Rudbeckian network. Modern historians have reached similar conclusions1195. Evidence exists of a close 1193 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 80–82. 1194 Hall 1998, 168–169. 1195 Alkarp 2009, 234ff; Lindroth 1975b, 297–305, 330–335; Schück 1935, 172–194. 232 relationship between Peringskiöld and Rudbeck the Elder in the late 1680s. Rudbeck had requested Peringskiöld be sent to the Mediterranean to collect and map traces of the antiquities of the Yfwerborne Up-Svear. The expedition was to be funded by de la Gardie’s successor, Bengt Gabrielsson Oxenstierna, and King Charles XI1196. Such plans demonstrate that Rudbeck the Elder’s idea of the dominance of the Upsvear in the ancient Mediterranean in Atlantica was taken seriously and that the political elite saw it as valuable, at least in principle. As to the role of Peringskiöld in the “network”, Lindroth characterised him as a “Rudbeckian with restrictions”, which, as will be demonstrated below1197, is based partially on Schück’s analyses. The reservations Peringskiöld had about Rudbeck’s views are manifested in their feuds in the 1690s. Because they are related to the key ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition, some aspects of these feuds will be outlined below to provide evidence that the tension between Rudbeck and other scholars continued during the absolutism of the new monarch, Charles XII. As a result of this analysis, I will suggest that the term “Rudbeckianism” should be used only in a defined, institutional sense. My observations are partially based on the extensive descriptions of the feuds by Schück, who cited the pertinent documents verbatim, and to a lesser extent the writings of Lindroth. The first feud (in 1694) pertained to a single etymology in an inscription of a runestone, over which Peringskiöld was willing to fight to the bitter end but was, as Lindroth noted, silenced by the Royal Chancellery1198. In a nutshell, after Rudbeck and Peringskiöld exchanged letters without reaching a consensus, Petrus Salanus, a key member of the Rudbeckian network, complained to the Royal Chancellor on Rudbeck’s behalf. In the end, it did not reach the heights of the earlier disputes between Schefferus and Verelius; Rudbeck and Peringskiöld were advised to begin a constructive dialogue. This had no effect on Rudbeck: he published his original interpretation in the third part of Atlantica in 1698.1199 Peringskiöld’s attitude can be explained against the background of the alteration in the power balance between the antiquarian institutes. Ever since 1686, the Crown had decided to support Rudbeck’s Atlantica and Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. The fact that Charles XI and his noble clients favoured these two projects over the ones planned Peringskiöld, the Secretary of the Board of 1196 Lindroth 1975b, 328; Eriksson 2002, 367–370 (as part of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica). 1197 Lindroth 1975b, 330. 1198 Lindroth 1975b, 330–332. 1199 Schück 1935, 172–192. 233 Antiquities, was not a good sign. Perhaps Peringskiöld’s decision to challenge the prevailing views had been triggered by the death of Hadorph in 1693, when the Board of Antiquities was annexed to the Royal Chancellery and renamed the Archive of Antiquities1200. In my view, it is possible that Peringskiöld, the new Secretary, challenged Rudbeck to define the limits within which he could operate. This argument is supported by Enoksen’s observation about Peringskiöld; according to him, Peringskiöld deemed Rudbeck the Elder (and also Hadorph) to be incapable of examining certain antiquities in a professional fashion1201. Thus, it seems that Peringskiöld had a new vision of how to study the national antiquities. This vision did not materialise in Peringskiöld’s lifetime because of the control Rudbeck and his supporters had over the research. Peringskiöld resumed quarrelling with Rudbeck a few years later (1698). This time the feud pertained to the publication of Johannes Messenius’ almost 70-year-old manuscript of Scondia Illustrata1202. Peringskiöld was familiar with the manuscript and thought this comprehensive work should finally be published1203. If the matter was discussed in the Archive before 1697, it is likely that Rudbeck got wind of it through his inside man, the assessor Petrus Salanus1204. As a result, Rudbeck adverted to the honour and reputation of the Swedish antiquarian research in his response and pleaded with his patrons to not give Peringskiöld a permit to the publication of the manuscript. Schück has cited Rudbeck’s letter in which Rudbeck stated that Messenius had erred in many cases, notably in arguing that the Uppsala Temple had not existed before the Nativity. Rudbeck stated that this not only contradicted the words of Plato and Diodorus, but discounted the alternative of the temple being identical with the Hyperborean temple of Apollon. According to Rudbeck, the Temple of Uppsala had existed before the Trojan War. The work of Messenius thereby (Rudbeck asserted) went against the domestic tradition, that is to say, the results of earlier scholars such as Olaus Magnus, Loccenius, Verelius, Hadorph, Schefferus and Lundius1205, which was a gross exaggeration, since only Verelius and Lundius had cited both Rudbeck’s principal sources (Plato and Diodorus). Additionally, as Lindroth has described, and Eriksson later elaborated, the furore created by the proposed publication of Scondia Illustrata was related to the fact that the Rudbeck and Messenius families had been bitter enemies in the first 1200 Schück 1935, 1–198 in great detail; summarised by Lindroth 1975b, 329–335. 1201 Enoksen 1998, 198–200. 1202 Eriksson 2002, 607–608, tells how Rudbeck tried to prevent publication but used it himself anyway. 1203 Olsson 1944, passim, described the vicissitudes of the manuscript of the work. 1204 Described in detail, Schück 1935, 193–194. 1205 Schück 1935, 193–194. 234 half of the seventeenth century1206. The honour of Rudbeck’s family and, if the history of the dispute over the Uppsala temple is remembered, even that of his friend Verelius, were at stake. In Rudbeck’s eyes, Peringskiöld’s suggestion was not a matter of giving new material to scholars, which he surely would have supported in principle; he saw that it would lessen the credibility of his interpretation of history in Atlantica and besmirch the honour of his family into the bargain. Hence, against this background, it seems that Peringskiöld was not a Rudbeckian. Scondia Illustrata would, firstly, give the public a work in which Rudbeck’s earlier arguments would be criticised and the Temple of Gamla Uppsala would not be portrayed as the Hyperborean Temple of Diodorus. Secondly, Messenius had situated the line of Fornjót roughly in the regions of modern Finland and Norway, along with a suggestion that the ancestor of the line had lived as late as 600 AD1207, whereas Rudbeck identified Nor(e) with the first postdiluvian kings of Uppsala1208. Obviously, Peringskiöld did not support Rudbeck’s interpretation if he was willing to publish a work which described Northern antiquity in a completely different, less glorious manner. But the matter is not that simple, as a comparison of Scondia Illustrata (which Peringskiöld published in 1700–1705) and his subsequent genealogical works (1713, 1725) shows. It appears that Peringskiöld changed his mind about the chronology of the line of Fornjót. As was shown in section 4.2.2, he had identified Fornjót with Japheth/Neptune/Bore and his descendants on the basis of an existing Swedish runic inscription1209 in which Peringskiöld also identified Gotunheimia with Jotunheim. This followed Rudbeck’s interpretation of the antiquity of the Hyperborean Temple of Gamla Uppsala in Atlantica1210, and importantly, was very likely a response to Torfaeus’ criticism in his Norwegian history1211. However, this is not the most confusing aspect of Peringskiöld’s attitude towards Swedish antiquity or the question about his Rudbeckianism. His latter genealogical work was edited and published by his son, Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld, in 1725, and it contains modifications to the dating of the line of Fornjót. The beginning follows the early ideas of Rudbeck’s Atlantica, but 1206 Eriksson 2002, 607–608; Lindroth 1975b, 16f (on the feud). 1207 Messenius 1702, Cap. X. page 1ff. 1208 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 126, 128, 250. 1209 Peringskiöld 1713, 12–13, 16. ’Giätteland’, ’Jätteland’ identified with Scythia, Gothia, and Hyperborea. 1210 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 126, 250; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff, & Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252ff. 1211 See section 4.1.2. 235 Fornjót is presented as the King of Finland (Jätteland, Giantland) and in essence the explanation of Messenius is favoured1212. Was this Johan Peringskiöld’s belated criticism of Rudbeck, who had died almost 20 years previously? The death of the patron of Peringskiöld’s work, King Charles XII, could be the explanation for the timing of the publication. Then again, in the introduction Peringskiöld compared Queen Ulrika Eleonora with the Rudbeckian Queen Disa1213, and the genealogies of the first rulers of Uppsala follow the expected “Hyperborean” patterns of Atlantica1214. Another explanation could be that the younger Peringskiöld preferred Messenius’ views to Rudbeck’s and modified the ideas of his father. In my view, three additional factors can explain the discrepancy between Peringskiöld’s early and later views. The first is the influence of the Great Northern War: external and internal political conflicts caused an alteration in the tone of Swedish Gothicism, as evidenced in the writings of Verelius, Schefferus and Rudbeck. Thus, Torfaeus’ work (which had been published after the original feud) needed to be opposed in public, which was a job for the Secretary of the Archive of Antiquities. Therefore the more immediate politico-historical context of the first genealogical work was the Great Northern War and the publication of Torfaeus’ critical work. The second possible factor is that Peringskiöld actually changed his mind or realised he could finally say whatever he wanted. The influence of the Rudbeckian network was declining at this point (Lundius, who was among the loudest supporters of the old Rudbeck, had died in 1715). As further evidence, in the second part of his antiquarian work Peringskiöld mentioned both Rudbeck’s and Schefferus’ sides of the dispute over the temple of Uppsala1215, which was not possible during Rudbeck’s lifetime. The third reason for the discrepancy is that Peringskiöld simply thought that in genealogical terms one should construct as fabulous past as possible – since it was for the purpose of the research – but as to the broader antiquarian research, nobody should have a monopoly, not even Rudbeck. Most importantly, the discrepancy between Peringskiöld’s earlier and later works does not argue against his belonging to the Hyperborean research tradition, only the Rudbeckian network. It was, in other words, possible to be 1212 Peringskiöld 1725, 86. 1213 Peringskiöld 1719, the dedication; Cap. VI, in which he gives a moderate version of Gothic history, but does not mention the Hyperborean side. 1214 Peringskiöld 1725, 1–8. 1215 Peringskiöld 1719, Cap. II-IV (it is manifested in several cases of the analysis of the runes and the Cathedral of Uppsala, which Schefferus had claimed to be the location of “Uppsala Temple”). 236 “Hyperborean” without being Rudbeckian. Peringskiöld’s ideas can be certainly categorised into the tradition of identifying the Hyperboreans with the Geats. Even the critical Hadorph, who disliked Rudbeck, subscribed to the Hyperborean research tradition in the broad sense; otherwise he would not have published Stiernhielm’s manuscript1216. Clearly, the reality is more complex when examined on the immediate level of the texts instead of “long-term” ideas. Analytically speaking, one should understand that historical construction concepts such as the Hyperborean research tradition can explain past phenomena only to a certain extent. The limited scope of the Hyperborean research tradition signifies that it was coherent as to the general lines of the arguments, whereas the details, such as individual interpretations of single texts, inscriptions and so forth could vary substantially. The Role of Family Relations in the Antiquarian Institutions In the meantime, there had been another dispute over the Temple of Uppsala. According to Eriksson1217, it was linked to the feuds between Peringskiöld and Rudbeck the Elder. This time a thesis called forebodingly De Templo Upsala (On the Temple of Uppsala) (1698), by Daniel Hesselius, was the cause. Hall has proposed that this incident exemplifies the role the networks played in that time and the arguments and strategies Rudbeck the Elder used to defend his Atlantica1218. I concur with Hall’s observation but add that the significance of family relations in the networks of that time is also epitomised in this dispute. It would seem that Rudbeck took offence at the fact that a mere student had dared to publish a study without consulting him on the forbidden matter1219. The second factor at the heart of the dispute was the fact that, in Rudbeck’s eyes, Hesselius sided with Schefferus. Eriksson and Alkarp have shown that this was not altogether true. Earlier the disputes had been related to the etymology of the name Uppsala and the questions about the age of the Temple. Rudbeck’s conclusion in Atlantica had been to discard the interpretations of both Verelius and Schefferus. He had come up with an idea of the Gamla Uppsala Temple as an open hall surrounded by a wall. Hesselius did not dispute Rudbeck’s 1216 De Hyperboreis Dissertatio in 1685, mentioned in section 4.5.1. 1217 Eriksson 2002, 608–612; King 2005, 204 (J. Arrhenius). 1218 Hall 1998, 148–9. 1219 Annerstedt 1908, 324–327, tells about another similar thesis which annoyed Rudbeck. 237 conclusion1220, so it is reasonable to surmise that other factors explained Rudbeck’s objection. Firstly, Hesselius’ supervisor was Rudbeck’s old enemy, Jacob Arrhenius. Arrhenius might have wanted to see whether the juvenile new king, Charles XII, was as adamant a supporter of Atlantica as his father, Charles XI. In other words, was it again possible to publish writings critical of Rudbeck? Secondly, after the incident had escalated, Arrhenius explained that he could not have attacked Atlantica because he could not afford to buy the work. This is a trifle tenuous in the light of the fact that he was the Professor of History and surely had access to some of the copies of the work. Thirdly, and most importantly, by 1698 the third part of Atlantica was already in the printing press1221. Thus, the dispute can and should be treated within the coeval context of Rudbeck’s disagreement with Peringskiöld. True to form, Rudbeck defended himself by reminding Hesselius that investigating the age and location of the Temple of Uppsala was still a forbidden matter, pointing to the disputes between Verelius and Schefferus as evidence. Besides, as Rudbeck suggestively pointed out, even the King (Charles XI) had confirmed the validity of his views1222. By referring to the highest possible authority of the realm, the absolute monarch, Rudbeck was showing his less admirable side. This was not the only case in which Rudbeck did so: Eriksson has shown how Rudbeck had insinuated to the Professor of History in the University of Lund, Andreas Stobaeus, who had questioned some of his ideas, that it was not a good idea to challenge Atlantica.1223 The subsequent events and mechanisms of the social networks of the time make this dispute interesting. Initially, Rudbeck complained to the Vice Rector of the University, his son Olof Rudbeck the Younger. As a result, an investigation was launched and the public defence of the thesis was postponed. Hesselius, who had organised a large celebration, pleaded with the old Professor to no avail. In consequence of this, the furious young student went to his uncle, the Professor of Theology and the Court Chaplain of the King, Jesper Svedberg (1653–1735), who in turn sought the opinion of the Archbishop Svebilius (1624–1700). The 1220 Eriksson 2002, 608–612; Alkarp 2009, 166–174; though already in Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 261; Alkarp has apparently used the unpublished Rudbeck manuscript in the University of Uppsala designated as UUB R 13. It rested on an etymological comparison between the Bible and Phoenician ‘Sale’, which Rudbeck the Elder interpreted to mean ‘beatific’. Compare this with Rudbeck the Younger (4.3.1) ‘salix’, ‘salig’ i.e. ‘willow’. 1221 It was about to get published in 1698. 1222 Hall 1998, 148–9. 1223 Eriksson 2002, 612. 238 Archbishop was a prominent man, having conducted the coronation ceremony of Charles XII a year earlier. He saw no reason why the thesis could not be defended1224. So Hesselius also had powerful supporters – persons in the inner circle of the young King or at least the Royal Chancellery. The incident was not over yet, however, and turned farcical1225. Rudbeck the Elder complained next to the Chancellor, the abovementioned Bengt Oxenstierna, and the matter was put under scrutiny1226. Eventually the incident was smoothed over and Rudbeck forgave everything. Arrhenius apologised, assuring Rudbeck that the thesis was not an attempt to attack Atlantica. Rudbeck’s victory was complete after the new king, Charles XII, revealed himself to be an admirer of Atlantica1227. One should not underestimate the role the absolute monarch had in the validity of historical ideas. When the third tome of Atlantica was presented to Charles XII in 1698, he told the son of the author, Rudbeck the Younger, that he should dedicate himself to “the antiquities, similarly with his father”1228. This indicates how significant historical and political knowledge and what we would call Humanities nowadays were in the society of that time. Rudbeck the Younger was a prominent natural philosopher and anatomist, yet the King specifically requested him to focus on the history of the fatherland. This is another example of the extent of the politicisation of historical research at that time. Against this background, the question of whether Hesselius’ work was a genuine attempt to undermine Rudbeck’s position is unimportant. In my view, one should give Arrhenius the benefit of the doubt here. Rudbeck the Elder was very sensitive in regard to Atlantica. His “hub-like” position in the network of historians meant he could attack the supervisors of the contemporary institutions of historical and antiquarian research; in contrast, Peringskiöld (the Archive), Stobaeus (University of Lund) and Arrhenius (University of Uppsala) could not effectively criticise Atlantica. The shift in Peringskiöld’s thought and the vitality of the Hyperborean research tradition are exemplified in the dominance of Rudbeck. He seems to have controlled the flow of ideas by using his patrons and 1224 Hall 1998, 149. 1225 Eriksson 2002, 610–611, tells that Annerstedt relied on the more dramatic version, whereas the consistory reports did not mention such case, which does not mean it did not happen. The graphic version involved hiding the keys of Gustavianum (the venue of defending the theses), using a ladder to get into the building through an open window and defending the thesis without the permission of the Rudbecks. 1226 Hall 1998, 149–150. 1227 Hall 1998, 150. 1228 Annerstedt 1908, 358–359. 239 connections to acquire knowledge of what was going on in the Universities of Uppsala and Lund as well as in the Archive of Antiquities. Moreover, if necessary, Rudbeck informed and mobilised his patrons in support of Atlantica. Thus, from 1685 to 1702 hierarchic and horizontal networks both played a role in the vitality of Rudbeck’s Atlantica and the Hyperborean research tradition. Rudbeck the Elder was not the only scholar who prepared the next generation to take over his work. Johan Peringskiöld had educated his son about certain Swedish antiquities. This is proven by a letter that Peringskiöld sent to the Crown, cited by Schück (see below). In addition to family relations, it outlines, in my view, what was regarded as politically correct for the Antiquarian Officer of the Crown that time and the manner in which the older Peringskiöld had prepared his son. He wrote that his son had translated works from Latin, Greek, and Old Swedish to Contemporary Swedish “as exercises”. Amongst them were such studies as the Chorography of Scandinavia by Adam of Bremen, The Gothic (Getic) History of Jordanes, The Gothic Chronicle of Isidore, the Langobardian History of Paulus Warnefridus, The Atlantic Critias of Plato as well as Hialters and Olvers Saga […]1229. Not surprisingly, the younger Peringskiöld was appointed as a Translator in 1713, an office of which the ageing Secretary had held until then. He was definitely a talented young scholar, and nepotism played a smaller role in the process of appointment than one may imagine1230. The fact that he was appointed to the Secretary of the Archive after the death of his father underlines his talent. However, whether one could place the work of Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld into the Hyperborean research tradition is not easy to answer. Evidence is scant, for Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld died in 1725, only five years after he had commenced as the Secretary. He published his father’s works but may also have modified them, as was mentioned in connection with the genealogical line of Fornjót earlier. The list of his translations in the paragraph above suggests that Peringskiöld the Elder had probably chosen these studies for this very purpose – that is, to convince his patrons that his son had already been initiated in “the right kind of literature”. I have come across one unambiguous trace of “Hyperboreanism” in the scholarly works of Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld: he 1229 Schück 1935, 24, quotes the letter [Riksarkiv Kanslikoll. Inkomna skrivelser. sign. E IV. 8]. 1230 As Schück 1935, 23–27, illustrated, it can be seen also as a reward of the Queen for the loyal Secretary Peringskiöld, who had been serving for 40 years in the institute. 240 recognised Rudbeck’s Atlantica in the introduction of the translation of the Saga of Hialter and Olver1231. In the end, the question of Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld’s Hyperboreanism is unimportant. He was introduced here to highlight the major role family relations had in early modern Swedish society and particularly in intellectual activities such as historical research. 4.4.2 The Hyperboreans and Political Applications The Three Crowns and the Origin of Political Prerogatives? As was demonstrated above, Peringskiöld had his reservations regarding some of Rudbeck’s interpretations and tested his boundaries as the Secretary of the Archive of Antiquities. However, if Peringskiöld’s views are examined in the broader, political context of the Hyperborean research tradition, it is obvious that some topics related to royal power that Rudbeck and his predecessors had discussed were not open for discussion. In his latter genealogical works1232 Peringskiöld mentioned Rudbeck’s location of the Uppsala Temple in Gamla Uppsala and described the history of the area in the light of Atlantica’s constructions. Peringskiöld also highlighted the ancient King of the region as the powerful Geatic-Hyperborean Overking Odin/Apollon, deriving this from the Eddic and classical myths. The interpretation also followed the earlier views of Lundius and Bureus, in which the symbol of the Three Crowns, the Runic Cross and the laws of “Salmoses” are mentioned1233. This aspect of Peringskiöld’s account can be explained within the context of historical emblematics and the discussion about the Three Crowns. Peringskiöld did prefer the ideas of Bureus to Schefferus, as he extended the antiquity of Sweden until immediately after the Flood and the Confusion of Tongues1234. The critical ideas of Schefferus on the Uppsala Temple or the Three Crowns (which he did admit was of Swedish origin) are conspicuous by their absence. Schefferus’ treatises had been published around 1678–1680, a few years before Charles XI had shown his true colours. I argued earlier within the context of Lundius and the 1231 Peringskiöld the Younger 1720, introduction. 1232 Save for the exception of Peringskiöld 1719, introduction, page 2 (the Boreades) and page 11, in which he mentions both sides of the story (Rudbeck’s Atlantica and Schefferus’ Upsalia Antiqua). 1233 E.g. Peringskiöld 1710, 121–126, 135–139, 145, 256–267. 1234 As the genealogies of his which stem from Japheth, Magog and so forth, demonstrated above, as well as the analysis of Gamla Uppsala in Peringskiöld 1710, Cap. II, 134ff. 241 Mora Stones1235 that the evidence indicates a reciprocal relationship between the development of Swedish absolutism and the historical research. In fact, Urpilainen and Lindroth have shown how the critical Benzelius lectured extensively on the Goths and presented the nature of royal power (of the ancient kings) as absolute. This alongside Peringskiöld’s views proves that although historians could present critical ideas regarding certain aspects of the Hyperborean antiquity, the Gothic origin, Geatic-Hyperborean genealogies and origin and nature of royal power were not easily questioned in 1710-1718. This is supported by the fact that the historical research on the nature of royal power and other “forbidden” motifs restarted shortly after the absolute monarchy and Swedish Empire of Charles XII had collapsed.1236 Thus, whether Peringskiöld subscribed to the “Hyperborean research tradition” on an individual level or not is beside the point. The interesting side of his research relative to the Three Crowns is how he, like Bureus, focused on its religious aspects. If the horizon of interpretation is extended to encompass the political side of the research, it could be also based on the study of Lundius. They all discussed the role of the sacred laws, and later the sacred historical right to change the laws and to be the head of the Church1237. In any case, it seems clear that the idea of the sacred nature of the laws was part of the political and religious interpretation of the domestic antiquities for all of them, and in this sense, the combination of the account of the Hyperboreans, Zalmoxis and the antiquities, which signified references to particular sagas and particular emblems, were in fact the foundation of the political side of the Hyperborean research tradition as well. They can be separated only in an analytical sense. The slightly more “whimsical” Olof Rudbeck the Younger should not be forgotten in any discussion of scholars of the Hyperborean research tradition in the emblematic context. I mentioned earlier that Charles XII had suggested to Rudbeck the Elder that his son could have a future in the realm of antiquities. As in the case of his father previously1238, Rudbeck the Younger constructed his description of Charon the Boatman in Nora Samolad to serve as a politico- 1235 In section 3.5.1. 1236 Urpilainen 1993, 210–223; Lindroth 1975b, 346–347, Benzelius also made a new edition of the Codex Argenteus and regarded the earlier ones of Stiernhielm and Rudbeck highly unsatisfactory. 1237 See section 3.4.1. 1238 Johannesson 1968, 108–109, told about a poem in which Rudbeck the Elder identified Charles XI’s birth with significant events, such as Hercules, St Paul’s conversion and Solomon in his temple; Eriksson 2002, 573–582, analysed poems of Rudbeck about the Monarchs. They involve elements related to the “northern-classical” emblems and motives of Atlantica. 242 emblematic account. Rudbeck portrayed Charon directing a boat, which in my view, could be a playful allegory of Charles XII. This would incidentally follow Rudbeck the Younger’s etymology of the word “Karl” (how the name Charles is written in Swedish), and of course, the three danakes could be an esoteric symbol of the Three Crowns1239. Thus, the idea of the manly Charon (Charles), the ancient boatman with fiery eyes steering the “Swedish Ship” in the Baltic Sea, would fit within the earlier context of Dominium Maris Balticum and the critical situation in the Baltics (the Great Northern War had just commenced). In other words, Rudbeck the Younger’s allegories, and the emergence of the older Geatic emblems in naval situations, can be interpreted within the tradition of the rhetorical political use of the Hyperborean research tradition. In some sense, this text was a result of the same political conditions that led Lagerlööf to proclaim the ancient naval power of the Geats in the Baltics (along with the reference to the borders of the empire) in his version of Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. This is not the only case in which Rudbeck the Younger created decorative images of historical fantasy. His Atlantica Illustrata (1733) is dedicated to “the Queen beyond compare”. The dedication supported a notion of strong royalty, in contrast to the views among the nobility at that time1240, and included a poem in which political and historical-linguistic views are interlaced with each other in a baroque style: “That to Your Royal Throne now lay evidence / to the Svea Nobility / and the Praise of the Immemorial Geats which does not need to die; but to live in our memory And as your Noble Stem / oh noble Udalrika has from Aristocracy received its Root; as it is all noble what your Heart Sprouts / and more than thousandfold carries the sweetest flowers / oh the Queen beyond compare”1241 1239 Rudbeck 1701, 22. 48ff, ‘Charon’ was related to ‘Karl’, i.e. ‘Man’ by Rudbeck Jr. 1240 The nobility had the power after the collapse of the Swedish Empire in 1720. 1241 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, dedication: ’At för Er Kunga Thron nu lägga ett bewis / Til Swia Adelskap / och forna Göthers pris. Som Intet måste dö; men lefwa i wårt minne. Och som Er höga Stam / o Ädla Udalrika Af Adel fått sin rot; så är och ädelt alt hwad i Ert hierta gror / och mer än tusenfalt The skinösta blommor bär / o Drotning uthan lika.’ 243 The poem is an allegory of the name of Ulrika Eleonora and its alleged etymological root “Udalrika”. It seems to me that Rudbeck the Younger was genuinely arguing that the Swedish aristocracy had received its elevation from God and thereby from God’s representative on earth, the sovereign monarch. Rudbeck the Younger must have associated the name with the Geatic word “adulruna”, which he analysed in the same study; according to him the term had signified “nobilis uxor”, meaning “noble wife”. In general, this referred to the aristocratic wives of the ancient Up-Svear1242. Therefore, it appears obvious that Rudbeck the Younger, who was ennobled in 1719 by the Regnant Queen, supported – at least in theory – the idea of strong nobility as long as it was governed by the monarch. The ideas in the poem clearly represent the political ideals of the Great Power Era. They were conducted in the political climate of the aftermath of the Great Northern War, as from 1720 onwards Sweden was under the parliamentary governance of the Estates of the Realm. The most intriguing question regarding the political side of the etymological ideas of the term “adel” (“nobility”) is whether it has any affinity with the reflections of Bureus1243 over a century earlier in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. The similarity between their analyses of the ancient name/term “Adulruna” and the term “adel” (nobility)1244 is compelling. It was related to the linguistic argument for nobility having its root in the name “Atlas”, the first Hyperborean King of Scandinavia1245, an idea he put forward on the basis of his father’s Atlantica. The manuscript of Bureus, in which strong royalty was supported in the connection of the domestic troubles of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus, may have been the source of his views. As the reader may recall, as part of the analysis of the term “adel”, Bureus had written a political statement, “ubi nobilitas, ibi majestas” (“where nobility, there is majesty”)1246. Even in the event that Rudbeck the Younger’s views did not stem from Bureus’ reflections, the political purpose of the statement, though not the political situation, was the same. In this sense there is a clear continuity, a philological tradition of discussing the term “adulruna” and its derivatives, from Bureus to Rudbeck the Younger. 1242 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 7, ‘adulruna, Goth. legitima seu nobilis uxor, Speg. Gloss, quae vox cum alruna […]’ – ’adulruna Goth. legitimate or noble wife, Speg. (Spegel, a contemporary linguist) Gloss (and his Glossary), in which pronounced alruna.’ 1243 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 7. See chapter 1.3. 1244 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 29ff. The list of etymological differences between languages commences on page 33 which includes the ‘truthful’ (‘verum’) and corrupted (‘corruptus’) forms. 1245 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 9–13 (he e.g. talks about the nobility as the shoulders that keep the head up, that is, provide a foundation for the monarchs). 1246 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 35. 