66 J. V. HULTKEANTZ 



purpose of the reconstruction was not the production of an artistic 

 piece of sculpture, but only to scientifically test whether the man ^yhose 

 cranium was the basis for the bust could have had an appearance 

 which agreed in its essential characters with Swedenboeg's, as we 

 know him from his portraits, or in other words whether Swedenborg 

 had a skull of a type similar to the cranium which now lies in his coffin. 

 I consider myself justified in giving an affirmative reply to these ques- 

 tions. The proof lies, of course, not in the resemblance between the 

 bust and the portraits with regard to the delicate details of eyes and 

 mouth, eyebrows, hair-dressing, etc., but wholly and solely in the 

 agreement of the facial proportions, most especially those of its upper 

 part, i. e., the forehead and temporal regions, the root of the nose and 

 border of the eye-sockets, and also, although in a lesser degree, in 

 the proportions of the jaws. 



In these very respects the similarity between the bust and the 

 portraits may be looked upon as rather satisfactory, in any case the 

 differences seem to he no greater than those between several of the 

 portraits. It should be especially emphasized that on our reconstruc- 

 tive bust the forehead appears much more strongly developed and more 

 vaulted than one would suppose to be the case after an inspection 

 of the cranium alone. It shows a rather good agreement with at least 

 most of the portraits. Now as the forehead belongs to just those parts 

 of the bust which were modelled with the help of the anatomical 

 measurements only, and without the least guidance from the portraits, 

 this shows that the discrepancy, above alluded to (pp. 58 — 59), between 

 the cranium and the portraits, in respect to the shape of the forehead, 

 as being more an illusion than a reality, does not contradict the as- 

 sumption that the skull is genuine. 



Our investigation of the physiognomical characters of the cranium 

 before us, as they are revealed in direct view or on the reconstructed 

 bust, have thus yielded the result that a remarkable agreement exists 

 between the cranium and the existing portraits of Swedenborg; also 

 that no decisive value should be attached to the comparatively slight 

 divergences from some of the portraits, for the reasons mentioned above. 

 In this agreement lies, of course, no conclusive proof that the skull 

 is that of Emanuel Swedenborg, but certainly an additional and ex- 

 ceedingly valuable support for such a supposition. 



