- 1. EMAHUEL SWEDENBalGMDniE REVOLT AGAINST DEISM A
DissertationPresented toThe Faculty or the Graduate School of Arts
and SciencesBrandeis UniversityDepartment of History of Ideas In
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree . Doctor of
Philosophy ByRobert H. KirvenI April 196,5 ProCessor Herbert
Marcuse Principal Advisor
2. . 1hIa c:Uuertatloa ha bMD.,j mlaofllmed euc;t1,. u
ree:e-cl65-14,424 !IKIRVEN, Robert H 1926 EMANUEL SWEDENBORG AND
THE REVOLT An....mST DEISM.I Brandeis University. Fh.D 1965
PhilosophyUniversity Microfilms. Inc., Ann AlOOf, Michigan. 3. @
Copyright byRobert H. Kirven1966 4. This dissertation, directed and
approved by the candidate.Committee, has been accepted and approved
by the GraduateFacqlty of Brandeis University in partial
fulfillment ofthe requirements for the Degree of DOCTOaOF
PHILOSOPHY JUN .,.. ,.." DateDissertation Committee 5. TABLE OF
CClITENTS.ager-I LIST OFABBREVIATI~S. . . viINTRCDUCTI~ . . . . . .
.. . . . 1 The Problem ot IndIvIdual Ideas and Intellectual
Movements 1 "Swedenborg and the Revolt AgaInst OeIs. as a
Signiticant Case Study 3c- The Background ot the Revolt Against
DeIs S Swedenborg and DeIs 12 A ContrIbutIon to the Revolt AgaInst
DeIs.: Swedenborgs Idea ot EmpIrIcal RevelatIon 16 Plan ot theStudy
24 Notes. 27PART 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
IntellectualClimate, c. l~SO: PIetIsm, and HistorIcalCrIticism: 32
PIetIsm~ ...... Historical Criticism: J. A. ErnestI 33 3$ German
Reaction to Swedenborg.Pre_~~stlcal Phllo~Qphy 44 lroJ:."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 I51IH 6.
Chapter Page Kants Reaction to Swedenborg 57 F. C. Oetingers
Reaction to Swedenborg 65 The Religious View. 70 The Philosophical
View 71 The Theological View 79 Cr-iteria for Judgment of
EmpiricalRevelation 82 The Course of Development of Oetingers
.Attitude 85 Minor Reactions to Swedenborg. 90 Heinrich Clemm 90
Johann ~aspar Lavater. . 93 Summary Conclusion . 95 N~te.. ..
96SPEC IAL REVELAT ICN, CHURCH REFOOM ANDSECTARIANISM 109Thomas
Hartley (1707.1784) 118John Clawes (1743-1831) 127Robert Hindmarsh
(1759-1835l-.--.~ 135 (Swedenborgs RevelaUon: the RepUe.JJ to Dr.
Priestly. 141Notes. 1$0CDPOLF.MICAL AND ANALYTICAL CRIGINS CE
THEPSYCHOLOGY CE RELIGION . 158P~~JmJlca! ~!y~hology or
Religions..:!.Oh~Y!.l 164Analytical Psychology or Religions Johann
Gottfried Herder. 173Not... 184PART II. SWEDENBORG S ccrC~PT AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REVOLT DEVELOPMENTS IN ~~Gl.AND 188Th~
Sectarian =0Sdenborgian Traditio~ 190___ T~e Romantic Swedenborgian
Tradition inEngland 198 Iv 7. ChapterPage1. William Blake 1982. Sou
they ana e Quincey Contra Swedenborg . 2043. Coleridge on
Swedenborg 206Summary of the English Developments 211Notes 4e 213~
DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE 211The Expatriates. 219The Intellectuals
226Personal Revolts. 228The Ecclesiastical Movement 239Honor de
Balzac 243Conclusion 253Notes. 254 GERMAN DEVELOPMENTS 259Romantic
Literature 259Romantic Philosophy 265Johann Friedrich Immanuel
iafel 21i~ilosophy . 278Ecclesiology 284Psychology 290Summary. 294
Notes.e _ 296,-CONCLUS ICJl 301 Swedenborgs Idea: "Empirical P .
&lation" 301 The Revolt Against Deism . 309 General Conclusions
311 Note.. 323B IBL100RAPHY 324 v 8. LIST OF ABBREVIATICNS USED
FCRSWEDENBORGS WORKS!& Cor, 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.~ PrincipiaRerum 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-;---RAReqnum Animale, etc. (The Animal Kingdom [i.e., the
Souls-- --nomain] considered anatomically, physically and philo.
sophically). 1743-44. Several volumes of this workwere projected,
but it was dropped at the beginning orSwedenborgs 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.1JEnglish 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 ABBREVlATIOlSUnlessoth9~lsenoted, all works are
available ina numberof English translattons, including thos~ of the
SwedenborgFoundation, New York; most quotations are drawn from
theseeditions. Also, unless olheniis" no"~l, all references are
toparagraph numbers, rather than to payes, the former being
uni.form in all editions and translations.vU 10. INTROOOCTIaf The
Problem or Individual Ideasand Intellectual Movements The texts to
be examined In this essay In thehistory 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
Revoltagainst 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 suchthings as
Individual Ideas. which In some sense are originated l by one man;
and thes.m~y be distinguished and IdentltledI by their author and
the date ot these expresslons.r Secondly. there ~~e historical
instances In whlch,lt Is usetul to study1 11. 2a particular set ot
Ideas as a unit, because the Idea.within the group stand In a
relation to each other thatIs slgnltlcantly dltterent trom their
relation to otherIdeas. 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 Intellectualdevelopment, or trom
variations ot a single Idea (e.g., the"Copernican Revolution, or
the _Idea ot Progress); and whensome geographical dlver$lty among
the authors, and the ab sence ot one determining Idea or author,
distinguishes Ittrom 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 relatIonshIpto 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 between an Idea and a movement.Cause-and-ettect
relationship.In this situation are pluralistic and
relative.Internala.well as external relatlon8hlps may be
slgnltlcantly Intluentlal 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 relationshipbetween an Idea and a movell:tu
t la one ott Interaction, j a. In 12. the case ot Swedenborgs idea
ot, emp...!rical revelation,l andthe movement known as the Revolt
against eh.."Swedenborg and the Revolt against ~i~ as a Significant
case studYSwedenborg participated in the Revolt against Deisa,but,
was not determined by it.His par~icipation willbeshown by the
course ot development of bis thougbt inco~parison to Deism in
general, and by the siailarltles aDddifferences between his final
position and that of a representative deist, Mattb~ Tlndal. Tbese
coaparlsons demonstrate that Swedenborg vas seriously affected by
De I sa, aDdthat 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
themovement as a whole.On the other side of the coin, Swedenborg
influencedthe Revolt, without either originating It, or
decisivelydetermining It.His Influence will be demonstrated by
theexplicit textual references; that he did not originate,
ordecisively determine the movement, .ay be assumed from
theconsensus of hIstorians, and tacitly demonstrated by the
analyses In this study.In addition to being actaal, and mutually
but notdecisively Influential, the relationship between
Swedenborgand the Revolt against. Dehm may be ;;:onsldoilied a
significant 13. 4 one as well, If an Investigation of It, reveals
anyn~~---_.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 Insuppor~ 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 Importantto
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 Swedenbcrglant~adltlon,and vas largely
det~:~!natIve-ot thp. Issue on which the principal Interaction
o-:cutud bet"een5i~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. stheir relative historical
significance; It simply describesthe Incompatibility of the
different lines of tr~nsmlsslonof Swedenborglan thought, and the
effect of this Incompat-Ibility on the kind of Interaction which
took place betweenthe . Idea and the movement under examination.The
Backaround of the Revolt against Dels.Some of the seeds of the
anti-deist revolt may havebeen 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 NaturalTheology of Boyle, Ray, Newton and others, was
radicallyambiguous: the very force of their Insistence that
naturalscience coul claims be ond any shadow ofdoubt, amounted to a
covert admission of concerningdoub~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 ratherIgnored It as such.