244  Another of the political–religious purposes of Rudbeck the Younger’s “Atlantica” may have been to stress the historic role of Scandinavians. The beatific nature of the “extrema terra” of the Bible where the Spirit of God went to rest, identified with Ultima Thule and Atlantis, is articulated in Atlantica Orientalis1247. Rudbeck the Younger claimed that the fact that God’s spirit came to rest in the North had yielded such ancient place names as Alunda (a parish close to Uppsala), which gave the region its ecclesiastic nature1248. By this he may have referred to the ancient Temple of Uppsala as a “Temple of Northern Israel”. Bureus had bestowed the Uppsala region with similar qualities, as the land of the beatific Hyperboreans with their runic-Cabalistic theosophy1249. I am not arguing that Bureus was the source of Rudbeck’s views; no such evidence exists in the text. However, Peringskiöld and Schefferus had employed Bureus’ manuscripts. In fact, Peringskiöld provided information on the Runic Cross which he had found near Uppsala. As a result of this finding (the Runic Cross), Rudbeck the Younger may have become interested in finding out the content of Bureus’ Antiqiitates Scanzianae and hence to further examine the matter1250. 4.5 Summary The Hyperborean research tradition was thoroughly incorporated into the Geatic narrative during the reign of Charles XII. Its main ideas were established in the politico-historical articulations of the study of national histories. However, some scholars were critical of the research involving the Hyperboreans, particularly on the foreign front. The vehemence of Torfaeus’ disavowal of certain key ideas and sources of the Hyperborean research tradition, as well as Leibniz’s criticisms of Atlantica and Stiernhielm, prove that the tradition had gained ground outside Sweden at the turn of the seventeenth century. On the other hand, just like in the course of the previous analytical period (1680–1700), tensions existed under the surface. Johan Peringskiöld, the Secretary of the Archive of Antiquities, although generally open to Atlantica, disputed certain arguments in the work. However, Rudbeck’s patron(s) were so powerful that Peringskiöld, along with a couple of other prominent historians, quickly retreated. 1247 Rudbeck the Younger 1987, 46; Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 16; also Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 255ff; 261f and the holy Hyperborea and the gold of the Griffins; Johannesson 1991, 179–187, (Olaus Magnus). 1248 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 14–16. 1249 See sections 1.1.3–1.1.4. 1250 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 5, 27, the title in which the Adulrunic Uppsala and the Cross carved on the doors of Uppsala temple as the pre-Christian symbol of the people of Uppsala was studied. 245  The hegemony of the Rudbeckian interpretation of Swedish antiquity was manifested clearly in the antiquarian and genealogical works of Peringskiöld, which the Crown had commissioned and was planning to use in domestic propaganda. The works of Olof Rudbeck the Younger represented the linguistic side of the Hyperborean research tradition and the solutions to Leibniz’s criticisms of his father’s Atlantica. The most important of Rudbeck the Younger’s contributions was the idea of the linguistic affinity of the ancient people of the North (the Hyperboreans, Finns and Sámi) with the people of Israel. His research had political connotations too. Rudbeck the Younger presented Charles XI as a Hyperborean figure and contemplated the historical origin of nobility in relation to the nobility as well as the prerogatives of the monarch in relation to monarchy, which indicates that the political elite of Great Power Era (monarchs and older nobility) still sought to use historical arguments to gain power. Thus, continuity exists between Rudbeck the Younger and his predecessors (Bureus) in the practice of using the Hyperborean and Geatic antiquity in political contexts. Horizontal networks evolved around the Rudbeck’s closest supporters, which secured the hegemony of the Hyperborean research tradition during the first two decades of the eighteenth century. It is interesting to see the integral role family relationships played in this process. The sons of the two “hubs” of the Hyperborean research tradition, Rudbeck and Peringskiöld the Elder, made their own careers in the service of the Crown by continuing their fathers’ work. This reveals the significance of the political elite in the research of Swedish antiquity, and, conversely, why the Hyperborean research tradition reached its apex during the period of absolutism. 246 5 The Decline of the Hyperborean Research Tradition, 1720–1760 The final analytical phase of the Hyperborean research tradition took place in the period in Swedish history called the Age of Liberty (1718–1772), which must be understood in relation to the previous and following periods of absolutism1251. As a result of defeats in the Great Northern War Sweden lost ground in the Baltics, whereas Russia became the new rising power in the region1252. Characteristic of the Swedish political situation of the period was that the Estates of the Realm, that is, nobles, burgesses, clergy and peasantry had suffrage in the Riksdag of the Estates. In reality, monarchs had lost a significant amount of their political powers1253. This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part (5.1–5.3) I will discuss the main ideas of the last historical and antiquarian scholars that can be categorised into the Hyperborean research tradition. In the second part (5.4) I will analyse the basis of the criticism of some important Swedish historians that opposed either the whole practice of studying remote antiquity or some elements of the research. I will demonstrate that the mid-1750s was an interestingly varied period in Swedish research into national antiquity in which the older (Hyperborean research tradition and Geatic view of history) and new approaches (the so-called critical historians) coexisted. As part of this analysis, I will reflect upon the role of the political, institutional and historiographical factors in the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition. 5.1 Erik Julius Biörner and the Hyperborean Norrland In mid-eighteenth-century Sweden, there were still a few influential antiquaries who subscribed to the ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition. Erik Julius Biörner (1696–1750) is the most important; he was a versatile historical scholar and the only member of the Archive of Antiquities between 1725 and 1747 who systematically published new material. Biörner was from the Swedish Norrland, the geographical region on which he focused in his antiquarian research. He had 1251 On the general intellectual (intellectual-religious) prerequisites, see Lindroth 1978, 497ff. See e.g. Frängsmyr 2000, 210–225, of the major political players in the intellectual life; on the Hats and Caps. There were noblemen in both parties, but Clergy and Peasants were well-represented in the Caps. 1252 Scott 1999, 304–306. 1253 Ulrika Eleonora (1718–1720), Frederick I (1720–1751) and Adolph Frederick (1751–1771). The Queen of Adolph Frederick was Louisa Ulrika, who organised a coup in 1756 that failed. 247 studied in Uppsala from 1715 onwards, and the reputation of his thesis (1717) soon reached Johan Peringskiöld’s ears. The Secretary of the Archive was in a need of talented students interested in antiquarian research. Biörner was invited to Stockholm to start as an Icelandic Translator in the Archive1254. Over the following years, Biörner demonstrated that he was not a “team player”. Before resigning in 1747 he had quarrelled with three consecutive Secretaries of the Archive (1717–1747): Johan Peringskiöld, Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld, and Johan Helin1255. In the meantime, he had disputes over literal or personal matters with Olof Celsius the Elder, Anders Celsius, Olof Dalin and Gustaf Bonde. Bonde had been one of the patrons of Biörner in the early 1730s, and may have been forced to break with Biörner partially on political grounds.1256 That Biörner belonged to the Hyperborean research tradition is proven by his thesis De Svedia Boreali (1717) and its sequel Tractatus prior de Gotunheimia […]1257. Biörner supplied the reader with a formidable amount of side notes to his analyses of classical, Old Norse and contemporary works1258. Of the latter, one of his main sources was Torfaeus’ Historia Rerum Norvegicarum. He valued the work of Torfaeus as a source of Scandinavian history, but regarded the Icelander’s critical attitude towards Rudbeck as lamentable1259. Although Svea rikes Häfda Ålder (1748) can be seen as Biörner’s main work, its foundation was presented already in the abovementioned dissertation and its sequel on the history of Gotunheimia. Moreover, in my view Svea rikes Häfda Ålder is a crystallisation of the ideas introduced in the earlier Inledning til de Yfwerborna Göters gamla häfder […] (1738) and the introduction of Nordiska Kämpa-Dater (1737), a study Biörner published in collaboration with Count Gustaf Bonde. Since Biörner’s share of this work was also based on his earlier two treatises on Jotunheim, it is sensible to discuss his research in these works as a coherent entity. Biörner’s additional minor published and unpublished studies of the Varangians, material antiquities, burial customs, the origin of Finnish 1254 Schück 1935, passim, is still the best source of Biörner. Lindroth 1978, 646–652, has outlined the nature of his research and his main works. Check also Malm 1996, passim. 1255 Schück 1935, 206–216, 343–397. Biörner’s role in the Archive in Schück 1935, passim. 1256 Schück 1935, 343–397. 1257 It was finished as a manuscript in the 1720s but not published until 1741. Schück 1935, 591–592. 1258 This is an altogether typical trait of Biörner’s studies. E.g. the longest footnote in Biörner 1738 is 21 pages. Listing all of his sources would be hard. Already in Biörner 1717, passim, he followed the tradition of Messenius, Loccenius, Verelius, Rudbeck the Elder, Lundius, Peringskiöld, and Petrus Salanus. In addition, he referred to the English, German, and Scandinavian studies from Cluverius to Bochart (theory on place names) along with the works of English Sheringham and the Icelandic Torfaeus. 1259 Biörner 1741, 27. 248 language, the Swedish orthography and so forth1260 are considered here only when relevant to the Hyperborean research tradition. 5.1.1 The Antiquity of “Gotunheimia” The earlier interpretations of the Hyperboreans are apparent in the majority of Biörner’s works1261. His perception of the accounts of the Hyperboreans as an echo of the ancient people of Norrland (and Svealand), and how they were related to the father of “giants”, Japheth and his son, Magog, along with the other euhemerised variants of their names (Saturnus, Boreas, Fornjót, Niord, Nore etc.), is introduced in the early work De Svedia Boreali1262. The work of Torfaeus, the recent publication of Messenius’ Scondia Illustrata (1705), and the antiquarian works of Peringskiöld constituted the starting point of his research1263. His insights mostly reflected the views of Peringskiöld1264, as attested by how Biörner identified Jotunheim with the ancient regions of Svealand and Norrland1265. When Biörner argued for the notion of Jotunheim as the abode of the ancient people of Norrland, the latter parts of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica played an important role as well. In the first1266 and third part of the work, Rudbeck situated “Giotum Heim” in Finland. In the second and third parts, he provided extensive accounts of the ancient “giants of Hälsingeland”, whom he saw as “tall northerners” within the context of the myths of Jotunheim in the Eddas. The Eddic giants of the mythical Jotunheim (Jötunheimr), against whom the Aesir, with Thor at the head, had fought, was cleverly compared with the myths of the classical Titans and Gigantes fighting against Zeus in Hesiod’s Theogonia1267. Rudbeck the Elder and Torfaeus wrote of the mythical giant Narfi, the first ruler of Jotunheim. Rudbeck had identified Narfi with Niord and Nor, whereas Torfaeus viewed Narfi, Niord and Nor as separate persons1268. Moreover, 1260 Schück 1935, 592–594, (the unpublished treatises). Of them, Aborigines Scandiae Forniotdae el. Boreades […], (The Ancestors of the Scandinavians Fornjótians or Boreades […]) is the most interesting. 1261 E.g: Biörner 1717, 25–31; Biörner 1741, 27–32; Biörner 1737, 2–3, 6–7, 20n; Biörner 1738, 10–14, 45– 52, 98–104, footnote X (122–164), 124–132; Biörner 1739, 4, 12–13; Biörner 1743, 9–10; Biörner 1748, 5, 7, 17–19, 32, 45–47, 52, 68–79, 129–134. 1262 Biörner 1717, 27–29. 1263 Messenius 1702, Cap. X. Chronologia Finlandiae, Livoniae, et Kurlandiae, p.1ff; and the tradition of Verelius 1664, 3ff; and the account of Torfaeus 2008, 331–340; Peringskiöld 1713, 12–13. 1264 See section 4.2.2. ‘The Genealogy of Boreades’ and the citation of a runestone on ‘Göthem or Scythem, the land of the Hyperboreans which was also called as Jaitland, Jättehem […]’. 1265 Biörner 1717, and 1741, are mainly written to argue this. See also Biörner 1738, 4-10. 1266 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 249ff. 1267 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 250; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 252–283, 466ff. 1268 See section 4.1.2. 249 Rudbeck had claimed that the Yfwerborne Up-Svear of Uppsala was the noblest people of ancient Scandinavia, but that Svealand was separate from Hälsingeland and the Swedish Norrland. In this connection, he described the wars and other encounters between the “Hyperboreans of Uppsala” and the ancient people of Hälsingeland1269. It was the third part of Atlantica that Biörner found interesting. He compared the etymological details of the classical–Eddic and biblical place and personal names. Lundius and Rudbeck the Younger had already investigated the biblical “giants” of the earliest period of the world, and Rudbeck the Elder perceived the term “Nifilheim” as a northern variant of “Nephilim” in the biblical texts1270. Biörner viewed the details of the Eddic myth of the Flood as “events of northern history” in ancient Jotunheim between the many peoples in this island of giants (“Gigantes Insula”)1271. Sometimes it is unclear to me, if he situated these doings of the Gigantes more broadly in “Asia”. It seems that Biörner believed that they had migrated to the north early on and hence, he tried to construct a glorious antiquity for the Swedish Norrland by elaborating upon such views. He mentioned, for instance, the Eddic giant Yme-Thusse1272, and identified him with Adam. Elsewhere, he referred to Lundius’ idea of an etymological affinity between “Nephilim” and “Nifilheim”1273. Alongside the Old Testament and certain classical and Eddic myths, Biörner used Tacitus’ Germania in his analysis of the Northern ancestors1274. Biörner’s main objective was to prove that Tacitus’ account of the mythical ancestor of Germans, “Mannus”, who was said to have been born from the earth, depicted the same events as the Bible and Eddic myths1275. By this, Biörner wanted to show that Tacitus had based his account on “Eddic traditions”. The theory of transmission of oral traditions that Rudbeck the Elder had introduced may have been his source in this connection1276. Furthermore, if Biörner could prove conclusively that the “Germans” of the continent had received this idea from the Scandinavians, it would work as an argument against the still influential Cluverius, who, as Krebs has shown, had identified Mannus with Adam1277. As 1269 Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252ff. 1270 The idea may have originated in Rudbeck the Elder and Lundius’ theories (in 3.3.2 and 4.1.2). 1271 First in Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff, but actually in Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252ff. 1272 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, Cap. X, on Yme, but related to the Eddic giant ‘Thiasse’ (Thiazi, Thjazi) who kidnapped Idun. The term ‘Thussar’ was a synonym for ‘giants’ in Sweden still in the 1750s. 1273 Biörner 1738, 60–66; Biörner 1748, n127–134. He seemed to speculate (in a footnote) whether there had been giants in Scandinavia even before the Flood. 1274 Biörner 1748, 120–129. 1275 Biörner 1738, 60–66; Cluverius 1631, 65–69, deemed this to be Tacitus’ misconception. 1276 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8. See also section 3.2.1. 1277 Krebs 2011, 136–139. Rudbeck, Verelius and Peringskiöld referred to Yme and Bergelmer etc. 250 well as the theories of Cluverius, Biörner was naturally mindful of Leibniz’s theories on the later German origin of the Goths1278. Clearly, Biörner wanted to reinforce the pre-Leibniz and -Torfaeus views about the first inhabitants of Scandinavia. For him, it had been the line of Japheth, that is, the Geats, who had settled Scandinavia around 200 years after the Flood. Surprisingly, he seems to have thought that the Geats had met actual giants on the way1279. Whatever the truth, his geographical description was based on the tradition of Rudbeck the Elder and Johan Peringskiöld. For Biörner, the place names of the classical and Old Norse literature such as Atlantis, Hyperborea, Asgard, Midgard and the Underworld, among others, denoted the glorious antiquity of Svealand and Norrland1280. The interesting side of this account is that, although Biörner did refer to the Geats, they played a lesser role than in the studies of his predecessors. In Biörner’s writings the history of Svealand was highlighted relative to the Geatland. Interestingly, Hyperborean research tradition is therefore used to construct historical identities separate from the Geats, a development which can be partially traced to Bureus and Rudbeck the Elder1281. It is important to realise that Biörner did not merely repeat the views of Rudbeck and others, but also took cognisance of the contemporary criticism and the alternative theories on Northern antiquity. Firstly, he responded to the increasing number of scholars that had situated the Island of Atlantis in the “Middle East” and questioned the theories of both Rudbecks in the process1282. Secondly, in his last work, Biörner provided arguments against Olof Dalin, a domestic historian, and his theory on the water level after the Flood1283. Thirdly, and related to this, Biörner cited the forged runic manuscript purporting to describe Abaris and Zalmoxis returning from Greece to Scandinavia, which Olaus Celsius the Elder had criticised1284. This proves that Biörner subscribed to the theory of Rudbeck the Elder on the idea of certain runestones originating in postdiluvian times1285. Finally, he replied to the theories on the Finns (and Sámi) as the first inhabitants of Scandinavia, which scholars in Sweden and abroad had introduced1286. Like Rudbeck the Younger earlier1287, Biörner saw them as later 1278 E.g. Biörner 1737, 10–12, (Leibniz). 1279 Biörner 1748, 129ff; 129n–134n. 1280 Biörner 1738, Cap.III; Biörner 1739, 3–4. 1281 See section 3.1.2. 1282 Biörner 1748, 39–40. I will come back to this later in the chapter. 1283 Biörner 1748, 1–3, 100ff. 1284 Olaus Celsius 1710, passim. 1285 Biörner 1738, e.g. 45–52. 1286 See sections 4.1.1; 4.3.1; and later 5.4.1. 251 settlers1288, and appears to have implicitly accepted the idea of them as Sarmatian descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel1289. 5.1.2 The Line of Fornjót–Boreás–Japheth Biörner developed the idea that the sagas of the line of Fornjót were a source of the ancient history of Svealand and Norrland. In his mind, they could be compared with the myths in the classical writings, of which the account of the Hyperboreans was one. These sources Biörner compared with the Bible, and came up with additional, specifically biblical data related to the genealogical lines of the ancient Scandinavians: the lines of Fornjót and the line of “Boreades” were identified with each other. Unsurprisingly, Biörner identified the line of Fornjót with the line of Japheth, thus applying almost all conceivable sources of the Hyperborean research tradition. Additionally, he argued that the son and grandson of Japheth, Gomer and Ashkenaz had been among their first forefathers1290. Once the line of Fornjót was identified with the biblical equivalents, Biörner moved on to the classical myths. He associated this Japheth/Fornjót/Bure (Boreás) with Uranus, and Magog with Saturnus/Prometheus/Bore1291, in which case he followed the example of the received genealogies of Rudbeck the Elder and Peringskiöld1292. Interestingly the logic behind these breathtaking identifications between mythological heroes was founded on the etymological similarity between the names of Japheth and the giant (Titan) Iapetus, who was the son of Uranus, and father of Atlas and Prometheus in the Greek myths1293. Already Bureus and Rudbeck the Elder had introduced such ideas while fabricating detailed genealogies of the biblical and classical figures. Bureus relied upon the views of 1287 It is likely that they knew each other personally. Biörner’s works have dedications from him, and there is a letter from Biörner to Rudbeck the Younger preserved in the University Library of Uppsala. 1288 Rudbeck Jr. praised Biörner in Biörner 1737, preface. The latter referred to him in Biörner 1738, 4 (Rudbeck the Younger 1733), 55 (Rudbeck the Younger 1716 & Rudbeck the Younger 1717). 1289 At end of Biörner 1748, a minor study on the Finns. Especially Dissertatio historica de origine ac religione Fennonum (1728) by Fabian Törner and Gabriel Arctopolitanus. See Törner 1728, passim. In this case, Biörner referred to Rudbeck the Younger, but also to the Professor of History in the University of Turku, Algot Scarin. Check Urpilainen 1993, passim. 1290 Biörner 1748, 13–15, 130. This may be also a later accretion after Johan Göransson (see 5.2) who had published his first studies in which Gomer and Askenaz are highlighted. 1291 Biörner 1741, 27–29. 1292 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 128 fig; e.g. Peringskiöld 1713, 12–13. 1293 Biörner 1748, 16–17. In Greek mythology, Iapetus lives in Tartaros (part of the Underworld), which Bureus and later the Rudbecks identified with Scandinavia. 252 Annius1294, whereas Rudbeck harmonised the biblical, classical and Eddic genealogies with each other. However, Biörner’s genealogical analyses on the pedigrees of Fornjót did contain new insights. He identified the sons of Fornjót – Kari, Loge and Aegir (Ågir) – with Neptune (Poseidon), Pluto (Hades), and Apollon-Balder of the classical writings1295. Interestingly, not unlike Torfaeus, he based his identifications on the spheres of influence of these divine-mythological figures: Aegir/Poseidon is affiliated with sea, Pluto/Loge with fire, and Apollon/Kari with wind1296. Furthermore, Biörner identified Aegir/Poseidon, Pluto/Loge and Apollon/Kari with the mythical Eddic brothers Odin (Atin), Vile and Ve, the sons of Bore. He also perceived Fornjót as synonymous with Odin (All Father), in which case they may have symbolised Noah and Japheth simultaneously. This would entail that Nor was a manifestation of Magog1297. In any case, unlike Torfaeus, Biörner believed that these sagas could be traced back to postdiluvian antiquity. He referred to the accounts of the Hyperboreans as well. While analysing the line of Fornjot, Biörner claimed that Kari, Loge and Aegir were but echoes of the Boreades in the account of Hecataeus-Diodorus1298. Thus, despite introducing new ideas within the context of the Hyperboreans1299, the shift in the genealogical framework from Bureus to Biörner was surprisingly small. A Neo-Platonist concept of history combined with the monogenetic idea of the origin of people and the euhemeristic idea of explaining Northern characters as biblical figures was the foundation of their views. Biörner’s genealogical analyses also discussed the role of Nor, the founder of Norway in Torfaeus’ work. Biörner strongly disagreed with the Icelander and argued that both the Swedish Norrland and Norway had received their names from King Nor. The difference between their views can be explained by their sources: instead of referring only to Icelandic sagas and being sceptical towards data from Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks, Biörner still trusted the Eddas and such classical writings as the work of Apollodorus1300, substantiated by the previous 1294 See section 1.1.2. 1295 Biörner 1748, 68–79, used most likely the more extensive genealogy of Hversu Noregr Byggðist in Flateyjargbók on the bases of this. 1296 Biörner 1748, ibidem; Torfaeus 2008, 313–314. 1297 E.g. Biörner 1717, 27; Biörner 1738, Cap. III; Biörner 1739, 3. His chronologies are confusing, and it seems that there was more than one Magog. This can be explained as a title, a commonplace in the euhemerisms of e.g. Rudbeck the Elder and Lundius. 1298 Biörner 1748, 68–79. 1299 Biörner 1748, 11. 1300 Biörner 1741, 27–29. 253 genealogical analysis in which he had identified Nor with the postdiluvian Magog. In fact, in his prior studies on Gotunheimia, Biörner had considered Nor to be synonymous with the Norse Niord and the Greek Boreás. Surely, Biörner elaborated these genealogies in order to defend Rudbeck the Elder’s conclusion on Nor, or Narfi, against Leibniz and Torfaeus1301. Peringskiöld’s genealogies, Rudbeck the Younger’s Atlantis Illustrata and the coeval studies of Johan Göransson (which will be analysed later) were similarly founded on the same belief of the validity of the Eddas as sources of Swedish antiquity. Therefore, Biörner’s views on the ancient Scandinavian kings follow the institutional tradition of Rudbeck the Elder and Peringskiöld (by and large). The mythical divinities and heroes are euhemerised and seen as the noblest kings and sages in the ancient world. He embraced the idea of an ancient Empire of Up- Svear1302 along the lines of Rudbeck the Elder, telling how after the descendants of Japheth, Magog, Gomer and Ashkenaz had wandered through Finland (Kvenland and Cimmeria), and the Swedish Norrland, they settled in the Uppsala region from where they had ruled the regions from the Swedish Norrland to Etruria and Egypt. Biörner also presented the idea of the kings of the empire being Hyperborean (Yfwerborne), the noblest people of the ancient world. Gamla Uppsala was described as the royal seat of the Overking, where the Temple of Neptune-Neckur/Apollon-Balder was situated, as well as where the sacred laws were enacted and enforced1303. Thus, in the end the detailed image of Biörner’s antiquity drew largely from Bureus, Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica as well as the treatises of Carolus Lundius and antiquarian-genealogical works of Peringskiöld. 5.1.3 The Early Civilisation of Ancient Scandinavians Biörner wrote about the culture and theological beliefs of the ancient Northerners. Generally speaking, his views on their culture included few new ideas. True to form, certain elements of the myth of the Hyperboreans appeared frequently within this context. The cultural and religious superiority of the Hyperborean people (of Gotunheimia) was tentatively suggested in his early studies. The northern origin of the (classical) gods, religious doctrines, rituals and beliefs, as 1301 Biörner 1739, 3; Biörner 1741, 27–29; Biörner 1748, 45–47; he seems to identify Nor(e) as Magog and Fornjót, which is confusing. It could mean that he identified Nore with the giant Narfi after Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 128 Fig, and relative to Torfaeus. Check section 4.1.2. 1302 Biörner 1738, 10–14. 1303 Biörner 1739, 3–4, 13; Biörner 1748, 13–15, 45–47, 129–134. 254 well as the runic alphabet and astronomical knowledge, were introduced as a vital part of the civilisation of the noblest Up-Svear. The Hyperborean-Atlantic Temple of Odin/Apollon was where the knowledge was preserved and later taught to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks and so forth. Biörner mentioned, for example, the myths of the Apples of Idun and Hermes/Mercurius (Merkesmän I) as derivative echoes of the civilisation1304. In short, his objective seemed to be to establish that the regions of Gotunheimia were part of the lands and civilisation of the noblest Up-Svear, a notion previously put forward by Rudbeck the Elder in the second and third parts of Atlantica1305. The sages of the ancient Northern civilisation, which Biörner traditionally regarded as “sacred”, that is, of theological nature, are well-trodden. The diffusion of the civilisation is explained likewise along the lines of his predecessors. The secrets were transferred to the Greeks by the two Hyperborean maidens, Loxo and Hecaerge, about whose activities Herodotus had informed. Biörner was quite fascinated by these Hyperborean maidens, and made references to them in several of his studies1306. The accounts of the Hyperboreans were also articulated in Biörner’s arguments for the ancient friendship between these two prisci nationes1307. In addition, Orpheus (as a Thracian Geat), Zalmoxis and Abaris are seen as “our countrymen” who had civilised the classical people. In case of the two latter figures, Biörner cited the previously mentioned forgery of Lundius as his source1308. As part of the tradition of Bureus, Stiernhielm and Rudbeck the Elder, the Skaldic Priests are described as ancient sages and bards from whom the Gaul (Celtic), Germanic tribes and so forth had received the theological knowledge of the ancients.1309 In other words, aside from the larger body of Old Norse writings analysed, the early seventeenth-century ideas of Bureus are manifested almost unchanged in Biörner’s writings in the 1740s. As to the runic alphabet, Biörner pointed to its mathematical, astronomical and esoteric dimensions. He explicitly mentioned the studies of Stiernhielm and Magnus Celsius as his sources1310, and reflected further on the esoteric (hieroglyphic) contents of the runes in his last work. Additionally, in his analysis 1304 Biörner 1748, 12, 30. 1305 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252–283. 1306 E.g. Biörner 1737, 20n; Biörner 1738, 124–132; 1739, 12. 1307 Biörner 1739, 13; Biörner 1748, 32, 52. 1308 Biörner 1737, 21-22, n20; Biörner 1738, 45–52. 1309 Biörner 1738, 3, 74–122. 1310 Biörner 1738, 98–104. 255 of the rune I (is), which he saw as the symbol of “ice”1311, is articulated the esoteric side of the antiquarian tradition, also harking back to Bureus, reflecting the rising interest in the runes among antiquaries and historians of a more esoteric mindset. Moreover, Biörner’s views on the theological beliefs of ancient Northerners are closely related to the myth of the Hyperboreans. In this connection, his views can be categorised into the tradition of prisca theologia. Biörner claimed that the ancient religion and deities had spread from Uppsala (and Gotunheimia) to Egypt. Like his European predecessors he emphasised the Sun-Cult, but did not forget to mention the cults of Earth and Moon, to which Rudbeck the Elder had dedicated the second part of Atlantica1312. Biörner demonstrated that the “Gotunheimians” had been aware of the doctrines of monotheism, the immortality of the soul as well as Creation and Apocalypse. As to the first two beliefs, Biörner argued that the Hyperborean maidens taught these doctrines to the Greeks at the time of Moses. In addition to this, he presented the Hyperborean Apollon as the first manifestation of the monotheistic deity of the Sun. As in the earlier Hyperborean research tradition, the Hyperborean maidens served only Apollon. To Biörner, the worship of the Hyperborean Apollon in Gamla Uppsala had been the first token of monotheism outside Israel.1313 Biörner presented the contents of Hyperborean theology in the light of data from some Eddic poems, which he perceived as the most sacred, non-biblical ancient collection of the doctrines of the true religion. Greek mythology, for instance, was a degenerate version of the original, Northern version. According to Biörner, both the Eddas and Old Testament1314 had two creation myths1315. For him, the Eddas were a token of the high civilisation and beatific character of the people of the North: the rhetoric purpose underlying this statement was to associate this people with the biblical Israelites, an idea that had become more popular after Rudbeck the Younger’s contributions. In addition, if the idea is discussed in the long-term context of politico-historical practices, it can be linked with the practice of claiming one’s nation to be a chosen people, something that Bureus had done over a century and Postel and Becanus two centuries earlier. Biörner deemed the Eddas to be writings with both historical-mythological and theological value. He conducted analyses in which the Eddic writings were 1311 Biörner 1748, 30; the rune is called Isaz, Iss, Is, Isa in distinct runic alphabets. 1312 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. VI, Cap. VIII. 1313 Biörner 1738, n122–132. In this footnote, Biörner referred to certain traditions of prisca theologia. 1314 Genesis 1:1–2:3 & Genesis 2:4–2:24. 1315 In Biörner 1738, 122–196; Biörner 1748, 100ff; Biörner 1748, n129–134. 256 understood as a source for both religious (theological) doctrines and historical events. Hence, in order to understand the historical-mythological and theological levels of the ancient writings, a hermeneutical “key” was required. An example of mythico-theological analyses is how Biörner identified the line of Fornjót with biblical, classical and Eddic figures of the golden age. In his analysis of the Eddic theology, Biörner revealed how the sons of Fornjót, Kare, Loge and Aegir (Neptune/Vulcan/Apollon; Odin/Vile/Ve; Odin/Thor/Frigg, Shem/Ham/Japheth) represented the elementary forces of nature and the doctrine of holy trinity and other doctrines of the natural religion, Christianity.1316 Biörner did not explicitly mention the doctrine of holy trinity in his writings, so it is possible that I have over-interpreted his insights. Biörner did, however, elevate the position of the line of Fornjót to extend the elementary-theological level of the Eddic writings1317. Moreover, he associated them with other ideas of the traditions of “pristine theology”, which, as Walker has shown, not even some of the model exemplars of the “trend” always systematically discussed1318. The prisca theologia is a modern concept of historical construction. It is not in doubt, however, that elements of Biörner’s research represented the Neo-Platonist concept of history. He interpreted the ancient myths as emblematic by nature, having at the same time distinct layers or levels of significance revealing both theological and historical dimensions of ancient history. Moreover, he believed that the most accurate information was to be found from the oldest sources. It was, of course, patriotism that resulted in insisting that the Old Norse writings were the oldest and most accurate of the non-biblical writings and hence described the culture that had provided other famous nations of antiquity with aspects of their civilisations. As such, the older and new ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition were clearly epitomised in Biörner’s research. On the other hand, in the long-term perspective, the change was not significant: Biörner was still a representative of the Neo-Platonist conception of history. His research was, in other words, governed by structures that hark back, to a certain extent, to mediaeval historiography. 