Emanuel Swedenborg

1. EMAHUEL SWEDENBalG
MD
niE REVOLT AGAINST DEISM
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty or the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Brandeis University
Department of History of Ideas
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Degree
. Doctor of Philosophy
By
Robert H. Kirven
I April 196,5
ProCessor Herbert Marcuse
Principal Advisor

2. ' .
1'hIa c:Uuertatloa ha bMD
.,
j
mlaofllmed euc;t1,. u ree:e-cl
65-14,424 !
I
KIRVEN, Robert H•• 1926­
EMANUEL SWEDENBORG AND THE REVOLT
An....mST DEISM.
I
Brandeis University. Fh.D•• 1965
Philosophy
University Microfilms. Inc., Ann AlOOf, Michigan.

3. @ Copyright by
Robert H. Kirven
1966

4. ·This dissertation, directed and approved by the candidate'.
Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Graduate
Facqlty of Brandeis University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOaOF PHILOSOPHY
JUN .,.. ,..
"
Date
Dissertation Committee

5. TABLE OF CClITENTS
.age
r-
I LIST OF ABBREVIATI~S.
• • • • · . . • • • • • • • • •
vi
INTRCDUCTI~ • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . .. . . . 1
The Problem ot IndIvIdual Ideas and
Intellectual Movements • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
"Swedenborg and the Revolt AgaInst OeIs.­
as a Signiticant Case Study• • • • • • • • • • 3
c- The Background ot the Revolt Against DeIs• • • • S
Swedenborg and DeIs• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12
A ContrIbutIon to the Revolt AgaInst DeIs.:
Swedenborg's Idea ot EmpIrIcal RevelatIon • • • 16
Plan ot the'Study• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24
Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 27
PART I.
SWEDENBCRG' S C~CEPT AND THE KEY ISSUES
. CF THE REVa.T
~
haPter
(~ E~"PIRICL REVELATIOO AND THE BASIC
~ PlU::SUPPOSI1I~S OF' RELIGIaJS THaJGHT • • • • • 32
Relevant Factors In the G~rman Intellectual
Climate, c. l~SO: PIetIsm, and HistorIcal
CrIticism: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32
PIetIsm~ • • • • • • • ·......
Historical Criticism: J. A. ErnestI • • • • •
•• ••• 33
3$
German Reaction to Swedenborg'.
Pre_~~stlcal Phllo~Qphy • • • • • • • • • •
• 44
lro'J':'."nuel Kant, "od His Reaction to
,~w~danborg • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 46
-:.. Two DacC"18nts. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4.'/
The Three An~c~~t.,. • • . .......... 50
jtan t' s Amb i gill toy • • • • • • • • • • • • • I 51
IH

6. Chapter Page
Kant's Reaction to Swedenborg• • • • • • • • • 57
F. C. Oetinger's Reaction to Swedenborg• • • • 65·
The Religious View. • • • • • • • • •• 70'
The Philosophical View • • • • • • • • • • • 71
The Theological View • • • • • • • • • • • • 79
Cr-iteria for Judgment of Empirical
Revelation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82
The Course of Development of Oetinger's
.Attitude • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85
Minor Reactions to Swedenborg. • • • • • • •• 90
Heinrich Clemm • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 90
Johann ~aspar Lavater. • • • • • • • • • • • . 93
Summary Conclusion • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 95
N~te.. • • • • • • • • • • • ..
• • •• • • • 96
SPEC IAL REVELAT ICN, CHURCH REFOOM AND
SECTARIANISM • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109
Thomas Hartley (1707.1784) • • • • • • • • • • 118
John Clawes (1743-1831) • • • • • • • • • • • • 127
Robert Hindmarsh (1759-1835l-.--.~• • • • • • • 135
(
Swedenborg's RevelaUon: the RepUe. JJ
to Dr. Priestly. • • •• • •••••••• 141
Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1$0
CD POLF.MICAL AND ANALYTICAL CRIGINS CE THE
PSYCHOLOGY CE RELIGION • • • • • • • • • ·.
• 158
P~~JmJlca! ~!y~hology or Religions
'..:!.Oh~Y!.l • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• 164
•
Analytical Psychology or Religions
Johann Gottfried Herder. • • • • •
• • • • • 173
Not... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • 184
PART II.
SWEDENBORG' S ccr'C~PT AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE REVOLT
® DEVELOPMENTS IN ~~Gl.AND • • • • • • • • • • • • • 188
Th~ Sectarian =0Sdenborgian Traditio~• • • • • 190
___ T~e Romantic Swedenborgian Tradition in
England • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 198
Iv

7. Chapter Page
1. William Blake • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 198
2. Sou they ana e Quincey Contra
·Swedenborg • • • • '. • • • • • • 204
3. Coleridge on Swedenborg• • • • • • • • • 206
Summary of the English Developments • • • • • • 211
Notes • • • • • 4e ••••••••••••••• 213
~ DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • 211
The Expatriates. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 219
The Intellectuals• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 226
Personal Revolts. • • • • • • • •••• 228
The Ecclesiastical Movement • • • • • • • • • • 239
Honor' de Balzac • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 243
Conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 253
Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 254
® GERMAN DEVELOPMENTS• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 259
Romantic Literature • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 259
Romantic Philosophy• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 265
Johann Friedrich Immanuel iafel • • • • • • • • 21i
~ilosophy • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 278
Ecclesiology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 284
Psychology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 290
Summary. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 294
Notes. e
•• _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 296
,-
CONCLUS ICJl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 301
Swedenborg's Idea: "Empirical P . &lation" •• 301
The Revolt Against Deism • • • • • • . • • • • • 309
General Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 311
Note.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 323
B IBL100RAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 324
v

8. LIST OF ABBREVIATICNS USED FCR
SWEDENBORG'S WORKS
!& Co·r, Al"cana..)_-Arcana Coelestla, etc. (The Heavenly Myster­
Ies, which are in tht: Sacred Scripture or the Word ot
the Lord; disclosed). London: John Lewls, 1749-S6.
!l-g~~s.
Ad_~versarla. (Written 1745-46, published posthumously by
-- J. F. I. Tafel, Tublngen: Verlagsexpedltlon, 1842-47,
six volumes). References are also given for the English
translation, which has Incompatible paragraph number.s
The Word Explained, 10 volumes (Bryn Athyn, Pa.s The
Academy of the New Church, 1948-51).
~--Apocalypsls Expllc~ta (The Apocalypse Explained according
to its spiritual sense, wherein are revealed the myster ­
ies there foretold), 4 volumes. (Written 1745-59, pub_
lished posthumously by Robert Hlndmarsh (London: Robert
Hindmarsh, 1785-89).
~_-Apocalypsis Revelat~ (The Apocalypse Revealed, wherein are
disclosed the mysteries there foretold, which have hith­
erto remained concealed). Amsterdam: ~priv~te), 1766.
De Anlma__ (On the Soul), Part VII of Regnum Anlmale (~), ~.~.
English translation, The So~l, or Hatlonal Psychology
(New York: New Church Board of PUblication, 1887).
Doe, Llfe_..Doc . Ina Vitae pro Nova Hlerosoh;ma ex 'praecepUs
Oecalooi (Uoctrine of Life for the New Jerusalem from
the precepts of the Decalogue). Amsterdam: 1763.
DLW_..De Divino Amore et de Divine Saplentla (Angelic Wisdom
- concerning the Divine Love and the DIvine Wisdom). New
York: American Swedenborg Printing and Publ~shing
Society, 1890. .
DP_-Dlvina ~ vldentia (Angelic Wisdom respecting Divine
-- Providence). Amsterdam: 1764.
E~U._-Qe TeJlurfbus in Mundo nostro Solari, etc. (Ear.ths in
tha UnlverQe; or, ~arths in our Solar System which are
called ~lanets, and the earths in t~e ,tarry ~eavens;
the 11" Inhabitants, and also tile spirl ts and angels
there; from things heard and seen). London: 1756.
liruD" Cuto et CW,.us mrl'.b111.h "s,a"J..L.!!! In~r""J ~x a'.1.cUj},!
et. vb! .. [Heaven and h .1 J or, H(l., ;,;" !'.nd :i ls wonders,
and of Hell, from things Heard and Seen). Londons 17S6.
vi

9. Infin ••-Prodromus Philosophiae ratiocinatis de Infinite et
----- causa finali Creationis: deque mechanismo opera--Animae
et Corporis ("On the Infinite n or, Preliminary attempt
at a philosophical argument on the Infinite, and on the
final cause of Creation; and on the mechanism of the
operation of the Soul and Body). Dresden/Leipzig:
Hekel, 1734. .
11-.oe Ultimo Judicio, etc. (The Last Judgment and the Destruc.
tion of Babylon, showing that what was foretold in the
Book of Revelation has been fulfilled in the present day;
from things heard and seen). London: 1758.
On Influx_.oe Commercio Animae et Corporis, etc. (The Inter_
course between the 50ul and the Body, which is supposed
to take place either by physical influx, or by spiritual
influx, or by pre_established harmony). London: 1769.
S!!--Qeconomia Regni Animalis (The usual English title, "Econ.
omy of the Animal Kingdom" is misleading; "Function (or
Structure) of the Domain of the Soul" is more descrip.
tive of the work). English trans. London: Newber,y,
1845-46.
~ •••Principia Rerum Naturalium, etc. (The First Principles
of Natural 1bings, being new attempts toward a philoso.
phical explanation of the elementar,y world). "Part I­
of era Philoso hica et Mineralia, 3 vols. Dresdeq/
Leipzig: ekel, 17 • n~lish translation, 2 vols.,
London: W. Newbery, 1845-46-;---­
RA••Reqnum Animale, etc. (The Animal Kingdom [i.e., the Soul's
-- --nomain] considered anatomically, physically and philo.
sophically). 1743-44. Several volumes of this work
were projected, but it was dropped at the beginning or
Swedenborg's psychic experiences. Of the volumes edited
and published posthumously, two are cited in this work:
De Anima (~.v.) and Part I (On the viscera of the abdo.
men; Which aTso includes a "Prologue" to the Whole work).
S.1J English translation, London: W. Newbe~y, 1843.
TCR__Vera Christiana Reliaio (True Christian Religion).
--- Amsterdam: 1771.
~._T!)e lord Explained, Engli3h title or ':y!',ersaria (M), g,•.J!.
NarES TO ABBREVlATIOlS
Unless'oth9~lse noted, all works are available in'a number
of English translattons, including thos~ of the Swedenborg
Foundation, New York; most quotations are drawn from these
editions. Also, unless olheniis" no"~'l, all references are to
paragraph numbers, rather than to payes, the former being uni.
form in all editions and translations.
vU

