Kootut teokset | Samlade skrifter | Selected Works
Writing: Autobiography

Autobiography

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Font size: A A A A


Viewing Options:

Autobiography submitted to the Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg

Anders Chydenius was born on 24 February1 1729 (Old Style)2 in the parish of Sotkamo, 2 mil from Kajaani (Kajana). His father was the Rector and Dean of Kokkola, Jakob Chydenius, who was then Chaplain in Sotkamo but in 1734 became Rector of Kemin Lappi and of Kuusamo and was transferred from there in 1746 to the parish of Kokkola, where he died in April 1766. My grandfather was the Rector of Rymättylä (Rimito), Anders Chydenius, M.A., the son of a farmer of that parish. The name of my mother was Hedvig Hornæa, daughter of the late Rector and Dean of Eurajoki (Euraåminne), Samuel Hornæus.

Next to God, I have a loving father to thank not only for life and its sustenance during my childhood and youth, which most parents provide for their children, but rather for untiringly instructing me from my tenderest years. He did not follow the usual path of merely burdening the memory of his children during their instruction. He taught them to think and at the same time to let the light of reason incline their hearts to virtue and piety.

For two years, under the supervision of a loving father, I received private tuition. For two years I attended the lower grammar school at Oulu and studied for one year under the personal guidance of the then Headmaster at the Tornio (Torneå) state secondary school and later Rector and Dean in Oulu, Mr Johan Wegelius,3 with whose testimonial I left in December 1744 for the Academy in Turku, together with my older brother, the gifted Assistant Master Samuel Chydenius,4 M.A., who sadly was drowned in the Kokemäenjoki, and was enrolled in January 1745 as a student there, where I received instruction in philosophy and Latin composition during the first year from the then Assistant Master but now Archbishop, the Right Rev. Carl Fredrik Mennander,5 though I improved myself most of all through the daily company and discourses of the gifted Master Nordstedt with my brother, to which I always listened with the greatest pleasure. In 1750 I attended the seat of learning at Uppsala and in 1751 also defended my brother’s dissertation, De navigatione per flumina et lacus patriæ promovenda (“On the promotion of navigation on domestic rivers and lakes”). In 1753 I returned to Turku, having received a call to the newly established chapel at Alaveteli in the parish of Kokkola, to serve as their local minister, being also ordained as such in March by the then Bishop of the Turku diocese, the Right Rev. Johan Browallius,6 and, with the full approbation of my superiors, produced the usual specimina academica for a Master’s degree,7 which I was awarded the following year in my absence. My dissertation consisted of a few pages concerning American birchbark boats, with the late Dr Kalm8 acting as praeses. In the summer of that year I took up my duties at Alaveteli. In that small chaplaincy of 30 rökar I worked for 17 years without any thought of promotion and still less troubling my superiors with any application for that purpose, and I would probably have remained there until my death had my father not on his deathbed, shortly before he died, instructed me by letter to apply for the Kokkola parish in succession to him and to be the guardian of my two under­age half­siblings and maintain my stepmother, though I was not nominated to that post until two years later, when my father’s successor, Rector Johan Haartman, was transferred to the parish of Vöyri (Vörå).

Both the urban and rural congregation then unanimously declared their confidence in me and requested from the Consistory that I be sent there as a nominee, which I was also granted once I had passed my pastoral examination, and in the election I received an almost unanimous invitation and was in 1770 officially appointed to the parish of Kokkola, which I took over in May of that year and have now been in charge of for almost ten years, with which work I intend to continue as long as God grants me life and health, without seeking any greater earthly advantages during the remaining days of my life. In 1778, during the last Diet, I was honoured by the Right Rev. Bishop Haartman,9 at the request of a majority of members of the most Reverend Estate of Clergy, without the slightest action on my part, with the title of Dean and was officially appointed as Dean on 24 February last and at the same time granted a doctorate of theology by His Majesty, which was conferred on me by the Archbishop of the Realm, the Most Reverend Dr Carl Fredrik Mennander, on 6 June last.

I sincerely confess that I am undeserving of all the Lord’s kindness, which he has shown my unworthy self in manifold ways, not the least of which is that the Lord has vouchsafed me a good, loving and faithful spouse, as I entered upon marriage in October 1755 with Miss Beata Magdalena Mellberg, daughter of the tradesman Olof Mellberg from Pietarsaari. Being childless myself, I have regarded it as my duty to bring up the children of others, among them in particular my half­sister Helena, who in the autumn of 1777 married the Headmaster of the school in this town, Master Johan Kreander,10 my half­brother Adolph Chydenius, who died this autumn in Oulu from an epidemic of dysentery, and my sister’s son Johan Tengström,11 who is still studying at the Academy in Turku and holds out the joyful hope that my expenditure and toil on his upbringing will not have been in vain.

As brief as the account of my life is, as simple has my mode of life likewise been so far, and I also sincerely wish that it will involve nothing else out of the ordinary, even if this mortal frame were to be granted a few more active years, than that I be allowed, whether as part of or outside of my official duties, to do some good and defend innocence and that I shall close my eyes in the bosom of my dear Saviour.

But if the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences also requested from me some account of my studies, my writings and my experiences as a member of the Diet, I ought to likewise try to be candid in that regard.

At the universities my studies were miscellaneous; I dabbled a little in a variety of subjects, which was also to some extent required for the degree for which I was studying. Apart from the philosophical sciences, I was very interested in mathematics, especially geometry, astronomy, gnomonics,12 mechanics and some algebra. But since I entered upon the pastoral profession, which is inherently precious though despised by many, including clergymen, the study of the practical doctrine of salvation has been my principal occupation. I have sought to establish the most certain and manifest theoretical truths as the foundation of the Christianity of my parishioners, and ever since I attempted at the university, in the enthusiasm of my youth, to follow all kinds of fine theological distinctions as well as to split hairs myself by the rules of logic and metaphysics and found, both in discussions and in my own reflections, that I did not know in the end to which straw I should cling with my own conviction, I have stepped back from those dizzying heights and resolved, in accordance with Paul’s instruction to Titus, ch. 1, v. 9, to hold firm to the sure word as taught, which has led me to ask myself when I hear or read such subtleties: Quis est usus huius loci practicus?13 And when the Lord granted me the grace to preach, not merely in order to say something but to convince my parishioners and to move them, I soon found how inappropriate that stilted erudition was in the pulpit and that a priest could never be as simple as he ought to be even in genteel urban and academic parishes. For if the purpose of a sermon were either to persuade the congregation of one’s wide reading or to show, by such a learned sermon, that one regards the congregation as people who are able to grasp and understand such a learned piece of work, then subtleties and grandiloquence might be tolerated, though they will always amount to charlatanry, but if it is to persuade and move, change and improve the progress towards Christianity and virtue, then the reasons for that should be as simple, the means as comprehensible and the incentives as powerful as possible, whereas the elevated learning is, on the contrary, nothing but an obscuring fog for a pilgrim who longs for the goal of blessedness.

