26 J. V. HULTKEANTZ 



mission on Saturday, to . . ., situated about . . . kilometei's from Lon- 

 don, Mr. R. stated, when, after much difficulty, it was possible to ob- 

 tain an interview with him, that he had seen, in 1869, at an antiquary's 

 in the East End of London, a skull which the said dealer declared was 

 Swedenboeg's, and which he was supposed to have bought from a grave- 

 digger, who had found it when some coffins in the Swedish churchyard 

 were moved. Mr. R. would, however, under no considerations, disclose 

 the name of this now deceased antiquary, or of his son, but explained 

 that he could only find him if he himself, accompanied by two ward- 

 ens, could travel to London to make his investigations. 



»The physician at the institution where Mr. R. is confined, said 

 that it would be absolutely impossible to find out whether these state- 

 ments of Mr. R. were true or only based on the circumstance of his 

 having perhaps at some time heard the theft of Swedenborg's cranium 

 spoken of and thereupon constructed this story to find some excuse 

 for getting out of the asylum.» 



When, therefore, there seemed to be no possibility of getting 

 any authentic information concerning Swedenboeg's skull from this 

 source, the Minister in London considered that nothing could for the 

 present be done for the solution of the problem. 



The information thus derived seems, however, to be sufficient 

 to reduce to a minimum the value of Mr. R's account. It is, namely, 

 in the first place clear that Mr. R., because of his insanity^ can in 

 no wise be considered as a refiable witness, and that there is direct 

 cause to suppose that his story may have been fabricated. But even 

 if we assume that his statements are based on facts, and that a cer- 

 tain antiquary, about 1870, had himself been convinced that he was in 

 the possession of Swedenboeg's skull, the more particular details of the 

 story make it most improbable that it was the genuine skull. The 

 grave-digger muvst, namely, if this were the ease, either have stolen 

 it before 1816 and have laid in its place another, which in its turn had 

 been taken by Geanholm, or else, in some way, he had come into pos- 

 session of the genuine skull, stolen by Geanholm, in the place of which 

 either the last-named, or Pastor Wåhlin, or Mr. Tulk had procured 

 another cranium which was deposited in the casket in 1823. After 

 1823, as above shown, it is absolutely certain that no exchange has 

 taken place. It therefore appears much more probable (if, namely, Mr. 

 R's story be correct) that the grave-digger had deluded the old anti- 

 quary into buying a false skull. 