1316 As it was shown in his genealogies. See Biörner 1748, 68–79. 1317 Biörner 1748, 127ff. See also his footnotes. 1318 Walker 1972a, introduction. 257 5.2 Johan Göransson and the Chosen Northerners Johan Göransson (1712–1769), the last serious “Hyperborean” scholar, was a peasant’s son from Swedish Värmland. He studied in Lund under the supervision of Lagerbring and emerged in Uppsala around the early 1740s. Göransson was loosely connected to the activities of the Archive of Antiquities. One of his contacts was the learned Count Gustaf Bonde, who was also a patron of Biörner1319. Schück and Lindroth have argued that Göransson did not know Biörner or Bonde; however, there is a mention of Bonde’s excellent library in one of Göransson’s works1320, which suggests they were acquainted (although did not necessary know each other personally). In addition, Göransson had influential supporters among the nobility and the Clergy1321, which might well explain his sudden-emergence in the antiquarian circles. Göransson’s antiquarian career lasted only approximately 10 years. His research mainly resulted in editions and commentaries on the Eddic poems1322 along with Swedish runestones (based partially on Peringskiöld’s drawings)1323. Göransson also constructed genealogies1324 of the lines of the ancient kings of Svear and Geats which, in the manner typical of the time, affiliated to the lines of the current monarchs. On top of that, he published a table in which the sacred language and alphabet (Hebrew) was compared with its ancient Geatic- Hyperborean, runic equivalents, along with other esoterically inspired linguistic- historical-theological works1325. 5.2.1 The Two Faces of Göransson’s Research The historical-antiquarian research of Göransson can be perceived as a crystallisation of the Hyperborean research tradition. In his work the esoteric 1319 Schück 1936, 61–62. 1320 Göransson 1749, 389–390; Bonde 1760, 36, praises “our Christian Cabalist” Göransson. They both esteemed esoteric ideas and developed views on an (Eddic) theosophy. Lindroth regards Bonde and Göransson as acquaintances. However, the source of his notion is unknown to me. If this is the case, also the social background of Göransson (Peasant) may have been a matter of significance? 1321 Some of his works are dedicated to the Count Johan Gyllenborg, whose family-preacher he had served after ordination. Göransson was connected with the abovementioned Tessin family, and the Bishop Anders Rhyzelius (1677–1761), a historian and a Cap-politician, was his admirer. See Lindroth 1978, 654–655. 1322 Check, Göransson 1746, Göransson 1750b. 1323 Check Göransson 1750, especially the introduction. 1324 Check Göransson 1749, Tab; Göransson 1749, passim. 1325 Check Göransson 1747b, which was criticised harshly, to which he responded in Göransson 1748; the historical context and views on the letters and moral-teachings of the Geats, see Göransson 1747. 258 approach of Bureus is combined with the linguistic tradition of Stiernhielm, the zeal about Old Norse writings of Verelius, as well as the enterprise of the two Rudbecks. Moreover, his esoteric, Cabalistic Hyperborean or “Eddic theology” was inspired by Bureus, and the Eddic-classical and biblical comparisons that Lundius and Biörner had made to a lesser extent in their works. Moreover, Göransson was highly familiar with the earlier and contemporary research in the field. This is clear in his genealogical work, in which he discussed the ancient history of Sweden in relation to an impressive amount of European literature1326. In a sense, Lindroth’s characterisation of Göransson as an original human being who was at once a bizarre fanatic and a clear-headed scholar hits the nail on the head1327. This is exemplified by Göransson’s concept of history, which was an original set of ideas. It contains mythico-theological analyses of the Eddas and the Old Testament, requiring a sort of revelation or enlightenment on the one hand and a moderate way of approaching the past through geography, etymology and sceptical ideas related to the tradition of old authors on the other1328. Göransson, for instance, stressed the significance of a solid base; this meant the tradition of old authors which could be used in tandem with the literal and material sources. As will be shown, this binds him to the Humanistic approach to history and the tradition of early modern antiquarianism, which are both expressed in his emphasis on the importance of the geographical and genealogical methods1329. According to Göransson, the chronological foundation of the research should be the Word of God, that is to say, the sacred history of the Bible. He did not oppose using the mythological writings as well as long as they were interpreted within the framework of the Bible. He was strongly opposed, for instance, to earlier contemporaries who had argued that some events of Chinese history had taken place before the Creation. In other words, Göransson thought that the Bible (Old Testament) could not be discarded by pointing to myths1330. As he stated (and I paraphrase), if history wanted to be a part of the sciences (wetenskaper), it could not rest on philosophical conjectures based on fables1331. One should not be deceived into thinking that Göransson was suggesting novel, “modern” methodological ideas. Opposition to the use of myths arose from general developments in European historiography. Some scholars had questioned 1326 Göransson 1749, 300ff. 1327 Lindroth 1978, 652. 1328 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. I–X. 1329 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. IV (geography), Cap. VI (genealogy). 1330 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. I–III. 1331 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. VIII. 259 the traditional “biblical-classical framework” a century earlier. These critical ideas had reached Sweden, where Olof Dalin was the most high-profile representative of them1332. Among the best European examples of the novel ideas was the notorious Prae-Adamitae (1655), by the French theologian Isaac La Peyrère, who had claimed that Adam was the forefather of Hebrews alone and that other peoples (gentiles) were created separately1333. Grafton has illustrated how the crisis of the Bible was articulated in the De emendatione temporum (1583), a chronological work by a sixteenth-century French scholar, Joseph Justus Scaliger1334. While describing the chronology of ancient Egypt, Scaliger invoked “proleptic time” to account for certain events that appeared to have taken place before the Creation1335. Like Scaliger, the Baroque scholar Kircher had noticed the discrepancies between the biblical and Egyptian chronology. He had observed that the Egyptian writings implied that there was continuity between the ante- and postdiluvian history. Similarly, the increasingly popular Chinese history caused chronological confusion among European early modern historical scholars. If the Chinese chronologies held up, Chinese history preceded the Flood1336. Thus, in attacking the mythological sources, Göransson tried to defend the validity of biblical history and, in fact, was a representative of a conservative, biblical (theological) view. However, as will be pointed out below, Göransson was not always able to follow his own principles. Thirdly, for Göransson, history should not “arouse love or hatred”1337. His statement should be understood in the early modern sense. As was shown earlier, such scholars as Stiernhielm, Rudbeck the Elder, Leibniz and Torfaeus subscribed to similar ideals, but ended up being patriotic nonetheless from the perspective of the present-day historiographical ideals. Finally, as to the benefits or value of historical research, Göransson represented a typical early modern scholar of national antiquity. The research could be validated since it provided religious knowledge (the Old Testament) and data about the antiquity of the fatherland1338. 1332 This will be discussed in detail in the section 5.4.1. 1333 La Peyrère 1655, Cap. XXVff. There was a rumour that the book was supported secretly by Queen Christina after her abdication. Bietenholz 1994, 239–243, (on the theories on the pre-Adamite idea). 1334 Stiernhielm used the work in his De Hyperboreis Dissertatio. See section 2.1.2. 1335 Grafton 2007, 245–251. 1336 Allen 1949, Chapters IV–VI, Appendix (translation of Kircher’s Arca Noe); Grafton 2007, 189– 254 (the last chapter Death of a Genre). 1337 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. VII. 1338 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. XI. 260 This last principle demonstrates the two major forces behind Göransson’s (genealogical) research and the society of that time: God and the monarch. 5.2.2 The Scandinavian Antiquity & Gomer the Progenitor Göransson’s views on the ancient Geatic names and the role of ancient Scandinavians in postdiluvian history varied from those of Rudbeck the Elder and Erik Biörner. Thus, the idea that Göransson merely repeated the views of his predecessors is partly erroneous1339. He introduced new ideas and scrutinised the insights of earlier Geatic historians. Göransson disagreed with Biörner and Peringskiöld on the chronology of the line of Fornjót and placed the events of these sagas in the year 600 BC instead; furthermore, he did not identify Fornjót with Boreás or any other classical or Eddic divinity of the golden age1340. Secondly, Göransson fine-tuned the genealogies of the majority of the preceding Geatic historians from Johannes Magnus to Johan Peringskiöld by arguing that it was in fact Gomer and not Magog who should be considered as the progenitor of the Geats1341. Göransson’s definition of the Geats was traditional, though their genealogical relationship to the Scythians and the Hyperboreans was slightly obscure1342. However, his statement on the map and views of the German Cluverius places him firmly into the Hyperborean tradition that had emerged over a hundred years earlier in the unpublished writings of Bureus and Stiernhielm: He was one of the fiercest enemies of our Swedish forefathers or antiquities.1343 Another interesting side of this observation is that Biörner, as noted above, had explicitly discussed the role of Cluverius in his analysis of Tacitus. Therefore, one of the core factors in the Hyperborean research tradition, from Stiernhielm to Göransson, is the use of the work of Cluverius as a sounding board. As was the case with the philological tradition from Bureus and Stiernhielm to Rudbeck the 1339 Lindroth 1978, 652ff, categorised him into ‘Yverborna Skolan’, i.e. ’the Hyperborean School’. 1340 Göransson 1749, Tab: Fornjoter 650 BC; Göransson 1749, 17ff, not among the first 10 kings. 1341 Göransson 1747, 18ff; Göransson 1749, 1–4; see also the table attached to the work. 1342 Göransson 1746, 9, 14: Desse Skythar som kallas Getar ok Götar äro ifrån Svearike utgångne, ok af dem är Skytha, ok Göta, nampn ok folk annor Land utspridit [...] At de förste Skythar varit Götar [...] At Skytharna äro komne ifrån Esterna, Hermännen, Griperna ok de Yfverborna.’’which translates: ‘These Scythians who are called as Getae and Geats have departed from Sweden, and of them are the names Skytha and Göta, name and people spread across other Lands[…] That the first Scythians were Geats […] that the Scythians are coming from the Ester, Hermännen, Griperna and the Yfverborna.’ 1343 Göransson 1749, 392–393: ’Han war en av wåra Svenska Fornfaders eller antiquiteters häftigaste fiende.’ 261 Younger as to the etymology of the term “adulruna” (to give one example), there was coherence in the Hyperborean tradition on the historiographical level. Although there was a unique aspect in Göransson’s research, his place in the Hyperborean research tradition cannot be fully understood without making reference to the main ideas of his predecessors. He identified Scandinavia with Atlantis, Scythia, the Land of the Hyperboreans, and so forth1344. In addition, he analysed thoroughly the account of Hecataeus-Diodorus and identified the Land of the Hyperboreans, as did both Rudbecks, with the Gardens of Hesperides1345. The ancient people of Uppsala were still the noblest, most civilised and beatific “Yfwerborne-Atlingar” for Göransson. They were ruled by the Overking, the etymologised and euhemerised gods from the Eddic and classical myths, whose ancient empire extended from the arctic to Mediterranean. In the golden age of the empire, the Yfwerborne-Atlingar had had impact on the Phoenician, Trojan, Egyptian, Greek and Indian civilisations1346. Moreover, Göransson provided a detailed study of the legendary kings, among which were Apollon/Balder and the father of all Gothic warrior-kings, Berik. The former was claimed to have departed from Scandinavia for Greece a few centuries after the Flood and visited his half-brother, Bruton (the Trojan Brutus) in Britain on the way.1347 In other words, the popular idea of the Scandinavian origin of Western European culture and language being at the core of the Hyperborean tradition (originating in the reflections of Bureus) was articulated in Göransson’s research as well. Göransson based his research on sources that most of his contemporaries deemed to be unreliable. This did not signify that he was unaware of the criticism of the earlier views of the Hyperborean research tradition. He replied to critical views on Swedish antiquity from the domestic and foreign fronts in his genealogical work. Not unlike Biörner, Göransson commented on the theories of the water level in Scandinavia after the Flood, the Island of Atlantis as an echo of the ancient Palestine, and furthermore, cited dozens of classical, mediaeval and early modern authors who had studied, for instance, British, Celtic, German, 1344 Göransson 1746, 18: ‘Sweden has been called by Plato, Diodorus Siculus and others, the Island or Peninsula of Atlingar, the Hyperborean Island and Peninsula. Its other names (are) such as Uggisö, Boresland, Mannaheim, Germanheim, Kungsö (Royal Island), Baldursö, Asariket, Heligö, Göta Ö, Varja Ö, Kemparnas Ö (Champion’s Island); Normänners land (Northerners’ land), Thulö, Askö’. 1345 Göransson 1746, 21–22. 1346 Göransson 1747, 61–91: e.g. Athenian Greek, Cretan, Trojan, Scythian, Thracian, Gaul, Celtic, British, German, Phrygian, Roman (Latin), Tyrrhenian, Ethiopian Lyber (after Rudbeck the Elder’s etymology ‘Libya’), Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Indian, Chinese etc. 1347 Göransson 1746, 1f, (in ‘Gunstige läsäre’/ ‘Favourable reader’); Göransson 1748, 68; Göransson 1749, 1–16. 262 Danish, Gothic, Scythian, Roman, Etruscan, Greek, Trojan, Egyptian and Phoenician antiquity1348. The main underlying assumption of Göransson’s research was that the Eddic myths were a highly reliable source, as long as one was familiar with the specific Northern linguistic–natural circumstances1349. Rudbeck’s impact on him is manifested also in the manner in which he used the account of the Hyperboreans, among certain other classical myths, as “received sources” of Swedish antiquity1350. One of his principal methods was a comparative mythological- theological analysis, in which he comes close to the ideas of Biörner. Considering that they shared a methodological approach to Eddas and a patron (Bonde) as well as worked in the same institute, it is very odd indeed that no traces of their interaction can be found. In any event, Göransson took the use of this method to excess. For him, the Greek and Phoenician myths of a golden age were a southern, mythological-theological variant of the more credible and accurate Eddas, which closely resembled the true history and theology of the Old Testament1351. However, in order to illuminate the historical side of Göransson’s mythico-theological analyses, a few words needs be said about his proposals for Scandinavian genealogies. The insights of Stiernhielm, Rudbeck the Elder and Johan Peringskiöld played a vital role in Göransson’s genealogical views. His main genealogical work was titled Svea rikes konungars historia ok ättartal, ifrån 2200 år före Christum, intil 1749, to which was attached an extensive genealogical table1352. It was added to illustrate, firstly, the distinct groups of sources for the Swedish genealogies he used, and secondly, the genealogies of his predecessors from Ericus Olai to Gustaf Bonde (and Biörner in Nordiska Kämpadater). As to the first matter, he referred to “the Runestone of Ugg the Old”, Eddic poems (Völuspá) which included data about such kings as Bure, Bore, Odin and Nicur. The second group encompassed such classical writings as the “Phoenician Sankuniaton”1353, Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus and Diodorus. The third group 1348 Göransson 1747, 58ff; Göransson 1749, 300–405. 1349 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. V. 1350 Göransson 1746, 18–28. 1351 E.g. Göransson 1746, 31–35; Göransson 1749, Cap. II–III; 300–320. 1352 Göransson 1749, Tab. The copy I have read in the Uppsala University Library (Carolina Rediviva).’The history and genealogy of the Kings of Sweden from the year 2200 before the Christ until 1749’. 1353 Göransson 1749, Cap. II.1. Sankuniaton, a mythical Phoenician author who wrote a work on the religion of the Phoenicians applying euhemeristic models of explanations. All our data about him comes from Eusebius. Bonde and Göransson made references to him. 263 contained Icelandic sagas, of which Göransson foregrounded the Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and Fundinn Noregr. On the second matter, he presented the genealogies of Verelius, Rudbeck the Elder, Kilian Stobaeus, Bonde, Wilde, Stiernman and Dalin among others, and compared them with his own contributions thereafter. Interestingly, he also informed the reader about the ancient Queens of Sweden, a practice uncharacteristic of that time1354. This might be a sign of politeness towards one of his patrons, the Crown Princess Louisa Ulrika of Prussia, who was politically active at the end of the 1740s, or simply a reflection of his Cabalistic tendencies1355. In Göransson’s view, the Eddic poems revealed that Gomer was the first forefather of Scandinavians. He argued that his etymological suggestion for the name Gomer, that is, “Gumer” could be found also in the Bible. The name was etymologically related to the names “Kimbri” or “Cimmeri”. This, it seems to me, was a strategy to present these people as ancient Swedes (in Fennoscandia): Göransson tried to prove that the English Sheringham and Torfaeus, both of whom had touched upon the Empire of the Kimbri in ancient England, Frisia and Denmark, were in error. According to Göransson, Cimmeria (or Kimbria) was in truth the oldest name of Sweden1356. In his chronology, Gomer had settled in Sweden in 2200 BC1357, and was followed by “Askenaz/Prometheus/Fromader”; thus Göransson’s argument is similar to that of Bureus1358, and like Biörner’s, was founded on the genealogical framework of the Bible. Göransson stated that the first two Cimmerian kings were succeeded by Bur(e), the Eddic father of Bore, who was also the subsequent king in the genealogy. This king, named “Bore-Karl”, was identified with the Hyperborean Boreás and the line of Boreades from Hecataeus-Diodorus. This idea harked back to the first part of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica1359. The next king was Odin/Håkan/Åkan, etymologically linked with the Titan “Okeanos” in Greek mythology (i.e. Theogonia of Hesiod). Again, like Rudbeck the Elder, Göransson 1354 The role of the Crown Princess and later Queen of Sweden, Louisa Ulrika of Prussia, who had strong opinions on the absolute monarchy, would be interesting to study in this respect. She has sponsored the works of Biörner, Göransson, and Bonde. Her and Adolph Frederick’s genealogy in Göransson 1749, 299. 1355 Both matters will be discussed later. The first refers to the funding, the second to the Eddic- Cabalistic principle of Sophia (Shekhinah). 1356 Göransson 1749, 1–4; 313ff; 370ff. 1357 Göransson 1749, 1–6, & Tab. His sources are Herodotus, Pliny, Strabo, and so forth. 1358 Göransson 1749, ibidem, but see also Cap. III.2 and 392–405 (Map of Cluverius and Stiernhielm); as to Bureus, see the origin of the term ‘Scandinavia’ – ‘Askenaz’ and its European roots, see section 1.1.2 and Bureus Cod. Holm. Fa.3. 51 ‘ᚠromEtheus Spamadher Scÿtharum’. 1359 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 128 fig. 264 offered further manifestations of this king in adding the title Neptune (Poseidon) to Odin/Håkan1360. Göransson believed this king had introduced the sacred, royal laws in his administrative centre at Uppsala1361. The influence of Lundius – and to a lesser extent, Bureus – on these views is obvious. The fifth king he called Thor/Sator/Tares, the King of Atlantis who had wandered1362 around the known world. The sixth king, Jovir/Magne/Berik/Osiris, was a warrior-king who had migrated all the way to the Mediterranean1363. These ideas are obviously based on the latter parts of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica, in which the expeditions of the first kings of the noblest Up-Swear were described; however, Göransson’s constructions took into account the modifications Peringskiöld had made in his more recent works1364. In the end, the genealogy is similar to that which Göransson had presented in his earlier work, Is Atlinga (1747). In this work he introduced a King called the Hyperborean Apollon/Balder/Niord/Boreás1365. Göransson had also portrayed the expeditions of Apollon/Balder to the Mediterranean in his earlier commentary of Edda (1746) called De yferborna atlingars seller svio-götars ok normäners Edda [...]. He described how this king had fallen in love with Cybilla-Sif and that the Phrygians were their descendants1366. It is slightly unclear whether this Apollon is the same as the Bore-Karl in his genealogical work. In any case, the Hyperboreans were still at the heart of his research. This is shown, for instance, by the manner in which Göransson identified the Eddic Sif and the Hyperborean maidens with the sibylline oracles as his predecessors had done1367. The most confusing and intriguing part of Göransson’s genealogies is the extent to which he discussed them in his two commentaries on the Eddas (1746, 1750) and Bautil (1750) that followed in the next two years. As noted above, the same figures were highlighted in the outlandish Is Atlinga (1747). In these works, he presented the mythical kings as theological constructions, distinguishing them from the euhemerised mythological–historical kings with the same names. The non-mythological names, which are expressed in the runes, referred hence to the hieroglyphic, cabalistic–theological dimension of the Eddic writings. It was this 1360 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, ibid. The etymologies are not identical, but very similar nonetheless. 1361 Göransson 1749, 9 (King number 5). 1362 Also Rudbeck the Elder 1947, Cap. XII, on Thor and his expeditions around the world. 1363 Göransson 1749, 1–16. 1364 Peringskiöld 1713, 12–13, identified Fornjót with Japheth. See section 4.2.2. 1365 Göransson 1747, 57. 1366 Göransson 1746, 25. Cybilla-Sif was significant in the later, theological commentaries of Eddas. 1367 Bureus and Leto, Scythian Sibylla and the Hyperborean maidens, see section 1.1.3; and Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 43f (Sifhella, Disa, Isis and so forth). 265 theological dimension of the Eddic-runic wisdom of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar on which Göransson mostly concentrated in his research. 5.2.3 The Beatific Hyperborean Civilisation The Runic Theology of the “Yferborne-Atlingar” The civilisation of Yfwerborne-Atlingar was an overarching motive in Göransson’s esoteric antiquarianism. He interpreted the ancient wisdom of the people of Uppsala as intrinsically theological, preserved – and hence manifested – in the runestones1368 and the Eddas1369. Göransson’s overall approach recalls those of Bureus and Lundius, whereas his antiquarian side came closer to the views of Rudbeck the Elder and Johan Peringskiöld.1370 However, the historical reality within which the runic and Eddic wisdom of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar emerged played a relatively minor role in his analyses1371. He mentioned the sages Zalmoxis and Abaris, though deemed them to be rather late classical echoes of the Geatic civilisation1372, and proclaimed that the hieroglyphs of the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Greeks had been spread from the ancient Uppsala region.1373 Göransson’s analysis of the runic side of the wisdom of Yfwerborne-Atlingar has indeed striking similarities with Bureus’ reflections 150 years earlier. They both believed that the runic alphabet had been a compendium of literal, mathematical and theological knowledge1374. Additionally, Bureus had fabricated the runic legislator, Byrger Tidasson1375, on the basis of the Eddic poem Hávamál, in which Odin discovered the secrets of the runes by sacrificing himself to himself. By referring to this text Göransson constructed a rune master of his own 1368 His introduction to Bautil, Göransson 1750, introduction, is where this matter is elaborated. 1369 Göransson worked with the Prose Edda (1746), but focussed on Gylfaginning. In the introduction and commentaries of the Poetic Edda, (Völuspá and Hávamál) he praised their theological value. 1370 Göransson 1747, 8–11, 45–53. It is based on Rudbeck’s idea on the spread of the civilisation to Greece, Middle-East and Egypt in particular. Peringskiöld analysed it within the context of the Sign of the Cross and Jovis-Ammon in Peringskiöld 1710, 256–259; also Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 27–28, discussed this sign as one of the ancient symbols of the Geats. Göransson took into account the views of Sheringham and Bochart alongside the domestic predecessors. Göransson 1746, 23–25 discusses the ‘wetenskaper’ (‘disciplines’) and laws of the ancient Scandinavians. The beatific pristine theology of them is crystallised in Göransson 1747, Cap. III, Cap. XI. 1371 The first commentary of the sagas (Göransson 1746, passim) focused on the “worldly” knowledge. 1372 On Abaris and Zalmoxis, Göransson 1746, 23–25; Göransson, 1747, 58–61; Göransson 1749, 320; Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. III). 1373 Göransson 1747, Cap. 16ff (p. 45ff). 1374 On Bureus, see section 1.1.4; Göransson 1747, passim; 1749, introduction Cap. II, Cap. V. 1375 E.g. Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 15. 266 – the progenitor of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar, Gomer (Gumer)1376, whom he also identified with the first Odin, that is, the Alfader1377. As did most early modern scholars focusing on the hieroglyphs, Göransson developed his views within the context of the history of language. This subject was at the heart of Is Atlinga, and his smaller studies on the nature of Ancient Hebrew1378. In short, Göransson argued that the Ancient Hebrew language and alphabet were the oldest in the world. Gomer developed the runic alphabet of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar on the basis of this original Adamaic one1379. Logically, this meant that Göransson thought that Noah and hence Japheth and Gomer had been initiated into the secrets of the alphabet, an idea to which many of the Cabalistic scholars involving Bureus had subscribed. In other words, for him the pristine theology was preserved in a sacred tradition that could be traced back in Adam. According to Göransson, the order of the runic alphabet was not a result of historical or random development, but had been created to preserve the doctrines of monotheism and holy trinity: these doctrines were manifested in the first six runes, traditionally referred to as the Futhark (ᚠᚢᚦᚬᚱᚴ). Göransson argued that they formed the word “futhar” (ᚠᚢᚦᚬᚱ), which was, according to him, etymologically linked to word “father”1380, and symbolised the same principle in theology. The three runes from the third to the fifth formed a word, “thar” (ᚦᚬᚱ) which was etymologically related to the word “Thar/Thor”, and was the symbol of Christ and the son of God. The last two runes “rk” (ᚱᚴ), formed a word “rig”, the original form of the Norse goddess Frigga, the symbol of the Holy Ghost (and the Mother of God?).1381 1376 In Is Atlinga, Gomer is also Thor, which would fit in Rudbeck the Elder’s genealogies in which Thor was Attin, the first Odin, and thus Magog, on whom Göransson 1747, 18–19, 129; Göransson 1749, Tab. disagreed with Rudbeck the Elder and agreed with Bureus: Gomer and Ashkenaz were amongst the first Scandinavian forefathers. 1377 Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. IV). 1378 Göransson 1747b, passim; Göransson 1748, passim. These analyses are a mixture of phonetic- linguistic-esoteric ideas which are mostly out of my field of expertise. 1379 This is implied in his Göransson 1747, Cap. 1, which focuses on asserting that the knowledge in the runic alphabet was based on the Hebrew letters. This, as the name of his linguistic study, Outline for the Holy Language which God himself spoke to Adam […], refers that he believed to such theory on the original language, in which the theological knowledge harked back to Adam. 1380 Göransson 1746, 1, argued that the Hyperborean Maidens (oracles) were teaching the doctrine of one God soon after the Flood; check also Göransson 1750b, Introduction. 1381 Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. IV-VI); Göransson 1747, Cap 8, this Is, which Biörner and Bonde analysed, symbolises the Hebrew Jehovah, the one God. The shapes of rune Fe (wealth) and Madur (man) symbolises the holy trinity and the crucified Christ-Odin, in Göransson 1747, Cap. 10– 11. Modern interpretation of Rig is that he was related to Heimdallr as the Father of Mankind. Davidson 1964, chapter 7.5. 267  The affinity between the runic-Cabala of Bureus and Göransson is obvious. Nonetheless, I have found no mentions of the manuscripts of Bureus in Göransson’s works1382. This is puzzling, for it seems that Göransson elaborated the insights of Bureus by using some Eddic poems and the analysis of such manuscripts as Antiqiitates Scanzianae. Because of this lack of textual evidence, one could argue that there is no conclusive proof that Göransson followed Bureus’ views. On the other hand, the facts that they both referred to a rune master and were Cabalists strongly imply that Göransson was well-acquainted with and valued Bureus’ views. If nothing else, the similarities between their works demonstrate the coherence of the Hyperborean research tradition. In addition, even if the assumption that Bureus influenced Göransson is incorrect, the similarities between their approaches bear out an important observation. Although Göransson followed Rudbeck’s “Atlantic vision” at large, his general outlook on the past is closer to that of Bureus. For Bureus, Hyperborean wisdom was the pristine wisdom of Adam, whereas for Rudbeck, it was “idolatry of the classical world”1383. As a result, it can be concluded that the term “Rudbeckianism” is not sufficient to define the range of ideas even in the post-Rudbeck Hyperborean research tradition. The Northern Israel of the Eddas Göransson was convinced that certain Eddic poems and the Old Testament could be interpreted at once literally, as writings of actual events, and emblematically, as concealed allegories or myths fabricated to preserve the sacred theology for the initiated1384. Göransson’s interpretation of the geography in certain Eddic poems epitomised this mythico-theological approach. The joyful and beatific life that is portrayed in the myths of the golden age, that is, the Ida Valley1385, were symbols of the Garden of Eden and the Paradise in the Bible, whereas the cold and desolate Jotunheim, the Northern variant of the Underworld, symbolised the biblical Hell.1386 Furthermore, the idea of the blessed land of the Hyperboreans is presented as part of this strange geographical theogony in Göransson’s last 1382 Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. I): on the lost copper drawings in the runestones. 1383 See section 3.2.2. 1384 Best expressed in Göransson 1749, Introduction (Cap. II, Cap. V). Recalls the classification of their chronological relationship of e.g. Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 8; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, Cap. II. 1385 Based on Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff; Rudbeck 1947, 252ff, and his ideas of Jotunheim and Mount Ida where the Hyperboreans had lived. Göransson just elaborated its theological contents. 1386 Göransson 1750b, 5–6. 268 commentary on the Eddas (1750), De yfverborna atlingers eller Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners patriarkaliska lära [...]