Catechization, by which I do not mean some perfunctorily delivered sermons on the catechism or some formally conducted household examinations but all the oral instruction by which a priest should, through conversations, instil and implant in his parishioners of all ages the necessary and infallible grounds of the correct doctrine of salvation, for a living Christianity, is what I have found to be the hardest and most responsible of all my official duties. It requires a plainness and simplicity that must almost presume nothing to be familiar, and, although I do in some degree possess the gift of intelligibility, I often find myself at a loss in this regard, despite all my efforts. It requires an order in which the truths are joined together by unforced links and flow from one another; it requires a pure and unforced faculty of thinking and constant reflection, if leaps from one thing to another are not to make a farrago of it all; and lastly, it also requires a spark of the celestial flame in one’s heart, that is, a divinely inspired longing to liberate one’s own soul and the souls of those who listen to us. We must keep before our eyes on the one hand the sanguinary judgment that awaits us if we fail to proclaim all God’s counsels to our congregation, namely that he is cursed who does the work of the Lord with slackness etc. (Jer. 48:10) and, on the other hand, our reward of grace (Dan. 12). The eternal bliss of our congregation should also be very close to our heart, so that we simultaneously enlighten, persuade and move our congregation by means of our catechization: hoc opus hic labor.14 For that there are a number of opportunities, apart from the regular catechetical meetings: as, in particular, when instructing the young people as they are being prepared to receive their first Communion, when people move into the parish and again when they leave it, as well as when visiting the sick, if they are not too infirm. Such opportunities I have always eagerly sought to make use of and have most often felt a particular blessing from God in doing so.

But that is not all: the Lord likewise, through the powerful effects of His grace on myself and my communicants, opened a new door to make my office more fruitful when I began, for their individual instruction and devotion, to use the Sunday afternoons for some godly conversations and instructions, at first with them and, at the persistent request of others in my congregation, with all those who wished to attend such devotional exercises, in which the previously delivered sermon is generally explained and more closely applied to the consciences of those present for chastisement, counsel and consolation. I have now continued with this for more than 15 years, and a large part of my congregation has also frequently but quite freely participated in these devotional exercises in my house, often to the number of 200–300 individuals, which are always concluded with an evening prayer adapted to the theme, after which I have offered open access for private conversations to those who desire it. In order not to be impeded in this, I immediately declared on taking up my parochial duties that I would refuse to pay or receive any visits on Sundays other than those that are conducive to some improvement in Christianity.

Apart from this principal occupation of mine, I have also sought to be useful to my fellow beings in other ways. I had indeed studied chemistry a little at Uppsala, though without any application to medicine; but during the first years of my ministry, being far removed from any physicians in the countryside, I began, following the printed account of the curing of children’s diseases issued by the Royal Medical Board,15 to practise the cures on the children of my parishioners. The household remedies of Assessor Haartman16 and the Parish Pharmacy of Assessor af Darelli,17 which were published soon after that, guided me progressively in the science, so that I began to study chemistry in order to prepare drugs. I made up my mind, wrote off for equipment and raw materials and set up a small chemical laboratory, in which I eventually advanced so far that I myself produced mercurius sublimatus corrosivus, mercurius dulcis, calomel and other mercurial compounds, spiritus nitri fumans, spiritus salis and spiritus salis ammoniaci,18 liquidus Hoffmanni19 and others and prepared all kinds of medicines with them. I improved no less in the knowledge and use of all kinds of resinous solutions, made experiments with them in different solvents and had enough patients on whom to practice my medicines and rarely bought anything except simplicia20 from the pharmacies.

I assiduously read Archiater Rosén von Rosenstein’s anatomy21 and also began to conduct surgical procedures, to excise cancerous tumours and sebaceous cysts, often in quite dangerous places, and in particular to operate on the eyes22 and make incisions in the eyelids of those with ulcerating eyes, with almost unbelievable success.

After many trials I invented an eye­water that somewhat resembles that of Mrs Segercrona23 but which excels it in many respects and is specific enough for most weak and bleary eyes.

I had time to occupy myself with such things as long as I was chaplain of a small chapel, but when I took over the parish of Kokkola my official duties also became too extensive and unremitting for me to be able to continue with that, except that I have now and then been obliged to perform operations on those with weak eyesight and occasionally to write prescriptions for some of my parishioners to the pharmacy in Vaasa or Kokkola, owing to the lack of any reliable medical practitioner any closer than 14 mil from here.

There was nothing with which I was less acquainted than politics when I became a clergyman, but the newspaper Riksdagstidningar that was published during the Diet of 1756 first inspired me to give some thought to the Swedish political practice and our political regulations, and when Board of Trade Counsellor Nordencrantz presented his detailed memorial24 to the Estates of the Realm in 1761 during the Diet and it soon came into my hands, together with other writings of his concerning the rate of exchange, I was stimulated to learn more about such subjects. I found this author in possession of so much knowledge and so many comments in politicis,25 with such a wealth of ideas, that, despite his style being rather heavy and full of repetitions and although a partisan rancour also reveals itself in them in many places, there was nonetheless an abundant store of topics here to attract the full attention of an inquiring reader and of fundamental truths in politicis that sound reflection and a heart well disposed towards the fatherland could not but approve of and accept.

With such information provided for me by Mr Nordencrantz concerning humankind and its abuse of power, about the English execution of the law as compared with our laws and their administration and abuse, as well as some general notions regarding our country’s financial system, rate of exchange and the like, with such a grounding I travelled to the Diet of 1765 as the parliamentary delegate of the chaplains and then had the opportunity during such a protracted Diet both to increase my knowledge through reading and conversations and also to reinforce it by experience.

Husbandry has also been a subject of not inconsiderable interest to me, in which the late Lieutenant­Colonel Boije’s farming manual26 has been my tutor, as the one that most closely follows nature. At my new chaplaincy in Alaveteli, which was built in 1753 beside a waterfall on quite an appalling stony slope, I established a small kitchen garden and orchard, surrounded it with stone walls, laid it out in regular terraces towards the river with a dam that conducts the water from the waterfall to the garden, improved a fairly watery marsh first into arable and then into meadow land, constructed barns for leaf­fodder and began to annually gather a crop of leaves according to the instructions of Mr Boije, but endeavoured in particular to acquire and maintain a flock of genuine Spanish sheep and to that end ordered mature sheep, rams and ewes from the aforementioned Lieutenant­Colonel and tended them in exactly the manner prescribed by him in his farming manual, with the successful result that the cloth I produce from this flock rivals our finest Swedish cloths in softness. Among my farming activities the fact should also be included that on the land of my present rectory I have turned a stony slope into an arable field and surrounded it with a stone wall, raised earthen banks around meadows to a length of several hundred famn, built a large cowshed, a stable with room for ten horses and a cook­house, all constructed of granite, and a brick­built brewhouse and bakery, for which labour and expenditure on an official residence His Majesty has also graciously freed me from all personal taxes for myself and all my household.

