The Moetal Remains of Swedenborg 23 



exchange, for that matter, could hardly have been made without the 

 knowledge of Pastor WIhlin, as the latter, who had before had the 

 stolen cranium in his care, was also present when it was redeposited. 

 In conclusion, I desire also to emphasize the excellent agreement, on the 

 one hand, of the cranium now present in the coffin with the plaster cast, 

 still preserved, and, on the other hand, the description which the sculptor 

 Flaxman gave of the skull which he saw at Tulk's home, and which the 

 latter would hardly have shown to his fellow-believer if he himself had 

 known it to be a substitute. I shall in what follows return again to 

 this point. 



Finally, in regard to the later fate of the cranium, deposited in 

 1823 in the coffin, we can with absolute certainty declare that the 

 same cranium lies at this very day in the coffin. The above-named 

 plaster cast of 1823, a reproduction of which has been at our disposal 

 throughout the examination, agrees absolutely not only in size and ge- 

 neral form, but even in the minutest details with the cranium now in 

 the coffin. This will be sufficiently evident from a comparison between 

 the figures 3—4 and 12-13. 



During the time which has elapsed since 1823, when the theft 

 of Swedenborg's cranium had become generally known, doubts have, 

 however, been repeatedly expressed as to the correctness of the facts 

 above referred to. For the sake of completeness these objections may 

 also be discussed here. 



First, then, it should be stated that Baron Bernhard von Beskow, 

 who gave a memorial address concerning Emanuel Swedenborg 2 fp. Gl), 

 on January 24th, 1859, before the Swedish Academy, refers in a note 

 to the rumor concerning Sw^edenborg's skull, but that he, for his part, 

 was not inclined to pin his faith to this story. He presents as reasons 

 for this belief, partly the fact that no Swedish Minister s wife had died 

 in Ijondon at the time in question, partly that he considers it impro- 

 bable that »the officials of the church would have permitted the taking 

 away of Swedenborg's skull, and that a Swedish officer should, without, 

 permission, have possessed himself of the same for purposes of sale.» 

 Von Beskow seems, howe^'er, to ha-^-e a knowledge of the matter only 

 through Dr. Im. Tafel's brief reference 31 [IV. p. 311), and it seems to be 



