First version The earliest known sketch ( 236) is made in graphite and is located in the Carl Larsson museum in Sundborn. It was dated by Karl Axel Arvidsson to a time shortly after the visit to Copenhagen in 1910. In July, Larsson started to paint a large version, which was finished in January 1911, but it is only preserved in a photograph. An anonymous writer calling himself "Archaeologist" voiced harsh criticism in
Dagens Nyheter on February 20, 1911. The writer stated that there were several anachronisms in the painting which had been combined freely. The anonymous writer called the temple a "summer restaurant" decorated with motives from the
Biological museum in Stockholm and he considered the dresses in the painting to be as preposterous as a Swedish farm with camels walking around the dunghill. The most essential change consisted of a more monumental composition. The temple had been enlarged considerably and given a more stern shape, and the figures had been more closely assembled and they formed an unbroken relief-like row. The sketch was put on exhibition in the museum in November 1913 and in a letter to Ludvig Looström, the director of the museum, Larsson offered the painting for 35,000 Swedish kronor. This version was criticised even before the museum board had had time to present their own view. August Brunius, who had expressed his enthusiasm for the Gustav Vasa painting, reacted against the choice of subject, like most critics. The choice of subject was only aggravated by the way it was presented. On January 17, 1914, the museum's board presented their ambivalent view on the painting. The majority of the board seconded the motion that Larsson was to finish
Midvinterblot for the museum wall, but they added the reservation that the main scene with the sacrifice of a king should be excluded or downplayed. The director of the museum, Looström, objected to the board's ruling, and he declared the painting illustrated a "ritual killing" and he would rather the wall remain empty. Carl Larsson received the ruling of the board as a confirmation that the museum accepted his painting, but he declared that he would not make the suggested changes, nor would he accept the suggestion that the painting should be installed in the
Stockholm City Hall instead. On March 1, 1914, Larsson, who was by then ostracized, wrote a letter to the minister of religious affairs and declared that he resigned from the task of illustrating the museum wall. A new figure, a
wizard, had been added to the left of the sleighs and the lion guardians at the entry of the temple, which received a noticeably Chinese character. The colours are forceful and there are considerable amounts of gold, something that Larsson intended as a disclaimer of the common notion that pre-history was gray. The minister asked for expert advice and the debate continued in the newspapers. There were suspicions that there was a political side to the animosity between Bergh and Larsson, but these suspicions were convincingly dispelled much later by
Prince Eugén, Duke of Närke in a personal letter. A book on Carl Larsson, published by Nationalmuseum in 1992, claims that the most immediate and natural explanation for the ultimate rejection of the painting was that time had rendered the painting unfashionable. Because of the long debate, the painting became a survivor from
a time past and it could not meet the
modernist ideals of the new century. The final version was exhibited where it was intended to be in June 1915. In the following year, it was shown at the art gallery
Liljevalchs konsthall as its first exhibit was dedicated to Carl Larsson,
Bruno Liljefors and
Anders Zorn. It was tentatively shown again in Nationalmuseum during the period 1925–1933. In 1942, the painting was stored at the Archive for Public Decorative Art (now renamed the Museum of Sketches) in
Lund, where it was prominently on show for forty years. According to the book by Nationalmuseum, the controversy concerned Carl Larsson's personal prestige and the ideals that he stood for, but his contemporaries would turn more and more indifferent to these ideals. The events embittered his last years and he declared in his autobiography that the controversy broke him down and that he admitted it with anger. It is clear that he began to identify himself with the work and it is possible that he also identified himself with the sacrificed king, as he primarily saw conspiracies and bad intentions behind the opposition. This identification was made apparent in his self-portrait, in 1916, where he presented himself as king Domalde, and which he donated to Sundborn parish where he lived. ==The later controversy and eventual acceptance==