. Göransson argued that the accounts of the line of Boreades could be interpreted as an emblematic narrative of pristine theology as well. In his view, the (historical) Eddic king Bore, identified with Boreás in his previous genealogical work1387 represented the principles of Heaven and Creator. His three sons, Atin, Vile and Ve were symbols of the doctrine of the holy trinity. Obviously, his interpretation of the Eddas proves that Göransson’s idea of the knowledge of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar was based on the traditions of pristine theology. However, he took this tradition to the extreme. Göransson’s objective was to prove that the ancient theological system of the Yfwerborne-Atlingar had been a form of pristine theology in which the doctrines of Lutheran Christianity had been articulated. He had already introduced this breathtaking idea in De yverborna atlingars eller sviogötars ok nordmänners Edda, a work published in 1746. Göransson suggested that the ancient people of Uppsala had carved the doctrines of pristine theology on brazen tablets centuries before Troy was built, that is, around the time of Moses1388. In my view, Göransson also wanted to stress the resemblance between the tablets and Moses Tablets of Laws. Hence, the Eddic poems were almost equal to the Bible and the Yfwerborne-Atlingar identical to the Israelites. As well as the progenitor Gomer/Odin and King Bore, Göransson highlighted the Old Norse god Thor and his alleged wife Sif on multiple occasions. Göransson gave evidence of Thor’s distinct mythico-theological and euhemerised manifestations1389. The abovementioned statement about his identification between the Yfwerborne and the Israelites can be supported by referring to his construction of “The Commandments of Thor” in his Is Atlinga1390. Moreover, the Eddic Thor was also a theological symbol: he was Thor (runic Thar, ᚦᚬᚱ), but also Apollon, as well as the Christ who would in the future deliver mankind from Jörmungandr, Python and Satan respectively1391. Thus, in my view, Göransson thought that the Eddic/Hyperborean/biblical seers/Sibyllae/prophets had received a divine revelation about the future in which the true sacred history was disclosed. 1387 Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 128 fig. See also section 3.1.2, and compare with Göransson 1750b, 1ff. 1388 Göransson 1746, Cap. VIII. 1389 Göransson 1750b, 7, claims that Thor was the symbol of Sun (Apollon and Balder) for the people of antiquity. He was also the Greek Heracles, Egyptian Thoth, Hermes Trismegistos, the Persian Zoroaster, Chinese Fohi (Fu-Xi) and so forth. 1390 Göransson 1747, 118–129; Göransson 1750b, 9–13. 1391 Göransson 1750, 6–8. 269 In Is Atlinga, Göransson insisted that the Eddic clairvoyants (in Völuspá) had prophesied the Nativity and, furthermore, that the enlightened Rune Master had hidden the names “Iehova” and “Iesus” in the runic alphabet1392. Of the Eddic clairvoyants, Sif, the Hyperborean Sibylla, who had received the revelation of the Christ1393, was the most important. She was the original source of the stories of the Hyperborean maidens, and also, in his early (genealogical) history, the wife and queen of the famous traveller-king the enlightened Thor/Balder/Apollon.1394 Finally, it is important to observe that despite his esotericism, Göransson claimed that the first version of the Eddic theology was introduced in ancient Uppsala, not in Iceland where the Old Norse literature had emerged1395. This idea rested on Rudbeck the Elder’s theory in Atlantica. Rudbeck had insisted that the Icelandic sagas derived from earlier oral or textual traditions, which the skaldic poets of Uppsala had distributed to latter generations1396; it was the very civilisation of Yfwerborne-Atlingar, illustrated in the Eddas. In one sense, Göransson’s purpose was to monopolise the historical reality of the Eddic myths for Sweden. Therefore, as in the case of Bureus, the underlying context of these claims was the literal war against Denmark, and ultimately Göransson was responding to Torfaeus’ influential criticism. 5.3 Gustaf Bonde: The Last Hyperborean “Hub” 5.3.1 Bonde: the Scholar and the Patron Count Gustaf Bonde (1682–1764) played a twofold role as a historian and a patron in the final phase of the Hyperborean research tradition. As well as being an avid scholar Bonde had a prominent political career. Alongside his political responsibilities, he held the positions of the Chancellor of the University of Uppsala, the Preses Illustris of the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala1397, the President of the Swedish Board of Mines, was a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Letters, and the Supervisor of the 1392 Göransson 1747, passim, but especially the chapters 3, 7–8, 10–11, 13–14. 1393 Göransson 1750, 11 (introduction). interpreted as the principle of “Cabala” and “Sophia” as well as Lógos, Shekhinah (Cabala) etc. Also identified with other Mediterranean and Eddic divinities. Göransson 1747, Cap. II; Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. VII); Göransson 1750b, 8–14. 1394 Göransson 1750, Introduction (Cap. VIII). 1395 Göransson 1746, 35. 1396 E.g. Göransson 1746, ibid. An idea that is articulated in each of his work. 1397 Established by the famous Erik Benzelius the Younger in 1710. 270 Archive of Antiquities. Bonde, who was described as a well-mannered and polite gentleman, achieved his political peak in the 1730s. He was a stern royalist being loosely affiliated to the political interest group called the Caps, and favoured an alliance with France1398. Bonde suffered his worst political setback in 1738 when the Caps party was defeated and the Hats seized power in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag of the Estates)1399; he withdrew from public life, retired to his estates and focused on the realm of knowledge as a patron and author1400. He made a comeback in 1756 when the Caps momentarily came into power after the disastrous misjudgements (wars) of the Hats. In the same year, Bonde assumed the office of the Supervisor of the Archive of Antiquities.1401 Bonde wrote several historical studies which demonstrate that he was familiar with the intellectual trends of that time. Bonde’s historical–linguistic treatise on the origin of the Finns1402 discussed the problematic position of the Finnish language in the light of the sagas of the line of Fornjót and the theories of the Lost Tribes of Israel. This study was presented in the Academy of Letters of Queen Louisa Ulrika. Bonde largely followed the theories of Rudbeck the Younger on the matter, identifying the Finnish people with one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. He also introduced a notion that some tribes had migrated all the way to the New World (Boston)1403. Otherwise, Bonde referred to Messenius as he presented the ideas of Finns as descendants of Mesech and Tubal, as well as pointed to Peringskiöld’s interpretation of certain runestones. Biörner’s studies on the Varangians and the idea of Finns as people of Hunnic origin are mentioned in the work as well1404. Bonde had conducted several other historical studies before the abovementioned works1405. He treated the history of the Svear and Geats in his 1398 Norrhem 2007, 82–87, 91, 140. Bonde’s wife, Charlotte von Liewen (1683–1735), was one of the politically active noblewomen of that time. She appears to have held a formidable impact on her husband and, to a lesser degree, the domestic politics. The family of Von Leuwen’s were also in the royal circles of Louisa Ulrika of Prussia later, so the circles were small. 1399 The Caps were basically relying on cautious policy after the Great Northern War, whereas the Hats wanted to restore the Great Power by aggressive foreign policy (an alliance with France). 1400 Edenborg 1997, 18–19, revealed that Bonde belonged to the tradition of early modern Swedish scholars with an interest in the esoteric. See e.g. Bonde 1755, passim. The count practised alchemical experiments and sought the ultimate symbol of wisdom, the “Philosopher’s Stone” (from a rather unusual place), as Edenborg 1997, passim, demonstrated. 1401 Schück 1936, 138–142, argues that Bonde held no true power over the institute. 1402 Bonde 1755, passim. 1403 In this, one of the unpublished handwritten manuscripts of Rudbeck Jr. in which he studied the languages of the indigenous Americans springs to mind. See Rudbeck the Younger, U.B. R 12. b. 1404 Bonde 1755, 24–38. 1405 His collaboration with Biörner, Nordiska Kämpadater (1737) in which his contributions were the translations of the Saga of King Hrolf kraki and Ättartahl på swenska kongungar och drottningar. 271 minor work on the ancient kings, aristocrats and rulers of the two tribes, in which he deemed Johannes Magnus to be an unreliable source1406. Instead, Bonde based his account on a study of Scanian antiquities by Rudbeck the Elder’s nephew, Petter Rudbeck, and hence, as Lindroth has noted, Bonde was also interested in antiquarian research1407. Moreover, along with his maiden speech1408 for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in 1760 Bonde published a work on sacred history in which the biblical chronology was compared with other secular writings of antiquity and explained in a slightly esoteric light1409. This work contains interesting references to the history of the early nations and the diffusion of pristine (theological-philosophical) tradition of knowledge. For instance, Bonde, compared the time of Abraham with that of Rudbeck’s euhemerised and etymologised king (Necken)1410, using the Talmud and its “Northern equivalents”, including the Eddas1411. 5.3.2 Bonde and the Hyperborean Research Tradition Sten Lindroth has suggested that Bonde never highlighted the ideology of Atlantica in his works. Nonetheless, Lindroth has called Bonde a Rudbeckian1412. Whether he actually was a Rudbeckian or shared the vision is a complex question. The fact that he never cited Rudbeck’s Atlantica in his studies would seem to speak against the notion; on the other hand, my analysis of his 1748 speech on the diffusion of sciences strongly suggests that Bonde was inspired by certain ideas in Atlantica. (Of course, he may have derived the insights that appear to be founded on Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica from the works of Peringskiöld, Biörner and Göransson.) It will be shown at the end of the chapter that my claim about the Rudbeckianism of Bonde, as was the case with Lundius, Peringskiöld and Biörner Bonde, and Biörner, emphasised the role of Odin Alfader (All Father) as the progenitor, whom they identified with Fornjót. Also, the translation of the saga was related to the Scandinavian–English tradition of the King Beowulf, describing events in Scandinavia, which some scholars have seen as proof of the fights between the Svear and the Geats. Bonde studied the role of Svear and Geats in following work, Bonde 1758. 1406 Bonde 1758, 6–7, 9ff, related the key ideas of the ancient Geatic wisdom and so forth. 1407 Lindroth 1978, 644–645. 1408 Inträdes-tal om vetenskapernes fortplantning, […] (1748); The entry-speech on the diffusion of sciences. The term ‘vetenskap’ should be comprehended as ‘domains of knowledge’, in this context. 1409 E.g. Bonde 1760, 36 (Cabala and Göransson); 42ff. (’On the Egyptian Hermes’ or ’the Platonic- Christian Pimander’). See also Edenborg 1997, passim. 1410 Bonde 1760, 10–14. 1411 Bonde 1760, 106. 1412 Lindroth 1978, 643, 646. 272 earlier in the thesis, is based rather on a conceptual obscurity of the term than empirical analysis (close-reading) of the texts. Bonde’s speech to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1748 can be characterised as a general history of letters in which the origin of knowledge was related to biblical history. Thus, even though rhetoric elements may have played a role in it, the speech can be argued to provide an overview of Bonde’s idea of history1413. At the end of his speech, Bonde treated the matters of the “beloved fatherland” by discussing the runic alphabet, the Eddas and the emergence of ancient Scandinavians in the classical writings1414. Additionally, Bonde affiliated the ancient Scandinavians with the tradition of pristine knowledge. He began the speech by describing how God had taught Adam in distinct fields of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. The first men had thereby possessed a compendium of knowledge, which had, however, degenerated after the Flood. Components of this knowledge were preserved by the following generations, which signified to Bonde such initiated individuals as Noah and his sons. Some crumbs of this secret tradition were preserved in the traditions of the gentiles among the early nations; however, it was but a shadow of the pristine knowledge of Adam1415. The term “shadow” is most telling, since it refers to the Platonist idea of decay of knowledge (after the golden age). Hence, Bonde can be placed in the same tradition of research as Bureus and Rudbecks, Lundius, as well as the Biörner and Göransson, whose views included a biblical framework for their Neo-Platonist concept of history1416. Bonde believed that the tradition of knowledge spread rapidly during the first 350 years of Noah’s life. The knowledge was revealed to the first Egyptian Hermes1417 (known also with the names Thoth, Toor, Edris and Henoch1418). The first Hermes initiated his son into the tradition. This son was the second Hermes, but is also designated as Osiris/Mercurius in some sources. The third Hermes (Agathodaemon), the Egyptian Apophis, the Persian Magi and several other ancient sages had possessed fragments of the knowledge before or around the 1413 This statement can be supported by the abovementioned work of Bonde, (which he would be publishing in the future in 1760), on the universal history. I am aware that my explanation rests on an anachronism here, that is, that Bonde’s conception of history had not changed significantly after the speech in 1748. 1414 Bonde 1748, 21–29. 1415 Bonde 1748, 4, 12. 1416 See section 3.2.2. 1417 Bonde supported the traditional notion on 3 distinct Hermes-named sages from where the name Trismegistos derived. Compare with the 5 Mercurs of Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 98–102. 1418 Bonde 1748, 8–9; and Bonde 1760, 42ff, confirms my argument of his coherent concept of history. 273 time of Moses. In those days idolatry and black magic emerged among the non- Israelites, whereas the Patriarchs (of the Old Testament) had used magic in its “natural form”1419. Bonde cited the Phoenician Sankuniaton, whom Göransson had valued highly, in this context. In addition, he thought that the myths of the golden age (the Age of Saturn) were of value as sources of early history. Otherwise, his account rested on the Old Testament, Hermetic, Neo-Platonist and other esoteric writings from the Hellenistic Period. In the case of the three distinct Hermes, it is clear that he was not referring to them as Merkesmän in the spirit of Atlantica, because he would have discussed the other two of the five Mercurius’ Rudbeck the Elder had introduced in the last, unfinished part of Atlantica1420. Bonde pointed to the descendants of Japheth as the ancient inhabitants of Asia and Eastern Europe. He argued that the European-Asian Japhetic race and such mythical teachers as the Chinese Fohi1421 (Fu–Xi) had preserved the tradition of knowledge1422. In fact, Bonde interpreted the accounts of the mythical teachers among all prisci nationes as echoes of Noah. Thus, the Bible had massive authority in Bonde’s works. Unlike in the patriotic ideas of Göransson, for him the other mythical writings such as the Eddic poems were but derivative echoes of the sacred, biblical history.1423 With respect to the history of the beloved fatherland, Bonde discussed runes as part of other ancient alphabets, and saw them as hieroglyphs of significant antiquity. In addition, he stressed the Eddic poems as expressions of the pristine theology. Bonde also noted the ancient oracle Sif, who is presented among the prisci theologi that had received the knowledge either through a divine revelation or secret tradition. In Bonde’s view, Sif had predicted the Creation, and portrayed Heaven and Hell as well as the End of the World (Ragnarök), as the Seer’s forecast (Völuspá) proved1424. Although Bonde did not pursue the matter to the same extent as Rudbeck the Elder or Göransson, his idea of a pristine Eddic and runic civilisation of the “Hyperborean” sages, such as the Northern Sibyllae, is a sign of the shared set of beliefs, that is, a tradition of research, between these scholars. 1419 Bonde 1748, 12. 1420 Rudbeck the Elder 1950, 98f. It is possible that he did not have the unpublished manuscript of Rudbeck the Elder’s 4th Atlantica at hand. 1421 He was a mythical emperor and teacher of Chinese people who was said to have no father. 1422 As in Göransson 1749, Introduction (Cap III). 1423 Bonde 1748, 16–20. 1424 Bonde 1748, 21–22. 274  Reference to the Hyperboreans is to be found in Bonde’s work as well. It emerges as he identified Sif with Sibylla: “She has been also called as the Spokeswoman of the Hyperborean Apollon…and lived in the North in an unknown family”. Bonde suggested that Sibylla had been acquainted with antediluvian events. This is attested to by a reference to the Eddic myths of Ask and Embla or Yme and Adumbla, which Bonde saw as northern echoes of Adam and Eve in the Bible.1425 He also characterised Sif as the teacher of “Fornum Jothum”, a reference to Fornjót and his line1426. Thus, Bonde indisputably followed the Hyperborean research tradition of Bureus, Lundius, Biörner and Göransson in which Sif is esoterically interpreted as the Northern Sibylla of Apollon, and which also reflects Rudbeck’s Atlantica1427. Bonde made mentions of other Eddic figures such as Yme, Bur(e) and Berg- Thor. The latter is “the mountain-Thor” who Bonde regarded as the Eddic manifestation of Noah. His reasoning is based on the epithet “mountain”, which he saw as a reflection of Mount Ararat where the Ark had been situated after the flood waters subsided (Gen. 8:4). The Eddic Bore was the descendant of (Berg- Thor/Noah), and hence Japheth and the father of the subsequent Northern progenitors, Odin (Magog), Vili (Shem/Ham), and Ve (Shem/Ham). Thereafter, Bonde focused solely on the line of Boreades. He continued the speech by claiming that Hyperborea or Helixoia was the location from which the Greeks had received the doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the alphabet and the golden number 19. The account of Hecataeus–Diodorus and the De Hyperboreis Dissertatio of Stiernhielm are cited as the sources of these views1428. It seems obvious that Bonde utilised also the insights of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica, the works of Lundius and Peringskiöld. Stiernhielm, never mind Diodorus Siculus, never mentioned Berg-Thor or Bergelmer in his works. Bonde may have wanted to emphasise Stiernhielm as his source because his writings had a less controversial reputation than Atlantica, and particularly the dubious domestic runic manuscripts of Lundius, in the contemporary discussions. Bonde elaborated his description of the ancient philosophical-theological knowledge by providing a short account of its diffusion. He argued that the 1425 Bonde 1748, 22–23. 1426 Bonde 1748, 22. 1427 Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 43, in which Sif is possibly identified with Freya and Leto-Latona on the bases of comparison between Saemundr Edda and Diodorus Siculus. 1428 Bonde 1748, 22–23. 275 ancient Drottar, that is, the Skaldic priests of the sagas1429, can be identified with the Celtic Druids. According to Bonde, these “Scandinavian Druids” had migrated to the Continent and taught the rest of the Europeans many of the greatest achievements of the classical civilisation. Hence Bonde highlighted the idea of the northern origin of classical culture and, most importantly, within the same historical–political framework as Bureus and Stiernhielm over 100 years earlier in their unfinished and unpublished manuscripts1430. In addition, Bonde described the Geatic sages, Abaris and Orpheus and accounted for their abilities in poetry and music. Like Bureus and Stiernhielm in this context, Bonde claimed that they had mastered other civilised arts of a more secular nature1431. Intriguingly, Bonde adverted likewise to the legendary Gothic philosophers, Athanaridi, Eldevaldi and Macromiri1432. This indicates that the Geatic view of history had still significance in the intellectual culture of that time and that the Hyperborean research tradition was an intrinsic part of it. Otherwise, if one presumes that Bonde regarded his reputation as significant, he would not have proclaimed such an image of Swedish antiquity in front of the sophisticated listeners of the Academy of Letters. 5.4 The Hyperborean Research Tradition under Pressure 5.4.1 The Developing Diversity in the Research into Swedish Antiquity It was previously stated that because of the slowly changing intellectual climate, the 1750s was a period in Swedish research into national antiquity when fairly diverse views could co-exist. Wallette has analysed the change in Swedish historiography in the eighteenth century from the point of view of the Icelandic sagas. According to her, the manner in which the sagas were interpreted played a pivotal role in the crumbling of what I have called the Hyperborean research tradition1433. Urpilainen illuminated the social and political changes that took place in (academic) historical research of the first half of the eighteenth century1434, whereas Schück, Bennich-Björkman and to a lesser extent Lindroth 1429 Chapter II. of the Ynglinga Saga, which Bonde knew well because of his collaboration with Biörner on the Scandivian sagas. Also Stiernhielm 1685, 136, 139, brought up the topic. 1430 Bonde 1748, 24ff. That of Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 1431 Bonde 1748, ibid. 1432 Bonde 1748, 24–27. 1433 Wallette 2004, 169–222, gives a good summary of the modern studies in the field as well. 1434 Urpilainen 1993, see the English Summary. 276 demonstrated the change in historical research from a broader historiographical and institutional perspective1435. They have convincingly proven, for instance, that Rudbeckianism as a form of Swedish Gothicism (i.e. the Hyperborean research tradition), was quickly losing ground relative to elements that are deemed to be modern in present-day historical research. However, instead of merely repeating old results or focusing on the “modern” elements in the works of the critical historians, I have decided to change the angle from which to examine the texts. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether certain older elements typical of the Hyperborean research tradition were articulated in the research of the so-called critical historians. This will provide a more diverse sample of the process that led to a change in Swedish research into national antiquity and, moreover, reveal which aspects of the research, if any, were governed by the long-term intellectual set of (historiographical) beliefs or short-term political conditions. The “Critical” Historians: Wilde, Dalin and Lagerbring Jacob Wilde (1679–1755) was a scholar of German-Baltic origin. He was the Professor of Law, Eloquence, History and Greek at different Swedish universities, as well as the Swedish Rikshistoriograf (1719–1755). His main work, Historia Pragmatica, was completed in the 1722, which the Crown did not approve and, as a result, it was not published before 1731. In this massive work he treated the history of law, but made no references to Zalmoxis as the mythical legislator. He analysed the popular sagas on Fornjót and placed him within the earliest history of Scandinavia around 400 BC, as a precursor of the Asian (Aesir) Odin1436. As Lindroth has shown, Wilde’s idea of the value of Herodotus’ description of the Scythians as a source of Scandinavian history was followed by some contemporaries.1437 Most of Wilde’s interpretation of Swedish antiquity is captured in chapter two of Historia Pragmatica. He discussed the value of the works of Rudbeck the Elder and Torfaeus. The former’s Atlantica was, alongside Stiernhielm’s Anticluverius and De Hyperboreis Dissertatio, as well as Lagerlööf’s Suecia, 1435 Bennich-Björkman 1970, 195–197, 242–243. In detail, see Schück 1936, 1–234. 1436 Wilde 1731, 141ff. References to Rudbeck and Torfaeus or Verelius about the case of Jotunheim, Thorri, Norri, relative to Odin and Svithjod and Vanaheim, Mannaheim, etc. are constant. 1437 On Wilde, see Lindroth 1978, 658–665; Urpilainen 1993, 43–44. 277 deemed to be too patriotic to be taken seriously1438. The same applied to ideas of the Goths that dwelled in Scandinavia prior to Odin. The earlier were “Gettar” (Jättar), which harked back to the term “Jotunheim” (Giants)1439. Thus, Wilde was also somewhat critical towards some of the ideas of Torfaeus, who had placed Goths in Scandinavia as part of his theory of its settlement1440. However, although Wilde ridiculed Rudbeck and the extreme ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition, he still followed the main lines of the early modern Swedish and European discourse of national antiquity and the early history of the world1441. Olof Dalin (1708–1763) and his work Svea Rikes Historia were of major importance in the discussions of Swedish antiquity in the 1750s1442. His models were historical works of the intellectuals of Paris, such as Paul de Rapin and Charles Rollin, along with the Danish Ludvig Holberg1443. Dalin strived to dissect and refute the ideas of Rudbeck the Elder and Johannes Magnus. More importantly, he was very critical towards Biörner and Göransson, who, in return, attacked the credibility of Dalin and his theory of water diminution. On the basis of his theory, Dalin argued that Scandinavia was an archipelago after the Flood, and to him it was obvious that no advanced culture could thrive in such an environment1444. Dalin based his views on the laws of nature revealed by the increasingly popular experimental sciences. He remarked that explanations of science should surpass the authority of the Bible, an unusually bold statement in the contemporary context. Dalin said the same about the authority of Rudbeck’s Atlantica1445, by which he (in my view) referred generally to the tradition of research that I have called the Hyperborean. Unsurprisingly, Dalin’s theory evoked strong opinions and, as Urpilainen has shown, led to governmental responses. He was attacked by theologians and also Jacob Wilde, from whose work Dalin drew some inspiration. In the 1747 Parliament, the infuriated Clergy suggested the work to be censored. The other critical historians, such as Sven Lagerbring and Anders of Botin, as well as the “Hyperboreans” Göransson and Biörner, were utterly censorious of these 1438 Wilde 1731, 33–34. 1439 Wilde 1731, 153ff. ‘Jätte’, ‘Giätte’ = ‘giant’ even in modern Swedish. Phonetically g is pronounced in some cases as j, - which corresponds the English y (as in ‘you’). 1440 Wilde 1731, Cap. 2. XX. 1441 Wilde 1731, e.g. 141. 1442 The three volumes were published in 1747, 1750, 1760–1761. 1443 Lindroth 1978, 666–667. 1444 Dalin 1747, 6. Lindroth 1978, 285, 667–668; Wallette 2004, 176ff. Such theories were not unique. Isaac Newton, Urban Hiärne and Emmanuel Swedenborg suggested similar ideas. Dalin also referred to Anders Celsius’ theory on evaporation as the cause of the continental rebound in Scandinavia. 1445 Lindroth 1978, ibid; Dalin 1747, 1–6. 278 particular views in Dalin’s work1446. I discussed the methodological principles of Göransson earlier and pointed out that he regarded the Bible as the undisputed baseline for the historical research1447. Even though it can be argued that the “Hyperborean historians” represented the most conservative views of the historiographical spectrum, Dalin’s challenge to not only the earlier Geatic tradition (Rudbeck) but the authority of the Bible is a sign of the diversity of the ideas in Swedish historiography in the 1750s. As to the role of the natural laws, or “natural circumstances” as Rudbeck the Elder had called them, these limits were encompassed in the sources (myths) of aspects that went “against nature”, such as werewolves (Göransson’s example), which needed to be interpreted naturally1448. In other words, even though Rudbeck, Biörner and Göransson were not against explaining monsters and other unnatural elements in the sources rationally, they took the biblical chronology and tradition of biblical forefathers (Magog, Gomer and so forth) living in Scandinavia for granted. Thus, they all appreciated the method of rationalising the mythical elements of the sources; their disagreement concerned its validity. Although Wilde and Dalin, along with a later contemporary, Sven Lagerbring (1707–1787), are quite correctly described as critical, their criticism needs to be understood relative to the most conservative side of the Geatic views of history. Their thought contained elements that would be considered “uncritical” from the present-day historiographical viewpoint; and each one of these three historians developed views that represented the older structures, that is, those of the Geatic view of history. Dalin, for instance, referred to the ancient Scandinavians as people with tentative knowledge of the doctrines of the holy trinity and monotheism and, as Lindroth has noted, argued that they had been a simple and pious people1449. Lagerbring, in the first part of his Svea Rikes Historia (1769), accepted the identification of the Lost Tribes of Israel and Finns and Sámi, whereas the Geats had reached Sweden around the time of the Nativity, when Odin came to Scandinavia from the south1450. This verifies my earlier claim about the 1750s as a period in which very diverse views on national histories could co- exist. 1446 Urpilainen 1993, 45. 1447 Göransson 1749, introduction Cap. I–III. 1448 Göransson 1749, Introduction II–IV. 1449 Dalin 1747, Cap. 2.2, 2.4, Cap. 5, Cap. 6. See also Lindroth 1978, 668–670. 1450 Lagerbring 1769, 44–48. 279  Dalin, Wilde and Lagerbring did not study the postdiluvian civilisation and runic-Eddic theology of the Hyperborean-Atlantic people like Biörner or Göransson. The Rudbeckian ideas of identifying the line of Fornjót with Japheth and several other figures of the myths1451, which Wilde also mentioned1452, or the runic wisdom of the Yferborne that had spread around the world from the North, did not interest Lagerbring either. Therefore the practice of referring to the idea of the Lost Tribes of Israel should not be confused with the more politically motivated ideas of “Yferborne Uppsala” and so forth. In my opinion, Lindroth has slightly overplayed the “Yferborne sympathies” of Lagerbring1453 in this connection. Lagerbring did ridicule the idea of Swedish Atlantis in Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica. In addition, he opposed the (Geatic) idea of Magog as the progenitor of Sweden1454, a tradition which the vast majority of Swedish historians since Johannes Magnus had accepted. As to the history of Finland, Lagerbring somewhat concurred with the theories of “Northern Israel” of Rudbeck the Younger1455, but not the conclusions of his Atlantica Illustrata. In regard to the line of Fornjót, he thought the views of Messenius were the most believable. In his mind, however, this line had emerged earlier than Torfaeus had argued in his history of Norway, to whom Lagerbring otherwise adverted constantly in Svea Rikes Historia1456. As Wallette has recently proven, Lagerbring and Dalin were critical towards the use of runestones, archaeological excavations and myths – that is, the antiquarian sources or methods – in their research1457. They valued the method of referring to the tradition of old authors, although, Lagerbring was sceptical towards most classical writings1458, which, as naturally follows, was the reason for him to dispute the Atlantic-Hyperborean theories but not the ideas of the Israelite origin of the Finns and Sámi. Despite his criticism, Lagerbring was still willing to accept biblical evidence. The same diversity, even within one historian’s work, is manifested in the manner in which Wilde, Lagerbring and 1451 Dalin 1747, 75; Wilde 1731, 71; and Lagerbring 1769, 7–8, 34ff, pointed to the line of Fornjót, but as much later inhabitants of Scandinavia and Finland. 1452 Wilde 1731, 69. 1453 Lindroth 1978, 683. 1454 Lagerbring 1769, 29–30. 1455 Lagerbring 1769, 45–46. In fact, he follows also Messenius, Schefferus and Törner. 1456 Lagerbring 1769, 8. 1457 Wallette 2004, 181–182. 1458 Lagerbring 1769, 1–2. 280 Dalin, thought that Strabo and the Massilian traveller Pytheas were the first reliable sources on the Northern history1459. The “critical historians”, namely Dalin, Wilde and Lagerbring, represented thus a novel attitude towards postdiluvian antiquity, although some of them still had blind spots in regard to the ancient religion1460. In my view, one should not overstate the magnitude of the change; none of them was, for instance, willing to discard the Old Norse writings as a whole1461. In one way or another, most of the critical historians still admitted that the Scythians, Goths or the line of Fornjót had played some kind of a role in the early history of Scandinavia1462. The long-term ideas of early modern Swedish Gothicism were articulated in their research, but the more politicised, genealogical form of it, the Geatic view of history, with its chronology traced back to Noah and his sons, was put under serious scrutiny. The ideas of the famous German historian August Ludwig von Schlözer (1735–1809) and to a lesser extent the Swedish historian Johan Ihre (1707–1780), are almost coeval examples of the most extreme, modern approach. They argued that the credibility of the Icelandic sagas as well as the Eddas should be discounted1463. They were likewise among the beacons of the next generation that viewed the early history of the world in a quite different manner to their predecessors1464. Still, historiographical practices and traditions affiliated to the antiquarian institutions had power behind them, and that meant the change in the research was very slow. At the same time, one should not fail to see that the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition was related to a broader methodological shift in European historiography. The discussion about the value of the Eddic and particularly the classical myths was at the heart of this change. In my view, if the early modern study of national antiquity is comprehended as founded on the biblical and classical framework (the underlying set of beliefs), the biblical was gaining ground relative to the classical with respect to the perceived reliability of the sources. This is exemplified in my analysis of a historical work from the 1750s, in which the validity of the biblical relative to classical and Eddic writings 1459 E.g. Lagerbring 1769, 34; Dalin 1747, 14–15. They both mention Pytheas. 