58 J. V. HULTKRANTZ 



resembles Swedenborg and which ought therefore in the first place 

 to be made the basis of comparison with the cranium. The Principia 

 engraving of 1734 (PI. V.) was declared by J, C. Cuno, who, how- 

 ever, had not become acquainted with Swedenborg before 1768, to be 

 »still perfectly like him, especially in respect to the eyes which have 

 retained their beauty, even in his old age.» 32 (Vol. II., p. 453). Mae- 

 tin's engraving from Brander's portrait (PI. VI.) was considered by Ge- 

 neral TuxEN, who had known Swedenborg personally, to be »a 

 remarkable likeness». 32 (Vol. II., p. 1198). The portrait by Kkafft (PI. 

 VII.) is undoubtedly the most beautiful and artistic, but it does not 

 necessarily follow from this that its fidelity to the original is greater 

 than that of the others. The portrait signed with the initials »L. B.» 

 (PI. VIII., fig. 3) is again, from an esthetic point of view, less satisfactory, 

 but gives instead certain indications of having been painted with great 

 care and piety. 



Under such circumstances we must, in our comparative exami- 

 nation, try to take all the portraits into consideration, and the first 

 thing is then to determine what features are to be found in all the 

 hkenesses or at least in the greater number of them. In the first 

 place, it seems to me to be common to all the portraits that the eyes 

 are open, which speaks decidedly for the orbits being relatively high 

 and their upper margins not specially drooping; further, that the 

 region of the zygomatic arch is somewhat protruding when compared 

 with the temples; finally, that the nose is rather straight and that the 

 chin plainly protrudes and is relatively narrow. iVU these features are 

 embodied in the description of the cranium furnished in this work. The 

 shape of the eye-sockets and the considerable preponderance of the 

 zygomatic breadth over the minimal forehead breadth, and the con- 

 clusion which we were able to make on the basis of the condition 

 of the eye-tooth in the plaster cast, namely, that the lower jaw had 

 been rather prognathous, should here again be called to mind. 



The agreement between the portraits and the cranium, as to 

 the points in question, is thus evident, but in some other respects it 

 must be admitted that a certain divergence seems to dominate. On 

 the one hand, the forehead is in general rather high on the portraits 

 and appears to be powerfully vaulted, while on the skull it was de- 

 scribed as relatively slanting and with feebly developed eminences. 

 On the other hand, the root of the nose shows, on the cranium, a con- 

 siderable depression below the glabella, while, on the contrary, espe- 