Literary exercises have attracted me since my student days and I have constantly read all kinds of belles­lettres with critical attention and sought to improve myself in that regard both in my writings and in sermons and speeches on several ceremonial occasions. My aims in this respect have always been a facility of syntax and expression, persuasiveness and grace, and however paradoxical I have often appeared to be in my propositions, my rather idiosyncratic style of writing has nonetheless won favour with the public, far beyond what I could have expected or surmised.

On the other hand, I have paid no attention at all to legal matters and practical jurisprudence, and have always regarded a small loss as preferable to gains achieved by means of a factitious lawsuit.

Now a few words about my writings.

No Swede of an intellectual bent can have had less expectation of ever becoming known as an author in his native country than I. My limited knowledge, my quiet and secluded way of life and yes, I ought to candidly confess it, my complete detachment from the wider world, having decided to examine my own sinful heart in a remote corner of the world and in my ministry to benefit the flock entrusted to me by heaven, my heartfelt contempt for flattering fame, had put far from my mind the thought of ever writing anything for the general public or of holding any office of greater consequence than the modest position that I initially occupied. But the ways of Providence with my unworthy self have been quite different from what I could have imagined.

Compelled by my friends to embark on the first essays, they have been received with attention and satisfaction by fellow citizens, who have consequently imposed more upon me and have obliged me to increase my limited knowledge by some further reading and reflection. Continuing approval of my efforts, and the zeal that I developed in the course of them to attempt to do some good, have subsequently imposed that on me as a duty, indeed as one of my noblest pleasures. But my main task, my busy and responsible ministry, has in this regard always obliged me to keep to the circumscribed and brief disquisitions that have rarely been produced during the daytime or normal working hours but always in the silent midnight hours, which most people spend unproductively, if not in vices then in the lap of sleep on the couch of indolence. It may well be profitable to be a writer in Germany, France and England, even with a modest talent, but in Sweden it is always a pure loss. I ought not, however, to conceal what I have received as an author pro labore.27 The late Director Salvius28 paid me 700 daler kmt for my circumstantial response to the refutations of The Source of Our Country’s Weakness29 and 400 daler for my piece on finances. Before God and my conscience, that is all the wealth I have earned as a writer.

In 1750, when the happy news was expected of the safe delivery of Her then Royal Highness,30 the present Queen Dowager, which occurred with the birth of Prince Frederic Adolphus, I was obliged during that celebration to deliver a speech as a student in the synodal auditorium in Kokkola, by which I proved to the complete satisfaction of the audience the Prosperity of the People of Finland under the Crown of Sweden.

I responded in the usual manner under a motto to three of the prize subjects proposed by the Royal Academy of Sciences and twice competed for the highest prizes. The first was economic, concerning the cause of moss-growth on meadows and how it might best be prevented, on which occasion only the fact that my response arrived two or three days too late disqualified me from receiving the gold medal that would otherwise have been my due. The response was printed together with the prize­winning response and another one, by Rector Hederström I believe, and each of us was awarded an accessit.31

The second was mechanical: whether our ordinary carts can be improved such that one can as easily carry 70 lispund on them as at present 40. Here the late Superintendent Faggot32 and Dr Gadolin33 became my competitors, and the former won the prize, being not only a member of the Academy but also having relatives in the Royal Academy of Sciences, though with what justice those in the know will be best able to judge, especially if it was the case that the question had been proposed in the Royal Academy of Sciences by himself or his friends. In any case, the Academy again, as on the previous occasion, awarded me as well as Dr Gadolin an accessit and decided to print both contributions along with the prize­winning response. However, Gadolin then withdrew his response, so that mine follows that of Mr Faggot.

The third was political, on the cause of the emigration of Swedish people and how it may be prevented. There I was also one of more than 30 competitors. On the response to this I incontrovertibly worked the hardest compared to the previous ones, but for that very reason it was most unlikely to be considered: the descriptions were too candid, far too graphic; they were unsuitable. A patriot was at that time barely allowed to think about the injuries suffered by the country, much less talk and write about them,34 as such things were unheard of unless it was done in order to support the aims of some noble gentleman or to pull the rug from under one party or another, but it was nevertheless printed in 1765, at my own expense and with a dedication to the Estates of the Realm.

When the question concerning the establishment of more staple towns in the kingdom that had been seriously raised during the Diet of 1756 was carried to extremes during the subsequent Diet of 1762 by the distribution of several barrels of gold35 by the opposing parties but was nonetheless brought to a halt, the then Deputy Governor of Ostrobothnia and Chief Judge Johan Mathesius36 decided not only to unite the towns of Ostrobothnia more closely with the surrounding rural regions at a general provincial assembly at Kokkola in 1763 in the interval between the Diets, in order that they should work together at the following Diet for the previously requested freedom of navigation, but also to arm themselves against the opposition that might be raised against the change by the merchants of Stockholm and Turku. I was also urged on that occasion by some friends in Kokkola to contribute to such a good cause on behalf of that town by means of some treatise37 and was for that purpose informed of the arguments that the merchants of Stockholm had adduced against it at the last Diet, which were so powerfully formulated that they could not be weakened by a few brief memorials, and whose arguments I regarded myself as powerless to refute. Yet, compelled by my friends, I decided to make an attempt, in which I succeeded so well during its implementation that no one has ever since dared to confront or respond to the arguments advanced there. The treatise was audacious and I wished to remain anonymous, but no one at the assembly was courageous enough to present it. I therefore had to appear myself and read it out before the entire gathering, with the lively approval of most of the audience, which, because of envy, very nearly caused me to be arrested that same evening, had not some wellwishers, entirely without my knowledge, been able to prevent that. This treatise was subsequently printed in 1765 at the expense of the town of Kokkola under the title of Refutation of the Reasons Employed to Deny the Towns in Ostrobothnia and Västerbotten as Well as in Västernorrland a Free Navigation,38 and was distributed free of charge to all the Estates.

The late Director Salvius, as an investor in the metalworking industry and the iron trade, had learned from long experience how oppressed that branch of the economy was, because the buyers of the products of the mining districts were few and combined, and advances were almost unobtainable. He knew that the Commodity Ordinance of 10 November 1724 and its elucidation of 28 February 1726 were the real causes of the foreign buyers being driven out of the iron trade and how the prices of salt and grain (those commodities that are indispensable in all commerce) have thereby been raised. He liked my style and asked me to think about the subject and gather material on it and write something. The subject was at first quite alien to me, but the access that I had as a member of the Fisheries Joint Committee to the records of the Royal Board of Trade soon enlightened me on the subject; in the same year of 1765 my disquisition on the subject was printed under the title of The Source of Our Country’s Weakness, which struck the general public as so paradoxical and attracted so much attention that two large editions were issued within a few weeks, there was great agitation everywhere and vengeance was called for against the initially unknown author.