1460 Wallette 2004, 183–191, is the best description of the matter. E.g. Algot Scarin above is a great example of the gradual shift as Urpilainen 1993, passim, showed. Lindroth 1978, 617–621, demonstrated that also Anton von Stiernman (1695–1765) can be categorised into this group. 1461 Wallette 2004, Ibid. On how the Eddas were seen mostly as unreliable by 1750s. 1462 Wilde 1731, Cap. 2.XXXV; Dalin 1747, 16–17, argued that the Scythians and Geats (Getter) are the same; Dalin 1747, 18, said they were called Geter or Göter; Lagerbring 1769, 6. 1463 Lindroth 1978, 682. 1464 In general but specifically from the point of view of sagas, see Wallette 2004, 96–112. 281 as well as the tension between the older and new ideas is manifested in a most telling manner. The Palestine Atlantis & Israelites of the North Johannes Eurenius (1688–1751), a pastor in Swedish Norrland, published Atlantica Orientalis shortly before he died in 1751. The name of the work is revealing in itself, but before outlining the contents of the work its unusual foreword requires description. The foreword was written by the Dean of Strängnäs, Carl Ljungberg (1699–1761), who had engaged in a controversy with Johan Göransson in the 1740s the latter’s theories on the orthographical similarities between the runic and Hebrew alphabet1465. Thus, it is plausible to assume that Ljungberg and the actual author of the work, Eurenius, represented a set of historians who were critical of the Hyperborean research tradition. In the foreword, Ljungberg is absolutely adamant in challenging both the sources and results of Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica. Firstly, he dismissed the classical writings of Hesiod, Herodotus and Diodorus as reliable sources of the ancient history of Sweden and argued that the Greeks possessed no knowledge of the northern part of the world before the time of Strabo. Secondly, he doubted that Atlantis and its fabulous equivalents could be linked to Scandinavia, although, as he stated, the history of “our northern peninsula” was of great antiquity and splendour. Instead, Ljungberg believed that the Swedish antiquity should be unearthed by using the Bible and Old Norse writings.1466 Hence, the introduction of the work and the views of the writer of the foreword bear witness to the hypothesis that there was a tendency towards using the Bible and Old Norse writings in preference to classical writings in Swedish historical research of the mid-eighteenth century. As to the actual work, Eurenius’ main objective was to prove that the ancient Northerners (the Sámi and the Finns included) descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel and that there was no proof of their link to Japheth. He claimed that the ancestors of the Scandinavians had migrated to the North around 700 BC and not soon after the Flood1467. The second objective was to demonstrate that Plato’s data about the Island of Atlantis pointed to the Near East and Palestine instead of the 1465 Ljungberg 1749, passim. 1466 Eurenius 1751, Ljungberg’s introduction 7–16. 1467 Eurenius 1751, 83ff, 98ff, (Cap. VI & Cap. VII), identified Scythians and ancient Scandinavians, called as ‘Sviars and Göthar’ with the Exiled Israeli. 282 Uppsala region. In fact, Eurenius claimed that the legend of Atlantis was an echo of the Promised Land maintained by the exiled Israelites of the North1468. Surprisingly enough, the principal method underlying these statements was etymological comparison between the place and personal names of the Bible and classical literature, which now represented the “memory” of these Northern Israelites. Ironically, these comparisons are so complex that they could have been taken directly either from Rudbeck the Elder’s or Rudbeck the Younger’s Atlantica. This indicates that although critical towards some aspects of Atlantica, Eurenius used the same methods as the scholars of the Hyperborean research tradition. In some sense, he appropriated Rudbeck’s methodological approach and simply employed it to prove his point of Scandinavian antiquity, while Leibniz and Torfaeus, for instance, had opposed the imaginative conclusions to which the etymological method had led. It is the insights in the third chapter of Atlantica Orientalis that make it interesting from my point of view. In the case of the Hyperboreans1469, Eurenius advanced a notion that the name “Iberim” in Genesis had the same etymological root as the Greek or Geatic Hyperborea/Yfwerborne. The name did not, however, signify the Iberian Peninsula but “Hyperia”, which had been the name for the “Ebræernis Land”, that is, the land of the Hebrew Israelites1470. Thus, of old the Greeks had called the Land of the Israelites Hyperborea. The account of Diodorus provided further evidence. The location of the land of the Hyperboreans opposite to Gallia was but a misconception and should have been Galilee instead. Also, the people of the area had worshipped Baal, the equivalent of the Greek Apollon, and not the Northern (Ho-)Balder as Rudbeck the Elder had claimed1471. The Hyperborean Abaris, for his part, was no enlightened rune master who carried the runic staff with him and journeyed to Greece and back; instead he was a mythical variant of Moses, who was often described as carrying a staff.1472 Eurenius argued that the history of the Scandinavia had begun from the arrival of the Aesir and Odin. Unlike the historians of the Hyperborean research tradition, he thought that the Aesir and Odin came to Scandinavia because of persecution. Eurenius linked the tribe of Odin with the Scythians and identified 1468 Eurenius 1751, Cap. I: ‘On Israelites Land Atlantis’. 1469 Eurenius 1751, 57; 60–68. 1470 Eurenius 1751, 60–61 (On the bases of Genesis and Homer how ‘Iberim; became ‘Hyperia’). 1471 Eurenius 1751, 61–63. 1472 Eurenius 1751, 66–68. 283 them with the “Siveti”, a great nation consisting of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel1473. As related above, these tribes were supposed to have been exiled at the time of Shalmanaser’s conquest of Israel. Evidently, the ideas and linguistic theories of Rudbeck the Younger on the ancient Hebrew and Geatic connection are the foundation for Eurenius’ work. Additionally, the idea of the most ancient Scandinavians as Northern Scythians, which already Stiernhielm and Bureus had introduced, had clear similarities with the idea of Scandinavian Siveti. In fact, to some extent, this concept can be traced back to the modified mediaeval, biblical idea of Japheth as the progenitor of Scythians, typical of the study of German antiquity since the Renaissance. Furthermore, in Eurenius’ view Odin had led the Aesir, one of the 10 tribes belonging to the Siveti, to Scandinavia. As part of this interpretation, he presented the accounts of Odin as proof of him being the God Almighty in the Bible. Thus, the idea of Odin as the All-Father in the Old Norse writings was a manifestation of a pristine theological doctrine of Christianity. Hence, Odin was really an echo of the God of Israel and could not be euhemerised. Eurenius interpreted accounts of Thor as another piece of evidence that the Eddic poems were derivative sources which reflected the reality of the Bible: Thor was the oldest saint of the Northern Israelites, and the name Thor-As (Asa-Thor) was a symbolic title referring to Moses as their legislator.1474 This idea of Thor-As, with his wand and legislative epithets, has striking similarities with Bureus’ idea of “Thoras” as Zoroaster and Göransson’s Eddic Moses1475. In my view, the minor differences attest to personal preferences: Eurenius stressed the theologically traditional view of the Eddic figures as derivative accounts of the Bible, Bureus emphasised the mystical Oriental wisdom, the Late Renaissance prisca theologia and etymologies, and Göransson was the most patriotic in his Eddic-runic Lutheranism in which the Old Norse writings were almost equal in weight to those of the Old Testament. Furthermore – and most importantly – Eurenius’ view is almost identical to that of the archenemy of Swedish antiquarian research, Cluverius, on Tuisto (as the echo of Christian god) and Mannus in his work on the German antiquity1476. 1473 Eurenius 1751, Cap. V-VI. The latter is named: ‘The Origin of Svear and Geats from the Scythians or the exiled Children of Israel’. 1474 Eurenius 1751, 106–111. The idea itself, not the conclusion, recalls that of Göransson in section 5.2.1. 1475 Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. 49ff; Göransson 1747, 118–129. Göransson 1750b, 9–13. 1476 Krebs 2011, 138–140. Tuisto was the Christian God, and Mannus his offspring. Hence, it is not far from the views Rudbeck and Verelius had on Fanin as the ancient “monotheistic” god of the North. 284  Eurenius’ motivation could not be clearer as he reveals his view that the religious centre of ancient Sweden was “Sala”, a name that was a reminder of the lost land of Canaan and the city of Salem, Jeru-Salem. This was also the reason why Jerusalem was mentioned on some of the Swedish runestones. He noted that originally, God was worshipped in the groves after the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This was attested by the many “grove” names in Gamla Uppsala (e.g. “Odins Lund”, i.e. “the Grove of Almighty God”). The temple of these Scandinavian Israelites was built much later. Several earlier scholars had interpreted it as the Hyperborean Temple of Apollo, but Eurenius proclaimed that it was an imitation of the Temple of Solomon in Israel1477, a view that recalls the ideas of Rudbeck the Younger in Atlantica Illustrata, with the exception that the latter believed the names had existed over a millennium earlier1478. For Eurenius, the Uppsala or “Sala Temple” was an authentic Israelite temple almost equal to the Temple of Solomon1479. In my view, at the core of his work is the idea of the North as the Land of the Blessed. Unlike in the research of his predecessors, with the exception of Rudbeck the Younger, the Scandinavian-Israelites were not the closest to the chosen people, but literally peoples of Israel. Eurenius also used the place and personal names of the ancient writings as a source for this hypothesis that the most ancient Northerners were of Israelite origin. As a result, he identified places and persons in Scandinavian history that bore witness to the sacred nature of the people. To be sure, the North had to be a Land of the Blessed, for God (Odin the All Father) had led the Scythian/Siveti/Israelites there1480. For Eurenius the name Geat (“Göt”) had biblical significance; he derived it from the word “Gud” (God); hence, Geatland meant “God-Land”. But this was not the only Hebrew-Scandinavian word, for the term “Jotunheim” stemmed from the Hebrew “Judah”. Even the emblem of Geatland, consisting of three lions, had a biblical origin: it symbolised God, Israel, and Moses – the blessing God had bestowed upon the province.1481 This emblematic analysis epitomises an intriguing coil of such ideas as the sacred (theological–political) origin of the Gothic–Hyperborean emblem, the Three Crowns. Without the comparative perspective it would be hard to see how tightly 1477 Eurenius 1751, 112–115. 1478 Check the chapter 4.4. 1479 E.g. Göransson 1746, 22, implicitly made the same argument. 1480 Eurenius 1751, 116ff (the etymologies commence). 1481 Eurenius 1751, 115–119. Not only Judah’s people had given their name to Jotunheim: ‘Västerbotten’ had its origin in Levi’s, and Lapland in Simeon’s. It was etymologically related to ’Sami’. Interestingly, the theories of Samuel Bochart Geographia Sacra are still referred as a source of the views. 285 connected were the ideas of Eurenius and the preceding views within the Hyperborean research tradition. The views of Eurenius (and how he highlights only the province of Geatland as the Blessed Land) recalls of Biörner’s previously introduced views of the Hyperborean Norrland. This form of antiquarianism had a new, more territorially defined, provincial approach to the remote antiquity. It has been demonstrated earlier that in some cases (of Bureus and Rudbeck the Elder), an idea of the Hyperboreans as the upper-class of ancient Swedes was manifested in the Hyperborean research tradition, in which case, it also contained a provincial approach to the study of Swedish antiquity. Furthermore, if the views of Eurenius are analysed in the context of the Hyperboreans, it could be said that he questioned the prior views of the Rudbecks and Göransson. At the same time, it is ironic how, in placing Hyperborea to Palestine, he employed the same methodological framework as the scholars he so vehemently criticised. Broadly speaking, he operated within the same historiographical framework as the scholars categorised into the Geatic and (with restrictions) Hyperborean tradition. The most formidable difference between them is that Eurenius was determined to subordinate the classical and Eddic mythologies to the sacred history of the Bible. For Eurenius, the history of the Svear and Geats and the classical accounts of Atlantis and the Hyperboreans could only be explained through the Bible. Otherwise, his research reflects the general tendency towards preferring the biblical, something which was articulated in the research of Rudbeck the Younger and Elder (notably as the latter described the Middle Eastern expeditions of the noblest Up-Svear in the third and fourth part of Atlantica1482). In fact, the history of the Near East was gaining ground among scholars on the Continent; in the 1730s Charles Rollin’s popular Historia Ancienne1483 was released and read by Dalin1484. Dalin made it clear in his work that, save for Herodotus’ account of the Scythians, along with a few Greek or Roman geographers, classical writers were not a reliable source of Scandinavian antiquity. In this sense he reminds of the Icelandic Torfaeus, who used sagas and referred to classical geographers but looked askance at most Eddic and classical myths1485. This was also Lagerbring’s approach, as he stated that “The old Greeks 1482 As in chapter 4.3. 1483 Lindroth 1978, 667. Histoire ancienne des Egyptiens, des Carthaginois, des Assyriens, des Babyloniens, des medes et des Perses, des Macédoniens, des Grecs (1730–1738). 13. vol. 1484 Lindroth 1978, Ibid, told that Dalin had met the author in Paris on his trip in 1739–40. 1485 Dalin 1747, 16ff. He accepted certain Old Norse myths as echoes of the pristine religion. See Dalin 1747, 116ff. He referred to the universality of the Eddic gods among other nations. 286 and Romans have made very few mentions of our Northern regions. But in turn there are numerous Northern and particularly Icelandic sagas [...]. Their significance and value should be studied.”1486 5.4.2 Transformations: the Political & Institutional Prerequisites The waning of the popularity of the Hyperborean research tradition cannot be explained by referring to mere historiographical matters. One needs to take into account the political and institutional alterations that took place in Sweden during the first half of the eighteenth century. If the role of the “hierarchic networks” is analysed, it appears that the shift was not abrupt. The political elite, such as the new monarchs1487 and certain aristocrats, still supported some aspects of antiquarian research; they subsidised the work of Rudbeck the Younger1488, Erik Biörner1489 and Johan Göransson1490 in the 1730s and 1740s. But some had grown weary of the pompous praise of the heroic old age, a sign of a change in the political environment in Sweden. The rising classes, that is, the ennobled neo- aristocrats and burghers, were less interested in their noble ancestors than the older aristocracy or the monarchs1491. Case one: Political Changes As Wallette and Peter Hallberg have observed, well into the eighteenth century historical research was still used as a tool of political pressure by the nobility, and later, as the political field altered, certain interest groups to achieve advantages or to construct group identity1492. The previously mentioned Nordiska Kämpadater, collaboration between Gustaf Bonde and Erik Biörner, contained controversial views on the relationship of the neo-aristocracy to the old aristocracy. A sentence 1486 Lagerbring 1769, 1–2 (introduction). ‘Hos de gamle Greker och Romare finnes ganska litet om wåra Nordiska orter anteknat. Men däremot finnas många Nordiske och i synnerhet Isländiske Sagoskrifter, [...] Deras anseende och wärde bör undersökas‘. 1487 It was the genealogies of Ulrika Eleonora and Frederick I, but also Queen of Adolf Frederick, Louisa Ulrika, as well as the aristocrats, constructed in Göransson 1749, dedic. Biörner 1737; but also e.g. Göransson 1746, dedication, to Louisa Ulrika who is compared with Opis–Disa, (the Hyperborean Queen). 1488 Rudbeck the Younger 1733, dedication. As it was showed earlier the dedication is for the Queen and the ancient origin of her name, ‘Udalrika’. 1489 Gustaf Bonde & Count Carl Gustaf Tessin supported financially the works of Biörner. Count Carl Gyllenborg was a patron of Biörner. All of the above 3 Counts were incidentally Heads of Swedish Chancellery. See e.g. Biörner 1737, dedic; Biörner 1738, dedic; Biörner 1739, dedic. ‘to the nobility’. 1490 Gyllenborg funded with Adolph Frederick and Louisa Ulrika Tessin e.g. the above Göransson 1746. 1491 About the incident, see Schück 1935, 343–352. 1492 Wallette 2004, 170. She designates a chapter as ‘Sagas to the profit of society ca. 1720–1800’. 287 in the introduction suggested that the new nobility not only lacked a historical justification but also the grace and great riches of an elevated lord. It may have been Erik Biörner who decided to state the idea, but Bonde surely abetted him. In the subsequent pages, Biörner analysed, not unlike Rudbeck the Younger in Atlantica Illustrata1493, the origin and true significance of the term “noble” within the context of the Geatic (and Hyperborean) tradition by mentioning Bonde in the text1494. This indicates that Count Bonde, a descendant of Karl Knutson Bonde or “Charles VII” of Sweden, wanted to highlight the historical origin of the older nobility. That this statement was part of a work which consisted of royal and noble genealogies as well as editions of sagas suggests that the political elite of the seventeenth century, that is, monarchs and families of older aristocracy, still used historical research in political discourses. Even though these nobles of allegedly greater antiquity no longer had the upper hand, the practice of influential “hubs”, such as Bonde, using the results of historical research developed by their clients closely resembles how kings (Charles IX–Gustavus Adolphus or Charles XI and Charles XII) had used Bureus or Rudbeck the Elder, Lundius and Peringskiöld respectively to construct historical arguments about their biblical ancestry and prerogatives relative to the nobility. Although the political conditions within which Biörner put his historical ideas into action were different, the practice and historical reality (the Geatic and Hyperborean past) were the same. In the first half of the seventeenth century, the topical issues had been the power-balance and the constitutional rights of the monarch1495, and at the turn of the century consolidation of the absolute monarchy1496, whereas from the 1720s onwards it was the rights of the new nobility relative to the old aristocracy. Whether the matter reflects a broader change in the society, or simply the yearnings of the elite for the advantages of the previous century, is hard to say conclusively. In my view, it is no coincidence that the Hyperborean research tradition (and the Geatic view of history1497) was crumbling at a time when the Burghers and neo-aristocrats were advancing and such new ideas as mercantilism (what Bonde loathed) emerged1498. In fact, as Wallette has shown, Dalin and 1493 See section 4.4.2. 1494 Biörner 1737, introduction; see also 1737, 1–2, 5–8. 1495 See chapter 1.3. 1496 See chapter 3.4–3.5 & 4.4. 1497 Urpilainen 1993, passim. 1498 Edenborg 1998, 190–195. 288 Lagerbring saw nobility1499 differently from Olof Rudbeck the Younger in Atlantica Illustrata or Biörner in Kämpädater. For Dalin, the term derived from “odal” (“property”), whereas for Rudbeck the Younger, from “adel”, “ädel”, related to the term “Yfwerborne” (“of noble birth”), and to their biblical lineage and direct relationship to the biblical traditions1500. Furthermore, the role political conditions played in the decline of the Hyperborean research tradition might be explained, although I have no direct proof, by an important political event that occurred in 1756. The Swedish King of that time, Adolf Frederick (1751–1771), was weaker than his predecessor on the political front, and was not able to resist the “tyranny of the estates”. His consort, Louisa Ulrika of Prussia, (the sister of Frederick the Great) was a different matter. She organised a coup in 1756 (with the help of a few overenthusiastic noblemen), which failed miserably. As a result, the Swedish monarch lost the remaining political prerogatives1501. In other words, if the Hyperborean research tradition represented the aspirations of the monarchs and older aristocracy, this event may have further weakened its status in the already hostile historiographical and political atmosphere. Case two: the Collapse of the Institutional Network Another key factor in the waning of the Hyperborean research tradition was the miserable state of the Archive of Antiquities. The institution had been scraping by after the premature death of Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld in 1725. As Schück has demonstrated, the subsequent Secretary, Johan Helin, never published a line1502. The probable explanation for exiguous publishing in the Archive on the whole was a combination of a dearth of resources and (more importantly) the change in the general intellectual and political climate. In Sweden, it became fashionable to refer to “nytta”, which could be translated as “benefit”, “profit” or even “utility” – and which signified notably economic gain. Thus, work performed to increase “the honour of the fatherland”, based on the fabulous antiquity of the monarchs 1499 Wallette 2004, 198ff. 1500 Biörner 1738, introduction, the idea of the neo-nobility as inferior to the older. Rudbeck the Younger 1733, 9–13, presented the idea of the monarch, chosen by God, as the source of nobility and their origin in Moses. Bureus introduced similar ideas in Antiqiitates Scanzianae. See chapter 1.3. 1501 Lindroth 1978, 11–13. 1502 See Schück 1935, 248–619 (the Period of Helin 1725–1751); 273–276 (Helin’s incompetence). 289 and the empire, which had no immediate or obvious economic benefit, was suddenly of reduced importance.1503 Although Bonde, Biörner and Göransson still adverted to the honour of the fatherland1504 as a factor of importance in the historical research, some noblemen began to question whether the fabulous antiquity had any real political purpose. Count Andreas Johan von Höpken (1712–1789), an influential Hats politician inspected the state of the Archive first in the late 1730s (and did not like what he saw), and later, (after gaining a more prominent position in the Hats party), suggested in the Riksdag of Sweden in 1746 dissolution of the institution1505. As Lindroth noted, the discrepancy between the feudal antiquarianism of the Archive and the novel scientific (industrial) spirit Count von Höpken supported is manifested in his speech1506. Von Höpken’s (who was a neo-aristocrat) opposition may have been influenced by Biörner’s previously described statement of the inferior nature of lower aristocracy in his (and Bonde’s) Nordiska Kämpadater (1738). Therefore, the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition was at least partially due to the lack of a supportive political hub. After his political setback in 1738, Bonde, though was still the supervisor of the Archive, had no real influence. The previous institutional “hubs” of the Hyperborean research tradition in 1685–1720, that is, Skytte, the powerful de la Gardie and Bengt Oxenstierna at the head, were always able to ask favours from their patrons, the (absolute) monarchs. Although in my view it is clear that the miserable state of antiquarian research from 1725 onwards was a significant factor in the waning of the Hyperborean research tradition, it was not the only one. The situation is more complex that it seems at first glance, but can be depicted using the concepts of hierarchic and horizontal “networks”. As was demonstrated in the previous chapter, the vitality of the Hyperborean research tradition was based on the control Rudbeck had over the institutions of historical research through his personal connections and his powerful patrons. The case of Peringskiöld demonstrated that even the Director of the Archive could not win a contest against 1503 Lindroth 1978, 91–121; Frängsmyr 2000, 186–192. 1504 In Göransson 1749, Cap. IX; Bonde 1748, 21. 1505 Already in his speech in the Swedish Academy of Science in 1739, von Höpken attacked anything that rested on a fabulous concept of “old age” (“antiquity”), an ironic barb to the antiquarian research. On von Höpken, Tessin, etc. Frängsmyr 2000, 210–215; Bennich-Björkman 1970, 242–243, provides insights from von Höpken’s point of view. 1506 Lindroth 1978, 615, 626–627 observed that some new members of the Archive made contemptuous remarks on runes, sagas and etymologies. 290 Rudbeck in 1690–1700. Although Peringskiöld was not an opponent of Atlantica per se, whenever he had tried to criticise the interpretations of Atlantica or to use it in a way that was not to Rudbeck’s liking, the latter complained to his patrons, who usually sided with Rudbeck and told the opposing historians to back down. In my view, the fading of the Hyperborean research tradition was a result of two important factors occurring from the 1720s onwards. The first was a major change in political conditions – the end of the absolute monarchy. The second was the deterioration of the supportive networks, a result of the deaths of its two most prominent members: Carolus Lundius (1715) and Peringskiöld (1720). Analytically speaking, the decline of the Hyperborean research tradition in the 1720s was a direct result of the dissipation of the main hubs that had enabled its vitality. In a society of such small academic circles and restricted political elite, this could easily lead to a collapse in support for an idea. The mode of disappearance of these hubs is exemplified in a literal dispute over the age of the staveless (Hälsinge) runes, which took place between Erik Biörner and two members of the famous Celsius family in the late 1720s. The dispute was connected to the new founding of the Vetenskapssocieten founded in 1710 by the “critical historian” Erik Benzelius1507. The members of the society represented the critical wing of historical research. They had an outlet for their thoughts as well, namely a journal called Acta Literaria Suecia, which published treatises from various fields. Its outputs included Olaus and Anders Celsius’ reports of the staveless runes of Norrland. The dispute is described in detail by Schück, who cites the main arguments of the Latin texts and the letters that were sent between the Royal Chancellery and the participants1508; the following account only focuses on the results. In short, Biörner was upset by the Celsius’ publishing research in a domain he felt belonged exclusively to him, namely, the antiquities of the Swedish Norrland1509. Biörner’s response was extremely contemptuous, and the Celsius’ responded in kind1510. Next, the matter became public. Biörner pleaded his case to the Royal Chancellery by invoking the tradition of Peringskiöld (and implicitly, 1507 The Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala. On the emerging societies see Lindroth 1978, 42–91. 1508 Schück 1935, 599–618. The following account is based on his account. 1509 It was not quite true, though. The father of Olaus Celsius Sr. had studied the subject earlier, and was also the supervisor of De Thule Veterum et Hyperboreis Dissertatio, by Sven Karlström, discussed in chapter 2.3; on Magnus Celsius and the Hälsinge runes see, Enoksen 1998, 21, 194–196. 1510 The first report of Celsius’ were published in Acta Litteraria Suecia in 1724, and the drawings in 1725, to which Biörner responded in 1726 in his Prodromus Tractatus […] et runarum in cippis Helsingicis ac Medelpadicis inventarum aetate, usu atque explicatione […], part 1, whereas the respond of the respond by Celsius was called Runae Medelpadicae ab importuna crisi breviter vindicatae auctore O.C. (1726). 291 Rudbeck the Elder). Although the old feud between Verelius and Schefferus was still remembered, the situation had changed; both parties were gently scolded and told to withdraw. Thereafter, the matter was never referred to again, at least on the public record. In effect, Olaus and Anders Celsius had won1511. This example demonstrates that in late 1720s Sweden it was possible to properly question the tradition of antiquaries and the ideas belonging to the Hyperborean research tradition for the first time since the rise of the Rudbeckian network in the 1690s. Nevertheless, Schück’s statement that by virtue of this event Swedish runology had received a “scientific foundation”1512 is slightly far- fetched. As usual, the transformation was not so abrupt. This can be substantiated by analysing the list of scholars publishing in the abovementioned Acta Literaria Suecia. Although the leading figures of the Society were “critical historians”, and hence subsequent generations have been keen to portray Benzelius, Celsius the Elder, Dalin and Lagerbring as precursors of modern historiography, one should not over-emphasise their role in the development of historical research. The older ideas had lots of power behind them, and as Schück himself has recounted, Acta Literaria Suecia included such publications as the genealogical work of Johan Peringskiöld and a saga editions of his son and follower, Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld, with some Hyperborean-Atlantic content1513. Also, Rudbeck the Younger was one of the members of the society. This versatility in the institution seems to imply that the culmination of the dispute had been caused by Biörner’s irascible temperament and manner in which he had belittled the late Magnus Celsius, the scholar introducing the first believable explanation for Hälsinge runes (and who was previously mentioned as the supervisor of Karlström’s thesis in section 2.3.1). As Schück correctly noticed, family honour and the attack towards the dead played a role in this dispute as well. Biörner, as Verelius before in the case of Schefferus, had ruthlessly attacked the interpretation of Magnus Celsius, who was stoutly defended by the new generation of the family1514. The diversity of historical views in Sweden at this time is indicated also by the firm position that Biörner had in the Archive, and that he was to publish his major works over of the next decade. In these works, as shown earlier in the 1511 Schück 1935, 617–618. 1512 Schück 1935, ibid. 1513 Schück 1935, 251ff. These studies were Peringskiöld 1725, passim. Peringskiöld the Younger 1720, 6, 8, and the part: ‘benevolent reader’. The comments are ‘critical’, but references to etymologisations of Rudbeck the Elder, such as Mannheim, Atlantis, etc, still exist in the text. 1514 Schück 1935, 603. Magnus Celsius was Olaus Celsius’ father and Anders Celsius’ great-uncle. 292 chapter, the Hyperborean research tradition was still in its fullest glory. The power of his political patrons may also explain why Biörner survived. Bonde used his client Biörner, even after his political setback in 1737, to channel his opinions on the origin and nature of nobility. Bonde was followed by Count Gyllenborg, who supported the “Hyperborean historians”1515. Thus, the patrons of power and wealth had some indirect influence and contributed to the direction of historical and antiquarian research. Patronage and the intellectual climate allowed Göransson, the other historian of the 1740s who represented Hyperborean research with his Eddic-runic theology of the Yferborne-Atlingar, to emerge and begin his research1516. In fact, it is not possible to fully understand the developing diversity of Swedish historical research in 1720–1760 without making a distinction between the critical academic research and politicised antiquarian (Hyperborean) research of the period. Case Three: “the Exile” of Göransson Göransson had received a mandate for his project (which would in 1750 result in the great work Bautil) to collect and copy all existing Swedish runestones from the Riksdag of Estates but not the Archive of Antiquities. A handful of influential politicians, including Göransson’s patrons Count Johan Gyllenborg and Bishop Rhyzelius, had suggested that he should be given access to the old manuscripts of Bureus, Hadorph and Peringskiöld. The Estates proposed that Göransson should also receive a position in the Archive1517. That he was nominated in the first place bears out, in my mind, the positive attitude towards the Geatic view history among certain social classes. It appears to me that the conservative, so-called biblical (theological) foundation of the tradition was embraced not only by the monarchs and Nobility, but also the Peasantry and Clergy. The enemy was the novel theories of the “sacrilegious Dalin” and subscribers to the water diminution theory1518, and the conservative members of society still preferred the biblical and more conservative Geatic view of history. The fact that some conservatives still supported the conservative intellectual ideas provides further insight into the relative vitality of the Hyperborean research tradition. It seems that the historical image of the enthusiasts was based on the 1515 These works were dedicated to Count Carl Gyllenborg and Tessin. 