title: “Opus trium deorum”: A Note on the Origin of Annotationes ex Scriptis Karoli Episcopi Arosiensis
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Vetushko-Kalevich, Arsenij A.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2020-09-09T10:32:10Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2020-09-09T10:32:10Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Arsenij A.Vetushko-Kalevich. “Opus trium deorum”: A Note on the Origin of Annotationes ex Scriptis Karoli Episcopi Arosiensis. Philologia Classica 2020, 15 (1), 154–161.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2020.111
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/19328
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: One of the most famous academic conflicts in 17th century Sweden was a quarrel between
  Johannes Schefferus and Olof Verelius in the 1670s concerning the original position of the
  city of Uppsala and its heathen temple, mentioned by Adam of Bremen. After a series of publications with mutual attacks Verelius published in 1678 a document entitled Annotationes ex
  scriptis Karoli Episcopi Arosiensis excerptae, pretending to go back to a lost medieval source.
  Schefferus answered with an analysis of the document, proving it to be a forgery. Despite
  Schefferus’ brilliant and convincing philological investigation, Annotationes have often been
  regarded as a genuine medieval source, especially after the publication of a monograph by the
  Swedish historian Kjell Kumlien in 1967. Recently, several historical and philological surveys
  have opposed Kumlien’s views, providing additional arguments in favour of Schefferus’ claims.
  This article aims at adding one more: an odd juncture in the text of Annotationes — ‘opus
  trium deorum’ that is to be understood as ‘a temple of three gods’ — can be explained by an
  ambition of the forger to imitate Adam of Bremen, whose text belonged to the central ones in
  the controversy.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Philologia Classica;Volume 15; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Johannes Schefferus
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Olof Verelius
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: literary forgery
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: genitivus subiectivus
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Gamla Upsala
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: “Opus trium deorum”: A Note on the Origin of Annotationes ex Scriptis Karoli Episcopi Arosiensis
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 154-161.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/19328/1/154-161.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 667,73 kB