The enemies of free navigation had commissioned a defence of servitude for this Diet as well, entitled Indefeasible Thoughts on the Establishment of Five New Staple Towns in the Northern Provinces of the Realm,39 a reserve defence that they nonetheless withheld until my Refutation had been printed, in which all their arguments had already been confronted and demolished. They must quickly have realized that it was therefore quite useless in that form as a reply to my treatise, but as the manuscript must have cost them a tidy sum, which they did not wish to lose so suddenly, and as they either found no one willing to reply to my treatise or else thought that he would cost them too much, they nonetheless decided to have it published, though the time and circumstances were so unpropitious, and let it have what effect it could; I therefore penned some Remarks40 on it, which are printed at the end of The Source of Our Country’s Weakness.

Little critiques of The Source41 began to fly like swarms of birdshot, but they were merely harbingers of two general salvoes that were then fired off against it one after the other, the first under the title of Circumstantial Refutation of the Treatise Called The Source of Our Country’s Weakness,42 the author of which remains unknown to me, although I have heard two prominent names mentioned, the second entitled Water-Tests conducted at that Source,43 composed by the learned and literary Secretary of the 50 Aldermen of the City of Stockholm, Mr Edvard Runeberg; both were received with such great acclaim by the friends of the Commodity Ordinance that they thought the author of The Source would never again dare to make an appearance unless he wished to be laughed to scorn by the general public.

I then first wrote a short piece entitled The National Gain, which was printed at my own expense by Director Salvius and was intended as a preparation for my response to the critiques, and soon afterwards my Circumstantial Response44 to both the Circumstantial Refutation and the Water Tester was printed, for which Salvius was again my publisher, by which my opponents became aware that my gun was more heavily charged than they had imagined, after which Response on my part there was a general silence on that subject.

That same year, towards autumn, the Secret Committee requested from the plenary assemblies complete authority, when putting the financial operations in order, to adopt whatever regulations and measures it thought fit, without the knowledge of the plenary assemblies, which, although completely contrary to the instructions given to the Secret Committee, was nonetheless universally approved, for the majority had faith in the Joint Banking Committee.

A few weeks after such complete authority had been granted, so much money vanished from the Bank under the greatest secrecy that even its members,45 with their unlimited authority, fell into some irresolution and perplexity as to how the plan for gradually restoring the exchange rate could best be achieved. That induced in me, who was not a member of the Secret Committee, great apprehension and anxiety for my fatherland, the welfare of which I thus saw had been placed at risk in complete silence, and I began to ponder the matter and gather information, for I shuddered to think of the consequences of a restoration of the exchange rate. I therefore briefly set down my thoughts, which I personally handed to the Speaker of the Nobles in the Joint Banking Committee with a humble request that the Joint Committee should consider them, as I would otherwise be obliged to lay the matter before the public in all its vivid complexion, so that it would realize in future that I had had no part in the unfortunate consequences of a restoration of the exchange rate.

Board of Trade Counsellor Nordencrantz46 was the mentor of the Joint Committee in the plan of restoration that it adopted, and Colonel Gyllensvaan,47 the Chamberlain Baron von Essen48 and Captain Baron Cederström49 were its most active members. I waited, I demanded a response, when they finally undertook to persuade me of my error at the home of member of the Joint Banking Committee in the presence of a number of people, but my arguments were in my view far too solid to be disproved and my conviction thus shaken. I expressed myself heatedly at one point about the adopted plan in a conclave with the Speaker of the Nobles; but that was of no avail, and I therefore carried out my promise and wrote the piece called A Remedy for the Country by Means of a Natural System of Finance, which is no less notorious than The Source. I decided at first to remain anonymous and thus the first sextern50 passed the censorship and were printed, but when the censor, in conversation with the Speaker of the Nobles, General Rudbeck, happened to mention that work, which was at the printers and which the Speaker was curious to see, the censor himself fetched the manuscript from the printer and showed it to him. Then the censor was ordered to prevent its printing but also to summon the author through Director Salvius, upon which I was told by Mr von Oelreich51 that the treatise would not be allowed to be printed but that the Speaker had promised to honourably compensate the author for the trouble he had taken. I then took back my manuscript and kept very quiet until the fire had died down, when I went to the late Bishop Serenius52 and told him that I had written something on financial matters and wondered whether he would present it to the Estate or suggest deputies who would scrutinize it. I was in very good standing with him at that time and he was immediately prepared to propose in the Estate that it be submitted to auditors whom I designated: these were the Deans Wijkman,53 Kröger54 and Högström.55 However, the scrutiny was mostly left to the last of these, who presented the Estate with his opinion that he had not found anything in my treatise except what had previously been argued for and against in printed publications and proposed that it should be printed, which was approved.

No one else in the Estate knew what the treatise contained; those of the predominant view trusted their friends, who had scrutinized it, but the others began to oppose its being printed. I was therefore obliged to show the manuscript to some of them and assure a few doubting fathers by means of a trusted gentleman that they had nothing to fear from it, when the endorsement of the Estate was approved on 11 June 1766, whereby the Estate permitted that treatise to be printed. Salvius was given the manuscript and continued day and night with the printing that had begun earlier, and in no time at all the banned item was in everyone’s hands; gentlemen bought 40, 50 or up to 100 copies at a time and sent them to the provinces. I will never forget Permanent Secretary von Oelreich’s description of the members of the Joint Banking Committee two days after it had appeared: They curse, he said, and they read. As soon as it appeared, I distributed unbound copies free of charge to all the members of my Estate, most of whom, from both parties, sincerely thanked me for it at the next plenary session, but it was not long before the tide turned and the ruling party directed all their weapons against me as a seditious and perfidious man.

Heated debates about me and my treatise took place in the Secret Committee. The Chamberlain Baron von Essen set the tone of the persecution with a memorial in the Estate of Clergy, in which he asked whether the endorsement of the Estate signified assent. I was called in for interrogation by the Secret Committee, where several insidious questions were put to me one day, with great severity in the morning, with a beguiling courtesy in the afternoon. In the evening before the last plenary session that I attended during that Diet, I was treated as a traitor to my country even at the club and the most merciless drafts of a retraction were read out to me, which I was expected to sign, and the most mendacious calumnies were hurled at me by those who a few days earlier had been my greatest friends and supporters, and the following day I was voted out of my Estate. I was threatened with arrest or even worse and was advised to escape, but I remained in Stockholm for five weeks without anyone laying a finger on me, and finally went to see the Speaker of the Nobles and asked whether there was any objection to my returning home. Board of Trade Counsellor and Knight Nordencrantz told me that he had been requested to write a refutation but claimed to have replied: no! For that purpose a certain Rothman56 was ransomed from the debtor’s prison, who made such a masterly job of it that, although the censor deleted whole pages of sheer abuse from the manuscript, there was still nothing else left in what finally remained to be printed, a tract that I deliberately left unanswered. The terrible drop in the exchange rate in 1767 and the general distress caused by that throughout the country and the destruction of the party before the following Diet have been the best refutation of it.