1516 Schück 1936, 64–71. 1517 Schück 1936, 64–71. 1518 Urpilainen1993, 40–41. 293 works of Biörner. Due to its theological and esoteric undertones, the Eddic theology of Göransson attracted some admirers in the religiously charged atmosphere of the 1750s1519. Besides, Biörner and Göransson were the only actively publishing scholars in the archive. The influence of Biörner in particular on his non-academic readers and patrons should not be underestimated. It is also possible that the key ideas of the Hyperborean research tradition represented a happy memory from “the good old days”, that is, when the glorious Swedish Empire was ruling the Baltics. Thus the intellectual situation in the Archive and in the Universities of Uppsala and Lund, the nuclei of Swedish historiographical reformation1520, did not reflect the broad situation. The critical scholars were not interested in following the Hyperborean tradition anymore and, because of the collapse of absolutism and Rudbeckian networks, no network controlled their views to the extent of the previous period. Moreover a genuine shift was taking place in historiography: most professional historian-antiquaries believed they had risen above the “naive theories” of earlier scholars who had identified Sweden with Israel or ancient Swedish heroes with Hercules, as Hagelberg, one of the new members of the Archive, stated1521. Of course, Hagelberg’s views demonstrate the frustration articulated in the private discussions between historians in the 1750s. If one assumes that it represented the general attitude of the new generation of scholars in the Archive, it indicates that the emergence of Göransson and his Bautil at the end of the 1740s must have seriously displeased them. Once they had finally got rid of the irascible Biörner, and Rudbeck the Younger had died in 1740, the estates tried to replace him with another outmoded scholar. Helin and Hagelberg, although not publishing that much, were nonetheless inclined towards the novel, critical mode of research1522. Helin evidently had the dispute between Olaus Celsius the Elder and Biörner1523 in mind when he prevented the publication of “the guesswork and commentaries” on Göransson’s Bautil in 1750 by which Helin meant the intended 1519 Lindroth 1978, 497–571. On the debates inflicted by the new religious movements such as Pietism and the Moravian Church, check, Annerstedt 1908, 370–379. Edenborg 1997, 191, from the point of view of the esotericism of Swedish aristocracy. 1520 Lindroth 1978, 673. Kilian Stobaeus, Lagerbring and Dalin were there. Of course, Erik Benzelius in Uppsala was influential in his own way. A good image of the current situation and scholars in the field valued by the critical can be found in the introduction of Dalin 1747. 1521 Schück 1936, 81–84, cites the brutally honest letter of Hagelberg. 1522 Schück 1935, 211–216, 264–272, 337ff, 599ff, related in detail the various feuds Biörner was involved in (with the Younger Peringskiöld, Helin, and Hagelberg among others). 1523 Also, the incident relating to Bonde’s and Biörner’s Kämpadater (1737), which will be discussed in detail in section 5.4.2, may have had impact on his attitude. 294 introduction and commentaries of Göransson, which would have contained motifs of the runic theology of Yferborne-Atlingar. Actually, Göransson had published the abovementioned genealogical work at his own expense1524, a telling fact, which exemplifies the shift in historical atmosphere from the Great Power Era to the Age of Liberty. In the end, Göransson was allowed to publish only the copies of runestones in his Bautil (not the comments). The reputation of the unpopular Archive would not endure another scandal or a tearing literal dispute. It could have led to speculation about whether such an old-fashioned institute should exist in the first place or whether it should be annexed to the Academy of Sciences in Uppsala. Lindroth has interpreted the following events as a compromise. Göransson, who had an ecclesiastical background, was offered and took a position as a vicar in Värmland (where he had grown up) and vanished from historical-antiquarian circles.1525 As a result, the last representatives of the Hyperborean research tradition disappeared. Case Four: the Giants of Hälsingeland The final example I will give of the decline of the institutional support of the network that had defended and represented the Hyperborean research tradition involves Gustaf Bonde and his return to Swedish politics. The example will reveal about the new ideas that challenged the Hyperborean research tradition, and to a lesser extent, the Geatic view of history. The Count returned to the Archive of Antiquities as Supervisor in 17561526. Around that time, a letter from Bengt Wettersten – a parish provost from Hälsingeland – arrived at the Archive which informed the members about a skeleton of a giant found in Hälsingeland, the province north from Uppsala, and part of what Biörner had named Gotunheimia. After Bonde had read the letter in front of the members of the Archive, they suggested mounting an investigation. The Royal Chancellery and the new Secretary of the institute, Carl Reinhord Berch1527 (1706–1777), gave their assent. Schück has observed that the antiquarians were sceptical of “the so called giant-graves”, and that the true reason for going to the North was to 1524 Göransson 1749. ‘Stockholm, tryck hos Lorenz Ludw. Grefling. På egen bekostnad’ – ’Stockholm, printed at Stockholm,Lorenz Ludw. Grefling. At [one’s] own expense’ 1525 Schück 1936, 61–92. 1526 Schück 1936, 567–569. He received a position of the Supervisor of the Archive in 1756; the incident is described by Schück 1936, 156–164. My account, though not interpretation, rests on his data. 1527 Schück 1936, 1–319: on Berch’s era in the Archive of Antiquities. 295 examine some other antiquities in the region1528. On the other hand, it was shown earlier that a belief in giants was completely plausible within the early modern context, however unusual it would seem to present-day readers1529. Thus, the possibility of such graves may have tickled the minds of the more sceptical scholars as well. The Office Secretary or Assessor of the Archive, Nils Brocman (1731–1779), was sent to Hälsingeland in 1762 to examine the region and the alleged giant- graves. The results of Brocman’s investigation were clear. The locals seemed to know nothing of stories of giant-graves, and the graves he inspected contained remains of normal-sized humans1530. In Schück’s view, Brocman diplomatically refrained from publishing his report immediately after the trip, as the result was a setback for Bonde1531. While Bonde had been the driving force behind the expedition, at the same time he was sceptical towards the idea of ancient giants, as his almost simultaneous, previously introduced work on the comparison between biblical and secular history reveals1532. Thus, it is hard to say how one should interpret this matter. Schück has identified Bonde’s belief to giants as naive and dependent on his Rudbeckianism, that is, “Hyperboreanism”, which, as I have tried to show earlier, is not necessarily related to the matter in the first place. It was previously shown that Torfaeus, who was perhaps the most anti- Rudbeckian historian who ever commented on Atlantica, still believed in giants of some kind. Whatever the truth, Schück is correct that the incident is related to the general attitude of the new generation of antiquaries in the Archive. They thought that the tradition of Hadorph and Rudbeck the Elder and the research of Peringskiöld was no longer a credible explanation of Swedish antiquity. The scholars of the new generation, such as Berch and Brocman, were educated by such beacons of critical ideas as Benzelius, Stobaeus and Lagerbring. Even Dalin had praised Benzelius and Wilde as his models. As Schück has noted again, Brocman implied 1528 Schück 1936, 159, 160, has cited the order for investigating this matter which ‘[…] does not only pertain to the old history of Sweden but also the natural philosophy (‘naturkunnogheten’).’ 1529 It was shown in section 4.1.2 that the Bible supported such ideas and that the contemporaries had referred to giants in the metaphorical sense (as taller northerners, a race, or mountains). E.g. Torfaeus 2008, 248–250; Rudbeck the Elder 1937, 126, 250; Rudbeck the Elder 1939, 466ff; Rudbeck the Elder 1947, 252–283. See also Eriksson 2002, 322–323, 446, 453–454, 457–459, 509, who has noted that Rudbeck belaboured the question of the existence of giants as a natural historian. 1530 Schück 1936, 161ff, cites Brocman in verbatim. 1531 Schück 1936, 156, 164. 1532 Bonde 1760, Cap. VIII; Bonde 1760, 28–34, 38–41, 98ff, was critical of the ideas of the Finns as the Lost Tribes of Israel and criticised also other topical ideas, such as the existence of giants, and chronologies (and value) of Chinese history. 296 in the final report on the expedition in 1766 (Bonde died in 1764), that the unnamed author (he left Bengt Wettersten’s name unmentioned) of the letter was not the most credible person and that truth was not his forte.1533 However, one should not jump to conclusions on the basis of one incident, especially if the major argument is based on a slightly misleading dichotomy between the “critical” and “outmoded” (Hyperborean/Rudbeckian) research. There is always a possibility of over-emphasising the critical attitude of the new generation and their status in the historical circles of that time, simply because their views ended up being closer to the truth from our point of view. The same incident is related to another historical study, an unpublished manuscript, which bears witness to the strong support for the older views around the 1750s. The work Forssa och Högs ålder och wärde [...], which Bengt Wettersten’s father, Nils Wettersten had left behind when he died in 17591534, (and which had inspired his son to send a letter to the Archive), is a work on the antiquities of Hälsingeland1535. It is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it springs from the context of the research on the ancient Hälsingeland and Jotunheim that Rudbeck the Elder had begun and Biörner had continued. They had introduced an idea of the people of ancient Hälsingeland as tall, giant-like dwellers of “Gigantes Insula”. Secondly, the study was written by a talented amateur who used the methodological and interpretative framework manifested in the Hyperborean research tradition. In my view, this proves that the new emphasis on regional history within the tradition that the productive and influential Biörner started had spread outside academic circles. In short, Wettersten interpreted the etymological origin of the place and personal names related to Hälsingeland as originating in Greek and Hebrew writings1536. As was common in the Hyperborean research tradition after Verelius and Rudbeck the Elder, Wettersten proposed that the classical authors had been faintly familiar with the ancient Hälsingeland (or “Helsungaland”, as he chose to call it in the work). Moreover, Wettersten suggested that the accounts of Ultima Thule and the myths of the Underworld had portrayed the places and persons in the region. One of his main arguments was the significance of the prefix “Hel”, which had been articulated in such mythical place names as the “Heligsö” and 1533 Schück 1936, 156, 163, (Brocman called the younger Wettersten a conman). 1534 (The antiquity and value of Forssa and Hög). It was not published until much later (1901). 1535 If this is the same as Nicolaus B. Wettersten, who had studied under Törner and written a dissertation, De Poesi Scalldorum Septentrionale […] (1717), I have not been able to confirm. 1536 Wettersten 1901, 4–5, 57–58. 297 “Helheim”, among others1537. On top of that, Wettersten claimed that the first kings of ancient Helsungaland were the traditional euhemerised gods cited by his predecessors, Rudbeck the Elder, Peringskiöld and Biörner1538. Wettersten can clearly be categorised with the long string of Hyperborean scholars stretching from Bureus to Biörner. He was a representative of the later phase of the Hyperborean research tradition in which the Bible, the idea of New Israel, Hebrew language, Jotunheim (sagas on the line of Fornjót) and the antiquity of Norrland (local history) had come to the fore. On the other hand, Wettersten was also a representative of early modern antiquarianism on the whole. His research substantiates a claim of modern historians that antiquarianism had become a popular practice among amateurs in the eighteenth century1539. In summary, by the mid-1760s, the last scholars with links to the most extreme form of the Geatic view of history (the Hyperborean research tradition) had died. As a result, the network of influential hubs, whether scholars or patrons, had collapsed. However, there were still (though it is very hard to evaluate their numbers without comprehensively mapping their works) amateurs in Sweden who maintained the structures of the older worldview. In fact, I will be showing in the following chapter that some signs imply that interest in ancient history was not disappearing outside all academic circles. 5.4.3 The Hyperborean Research Tradition Crumbling or Changing? The incipient Enlightenment influenced the criticism of the most glorious interpretations of Swedish national antiquity of the seventeenth and the eighteenth century. However, I showed above how the research of Dalin, Lagerbring, and Wilde, among others, constituted a transitional period in which the research still contained “uncritical” elements. In fact, it will be argued that this applied largely to the European research of national antiquity. There were continuities between the views of the Late Renaissance and Enlightenment scholars, and furthermore, that certain ideas manifested also in the Hyperborean research tradition survived in the following research into national history. My main argument is that this was a result of the slow alteration in the general framework of the European historiography. 1537 Wettersten 1901, 23–65; which Stiernhielm had discussed in Stiernhielm 1685, 131. 1538 Wettersten 1901, 44–58 (Japheth as the progenitor of ancient Scandinavians). 1539 Wettersten 1901, Cap. VII, is the best example of the eighteenth century Swedish antiquarianism. Compare to the observations of Widenberg 2006, passim (see the English summary as well). 298 Western Europe and Antiquarian Continuities My first example of the slow alteration deals with the destiny of antiquarianism. It has been suggested that the Humanist tradition of the study of national histories and the antiquarian movement was manifested in the Hyperborean research tradition and the Geatic view of history. In fact, there are still some non-Swedish examples from the latter half of the eighteenth century in which new and older ideas are interlaced. Krebs has described late eighteenth century European discourses in which the Gothic origin1540, the influence of Cluverius1541 and the rise of Scandinavian Folklore1542 were important elements. Many of these trends were crystallised in the two works of a Swiss historian, Paul Henri Mallet (1730– 1807): Introduction to the History of Denmark, Which Deals with Religion, Laws, Mores, And Habits of the Ancient Danish and Monuments of the Celts’ Mythology and Poetry, and in Particular of the Ancient Scandinavians, which were published in 1755 and 1756 respectively1543. Although comprising novel and “critical” ideas similar to those of Dalin, Mallet’s works represented the early modern antiquarian spirit manifested in the works of such scholars as Biörner and Peringskiöld in Sweden and Torfaeus in Denmark. Mallet was interested in religion1544, a subject of great importance in this tradition and, as I have argued earlier, usually the most uncritical aspect in the research of the critical historians1545. Before Mallet discussed the religion of the Danes he identified them with different tribes of Scythians, which, as it has been shown, was a belief of mediaeval origin, and a sign of the general set of beliefs underlying the research being less prone to transformations. Additionally, Mallet characterised the Danes as the Kimbri and wrote of their belligerent doings in the classical world. He described the next wave of Danes, the people that were led to the North by the Asian Odin. Mallet was slightly doubtful in his description of the giants living in Scandinavia whom Odin vanquished (but, still, told they lived in some parts of Norway until the ninth century)1546. By this time, as previously 1540 Krebs 2011, 152–156, described the views of Ewald Friedrich von Hertzberg (1725–1795), who saw Northern Germany as the Cradle of European civilisation instead of Scandinavia. 1541 Krebs 2011, 172. Indeed Mallet 1809, Cap. IV–VI, discussed the religion of yore. 1542 Krebs 2011, 170–180. 1543 The French Originals: Introduction à L'histoire du Danemarch où l'on traite de la religion, des moeurs, des lois, et des usages des anciens Danois and Monuments de la mythologie et de la poesie des Celtes, et particulierement des anciens Scandinaves. I have used the English translation of part I: Mallet 1809. 1544 Krebs 2011, 172–173. 1545 E.g. Dalin 1747, Cap. 2.2, 2.4, Cap. 5, Cap. 6. See also Lindroth 1978, 668–670. 1546 Mallet 1809, Chapter II. 299 noted, the older (mediaeval) idea of ancient giants was still regarded as believable by some scholars. Thus, I would interpret Mallet’s mention of them as a sign of cultural sensitivity: he was writing his studies in Denmark, and was invited to the country by the King Frederick V. Since Mallet’s account of ancient Danish history followed that of Torfaeus, the former Royal Historian of Denmark and very highly regarded, he did not want to appear too critical towards the Icelander or his employer. This is supported by his appraisal of Torfaeus and the derisive references he makes to Rudbeck the Elder’s Atlantica. (It is interesting that Atlantica still had such an influence on discussions of Northern antiquity; Mallet could have simply left Rudbeck unmentioned1547.) Of course, I am not saying that the most critical examples of the latter half of the century come completely under early modern antiquarianism. Krebs, among others, has shown that novel approaches to the national past were articulated in the works of Montesquieu and the early views of Herder1548. The latter emphasised the unique spirit and mythology (the Eddas) of the German nation, which included mentions of its wild nature, rough climate (after Montesquieu) and the primordial, raw character of the poems and songs of the “German bards”.1549 They did not examine the religious mores of the nations of antiquity to a great extent, but emphasised for instance, the climate as a factor of significance in the development of the peoples1550. In other words, although new ideas had challenged the most extreme form of antiquarianism, (such as the Hyperborean research tradition), the alteration on the whole was gradual. As noted in the case of Dalin and Lagerbring, the postdiluvian antiquity was losing ground, certain research subjects (religion) and methods were still accepted. Therefore, although the new leaders of the study of national history would have seen Rudbeck the Younger’s “Hebrew Scandinavia” or Göransson’s Eddic theology as outmoded, Mallet’s study suggests that the major research subjects of antiquarianism were still regarded as valid. Whether they influenced the future specialisation of the Humanistic disciplines is a good question; in my view, there are links between the antiquarian topoi and modern disciplines: the material antiquities (monuments) would in the future be a subject of archaeology, literal antiquities (myths and poems) of comparative mythology, and ancient languages 1547 Mallet 1809, 36–40. 1548 Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, i.e. Montesquieu (1689–1755) and Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803). 1549 Krebs 2011, 177–180 (Herder); 156–162 (Montesquieu). 1550 Krebs 2011, 158–164. 300 of comparative linguistics (etymology). In addition to these domains, Mallet studied the ancient religion and customs as well as the laws, which all became part of the discipline of anthropology. All of these approaches of antiquarian research were (and still are) important components in the modern discourses of national history. In this sense, the idea of modern historiography having classical roots, as presented by Momigliano, seems justified1551. If the general use of classical writings, combined with the Eddic myths, the foundation of the Hyperborean research tradition, is analysed against the constructions of the latter part of the eighteenth century, it is easy to state that the overall practice of constructing national histories was not substantially transformed: the combination of Tacitus and the Norse literature in Prussia, for instance, may not trace back the origin of Germans in the sons of Noah (although Mallet did)1552, but it was constructed on the same textual basis as the Hyperborean research tradition and the Geatic view of history. Therefore, before the turn of the eighteenth century, the change in some practices of research into national antiquity seems rather superficial. The Study of National Histories: Continuities and Discontinuities Another example of the diverse study of national histories in the late eighteenth century can be exemplified by referring to the eighteenth century discussions of the origin of the Germans and the French. The most important part of this discussion from the point of view of the Hyperborean research tradition concerns the manner in which the civilisation, religion, and virtues of the most ancient Northern and Western Europeans were viewed. The sub-discourse of this pertained to the “German Bards”, but the more general lines of the discussion dealt with the possible shared origin of the German (Teutonic) and Celtic peoples. One strand focused on the Frankish origin of the French, whereas the other stressed the Celtic (Gaul) side1553, which spread to England as well, as Kendrick noted1554. In fact, the English translation of Mallet from the year 1809 (which I have used) includes an Appendix of Göransson’s Latin Edda and an intriguing 1551 As in Momigliano 1950, passim; Momigliano 1990, passim. 1552 Krebs 2011, 169–180. 1553 Krebs 2011, 157–164. 1554 Kendrick 1966, 17ff. 301 preface from the translator of the work which vehemently aspires to prove that “the Teutonic and the Celtic nations were ab origine two distinct people”1555. The roots of this discussion went all the way back to the sixteenth century and the works of Celtis, Trithemius and Gebwiler1556; the idea of the Bardic or Druidic priests was an interesting religious strand of it. It was articulated in the works of the German scholars, Aventinus, Cluverius and Elias Schedius, and discussed in Sweden by Bureus, who performed etymological comparisons between the Gaul, Celts and the Boreades-Bardi of the Hyperborean Uppsala1557. A modified version of this idea later emerged in the writings of Stiernhielm, Verelius and Lagerlööf1558. The latter mentioned the connections between the Celtic-German Bards and the Scandinavian Skaldic priests, as did Mallet1559. Slightly later in the work he introduced the twelve “Pontiffs” of Odin as “Diar and Drottar, a kind of Druids”1560, which is, in my opinion, undeniable proof of the long-term existence of the discourse of which the Hyperborean research tradition was part. It has to be said, however, that the difference between the civilisation of the Hyperboreans described by the Swedish scholars and the new, romanticised views of the Nordic of Montesquieu, Mallet and even the “Poems of Ossian”, the Gaelic writings published by James Macpherson in 17601561, was clear. As Krebs has observed, one interesting part of this “Nordic hype” was how the Bardic and Druidic virtues were replaced by the Tacitean simplicity and piety of the “Germanen”1562. He and others have correctly connected this discourse with the rising primitivism and the ideas of the “noble savage”, which is usually ascribed to Rousseau1563. The topic is also treated by Mallet. In his account of the 1555 Mallet 1809, see the title, and the extensive genealogical tables. 1556 Krebs 2011, 120–124; Borchardt 1971, 153–157. Also Beatus Rhenanus discussed the matter in Rerum Germanicarum libri tres (1531). He, however, was a more critical representative of these ideas. 1557 See section 1.1.2 (Bureus ‘Celto-Scythi’), inspired by Postel, De la Boderie and Becanus. 1558 Section 2.1.3 (Stiernhielm ‘Galli Boreales’); section 2.2.2 (Verelius of the shared origins); Lagerlööf 1685a, passim & 1685b, passim, in which he discussed the Skaldic and Druidic Priests. 1559 Mallet 1809, 43ff (the discussion on the Skaldic priests). 1560 Mallet 1809, 53. 1561 Krebs 2011, 169–180, discussed it as part of the Bardic German-Celtic culture. Otherwise, there is some doubt of the authenticity of the Poems of Ossian. 1562 Krebs 2011, 158–161. Montesquieu was source of the new image of the Northern people. Lettres Persanes (1721) and De l'Esprit des Lois (1748) as well as the “Wikipedia of the eighteenth century”, the Encyclopedia established myths of the Germans in the Tacitean sense. He seemed to connect climate in the moral, political and legislative virtues of the northerners. Krebs has shown how Montesquieu saw the English Constitution as a sign of the German spirit and northern virtues. 1563 His work Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men (1754). Some scholars claim this is based on a misunderstanding of his views. I simply refer to the general change in the idea of the Golden Age from the Late Renaissance to the Enlightenment in the light of my material. 302 possessions of the Danish King in North America, he mentions the savages of the region and their primitive piety1564. In Sweden, Dalin, who ridiculed Rudbeck’s ideas of the sophisticated Hyperboreans and Goths, had still described them as the pious Scythians, inferior only to the people of Israel1565. Interestingly, Mallet cited Dalin’s work when discussing the Scythian religion of the Nordic people1566. The views of Torfaeus, which had older ideas manifested in them, were clearly the foundation of Mallet’s account1567. This phenomenon to connect the religion of national ancestors to the Israelites was in part, articulated in the latter parts of Atlantica in which Rudbeck the Elder described the Hyperboreans in Near- Eastern context, and of course, in Rudbeck the Younger’s theories on the Ten Tribes of Israel and the link between Ancient Hebrews and Geats. If this primitivism is looked at within the context of the long-term shared set of beliefs of the early modern study of national histories, it should be, in my view, seen against the background of the important ideas of the golden age. The Late Renaissance ideas of the golden period, represented in the reflections of Bureus and Göransson, rested on a notion that it was a pristine period of the world when Adam and his descendants all the way to Noah possessed the full compendium of knowledge. An alternative view, which did not value the ancients to such a degree, could be found in the writings of Rudbeck the Elder and Lagerlööf in the 1680s and 1690s. They thought the golden age was not a period of such high civilisation and that progress took place a little or much later respectively. Gradually, Dalin and Lagerbring, the post-Hyperborean historians of Sweden, as well as Bonde and Eurenius with their Northern Israelites, started to recognise the possibility of a less sophisticated Swedish antiquity. Even though Rudbeck the Younger and Biörner were not taken seriously by most scholars anymore, it would be far-fetched to argue that the increasingly larger attention to the Sámi and Finns in their research did not belong to the same group of discussions on national antiquity. Already Mallet had mentioned how “the Savages whom the Danes have found on the coast are not unlike Laplanders in figure, yet speak a language quite different from theirs”1568. The ideas of the beatific, pious Hyperborean Israelites that Rudbeck the Younger and Göransson as well as, to a lesser extent, Biörner and even the 1564 Mallet 1809, 16–17. 1565 Dalin 1747, Cap. II, Cap. V–VI. 1566 Mallet 1809, 52 (footnote). 1567 Mallet 1809, Cap. IV–VI. Because of the dearth of references I cannot be sure, but the account reminds that of Dalin’s and Torfaeus’ description of the ancient religion of “Scythians”. 1568 Mallet 1809, 16. 303 Icelandic Torfaeus and Dalin propounded were thus the closest equivalents to the romanticised savages that were discussed in the European research. The idealisation of the primitive, in some ways, represents a novel attitude to the antediluvian golden age which used to represent (in the Hyperborean research tradition) the highest point of human civilisation, when everything was pristine. However, if the actual practices or the “episteme” of the period are analysed, the change was still relatively minor and, more importantly, seems to depend on the perspective and selection of sources. Therefore, although the study of immemorial antiquity was gradually becoming unfashionable there was no rupture in the long- term historiographical foundation by the latter part of the eighteenth century which would effectively explain the crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition. The social change was minor, too, for historical research was still mostly a practice of the learned and the political elite1569. Thus, as was shown above, the most likely explanation for the fading of the Hyperborean research tradition is the combination of political and institutional factors leading to the collapse of the networks in which the most extreme views were still cherished. 5.5 Summary The crumbling of the Hyperborean research tradition was well advanced by the 1730s. The best scholarly example of the last analytical phase of the phenomenon was Erik Julius Biörner, whose research dates in part to the previous period, just as Rudbeck the Younger’s main work was published around the time Biörner flourished. Other examples were Johan Göransson and Count Gustaf Bonde. All of these scholars were, analytically speaking, members of the same learned circle. After the members of this circle had been isolated from the historical institutes of the time for one reason or another, the ideas of the Hyperborean past were not popular or strong enough to survive. That the Hyperborean research tradition survived after the collapse of Swedish absolutism hinged upon several reasons, of which the stridency of its last members was not the least. The decline reflected a dearth of resources and interest in the antiquarian research. Its traditional patrons could no longer intervene or finance the research that supported the pursuits of the monarchs and the nobility to such a degree, because the nobility and Burghers had risen to power. Besides, it 1569 Something proven e.g. by Hall 1998, passim; Hall 2000, 128–170; Wallette 2004, 68–82, 223– 264; in Europe and Germany, e.g. Krebs 2011, 183, and the whole chapter 7. 304 has to be said that the study of ancient times was going out of fashion or seen as less beneficial than was previously the case. This can be explained in both intellectual and political terms. The shift away from the ideas defined as the Hyperborean research tradition was not abrupt, and the antiquarian structures and the general historiographical set of beliefs still governed some elements of the research. The following generation of historians such as Dalin, Wilde and Lagerbring in Sweden, and the popular Mallet in the continent, were representatives of research of a transitional period with regard to the subsequent Enlightenment. They took into account the views of the scholars representing the Hyperborean research tradition and in particular, the ideas of the Scythian and Gothic origin of Sweden, along with their potential affinity to the people of biblical Israel. 