Conclusions. 



Passing by such points as are of minor or indirect significance 

 for tlie principal question, tiie chief results of the enquiry which has 

 now been brought to a close may here be set forth in a brief series of 

 conclusions. 



The critical investigation of the historical documents relating 

 to the question now in hand, ^^•hich was undertaken in the first part 

 of this work, has yielded principally the following results: 



Emanuel Swedenboeg's skull was actually stolen in July, 

 1816, from the coffin, which had already been opened about 

 1790. 



A cranium was deposited in Swedenboect's coffin on the 

 25th of March, 1823. 



No reason exists for doubting that, except for the dis- 

 turbance just mentioned, the mortal remains of S"s^^DENBOEG 

 haA-e been allow-ed to lie undisturbed in the casket. 

 As to the question whether the cranium placed in the coffin in 

 1823 was the genuine one or a substitute, the historical statements 

 are insufficient to render a decision. The possibility of an exchange 

 — intentional or unintentional — cannot with certainty be excluded 

 by means of the i-ecorded facts, but these seem rathei- to argue that 

 the genuine skull was restored than that the opposite is true. 



The examination of the coffin, as well as its contents, /. e., 

 the remnants of the shroud and tlie skeletal remains, has brought to 

 light no evidence contradictory to the above-mentioned inferences, 

 but has established the following additional results: 



The inner, leaden coffin has borne the nameplate of 

 Emanuel Swedenborg. 



The greater part of the bones which lie in the coffin, 

 and among these the remains of a lower jawbone, lm\e, with 