On the happy day for all inhabitants of Sweden when the crown was placed upon the head of our Great King and the town of Kokkola wished to emulate other subjects in expressing its joyful reverence for its King, I was chosen to be their spokesman and delivered a speech57 in which I sought to demonstrate how Gustavus III had then already demonstrated his greatness both within and outside the realm, which was then, at the request of my friends and supporters, printed the same year by Director Salvius.

In 1776 I submitted to the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg my response to its prize question concerning the rural trade,58 which I subsequently had with a short preface printed in Stockholm in 1777 by the Secretary and Knight Fougt and at his expense.

In the summer of 1778 so much began to be written in Dagligt Allehanda about a new statute on servants, and many people made such harsh, such preposterous proposals that one could not but shudder at them, and apart from that a regulation on the casting of lots had already been passed in one county, though its implementation was prevented by our humane King. These severities stirred me to the defence of liberty. I therefore wrote about the natural rights of masters and servants, with a humble dedication to His Majesty; the Secretary and Knight Fougt59 was again my publisher. The piece appeared, and the many debates to which it gave rise in Dagligt Allehanda60 and Stockholms Posten61 show what attention it had aroused. The conflict still continues and is unlikely to cease until His Majesty personally settles the matter.

I should finally also mention among my writings the memorial62 that was submitted at the beginning of 1779 to the most Reverend Estate of the Clergy concerning freedom of religion, which was soon afterwards printed by Secretary Fougt. The procedure on that occasion was as follows. In consultation with a few friends63 I drafted that memorial as early as the beginning of December, then conferred about it with several members of my own Estate, who fully approved of the idea and advised me to present it to the Estate. But when I realized that it could arouse excessive opposition among some members and an intense persecution of myself, I decided to let His Majesty first read it in person, with a humble request that, should His Majesty approve of the idea, he would then also strongly support it before the Estates of the Realm and protect the author against persecution. I was most graciously assured of this and the memorial was presented to the Archbishop, who did not, however, submit it to the Estate until the matter was raised in the Estate of Nobility in the form of another memorial and was taken up for debate in the other Estates. The matter was tabled in the Estate of Clergy one day, and the following day it was debated with uncommon vehemence by Bishops Benzelstierna,64 Celsius65 and Lütkemann,66 of whom the last also referred with bitterness to the author, when the Chief Court Chaplain von Troil, the Cathedral Dean Dr Fant and I had also put ourselves down to speak in defence of the freedom of religion, but the proceedings were conducted through all kinds of objections in such a way that none of us was allowed to say a single word and the question was dismissed with immense passion, although it was approved by all the other Estates the same day.

A reliable anecdote regarding this treatise. When His Majesty observed the vehemence against me in the Estate of Clergy and the indifference and steadiness with which I confronted it, he observed: “I am fairly audacious as well, but I would never have dared to do what Chydenius did.” It was indeed true that almost all my adherents in the Estate wavered and withdrew and I stood alone when the heat was greatest, although others had previously been as zealous and active in the matter as I was.

This account of my writings has included most of my experiences as a member of the Diet, in which they presumably occupy their rightful place, but there are also a few events that are worth recording for posterity, which illuminate the history of this era and will probably be looked for in vain elsewhere.

As soon as I was admitted to the Estate of Clergy as the individual delegate of the chaplains at the Diet in 1765, I drew up and presented to my Estate a memorial regarding the appointment of impartial members to the most important joint committees, by which everyone seemed to be amazed but of which no notice was taken, as it directly contradicted the lists that the Electors were then already preparing. I sought and gained the acquaintance of my teacher, the polymathic

Nordencrantz, who entirely approved of the content of my memorial.

But I worked on nothing as assiduously during this Diet as on the freedom of writing and printing. The writings of Nordencrantz had already opened my eyes so far that I regarded it as the most precious possession of a free country. It was also very acceptable to the party67 that had for so long been subordinate and was now for the first time in power, which desired to uncover the secrets that had been concealed by the previously ruling party, under the rule of which they had for so long been oppressed. I therefore drew up a memorial on the subject, which I communicated to the late Bishop Serenius, who introduced me to the late Court Councillor Arckenholtz,68 who had just arrived in Stockholm, in order to confer with him about this. After several conversations and deliberations I rewrote my memorial and asked Bishop Serenius to take the lead on such an important matter by adding his signature to the memorial. He looked over it and shortened it but inserted at the end of the plan of liberty that one should not be allowed to write anything concerning the state, by which I was highly incensed, as with these few words everything that the friends of repression and secrecy could ask for was already conceded, and declined to have anything to do with it. He regretted that the matter was rather sensitive and met with opposition but then asked me to write as I wished under my own name, which I did and submitted it to all the Estates, to which, however, an honourable member, Schoolmaster Kraftman,69 lent his name, without knowing who had written it.

The Estates referred this matter of the freedom of printing to the Grand Joint Committee to be elaborated by a special Committee, of which I and Archbishop Mennander and the then Dean and now Bishop Forssenius70 were members of our Estate. The issue was divided into two separate parts, the first being to define what it would be lawful to print and what unlawful, the second dealing with the censorship or the legal tribunal before which the case would be examined. On the former, all the members were agreed, but not on the second. If freedom of writing and printing becomes a main pillar of liberty under all regimes that protect it, if most of Sweden’s misfortunes in the recent past have arisen from obscurantism and delusion, it is worthwhile for posterity to know about the small coincidences by which it has been granted here, as if by a lucky chance of Providence, to the inhabitants of Sweden – anecdotes that will never otherwise reach the hands of our historians.

I saw clearly that the most extensive freedom to choose any subject on which to write would mean nothing as long as its application were to depend on the arbitrary will of a single person, namely the censor, over whom either a ruling party or ministry or ruler would be able to exercise control, and I therefore firmly proposed to have the censorship in all political cases entirely removed, but my influence with the most important and enlightened members was relatively slight. I therefore turned to the delegates of the Estates of Burghers and of Peasants and persuaded them to make common cause with me. Through my supporters I also worked upon the Dean, Bishop Forssenius, so that he too declared that he was opposed to censorship. The question had already been raised in the Committee and tabled, and at the following session the question was raised again by Burgomaster Miltopæus,71 who asked to hear the opinion on the matter of the censor librorum, Permanent Secretary von Oelreich, who best understood the advantages and disadvantages of the censorship. Mr von Oelreich, who had a seat on the Committee not as a member but as an expert adviser, first spoke gracefully about the great importance of the freedom of writing and printing, yet he nonetheless regarded it as hazardous to leave the works that were to be published without any censorship, believing that the censor should have his hands tied by formal instructions, so that he did not arbitrarily prevent the authors from having their works published, but he feared that there would be an unbridled frenzy of book­printing if the censorship was completely abolished. I for my part could not but praise the Permanent Secretary’s great merits in the office of censor, who had allowed so much more enlightenment to reach the nation than all the others that have held that office in Sweden, but I also pointed out the peril to the nation and to liberty of such a guardianship, which might soon fall into less worthy hands, and urged him, like Mabbott72 in England, to make his name immortal and renounce censorship altogether and leave it in the hands of a free nation and under the surveillance of the law. The debates on this became extensive on both sides. An adjournment was requested in the matter, but I maintained that the case should be decided according to the established practice of the Diet.