305 306 Conclusions Incorporating the classical accounts of the Hyperboreans into the Geatic narrative of Swedish history was a coherent tradition of research in ca. 1600–1760 and followed generally early modern European intellectual traditions to construct a monarchy a fabulous antiquity for ideological and political purposes. The idea of the Hyperboreans was a classical remnant that portrayed the civilisation of the Geats in the ancient Uppsala region. Most early modern Swedish scholars believed that the civilisation manifested in the Old Norse writings and such domestic antiquities as the runestones verified the credibility of the classical sources, of which Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus were of greatest importance. It is easy to understand why historians were attracted to the Hyperboreans and their use in the context of national history. The accounts had elements that fitted perfectly within the biblical-classical framework of the writing of national histories: their worship of only one god; their piety; their system of government mentioned kings descended from a mythical forefather; the geographical details in the accounts were nebulous enough for open interpretations; and most importantly, they had been in contact with the classical Greeks, therefore having a culture of notable antiquity. In my research, close reading and comparative analyses of the key texts yielded new results. The most important was the observation of continuity, not only in the historical but in the ideological use of the Hyperboreans throughout the period of the tradition. The paramount works of the tradition were Olof Rudbeck the Elder’s famous Atlantica and Johannes Bureus’ unpublished manuscript Antiqiitates Scanzianae, which explained not only the scholarly but also the political frameworks within which the Hyperboreans were employed. Thus, unless one is analysing the immediate learned contexts and impact of Atlantica in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the concept of Rudbeckianism should be used in a careful fashion. After the identification of the Geats (of Johannes Magnus) as the Hyperboreans had been made, the angle from which the matter was discussed depended on the scholar in question. The methods applied to the study of the Old Norse texts, runestones and mediaeval documents varied significantly. The distinct scholarly contexts within which the Hyperborean civilisation was discussed involved approaches from highly esoteric theological and etymological analyses to moderate textual comparisons and empirical analyses of material remains. However, the features that distinguished scholars should not be 307 overstated. The selection of valid sources and the methods used to interpret them were typical of the patriotically inclined side of early modern European antiquarianism. My decision to analyse the European reactions to Swedish studies of the Hyperboreans turned out to be a sound one. The identification of the Hyperboreans as the Goths (Geats) was used to contribute to the general European discourse on the origin of the political elites in distinct monarchies of the Baltics, and was manifested in such ideologies as Sarmatism, Gothicism, Kimbrisim and Scythicism. From the long-term point of view, the most important non-Swedish work was written by the German Cluverius, to whose views all the major scholars from the first to the last representative of the Hyperborean research tradition replied. It was also proved that the criticism of such non- Swedish scholars as the Icelander Torfaeus and the German Leibniz induced revisions to the Hyperborean research tradition by forcing the Swedish scholars to find new solutions to defend the results of the earlier scholars. Analysis of the broader Northern and Western European historiographical context of the Hyperborean research tradition resulted in new observations as well. I demonstrated that although the new intellectual trends of ideas influenced the scholar’s studies of the national past, certain fundamental ideas characterised the vast majority. The most endemic was the idea of the minimisation of the Greeks in classical history relative to the civilisations of the ancient Germans, Celtic and Scandinavian peoples. The idea of the classical Greek accounts of the Hyperboreans as degenerate echoes of the true Northern history exemplifies this strategy in a most telling manner. On a fundamental level, both the Hyperborean tradition and the patriotically inclined early modern European study of fabulous national past were governed by an overarching biblical-classical framework. The main features of this were the chronology of Judaeo-Christian historiography, the monogenetic theory on the origin of people and languages and the distinct classical approaches to the use of history. I chose to call this overarching framework a Neo-Platonist concept of history, which resulted in an approach to value the origin. In practice, this framework was articulated in the interpretative strategies: the scholars appreciated the golden age(s) of the Bible, that is, Adam in the Garden of Eden and Noah after the Deluge, as the most pristine periods the world had experienced. Hence, the closer a source was to the golden age, the more accurate was the data in it. Secondly, the Platonist side was manifested in an idea of the biblical writings as the most reliable sources, whereas non-biblical sources such as the Old Norse or 308 classical literature, among others, were perceived as derivative echoes of the true events and persons. The Neo-Platonist concept of history also provided the ideal against which the national antiquity was constructed: the scholars analysing the Eddic and classical writings and runic or Egyptian hieroglyphs could not escape comparing them with the biblical equivalents. In a sense, in the early modern period research into national history was trapped in a biblical framework. My research suggests that the early modern study of national histories and the Hyperborean research tradition was so intrinsically politicised (from the present- day perspective) that the early modern scholar would probably not have comprehended our distinction between politicised and “scientific” historiography. This meant that the construction of fabulous national histories was conducted in a close relationship with the needs of the political elites. This did not signify, however, that the truth was not an important prerequisite of the research. The debates between early modern scholars of national antiquity clearly demonstrate that mendacity was not acceptable. The truth was simply not a matter of “objectivity” in the modern sense. The reason for this was that historical research of national antiquity was not a defined academic practice that aimed predominantly to find the truth in the first place. My pursuit of the second and lesser objective of the study – to examine the political and institutional conditions of the Hyperborean research tradition – yielded important new results as well. Firstly, the emergence, development, and crumbling of the tradition were tightly related to certain political agendas of the Crown in Sweden and abroad. In Sweden, the Geatic narrative, with the Hyperborean link to laws and religion, was used to support the prevailing political system. In 1600–1630, the Geatic (and Hyperborean) past became involved in the propaganda of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus as these kings sought to cement their power against the strong domestic nobility. The use of the national antiquity in relation to the question of the historical prerogatives (and rights) of the kings (to legislate, govern, and perform the rites) or the nobility of their descent and historical rights of the older aristocracy relative to the new aristocracy were recurring elements in the Hyperborean research tradition. In the period of Swedish absolutism (1682–1718), the Hyperboreans were presented as the elevated high class of the ancient Geats, and descended from Magog. Moreover, the accounts of the Hyperboreans were involved in the ideas of the ancient Overking of the Geats, who had not been only the sovereign, but allegedly also the head of the Church with a right to legislate, an idea which 309 harked back to the early reflections of Johannes Bureus. The apex of the political side of the Hyperborean research tradition was the program of incorporating the Hyperborean god-kings into the genealogies of the Gothic kings, which were intended to be distributed to the Swedish provinces as part of the new translation of Charles XII’s Bible. Already Charles XI had taken the North Star, a symbol deriving from classical writings, as his personal royal emblem. The idea of Swedish monarchs as the Hyperboreans was articulated in the contexts of fine arts, poetry and the new building projects of the Swedish Empire. On the foreign front, the idea of the civilised Hyperboreans as the ancestors of the Swedish monarchs emerged within the context of the “dominium Maris Balticum”, that is, as part of territorial pursuits in Sweden’s new conquests in the Baltic and Norwegian and Danish provinces. The Hyperboreans provided the Swedish monarchs with a cultural ideology to offset the traditional belligerence of Swedish Gothicism. This historical justification of the Swedish presence in controversial regions such as Scania, Trondheim and the Baltics was most often used against Denmark, but also Poland-Lithuania, German Principalities and Russia as part of different conflicts. The Danish–Swedish rivalry was also manifested in numerous (written) “history wars”, in which such questions as the origin of the Goths and the civilisation of the Old Norse literature (the runic hieroglyphs) were the most topical and contested. Finally, my examination of the “networks” linking between the scholars and the political elite was fruitful. The patronage of Charles IX and Gustavus Adolphus enabled the emergence of the Hyperborean research tradition. These two monarchs were – together with their client, Johan Skytte – the most important political and institutional hubs in the network in which the ideas were developed and designed for use. The rise of the Hyperborean research tradition in the latter half of the seventeenth century was a direct result of the contributions of Count Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie. There are strong indications that de la Gardie inherited the clients of Johan Skytte and became the new patron and hub in the network of scholars who developed the major ideas of the fabulous Hyperborean past. Although de la Gardie provided the financial and political prerequisites for the historical research, it was the support of the absolute monarchs, Charles XI and Charles XII, that ultimately ensured the short period of dominance of the Hyperborean research tradition in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. A Rudbeckian network was organised around Olof Rudbeck the Elder in 310 1685–1718, largely in support of Atlantica. It consisted of scholars who supported Rudbeck’s message in the historical institutions and the public projects of the Swedish monarchy. Rudbeck used his personal connections with other scholars and the Crown to prevent the emergence of critical ideas. Clearly, the major hubs of the two overlapping networks in which the Hyperborean idea thrived were Rudbeck the Elder and the monarchs: after their deaths, the Hyperborean research tradition lost ground among leading historical researchers. During the final period of the Hyperborean research tradition, the only noble patron who publicly sympathised with the idea, Gustaf Bonde, had funds and connections to support historians subscribing to the tradition but no real political power. The fact the Hyperborean research tradition survived even after the historiographical (and political) atmosphere had turned against the construction of fabulous pasts bears out the power it had gained in the academic and institutional networks of Sweden. This is also indicated by the fact that the critics of Swedish antiquity still subscribed to certain elements typical of or developed by historians of the Hyperborean and Geatic tradition. Ultimately, the Hyperborean research tradition arose in the early seventeenth century due to a combination of political and intellectual factors; the receding of those factors in the mid-1750s caused the tradition’s demise. In the final analysis, the tradition produced a consistent and resilient image of Sweden’s antiquity – one which, despite its fabulous nature, had far-reaching political and social influence that is still discernible in the culture and monuments of Sweden today. 311 312 Sources and Literature I Unpublished Sources KUNGLIGA BIBLIOTEKET (KB) Johannes Bureus Cod. Holm. F.a.3. Antiqiitates Scanzianae de Upsalici Orbis insignibus et Scripturae Mysteriis. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Georg Stiernhielm Cod. Holm. F.d. 5. Runa Suetica. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Cod. Holm. F.d. 11–13. Specimen lingua et philologica Finnonica. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Cod. Holm. F.d. 14. Discursus Philologicus, de Omnibus linguis in genere & in specie de Svethica & Affinibus. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Cod. Holm. F.d. 14.a. De Thorro. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Cod. Holm. F.d. 21. De Othino. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. UPPSALA UNIVERSITETSBIBLIOTEK (UB) Johannes Bureus Bureus–Becanus 1569: The Handwritten notes of Johannes Bureus in Johannes Goropius Becanus, Origines Antwerpianae, sive Cimmeriorum Becceselana novem libros […].Topogr. Nederl. Belgien. Fol, Antwerpiae 1568. Georg Stiernhielm U.B. Palmsk. 356. Runa Suetica. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Olof Rudbeck the Younger U.B. R. 12. b. Smärre språkvetenskapliga avhandlingar. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. 313 II Printed Sources Adam of Bremen 1846: Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum ex recensione Lappenbergii. Hannoverae. Aelian 1959: On Animals, Volume II. Books 6–11. Translated by A. F. Sholfied. Loeb Classical Library 448. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Annius of Viterbo 1552: “Giovanni Nanni Berosi Babylonii Antiqvitatvm Liber I–V”. In Antiquitatem Variarum Autores (23–54). Apvd. Seb. GRYPHIVM. LVGD. Annius of Viterbo 1993: ”Commentaria fratris Joannis Annii Viterbensis … super opera diuersorum auctorum de Antiquitatibus loquentium. Romae 1498. Berossus (sig. Oi v° - Yv r°) & Manetho (Yv v° - Zviii v°)’”. Transcribed and Translated (194–233) by R. E. Asher, in R.E. Asher, National Myths in Renaissance France. Francus, Samothes and the Druids. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Apollodorus 1921: The Library. Volume I. Books 1–3.9. Translated by James G. Frazer. Loeb Classical Library 121. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Apollonius of Rhodes 2009: Argonautica. Edited and Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library I. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Becanus, Johannes Goropius 1569: Origines Antwerpianae, sive Cimmeriorum Becceselana novem libros […].Topogr. Nederl. Belgien. Fol, Antwerpiae 1568. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1717: De Svedia Boreali seu Gotunheimia [...]. Holmiae. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1737: Nordiska Kämpadater [...]. Stockholmiae. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1738: Inledning til de Yfwerborna Göters gamla häfder, särdeles Götiska Språkets Förmån och Sagornas Kjännedom Introductio in antiquitates hyperboreo gothicas, præsertim prærogativam linguæ et cognitionem historiarum gothicarum. Stockholmiae. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1739: Nordisk hjälta prydnad af gullringar, dem mann fordom burit, så wäl på Ormar och Händer som Fingrar; jämte bifogade figurer, I mögjeligaste kårthet, beskrefwen af Erik Ju. Björner kongl. Antiquitets Archivi assessor och Translator. Stockholm. Biörner, Erik Julius 1741: Tractatus prior de Gotunheimia Ejusque Regionibus Gotlandia, Reidgotlandia, Glesisvallia, Biarmalandia, Hunalandia et Dumbslandia [....]. Stockholm. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1742: Cogitationes critico philologicæ de orthographia linguæ svio gothicæ tam runica quam vulgari, a corrupto medii ævi stylo vindicanda; occasione amicæ disceptationis, de pronominum tu et illi rectiore svedica scriptione per du et de quam: tu et the; quibus accesserunt non modo brevis exposit [...]. Stockholmiae. Biörner, Ericus Julius 1748: Svea rikens hävda ålder, upvisader med en sago ock röno reda om nordiske länders, så fornare som senare, åboning, strandvidd ock östersjö- högd, med tillökning av et brev om finnars, lappars ock samojeders ursprung från samaritanske israëliter. Stockholm. Bonde, Gustaf 1748: Inträdes tal om vetenskapernes fortplantning, då ... Gustaf Bonde, första gången intog sit rum, såsom ledamot, i kongl. vetensk. academien, den 23 julii 1748. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. 314 Bonde, Gustaf 1755: Försök att igenfinna den finska nationens och språkets ursprung. Kungliga Svenska Vitterhets-akademiens handlingar D. 1. Stockholm. Bonde, Gustaf 1758: Om de fordna konungar, jarlar och regenter […]. Stockholm: Jacob Merkel. Bonde, Gustaf 1760: Utkast til en jämnförelse emellan den bibliska och werldsliga historien. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. Bureus, Andreas 1984: Pohjoismaiden Kuvaus v 1626. Translation, introduction and explanations by Tuomo Pekkanen. Helsinki: SKS. Bureus in Klemming 1883–1886: ”Anteckningar af Johannes Thomae Agrivillensis Bureus”. In Samlaren, 4 (1883), 12–126 & Samlaren, 5 (1884), 5–26. Uppsala. Bureus, Johannes 1611: Runa ABC-boken. Prentat j Stockholm, uthi framl: A. Gutterwitzes Werkstadh, Alraförst, årom etc. http://www.kb.se/F1700/ABC.htm (cited 10.8. 2012). Celsius, Olaus the Elder 1710: Abaris Hyperboreus, exercitio academico breviter delineatus, quod cum consensu ampliss. ord. philos. in regia ad Salam academia præside ... Olavo Celsio ... publico bonorum examini ea, qua par est modestia, sistit, David Cederqwjst Werml. in audit. Gust. maj. ad diem 12 Nov. anni MDCCX, horis ante meridiem consuetis. Upsaliae. Clemens of Alexandria 2009: Stromata. Översättning med inledning och kommentarer av Sidney W. Hage. Visby. Cluverius, Philippus 1631: Philippi Clüveri, Germania Antiqua Libri tres. Opus post omnium elaboratissimum, tabulis geographicis, et imaginibus, priscum Germanorum cultum moresque referentibus, exornatum. Editio secunda, aucta, et recognita, Adjecta sunt VINDELICIA et NORICUM ejusdem auctoris. LUGDUNI BATAVORUM Ex officina ELZEVIRIANA. Dalin, Olof 1747: Svea rikes historia ifrån des begynnelse til wåra tider [...] Del 1. Stockholm: J.E. Crohn. De Miechow, Matthias 1521: Chronica Polonorum. Crocouie. Diodorus of Sicily 1935: Diodorus of Sicily II. English translation by C. H. Oldfather. Books II.35–IV.58. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Eurenius, Johannes 1751: Atlantica orientalis eller Atlands näs, til des rätta belägenhet beskrifwet för många år sedan af mag. Joan. Eurenius [...] Nu, tillika med Platonis berättelse därom på swenska, och [...]. Carl Fr. Ljungbergs företal, uplagde med kongl. maj:ts nådigste privilegium på tijo år, af O. Bid Renhorn. Strengnäs. Göransson, Johan 1746: De Yfwerborna Atlingars eller Sviö-götars ok Nordmänners Edda [...]. Upsala: Heinrich Hecht. Göransson, Johan 1747: Is Atlinga. Det är: De Forna Göters, här uti Svea Rike, Bokstäfver ok Salighetslära, Tvåtusend Tvåhundrad år före Christum, utspridde i all Land [...]. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. Göransson, Johan 1747b: Grundritning til hela det heliga språket, som Gud sjelf alraförst talade med Adam, uti fullkomlighetens stånd, ok sedan alla människor intil babyloniska förskingringen [...]. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. 315 Göransson, Johan 1748: Johan Göranssons försvars skrift emot en anonymi Stranga Anmärkningar öfver dess Grundritning til Hebreiska språket. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. Göransson, Johan 1749: Svea rikes konungars historia ok ättartal, ifrån 2200 år före Christum, intil 1749. Efter de äldsta och bästa handlingar i korthet författad, jämte införda bevis uti tvenne bihang, geographiska anmärkningar, ok jämnförelse imellan alla Sveo-Götiska konunga historier [...]. Stockholm, tryck hos Lorenz Ludw. Grefling. På egen bekostnad. Stockholm: Lorenz Ludw. Grefling. Göransson, Johan 1750: De Yfverborna Atlingars eller Sviogöthars ok Nordmänners Patriarkaliska Lära [....]. Stockholm: Jacob Merckell. Göransson, Johan 1750b: Bautil, Det är: Alle Svea ok Götha Rikens Runstenar, upreste ifrån verldenes år 2000 til Christi år 1000 […]. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. Guagnino, Alexander 1581: Sarmatiae Evropae Descriptio, Qvae Regnvm Poloniae, Litvaniam, Samogitiam, Rvssiam, Massoviam, Prvssiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam, et Moschoviae, Tartariaeqve partem complectitur. Spirae. Herodotus 1921: The History of Herodotos with an English Translation by A. D. Godley in Four Volumes. Volume II. London: William Heinemann. Hesiod 2007: Theogony. Works and Days. Testimonia. Edited and translated by Glenn W. Most. Loeb Classical Library 57. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Johannes Magnus 1558: Gothorum Sueonumque Historia ex Probatis Antiqvorvm monvmentis collecta […]. Romae: ex Office Isingriniana. Johannes Magnus 1620: Svea ock Götha krönika [...]. Translated from Latin by Ericus Schroderus. Stockholm: Ignatius Meurer. Karlström, Sven 1673: De Thule Veterum et Hyperboreis Dissertatio. Upsala: Typis Wankivianis. Klemming, Gustaf Edvard 1883–1886: ”Anteckningar af Johannes Thomae Agrivillensis Bureus”. In Samlaren, 4 (1883), 12–126 & Samlaren, 5 (1884), 5–26. Uppsala: Sv. Litteratur sällskapet. Krantz, Albertus 1561: Chronica regnorum aquilonarum Daniae, Sueciae, et Noruagiae. Hammarburgensis. La Peyrére, Isaac 1655: Prae-Adamitae: Sive Exercitatio Super Versibus Duodecimo [...]. Anno Salutis M. DC. LV. Sine Loco. Lagerbring Sven 1769: Swea rikes historia, ifrån de äldsta tider til de närvarande. 1, Innefattar rikets öden, ifrån des början til år 1060. Stockholm: Carl Stolpe. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1685a: Dissertatio de Scaldis veterum Hyperboreorum. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf, Resp Daniel Djurberg. Uppsala: Keyser. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1685b: Dissertatio Gallorum veteres Druides. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf, Resp. Jacobus J. Waldius. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1687: Ortus et Progressu Veteris Navigationis [...]. Resp. Johan. Petre. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1688: Ludi Olympicis. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf. Resp. Nicolaus Torger. Upsaliae. 316 Lagerlööf, Petrus 1689a: De Charbydi Septentrionali. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf. Resp. Sveno Cameen. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1689b: Dissertatione Philologica Phoenicis Mythologian […]. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf, Resp. Andreas Morin. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1689c: De Antiquitate & Situ Gentis Sveonicae. Prof. Petr. Lagerlööf. Resp. Johannes M. Jäger Stockh. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1690a: De Scandianorum Rebus Maritimis. Resp. Arvid Boroenus. Stockholm. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1690b: De Praestantia Europae. Resp. Olaus Beronius. Stockholm. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1691a: Qvadriga Virtutum Imperatorium. Resp. Claudius Liviin. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1691b: Historiam Repertae Navigationis in Album Mare. Resp. Andreas Thegmur Umensis. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1691c: Pro Veris & Antiquitis Gentis Gothicae. Resp. Petrus Salanus. Upsaliae. Lagerlööf, Petrus 1692: Hercules. Resp. Claudius Halling. Upsaliae 1692. Lagerlööf Suecia: Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna. Sine Anno. Sine Loco. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1717: Collectanea etymologica [...] I–II, Hanoverae, Foerster. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1768a: “Brevis Designatio Meditationum De Originibus Gentium, Ductis Potissimus Ex Indico Linguarum”. In Opera omnia, Bd. 4, Teil 2, 186–198, Genevae: Friéres de Tournes. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1768b: “Dissertatio De Origine Germanorum [...]”. In Opera omnia, Bd. 4, Teil 2, 198–205, Genevae: Friéres de Tournes. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1768c: “Epistola ad Amicum, De Titanis et Gigantibum ex Scythica Oriundis 1699”. In Opera omnia, Bd. 4, Teil 2, 209–210, Genevae: Friéres de Tournes. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 1992: Discourse on Metaphysics and the Monadology. (trans. George R. Montgomery). Prometheus Books, 1992 (first published by Open Court, 1902). Amherst. Ljungberg, Carl Fredric 1749: Anmärkningar wid hr. mag. Johan Göranssons så kallade Grundritning til hela hebreiska språket och theruppå utkomne förswars-skrift, författade af Carl Fredr. Liungberg [...]. Strengnäs: Lars Arv Collin. Lotichius, Jacobus 1938: Adr: Georgius Mancelius – Aut: Jacobus Lotichius (cf. 86). In Academia Gustaviana ladinakeelse juhuluule tekstikorpus (1632–1656) = Korpus der akademischen Gelegenheitsdichtung an der Academia Gustaviana : (1632–1656). Ed Jana Orion, Kristi Viiding, Ivo Volt. Estonian Foundation of Science, Tartu 2002– 2003. http://www.ut.ee/klassik/neolatina/ (cited 1.8. 2013). Lundius, Carolus 1687: Zamolxis primus getarum legislator, […]. Uppsala: Henricus Keyser. Mallet, Paul Henri 1809: Northern Antiquities or Description of the Manners, Customs, Religion and Laws of the Ancient Danes including those of Our Own Saxon Ancestors. Vol.1. Translator Unknown. Edinburgh. 317 Matthiae, Ericus 1638: In ”Gratulatio in UUB (Orationes Variae Svecorum Vol III 2. Supplem. 1636-1641 Sv. Litt. tal. Saml.-bd). In exemplari altero (UUB Orationes variae Svecorum Bd III 1636-1641 11) gratulatio deest”. In Academia Gustaviana ladinakeelse juhuluule tekstikorpus (1632–1656) = Korpus der akademischen Gelegenheitsdichtung an der Academia Gustaviana : (1632–1656). Ed Jana Orion, Kristi Viiding, Ivo Volt. Estonian Foundation of Science, Tartu 2002–2003. http://www.ut.ee/klassik/neolatina/ (cited 1.8. 2013). Olaus Magnus 1555: Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus. Romae 1555. Pausanias 1930: Description of Greece Vol IV. Books 8.2.2–10. Edited and Translated by W.H.S. Jones. Loeb Classical Library 297. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Peringskiöld, Johan 1710: Monumentorum sveo-gothicorum liber primus, Uplandiae partem primariam Thiundiam continens [...]. Stockholmiae. Peringskiöld, Johan 1713: En book af menniskiones slächt, och Jesu Christi börd; eller Bibliskt slächt-register, från Adam, til Iesu Christi heliga moder jungfru Maria, och hennes trolåfwade man Ioseph; […]. Stockholm: kongl.antiq.archiv.boktr. Peringskiöld Johan 1719: Monumenta Ullerakerensia cum Upsalia nova illvstrata, eller: Vlleråkers häradz minnings-merken, med nya Vpsala, vti Vplands första del Thiundaland, […]. Stockholmiae: Joh, L Horrn. kongl.antiq.archiv.boktr. Peringskiöld, Johan 1725: Ättartal för Swea och Götha konunga hus, efter trowärdiga historier och documenter i vnderdånighet vpräknadt af [...] Joh. Peringskiöld. Stockholmiae: Joh, L Horrn. kongl.antiq.archiv.boktr. Peringskiöld, Johan the Younger 1720: Hiálmters och Olvers Saga i Mannahem eller Swerige [...]. Johan Fredrik Peringskiöld. Stockholmiae: Joh, L Horrn. kongl.antiq.archiv.boktr. Petrejus, Petrus 1611: Een kort och nyttigh Chrönica Om alla Swerikis och Göthis Konungar. Stockholmiae: Ch. Reusner. Petrejus, Petrus 1615: Regni Muschovitici sciographia. Thet är: Een wiss och egenteligh beskriffning om Rydzland [...]. Stockholmiae: Ignatium Meurer. Pindar 1997a: Pindar Volume I. Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Edited and Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library 57. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pindar 1997b: Pindar Volume II: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes. Fragments. Edited and Translated by William H. Race. Loeb Classical Library 485. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pliny the Elder 1942: Natural History in Ten Volumes with an English Translation of H. Rackham M. A. Volume II. Books III–VII. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ragvaldi, Nicolaus 1991: “Oratio habita in concilio Basilense 1434”. Translated in Gyllene Äpplen. Svensk idéhistorisk läsebok 1. Stockholm: Atlantis. Rudbeck, Olof the Elder 1937: Atlantica I. Lychnos-bibliotek: 2:1. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksel. Rudbeck, Olof the Elder 1938: Taflor till Olaus Rudbecks Atlantica. Facsimileupplaga på uppdrag Lärdomshistoriska samfundet utgiven af Axel Nelson. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 318 Rudbeck, Olof the Elder 1939: Atlantica II. Lychnos-bibliotek: 2:2. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Rudbeck, Olof the Elder 1947: Atlantica III. Lychnos-bibliotek: 2:3. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Rudbeck, Olof the Elder 1950: Atlantica IV. Lychnos-bibliotek: 2:4. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Rudbeck, Olof the Younger 1701: Olof Rudbecks sonens Nora Samolad eller Uplyste Lapland medh resan igenom Upland, Gestrikland, Helsingland, Medelpa, Ångermanland, Wästerbotn, Lule Lapmark, Norbotn, Torne Lapmark, Österbotn, Finland, Åland, &c. […]. Uppsala. Rudbeck, Olof the Younger 1716: Olavi Rudbecki filii Thesaurus linguarum Asiæ et Europæ harmonicus, ubi item plurimis locis interpretationes sacrorum bibliorum castigantur, genuino sensu reddito, & historia naturalis mire illustratur. Adjectæ sunt dissertationes criticæ. Upsalis: J.H. Wernerianis. Rudbeck, Olof the Younger 1717: Specimen usus linguæ gothicæ in eruendis atque illustrandis obscurissimis quibusvis Sacræ Scripturæ locis [...]. Upsalis: J.H. Wernerianis. Rudbeck, Olof the Younger 1733: Olavi Rudbeck filii Atlantica illustrata, sive Illustrium, nobilium, principum atque regum insula, ubi et prisci hesperidum horti [...]. Uppsala: Literis J.H. Wernerianis. Rudbeck, Olof the Younger 1987: Skissboken från resan till Lappland 1695. Reńe Coeckelberghs editioner. Stockholm. Salanus, Petrus 1691: Pro Veris & Antiquis Gentis Gothicae. Praes. Prof. Petrus Lagerlööf, Resp. Petrus Salanus. Upsaliae. Saxo Grammaticus 1998: The History of the Danes: books I–IX. Edited by Hilda Ellis Davidson. Translated by Peter Fisher. Woodbridge: Brewer. Schedius, Elias 1728: De diis Germanis [...] syngrammata quatuor cum figuris Aeneis : Notis et observationibus illustravit M. Joannes Jarkius. Accedit praefatio Jo. Alberti Fabricii [...] et appendicis loco V. C. Jo. Georg. Keysleri...dissertatio de cultu solis, Freji et Othini. Halae. Schefferus, Johannes 1666: Upsalia, Cujus Occasione Plurima, in Religione, Sacris, Festis, Regum electionibus, Creationibus Magistratuum, Concessionibus Dignitatum, Funerationibus, & Similibus, olim oer Septentrionem & Vicinos Germanos, Gallos, Britannos, Omneque paene Occidentem usurpata explicantur, lociq; bene multi veterum aliorumq; auctorum omendantur atque illustrantur. Upsaliae: Henricus Curio. Schefferus, Johannes 1678: De antiqvis verisqve regni Sveciæ insignibus, liber singularis. Holmiae. Sheringham, Robert 1670: De Anglorum gentis origine disceptatio [...] In Annotationibus difficilia explicantur, & e re nata varia dubia philologica discutiuntur. Cantabrigiæ. 319 Stiernhielm, Georg 1685: Georgi Stiernhielmi Anticluverius. sive scriptum breve, Johanni Cluverio [...] oppositum: gentis gothicæ originem et antiquissimam in Scandia vel Scandinavia sedem vindicans, : ut & ejusdem De hyperboreis dissertatio brevis. ; Opuscula posthuma indice aucta. Holmiae: Henrici Keyser. Stiernhielm, Georg 1924: Filosofiska Fragment, Del I. With an introduction and commentaries of Johan Nordström. Stockholm: Svenska Vitterhetssamfundet. Stobaeus, Andreas 1697: De antiquis gentium Gothicarum insignibus dissertatio academica & polyhistorica, quam amplissimæ facultatis philosophicæ in inclyta Carolina consensu, sub præsidio mag. Andreæ Stobæi ... pro laurea magisterii impetranda, publico bonorum examini modestè submittit Jacobus Prank Gothoburg: Qui in auditorio novæ academiæ novo ad diem 26 Junii, anni M. D C. XC VII. Se examinaturis decenter sistet. Londini. Goth: Haberegger. Stobaeus, Andreas 1706: De primis Scandiæ habitatoribus et quibusdam aliis eo pertinentibus dissertatio academica, quam, cum consensu amplissimæ facult. philos. in acad. Gothorum Carolina, sub præsidio ... Andreæ Stobæi ... liberalis exercitii gratia, publico examini ea, qua par est, modestia subjicit stipendiarius regius Jonas Lybergh Smolandus, in auditorio Carolino super. ad diem 19 Decembr. anno 1706. Londini. Goth: Haberegger. Strabo 1928: The Geography of Strabo in Eight Volumes. Vol V. English Translation by Horace Leonard Jones. Loeb Classical Library 211. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Torfaeus, Tormodus 1711: Historia Rerum Norvegicarum in Quattuor tomos [...]. Volume I. Hafniae. Torfaeus, Tormod 2008: Norges Historie Bd 1. Translated from the Latin original. Edited by Torgrim Titlestad. 2008–2011. Bergen: Eide. Törner, Fabian 1706: Exercitium academicum de Gothorum h.e. Japhetidarum in Scandiam primo accessu, quod [...] præside [...] Fabiano Törner [...] a d. VII Iduum maji anni MDCCVI in auditorio Gustaviano majori publice submittit censuræ Andreas Drangel, Ostrogothus, Upsaliae. Törner, Fabian 1707a: Dissertatio philosophica de veterum Gothorum sapientia, quam [...], sub præsidio, [...] Fabiani Törner, [...] publicæ bonorum censuræ, quâ par est modestiâ sistit, [...] Olaus N. Crucelius, Sudermannus. Ad diem 27 febr. anni MDCCVII. In audit. Gustav. Majori. Upsaliae: typis Wernerianis. Törner, Fabian 1707b: Dissertatio historico-politica de Marte Hyperboreo, quam […] sub praesidio viri amplissimi mg. Fabiani Törner … Publice discutiendam modeste sistit, … Nicolaus Passenius Calmariensis, in audit: Carolino majori. A..d. 15 Junii hor. Pomer anno MDCCVII. Upsaliae: Wernerianis. Törner, Fabian 1720: Dissertatio academica de montibus Riphæis, Resp. P. Enevald.. Upsaliae: Wernerianis. Törner, Fabian 1728: Dissertatio historica de origine ac religione Fennonum [...] quam ... præside ... mag. Fabiano Törner, ... Ad publicum examen modeste defert ... Gabriel Arctopolitanus, Gregorii filius, Ostrobothniensis. In audit. Gustav. maj. die 3 Aprilis a. MDCCXXVIII. Horis ante meridiem solitis. Upsalis: Wernerianis. 