10. INTROOOCTIaf
The Problem or Individual Ideas
and Intellectual Movements
The texts to be examined In this essay In the
history or Ideas have two things In common. The subject
ot each Is an Idea which vas posed and developed by a ma•
. named Emanuel Swedenborg; the author ot each vas a _.
Involved In the Intellectual movement known as the Revolt
against Del... Thus. tro. the outset. the st.dy Involve•.
assumptions about the problematic relationship between the
Individual and the collective; and In the end. It testltl••
tor or against the validity ot these assumptlons./ Sloee
sophlcal. an~se
­
the treatment ot material Is historical. rather than phllo­
..
assumptions are not prominently explicit
In the course ot the study. It Is necessary to state the.
brletly by way ot Introdactlon. I
The tlrst ot these assumptions Is axiomatic. and the
second Is at least presumptively valid; they are stated here
to show the limits ot what Is pre-supposed.~There are such '
things as Individual Ideas. which In some sense are originated l
by one man; and· thes. m~y be distinguished and Identltled I
by their author and the date ot these expresslons.r Secondly.
there ~~e historical instances In whlch,lt Is usetul to study
1

11. 2
a particular set ot Ideas as a unit, because the Idea.
within the group stand In a relation to each other that
Is slgnltlcantly dltterent trom their relation to other
Ideas. Such a group ot Ideas l~vol~lng many Individual.
j ,
may be called an Intellectual-moveme~,~hensome_coherent
_
I ternal resslon distinguishes It trom an Intellectual
development, or trom variations ot a single Idea (e.g., ·the
"
Copernican Revolution, or the _Idea ot Progress); and when
some geographical dlver$lty among the authors, and the ab ­
sence ot one determining Idea or author, distinguishes It
trom a school (e.g., the TUblngen, or the Hegellan school).
this detlnltlon ot an Intellectual aovement entail.
the assumption that the relationship between Individual
-
Ideas and whole .oveaents Is necessarily complex. The dl.­
tinction between a MOvement and ·a development preclude.
the possibilIty that one Idea could have the same relatIonshIp
to all the Idea. wIthIn a movement; and the dIstInctIon be ­
tween a movement and a .chool excludes decIsIve determlnatlon- ­
In either dlrectlon--as characterizIng the relationshIp be­
tween an Idea and a movement. Cause-and-ettect relationship.
In this situation are pluralistic and relative. Internal a.
well as external relatlon8hlps may be slgnltlcantly Intlu­
entlal In either a positive or a negative way.
On the ba.l. ot these pre-supposltlon., It I.
a ••um~d hypothetically that the characteristic relationship
between an Idea and a movell:tu t• la one ott Interaction, j a. In

12. the case ot Swedenborg's idea ot, emp...!rical revelation,l and
the movement known as the Revolt against »eh..
"Swedenborg and the Revolt against ~i~·
as a Significant case studY
Swedenborg participated in the Revolt against Deisa,
but, was not determined by it. His par~icipation will be
shown by the 'course ot development of bis thougbt in co~
parison to Deism in general, and by the siailarltles aDd
differences between his final position and that of a repre­
sentative deist, Mattb~ Tlndal. Tbese coaparlsons demon­
strate that Swedenborg vas seriously affected by De I sa, aDd
that he sought an effective alternative. Svedenborg'.
relative independence vis-A-vis the Revolt will beco..
apparent trom the fact that his reaction vas atypical of the
movement as a whole.
On the other side of the coin, Swedenborg influenced
the Revolt, without either originating It, or decisively
determining It. His Influence will be demonstrated by the
explicit textual references; that he did not originate, or
decisively determine the movement, .ay be assumed from the
consensus of hIstorians, and tacitly demonstrated by the '
analyses In this study.
In addition to being actaal, and mutually but not
decisively Influential, the relationship between Swedenborg
and the Revolt against. Dehm may be ;;:onsldoili'ed a significant

13. 4
one as well, If an Investigation of It, reveals any n~~­
---_.
torlcal Inslghts. Su~h Inslghts might further Illualne the
meaning and the Influence ot Swedenborg1s thought; the
development of the thought of any of the subject authors;
or the structure of Inter-relationships between key Ideas
Within the Revolt against Deism, and between th!-Revolt and
Deism Itself. Any significant results produced by this ]
Inquiry may provide (evidence In suppor~ o~ the thesis that .
t~e relationship between Ideas and movements Is 0_ ot
~~~!~action; and also of a corollary, that analysis ot
(minor, or non-determinative, Idea~ Is Important·to tba
understanding of an intellectual movement, and ot the
thought.ot all who participate In It.
this hypothesis and Its corollary bear l~rt8nt
J
Implications tor the study of primary historical source.,
tor th~y suggest a standard for the evaluation ot texts
that Is relatively Independent of their direct Influence or
Independent significance In the history of thought. In the
present paper, tor example, It will be seen that the sectar ­
lan Swedenborglan movement, called the New Church, became a
dominating stream of the Swedenbcrglan t~adltlon, and vas
largely det~:~!natIve
-
ot thp. Issue on which the principal
Interaction o-:cut'ud bet'"een 5i·~de:.borll' s Idea and 'the Revolt
against De~~m. Th~ fact t~at ~h~ tonnd~
---
the New Ch~rch ar~ se~n her~
and HerdtJr, for in-:tar,:e, d.::·,
as !
I~'t
'~!rect r~r~end~r. with Kant
Imply" "Jahe JUdgMnt on

14. s
their relative historical significance; It simply describes
the Incompatibility of the different lines of tr~nsmlsslon
of Swedenborglan thought, and the effect of this Incompat-
Ibility on the kind of Interaction which took place between
the . Idea and the movement under examination.
The Backaround of the Revolt against Dels.
Some of the seeds of the anti-deist revolt may have
been older than Deism Itself. In Its definitive form- English
~IS~Of the early eighteenth century--the religious thought --
of Rationalism was a product 0 Natural Theologylandlratlo~­
list. PhIlOSOPhy.lj'
~ Westfall has pointed out so clearly, the Natural
Theology of Boyle, Ray, Newton and others, was radically
ambiguous: the very force of their Insistence that natural
science coul claims be ond any shadow of
doubt, amounted to a covert admission of concerning
doub~
any religious claim that had not been so proved. 2 For Locke,
the notion Implied In his title, the -
Rea~onablen~ss of -
Christianity (1695) redounded to the credit of Reason; re-
-
Ilglon needed defense, but reason did not.
Involved no overt attack on revealed religion, It rather
Ignored It as such. Vh~t was revealed, and also $ubJect to
rational proof, was acceptable. What vu. revealed, but not
demonstrable, could not be consl~Hed as v~ry Import."nt to
reasonable men. An intent to d~reud the Chrlstf~n religion

15. 6
had led to a reconstitution of It. this re on~LLt~s
Inconsistent with the ,supernaturallst ontology, and the ·ab.­
solute epistemological authority of Holy Scripture, that
together formed the basis of traditional 'Christianity; but
It had not faced the Inconsistency, nor deflned'its new
philosophical pre-supposltlons. It was, in a sense, a reli­
gion without a philosophy.
Considered as a philosophy of religion, the classical
Rationalism of Descartes, Lelbnltz and Wolff was distinguished
by the dualism of Its ontological and epistemological theories,
and by the plstemoloa!cal.authorlty given to the faculty of
Reason. 1 The duall ty, variously expressed as mind and body,
_
thought and extension, spirit and matter, or other equival­
ent ldlchotomles) divided all o! reallt~ ~nto two parts:
each equally real, but discretely dls~inct, with no attributes
,
or qualities shared by both. Extended to theolog , this
rontology]carrles with It not only dualism's perennial problem
of communication between the two kinds of reality, but also
a problem of values: equal r~allty Implying equal signifi­
cance In God and Creation, soul and body. Interdependent
with ontological dualism Is Rationalism's characteristic
epistemological dualism: two distinct faculties of percep­
tion Inform two distinct systems ot kno~ledge, and the ••
.
perceptions and'systems are somehoY ~nlted (the vagueness of
the -how· having bean cloq~ed In ~ermlnologlc~l explanations,
e.g., -oc~aslonal cause- or ·pre-establlsh~d harmony-) In the

16. 7
Reason--the reasoning faculty of man, This dualism provides
clear epistemological support for the method of Natural
Theology, but the corollary entails an important further step
which the .natural theologians did not take. Philosophical
Rationalism, seeing the dual ism of knowledge united in Reason,
makes Reason the ultimate epistemological authority. Since
Reason is a human faculty, however, the theological consequence
of this is the authoritative superiority of human reason over
revelatJon.
~ a general theological position, Deism vas charac­
terized by explicit expression of the implications Inherent
in Natural Theology and Rationalism. On the basis of the
mechanistic world-view of the natural theologians, It des­
cribed God In the transcendent--and specifically nonlmmanent-­
role sYmbolized by the -watchmaker- analogy. On the basis
of rationalist onology and epistemology, It ascribed equal
status to spirit and nature, and to revealed and perceived
knowledge at least In principle. However, where traditional
theology had made revelation superior to reason, and Natural
Theology had made them eq~at" .the rationalhtic corollary-­
that Reason is ultimately authorltatlve--tended to prevail
In practlce. Thus Deism In g~neral represented the religious
cons~quence of the rapidly advancing· natural science, and
of the philosophical Rationalism. The elevation of reason
over revelation made Deism the religious thought ot
Empiricism as well. Rationalism and Empiflcl~m had little
-- --- ~
else In common, but Ideas Intuited from perception, and

17. 8
ideas directly resulting'from perception, could and did
serve as ··c03rdinate alternatives to revealed ideas, in the
deistic attack on the authority of revelation.
~ismas a general theological position found its
paradigm in English Deism of the early eighteenth century.
C:Herbert of Cherbury]CDe Veritate, 1624) is usually regarded
as -the Father of Deism,- because of the implications ot
his Natural Theologt; but the definitive
explicit Deism can be date {from 1696 to
derive froa the pUblication of
Mysterious at the beginning of the period, an
----~
Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, the Gospel.
RepUblication of the Religion of Nature. This dating in ­
cludes T~d, Shaftesbury, Wh~n, Collins, Vollaston,
Voolston andfTindal1 as the pri~y deistic writers; Herbert
-
ot Cherbury, Hobbes, Tillotson, Locke and Blount as the
main precursors; and Chubb, Bolingbroke and Hume as the main
figures in its decline.
The fact that~ound its
~~~isti~ expression i~ En land
=
most complete and
oes not mean that it
!l
was an. internati~nal movement. The samelcontext ot
philosophical and religious problems hat produced English
Deism were present and important in France and Germany as
11sh daists, in the original language
and in translation, found signirIc~nt readershIp and accept ­
ance in those countries. He.1 ,t or Cherbury'a work was as
~

