Who Controls the Narrative? A short history of Swedish state historians

How did heads of state control the narrative before social media? In this article, we look at the Swedish historiographer of the realm role – the early modern spreader of disinformation.

Natalie Smith

4/29/20267 min read

He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past, if George Orwell is to be believed. One way to control the past is through the selective presentation of information, or even through disinformation. Disinformation is the spread of false or misleading information for the purpose of some kind of gain, such as deceiving or dividing an enemy. This is a powerful tool which is regularly used by states as a way of controlling public opinion (not to be confused with misinformation, where the spread of inaccuracies is accidental). Despite the word being new, evoking present-day images of troll farms or AI videos posted on Truth Social, powerful people controlling the spread of information about politics and current events is nothing new.

One example of this can be found in early modern Sweden, where there existed a state position known as the “Historiographer of the Realm”. While the title might sound like something out of Game of Thrones (or a job-seeking history graduates’ wildest dream), it was an official position that existed within the Swedish state from the early 17th century until 1834. Known as a rikshistoriograf (or historiographus regni, in Latin), the role of the historiographer of the realm was to outline the state-approved stance on historical events. This is an inherently political action, which involves (re)writing history in order to explain or improve public opinion of specific state actions, often for less than ingenuous motives.

What is a Historiographer of the Realm?

As the name suggests, the role involves outlining the official, state-approved version of historical events, both regarding the history of Sweden itself, as well as events which took place in wartime. Sweden was not the first or only country to introduce a position of this kind; Spain introduced the Cronistas mayores de Indias in 1571 under Philip II to document the expansion of the Spanish Empire. Denmark had the position “Historiographer Royal” (Kongelig historiograf; Historicus regius) in 1594; England introduced the equivalent in 1661 and Scotland in 1681. These roles have also existed in less official capacities: while he lacked the official job title, Leonardo Bruni, head of the Florentine administration in the early 15th century, is often considered the first modern state historian for writing his History of the Florentine People.

Outlining the state-approved stance was not simply a case of describing historical events in which Sweden was involved.. It was an inherently politicised act. For example, when Christina of Sweden converted to Catholicism in 1654, before abdicating and leaving for Rome, her conversion was completely absent from the records. Instead, the state accounts stressed how her being a woman made it hard for her to ensure support and emphasised her unwillingness to marry, putting the succession at risk. That means that in the state account, rather than prioritising her personal faith over the interests of the nation, she selflessly put Sweden first by protecting it from the limitations of her gender. She declared her cousin Charles X Gustav (whose marriage proposal Christina had declined) as her successor. He was appointed despite objections from the privy council, and given their connection, likely wanted to protect her reputation.

To do their job, the historiographer of the realm was granted access to the Swedish state archives, something which most people did not have. As this information was tightly controlled, the historiographer’s work was scrutinised closely to ensure that no state secrets were revealed and that nothing unfavourable about Sweden and its allies was published. This could mean lengthy back and forth with the censuring authority, something which historiographer Samuel von Pufendorf (who we will get to shortly) described as an immense source of frustration.

Who could become a Historiographer of the Realm?

Given the importance of the role, it wasn’t open to just anyone. In the seventeenth century, it was often held by foreign scholars as an attempt to shape Sweden’s reputation as an intellectually significant nation. Even at its imperial height, Sweden was often perceived as a peripheral and unpleasant place to live in. The ability to attract well-regarded foreign scholars to work in its service was therefore seen as a mark of prestige, portraying Sweden as a country of choice for successful intellectuals.

The first iteration of this post (then called historicus regni) was held by Dutch renaissance scholar Daniel Heinsius, who was appointed by King Gustavus Adolphus in 1618. However, there is no evidence that he ever produced any work during his 37 years in Sweden’s service.

The lineup of historiographers in the following century is quite varied: we have Arnold Johan Messanius, born in Gdansk (then a Swedish territory, now in Poland) and charged with spying for Poland as a teenager. After spending time in Kexholm (at the time part of Swedish Finland, presently a territory of Russia), he was pardoned in 1640 and was instructed to author an official history of Charles IX in 1641, but was executed after his alleged involvement in his son's attempt to incite a coup against Christina of Sweden ten years later.