320 Welt, Laurentinus 1687: ”Legius Hyperboreis”. In Themis Romano-Svecica seu fasciculus primus disputationum juridicarum Upsaliensium, continens [...] cum præfatione editoris Christiani Nettelbladt [...].Gryphiswaldiæ: sumtibus Jacobi Loefleri, reg. academiæ bibliopolæ. a. MDCCXXIX. Verelius, Olaus 1664: Gothrici & Rolfi Westrogothiae regum historia lingua antiqua Gothica conscripta / quam e.m.s. vetustissimo edidit, & versione notisq; illustravit Olavs Verelius. Upsaliae: Curio. Verelius, Olof 1672: Hervarar saga på gammal götska med Olai Vereli vttolkning och notis. Hervarar saga og Heiðreks. Upsalae: Curio Verelius, Olaus 1675: Olai Vereli Manuductio Compendiosa ad Runographiam Scandiam Antiqvam. Recte Intelligendam / En kort underwisning om Then Gambla Swea-Görha Runa-Ristning. Upsalae: Curio. Verelius, Olaus 1677: Auctarium notarum in Hervarar Saga [...] dn. Olao Rudbeckio [...] inscriptum Anno 1674. Upsala. Verelius, Olaus 1681: Notae in Epistolam defensoriam Joannis Schefferi De situ et vocabulo Upsaliae anno 1677, mense julio scriptae, & per professores binos ipsi oblatae. Upsalae: Curio. Verelius, Olaus 1691: Olai Vereli Index lingvæ veteris scythoscandicæ sive gothicæ / ex vetusti ævi monumentis, maximam partem manuscriptis, collectus atqve opera Olai Rudbecki editus. Upsalae. Verelius, Olaus 1990: Tre isländska sagor om Sverige. Med ordförklaringar, kompletteringar och en utförlig kommentar av Dan Korn. Illustrationer: Oscar B. Oscarsson. Mölnlycke: D. Korn. Wettersten, Nils 1901: Forssa och Högs ålder och wärde ibland andra socknar i Sundhede, det är i Helsungalands norra fögderie. I ljuset framstäld år 1761 af Benedict Wettersten. Hudiksvall: Wibergs Bokh. Wilde, Jacob 1731: Sueciæ historia pragmatica, quæ vulgò jus publicum dicitur, e traditionibus historicis, legibus non scriptis & scriptis antiquis & recentioribus, provincialibus & communibus, tum pactis conventis, decretis comitialibus, statutis, edictis […]. Stockholm. III Research Literature Aatsma, Aaron 2000–2011: “Land Hyperborea”. Theoi Greek Mythology. Exploring Mythology in Classical Literature & Art. The Theoi Project. http://www.theoi.com/Phylos/Hyperborea.html (cited 25.6 2012). Åkerman, Susanna 1991: Queen Christina of Sweden and Her Circle: the Transformation of a Seventeenth-century Libertine. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 21. Leiden: Brill. Åkerman, Susanna 1998: Rose Cross Over the Baltic. The Spread Rosicrucianism in Northern Europe. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 87. Leiden: Brill. 321 Åkerman, Susanna 2007: “Three phases of inventing Rosicrucian tradition in the seventeenth century”. In the Invention of Sacred Tradition, 158–173. Edited by Olav Hammer & John R. Lewis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Åkerman, Susanna 2013: Fenixelden: drottning Kristina som alkemist. Hedemora: Gidlunds Förlag 2013. Alkarp, Magnus 2009: Det Gamla Uppsala: berättelser och & metamorfoser kring en alldeles särskild plats. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia. Allen, Don Cameron 1949: The Legend of Noah: Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science and Letters. Urban: University of Illinois Press 1949. Anderson, Benedict 1991: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Andersson, Björn 1997: Runor, magi, ideologi: en idéhistorisk studie. Acta Universitatis Umensis. Umeå: Umeå Universitet. Annerstedt, Claes 1891: Schefferus och Verelius: en literär fäjd i sjuttonde seklet. Uppsala. Annerstedt, Claes 1908: Upsala universitets historia. D. 2, 1655–1718, 1, Universitets öden. Upsala: Uppsala Universitet. Anttila, Tero 2009: “East of Atlantis – Ancient Finland and its Inhabitants in Olof Rudbeck the Elder’s (1630–1702) Atlantica”. Itämeren Itälaidalla II (On the Eastern Edge of the Baltic Sea II), 39–56. Edited by Kari Alenius, Anita Honkala, Sinikka Wunsch. Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys. Societas Historica Finlandiae Septentrionalis. Armstrong, John A. 1982: Nations before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Asher, Richard E. 1993: National Myths in Renaissance France. Francus, Samothes and the Druids. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 1993. Ashworth, William B. Jr. 1991: “The Habsburg Circle”. In Patronage and Institutions: Science, Technology and Medicine at the European Court 1500–1750, 137–167. Edited by Bruce T. Moran. Rochester: The Boydell Press. Barabási, Albert-László 2002: Linked: the New Science of Networks. Cambridge Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Baron, Samuel H. 1991: Explorations in Muscovite History. London: Variorum Reprints. Bennich–Björkman, Bo 1970: Författaren i ämbetet: studier i function och organisation av författarämbeten vid svenska hovet och kansliet 1550–1850. Studia Litterarum Upsalia. Stockholm: Sv. Bokförl. Berggren, Maria 1994: Andreas Stobaeus. Two Panegyrics in Verse. Edited with introduction, translation and commentary by Maria Berggren. Uppsala Universitet. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Bietenholz, Peter G. 1994: Historia and Fabula. Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, Volume 59. Leiden: Brill. Blair, Ann M. 2000: “Mosaic Physics and the Search for a Pious Natural Philosophy in the Late Renaissance” (32–52) in Isis 91 (1), Massachusetts: Harvard University. 322 Borchardt, Frank L. 1971: German Antiquity in Renaissance Myths. Baltimore and London: the Johns Hopkins Press. Braudel, Fernand 1980: On History. Translated by Sarah Matthews. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bridgman, Timothy P. 2005: Hyperboreans: Myth and History in Celtic-Hellenic contacts. New York: Routledge. Briggs, Robin 1999: “Embattled Faiths: Religion and Natural History”. In Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History, Chapter 5. Edited by Euan Cameron. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bring, Samuel E. 1937: “Sueciaverket och dess text”. Lychnos 1937, 1–67. Stockholm. Burguière, André 2009: The Annales School. An Intellectual History. Translated from French by Jane Marie Todd. Foreword by Timothy Tackett. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Burke, Peter 2002: “Context in Context”. In Common Knowledge 8.1., 2002, Seriatim Symposium on Dispute, Conflict, and Enmity Postscript on Method, 152–177. Durham: Duke University Press. Burke, Peter 2004: Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. The Wiles Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, Euan 1999a: Early Modern Europe. An Oxford History. Edited by Euan Cameron. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press. Cameron, Euan 1999b: “The Power of the Word: Renaissance and Reformation”. In Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History, Chapter 2. Edited by Euan Cameron. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Campbell, Lyle 2007: “The History of Linguistics”. In The Handbook of Linguistics. Edited by Aronoff, Mark and Janie Rees-Miller. Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online, 30 November 2007. http://www.blackwellreference.com/ subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405102520_chunk_g97814051025206 (cited 1.8. 2012). Champlin, Burrage 1910: “The Fifth Monarchy Insurrections”. In The English Historical Review Vol. 25. No 100 (Oct. 1910) 722– 747. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collingwood, Robin George 1993: The Idea of History. Revised Edition with Lectures 1926–1928. Edited with an Introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Considine, John 2008: Dictionaries in Early Modern Europe: Lexicography and the Making of Heritage. London: Cambridge University Press. Cornell, T. J. 1995: “Ancient History and the Antiquarian Revisited: Some Thoughts on Reading Momigliano’s Classical Foundations”. In Ancient History and the Antiquarian. Essays in Memory of Arnaldo Momigliano, 1–14. London: The Warburg Institute University of London. Crawford M. H. & Ligota, C. R. 1995: Ancient History and the Antiquarian: Essays in Memory of Arnaldo Momigliano. Edited by M. H. Crawford and C. R. Ligota. London: The Warburg Institute University of London. 323 Dahl, Per 1995: Svensk ingenjörskonst under stormaktstiden: Olof Rudbecks tekniska undervisning och praktiska verksamhet. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria. Davidson, Hilda Ellis 1964: The Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Dekker, Kees 1999: The Origins of Old Germanic Studies in the Low Countries. Leiden: Brill. De León-Jones, Karen Silvia 1997: Giordano Bruno and the Kabbalah: prophets, magicians and rabbis. New Haven: Yale University Press. Derry, T. K. 2000: History of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press. Dickson, Donald R. 1998: The Tessera of Antilia. Utopian Brotherhoods & Secret Societies in the Early Seventeenth Century. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History. Leiden: Brill. Dilke, Oswald A. W. 1984: “Geographical Perceptions of the North in Pomponius Mela and Ptolemy”. Arctic Vol. 37. No. 4 (December 1984), 347–351. Calgary: Arctic Institute of North America. Donecker, Stefan: There and Back Again. North as Origin and Destination in Early Modern Migration Narratives. Sine Loco. Sine Anno. http://web.archive.org/ web/20070928055918/http://www.akademia.is/imagesofthenorh/NORTHWORKSHO P/PDF%20%20Papers/GLOBAL/Final_Donecker.pdf (cited 1.8. 2012). Droste, Heiko 1998: “Språk och livsform: Patronage i 1600-talets Sverige”. Scandia 64 (28–54). Lund. Edenborg, Carl-Michael 1997: Gull och mull: den monstruöse Gustaf Bonde, upplysningens fiende i frihetstidens Sverige: historien om hans exkrementalkemi, hans krets och värld: försedd med psykoanalytiska, Batailleska och historiematerialistiska reflexioner, samt ett utkast mot döden. Lund: Ellerström. Ellenius, Allan 1957: “Johannes Schefferus and Swedish Antiquity”. In Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 20 (59–74). London. Ellenius, Allan 1960: De Arte Pingendi: the Latin art literature in seventeenth-century Sweden and its international background. Uppsala – Stockholm: Lychnos. Ellenius, Allan 1984: Den atlantiska anatomin: ur bildkonstens idéhistoria. Stockholm: Norstedt. Enoksen, Lars Magnar 1998: Runor: historia, tydning, tolkning. Lund: Historiska Media. Eriksson, Bo 2007: Lützen 1632: ett ödesdigert beslut. Stockholm: Norstedt. Eriksson, Gunnar 1994: The Atlantic Vision. Olaus Rudbeck and Baroque Science. Uppsala Studies in History of Science, volume 19. Canton Massachusetts: Science History Publications. Eriksson, Gunnar 2002: Rudbeck 1632-1702. Liv, Lärdom, dröm i Barockens Sverige. Stockholm: Atlantis. Foucault, Michel 1982: The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. Translated from French by A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books. 324 Foucault, Michel 1988: Technologies of the Self: a Seminar with Michel Foucault. Edited by Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrik H. Hutton. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Frängsmyr, Tore 2000: Svensk idéhistoria: bildning och vetenskap under tusen år. Del 1 1000–1809. Stockholm: Natur et Kultur. Geary, Patrick J. 2002: The Myth of Nations. The Mediaeval Origins of Europe. Princeton NJ: Princeton University. Ghosh, Shami 2009: The Barbarian Past in Early Mediaeval Historical Narrative. University of Toronto: Toronto. https://www.academia.edu/7964579/The_barbarian _past_in_early_mediaeval_historical_narrative (cited 20.8.2014). Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas 1985: The Occult Roots of Nazisim. Secret Arayan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology. The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890– 1935. New York: New York University Press. Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas 2002: Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the politics of identity. New York: New York University Press. Goulding, Robert 2006a: “Histories of Science in Early Modern Europe: Introduction”. In Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 67, Number 1, 2006, 33–40. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goulding, Robert 2006b: “Method and Mathematics: Peter Ramus’s Histories of the Sciences”. Journal of History of Ideas, Volume 67, Number 1, 2006, 63–85. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Grachev, Guerman 2006: Russian Scientists Find Paradise at the North Pole. 29.11.2006. Translated by Guerman Grachev. http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/29-11- 2006/85697-paradise-0/ (cited 1.8.2012). Grafton, Anthony 1985: “The World of the Polyhistors: Humanism and Encyclopaedism”. Central European History Vol. 18, No. 1. The Culture of the Holy Roman Empire, 1540–1680, (Mar. 1985) 31–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grafton, Anthony 1990: Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. London: Collins & Brown. Grafton, Anthony 2007: What was History. The Art of History in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grape, Hjalmar 1942: Studier i Olaus Magnus författarskap: ett bidrag till den götiska rörelsens historia. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Gröndahl, Anna-Stina 2006: En stormaktsdröm. Om symbolspråket i Stockholms slott. Stockholm. Grundberg, Malin 2006: Stormaktens ceremonier. Lund: Historiska Media. Haavio, Martti 1965: Bjarmien vallan kukoistus ja tuho: historiaa ja runoutta. Helsinki: WSOY. Hakanen, Marko 2011: Vallan verkostoissa: Per Brahe ja hänen klienttinsä 1600-luvun Ruotsin valtakunnassa. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 1459-4331: 157. Håkansson, Håkan 2012: “Alchemy of the Ancient Goths: Johannes Bureus’ Search for the Lost Wisdom of Scandinavia”. Early Science and Medicine Vol 17 (2012), 500–522. Leiden: Brill. 325 Hall, Patrik 1998: The Social Construction of Nationalism. Sweden as an Example. Lund: Lund University Press. Hall, Patrik 2000: Den svenskaste historien. Nationalism I Sverige under sex sekler. Stockholm: Carlsson. Hansson, Stina 1984: Svenskans Nytta, Sveriges Ära. Litteratur och Kulturpolitik under 1600-talet. Göteborg: Litteraturvetenskapliga Inst. Univ. Harris, Rendell J. 1925: “Apollo at the Back of the North Wind”. Journal of Hellenistic Studies 45/2, 229–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harviainen, Tapani 2005: “The Story of Supposed Hebrew-Finnish Affinity - a Chapter in the History of Comparative Linguistics”. Inquiries into Words, Constraints and Contexts: Festschrift in the Honour of Kimmo Koskenniemi on his 60th Birthday, 289–306. Edited by Antti Arppe et alii. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Hastings, Adrian 1997: The Construction of Nationhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helander, Hans 2004: Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden in the Period 1620–1720. Stylistics, Vocabulary and Characteristic Ideas. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Holst, Walfrid 1956: Ulrika Eleonora d.y., Karl den XII:s syster. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Ingemarsdotter, Jenny 2011: Ramism, Rhetoric, and Reform. An Intellectual Biography of Johan Skytte (1577–1645). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 42. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Jardine, Lisa 1996: Worldly Goods. A New History of the Renaissance. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Jardine, Nick 2000: “Uses and Abuses of Anachronism in the History of Science”. In History of Science, Vol. 38, Part 3, Number 121, September 2000, 251–270. London: Sage Publications. Jenkins, Keith 1995: On ‘What is History’. From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. London: Routledge. Johannesson, Kurt 1968: I Polstjärnas tecken. Studier i Svensk Barock. Lychnos-Bibliotek, Uppsala. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Johannesson, Kurt 1982: Gotisk renässans: Johannes och Olaus Magnus som politiker och historiker. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Johannesson, Kurt 1991: The Renaissance of the Goths in Sixteenth-Century Sweden: Johannes and Olaus Magnus as Politicians and Historians. Translated and edited by James Larsson. Berkeley: University of California Press. Josephson, Ragnar 1940: Det Hyperboreiska Upsala. Svenska Humanistiska Förbundet. Stockholm: Norstedt. Karlsson, Thomas 2005: Adulrunan och den götiska kabbalan. Sundbyberg: Ouroburos. Karlsson, Thomas 2010: Götisk kabbala och runisk alkemi: Johannes Bureus och den götiska esoterismen. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet. Kelley Donald R. 1988: “Humanism and History”. In Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy. Vol 3. Humanism and the Disciplines, 236–270. Edited by Albert Rabil Jr. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 326 Kemiläinen, Aira 1964: Nationalism: Problems concerning the word, concept and the classification. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän kasvatusopillinen korkeakoulu. Kendrick, T. D. 1950: British Antiquity. London: Methuen Cass. Kendrick, T. D. 1966: The Druids. A Study in Keltic Prehistory. London: Methuen Cass. Killeen, Kevin 2006: Biblical Scholarship, Science and Politics in Early Modern England. Thomas Browne and the Thorny Place of Knowldge. Burlington: Ashgate. King, David 2005: Finding Atlantis: A True Story of Genius, Madness, and an Extraordinary Quest for a Lost World. New York: Broadway Books. Knoespel, Kenneth J. 2004: “The Edge of Empire: Rudbeck and Lomonosov and the Historiography of the North”. In In Search of an Order. Mutual Representations in Sweden and Russia during the Early Age of Reason, 129–154. Edited by Ulla Birgegård and Irina Sandomirskaja. Södertörn: Academic Studies 19, Södertörns högskola 2004. Krebs, Kristopher B. 2011: A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich. New York: W.W. Norton co. Kristeller, Paul Otto 1988: “Renaissance Humanism and Classical Antiquity”. In Renaissance Humanism. Foundations, Forms, and Legacy. Vol 1. Humanism in Italy, 5–16. Edited by Albert Rabil Jr. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kusch, Martin 1991: Foucault’s Strata and Fields: an Investigation into Archaeological and Genealogical Science Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lahtinen, Anu 2007: Sopeutuvat, neuvottelevat, kapinalliset: naiset toimijoina Flemingin sukupiirissä 1470–1620. Helsinki: SKS. Lahtinen, Anu 2010: ”Lahjat ja aatelin suhdeverkostot 1500-luvun Ruotsissa”. In Esine ja aika. Materiaalisen kulttuurin historiaa, 34–65. Ed: Maija Mäkikalli & Riitta Laitinen. Helsinki: SKS. Lamb, Jonathan 2007: “Fantasies of Paradise”. In The Enlightenment World, 521–535. Edited by Martin Fitzpatrick, Peter Jones, Christa Knellwolf and Iain McCalman. London: Routledge. Landgren, Per 2008: Det aristoteliska historiebegreppet. Historieteori i renässansens Europa och Sverige. Gothenburg Studies in the History of Science and Ideas, Göteborg: Göterborgs Universitet. Langemets, Anders 2006: What is the price of Silverwhite. In Estonian literary magazine. Autumn 2006, no. 13. http://elm.estinst.ee/issue/23/what-price-silverwhite/ (cited 25.6.2012). Lappalainen, Mirkka 2007: Släkten, makten, staten: familjen Creutz i 1600-talets Sverige och Finland. Översättning: Ann-Christin Relander. Stockholm: Norstedt. Levine, Joseph. M. 1991: The Battle of the Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lidell, Hilding 1935: Johannes Messenius dramer. Uppsala. Lindow, John 2001: Norse Mythology: a Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindroth, Hjalmar 1910: ”Ett par bidrag till 1600-talets lärdomshistoria”. Samlaren, Trettioförsta Årgången, 15–28. Uppsala. 327 Lindroth, Sten 1943: Paracelsismen i Sverige till 1600-talets mitt. Uppsala: Lychnos- bibliotek. Lindroth, Sten 1975a: Svensk lärdomshistoria. 1 Medeltiden, Reformationstiden. Stockholm: Norstedt. Lindroth, Sten 1975b: Svensk lärdomshistoria. 2 Stormaktstiden. Stockholm: Norstedt. Lindroth, Sten 1978: Svensk lärdomshistoria. 3 Frihetstiden. Stockholm: Norstedt. Lindström, Fredrik & Lindström, Henrik 2006: Svitjods undergång och Sveriges födelse. Stockholm: Bonnier. Löw, Gustav 1908: Sveriges Forntid i Svensk Historieskrivning I. Stockholm. Lukes, Steven 1977: “Some Problems about Rationality (1)”. In Essays in Social Theory, 121–137. London: Macmillan 1977. Malm, Mats 1994: “Olaus Rudbeck’s Atlantica and Old Norse Poetics”. In Northern Antiquity. The Post-Mediaeval Reception of Edda and Saga, 1–25. Edited by Andrew Wawn. London: Hisarlik Press. Malm, Mats 1996: Minervas äpple. Om diktsyn, tolkning och bildspråk inom nordisk göticism. Stockholm: Stehag: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion. McGrath, Alister E. 2012: Historical Theology. An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Second Edition. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken. McKeown, Simon & Wade, Mara 2007: The Emblem in Scandinavia and the Baltic. Glasgow: Glasgow Emblem Studies 11. Melamed, Abraham 2003: The Philosopher King in Mediaeval and Renaissance Jewish Political Thought. Edited and with a Foreword by Lenn E. Goodman. New York: State University of New York Press. Mikkeli, Heikki 1998: ”Renessanssifilosofia”. In Filosofian historian kehityslinjoja, 161– 180. Edited by Mikko Yrjönsuuri & Petter Korkman. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Momigliano, Arnaldo 1950: “Ancient History and the Antiquarian”. In Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13, 285–315, (3/4), 1950. London. Momigliano, Momigliano 1990: The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moran, Bruce 1991: Patronage and Institutions: Science, Technology and Medicine at the European Court 1500–1750. Edited by Bruce Moran. Rochester: Boydell. Munkhammar, Lars 2011: The Silver Bible: Origins and History of the Codex Argenteus. Uppsala: Selenas. Neville, Kristoffer 2009: “Gothicism and Early Modern Historical Ethnography”. In Journal of the History of Ideas, 213–235, Vol. 70, No. 2. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. Nordin, Jonas 2000: Ett Fattigt men Fritt Folk: nationell och politisk självbild i Sverige från sen stormaktstid till slutet av frihetstiden. Eslöv: B. Östlings Bokförlag, Symposion. Nordström, Johan 1924: ”Filosofiska fragment / med inledning och kommentar av Johan Nordström”. In Georg Stiernhielm: Filosofiska fragment. Stockholm: Svenska Vitterhetssamf. 328 Nordström, Johan 1934a: De yverbornes ö. Sextonhundratals-studier. Stockholm: Bonnier. Nordström, Johan 1934b: ”Lejonet från Norden”. Samlaren 15, 1–66. Tidskrift för Svensk litteraturhistorisk forskning. Uppsala. Nordström, Johan 1975: Johannes Magnus och den götiska romantiken. Akademiska föreläsningar 1929. Utgivna av Michaelisgillet genom Carl-Otto von Sydow. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell. Norrhem, Svante 2007: Kvinnor vid maktens sida 1632–1772. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Nurmiainen, Jouko 2000: ”Vastavuoroisuus ja yhteinen etu. Lähtökohtia historialliselle verkostoanalyysille”. In Historiallisia Papereita 6 (2000): Valta, eliitit ja verkostot historiassa. Historiallisia papereita. Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/historia/ yhdistys/vanhat/julk/verkko00 (cited 9.10.2014). Nurmiainen, Jouko 2003: ”Frågan om ‘etnisk nationalism’, nationell självbild och 1700- talets Sverige”. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 3, 257–275. 2003, årg 88. Helsingfors. Olsson, Bernt 1977–1979: ”Petrus Lagerlööf”. In Svenskt biografiskt lexikon Band 22 (1977-1979), sida 149. http://www.nad.riksarkivet.se/sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=10921 (urn: sbl: 10921), (cited 10.8.2012). Olsson, Harald 1944: Johannes Messenius Scondia illustrata: studier i verkets tillkomshistoria och medeltidspartiets källförhållanden. Lund. Parry, Graham 1995: Trophies of Time: English Antiquarians of the Seventeenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Persson, Mats 2005: “Begreppshistoria och idéhistoria”. In Trygghet och äventyr: om begreppshistoria, 14–34 . Edited by Bo Lindberg. Kungl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitetsakademiens konferenser 59. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets historie- och antikvitetsakademien. Piggott, Stuart 1976: Ruins in a Landscape: essays in antiquarianism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Popkin, Richard H. 1990: “The Crisis of Polytheism and the Answers of Vossius, Cudworth, and Newton”. In Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology, 9-26. Ed. James E. Force & Richard E. Popkin. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pozdnyakova, Maria 2009: “Paradise is Near. The Mysterious Hyperborea Flourished in the Russian North”. In Views from Russia. The Center of the Russian Culture and Language. AIF. 11 November 2009. The English Version, in Russia Today. http//:clcr.ru/index.php?name=gazette&op=view&id=116 (cited 1.8.2012). Ranum, Orest 1975: National Consciousness, History, and Political Culture in Early- Modern Europe. Baltimore London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Runeby, Nils 1962: Monarchia mixta: maktfördelningsdebatt i Sverige under den tidigare stormaktstiden. Studia Historica Upsaliensia, 6. Stockholm. Schmitt, Charles B. 1966: “Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz”. In Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 1, Oct. – Dec. 1966, 505–532, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. 329 Schough, Katarina 2008: Hyperboré. Föreställningen om Sveriges plats i världen. Stockholm: Carlssons Bokförl. Schück, Henrik 1920: Messenius: några blad ur Vasatidens kulturhistoria. Stockholm: Norstedt. Schück, Henrik 1932: Kgl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitets akademien: dess förhistoria och historia. Del I: Antikvitetsstudiets början. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Schück, Henrik 1933a: Kgl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitets akademien: dess förhistoria och historia. Del II: Antikvitetskollegiet I. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Schück, Henrik 1933b: Kgl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitets akademien: dess förhistoria och historia. Del III: Antikvitetskollegiet II. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Schück, Henrik 1933c: ”Torneåstenen”. In Fornvännen, Årgång 28, 257–262. Stockholm. Schück, Henrik 1935: Kgl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitets akademien: dess förhistoria och historia. Del IV: Antikvitetsarkivet I. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Schück, Henrik 1936: Kgl. Vitterhets-, historie- och antikvitets akademien: dess förhistoria och historia. Del V: Antikvitetsarkivet II. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Scott, M. II 1999: ”Europe Turns East: Political Development”. In Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History, Chapter 9. Edited by Euan Cameron. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seth, Ivar 1952: Universitet i Greifswald och dess ställning i svensk kulturpolitik 1637– 1815. Uppsala: Wretman. Sironen, Timo 2007: ”Olof Hermelinin Hecatompolis Suionum -runokokoelman Oulu-runo (69) kaikkine konteksteineen”. In Faravid XXXI, 259–277. Rovaniemi: Acta Societatis Historiae Finlandiae Septentrionalis. Skinner, Quentin 1988: Meaning and Context: Skinner and his Critics. Edited and Introduced by James Tully. Cambridge: Polity. Skovgaard–Petersen, Karen 1998: Historiography at the Court of Christian IV (1588– 1648). Studies in the Latin Histories of Denmark by Johannes Pontanus and Johannes Mersius. Bergen. Smith, Anthony D. 1999: Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, Anthony D. 2003: Chosen Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, Anthony D. 2005: “Nationalism in Early Modern Europe”. History and Theory, Volume 44, Issue 3, October 2005, 404–415. Smith, Anthony D. 2006: “The Biblical Origins of Nationalism”. Historically Speaking, Volume 7, Number 4, March/April 2006, 21–24. Smith, Anthony D. 2008: The Cultural Foundation of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith & Others 1873: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume 2. London: Spottiswoode & Co. Stenroth, Ingmar 2002: Myten om goterna: från antiken till romantiken, Stockholm: Atlantis. 330 Stephens, Walter 2004: “When Pope Noah Ruled the Etruscans: Annius of Viterbo and His Forged ‘Antiquities’”. In MLN, Vol. 119, No. 1, Italian Issue Supplement, 201–223. Studia Humanitatis: Essays in Honor of Salvatore Camporeale. Jan. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University. Stiernhielm, Georg 1924: Filosofiska fragment Vol 2. Med inledning och kommentar av Johan Nordström. Stockholm: Svenska Vitterhetssamf. Svennung, Josef 1967: Zur Geschichte des Goticismus. Stockholm: Almqvist & Viksell. Työrinoja, Reijo 1998: ”Platonismi, Aristotelismi ja Teologia Keskiajalla”. In Filosofian historian kehityslinjoja, 117–139. Yrjönsuuri & Korkman (ed:). Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Upton, Anthony F. 1998: Charles XI and Swedish Absolutism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Urpilainen, Erkki 1993: Algot Scarin ja gööttiläisen historiankirjoituksen mureneminen Ruotsissa 1700-luvun alkupuolella. Helsinki: SHS. Walker, Daniel Pickering 1958: Spiritual and Demonic magic from Ficino to Campanella. London. Walker, Daniel Pickering 1972a: The Ancient Theology. Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. London: Duckworth. Walker, Daniel Pickering 1972b: “Leibniz and Language”. In Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 35, 294–307. London. Wallette, Anna 2004: Sagans svenskar: synen på vikingatiden och de isländska sagorna under 300 år. Malmö: Sekel cop. Wetterberg, Gunnar 2003: Levande 1600-tal. Essäer. Stockholm: Atlantis. Whaley, Joachim 2012: Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, 1493–1648. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widenberg, Johanna 2006: Fäderneslandets antikviteter. Etnoterritoriella historiebruk och integrationssträvanden i den svenska statsmaktens antikvariska verksamhet ca 1600– 1720. Studia Historica Upsaliensia 225. Uppsala. Vine, Angus 2010: In Defiance of Time: Antiquarian Writing in Early Modern England. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Viroli, Maurizio 1995: For Love of Country. An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wood, Ian 2013: The Modern Origins of Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wrightson, Keith 1982: English Society (1560–1680). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Yates, Frances Amelia 1978: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London: Routledge; University of Chicago Press. Yates, Frances Amelia 1979: The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 331 332  ACTA UNIVERSITATIS OULUENSIS SERIES B HUMANIORA 110. Törölä, Helena (2013) Vocalisation and feeding skills in extremely preterm infants : an intensive follow-up from birth to first word and first step 111. Spoelman, Marianne (2013) Prior linguistic knowledge matters : the use of the partitive case in Finnish learner language 112. Mäki, Markku (2013) Republikaaninen poliittinen filosofia oikeusfilosofiana : Rousseau ja Hegel 113. Kurvinen, Heidi (2013) "En mä oo mies enkä nainen. Mä oon toimittaja" : sukupuoli ja suomalainen toimittajakunta 1960- ja 1970-luvulla 114. Hautala, Terhi (2013) Ikääntyneiden kuuntelijoiden puheen ymmärtäminen kognitiivisesti vaativassa tilanteessa 115. Leinonen, Riitta-Marja (2013) Palvelijasta terapeutiksi : ihmisen ja hevosen suhteen muuttuvat kulttuuriset mallit Suomessa 116. Mertala, Petteri (2013) Kuvalla voi olla merkitystä : Suomen ja Espanjan väliset suhteet vuosina 1917–1946 117. Alaniska, Kari (2013) Kalojen kuninkaan tie sukupuuttoon : Kemijoen voimalaitosrakentaminen ja vaelluskalakysymys 1943–1964 118. Enwald, Heidi (2013) Tailoring health communication : the perspective of information users' health information behaviour in relation to their physical health status 119. Känsäkoski, Helena (2014) Value creation in childhood obesity care and prevention 120. Myllykangas, Mikko (2014) Rappeutuminen, tiedostamaton vai yhteiskunta? : lääketieteellinen itsemurhatutkimus Suomessa vuoteen 1985 121. Kangasvuo, Jenny (2014) Suomalainen biseksuaalisuus : käsitteen ja kokemuksen kulttuuriset ehdot 122. Harjuniemi, Jenna (2014) Kön, språk och kognition : semantiska och begreppsliga strukturer hos svenska femininavledningar och deras finska och tyska ekvivalenter 123. Jylhä, Eva-Jo (2014) The creation of the Small New England Town in Alice Hoffman’s Massachusetts novels : a cultural imagological study 124. Mäkinen, Leena (2014) Narrative language in typically developing children, children with specific language impairment and children with autism spectrum disorder Book orders: Granum: Virtual book store http://granum.uta.fi/granum/  OULU 2014 B 125 B 125 UNIV ER S IT Y OF OULU P. O. BR[ 00 FI-90014 UNIVERSITY OF OULU FINLAND ACTA U N I V E R S I T AT I S O U L U E N S I S ACTA A C TA U N I V E R S I TAT I S O U L U E N S I S S E R I E S E D I T O R S Tero Anttila B HUMANIORA A SCIENTIAE RERUM NATURALIUM THE POWER OF ANTIQUITY Tero Anttila Professor Esa Hohtola B HUMANIORA University Lecturer Santeri Palviainen THE HYPERBOREAN RESEARCH TRADITION C TECHNICA Postdoctoral research fellow Sanna Taskila IN EARLY MODERN SWEDISH RESEARCH ON NATIONAL ANTIQUITY D MEDICA Professor Olli Vuolteenaho E SCIENTIAE RERUM SOCIALIUM University Lecturer Veli-Matti Ulvinen F SCRIPTA ACADEMICA Director Sinikka Eskelinen G OECONOMICA Professor Jari Juga EDITOR IN CHIEF Professor Olli Vuolteenaho PUBLICATIONS EDITOR Publications Editor Kirsti Nurkkala UNIVERSITY OF OULU GRADUATE SCHOOL; UNIVERSITY OF OULU, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES, ISBN 978-952-62-0713-1 (Paperback) HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND IDEAS ISBN 978-952-62-0714-8 (PDF) ISSN 0355-3205 (Print) ISSN 1796-2218 (Online)