Vh~t was revealed, and also $ubJect torational proof, was
acceptable.What vu.revealed, but notdemonstrable, could not
beconsl~Hed asv~ry Import."nt toreasonable men.An intent tod~reud
the Chrlstf~n religion 15. 6 had led to a reconstitution of It.this
reon~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 deflnedits new philosophical
pre-supposltlons.It was, in a sense, a reli gion without a
philosophy. Considered as a philosophy of religion, the
classicalRationalism 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
ofReason. 1 The duall ty, variously expressed as mind and body, _
thought and extension, spirit and matter, or other equivalent
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 , thisrontology]carrles with It
not only dualisms perennial problemof communication between the two
kinds of reality, but alsoa problem of values:equal r~alltyImplying
equal significance In God and Creation, soul and
body.Interdependentwith ontological dualism Is Rationalisms
characteristicepistemological dualism:two distinct faculties of
percep tion Inform two distinct systems ot kno~ledge, and the
.perceptions andsystems are somehoY~nlted(the vagueness of the -how
having beancloq~ed In ~ermlnologlc~lexplanations,e.g., -oc~aslonal
cause- or pre-establlsh~d harmony-) In the 16. 7Reason--the
reasoning faculty of man, This dualism providesclear
epistemological support for the method of NaturalTheology, but the
corollary entails an important further stepwhich the .natural
theologians did not take.PhilosophicalRationalism, seeing the dual
ism of knowledge united in Reason,makes Reason the ultimate
epistemological authority.SinceReason is a human faculty, however,
the theological consequenceof this is the authoritative superiority
of human reason overrevelatJon.~ a general theological position,
Deism vas characterized by explicit expression of the implications
Inherentin Natural Theology and Rationalism.On the basis of
themechanistic world-view of the natural theologians, It described
God In the transcendent--and specifically nonlmmanent-role
sYmbolized by the -watchmaker- analogy.On the basisof rationalist
onology and epistemology, It ascribed equalstatus to spirit and
nature, and to revealed and perceivedknowledge at least In
principle. However, where traditionaltheology had made revelation
superior to reason, and NaturalTheology had made themeq~at" .the
rationalhtic corollary-that Reason is ultimately
authorltatlve--tended to prevailIn practlce. Thus Deism In g~neral
represented the religiouscons~quenceof the rapidly advancing
natural science, andof the philosophical Rationalism. The elevation
of reasonover revelation made Deism the religious thought
otEmpiricism as well. Rationalism andEmpiflcl~m had little -- ---
~else In common, but Ideas Intuited from perception, and 17. 8
ideas directly resultingfrom perception, could and did serve as
c03rdinate alternatives to revealed ideas, in the deistic attack on
the authority of revelation.~ismas ageneral 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~ Enland=
most complete and oes not mean that it !l was an. internati~nal
movement.The samelcontext ot philosophical and religious
problemshat produced English Deism were present and important in
France and Germany as 11sh daists, in the original language and in
translation, found signirIc~ntreadershIp and accept ance in those
countries.He.1 ,t or Cherburya work was as~ 18. 9 well known In
France as In"England;3To land. Colllns. ------ Ro an ---- Woolston
and other Deists were translated Into French; and....--..Voltalre
circulated characteristically dehUc vlews. 4 In Germany.~~tzand
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~sas theso-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 areJecti~n ot Deism. and a return to "true
rellglon.-The Revolt. on the other hand. ((I developed a~o~~ ~enwho
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.
andmOr~ adequate 19. .10than Deism itself.Others, apparently
feeling that Deisarepresented an indecisive breakwith~n
UDs~tlsfactory trad~-Ition, sought a cleaner break with
Christianity, or at lea.twith the church. For the former group
Deisa vas not religiousenough to be an adequate system of religious
thought; for thetoo reliio~s; but for both,anl
acceptablealternative to Deism had to be consonant with modern
advance.In science, systematically adequate, and convincing
Withoutappeal to tradition as an authority.In Germany, where the
concern at first vas prl. .rllywith the p~ilosophlcal
pre-supposltlons required for a .oreadequate alternative to Deism,
the Revolt centered on ontologllcal and epistemological issues.----
As has been noted, Delsavas dualistic In these respects.The ground
of Its developme~~~~- the progressive nature of the Revolt,
precladed-a return to Su ernaturalism.Thereforewere toward a
theoretical or practical Naturalism, on thet~ open alter~lves~~or,
0alnd~and body, spiritsubs tant..!!.!..- !:!a 11 ty aware that
thisop~to ontologlcal dual~ vas -named- In the eighteenth or early
nineteenth I --.Jcenturits, though It vase~presse~ptlvely.It
vasused by Swedenborg In the foundation of his system, andappea~8
~ohave been the goal of a tendency in the thoughtof some of
hiscommentators,L8~ atitle for-!t-ls~1dedInthis study.From ~s a~1
Progoft, I have borraved the- 20. 11 --signifying the notion that
spirit and matterare equally and similarly objectl~elyreal,
togethera whol;]that Is Indivisible except In Intellectual"
conception~oralDg- :::::::==- --8based on Incomple~e perception.
The term Is not completelysatisfactory, because It Is also used In
a largely Irrelevantcontext, by those who attribute a special
ontological statusto collectlvltles.The obvious alternative,
however, wouldbe 5is::;1 and this~rm Is ~s~ I-n precisely the
presentcontext, with materialistic Implications which
specificallycontradict Swedenborgs position. Because Smuts.
andespecially Pr~off.have :used[~ollaIQ. th:=:xact senseIntended
here. and the contusion comes from what really Isanother field. It
seems the best word for the purpose--aslong as Its special usage Is
kept In mind. 1. In England.] where phllosophlcal and
theologicalIssues had become Inseparably Involved with
Institutionalforms and practices. the.Revolt centered on the
question ofreforming the established church. or separating from
It.France reflected both the philosophical and
institutionaldevelopments, less decisively than England
or~rmany.Emanuel Swedenborg. whose personal revolt againstDeiam
was~fle~ted in his writings on cystical theologyas compareJ With
his writings on natural philosophy. vasa subject of comment and
some controversy, on all si4es ofthe Revolt a8 just de3cribad. The
ex. eais of these coa.entsand 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, hewas convinced that the soul
was a~ce$slbleto 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 thisrevo1t--decisive as it was--he remained
close enough toDeism to suggest thatrto a considerable extent, his
was arevolt from within. Matthew Tinda1 1 s Christianity as old
asthe Creation may be taken asrepres~ntativ.e o~ deist thought;a
brief comparison with Swedenborg will clarify the kinds
otsimilarities and differences. Tinda1 had four main assertions
about what religion!! (along with much, in the vein of
characteristically deisticiconoclasm, about what it is not):
religion is reasonable,et~a1, natural, and selfish. The first and
most i~ortantpoint--the reasonableness of re1igion--is repeatedmany
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; andhas given them no other Means for this,
but the Use ofReason What God requires us to know, believe
andpractice, must in itself be a reasonable Service; butwhether
what is offered to us as such, be really so, ItlsReason alone which
must JUd9e.~Swedenborg agreed fully In 1734.Philosophy, If it be
truly rational, can never be contrary to revelation The rational
cannot becont~ary to the Divine; since the end for which reasonis
given us, is, that ve may be empo",er~d to perceivethat there Is a
God, and to know that He Is to be worshfpped. 12He 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 theunderstanding Into the mysteries of faith. I) The
Intervalbetween these two statements. and the differences In
them.suggest that Swedenborg the mystic theologian held reasonIn as
much esteem as did Tlndal. but In doing so, he expanded-his
definition of reason from the one he originally sharedwith the
Deists.Tlndalts second assertion, that religion Is ethical.stems
from his definition of -Natural Rellglon.- as consist Ing of three
essential elements:belief In Gods existence.knowledge of our
relation to him and to our fellow-creatures.and practice of his
wlll. 14 Which of these three Is mostImportant Is soon made
clear:-We may define True Religionto 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,--theacknowledgment of the
Divine of the Lord, the acknowledg ment of the hQllgess of the
Word. and the life which Iscalled charity.!.,All religion has to do
with life. and the life ofreligion to do that which Is good. l ?The
difference here--In the second essential. since Tlndalhad no
Interest In -the holiness of the brd"--Is not complete;for
Swedenborg, this would Include all that Tlndal IntendedIn his
second e3sentlal. Th~ primacy of ethical practice Isentirely
parallel. 24. ISTindalsfou~~h principle, the naturalness
ot-religion, may be epitomized in two statements:Gods Will is so
clearly, and fully manifested in theBook of Nature, that he who
runs may read it. 18Was 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, bd~pending on meer[sic] Will and
Pleasure God, the great-Gov~orof the n[verse, cant give mankind any
such Precepts. 19Similarly, Swedenborg:In nature are represented
the celestial goods andtruths which are of Heaven.20God 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 wouldbe contrary to the laws of His order In the
universe,and at the same time contrary to the laws of orderenjoined
upon every man. 21Tindalts fourth assertion, that religion Is
Whollydevoted to the "l~lf!!.e and happiness of him. who beUevesand
practices It,22 Is~d.to a limited extent by ~ r1.J.J ,...A
d-Ju-.fJ.......... 1"-"~.denborgtsclaim that self-love, Including
enjoyment otthe wealth and status attendant on doing important
work,is an essential part of true religlon. 23 But
Swedenborgemphasizes repeatedly In the same passage, that this
istrue only when self-love is subordinated to love to theneighbor,
and both of these are subordinated to love tothe Lord. 24Tindal
assumes that doing good for othersmakes 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
besummed up rather simply, and the summation would hold fora more
detailed comparison.S~o~~ made stateme~parall~lto almost every
positive assertion made by the deists; In somecases (as especially
In point four), he would place the assertion In a larger context;~,
hemad~nymore assertionst~w~-!e unacceptable to Deism. Swedenborgs
personal revolt against Deism was essentially n expansion of the
deistconcept of religion, on the grounds o~lhls conviction
thatDeism was not reIl lous enough to be an adequate system
orrellglous 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~entwith his own Inclination toward Rationalism and
scientificmethod.It was In thl~ attempt that he developed the
Idea~that constituted his major contribution to the generalRevolt
against Deism.A Contribution to the Revolt a~alnstDelsm:~{enborgis
Idea ef implrlca RevelationIn 1769, Swedenborg described himself In
an autobiographical letter written at a friends request. He beganby
listing his travels, his public service and recognltlons,his
scientific accomplishments, family connections, hlghly---.placed
friends and royal favor. -But all that I have thusfar related,- he
continued, -I consider of comparatively 26. 17little importance.-
"What ~important, he said, ~shisChrist-vision of 1743, and the
extraordinary experiences thatfolloved.He [the Lord] opened my
sight into the spiritual world,and enabled me to converse with
spirits and angels, inwhich state I have continued to the present
day. Fro.that time, I began to print and publish the variousarcana
that were seen by me or revealed to me, concerning most important
matters conducive to salvation andwlsdom. 2 7Some of his works bore
the subtitle, -tro. thingsheard 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 theheaven
of angels.- He recounted hundreds of conversationswith spirits,
visits to places In the spiritual world, andother such experiences.