Another notable historiographer of the realm was the German historian and jurist Johannes Locceniu. He was given the job in 1651 (the same year Messanius was executed) and published extensively. His work initially emphasised the period following Sweden’s Christianisation. This was perceived as going against the status quo at the time, since much of Sweden’s positive reputation was connected to its ability to trace its ancestors to the pre-Christian Geats and the Goths. Later versions of his works incorporated these older narratives, and took on fantastical elements, likely due to pressure from the crown.

Queen Christina of Sweden

The Geats, who the Swedes considered to be their ancestors.

Perhaps the most internationally renowned scholar to work in this position was Samuel von Pufendorf, a key figure in the European Enlightenment. Pufendorf published multiple works in this role. These were primarily written in Latin, intended to sell the Swedish perspective to an international elite audience. In line with the later Loccenius works, he promoted Sweden as ‘the most ancient Kingdom in the world’, and one that was ‘immediately governed by Kings’. Thus establishing that his employers’ ancestors played an essential role in making Sweden a great warrior nation. However, he also grounded his analysis in factual events. After he left Sweden to serve as the historiographer of Prussia (much to the Swedish Crown’s chagrin), his writings were reworked and translated into Swedish, and Rudbeckian elements, such as the idea that the biblical floods occurred in northern Sweden, were woven in throughout the narrative. Even after he left Sweden and with extensive revisions to his work, his name was still being used to give credibility to the Swedish case.

Samuel von Pufendorf

In 1720, those who did not have Swedish birth were banned from taking on the position. When looking at Pufendorf’s letters, this might have been a predictable outcome: In a letter to the military engineer and engraver Eric Dahlberg, with whom he was preparing Suecia Antiqua et Hodierna (Ancient and present-day Sweden), Pufendorf complained that his work was being blocked from publication. Believing that him being a foreigner was causing a lack of trust, he stated that he would have had an easier time getting his work past the censors if his name was ‘Olof Andersson’ or ‘Lars Mattson’ (it is worth noting that in addition to being Swedish names, they were also peasant names!). Perhaps he felt that Sweden was quite backwards, compared to Germany.

The era of foreign scholarship as a signifier of Swedish prestige had come to an end. Of those who held the position since, only Olof von Dalin is particularly noteworthy. Author of the weekly satirical serial Then Swänska Argus, which was inspired by the Spectator, Dalin is credited as one person responsible for modernising the Swedish language. The position was officially abolished in 1834, at which point Sweden was two decades into its 200 year run of neutrality (or alleged neutrality - we will return to the topic of Swedish neutrality at a later date!), meaning that controlling narratives around wars and international conflict was no longer so urgent.

Controlling the narrative – controlling knowledge

In the early modern Swedish case, we can see that the state was using historiography for its own interest by controlling information, and by cultivating an identity of an intellectually prosperous place. While the job of historiographer of the realm may have fallen out of style, we can see similar impulses to explain and control state actions through the leveraging of historical narratives in the present day. One need only turn to the speech given by Vladimir Putin in February 2022 announcing the invasion of Ukraine, in which he drew together multiple historical narratives, such as the American invasion of Iraq, the USSR fighting Nazi Germany in the Second World War, the history and development of NATO infrastructure and the erasure of a historical Ukrainian identity, to explain why it was necessary for Russia to invade.

While not as nefarious, it is also worth keeping in mind that the state control of history writing has not completely disappeared. After all, most modern academic research funding (especially in the UK and in the EU) comes from state-controlled funding bodies. While they do use certain metrics in an attempt to seem impartial, their biases cannot be avoided completely, and reflect certain assumptions about which topics are worthy of study (for better or worse!).

Formal official historians also remain in various forms. In the United States, for example, there is a governmental office titled ‘the Office of the Historian’, which is legally responsible for the preparation and publication of the official documentation relating to American foreign policy. It is also their responsibility to answer questions from both the government and the general public on questions of diplomatic history. Korea, meanwhile, have the National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회), a government agency responsible for compiling official national history. While it is not an inherently bad thing to have an official state stance on historical records, the information presented should be taken with a grain of salt.

While not a government position, the British monarchy still appoints historians, and grants them access to royal archives. For example, Queen Elizabeth II’s official biographer was announced less than two weeks before the publication of this article.

Given how much effort is put into making and controlling historical narratives, they clearly have a big role to play in how people make sense of the world around them. Given the way history continues to be leveraged by major powers, perhaps we will even see the return of the official state historian.