The members were of different minds, so a vote was taken in the Committee. Our permanent chairman, Chief Judge Baron Reuterholm,73 was not present on that occasion, so Lord Chamberlain Baron von Düben74 acted as chairman when the Estates of Peasants and of Burghers voted against the office of censor. Bishop Mennander was not present, Bishop Forssenius dared not reject it outright, whereas I took the same stand on the issue as the aforementioned Estates. The majority of the Nobility, on the other hand, were in favour of maintaining the censorship, resulting in two Estates being opposed to it, the Estate of Clergy ending up with paria vota75 and one being in favour of retaining the office of censor. The report of the Committee was consequently to be drawn up against censorship, which I undertook to do and luckily just managed to get it approved by the Committee before I was voted out of the Estate a few days later. The entire issue thus depended on the absence of a single member of the Estate of Clergy who was also in favour of a censor, which could have meant two Estates against two, when no report could have emerged. Chief Judge Baron Reuterholm did afterwards draft a separate motion in favour of censorship, which most of the members signed, but fortunately it was so prolix and so convoluted that when it was read out along with the report in the Grand Joint Committee the members tired of listening to it, and those in favour of the freedom of writing could easily see that it would hardly be protected with so many subtleties and reservations, so that the report was finally unanimously accepted, first in the Grand Joint Committee and then by all the Estates. Thus, liberty at last prevailed and the Swedish wit happily escaped from an oppressive guardianship, and although dangerous intrigues have since then been conducted to destroy this most precious aspect of liberty, it has nonetheless been most solemnly confirmed – praise be to Providence and our Gustavus – by our Most Gracious King, who is not willing to rule with obscurantism. May Swedes make worthy use of it and may it always radiate light, truth and virtue around the Throne and in the hearts of all citizens, to make the reign of our clement King[148] a great one and his subjects happy under his sceptre!

Together with a parliamentary delegate from Raahe, I composed a separate motion for the Joint Mining Committee against the transfer of the forge tax,76 which was also approved by the Estates of the Realm, whereby an attempt was obstructed to gradually turn the whole country into a mining region and imperceptibly subordinate the allodial rights of the country people to the privileges of the metalworking industries.

I likewise composed a separate motion against the Ironmasters’ Association, which was at first approved by the Estates of Burghers and of Peasants but was taken up again after my departure from Stockholm as a result of powerful pressure from the Nobility, by which it was finally brought to a standstill.

Appointed by the chaplains in Ostrobothnia, I also attended the Diet of 1769 but, owing to certain secret machinations, I was not accepted by the Estate of Clergy. However, in Norrköping I received a summons from the Consistorium Ecclesiasticum in Turku to take a pastoral examination and immediately travelled there and was nominated, following an interview concluded to the satisfaction of my superiors, to the position of Rector of Kokkola.

Last year, 1778, I was again honoured with the majority of votes to be the individual parliamentary delegate of the clergy in Ostrobothnia and attended that first notable Diet since the change in the constitution, at which I finally received the favour of being allowed a private audience with our Great King and in the course of it to candidly present the most pressing concerns of my native region.

I am profoundly grateful that I have by my modest endeavours for King and Country won the special favour of my dear King with an express assurance of all possible promotion and favour in whatever I might wish for. For although I have never been one of fortune’s favourites or aspired to official honours and do not in my occupation lack an income that, with a contented mind, will suffice for earthly happiness, and although I never intend in that respect to seek or accept any promotion, such a high and gracious offer is nonetheless in itself something on which I set infinite value.

