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