18. 9
well known In France as In"England;3 To land. Colllns.
------
Ro an
----
Woolston and other Deists were translated Into French; and
....--.. Voltalre circulated characteristically dehUc
vlews. 4 In Germany. ~~tz and Moshe Im had commented on
Toland. C. M. Pfaff on~lns, and Lemker on Woolst~n;S
--
=--- - -- ­ -
-
and beginning as early as 1714. delstlc writers were the
SUbject of academic debates and controversial writings In
the German universities. particularly Helmstldt and TUblnsen. 6
r;lnda~7 wor~. famo~s as the so-called~~sf Blbre;-"j:".
translated Into G!:ma~ln 1741. 7 Even where the Revolt
against Deism was directed against Deism as a ~eneral_posl­
tlon In religious thought. rather than against! the EngliSh]
Delst~-of 1696-1730J these writers represent a sort or (
paradigm of the explicit.
When It occurred.
from another quarter. and on a different basis. than the
antl-del~t polemic Which had been prosecuted with vlgor by
the detenders ot Pietism, Protestant Scholasticism. Thomls.,
--
and other traditional torms ot Christianity.
-
The pole.lc
was conservative, callln tor a reJecti~n ot Deism. and a
return to "true rellglon.- The Revolt. on the other hand.
((I
developed a~o~~ ~en who had been Influenced by Deism. or
by the forces that had shaped It. to~ strongly to turn back.
;C Those who revolted In detense of a tradition did so by
seeking a new ground that would be more .dequate than the
) l old ground which the deists had cut away. and mOr~ adequate

19. .10
than Deism itself. Others, apparently feeling that Deisa
represented an indecisive break with~n UDs~tlsfactory trad­
~
-
Ition, sought a cleaner break with Christianity, or at lea.t
with the church. For the former group Deisa vas not religious
enough to be an adequate system of religious thought; for the
too reli io~s; but for both, anl acceptable
alternative to Deism had to be consonant with modern advance.
In science, systematically adequate, and convincing Without
appeal to tradition as an authority.
In Germany, where the concern at first vas prl. .rlly
with the p~ilosophlcal pre-supposltlons required for a .ore
adequate alternative to Deism, the Revolt centered on onto­
logllcal and epistemological issues.
----
As has been noted, Delsa
vas dualistic In these respects. The ground of Its develop­
me~~~~
-
the progressive nature of the Revolt, precladed
-
a return to Su ernaturalism. Therefore
were toward a theoretical or practical Naturalism, on the
t~ open alter~lves
~~or, 0 alnd ~
and body, spirit subs tan­
t..!!.!..- !:!a 11 ty• aware that this op~ to ontologl­
cal dual~ vas -named- In the eighteenth or early nineteenth I
--.J
centurits, though It vas e~presse~ptlvely. It vas
used by Swedenborg In the foundation of his system, and
appea~8 ~o have been the goal of a tendency in the thought
of some of his commentators,L8~ a title for-!t-ls ~1ded In
this study. From ~s a~1 Progoft, I have borraved the
-

20. 11
--signifying the notion that spirit and matter
are equally and similarly objectl~ely real, together
a whol;]that Is Indivisible except In Intellectual" conception
~oralDg
-
:::::::==- -- 8
based on Incomple~e perception. The term Is not completely
satisfactory, because It Is also used In a largely Irrelevant
context, by those who attribute a special ontological status
to collectlvltles. The obvious alternative, however, would
be 5is'::';1 and this ~rm Is ~s~ I-n precisely the present
context, with materialistic Implications which specifically
contradict Swedenborg's position. Because Smuts. and
especially Pr~off. have :used[~ollaIQ. th:=:xact sense
Intended here. and the contusion comes from what really Is
another field. It seems the best word for the purpose--as
long as Its special usage Is kept In mind.
1. In England.] where phllosophlcal and theological
Issues had become Inseparably Involved with Institutional
forms and practices. the.Revolt centered on the question of
reforming the established church. or separating from It.
France reflected both the' philosophical and institutional
developments, less decisively than England or ~rmany.
Emanuel Swedenborg. whose personal revolt against
Deiam was ~fle~ted in his writings on cystical theology
as compareJ With his writings on natural philosophy. vas
a subject of comment and some controversy, on all si4es of
the Revolt a8 just de3cribad. The ex. eais of these coa.ents
and controversies, Which forms ~he body or this stUdy. reqUire.

21. 12
a brief Introductory description of Swedenborg, and of his
Idea which was central to his contribution to the Revolt
against Deism.
Swedenborg and Deism
Emanuel Swedenborg (E. Stockbom, 1688; ~. London,
1772) was the son of a pletlst Lutheran bishop and court
preacher. Graduated from Upsala, he studied on the Continent
and in England; became proficient In mathematics and mechanics,
and well-Informed In the natural sciences. He took an appolnt­
.ent to the mining bureau, working at these duties while he
pursued an avocation of Investigations In natural science
and philosophy. He published nine books (leaving several
more In manuscript), as well as articles and pamphlets on
cosmogony, physics, chemistry, physiology, psychology and
other subjects. Like the seventeenth century Christian
Virtuosi, he was seeking. sclCAU.t c support tor religious
__belief; be wanted to tlnd the soul. 9 As a rationalist, he
was convinced that the soul was a~ce$slble'to rational
. .
discovery and demonstratlon. lO Slgnlt!cant yarallels, and
a~undant explicit references, clearly show him ... line with .
In
the scientific rationalism of Descartes, Woltf, Boyle,. Newton
and others. He stood close ~nough to Deism to be tully
qualified to revolt against It.
His revolt occurred ~etwten 1743 and 1745, ~her. be
aban-:01"ld the natural sciences as the ground ot his pili:')$ ,hy,

22. 1)
replacing it with mystical experiences. Even after this
revo1t--decisive as it was--he remained close enough to
Deism to suggest thatrto a considerable extent, his was a
revolt from within. Matthew Tinda1 1 s Christianity as old as
the Creation may be taken as repres~ntativ.e o~ deist thought;
a brief comparison with Swedenborg will clarify the kinds ot
similarities and differences.
Tinda1 had four main assertions about what religion
!! (along with much, in the vein of characteristically deistic
iconoclasm, about what it is not): religion is reasonable,
et~a1, natural, and selfish.
The first and most i~ortant point--the reasonable­
ness of re1igion--is repeated many times In many ways. On.
of the clearest Is:
God [has) designed all Mankind should at a1f Times know,
what he wills them to know, believe and practice; and
has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of
Reason• • • • What God requires us to know, believe and
practice, must in itself be a reasonable Service; but
whether what is offered to us as such, be really so, Itls
Reason alone which must JUd9e'.~
Swedenborg agreed fully In 1734.
Philosophy, If it be truly rational, can never be con­
trary to revelation• • • • The rational cannot be
cont~ary to the Divine; since the end for which reason
is given us, is, that ve may be empo·",er~d to perceive
that there Is a God, and to know that He Is to be wor­
shfpped. 12
He agreed again, in 1770, When he had a vision of a temp1.,
with -this inscription above the door, Nunc tlc?t, which

23. signified that now It Is permitted to enter with the
understanding Into the mysteries of faith. I) The Interval
between these two statements. and the differences In them.
suggest that Swedenborg the mystic theologian held reason
In as much esteem as did Tlndal. but In doing so, he expanded
-
his definition of reason from the one he originally shared
with the Deists.
Tlndalts second assertion, that religion Is ethical.
stems from his definition of -Natural Rellglon.- a's consist ­
Ing of three essential elements: belief In God's existence.
­
knowledge of our relation to him and to our fellow-creatures.
and practice of his wlll. 14 Which of these three Is most
Important Is soon made clear: -We may define True Religion
to consist In a constant Disposition of Mind to do all the
-----
Good we can.-
-t -
In spite of one maJor difference. this
--
closely resembles Swedenborg:
There are three essentials of the Church,--the
acknowledgment of the Divine of the Lord, the acknowledg ­
ment of the hQllgess of the Word. and the life which Is
called charity.! .,
All religion has to do with life. and the life of
religion to do that which Is good. l ?
The difference here--In the second essential. since Tlndal
had no Interest In -the holiness of the brd"--Is not complete;
for Swedenborg, this would Include all that Tlndal Intended
In his second e3sentlal. Th~ primacy of ethical practice Is
entirely parallel.