Kokkola, 14 February 1780

Anders Chydenius

  1. 24 February: as Georg Schauman has shown, a more likely date is 26 February. See G. Schauman, Biografiska undersökningar om Anders Chydenius, Skrifter utgifna af Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland 84, Helsinki: Svenska Litteratursällskapet i Finland, p. 9.
  2. Old Style: refers to the Julian calendar, which was used in Sweden until 17 February 1753, when it was replaced by the Gregorian calendar.
  3. Johan Wegelius (1693–1764) was rector in Tornio from 1725 and dean in Oulu from 1757. His main work as a religious writer was a postil in Finnish, Se pyhä ewangeliumillinen walkeus (1747–9). He was influenced by, for example, the Pietists and the Moravian Brethren.
  4. Concerning Samuel Chydenius (1727–57), see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/Life and career up to 1765.
  5. Carl Fredrik Mennander (1712–86) was bishop of Turku from 1757 to 1775 and Swedish archbishop from 1776 to 1786. He was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences from 1744 and a member of all the Diets from 1756 to 1778. During the Age of Liberty he was acknowledged as a leading Hat.
  6. Johan Browallius (1707–55) was a natural scientist, theologian and politician (a Hat). He became professor of natural history in Turku in 1737, professor of theology in 1746 and bishop of Turku diocese in 1749.
  7. Master’s degree: Chydenius became filosofie kandidat in Turku in 1753.
  8. Pehr Kalm (1716–79) was a botanist and economist, best known as one of the socalled apostles of Carolus Linnaeus. As such, he took part in Linnaeus’s scientific journeys through Sweden (Västergötland and the county of Bohus) and was sent to North America in 1748–51. He was appointed to the Royal Academy of Sciences in 1746 and became professor of economy in Turku the year after. See Anders Chydenius’s life and work/Life and career up to 1765
  9. Jakob Haartman (1717–88) was professor first of philosophy and then of theology at Uppsala University. In 1776 he was appointed bishop of Turku.
  10. Johan Kreander (1752–79) was the headmaster in Kokkola from 1776 to 1779.
  11. Johan Tengström (1757–1821) was the youngest son of Chydenius’s sister Maria through her marriage with Johan Tengström the elder, deacon and schoolmaster, and helper of Chydenius in Kokkola. Johan the younger became rector at Vaasa and Mustasaari (Korsholm). Chydenius supported him financially during his upbringing.
  12. gnomonics: the art of constructing and using sundials.
  13. Quis est usus huius loci practicus: “What is the practical use of this passage?”
  14. hoc opus hic labor: “this is the task, this is the difficulty”.
  15. Royal Medical Board: the Collegium Medicum was founded in 1663 in order to ameliorate the standard of medical practice in Sweden, to supervise medical doctors, to promote teaching in medicine and to combat quackery.
  16. Johan Haartman (1725–87) was a physician and medical doctor in Uppsala in 1749. The same year, he was appointed as “provincial medical doctor” in Turku. From 1765 he was professor of medicine at Turku and the same year became a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences. He was the first to practise vaccination against smallpox in Finland (see pp. 2 and 19 for Chydenius’s activities in this field) and wrote well-known instructive books on medical issues.
  17. Johan Anders af Darelli (1718–88) was a physician and writer. His name by birth was Darelius but when he was ennobled in 1770 he took the name af Darelli. The work referred to is Socken apothek och någre huscurer, utgifne under kongl. Collegii medici öfwerseende och besörjande, Stockholm, 1760.
  18. mercurius sublimatus corrosivus, mercurius dulcis, calomel and other mercurial compounds, spiritus nitri fumans, spiritus salis and spiritus salis ammoniaci: these are different chemical substances and compounds made from mercury, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid and an ammonium salt, used as medical cures.
  19. liquidus Hoffmanni: the so­called Hoffmann’s drops, or liquor anodynus mineralis Hoffmanni, were a mixture of alcohol and ether and a well­known remedy in the eighteenth century for several sicknesses, including heart and stomach problems.
  20. simplicia: simple ingredients.
  21. Nils Rosén von Rosenstein (1706–73), a medical doctor, was professor of medicine at Uppsala University from 1740 first in anatomy and botany but later only in anatomy (when Linnaeus received the chair in botany). He was appointed Rector Magnificus of Uppsala University in 1747 and head physician (Archiater) at the royal court. Among many other things he is remembered as the instigator of scientific paediatrics in Sweden. The work that Chydenius is referring to is most probably Compendium anatomicum, eller En kort beskrifning om de delar, af hwilka hela menniskians kropp består . . ., Stockholm, 1736.
  22. . . . to operate on the eyes: it is believed that Chydenius performed eye operations to remove cataracts during his time in Alaveteli.
  23. Mrs Segercrona: Chydenius was proud of the eye drops or eye­water he had developed to cure sore eyes. Mrs Segercrona has not been identified with certainty.
  24. detailed memorial: most probably Chydenius is here referring to Anders Nordencrantz’s famous Til riksens höglofl. ständer församlade wid riksdagen år 1760. En wördsam föreställning uti et omständeligit swar på de oförgripeliga påminnelser..., Stockholm, 1759. On Nordencrantz and Chydenius, see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/Life and career up to 1765 and The Diet of 1765–6.
  25. in politicis: in or on politics.
  26. Carl Gustaf Boije (1697–1769) was an officer and writer. The text referred to is Säkra rön och påliteliga medel til wälmågo och förmögenhet, eller den igenom många års egna försök förfarna Swenska landthushållaren..., Stockholm, 1756, which was widely known at the time.
  27. pro labore: for the work, for my effort.
  28. Lars Salvius (1706–73) was a book printer, publisher of journals and an economic writer. He was one of the first to openly criticize the Hats’ regulative economic policies in favour of, for example, the manufactures. See Anders Chydenius’s life and work/Chydenius as an economist
  29. . . . my circumstantial response: refers to Omständeligt swar, på den genom trycket utkomne wederläggning af skriften, kallad: Källan til rikets wanmagt, jämte anmärkningar öfwer de wid samma källa anstälda wattu-prof, Stockholm, 1765.
  30. Royal Highness: in 1750, Queen Lovisa Ulrika of Sweden (1720–82) gave birth to Prince Frederic Adolphus (1750–1803), the younger brother of Gustavus III and Prince Charles (later Charles XIII). King Adolphus Frederic had died in 1771.
  31. accessit: the runner-up prize; a prize awarded to a person judged to be next in merit to the actual winner.
  32. Jacob Faggot (1699–1777) was a scientist, statesman and chief land surveyor in Sweden. From 1739 he was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences. See The Causes of Emigration, § 10
  33. Jakob Gadolin (1719–1802) was a scientist and politician. In 1753 he became professor of physics and nine years later (1763) professor of theology, both at Turku. In 1788 he became bishop of Turku. Gadolin wrote several works on mathematics and natural history. He was also a member of most Diets from 1755 to 1800 and during the 1760s was still regarded as a staunch Hat supporter. From 1751 Gadolin was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences.
  34. . . . much less talk and write about them: that is, before the passing of the ordinance on freedom of writing and printing in 1766.
  35. several barrels of gold: most likely Chydenius here is simply referring to an excessive amount of money which was used as bribes, but since a barrel of gold (en tunna guld) was used as a measure equalling 100,000 daler smt, it is possible that he had a more specific amount in mind.
  36. Johan Mathesius (1709–65) was the second oldest of the famous Mathesius brothers, who had great influence on politics in Ostrobothnia and also on the political thinking of Anders Chydenius (see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/The Diet of 1765–6). Johan Mathesius was a staunch supporter of the Caps and was imprisoned for political reasons during the 1740s. He was appointed county secretary in Ostrobothnia in 1745 and acted temporarily as vice county governor in 1763.
  37. some treatise: see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/Life and career up to 1765
  38. Wederläggning af de skäl, hwarmed man söker bestrida öster- och wästerbotniska samt wäster-norrländske städerne fri seglation, Stockholm, 1765.
  39. Indefeasible Thoughts...: an anonymous pamphlet, Ofögripeliga Tankar om Fem Nya Stapel-Städers inrättande i Rikets Norre Provincer, Stockholm, 1765. According to Virrankoski, the author was Eric Schröder, former secretary for the burghers in Stockholm. P. Virrankoski, Anders Chydenius: Demokratisk politiker i upplysningens tid, Stockholm: Timbro, 1995, p. 125.