-otten these accounts vere casualreferences In the course ot a
discussion; but trequently,too, he would narrate one or a group of
such anecdotes, atlength, under the heading of
-Memorabllla---somevhat afterthe manner of the then-tashlonable
memorabilia ot travelersreturned from the OTient, Atrlca, or
South~rlca.He ~snot writing tor entertainment, however, nvr to
satlsty Idlecuriosity. He maintained that these stories were
writtenthe Lord Himself has sent me to do that Which 1am doing now,
and for this pur!o5e he has openedthe int~riois of my mind, whl,h
ar~ th,jtS" of my spirit,so that I rry S~ those things ~hich Are In
the spiritualworld, and hear those who are there. 2 9 27. 18What he
vrote as a result of these experiences of seeingand hearing, came
under the category of revelation, asopposed to "predictions,
(Revelatlones, prophetiae), andvere sensible revelations (revelatio
sen$ibiliter fiebat ,as distinct from automatic vriting, or verbal
inspiration. 30He claimed to have experienced the other varieties
ot revel ~ation, too, so that he knev vhat they vere, but he did
notuse them in his published vorks. Further, iD-C_qntradistlnction
to that revelation vhich he said Is universally acees.- )1 sible
through proper reading of the Bible,his experiencesof seeing and
conversing vlth spirits and angels constitutedimmediate revelation"
(immediata Revelatlo).32-----SvedeQborg vas avare that his claim to
Immediaterevelation by means of sensible experience I n the
spiritualof supportln~--------- -vorld vould be hard to accept, and
he offered various kinds evidence and explanation.One kind of
support might be called the evidence otempirical 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, Svedenborgs certainty regarding hi.psychic experiences
appears equivalent to the certainty that 28. 19normally accompanies
sense perception. To the certaintythat be did see and hear
something, ~s added the certaintythat he saw and heard clearly and
distinctly:1 affirm In truth that they [the Memorabilia] are
notInventions, but were truly seen and heard; not seen orheard In
any slee~~ng state of mind, but In a state otfull ~kefulness. ~--
Another kind of evidence might be called comparativedata. Clearly,
this was his favorlte.A kind of -formularecurs 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
biblicaltexts,35 a preference for which he had a systematic basls.
36Sometlme3, however, the comparisons were drawn from
observationsIn nature,37 from general human experlence,38 from the
traditions of the Church,39 and from other sources.-- Also In
support of his assertions, "he adduces anexplanation based partly
on his empirical revelation, butbased equally on the psychological
theory he had elaboratedat 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 onewith them, being a
spirit clothed with a bOdy._4 1 This uni versal capability was only
potential, having fallen Into 29. 20disuse, and had become unknown;
but In Swedenborg1s case,the theoretical potentiality had
beenac~ualized to a uniquedegree. 42 .Swedenborg1s reterences to
his spiritual experiences,to data derived trom them, and to
evidence tor the validityot the data, run to hundreds ot
citations.Nevertheless,he had comparatively little to say aboat the
underlying~--the actualized possibility ot such a ~d.otknowing.He
devoted no explicit discussion to its tundamental roleIn his
system; he gives It no name to distinguish It tromthe common
conception ot experiential knowing.For brevityand convenience in
this paper, I have coined the tera -em pirical revelation- to
denote this distinctive idea otSwe~enborgls;but some care must be
taken to specity andlimit the meaning intended by the
coinage.Swedenborglsclaim was that his psychie experiences were
revelatory, andthat 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
otSwedenborg1s Idea, and the claim entailed by It. No attemptIs
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), byechoing 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. 21sense should not, however, obscure
the full extent of theel aim. It was not Just that S"!edenborg had
"experiencedrevelation (a sense in which all revelation must
necessarilybe called empirical); the point vas that Swedenborg
claimedto have received revelation, not through visions or
voicesfor which he vas a mere amanuensis, but in and through
psychicexperiences--experiences which he recorded, but also
interpreted, an~ whose data he regarded as methodologically
compatible With all empirical data, and of equal truth valuewith
the data of sense perceptions.In his methodology--both theory and
practice--it ischaracteristic of this idea, that no distinction is
madebetween physical and psychic experience or
perception.Theparallel between the treatment of physical and
psychicexperience is quite complete.Physical experience is
commonlycited without recourse to the idea of experience;
physicalexperience contains its own evidence of having occurred;its
data is compared with other data for evidence of validity; the
possibility of physical experience must be accountedfor in an
adequate psychological theory.We have Just seenhoW Swedenborg
viewed spiritual experience in Just the sameway on all four
points.Empirical revelation was posited asbeing epistemologically
equivalent, and systematically compatible, with all empirical
perceptions.Out of the complete theological system whose
basisincluded 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 correspondenceb~tween spiritual and natural
realities. Swedenborg had speculated on it in his earlier
philosophicafworks,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.4bAlthough 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. 23a
life after death--it may be that he was unable to appreciatefully
the revolutionary nature of the idea of empirical revela tion
itself. Rant realized it, and his question was a basicone: 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 k8nntel47Whether serious or supercilious (the
possibility that it mayhave been both will be considered later),
the question reflectsthe anxiety that would be raised by serious
consideration otSwedenborgs idea. A similar anxiety had been
recurring invarious quarters of philosophy all through the modern
period:it characterized the reaction to the ideaot the movementof
the earth, attraction at a distance, and other shocks otthe new
science. Galileo, who did not share the anxiety,expressed it
sympathetically, in terms not unlike Kants: 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 thatSwedenborgs idea did not stir
such violent and widespreadreactlons--that in many cases, it was
dismissed withoutserious consideration--may obscure the radical
challenge 33. 24It presented to systematic thought.Its potential
Impact~--Is fully appropriate to comp~rlson with the
CopernicanRevolullin, t:or--.-the .. assumpt_lo_~ that psychic
.!!!d physlc_al datacould be SQDside-ped.. tE)g~lh.er. If taken
seriously, wouldhave threatened the philosophy of being. of
knowledge. andof God. with the same kind of anxiety. Swedenborg did
not feel the anxiety.an~ he did notspeak to It directly.The Idea of
empirical revelation vasself-certifying to him. and lts
Impllcatlons f.ltted e,sllyInto the system he had already begun to
develop. He apparentlyfelt 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 foran ~~tlve to ~Is-;:-~fo:n~n SWede~rgsIdea
of empirical revelation a basis fer a satisfactory alternative to
Deism;who could not accept it. found InIt a suggestion which they
developed Into an anti-deist position; ~~found their direction for
a revolt againstDeism In the arguments which they marshalled to
rejectSwedenborg1s idea.Plan of the StUdyTaking the foregoing
~eflnltlons of the Revolt a alnst~Jsm. and of SvedenborgtB Idea of
empl2:lcal revelation. asthe movement and the Idea which formhe two
poles of this study, 34. now begln~ In Part I~with an Issue
whichlll centra) tQ.. the ~evo1t against Deism, and In which
Swedenborgs Idea became Involved In the thought of the
participantsIn the Revolt.Each of these first three chaptersl
follows a ( slmllar outllne{1 after an Introduct0.TY dellneatlon
~heIssue, attention Is focused on ~the men and the .xts that tlrst
4. __ _ _ r,ralsed~heIssue In connection with Swedenborgs Idea
.Treat----... m~slvary slightly according to situation:more
personalbackground Is given fo~r-relatlvely obscure tlgures than
tor~us ones; and{the exegeses of the-texts are more or lessde~ed,
depending on a Judgment of their relative~l - canceIn this
particular study. JI Occasional comparhons, .and observations on
Influence, as well as chapter Introductions and summaries, are
Intended to contrlbute((to the contlnult which underlies the
sequence of studles~of ~~~almen and works.In this way, Part I
attempts to describe t~ebasic Issues which arose from the
Interaction of SwedenborgsIdea and the~evolt a~S~DeI~ Because each
chapterdeals with one Issue, no geographical or chronologlcalJunlty
Is Intended; the fact thatCh~ter One (on the philosophical
--~--~Issue) deals with Germans of the 1760s and 70s, and C~pterTwo
(on the ecclesiastical Issue) deals withEngll~h)J ------men of the
1770s snd 80s, Is a coincidence for Which anexplanation Is
suggested In the Conclusion. The diversity 35. 26of subjects in
Chapter Three (on the psychological issue) -approximates what
might-have been expected from the topicalarrangement.Part 11
trac~~ed~elopment of the Issues describedin Part I. and abandons
the topical arrangement in favor or-a geographical one:English.