24. IS
Tindal's fou~~h principle, the naturalness ot
-
religion, may be epitomized in two statements:
God's Will is so clearly, and fully manifested in the
Book of Nature, that he who runs may read it. 18
Was there an instituted Religion which di££~ from that )
o~ature, its Precepts must be arbitrary, as not founded .)
on the Reason and Nature of Things, b d~p'ending on meer
[sic] Will and Pleasure • • • • God, the great-Gov~or
of the n[verse, can't give mankind any such Precepts. 19
Similarly, Swedenborg:
In nature are represented the celestial goods and
truths which are of Heaven.20
God t s omnipotence does not enable Him to do this
[transform men outside the orderly nature of things,
and against mants will], for the reason that It would
be contrary to the laws of His order In the universe,
and at the same time contrary to the laws of order
enjoined upon every man. 21
Tindalts fourth assertion, that religion Is Wholly
devoted to the "l~lf!!.e and happiness of him. who beUeves
and practices It,
22'
Is ~d
.
to a limited extent by ~
r1.J.J ,...A d<>'-J'­
u-.fJ ..........
1"'-"
~.denborgts claim that self-love, Including enjoyment ot
the wealth and status attendant on doing important work,
is an essential part of true religlon. 23 But Swedenborg
emphasizes repeatedly In the same passage, that this is
true only when self-love is subordinated to love to the
neighbor, and both of these are subordinated to love to
the Lord. 24 Tindal assumes that doing good for others
makes men happy,25 but says nothing about loving God- ­
worship being merely for elevating the mind. 26

25. The differences between Swedenborg and Tlndal can be
summed up rather simply, and the summation would hold for
a more detailed comparison. S~o~~ made stateme~parall~l
to almost every positive assertion made by the deists; In some
cases (as especially In point four), he would place the asser­
tion In a larger context; ~, he mad~ny more assertions
t~w~-!e unacceptable to Deism. Swedenborg's personal re­
volt against Deism was essentially n expansion of the deist
concept of religion, on the grounds o~lhls conviction that
Deism was not reIl lous enough to be an adequate system or
rellglous thought. If His expansion was prlmarlly In the dlrec-
tlon of InclUding mystical, or spiritual, concepts In his
---~....;;..--
system of thou9htWhe tried to make this Inclusion co~ent
with his own Inclination toward Rationalism and scientific
method. It was In thl~ attempt that he developed the Idea
~
that constituted his major contribution to the general
Revolt against Deism.
A Contribution to the Revolt a~alnstDelsm:
~{enborgis Idea ef implrlca Revelation
In 1769, Swedenborg described himself In an auto­
biographical letter written at a friend's request. He began
by listing his travels, his public service and recognltlons,
his scientific accomplishments, family connections, hlghly­
---.
placed friends and royal favor. -But all that I have thus
far related,- he continued, -I consider of comparatively

26. 17
little importance.- "What ~ important, he said, ~s his
Christ-vision of 1743, and the extraordinary experiences that
folloved.
He [the Lord] opened my sight into the spiritual world,
and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels, in
which state I have continued to the present day. Fro.
that time, I began to print and publish the various'
arcana that were seen by me or revealed to me, concerning
• • • most important matters conducive to salvation and
wlsdom. 2 7
Some of 'his works bore the subtitle, -tro. things
heard and ,seen (ex audltls et vlsu), _28 and bls chief work,
Arcana Coelestla (1747-58), Includes In the tull title,
-wondertul things seen In the worldot spirits and the
heaven of angels.- He recounted hundreds of conversations
with spirits, visits to places In the spiritual world, and
other such experiences.
-
otten these accounts vere casual
references In the course ot a discussion; but trequently,
too, he would narrate one or a group of such anecdotes, at
length, under the heading of -Memorabllla---somevhat after
the manner of the then-tashlonable memorabilia ot travelers
returned from the OTient, Atrlca, or South ~rlca. He ~s
not writing tor entertainment, however, nvr to satlsty Idle
curiosity. He maintained that these stories were written
the Lord Himself • • • has sent me to do that Which 1
am doing now, and • • • for' this pur!'o'5e he has opened
the int~rioi's of my mind, whl',h ar~ th,jtS" of my spirit,
so that I rr£y S~€ those things ~hich Are In the spiritual
world, and hear those who are there. 2 9

27. 18
What he vrote as a result of these experiences of seeing
and hearing, came under the category of ·revelation,· as
opposed to "predictions,· (Revelatlones, prophetiae), and
vere ·sensible revelations· (revelatio sen$ibiliter fiebat ,
as distinct from automatic vriting, or verbal inspiration. 30
He claimed to have experienced the other varieties ot revel­
~
ation, too, so that he knev vhat they vere, but he did not
use them in his published vorks. Further, iD-C_qntradistlnc­
tion to that revelation vhich he said Is universally acees­
.-­
)1 ­
sible through proper reading of the Bible, his experiences
of seeing and conversing vlth spirits and angels constituted
·immediate revelation" (immediata Revelatlo).32
-----
SvedeQborg vas avare that his claim to Immediate
revelation by means of sensible experience I n the spiritual
of supp'ortln~
--------- -
vorld vould be hard to accept, and he offered various kinds
evidence and explanation.
One kind of support might be called the evidence ot
empirical certainty:
I am veil avare that many persons viii Insist that It
is Impossible for anyone to converse vith spirits and
angels during his life In the body; many, that such
Intercourse-must be mere fancy; some; that I have In­
vented such relations In order to gain credit; vhllst
others viII make other objections; for all these,
hovever, I c~je not, since I have heard, 1 have seen,
1 have felt.
Here and elsevhere, Svedenborg's certainty regarding hi.
psychic experiences appears equivalent to the certainty that

28. 19
normally accompanies sense perception. To the certainty
that be did see and hear something, ~s added the certainty
that he saw and heard clearly and distinctly:
1 affirm In truth that they [the Memorabilia] are not
Inventions, but were truly seen and heard; not seen or
heard In any slee~~ng state of mind, but In a state ot
full ~kefulness. ~
-- Another kind of evidence might be called comparative
data. Clearly, this was his favorlte. A kind of -formula­
recurs on what may veil be an average of once per page:
"That [A Is B (an assertion based on his empirical revelation)]
may be seen from [C, D, E, • • • N (comparative observatlons»). ­
Most frequently, the comparative observations were biblical
texts,35 a preference for which he had a systematic basls. 36
Sometlme3, however, the comparisons were drawn from observations
In nature,37 from general human experlence,38 from the tradi­
tions of the Church,39 and from other sources.
-- Also In support of his assertions, "he adduces an
explanation based partly on his empirical revelation, but
based equally on the psychological theory he had elaborated
at length In his earlier studies of natural philosophy.
Immediately following the first assertion of empirical cer ­
tainty cited above,40 he adds the explanation that "Man.
Is capable of conversing with angels, • • • for he Is one
with them, being a spirit clothed with a bOdy._4 1 This uni ­
versal capability was only potential, having fallen Into

29. 20
disuse, and had become unknown; but In Swedenborg1s case,
the theoretical potentiality had been ac~ualized to a unique
degree. 42
.
Swedenborg1s reterences to his spiritual experiences,
to data derived trom them, and to evidence tor the validity
ot the data, run to hundreds ot citations. Nevertheless,
he had comparatively little to say aboat the underlying
~--the actualized possibility ot such a ~d.'ot knowing.
He devoted no explicit discussion to its tundamental role
In his system; he gives It no name to distinguish It trom
the common conception ot experiential knowing. For brevity
and convenience in this paper, I have coined the tera -em ­
pirical revelation- to denote this distinctive idea ot
Swe~enborgls; but some care must be taken to specity and
limit the meaning intended by the coinage. Swedenborgls
claim was that his psychie experiences were revelatory, and
that the revelation he was commissioned to transmit to th.
world was received In and through these experiences. Thus,
both terms ot the coinage are Intended to be descriptive ot
Swedenborg1s Idea, and the claim entailed by It. No attempt
Is made to pre-Judge either part of the question (I.e.,
whether he did In tact receive a revelation, or--It he did-­
whether or not It constituted empirical knowledge), by
echoing Swedenborg1s claim In the term, -empirical revelatlon-- ­
even though it is used trom here on without quotation mark.
or annotation. The lAtention to use the term In a non-prejudicial

30. 21
sense should not, however, obscure the full extent of the
el aim. It was not Just that S"!'edenborg had "experienced­
revelation (a sense in which all revelation must necessarily
be called empirical); the point vas that Swedenborg claimed
to have received revelation, not through visions or voices
for which he vas a mere amanuensis, but in and through psychic
experiences--experiences which he recorded, but also inter­
preted, an~ whose data he regarded as methodologically com­
patible With all empirical data, and of equal truth value
with the data of sense perceptions.
In his methodology--both theory and practice--it is
characteristic of this idea, that no distinction is made
between physical and psychic experience or perception. The
parallel between the treatment of physical and psychic
experience is quite complete. Physical experience is commonly
cited without recourse to the idea of experience; physical
experience contains its own evidence of having occurred;
its data is compared with other data for evidence of valid­
ity; the possibility of physical experience must be accounted
for in an adequate psychological theory. We have Just seen
hoW Swedenborg viewed spiritual experience in Just the same
way on all four points. Empirical revelation was posited as
being epistemologically equivalent, and systematically com­
patible, with all empirical perceptions.
Out of the complete theological system whose basis
included these epistemological presuppositions, the concept

31. 22
most frequently commented upon as an example of the consequences
of the idea of empirical revelation,43 probably was the concept
of ·correspondence· b~tween spiritual and natural realities.
Swedenborg had speculated on it in his earlier philosophicaf
works,44 but he adopted it as a basic principle after his
psychic .experiences had fully confirmed it, and given it
detailed substance. Fundamentally, it was a corol~ary to
his ontological theory.
There is a perfect union of things spiritual and
natural with man • • • [and similarly with} each
and everything in the world; there is the spiritual,
which is the inmost of the cause, and there is the
natural, which is its effect, and these two make one;
and the spiritual does not appear in the natural,
because it is in it as the soul is in the bod3/:, and
as the inmost of the cause is in the effect.~>
1
But the idea of correspondence had important epistemological
. implications as well, particularly in biblical interpretation,
because:
It is similar with the Word; that this in its bosom
is spiritual, because it is Divine, can be denied by
no one; but as the spiritual does not appear in the
sense of the letter, which is natural, therefore the
spiritual sense has been hitherto unknown; nor could
it have been known beforegenu!ne truths,yere revealed
by the Lord, for that sense is in these.4b
Although Swedenborg appreciated the boldness of his
claim to be a revelator, and realized that many would doubt
the possibility of sensible contact with spirits--and doubt
the possibility of the existence of spiritual beings, or ot

32. 23
a life after death--it may be that he was unable to appreciate
fully the revolutionary nature of the idea of empirical revela ­
tion itself. Rant realized it, and his question was a basic
one:
5011 er [der Philosoph] nur eine einzige dieser
Erzahlungen [des. Geistererscheinungen] als wahrscbein ­
lich einraumen1 Wie wichtig ware ein solches Gestand ­
niss, und in welche erstaunliche Folgen sieht man
binaus, wenn auch eine solcpe Begebenheit als bewiesen
vorausgestzt werden k8nntel47
Whether serious or supercilious (the possibility that it may
have been both will be considered later), the question reflects
the anxiety that would be raised by serious consideration ot
Swedenborg's idea. A similar anxiety had been recurring in
various quarters of philosophy all through the modern period:
it characterized the reaction to the idea ot the movement
of the earth, attraction at a distance, and other shocks ot
the new science. Galileo, who did not share the anxiety,
expressed it sympathetically, in terms not unlike Kant's:
This is a bald denial of manifest sense; and it the
senses ought not to be believed, by ~hat other portal
shall we enter into philosophizing74~
John Donne, who did share it, expressed it more desperately:
-'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone.- 49 The fact that
Swedenborg's idea did not stir such violent and widespread
reactlons--that in many cases, it was dismissed without
serious consideration--may obscure the radical challenge

33. 24
It presented to systematic thought. Its potential Impact
~--
Is fully appropriate to comp~rlson with the Copernican
Revolullin, t:or--.-the .. assumpt_lo_~ that psychic .!!!d physl'c_al data
could be SQDside-ped.. ··tE)g~lh.er. If taken seriously, would
have threatened the philosophy of being. of knowledge. and
of God. with the same kind of anxiety.
Swedenborg did not feel the anxiety. an~ he did not
speak to It directly. The Idea of empirical revelation vas
self-certifying to him. and lts Impllcatlons f.ltted e,slly
Into the system he had already begun to develop. He apparently
felt no need to Justify It--except pragmatically. by using It.
His readers were troubled by It. however. The ways In which
-
they managed to accept It or reject It were various; but In
-
each case. the- reaction vas Inextricably bound up with the
~arch for an ~~tlve to ~Is-;:-~fo:n~n SWede~rg's
Idea of empirical revelation a basis fer a satisfactory alter­
native to Deism; who could not accept it. found In
It a suggestion which they developed Into an anti-deist posi­
tion; ~~found their direction for a revolt against
Deism In the arguments which they marshalled to reject
Swedenborg1s idea.
Plan of the StUdy
Taking the foregoing ~eflnltlons of the Revolt a alnst
~Jsm. and of SvedenborgtB Idea of empl2:lcal revelation. as
the movement and the Idea which form he two poles of this study,'

34. now begln~ In Part I
~
with an Issue which
l£ll centra) tQ.. the ~evo1t against Deism, and In which Sweden­
borg's Idea became Involved In the thought of the participants
In the Revolt. Each of these first three chaptersl follows a
( slmllar outllne{1 after an Introduct0.TY dellneatlon ~he
Issue, attention Is focused on ~the men and the .xts that tlrst
4. __ _ _ r,
ralsed~he Issue In connection with Swedenborg's Idea •. Treat­
----...
m~slvary slightly according to situation: more personal
background Is given fo~r-relatlvely obscure tlgures than tor
~ us ones; and{the exegeses of the-texts are more or less
de~ed, depending on a Judgment of their relative~l­
-
cance In this particular study. JI Occasional comparhons,
.
and observations on Influence, as well as chapter Introduc­
tions and summaries, are Intended to contrlbute((to the con­
tlnult which underlies the sequence of studles~of ~~~al
men and works. In this way, Part I attempts to describe t~e
basic Issues which arose from the Interaction of Swedenborg's
Idea and' the~evolt a~S~DeI~ Because each chapter
deals with one Issue, no geographical or chronologlcalJunlty
• Is Intended; the fact that Ch~ter One (on the philosophical
-
-~--~
Issue) deals with Germans of the 1760's and '70's, and
C~pter Two (on the ecclesiastical Issue) deals with Engll~h­
)J
------
men of the 1770's snd '80's, Is a coincidence for Which an
explanation Is suggested In the Conclusion. The diversity

35. 26
of subjects in Chapter Three (on the psychological issue)
-
approximates what might-have been expected from the topical
arrangement.
Part 11 trac~~e d~elopment of the Issues described
in Part I. and abandons the topical arrangement in favor or
-
a geographical one:
English.
-French and German developments. deal in turn with
the three chapters
----:--'
Thoughoccurring between
L the turn of the ce~ury and 1840./ the cut-off point
Is arbitrary to a degree. It allows the tracing of forty
years of nineteenth century developments of issu~s which
arose'in forty years of the eighteenth century. and Is late
--_-..-- .. _-
enough to show the direction ­ of development which did In .
fact continue for some time In all three countries. Though
the chapters of Part 11 also consist mainly of a series or
stud!es of Individual men and texts. more frequent oppor­
tunities f9r comp-arisons and Influence-tracing make the
-­
continuity more evident.

36. 27
NOTES - INTRODtX:TION
2Rlchard S. Westrall, Science and Religion InSeve1-)
teenth Century England (New Haven: 1958): see esp., p. 219. I
)De Verltate w~s first published In Paris In 1624,
with a French translation appearing In 1639; It has never
been translated Into english.. 11Y~ 6 ••
and others classify Rousseau and Voltaire
among
SLechler, Ope clt., pp. 446-7.
6.!£!2., p. 2)0.
71bld ., p. 448. Lechler points out a significant
evidence or--the relation or Deism to German Rationalism:
Tlndal was translated by a well-known Wolffian, J. L. ~chmldt,
and the project was begun in 1740, the year of Rationalism's
resurge~, marked b~ Wolff's return to Halle. J
L:!ra Prog.21.tJ OCPth P'Iycholo.9Y and ~('ldern r-1an (New
york: 1959 ; see esp., hap. 47 )
- ----.
9RA, I, 19.

37. 28
10 Prin., v. 1, p. xiv; OOA, I, 10-12; Il, 217.
as the Creation:
or
Vo •
12 Infin., tr.'Wi1kinson, pp. 5-6. £2., Tinda1, Ope eit.,
p. 13·
13 lCR , 508
14Tinda1, Ope elt., p. 13.
15 Ibld ., p. 21
16DP , 25~.
17Doe. Lite, 1.
18 Tlnda1, Ope eit., p. 28.
19 Ibid., p. 114.
20~, 3703.
21 lCR , 58.
2~Tinda1~ Ope eit., pp. 15, 46.
~, 403.
24Ibid ., 403-05.
25Tlndal, Ope eit., p. 19.
26 Ibid ., p. 46.
27s edenborg, Letter to Hartley, 1769 tin R. L. Tarel,
Documents concerning tne-~'e and Character of Emanue1
Swed~nborg-;-2 vols., lio";-as-:f"(l:oruron: Swe-<Ii'ill5org socr.ty,
1875-7)], p. 6.

38. 29
30Ad ., Ill, 7167 (WE, 7006) •.
31~, 86942.
32 HH, 1.
68.'
34 TCR , 851.
3SE. g., AC, 3008.
36 TCR, 229-30.
37£'9" ibid., 10.
38£.g., DP, 211.
39£.g., TCR, 8.
40~ove, note 33.
41Sw~denborg, AC, 69. £E. De Anlma, 473-75.
42Above , n.n., 27, 29.
43See below, pp. 63-64, 82-83, 126-127.
44see esp., Swedenborg, ORA, Chapt. VIII.
45Swedenborg, ~, 1.
46 Loc • clt.

39. 30
47Emanuel Kant, Trgume eines Geistersehers, erl!utert
durch Traume der Metaphyslk (KBnIgsberg: 1766), In Kant's
~sawne1te Schriften, hgb v. der KOniglich Preussischen
ademle der WIssenschaften, vol. 4 (Berlin: Georg Reimer,
1902), p. ,318.
48Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chiet
World Systems, tr. Stillman Drake (Los Angeles: Unlverlsty
of CallfornIa Press, 19$3), p. 171.
49 John Donne, -The Anatomy of the World,· in Works
in Six Volumes (London: John W. Parker, 18,39), vol. 6~91.

40. PART I
SVEDENBORG'S CONCEPT
AND
THE KEY ISSUES OF THE REva.T
, ..

41. CHAPTER I
EMPIRICAL REVELATION AND 'mE BASIC PRESUPPC6ITIONS
OF RELIGIOUS THWaHT
After the beginning ot his psychic experiences in
1744-45. Emanuel Swedenborg wrote as a theologian. but the
Initial German reaction vas concerned primarily with the
philosophical Impllc~tions ot his thought. This account.
tor the tocus on his Idea ot empirical revelation. rather
than on the use ot the Idea In his theological system; and
this particular tocus. in turn. helps to distinguish these
comments trom those ot English. and ot some later German
writers. The English, on the whole. tocused on the ec~o~
logical implications ot ~s
theology.l while later Germans
concentrated on his theolog; itselt. 2 or on the psychological
Implications ot Its existence as a rational system;) but hi.
tlrst German commentators--notably, Kant and Oetinger--dealt
almost entirely with the ontological and epistemological
issue ••
Relevant Factors In the German Intellectual Climate,
c. 1760: !JTeITSllI. and HISTorical Criticism
In addition to the Indigenous Rationalism ot Leibnitz
and Woltt. and the imported English neoism,4 which together
produced German Deism. two other intellectual trends must be

42. 33
noted. One vas the declining tradition of Pietism. and the
other vas the emerging tradition of historical crltlcls.
of the Bible.
PleUsa
Though It had an analog In English Evangelicalism,
vhlch viiI be discussed later. Pietism vas uniquely and
characteristically German In origin and development. InIU­
ated by Jacob Spener In 1675. as a revolt In reaction to the
moral and emotional sterJllty of Protestant Scholasticism,
It had roots--through the Influence of Johannes Arndt--In
the German mystical tradition embodied In Eckhart, Tauler,
Schvenkfeld, and especially Jacob Boehme. Though It vas
more a pattern of religious attitudes and practices than
a system of theological concepts. Pietism had great Influence
on German religious thought, especially as It vas developed
In the universities (notably Frankfort. TBblngen, LeJpzlg
and Halle>.5
In the Duchy of WUrttenberg. vhere Johann Albrecht
Bengel1s Influence at TUblngen fostered an Interest In com­
bining the mystical elements of Pietism vlth natural philo­
sophy and dfscfplfned relfglous thought. the clfraate vas
particularly conducive to eclecticism an attitude vhlch
~tlnger adopted In his search for a more holistic alternative
to del.tlc dualism. It was this eclp.ctlc Inclination vhich
led ~tlnger to JoIn Svedenborg1s pre-mystlcal philosophy with

43. the Kabbala and Boehmels mysticism,6 and which prompted his
first reaction to Swedenborgls Arcana Coelestia:
Wander sind darin, erstaunlich unerhSrte, wichtige
Dinge • • • • M1ch irrt nichts, 1ch kann alles combinier­
en, ich bin kein Theologe von einem einzigen Leist.7
In KSnigsberg, where the pietist tradition was led
by Franz Albert Schultz until well Into Kantls lifetime, the
consequences were quite different. While Pietism was an
authentic way of life tor Schultz, It became a pattern or
hypocritically-observed devotions enforced upon tha" pupil.
In his school; with the result that some of them, notably
Kant, came to see Pietism as wholly empty and hypocritical.
His school experience having produced a bad Impression or
Pletlsm--and Schultz and his successor, Knutzen, closely
identified with Wolffian Rationalism8--it is plain that"
Kantls early association with Schultz and later association
"with Knutzen contributes to the explanation of Kant's revolt
against what pious religion remained in Deism. It also
explains--in part--hls grouping the mystical religion that
associated with Pietism, and the metaphysical speculations
that he associated with Rationalism, as ·zwei Fliegen, die
er mit einer Klappe schlagen k8nnte.· 9
These two results Df Pietistic influence are impor­
tant t~ the background of Kant an~ Qetinger. They serve, too,
to illustrate again the complexity of the relations between
movementa and ideas. It Is a complex relatlon'hip in Which

44. 35
it is possible that one movement--specifically definable.
compact in its traditions, and less than a century old-­
could produce two consequences as disparate as these.
Historical Criticism: J. A. Ernesti
Besides Deism itself, and its older opponent. Pietism,
there vas another element in turn-of-the-century German religi­
ous thought that influenced the initial reception of Sweden­
borg1s work. This was historical criticism of the Bible. It
is true that Deism produced a school of ~istorical criticism.
too; its groundwork had already been laid in the works ot
the English Deists. and its earliest example already existed
in manuscript; 10 and for a time in the nineteenth century.
especially with such figures as Bauer and Strauss, histori ­
cal criticism vas an essentially deistic enterprise. At
this period, however, the first published attempts at scienti ­
fic historical criticism of the Bible were intended as anti­
deist defenses of traditional Protestant biblical interpreta ­
tion. Protestant Scholasticism had been undercut in its
hermeneutics. first by pietist attacks from within, and then
by deist attacks from without; Protestantism needed a new,
and rationally defensible, system of exegesis to restore it
to respectability. The attempt to provide this through
objectively historical interpretation of the text itselt
(avoiding traditional dogmatic assertions). was begun more or
less simultaneously by Johann Salomo Semler. and Johann August

45. ErnestI. The latter's InstItutIo InterpretatIs NovI TestamentI
(LeIpzIg: 1765) Is often cIted as the foundatIon of modern
exegetIcal scIence, 11
and hIs revIew of Swedenborg's Arcana
CoelestIa In 1760 was probably the fIrst scholarly review of
the work,12 and vas cIted by Kant.
ErnestI began his scholarly career as a classical
phIlologIst, and Is wIdely credIted wIth havIng done out­
standIng, scIentIfIcally hIstorIcal work in this field.
When he moved from hIs chaIr as professor of eloquence at
LeIpzIg, to the theologIcal faculty of the same unIversity
(In 1759), he began applyIng the methods of classIcal philo­
logy to bIblIcal InterpretatIon. HIs lectures on this ap­
proach to bIblIcal studIes were later developed Into his
InstItutIo ot 1765, as he explaIns In hIs Introduction. Since
the vIewpoInt set forth In that work had been used and developed
sInce 1759, It vas characteristic of ErnestI at the time be
reviewed Swedenborg in 1760.
The new line of defense Which thIs vIewpoInt provided
against attacks on the authorIty of ScrIpture vas based
.qulte dIrectly on his background as a classIcist. He vas
troubled by the tact that since the beginnIng ot hIs century,
the deIstlc notion that the Bible was no more than ancient
literature had opened a fIeld day for antIbIblical dogmatics
masked as lIterary crIticism. Such attacks were based on
Inadequate scholarshIp, he was sure, 13 but defenses ot the
Blble--wh~ther by Jews, the early Fathers, the Scholastics

46. 37
or the Pletlsts--were on equally shaky philological grounds. 14
The trouble, as he saw It, vas that words of Scripture can
mean anything that an Interpreter chooses to make them mean,
unless there Is some necessity for their meaning ~ thing;
and that necessity can be provided only In the framework or a
phllologlcally sound principle of Interpretatlon. IS He
thought that such a hermeneutical system could be based on
one solid, consistently observed principle:
Though this connexlon [between words and assigned
meanings] was In Its commencement and Institution
arbitrary, yet, being once established by custom,
It has become necessary. Not that one word has, or
can have only one meaning; for the fact Is manifestly
otherwise; but that we are not permitted to give what
sense we please to a word, either In writing or
Interpreting; nor, at the same time and place, nor
In the same. style of speaking, can the sense be
various. 16
On these considerations rests all the certainty which can
exist In Interpretatlon. 17
Any exegesis based without deviation on this ·one
word, one meaning- precept would be safe from rationalist
accusations of superstftlon, arbitrary allegorizing, or
dogmatizing. Coupled with a recognition of the. direct
Inspiration of Scripture by God (a principle which he assumed
as axiomatic without defense,18 without being conscious or
his Inconsistency with his own strictly historical method ­
ology19>, It was to provide fulJ Justification of biblical
authority.
Shortly after Joining the theol~glcal faculty, he
began to publish a monthly journal of reviews or books or

47. 38
religious Interest. Early In this enterprlz~, he came
across several of Swedenborg1s minor works--probably Includ-.
Ing The White Horse, New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine,
and The Last Judgment, all of which were published In London
In 1758--deallng with various passages of the book of Revelation.
Apparently he read these because they concerned his speclalty,
New Testament studies, but he did not review them. However,
because -fast auf alIen Selten,- these works referred to the
Arcana Coelestla, he purchased this work--notlng its high
cost, as Kant vas to do later, as an excuse for reviewing
it--and pUblished a review in the sixth issue of the first
volume of his Journal.
The Arcana is ostensibly (and, in fact, centrally)
an exegetical dissertation. Ernestl vas primarily a biblical
scholar, so it is not surprising that he turned his attention
first to Swedenborg1s hermeneutics. -Es 1st ein allegorischer
und mystlscher Commentarlus,- he began. 20 In the light or
his own interpretive principles, there vas not much worse- ­
or much more--to be said of an exegesis, so he virtually
contented himself with that comment. For another five pages,
he quotes and paraphrases Swedenborg, accurately, represen ­
tatively, and without comment; then he moves for prIma facie
dismissal of the whole hermeneutical system, method and
content.:

48. 39
Wlr schonen Zelt und Papler velter fortzufahren: und
dleses venlge vlrd hlnlangllch seyn, zu sehen, vie
der Verfasser erklart, und vie er slch die Concordanz
dabey zu Nutze gemacht hat.21
But he vas not through vlth the Arcana. Svedenborg1s
accounts of spiritual experiences vere still to be dealt vlth,
and he had somevhat more to say about them. Again, he seemed
to feel that Svedenborg vas his oYn vorst vltness, for he
devoted most of his space to quotations and paraphrases that
must be Judged as generally faithful to the text and signifi­
cant In the system. This time, hovever, he vas less sparing
in his comments, for, as he said in conclusion, • leider
viele Leute anfangen, an solchen Traumen elnen Gefallen zu
haben.· 22
He introduced the accounts of empirical revelation
vith a humorous note, vhlch he obviously intended to set
the tone in vhlch the vhole vas to be read.
Was er davon sagt, hat er alles in elner EntzUckung
gelernt. Die Beschreibung davon ist so vervlrrt und
dunkel, dass man sleht, er 1st noch nlcht recht bey
slch gevesen, da er sle beschreiben hat. 2 3
Where he vas afraid a point might be taken seriously, he
Inserted a sarcastic reminder. For example:
Er hat in selner EntzUcKung mlt elner geredet, velche
nlcht geglaubt hatte, das eln Gelst elne ausgedehnte
Substanz (eln Extensum) sey, sle hat slch ab~r von
Ihm elnes bessern belehren lassen, Ihren Irrthum erkannt,
und sich qevundert, dass ale iro Leben so dumm gevesen
vare. Die VertheldlQer der auspedehnten Geister k8nnen
den Bevels, veichei·so kraftlg ge~esen 1st, und aUI dem
Hlmmel Kommt, selblt nachlesen. 2 4

49. Finally, however, r~dicule gives way to serious Judgment:
Diess ein Roman von einer neueren Art sey, welchen
ohngefghr mit Klimms unterirdischen Reise zu
vergleichen seyn mochte: nur dass die letzte Erdich­
tung unschuldig, Jene aber, das sie die heil. Schrift
unter dem vorgebenen innern Slnne, misbraucht und
verdrehet, hochstrafbar ist. 2 5
Ernesti's rejection of Swedenborg Is not surprising. In
one of the passages he cites, Swedenborg says ·of the Word
of the Lord, -each of its words presents In form Its own
idea • • • and in the ideas are things so Innumerable • • •
that it can never be believed.-26 Clearly, this Is antithetical
to Ernesti's chief principle; and since Swedenborg's whole
idea of an Internal, spiritual sense in Scripture stems origin­
ally from his empirical revelations, Ernesti's Judgment con­
cerning them needs no more than simple consistency on his
part for explanation. Apparently Ernesti wanted to leave
it at that. He apologized for troubling his readers with
consideration of such a ~00k,27 and took care to disassociate
himself from any Interest in mystical ~ecrets: -Vir glelch
sonst eben so wenig, als die Herr~ Medici auf die Arcana
halten.- 28 In defense of this claim to indifference regard­
Ing the work, It should be noted that he drew none of his
references to it from outside the first of the Arcana's eight
volumes, on Which he -etliche und dreisig Thaler wegwant•• - 29
Against the claim, however, another circumstance must be
considered; one Which suggests that at least the first volume

50. of the work attracted more of his attention than he hoped
It would attract In his readers. In his paraphrases ot
Swedenborg's exegesis and descriptions of the spiritual world,
he cited supporting references that Swedenborg gave trom
parallel biblical passages. 30 apparently as examples ot ·vle
er [Swedenborg] slch die Concordanz dabey zu Nutze gemacht
hat.· But In at least two cases, which are distinguished
In no way from his biblical citations copied trom Swedenborg,
he cites similar supporting references that Swedenborg does
not glve. 31 This would seem to show how Ernestl had made
use of his awn concordance, and that his own researches Into
Swedenborglan hypotheses had been more thorough than he chose
to take overt credit tor. Even If there Is no evidence that
he read all eight volumes, there Is fairly good evIdence that
he read allot the first (his references are veIl scattered
over the first 624 pages). and this hardly amounts to dis­
missing the work out-of-hand on the basis of superfIcial
obJections,
Ernestl dId, Indeed, have grounds more relevant than
this: and the nature of these grounds Is of some Interest •
. Swedenborg was an allegorlzer and a Coc~eJan,32 because .he
found spiritual significance Within, and In addition to, the
literal denotation of bIblical words. Further, he was an
Epicurean and a naturallst,33 because he described extended
spiritual substance, and claimed that all angels and spirits
are souls of men who have dIed. 34 In other words, Swedenborgta

51. position was at once too spiritualistic and too naturalistic
to suit Ernesti: ~ spiritualistic in hermeneutics, too
naturalistic in philosophy. It was noted above that Ernestl
wanted the Scriptures to be read strictly according to their
denotative meaning. at the same time assuming complete
divine revelation. 35 This inconsistency of Ernesti1s was.
more or less the obverse of the inconsistency which he found
in Swedenborg. Furthermore. his .denial of the possibility
of extended substance suggests an unstated presupposition
on Ernestl1s part of a Cartesian (I.e •• rationalist) dualism;
and Swedenborg1s holism was totally incompatible with dualistic
presuppositions.
Three years later, Ernestl devoted another article to
a group of five smaller works that Swedenborg published al­
most simultaneously.36 Four of them have frequently been
reprinted together. as his four leading doctrines--concern­
ing the Lord. the Sacred Scriptures. Life. and Falth--and
one concerned the Last Judgment. Except that the Arcana had
been anonymous. and he now knew the "Person und Namen- or
the author. but did not feel at liberty to disclose It,37 his
opinion ~f the Swedenborglan system remains unchanged. Either
his knowledge of the author. who had been respected as a
philosopher in Leipzig,
38 or the style of the new works, made
him a little more tolerant. but no less accepting. He found
two things. to agree with. but immediately disclaimed each.
He liked the Identification of the Lord (-Domino·) as the

52. 43
Messiah, "Aber das alles saget er in einem andern Sinne,
als man es sonst saget. n39 Similarly, "Das Dritte StUck,
[Doctrine of Life] • • • hat viel Gutes in sich; darinne
aber doch nichts neues. n40 Otherwise, he simply paraphrased
as before, repeated his charges that the system was Sabellian,4 1
Socinian and naturalistic. 42 His conclusion on the whole
was a curious mixture of pit7 and scorn:
Man muss bedauren, das ein sonst gelehrter Mann so
welt verfallen konnen und dass er sich und seine 'Leser
mit solchen phantastischen und ihm kostbaren Umschweiren
(denner muss dieser BUcher von sein Geld drucken lassen,
und er lasst sie alle prachtig drucken) plaget, und
nicht sein sabellianisches und naturalistisches System
gerade heraussagt, damit er in wenig Bog~n fertig werden
konnte, wenn es Ja gedruckt seyn mUsste.4~
While there is no evidence that Ernesti was signirl­
cantly influenced either positively or negative~y. by
Swedenborg, and Ernesti's own part in the Revolt against
Deism was indecisive because of the inconsistence or his
hermeneutics, still his attitude toward Swedenborg is Im­
portant at this point. He commented on two of Swedenborg's
commentators, Oetlnger and Clemm, and his review of Swedenborg
was cited by Kant. Considered in himself, he demonstrates the
difficulty of incorporating Swedenborg into a dualistic
ontology. Further, he exemplifies to some extent, a pattern
of anti-deist revolt that was independent or, and incompatible
with, any Swedenborgian influence or involvement. Finally,
he demonstrates the presence of a tendency in German thought

53. as early as 1760, not only to reject Swedenborg, but to
ridicule him as well. All three of these demonstrations
will be significant In the discussions of Kant and
Oetlnger.
German Reaction to Swedenborg's
Pre-Mystlcal PhIlosophy
The fact that the first review of the Arcana
Coelestla came from Lelpzlg--and that several of Swedenborg's
minor works came to Ernes~I's attention there shortly after
their publlcatlon--may be related to the fact that his earlier
works In the field of natural philosophy had been known and
reviewed there. The three volumes of his Opera Phllosophica
et Mlneralla (Including the Prlnclpia Rerum Naturalla, cited
elsewhere, and two mineralogical works), as well as his
Prodromus de Inflnlto, were published there In 1734. The
~ was reviewed favorably in DeutscheActa Erudltorum,
a Leipzig Journal;44 seven years later, other Leipzig
Journals were reviewing his physiological and psychological
study, Oeconomfa Regnl Anlma 11s.4S
What effect these notices had on Swedenborg's reputa­
tion in Germany Is Impossible to assess accurately, but the
tact that Oetlnger read the Prlnclpla In folio, £. 173S,
while he was In TUblngen,46 suggests that the work was known
and circulated. His Impression was favorable then, and
developed Into considerable Interest after 1700, as will be
discussed later.

54. There is no evidence that Swedenborg1s philosophical
writings were not favorably received. The reviews tended
to be favorable; ~tinger regarded Boehme, Swedenborg and
Newton as the greatest cosmologists; and Kant felt no fear
of ridicule when he published a cosmology essentially
similar to Swedenborg's in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte
und Theorie des Himmels in 1755. Hans Hoppe has noted the
similarities between Kant and Swedenborg on this point, and
has raised the question of influence,47 but no decisive
evidence is available. Kant gave credit only to a review
of Wright1s cosmology, and Wright did not mention Swedenborg;
Hoppe's list of parallels do strain the credibility of •
coincidence theory, but only a probable conclusion is pos-
sible. For the present purpose, however, it is enough to
note two conclusions that are reasonably apparent. One,
which affects the general study of German reactions to
Swedenborg's theological writings, is that his philosophical
writings had not created an anti-Swedenborgian prejudice in
German philosophical circles--at least none that Kant knew
about; where the works were known at all, they tended to
create a favorable atmosphere for the reception of his new
works--especially with Qetinger, and possibly to some extent
with Ernesti. 48 The second, which is significant for the
analysis of Kant's reaction to Swedenborg, is that whether
that latter's natural philosophy i~fluenced Kant or not, it
was remarkably similar to that of the K8nigsberg thinker.

55. Since Swedenborg Incorporated his natural philosophy Into
his visionary theological system, the two men had something
tangible In common at the outset of their decisive encounter.
this shared philosophy should not be over-valued, for there
waa no empirical revelation Involved In Swedenborg's work
at this stage; but It should not be overlooked, either. The
significance of It vUI be discussed below. 49
Immanuel Rant, and His Reaction to Swedenborg
It Is unnecessary to establish Rant's Importance in
any Intellectual history covering his period; all that ia
required Is a definition of the intersection of Rant and
the problem at hand, and perhaps an excuse for attempting
to add even a little that Is new to the great mass of
meticulous *Kantstudlen* already In existence. Three
secondary quotations should suffice to meet these require­
ments in a preliminary way.
With regard to the Revolt against Deism, John ~r
summarizes the veIl-known situation:
Deism had been very confident of the complete power or
the human mind to know God. Herbert of Cherbury had
considered such knowledge as Innate. Deists after Locke
had considered knowledge of God not as innate, but as
readily attainable by the Re~son. By such arguments as
the ontological, cosmological and teleological, deists
had been snre that men could know God. But from the
standpoint of Kant1s the0ry of knowledge, these arguments
lo!St t.hefr vaUdlty • • • • Wlt;.h thi~_E':lnt in mind, some
have called Kant :!h~ execuZIOner 91 ~lsm.·SO

56. 47
With regard to Swedenborg, Ernst Benz may be cited:
In der Tat ist dieses .Verdienst- [the -value- ot having
provoked Rant to write the RritiksJ dem Ansehen
Swedenborgs in der deutschen Geistesgeschichte Bhel
bekommen, denn die ungewohnlich scharten Urteile, in
denen Rant den nordischen Seher als aErtzphantasten
unter all Phantasten" und sein grosses Werk als _acht
Quartb~nde voll Unsinn ft bezeichnet hat, sind an Sweden­
borg seither hangen geblieben und haben seine bisherige
Beurteilung durch die zunftigen Vertreter der Philosophie
so stark beeinflusst, dass sich niemand diesem Urteil
Rants entgegenzustellen gewagt hat und eine kritische
Sichtung des philosophischen und theologischen Gesamtwerks
Swedenborgs und seiner Auswirkung auf die deutsche
Geistesgeschichte unterblieben ist.5l
And by way of Justification tor tendering a fresh hypothesis
regarding Rant, let us turn again to Prot. Benz:
Die Auseinandersetzung Rants mit Swedenborg • • • ist
zwar bereits verschiedentlich historisch-kritisch
untersucht worden, hat aber bisher eine Erklarung des
eigentUmlichen Widerspruchs, der zwischen der Stellung ­
nahme Rants zu Swedenborg in den verschiedenen Epochen
seiner geistigen Entwicklung besteht, nicht gelietert. 52
The '!'wo Documents
This analysis of Rant's reaction to Swedenborg
essentially amounts to an exegesis ot two documents-­
Rant's Brief an Frttulein von Knobloch (presumably written
in 1763),53 and his Traume eines Geistersehers, erlautert
durch Traume der Metaphysik. 54 To say that the tlrst of
these documents is favorable to Swedenborg and the second
is unfavorable, is certainly to understate, and probably to

57. oversimplify the case. The understatement can be corrected
first, by detailing some of the more important differences
between the two documents. 55
1. In the Brief, Kant refers to Swedenborg by his
correct name, and with marked respect, calling him -Herr
von Swedenborg-;56 in the Traume, he accorded him no honor-­
including the honor of spelling his name correctly--calllng
him RHerr Schwedenberg.- 57
2. In the Brief, he described Swedenborg as a -Gelehr­
ter n ;58 in the Traume, as a -gewissen Herrn Schwedenberg ohne
Amt und Bedienung.- 59
3. In the Brief, he regarded Swedenborg" as a RvernU­
nftlger, gefalliger und offenherziger Mann n ;60 In the Trlume,
as an -Erzphantasten unter alIen Phantasten,_61 and the
-irgsten SChwarme;s unter allen,n 62 and his work as utterly
Void of °a single drop of reason. 63
4. In the Brief: he spoke of walting with longing
for Swedenborg's next book;64 in the Traume, he seemed to
know only of Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestia (which was pub­
lIshed 1747-1758, so It could not have been that -next
bookn In 1763), and consIdered that work to be -acht
Quartbande voll Unslnn.- 65
5. In the BrIet, Swedenborg appeared as a remarkable
man whom Kant wIshed very much to meet and converse With;66
In the Traume, as a generally unknown character who had

58. foisted upon the world a vast and ridiculOUS book called
Arcana Coelestia. 67
6. In the Brief, Rant seemed to accept the opinion
of his English frlend,68 and the most respectable people In
Stockholm,69 that Swedenborg was learned, reasonable, polite
and open-hearted, and that the stories about him were true;
In the Tr~ume, he said that all of Swedenborg1s acquaintances,
as well as his works, testified to his being the wErzphantasten
unter alIen Phantasten. w70
7. In the Brief, Kant's tone Is serious and respect­
ful; in the Tr~ume, it is derisive, insulting, and--although
masterfull wltty--bordering on what a modern reader (at
-------------
least) might consider vulgar. 71
8. In the Brief, Kent apologized for not being able
to say more on the matter;72 In the Tr~ume, he apologized
for saying so much73_-and, in~~e~r bringing up the matter)
at all. 74
9. In the Brief, Rant clearly took seriously, and
apparently ac~epted the truth of, three anecdotes which
illustrated--and supposedly confirmed--Swedenborg's psychic
abilities; he recorded the precise details of his investi­
gation of them,75 and Indicated his own desire to examine
them further. 76 In the Tr~ume, he said he had found out
wnlchts· about them, 77 ad~ised someone else to take the
trouble to disprove them,78 and dismissed them as wMlrchen
• • • die ein VernUnftiger Bedenken trlgt mit Qeduld anzu­
h8ren.· 79

59. 50
If these comparisons fairly state the obvious dif­
ferences between the ~ and the Traume, two further
considerations may raise questions about the basic signifi_
cance of those differences. The first concerns the three
stories Just mentioned in point 9: the second concerns the
implications of the two styles referred to in point 7.
The Three Anecdotes (capitalized, this title will
refer throughout this paper to these three stories which
Kant madel ca~se~ c~l~bres) probably were essentially faith­
ful records of actual events. The first one, "The Queen's
Secret"--in which Swedenborg reportedly told the Queen of
Sweden in 1162 a secret which he could not have learned ex­
cept through communication with her dead brother--was
endorsed in substantially similar detail by twenty sources
besides those cited by Kant. "The Lost Receipt"--Which told
how Swedenborg helped a widow find an important receipt in
1161, by learning from her late husband of a secret compart_
ment in which it was kept_-had eight such endorsements.
"The Stockholm Fire"--the story in which Swedenborg des_
cribed to a crowded party in Gottenburg precise details ot
a fire in Stockholm, which was burning at the same time he
was reporting it__had five corroborating testimonies. 80
Although all of these testimonies were second hand, only
three contrary evidences have been produced; and these were
notably leas reliable than the affirmative testimony. In

60. $1
spite of this presumptive probability, however, no "hard ­
evidence has ever been produced that could positively prove
or disprove any of the stories. The significance of this
will be discussed presently.
Neither the Three Anecdotes, nor any of the compar ­
able stories that have been circulated, were started by
Swedenborg, or considered important by him. Bl To Rant,
however, they represented Swedenborg's credentials--which,
if authentic, would entitle him to a serious hearing.
~
Furthermore, he saw them as a challenge to basic presuppositions
of rational thought: if they could be indisputably authentkated- ­
which is to say, if Swedenborg should be taken seriously--the
consequences would be astonishing. B3 From this perspective,
Rant's most important question concerning Swedenborg vas,
were the Three Anecdotes true? Apparently, he answered the
question affirmatively in the Brief, negatively in the Trlume.
Rant's Ambiguity
Consideration of this appearance introduces another
issue, however--the implications of Rant's style. Behind
the polite affirmation of the ~, and the d~~e negLtion
of the Trlume, there is an ambiguity which suggests the possi ­
bility that Rant's ayes· and Rant's "no" to Swedenborg's
claim ~mpirical ~latlon ~€re equally and fundamentally
ambiguous.

61. In the Brief, every direct statement of assent to
Swedenborg's claim may be seen as balanced by a covert
disclaimer-:
Ich doch jederzeit der Regel der gesunden Vernunft am
Gemassesten zu seyn erachtet habe, sich auf die ver­
neinende Seite zu lenken •• • bis die Gescbichte des
Herrn Swedenborg mir bekannt gemacht vurde. B4
This sounds affirmative tovard Swedenborg; but though
it is clear that he tended to reject such stories before his
encounter with Swedenborg, what was his tendency aftervard7
It cannot go unnoticed that he did not say. Again, he ob­
served that -man kann es schwerlichannehmen- that an
Ambassador would have falsified the information in -The
Queen's Secret,_85 but he had already pointed out, a few
lines before, that it vas difficult to believe such stories;86
there is no definite indication as to which he chose to sur-
mount--the difficulty of believing, or the difficulty of not
believing. He did, indeed, say that QThe Stockho~ Fire­
anecdote ·benimmt wirklich allem erdenklichen Zweifel die
ausflucht,·87 and asks, "Was kann man wider die GlaubwUrdig­
keit dieser Begebenheit anfnhren7 88 Almost immediately,
however, he suggests an answer to the question, thus raising
a doubt about the assertion:
Wie sehr wUnsche ich, dass ich diesen sonderbaren
Mann selbst h~tte fragen konnen: denn mein Freund ist
der Methoden nicht so wohl kundig, dasjenige
abzufragen, was i§geiner solchen Sache das meiste
Licht geben kann.