  40. Remarks: refers to Påminnelser Wid de af Trycket nyligen utkomne Oförgripeliga Tankar om Fem Stapel-Städers inrättande i rikets Norra Provincer, pp. 27–35 in The Source. The Remarks are not published here.
  41. Little critiques of The Source: there were at least nine printed responses to The Source. See Commentary on The Source of Our Country’s Weakness.
  42. Circumstantial Refutation. . .: Probably written by Bengt Junggren. See Commentary on The Source of Our Country’s Weakness. Junggren’s tract was called Circumstantial Refutation of the Treatise Called The Source of Our Country’s Weakness (Omständelig wederläggning af skriften, kallad: Källan til rikets wanmagt, Stockholm, 1765.)
  43. Water-Tests: see Commentary on The Source of Our Country’s Weakness. Runebergs tract was called Wattu-prof wid Källan til rikets wanmagt, Stockholm, 1765.
  44. Circumstantial Response: Chydenius’s pamphlet Omständeligt swar, på den genom trycket utkomne wederläggning af skriften, kallad: Källan til rikets wanmagt, jämte anmärkningar öfwer de wid samma källa anstälda wattu-prof, Stockholm, 1765.
  45. its members: that is, the members of the Secret Committee.
  46. Nordencrantz: see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/The Diet of 1765–6 and Chydenius as an economist
  47. Fredric Gyllensvaan (1723–87) was an officer and politician. He became a colonel in 1772 and was dismissed in 1776. He was active in the Estate of Nobility from 1760 onwards, a well­known Cap who served as one of the leaders of the attack upon the old Hat regime and the directors of the Bank of the Estates, especially during the Diet of 1765–6.
  48. Fredric Ulric von Essen (1721–81) was a landlord, the chamberlain of Prince Gustavus (later Gustavus III) and a politician. He was one of the most important leaders of the Cap party during the Diets from 1755 onwards. See Commentary on A Remedy for the Country
  49. Anders Cederström (1729–93) was an officer and politician, a fervent Cap in the Estate of Nobility and one of the Estate’s trustees in the Board of Governors of the Bank after 1766.
  50. sextern: a quire consisting of six sheets of paper folded in two (= 24 pages).
  51. Mr von Oelreich: see Anders Chydenius’s life and work/The Swedish realm in the eighteenth century
  52. Jacob Serenius (1700–76) became bishop in the diocese of Strängnäs in 1763 and was a leading Cap politician in the Estate of Clergy.
  53. Casper Wijkman (1718–80) was a clergyman and leading Cap politician. He was a delegate for the Clergy in the Diets of 1760–2, 1765–6 and 1771–2.
  54. Carl Kröger (1711–73) was a clergyman and politician. When he attended the Diet of 1765–6, he was dean of Västra Göinge in southern Sweden.
  55. Pehr Högström (1714–84) is probably today the best known of this trio mentioned by Chydenius. Högström was a clergyman in Lapland and served as a missionary among the Sami population. From 1742 he was rector at the newly established parish of Gällivare. As a delegate of the Estate of Clergy he was a member of the Diets in 1755–6, 1765–6, 1769 and 1771–2. He was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and became a doctor of theology in 1772.
  56. Jacob Gabriel Rothman (1721–72) was a medical student at Uppsala and an adventurer. The Swedish title of the anti­Chydenius pamphlet was Rikets fördärf och undergång genom et konstladt och förledande finance-systeme, Stockholm, 1766. In 1768 Rothman published another work, Philolalus Parrhesiastes secundus, eller Pratsjuke Fritalaren den andre, which gained him the designation “abominable free speaker” by Carl Christoffer Gjörwell.
  57. . . . delivered a speech: this speech was given in Kokkola the day before Gustavus III’s coronation on 29 May 1772. It was later published under the title Tal hållet vid vår allernådigste konungs, konung Gustaf III:s höga kröning, den 29 maji 1772, Stockholm, 1772.
  58. . . . my response: Answer to the Question on Rural Trade
  59. Henrik Fougt (1720–82) was a book printer in Stockholm. From 1769 he held the privilege of being allowed to print all royal ordinances, which led him to name his printing­house “The Royal Printing­Press of Stockholm”.
  60. Dagligt Allehanda: see Commentary on The Natural Rights of Masters and Servants
  61. The newspaper Stockholms-Posten was founded in 1778 by Johan Henric Kellgren, a poet and writer, Johan Christopher Holmberg, a bookseller, and Carl Peter Lenngren, secretary to the Board of Trade. It was published from 1778 to 1833.
  62. the memorial: Memorial Regarding Freedom of Religion
  63. . . . a few friends: it is unclear exactly which friends (in the Estate of Clergy) he had conferred with – perhaps the two he mentions below: the cathedral dean in Västerås, Johan Michael Fant, and the Chief Court Chaplain, Uno von Troil. (See also Virrankoski, op. cit., p. 318f.).
  64. Lars Benzelstierna (1719–1800) was bishop of Västerås, professor of theology in Uppsala and a member of most of the Diets from 1755 until his death.
  65. Olof Celsius (1716–94) was a clergyman, historian and politician, and cousin of the great natural scientist Anders Celsius. He became professor of history in Uppsala 1747 and after that he served as bishop of Lund from 1777. He was a member of the Swedish Academy from 1786. Starting out as a loyal Cap, he later became a steadfast royalist.
  66. Gabriel Lütkemann (1723–95), a clergyman and politician, was appointed court chaplain in 1744, superintendent in 1758 and bishop in the diocese of Visby in 1772. As a member of the Estate of Clergy he visited most of the Diets from 1755 onwards.
  67. the party: the Caps.
  68. Johan Arckenholtz (1695–1777) was an official and historian. He was put in prison by the Hat government in 1741 and after two years’ imprisonment he was sent abroad and not allowed to enter Swedish territory again. During the period 1746–66 he was court librarian and court councillor in Hesse­Cassel (the landgrave of Hesse­Cassel was the Swedish king, Frederic I). After the dethronement of the Hats he returned to Sweden. His most important historical work was Mémoirs concernant Christine reine de Suède . . . (4 vols, Amsterdam, 1751–60).
  69. Anders Kraftman (1711–91) was rector and schoolmaster at Porvoo gymnasium. At the Diet of 1765–6 he was the delegate from the diocese of Porvoo in the Estate of Clergy and was also a member of the Secret Committee.
  70. Anders Forssenius (1708–88) was bishop of Skara from 1767 and a member of many Diets as a delegate of the Estate of Clergy.
  71. Erik Miltopaeus (1718–84) was burgomaster of Tammisaari in Finland.
  72. Mabbott: “The renowned Mabbott in England”: Gilbert Mabbott or Mabbot (1622–c.1670), newsletter writer and parliamentary licenser of newsbooks and pamphlets in England. Mabbott was a professional newsletter writer in the turbulent times of revolution, regicide and the interregnum of the 1640s and 1650s. In March 1645 he became deputy licenser but was dismissed, presumably for political reasons, only two years later. In September 1647 he was reinstated as licenser but he resigned or was dismissed in May 1649. The office of licenser was, however, not abolished, and Mabbott was succeeded by John Rushworth. Later on in life, Mabbott held the office of manager for licences of wine and strong waters in Ireland. In 1761, Anders Nordencrantz published "Mabots ansökning hos Parlamentet i Ängland, at få nedlägga sitt Censors-Ämbete" as part of an argument in a longer piece, Förswar af Riksens Höglofl. Ständers och Riksdagsmäns Rättigheter. The Mabbott anecdote deals with Gilbert Mabbott’s presumed petition to the English Parliament to abolish the office of licenser, as it was harmful both to truth and to the nation.The Mabbott story circulated in Sweden and was published separately or as part of longer pieces several times during the latter half of the 18th century. It is stated to be translated from English, or Danish according to other sources, but no original can be found in Mabbott’s name in English or Danish bibliographies. The original text by Mabbott, if there ever was one, is therefore presumed to be lost or part of a larger whole, and has not been found.
  73. Gustaf Gottfrid Reuterholm (1721–1803), official and politician, was chairman of the freedom of printing committee in 1765–6.
  74. Karl Vilhelm von Düben (1724–90) was a diplomat, official and politician. At the time in question, von Düben was court chancellor (hovkansler), not lord chamberlain (hovmarskalk).
  75. paria vota: a tied vote.
  76. forge tax: a tax paid by iron forges for their yearly production of iron. The iron forges were forges where pig iron was transformed into forge iron. The forge tax determined the amount of forge iron the forge was allowed to produce.

Original documents

Section

Previous Section:

Next Section:

Places:

Names:

Biblical references:

Subjects: