Critical Summary. 



A minute excimination of the historical documents, referred to in 

 the preceding chapters, malves it quite evident that there are diffe- 

 rences in the various narrations; for example, the dates, the statements 

 concerning the number of witnesses present on various occasions, con- 

 cerning the motive for the theft, etc., are not absolutely in agreement. 

 P'urthermore, in certain documents »Swedenboeg's coffin» is spoken of, 

 in others two or three coffins are mentioned, etc. But, as I remarked 

 above, these differences are easily explained when one considers that 

 the accounts were for the most part written several years or decades 

 after the occurrence of the events, and that a number of them are 

 based purely on hearsay at second (or third) hand. The agreements 

 of the principal features in the course of the occurrences are, ho\\- 

 ever, sufficiently great to allow us, witli comparatively great safety, 

 to sketch the outlines of the story, which, ^^ith special regard to the 

 identity of the cranium, may be summarized in the following manner: 



The triple coffin in which Emanuel Swedexborg's body was con- 

 tained, and which was deposited on April 5th, 1772, in the vault under 

 the Swedish Church in London, was opened for the first time about 

 1790, the motive being merely the satisfaction of certain persons' cu- 

 riosity. At a visit to the vault shortly afterwards, undertaken for the 

 same purpose, the relatively well preserved features of the face were 

 found to be strikingly similar to the portrait of Swedenborg, by which 

 the identity of the body could be determined. 



Although the coffin had not been satisfactorily closed after this, 

 still there is no reason to suppose that any grave-robbery had been 

 committed previous to 1816, when Ludvig Granholm, an ex-officer in 

 the Royal Swedish Navy, possessed himself of the cranium for the 

 purpose of selling it to some one of Swedenborg's followers. The cir- 