-French and German developments. deal in turn withthe three
chapters ----:-- Thoughoccurring betweenL the turn of the ce~ury
and 1840./the cut-off pointIs arbitrary to a degree. It allows the
tracing of fortyyears of nineteenth century developments ofissu~s
whicharosein 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.
Thoughthe chapters of Part 11 also consist mainly of a series
orstud!es of Individual men and texts. more frequent opportunities
f9r comp-arisons and Influence-tracing make the-continuity more
evident. 36. 27 NOTES - INTRODtX:TION2Rlchard 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 neverbeen
translated Into english.. 11Y~ 6 and others classify Rousseau and
VoltaireamongSLechler, Ope clt., pp.446-7.6.!!2., p. 2)0.71bld .,
p. 448. Lechler points out a significantevidence 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 Rationalismsresurge~, marked b~ Wolffs return to
Halle. J L:!ra Prog.21.tJ OCPth PIycholo.9Y and ~(ldern r-1an
(Newyork: 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:orVo
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 Emanue1Swed~nborg-;-2 vols.,
lio";-as-:f"(l:oruron: Swe-.5In the Duchy of WUrttenberg. vhere
Johann AlbrechtBengel1s Influence at TUblngen fostered an Interest
In combining the mystical elements of Pietism vlth natural
philosophy and dfscfplfned relfglous thought. the clfraate
vasparticularly conducive to eclecticism an attitude vhlch~tlnger
adopted In his search for a more holistic alternativeto del.tlc
dualism. It was this eclp.ctlc Inclination vhichled ~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, notablyKant, came to see Pietism as wholly empty and
hypocritical.His school experience having produced a bad Impression
orPletlsm--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 Kants revoltagainst what pious
religion remained in Deism. It alsoexplains--in part--hls grouping
the mystical religion thatassociated with Pietism, and the
metaphysical speculationsthat he associated with Rationalism, as
zwei Fliegen, dieer mit einer Klappe schlagen k8nnte. 9 These two
results Df Pietistic influence are important t~ the background of
Kant an~ Qetinger. They serve, too,to illustrate again the
complexity of the relations betweenmovementa and ideas. It Is a
complex relatlonhip in Which 44. 35it 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 religious thought that influenced the
initial reception of Swedenborg1s work. This was historical
criticism of the Bible. Itis true that Deism produced a school
of~istorical criticism.too; its groundwork had already been laid in
the works otthe English Deists. and its earliest example already
existedin 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.Atthis period,
however, the first published attempts at scienti fic historical
criticism of the Bible were intended as antideist defenses of
traditional Protestant biblical interpreta tion. Protestant
Scholasticism had been undercut in itshermeneutics. first by
pietist attacks from within, and thenby deist attacks from without;
Protestantism needed a new,and rationally defensible, system of
exegesis to restore itto respectability. The attempt to provide
this throughobjectively historical interpretation of the text
itselt(avoiding traditional dogmatic assertions). was begun more
orless simultaneously by Johann Salomo Semler. and Johann August
45. ErnestI. The latters InstItutIo InterpretatIs NovI
TestamentI(LeIpzIg: 1765) Is often cIted as the foundatIon of
modernexegetIcal scIence, 11 and hIs revIew of Swedenborgs
ArcanaCoelestIa In 1760 was probably the fIrst scholarly review
ofthe work,12 and vas cIted by Kant. ErnestI began his scholarly
career as a classicalphIlologIst, and Is wIdely credIted wIth
havIng done outstandIng, scIentIfIcally hIstorIcal work in this
field.When he moved from hIs chaIr as professor of eloquence
atLeIpzIg, to the theologIcal faculty of the same unIversity(In
1759), he began applyIng the methods of classIcal philology to
bIblIcal InterpretatIon.HIs lectures on this approach to bIblIcal
studIes were later developed Into hisInstItutIo ot 1765, as he
explaIns In hIs Introduction.Sincethe vIewpoInt set forth In that
work had been used and developedsInce 1759, It vas characteristic
of ErnestI at the time bereviewed Swedenborg in 1760. The new line
of defense Which thIs vIewpoInt providedagainst attacks on the
authorIty of ScrIpture vas based.qulte dIrectly on his background
as a classIcist.He vastroubled by the tact that since the beginnIng
ot hIs century,the deIstlc notion that the Bible was no more than
ancientliterature had opened a fIeld day for antIbIblical
dogmaticsmasked as lIterary crIticism.Such attacks were based
onInadequate scholarshIp, he was sure, 13 but defenses ot
theBlble--wh~therby Jews, the early Fathers, the Scholastics 46.
37or the Pletlsts--were on equally shaky philological grounds.
14The trouble, as he saw It, vas that words of Scripture canmean
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 aphllologlcally sound
principle of Interpretatlon. IS Hethought that such a hermeneutical
system could be based onone solid, consistently observed
principle:Though this connexlon [between words and
assignedmeanings] was In Its commencement and Institutionarbitrary,
yet, being once established by custom,It has become necessary. Not
that one word has, orcan have only one meaning; for the fact Is
manifestlyotherwise; but that we are not permitted to give
whatsense we please to a word, either In writing orInterpreting;
nor, at the same time and place, norIn the same. style of speaking,
can the sense bevarious. 16On these considerations rests all the
certainty which canexist In Interpretatlon. 17Any exegesis based
without deviation on this oneword, one meaning- precept would be
safe from rationalistaccusations of superstftlon, arbitrary
allegorizing, ordogmatizing. Coupled with a recognition of the.
directInspiration of Scripture by God (a principle which he
assumedas axiomatic without defense,18 without being conscious
orhis Inconsistency with his own strictly historical method
ology19>, It was to provide fulJ Justification of
biblicalauthority.Shortly after Joining the theol~glcal faculty,
hebegan to publish a monthly journal of reviews or books or 47.
38religious Interest. Early In this enterprlz~, he cameacross
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 LondonIn 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 theArcana Coelestla, he purchased
this work--notlng its highcost, as Kant vas to do later, as an
excuse for reviewingit--and pUblished a review in the sixth issue
of the firstvolume of his Journal.The Arcana is ostensibly (and, in
fact, centrally)an exegetical dissertation. Ernestl vas primarily a
biblicalscholar, so it is not surprising that he turned his
attentionfirst to Swedenborg1s hermeneutics.-Es 1st ein
allegorischerund mystlscher Commentarlus,- he began. 20 In the
light orhis own interpretive principles, there vas not much worse-
or much more--to be said of an exegesis, so he virtuallycontented
himself with that comment. For another five pages,he quotes and
paraphrases Swedenborg, accurately, represen tatively, and without
comment; then he moves for prIma faciedismissal of the whole
hermeneutical system, method andcontent.: 48. 39Wlr schonen Zelt
und Papler velter fortzufahren: unddleses venlge vlrd hlnlangllch
seyn, zu sehen, vieder Verfasser erklart, und vie er slch die
Concordanzdabey zu Nutze gemacht hat.21 But he vas not through vlth
the Arcana.Svedenborg1saccounts of spiritual experiences vere still
to be dealt vlth,and he had somevhat more to say about them. Again,
he seemedto feel that Svedenborg vas his oYn vorst vltness, for
hedevoted most of his space to quotations and paraphrases thatmust
be Judged as generally faithful to the text and significant In the
system. This time, hovever, he vas less sparingin his comments,
for, as he said in conclusion, leiderviele Leute anfangen, an
solchen Traumen elnen Gefallen zuhaben. 22He introduced the
accounts of empirical revelationvith a humorous note, vhlch he
obviously intended to setthe tone in vhlch the vhole vas to be
read.Was er davon sagt, hat er alles in elner EntzUckunggelernt.
Die Beschreibung davon ist so vervlrrt unddunkel, dass man sleht,
er 1st noch nlcht recht beyslch gevesen, da er sle beschreiben hat.
2 3Where he vas afraid a point might be taken seriously, heInserted
a sarcastic reminder. For example:Er hat in selner EntzUcKung mlt
elner geredet, velchenlcht geglaubt hatte, das eln Gelst elne
ausgedehnteSubstanz (eln Extensum) sey, sle hat slch ab~r vonIhm
elnes bessern belehren lassen, Ihren Irrthum erkannt,und sich
qevundert, dass ale iro Leben so dumm gevesenvare. Die VertheldlQer
der auspedehnten Geister k8nnenden Bevels, veicheiso kraftlg
ge~esen 1st, und aUI demHlmmel Kommt, selblt nachlesen. 2 4 49.
Finally, however, r~dicule gives way to serious Judgment:Diess ein
Roman von einer neueren Art sey, welchenohngefghr mit Klimms
unterirdischen Reise zuvergleichen seyn mochte: nur dass die letzte
Erdichtung unschuldig, Jene aber, das sie die heil. Schriftunter
dem vorgebenen innern Slnne, misbraucht undverdrehet, hochstrafbar
ist. 2 5Ernestis rejection of Swedenborg Is not surprising. Inone
of the passages he cites, Swedenborg says of the Wordof the Lord,
-each of its words presents In form Its ownidea and in the ideas
are things so Innumerable that it can never be believed.-26
Clearly, this Is antitheticalto Ernestis chief principle; and since
Swedenborgs wholeidea of an Internal, spiritual sense in Scripture
stems originally from his empirical revelations, Ernestis Judgment
concerning them needs no more than simple consistency on hispart
for explanation. Apparently Ernesti wanted to leaveit at that. He
apologized for troubling his readers withconsideration of such a
~00k,27 and took care to disassociatehimself from any Interest in
mystical ~ecrets: -Vir glelchsonst eben so wenig, als die Herr~
Medici auf die Arcanahalten.- 28 In defense of this claim to
indifference regardIng the work, It should be noted that he drew
none of hisreferences to it from outside the first of the Arcanas
eightvolumes, on Which he -etliche und dreisig Thaler wegwant -
29Against the claim, however, another circumstance must
beconsidered; 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 otSwedenborgs exegesis
and descriptions of the spiritual world,he cited supporting
references that Swedenborg gave tromparallel biblical passages. 30
apparently as examples ot vleer [Swedenborg] slch die Concordanz
dabey zu Nutze gemachthat. 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
doesnot glve. 31 This would seem to show how Ernestl had madeuse of
his awn concordance, and that his own researches IntoSwedenborglan
hypotheses had been more thorough than he choseto take overt credit
tor. Even If there Is no evidence thathe read all eight volumes,
there Is fairly good evIdence thathe read allot the first (his
references are veIl scatteredover the first 624 pages). and this
hardly amounts to dismissing the work out-of-hand on the basis of
superfIcialobJections, Ernestl dId, Indeed, have grounds more
relevant thanthis: and the nature of these grounds Is of some
Interest . Swedenborg was an allegorlzer and a Coc~eJan,32 because
.hefound spiritual significance Within, and In addition to,
theliteral denotation of bIblical words.Further, he was anEpicurean
and a naturallst,33 because he described extendedspiritual
substance, and claimed that all angels and spiritsare souls of men
who have dIed. 34 In other words, Swedenborgta 51. position was at
once too spiritualistic and too naturalisticto suit Ernesti:~
spiritualistic in hermeneutics, toonaturalistic in philosophy. It
was noted above that Ernestlwanted the Scriptures to be read
strictly according to theirdenotativemeaning. at the same time
assuming completedivine revelation. 35 This inconsistency of
Ernesti1s was.more or less the obverse of the inconsistency which
he foundin Swedenborg.Furthermore. his .denial of the possibilityof
extended substance suggests an unstated presuppositionon Ernestl1s
part of a Cartesian (I.e rationalist) dualism;and Swedenborg1s
holism was totally incompatible with dualisticpresuppositions.Three
years later, Ernestl devoted another article toa group of five
smaller works that Swedenborg published almost simultaneously.36
Four of them have frequently beenreprinted together. as his four
leading doctrines--concerning the Lord. the Sacred Scriptures.
Life. and Falth--andone concerned the Last Judgment.Except that the
Arcana hadbeen anonymous. and he now knew the "Person und Namen-
orthe author. but did not feel at liberty to disclose It,37
hisopinion ~f the Swedenborglan system remains unchanged.Eitherhis
knowledge of the author. who had been respected as aphilosopher in
Leipzig, 38 or the style of the new works, madehim a little more
tolerant. but no less accepting. He foundtwo things. to agree with.
but immediately disclaimed each.He liked the Identification of the
Lord (-Domino) as the 52. 43Messiah, "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; darinneaber
doch nichts neues. n40 Otherwise, he simply paraphrasedas before,
repeated his charges that the system was Sabellian,4 1Socinian and
naturalistic. 42His conclusion on the wholewas a curious mixture of
pit7 and scorn:Man muss bedauren, das ein sonst gelehrter Mann
sowelt verfallen konnen und dass er sich und seine Lesermit solchen
phantastischen und ihm kostbaren Umschweiren(denner muss dieser
BUcher von sein Geld drucken lassen,und er lasst sie alle prachtig
drucken) plaget, undnicht sein sabellianisches und naturalistisches
Systemgerade heraussagt, damit er in wenig Bog~n fertig
werdenkonnte, wenn es Ja gedruckt seyn mUsste.4~While there is no
evidence that Ernesti was signirlcantly influenced either
positively or negative~y. bySwedenborg, and Ernestis own part in
the Revolt againstDeism was indecisive because of the inconsistence
or hishermeneutics, still his attitude toward Swedenborg is
Important at this point. He commented on two of
Swedenborgscommentators, Oetlnger and Clemm, and his review of
Swedenborgwas cited by Kant. Considered in himself, he demonstrates
thedifficulty of incorporating Swedenborg into a dualisticontology.
Further, he exemplifies to some extent, a patternof anti-deist
revolt that was independent or, and incompatiblewith, 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 toridicule him as well. All three of
these demonstrationswill be significant In the discussions of Kant
andOetlnger.German Reaction to SwedenborgsPre-Mystlcal
PhIlosophyThe fact that the first review of the ArcanaCoelestla
came from Lelpzlg--and that several of Swedenborgsminor works came
to Ernes~Is attention there shortly aftertheir publlcatlon--may be
related to the fact that his earlierworks In the field of natural
philosophy had been known andreviewed there.The three volumes of
his Opera Phllosophicaet Mlneralla (Including the Prlnclpia Rerum
Naturalla, citedelsewhere, and two mineralogical works), as well as
hisProdromus de Inflnlto, were published there In 1734.The~was
reviewed favorably in DeutscheActa Erudltorum,a Leipzig Journal;44
seven years later, other LeipzigJournals were reviewing his
physiological and psychologicalstudy, Oeconomfa Regnl Anlma
11s.4SWhat effect these notices had on Swedenborgs reputation in
Germany Is Impossible to assess accurately, but thetact that
Oetlnger read the Prlnclpla In folio, . 173S,while he was In
TUblngen,46 suggests that the work was knownand circulated.His
Impression was favorable then, anddeveloped Into considerable
Interest after 1700, as will bediscussed later. 54. There is no
evidence that Swedenborg1s philosophicalwritings were not favorably
received. The reviews tendedto be favorable; ~tinger regarded
Boehme, Swedenborg andNewton as the greatest cosmologists; and Kant
felt no fearof ridicule when he published a cosmology
essentiallysimilar to Swedenborgs in his Allgemeine
Naturgeschichteund Theorie des Himmels in 1755. Hans Hoppe has
noted thesimilarities between Kant and Swedenborg on this point,
andhas raised the question of influence,47 but no decisiveevidence
is available.Kant gave credit only to a reviewof Wright1s
cosmology, and Wright did not mention Swedenborg;Hoppes 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 tonote two conclusions that are reasonably
apparent. One,which affects the general study of German reactions
toSwedenborgs theological writings, is that his
philosophicalwritings had not created an anti-Swedenborgian
prejudice inGerman philosophical circles--at least none that Kant
knewabout; where the works were known at all, they tended tocreate
a favorable atmosphere for the reception of his
newworks--especially with Qetinger, and possibly to some extentwith
Ernesti. 48 The second, which is significant for theanalysis of
Kants reaction to Swedenborg, is that whetherthat latters natural
philosophy i~fluenced Kant or not, itwas remarkably similar to that
of the K8nigsberg thinker. 55. Since Swedenborg Incorporated his
natural philosophy Intohis visionary theological system, the two
men had somethingtangible In common at the outset of their decisive
encounter.this shared philosophy should not be over-valued, for
therewaa no empirical revelation Involved In Swedenborgs workat
this stage; but It should not be overlooked, either.
Thesignificance of It vUI be discussedbelow. 49 Immanuel Rant, and
His Reaction to SwedenborgIt Is unnecessary to establish Rants
Importance inany Intellectual history covering his period; all that
iarequired Is a definition of the intersection of Rant andthe
problem at hand, and perhaps an excuse for attemptingto add even a
little that Is new to the great mass ofmeticulous *Kantstudlen*
already In existence. Threesecondary quotations should suffice to
meet these requirements in a preliminary way. With regard to the
Revolt against Deism, John ~rsummarizes 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. 47With regard to Swedenborg, Ernst Benz may be
cited:In der Tat ist dieses .Verdienst- [the -value- ot
havingprovoked Rant to write the RritiksJ dem AnsehenSwedenborgs in
der deutschen Geistesgeschichte Bhelbekommen, denn die ungewohnlich
scharten Urteile, indenen Rant den nordischen Seher als
aErtzphantastenunter all Phantasten" und sein grosses Werk als
_achtQuartb~nde voll Unsinn ft bezeichnet hat, sind an Swedenborg
seither hangen geblieben und haben seine bisherigeBeurteilung durch
die zunftigen Vertreter der Philosophieso stark beeinflusst, dass
sich niemand diesem UrteilRants entgegenzustellen gewagt hat und
eine kritischeSichtung des philosophischen und theologischen
GesamtwerksSwedenborgs und seiner Auswirkung auf die
deutscheGeistesgeschichte unterblieben ist.5lAnd by way of
Justification tor tendering a fresh hypothesisregarding Rant, let
us turn again to Prot. Benz:Die Auseinandersetzung Rants mit
Swedenborg istzwar bereits verschiedentlich
historisch-kritischuntersucht worden, hat aber bisher eine
Erklarung deseigentUmlichen Widerspruchs, der zwischen der Stellung
nahme Rants zu Swedenborg in den verschiedenen Epochenseiner
geistigen Entwicklung besteht, nicht gelietert. 52 The !wo
DocumentsThis analysis of Rants reaction to Swedenborgessentially
amounts to an exegesis ot two documents-Rants Brief an Frttulein
von Knobloch (presumably writtenin 1763),53 and his Traume eines
Geistersehers, erlautertdurch Traume der Metaphysik. 54 To say that
the tlrst ofthese documents is favorable to Swedenborg and the
secondis unfavorable, is certainly to understate, and probably to
57. oversimplify the case. The understatement can be
correctedfirst, by detailing some of the more important
differencesbetween the two documents. 551. In the Brief, Kant
refers to Swedenborg by hiscorrect name, and with marked respect,
calling him -Herrvon Swedenborg-;56 in the Traume, he accorded him
no honor-including the honor of spelling his name
correctly--calllnghim RHerr Schwedenberg.- 572. In the Brief, he
described Swedenborg as a -Gelehrter n ;58 in the Traume, as a
-gewissen Herrn Schwedenberg ohneAmt und Bedienung.- 593.In the
Brief, he regarded Swedenborg" as a RvernUnftlger, 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 utterlyVoid of a single drop of reason. 634. In the
Brief: he spoke of walting with longingfor Swedenborgs next book;64
in the Traume, he seemed toknow only of Swedenborgs Arcana
Coelestia (which was publIshed 1747-1758, so It could not have been
that -nextbookn In 1763), and consIdered that work to be
-achtQuartbande voll Unslnn.- 655. In the BrIet, Swedenborg
appeared as a remarkableman whom Kant wIshed very much to meet and
converse With;66In the Traume, as a generally unknown character who
had 58. foisted upon the world a vast and ridiculOUS book
calledArcana Coelestia. 676.In the Brief, Rant seemed to accept the
opinionof his English frlend,68 and the most respectable people
InStockholm,69 that Swedenborg was learned, reasonable, politeand
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 wErzphantastenunter alIen
Phantasten. w707.In the Brief, Kants tone Is serious and
respectful; in the Tr~ume, it is derisive, insulting,
and--althoughmasterfullwltty--bordering on what a modern reader
(at-------------least) might consider vulgar. 718.In the Brief,
Kent apologized for not being ableto say more on the matter;72 In
the Tr~ume, he apologizedfor saying so much73_-and, in~~e~r
bringing up the matter)at all. 749.In the Brief, Rant clearly took
seriously, andapparently ac~epted the truth of, three anecdotes
whichillustrated--and supposedly confirmed--Swedenborgs
psychicabilities; he recorded the precise details of his
investigation of them,75 and Indicated his own desire to
examinethem further. 76 In the Tr~ume, he said he had found
outwnlchts about them, 77 ad~ised someone else to take thetrouble
to disprove them,78 and dismissed them as wMlrchen die ein
VernUnftiger Bedenken trlgt mit Qeduld anzuh8ren. 79 59. 50If these
comparisons fairly state the obvious differences between the~ and
the Traume, two furtherconsiderations may raise questions about the
basic signifi_cance of those differences.The first concerns the
threestories Just mentioned in point 9: the second concerns
theimplications of the two styles referred to in point 7.The Three
Anecdotes (capitalized, this title willrefer throughout this paper
to these three stories whichKant madel ca~se~ c~l~bres) probably
were essentially faithful records of actual events.The first one,
"The QueensSecret"--in which Swedenborg reportedly told the Queen
ofSweden in 1162 a secret which he could not have learned except
through communication with her dead brother--wasendorsed in
substantially similar detail by twenty sourcesbesides those cited
by Kant. "The Lost Receipt"--Which toldhow Swedenborg helped a
widow find an important receipt in1161, 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 ota fire in Stockholm, which was burning at the same time
hewas reporting it__had five corroborating testimonies. 80Although
all of these testimonies were second hand, onlythree contrary
evidences have been produced; and these werenotably leas reliable
than the affirmative testimony. In 60. $1spite of this presumptive
probability, however, no "hard evidence has ever been produced that
could positively proveor disprove any of the stories.The
significance of thiswill be discussed presently. Neither the Three
Anecdotes, nor any of the compar able stories that have been
circulated, were started bySwedenborg, or considered important by
him. BlTo Rant,however, they represented Swedenborgs
credentials--which,if authentic, would entitle him to a serious
hearing.~Furthermore, he saw them as a challenge to basic
presuppositionsof rational thought: if they could be indisputably
authentkated- which is to say, if Swedenborg should be taken
seriously--theconsequences would be astonishing. B3 From this
perspective,Rants most important question concerning Swedenborg
vas,were the Three Anecdotes true?Apparently, he answered
thequestion affirmatively in the Brief, negatively in the Trlume.
Rants Ambiguity Consideration of this appearance introduces
anotherissue, however--the implications of Rants style. Behindthe
polite affirmation of the ~, and the d~~enegLtionof the Trlume,
there is an ambiguity which suggests the possi bility that Rants
ayes and Rants "no" to Swedenborgsclaim ~mpirical ~latlon ~re
equally and fundamentallyambiguous. 61. In the Brief, every direct
statement of assent toSwedenborgs claim may be seen as balanced by
a covertdisclaimer-:Ich doch jederzeit der Regelder gesunden
Vernunft amGemassesten zu seyn erachtethabe, sich auf die
verneinende Seite zu lenken bis die Gescbichte desHerrn Swedenborg
mir bekanntgemacht vurde. B4This sounds affirmative tovard
Swedenborg; but thoughit is clear that he tended to reject such
stories before hisencounter with Swedenborg, what was his tendency
aftervard7It cannot go unnoticed that he did not say.Again, he
observed that -man kann es schwerlichannehmen- that anAmbassador
would have falsified the information in -TheQueens Secret,_85 but
he had already pointed out, a fewlines before, that it vas
difficult to believe such stories;86there is no definite indication
as to which he chose to sur-mount--the difficulty of believing, or
the difficulty of notbelieving. He did, indeed, say that QThe
Stockho~ Fireanecdote benimmt wirklich allem erdenklichen Zweifel
dieausflucht,87 and asks, "Was kann man wider die GlaubwUrdigkeit
dieser Begebenheit anfnhren7 88 Almost immediately,however, he
suggests an answer to the question, thus raisinga doubt about the
assertion:Wie sehr wUnsche ich, dass ich diesen sonderbarenMann
selbst h~tte fragen konnen: denn mein Freund istder Methoden nicht
so wohl kundig, dasjenigeabzufragen, was igeiner solchen Sache das
meisteLicht geben kann. 62. 53Although the ambiguity of this
respectful analysis would nothave offended Fri. von Knoblochls
presumed good opinion otSwedenborg, It scarcely committed Kant to
SwedenborglandlsclpleshlplSimilarly, the ridicule with which Kant
rejectedSwedenborg in the Traume may be Interpreted as
covertlyqualifying the negative JUdgment. It has been
suggestedabove that Kantls reference to the astonishing
consequencesthat would be entailed by belief In even ale ot the
ThreeAnecdotes, could be read as either a serious or a supercilious
statement. 90 The interpretation would hinge onKantls attitude
toward the Three Anecdotes, but this Is notexplicitly revealed. He
expressed qualified acceptance otthem In 1763, but In 1766 he made
It plain that he kn~otno solid evidence that could confirm or deny
them: his ownsearch had revealed nothlng,91 and documentary
refutation(or, tor that matter, confirmation) would require
on-the-spotInvestigation in Sweden--which he did not undertake.
92Throughout the work, his humor suggests ambiguity.His description
of his discussion of Swedenborg, as a workwhich er [the reader] das
Vornehmste nicht verstehen,das andere nicht glauben, das Ubrige
aber belachen wird,93also admits alternative interpretations, for
It implies butdoes not say definitely that the fault lay with the
sUbjectrather than with the reader. When he apologized for the 63.
length of his discussion, by noting how much he~sleavingout, he
observed that vofUr ich mir von ibm [the reader) eben so vielDank
verspreche, als ein gevisser Patient glaubte denArzten schuldig zu
sein, das sie ihn nur die Rindevon der Quinquina verzehren liessen,
da sie ihn leich- 9~tlich hgtten nothigen konnen den ganzen Baum
aufzuessen. ~Again, the implication that Svedenborg vas a bitter
draughtvas the obvious intent but Rant did not deny the
alternativesuggestion that the draught ~s salutary as veIl.His
description of Svedenborgs Arcana as acht Quartblnde vollUnsinn 95
also Is an obviously negative value-JUdgment on thevork, but In the
context,96 it makes equally good sense ItUnslnn Is taken literally
according to Its etymology (l.e.,as non-sense, as veIl as
nonsense), as descriptive ot a vorkfull of data other than
sense-data. Still more significantly,Kants bantering style became
half-serious vhen he comparedSvedenborgs "Tauschungen, a~rchen and
Schwlrmerel vlthhis own system.Zudem habe ich das Ungluck, dass das
Zeugnlss, vorautIch stosse unci vas meiner phllosophlschen
Hlrngeburtso ungemeln ghnlich ist, verzvelfelt mlssgeschaffenund
albern aussleht, so dass Ich vlel eher vermuthenmuss, der Leser
verde urn der Verwandtschaft mlt tolchen Beistlmmungen villen melne
VernunftgrUnde fUrungereimt, als Jene um dieser villen fUr
vernUnftighalten. Ich sage demnach ohne Umschvels, dass, vassolche
anzUgllche Vergleichungen anlangt, Ich kelnenSpass ver$tehe, und
erklgre kurz und gut, dass manentveder In Schvedenbergs Schrlften
mehr Klughelt andWahrhelt vermuthen mUsse, als der er3te Anschein
bllcken lasst, oder dass es nur so von ungefahr komme,venn er mlt
melnem System zusammentrlfft.97 64. Whether considered singly or
collectively. thesepassages--and others that might be taken as
similarlyambiguous--certainly do not contribute acceptance or
endorsement of Swedenborg; but it is hard to believe that
ImmanuelKant could not have phrased his rejection of Swedenborg
andSwedenborgs claim less equivocally than this if he hadchosen to.
That he did. in fact. choose humor ~o cover aconscious ambiguity.
was suggested by Kant himself.In der That wurde es mir schwer. die
Methode %uersinnen. nach welcher ich meine Gedanken
einzukleidenhatte. ohne mich dem Gesp3tte auszusetsen. Es
scheintmir a1so am rathsamsten, andere dadurch zuvorzukommen. dass
Ich Uber mtch selbst zuerst spottete. wobeytcn auch anz auir1cfitlQ
verrahren bIn, Indem wlrkllchder ustand menes emut s ebey w ~ers nn
sc sund sowohl was dIe Erz~hlung anlangt. Ich mich nlchtentbrechen
kann. eine kleine Anh~nglichkeit an dieGeschichte von dieser Art
als auch, was die Vernunftgrunde betrifft. einige Vermuthung von
ihrer Richtigkeit zu nahren. ungeachtet der Ungereimtheiten.
welchedie erstere, und der Hirngespinste und unverstandlichen
Begriffe. welche die letztere urn ihten Werth bringen.98The italics
are mine. to underscore the point.If Kant was equivocal toward
Swedenborgs idea." heknew it; and if he left the equivocation
unresolved. it wasintentional.A primary point of the Traume--namely
that,according to the rules of thought explicated later in
theKritiks. Swedenborgs claim was not asubJect for philosophical
diloussion99 _-may be taken as a ~acit admission thatKants attitude
toward it was ambiguous. IOOThe suggestion made above. that Kant
saw the ThreeAnecdotes as more significant than the Arcanaj and the
tact 65. that no evidence has ever provided unquestionable
confirmation or refutation of the Three Anecdotes; and Rants
recognition that--even in 1766--such evidence was inaccessibleto
him in K8nigsberg; together form a plausible explanationof this
.over-all ambiguity.Certainly, care must be taltennot to
over-extend the limits of the implications of thisambiguity:
specifically, it in no way mitigates Kantsfinal negative judgment
on Swedenborgs idea of empiricalrevelation, nor his obvious
intention to propagate thatjudgment as effectively as he could, nor
the equally obviousinfluence of that negative jUdgment on Herder,
Colerldge,DeQuincey, and all the Germans discussed in Chapter
Six.However, it does suggest, as a plausible but admittedly
unconfirmed hypothesis, 101 that during the period between 1763and
1766, Rant considered Swedenborgs claim more seriouslythan he later
chose to admit; and that his ultimate rejectionof Swedenborg was
based less on errors or fallacies. ofSwedenborgs system, than on
the circumstance that after hisencounter with Swedenborg, Rant
realized the necessity ofrestricting the quest for philosophical
knOWledge to withinthe limits of certainty.102 What alternative
pursuit waslatent in his ambiguity toward Swedenborgs idea must
beconsidered moot;I03 the fact is that the program he set
forhimself in the Tr~ume occupied most of the rest of his life.Die
Metaphysik, in welche ich das Schicksal habeverliebt EU sein, ist
sine Wissenschaft von den 66. 57Grenzen der menschlichen Vernunft
Ich habe dieseGrenze hier zwar nicht genau bestimmt 104 In the
Kritiks, he did determine those boundaries. In doing so, he
dismissed the question of Swedenborgs claim, and hisdismissal was
tantamount to--and;was accepted as--a univocalcondemnation of It.
To suggest--essentially with Cassirer,105_- that theTraume was the
work of a man who had Just disposed of aproblem, and marked the
beginning of the development of theCritical Philosophy, is not
meant to entail any specificJudgment as to the weight of
Swedenborg, or Swedenborgianthought, among the elements that
Influenced Kants intellectualdevelopment. Kant wrote on many
subjects, and criticized many ideas; that Swedenborgs idea was
involved to some extent In. the decision that led to the Krltiks,
is obvious on the faceof Kants own testimony, but no claim is made
here as to the relative Importance of that Involvement, vls-!Tvls
other influences, or Kants independent thought. Kants Reaction to
Swedenborg On this theory, Kants reaction to Swedenborgs ideacan be
Interpreted as a process, rather than a firm position.The process
.moved from interest in 1763 to disillusionment by 1766; and then
to analytical selection. The first distinction produced by the
analysis was between the idea of empirical revelation itself, and
its 67. primary contents. namely the exposition of an
internalspiritual sense within the literal meaning of the wordsin
the Holy Scriptures.Alle diese schw~rmende Auslegung gehen mlch
hiernichts an Nur die audita et visa, d. i. was seineelgene Augen
sollen gesehen und eIgene Ohren geh8rtha ben, slnd alles, was wir
vornehmlich ausBeilagen zu seinen Capitalen ziehen wollen. 0
faGThis distinction isKan~s (though Ernesti. whose reviewhe cites
at this point. made a similar distinction. andOetinger did.
too--only independently and In a differentvay). and its legitimacy
would not have been easy forSwedenborg to admit.Repeatedly, he
links his biblicalexposition inextricably with the ontology and
epistemologyentailed by his idea of empirical revelatio~.I07 The
literaland spiritual meanings of scriptural words correspond to
thenatural and spiritual aspects of the Wholeness ot things;
theliteral meaning is derived trom perceptions ot the
physicalsenses. and the spiritual from subliminal perceptions
otmans spiritual taculties.However, the distinction vasnecessary
trom Kants standpoint, tor his problem was totally dltferent from
Swedenborgs.Aftr a short period otconfusion, and tear ot
demon-infestation or insanity, 108Swedenborg had entertained no
doubts about the tact ot empirIcal revelation; he had Incorporated
It Into his Weltan,chauung,and now vas primarily Interested In
communicating Its contents. 68. ,59Kant, on the other hand, had
great trouble in believing thatsuch perceptions actually vere
possible at all; and hetoresav that it they vere, all philosophy
vould have tobe revised. 109 Time enough for that, and later tor
suchdetails as biblical interpretationl First, he had to lookat the
basic concept itself; that vould be important, vhat-ever contents
It bore. Seine Erz~hlungen und ihre Zusammenordnung sehelnen in der
That aus fanatischem Anschauen entsprungen zu seln und geben gar
venig Verdacht, dass speculative Hlrngespinste elner verkehrt
grUblenden Vernuntt Ihn bevogen haben sollten, dieselbe zu
erdiehten und zum Betruge anzulegen. In so fern haben sle also
elnlge Wichtigkeit und verdienen virklich in einem kleinen Auszuge
vorgestellt zu verden, vlelleieht mehr, als so manche Splelverke
hirnloser Vernunttler, velch. unsere Journale anschvellen, veil
eine zusammen- hangende T~uschung der Sinne Bberhaupt eln vlel
merwurdiger Phanomenon ist, als der Betrug der Vernuntt, dessen
GrUnde bekannt genug sind, und der auch grossen Theils durch
vlllkBrliche Richtung der GemUtskratte und etvas mehr Bandigung
eines leeren Vorvitzes k8nnte ver- hUtet verden, da hingegen Jene
das erste Fundament aller Urtheile betrifft, davider, venn es
unrichtig 1st, die Regeln der Logik venig verm8gen Ich sondere al~o
bel unserm Vertasser denWahnslnn vom Wahnwltze ab und ubergehe
dasJenige, vas er auf eine verkehrte Welse flugelt, indem er nicht
bei seinen Visionen stehen blelbt, eben so vie man sonst vielf~ltig
bei einem Philosophen dasJenige, vas er beobachtet, von dem
absondern muss, vas er vernunftelt, und sogar Schelnerfahrungen
mehren- theils lehrrelcher sind, als die ScheingrBnde aus Vernuntt.
IIOExamination of vas seine eigene Augen sollen gesehen undseine
eigene Ohren geh8rt haben, was, In tact, the pointot the vhole
essay. These things, he says. zlemllch Indas Abenteur einschlagen,
das vir aben aut dem Luttschlft.der Metapnyslk gevagt haben.~ll
This Is an explicit signal,and not the only one,112 that the first
tvo-thlrds or the 69. 60work had been leading up to this. The
thesis, antithesisand synthesis of the First Part served the
purpose orpointing out the Implications of the Issue before It
vasraised In this specific example.The first chapter or theSecond
Part, dealing with the "Three Anecdotes, vas Impor tant only
Insofar as It affected the credibility or Swedenborgas a witness to
such experiences. Thus:Veil Indessen das Credltlv aller
Bevollmlchtlgtenaus der andern Velt In den BewelsthRmern besteht,
diesle durch gewlsse Proben In der gegenwlrtlgen vonIhrem
ausserordentllchen Beruf ablegen, so muss ichvon demJenlgen, was
zur Beglaublgung der ausserordent lichen EIgenschaft des gedachten
Mannes herumgetragenwlrd, wenlgstens dasJenlge anrUhren, vas noch
bel denmelsten elnlgen Glauben flndet. ll )Vlth the Issues raised,
and the credentials examined,Kant arrived at his "Zwecke, nlmllch
zu den Schrlrtenmelnes Helden."~.4 These audita et visa of the
Arcana notonly were of greater Importance than the schvlr..
n~eAuslegung, more significant than the "Three Anecdote.~ithey were
the Zwecke of the whole preceding philosophicaldiscourse.Despite
their Importance, however, It vas not simplyto surprise the reader
that he postponed any mention or the.until the last third of the
book. The critical Issue vasepistemological, and once that had been
settled In the FirstPart, the matter was already pre-judged, and he
could Intro duce them as a "zusammenhlngende rruschung der Slnne,
and 70. 61use them primarily as an example of the necessity of
defining-den Grenzen der menschlichen Vernunft." In this
respect,the decisive statement of the essay Is placed before the
nameor ideas of Svedenborg are even mentioned:Die gelstlge Natur,
velche man nicht kennt, sondernvermuthet, nlemals posltlv konne
gedacht verden,veil keine data hlezu In unseren gesammten
Empflndungen anzutreffen seln, und das man slch roit Vernelnungen
behelfen mUsse, urn etvas von allem Slnnllchenso sehr
Unterschledenes zu denken, dass aber selbst dieMOgllchkelt solcher
Vernelnungen veder auf Erfahrung,noch auf Schlussen, sondern auf
elner Erdlchtung berahe;zu elner von alIen HUlfsmltteln entblosste
Vernunft IhreZaflucht nimmt. Auf diesen Fuss kann die
Pneumatologleder Menschen eln Lehrbegrlff Ihrer nothvendlgen
Unwlssenhelt In Abslcht auf elne vermuthete Art Wesen genanntverden
ynd als eln solcher der Aufgabe lelchtllch adlqultseln.ll~this
conclaslon Is based on a cogent argument trom logicalnecessity, not
the mere absence of any Instances ot splrltual data being
perceived. Nevertheless, It Is an argumentavovedly constructed
after he had sought to trace the truthof the Three Anecdotes, and
had found nothlng;116 and heapparently recognized that It vas an
argument vhlch mightdisintegrate, as one of the -erstaunllche
Folgen man slehthlnaus, venn aach nur elne solche Begebenhelt als
bevelsenvoraugesetzt verden k8nntel- 117 this suggests again
~ovImportant the Three Anecdotes vere to Kant, and how seriousfor
the nature of his reaction to Svedenborg vas the tallureof the
search for positive confirmation of them. After Introducing
Svedenborgls vork as a systematicdelusion of the senses, he
proceeds to give an analytical 71. 62summary of the system. The
summary runs to four and a haltpages in the K8niglich Preussischen
Akademie edition~118and offers a concise and quite complete
presentation otSwedenborgs idea of empirical revelation,~learly
settingforth the epistemology and ontology implicit In It,
anddescribing the leading derivative doctrines.The tundamental
~ntologlcal conception Is called -eln Hauptbegrltf,_lt9and the vay
In which It entails Swedenborgs characteristicexegetical system is
correctly described. 120 Rants separationof the system from the
Idea vas not unconscious or unknowingIn cpntrast to Ernestls
summary, Kants Is not quotedor paraphrased. It Is a complete
reconstruction that couldhave been achieved only by a careful
analysis and a serious-not to say profound--effort at coherent
synthesis.The sequenceof presentation Is original, and the
Interdependence and con sistency ot Ideas Is so cogent, that It
suggests Itselt asthe result of a whole-hearted attempt to
comprehend as anorganic whole what Ernestl had called "himmllschen
Gehelmnlsse welche sich endllch wohl In ein System brlngen lassen.-
121Kant seems to have been consc