Article

In connection with Gregory Johnson's provocative work on Swedenborgian themes in

Kant's metaphysics,<1> it may be appropriate to gather together some of the evidences

of the dilemma Kant faced early in his career, a dilemma most directly reflected in

the discrepancies between his letter to Fräulein von Knobloch<2> and his Dreams of a

Spirit-Seer.<3> My purpose is not to break new ground, but simply to make accessible

material that is somewhat scattered and easily overlooked.

In Swedenborg in Deutschland, Ernst Benz lists seven contradictions between the

Dreams and the letter, as follows (the translations from this and other German

sources are my own):

1. In the Dreams, Kant refers to Swedenborg by a wrong name, as "Herr Schwedenberg":

in the letter he uses the correct name, which since his ennoblement was "Herr von

Swedenborg."

2. In the Dreams he refers to him as "a certain Herr Schwedenberg, without office or

employment": in the letter he characterizes him as a "scholar."

3. In the Dreams he calls him "the arch-hallucinator of all hallucinators" and a

"fanatic" (Schwärmer), whose work is void "of any drop whatsoever" of reason. In the

letter Swedenborg emerges as a "rational, pleasant, and openhearted man."

4. In the Dreams, Kant gives the impression that he is familiar only with

Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestia, and the work is there dismissed as "eight quarto

volumes of nonsense." In the letter, Kant writes about how eagerly he is awaiting the

works of Swedenborg promised him by his English friend and how he has made all

necessary arrangments to obtain the latest work which Swedenborg has proposed.

5. In the Dreams Swedenborg emerges as a fool who is known to Kant and to the rest of

the world only as the author of Arcana Coelestia, while in the letter he emerges as a

man of significant spiritual stature, whose personal acquaintance strikes Kant as

well worth effort, with whom he enters into correspondence with expressions of regret

that he cannot talk with him in person.

6. In the Dreams, the stories of Swedenborg's visionary abilities are introduced as

events that are attested only "by popular rumor, whose credibility is very doubtful,"

and after relating them Kant apologizes "for having undertaken such a ignoble task as

repeating fairy tales." In the same vein, he remarks in his introduction to the

Dreams, "He (the author) admits with some humility that he was guileless enough to

check out the truth of some of the stories of the kind mentioned. He found- - -as

usual, where there is nothing to be found- - -he found nothing." The letter, on the

other hand, takes each individual story and produces living witnesses, sometimes

named, with an emphasis on their credibility, specifying in writing how and by whom

the most careful inquiry was made of the stories on location, where the events were

said to have taken place, that is, both in Stockholm and in Gothenburg. In fact, the

main point of the whole letter is Kant's report of the positive outcome of his

research. He found not "nothing," not "fairy tales," but a full confirmation of the

"popular rumor" on the basis of the statements and inquiries of the most trustworthy

witnesses, "the most highly respected people in Stockholm."

7. In the Dreams Kant stresses that his impression of Swedenborg as "the

arch-hallucinator of all hallucinators" rests not only on his reading of Arcana

Coelestia but also "on the description of people who know him," and that means here

people who knew him personally. From the letter, though, we gather exactly the

opposite. There Kant reports the impression that the northern spirit-seer made on his

English friend, based on a personal visit and conversation: that of a rational,

pleasant, and open-hearted man, whose credibility was also attested by any number of

his fellow citizens of Stockholm.<4>

Kant published Dreams of a Spirit-Seer in 1766. When the letter was published, its

date was printed as "1758"-clearly in error, since it deals with the story of the

incident of the Stockholm fire which took place in 1759. J. F. I. Tafel argued at

length that the letter should be dated in 1768 and therefore amounted to Kant's

retraction of the unfavorable image put forth in the Dreams. While this might seem to

be a simple case of special pleading on the part of a devoted Swedenborgian, Tafel's

"clinching argument" might well be equally attractive to devoted Kantians.

This [proposed dating] becomes an absolute certainty in view of the further

circumstance that in the letter Kant not only shows himself much better informed

about Swedenborg and his extraordinary deeds than he was in the Dreams, but also by

the fact that if we date the Dreams later than the letter, it contradicts it in the

most blatant fashion, even to the point that it would have to be called an outright

lie. This would flatly contradict Kant's maxim of unconditional truthfulness, which

is also praised as the preeminent trait of his own character, and would in fact be a

moral impossibility.<5>

The evidence against Tafel's dating, however, is overwhelming. Henry de Geymuller

points out that after 1763, Fräulein von Knobloch was no longer Fräulein von Knobloch

but Frau von Klingsporn and refers indirectly to an "irrefutable" argument by Kuno

Fischer prior to 1904 establishing 1763 as the actual date.<6> While it is true that

if an editor had altered the date he could also have altered the name, it is clear

from the Dreams, as de Geymuller points out, that when he wrote it, Kant had read

material whose receipt he was still awaiting at the time of the letter.

Further, there is evidence from Kant's correspondence that he had already made his

inquiries and knew what he was doing when he wrote the Dreams. In a letter that has

not been preserved, Moses Mendelsohn evidently expressed surprise at the tone of that

work. Kant replied, on April 8, 1766,

The surprise you express at the tone of the little book is to me a proof of the good

opinion you have formed of the integrity of my character, and your reluctance to see

that character presented in the work as equivocal is dear and pleasant to me. I do

not know whether, as you read through this seemingly carelessly written work, you

noticed certain signs of the reluctance with which I wrote it. For though the

persistent inquiries into the visions of Schwedenberg-both by persons who had the

opportunity to know him personally as well as through correspondence, and finally by

procuring his works-had given me much to talk about, I saw very clearly that I would

have no rest from the incessant questioning until I disavowed my presumed knowledge

[Kenntnis, perhaps with the connotation of "recognition"?] of all these anecdotes.<7>

Benz proceeds to give substance to Kant's reference to "incessant questioning." He

says,

. . . Fräulein von Knobloch was not the only one to write to him about this subject.

His letter, read at the coffee circles of ladies of the nobility, must have made Kant

seem not only like a witness for the authenticity of Swedenborg's visions but as

Swedenborg's apologist and in general as a philosophical witness for the possibility

of association with the spiritual world. Kant would have been besieged from all

sides, as the preface to his Dreams informs us, speaking of the "urgent questions<8>

of friends both known and unknown." The "urgent questions" are particularly

understandable in view of the fact that the themes of Swedenborg and spiritualism

were in vogue. At the courts of Hessen-Darmstadt, von Kurnessen, and von

Braunschweig, spiritualism was very much at home; Under Friedrich Wilhelm II, who

issued the well-known admonition to Kant, it had even taken hold in the Prussian

court.<9>

Much the same thing happened to Friedrich Christoph Oetinger in the south. As soon as

he reported to his friends the favorable impression that Arcana Coelestia had made on

him, "everyone began to read Swedenborg."

Philipp Matthäus Hahn, well known theologian and mathematician . . . Chancellor Reuss

of the University of Tübingen, Professor Kies, Dean of the philosophical faculty in

Tübingen, Professor Clemm, Professor [Ordinarius] of systematic theology in Tübingen,

Pastor Ricker, the well-known Swabian scientist, representatives of charitable

foundations such as Hartmann, various councillors of the consistory-all studied

Swedenborg . . . .<10>

It was an age when the successes of the scientific method were challenging the

traditional belief in immortality and the reality of spirit,<11> and Swedenborg's

reports of conversations with spirits were welcomed by many of the devout.

Oetinger's correspondence offers an instance of the seriousness with which these

reports could be taken. Oetinger was one who was trying to reconcile science and

religion, and as such had come to respect Swedenborg as a scientist before he

encountered the theological works. He therefore read the latter eagerly, and was

immensely impressed not only with the reports about the spiritual world but also with

the theological system that Swedenborg presented. However, when it came to

Swedenborg's insistence that the book of Revelation was not to be taken literally, he

drew the line. There had to be a literal judgment and a literal Holy City descending

to this earth. He wrote to Swedenborg, "I beg you to beseech the Lord, who has

appeared to you, that you talk with John himself, whether he agrees with your

interpretation."<12>

Oetinger also stands out as one who did not read the Kant's Dreams of a Spirit-Seer

simplistically. On December fourth, 1766, he wrote to Swedenborg,

We have a book, "Dreams of a Spirit-Seer," that is full of lofty praise, but at the

same time, in order not to seem fanatical [Schwärmerisch] is equally full of

derogatory remarks against you.<13>

Then as now, interest in spiritualism could be idiosyncratic. Kant had undoubtedly

seen what strange things could happen once one opened the door to spiritualism. In

the Dreams he expressed his determination not to encourage what he saw as damaging

consequences.

After he had referred in the Dreams to the notion that witnessing abortive births in

the animal kingdom could have harmful effects on pregnant women, he continued, "Since

among my readers there may be some who, as to the conception of ideas, may be

similarly pregnant, it would grieve me if they should find anything here that would

make things go amiss for them."<14>

Friedrich von Schelling may provide us with an example (albeit a somewhat later one)

of the kind of "birth" that Kant was alluding to. In a letter to the Swedish poet and

literary critic P. D. A. Atterbom, with whom he had discussed Swedenborg, Schelling

wrote,

For a while now I have been seeing very little of our friend Fr. Baader, and I am

also quite content with this. The last thing I was obliged to hear from him was that

the devil is giving him signs and is seeking him out in his house and persecuting

him. Among other people, his daughter (whom I knew as a pure and lovely child) has

now fallen into ecstasies in which the evil spirit forces her into godless and impure

speech. He spoke of this as a gratifying phenomenon (his obsession is so great) and

seems to take no little satisfaction in the fact that the devil has finally taken

notice of his assaults.<15>

Dreams of a Spirit-Seer carried the day in the realm of rationalist philosophy, but

rationalist philosophy was not without its rivals. Especially in the south, idealist,

theosophical, and romanticist movements (that were, incidentally, catch the attention

of fascinate Russian philosophers of the "silver age") were very much alive; and in

the arts in particular Swedenborg's view of this world as translucent to spirit found

fertile soil. Benz sums up his reading of the outcome in a fable:

A great soul from the north, a soul who was granted first hand knowledge of heaven

and earth, traveled to a more southerly country and proclaimed what he had learned.

There quickly gathered around him the quiet folk of the land-the believing souls, the

poets, and the seers. One of them said, "This man is saying things that move heaven

and earth. Whether he is a prophet or not we do not know, but we do know that he

speaks from God." Then, however, in marched the Pharisees, the scribes, and the

professors of higher education, muttering against him and shaking their heads. One of

them said, "In truth, the world has never seen a greater fool than this," and they

all agreed that he was a fool and that no one should mention his name. Still, the

quiet folk of the country-the believing souls, the poets, and the seers- believed in

him all the more, and he awakened in their souls and minds a power of perception and

a power of comprehension that bore fruit a thousand fold in works of art and of the

spirit; and from the seed of the fool there proceeded a wondrous blossoming in that

very country.<16>

2

NOTES

3

Bibliography

Benz, Ernst. Swedenborg in Deutschland: F. C. Oetingers und Immanuel Kants

Auseinandersetzung mit der Person und Lehre Emanuel Swedenborgs. Frankfurt am Main:

Vittorio Klostermann, 1947.

------. Vision und Offenbarung: Gesammelte Swedenborg-Aufsätze. Zürich: Swedenborg

Verlag, 1979.

de Geymuller, Henry. Swedenborg et les Phénomènes Psychiques. Paris: Librarie Ernest

Leroux, 1935.

Ehmann. F. C. Oetingers Leben und Briefe, Als Urkundlichen Commentar zu dessen

Schriften. Stuttgart, 1859.

Horn, Friedemann. Schelling und Swedenborg: Ein Beitrag zur Problemgeschichte des

deutschen Idealismus und zur Geschichte Swedenborgs in Deutschland, nebst einem

Anhang über K. C. F. Krause und Swedenborg Sowie Ergänzungen zu R. Schneiders

Forschungen. Zürich: Swedenborg-Verlag, 1954.

Johnson, Gregory R. "Kant on Swedenborg in the Lectures on Metaphysics, Part 1."

Studia Swedenborgiana 10, no. 1 (October 1996): 1-38.

Kant, Immanuel. Immanuel Kants Gesammelte Schriften. 29 vols. Preussischen Akademie

der Wissenschaften (Vols. 1-22). Akademie der Wissenschaften der Göttingen (vols.

24-29) Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (vol. 23). Berlin: De Gruyter,

1902.

Kirven, Robert H. "Swedenborg and Kant Revisited: The Long Shadow of Kant's Attack

and a New Response." In Swedenborg and His Influence. Brock, Erland J. et al., eds.,

103-20. Bryn Athyn, PA: Academy of the New Church, 1988.

Swedenborg, Emanuel. Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell: From Things Heard and Seen. Tr.

J. C. Ager. New York: Swedenborg Foundation, 1900. Reprints.

Tafel, Johann Friedrich Immanuel. Abriss Des Lebens und Wirkens Emanuel Swedenborg's,

übersetzt aus der Penny-Cyclopedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful

Knowledge; mit neuen Urkunden über Swedenborg's Leben und einer historischen

Untersuchung seiner 12 Erfahrungsbeweise für die Unsterblichkeit und fortdauernde

Wiedererinnerungskraft der Seele, verbunden mit einer Würdigung der Berichte und

Urtheile Stilling's Klopstock's, Herder's, Kant's, Wieland's, und Anderer. Stuttgart

& Cannstatt: Verlag von Becher & Mueller, 1845.

**ENDNOTES**

. Gregory R. Johnson, "Kant on Swedenborg in the Lectures on Metaphysics, Part 1,"

Studia Swedenborgiana 10, no. 1 (October 1996): 1-38.

. Immanuel Kant, Immanuel Kants Gesammelte Schriften, 29 vols. Preussischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vols. 1-22), Akademie der Wissenschaften der Göttingen

(vols. 24-29) Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (vol. 23) (Berlin: De

Gruyter, 1902), 10:43-48.

. ibid., 2:315-373.

. Ernst Benz, Swedenborg in Deutschland: F. C. Oetingers und Immanuel Kants

Auseinandersetzung mit der Person und Lehre Emanuel Swedenborgs (Frankfurt am Main:

Vittorio Klostermann, 1947), 244ff.

. Johann Friedrich Immanuel Tafel, Abriss des Lebens und Wirkens Emanuel

Swedenborg's, übersetzt aus der Penny-Cyclopedia of the Society for the Diffusion of

Useful Knowledge; mit neuen Urkunden über Swedenborg's Leben und einer historischen

Untersuchung seiner 12 Erfahrungsbeweise für die Unsterblichkeit und fortdauernde

Wiedererinnerungskraft der Seele, verbunden mit einer Würdigung der Berichte und

Urtheile Stilling's Klopstock's, Herder's, Kant's, Wieland's, und Anderer (Stuttgart

& Cannstatt: Verlag von Becher & Mueller, 1845), 247.

. Henry de Geymuller, Swedenborg et les Phénomènes Psychiques (Paris: Librarie

Ernest Leroux, 1935), p. 455.

. Cited in Benz, op. cit., pp. 261f. The full text of the letter may be found in AK

10:69-73.

. Benz's text here has Anhalten, "supports," but immediately below has the

appropriate Anfragen, "questions."

. ibid., pp. 264f.

. ibid., p. 264.

. Cf Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell: From Things Heard and

Seen, tr. J. C. Ager (New York: Swedenborg Foundation, 1900. Reprints), n. 1.

. Ehmann, F. C. Oetingers Leben und Briefe, Als Urkundlichen Commentar zu dessen

Schriften (Stuttgart, 1859), no. 567, pp. 688-90. as cited in Benz, op. cit., pp.

62f.

. ibid., p. 69. Robert H. Kirven has ably pointed out particular wordings in the

Dreams which invite double readings. Cf Robert H. Kirven, "Swedenborg and Kant

Revisited: The Long Shadow of Kant's Attack and a New Response," in Swedenborg and

His Influence, Brock, Erland J. et al., eds. (Bryn Athyn, PA: Academy of the New

Church, 1988), 103-20.

. ibid., p. 265.

. Cited from Friedemann Horn, Schelling und Swedenborg: Ein Beitrag Zur

Problemgeschichte Des Deutschen Idealismus und Zur Geschichte Swedenborgs in

Deutschland, Nebst einem Anhang über K. C. F. Krause und Swedenborg Sowie ErgäNzungen

zu R. Schneiders Forschungen (Zürich: Swedenborg-Verlag, 1954), p. 19.

. Ernst Benz, Vision und Offenbarung: Gesammelte Swedenborg-Aufsätze (Zürich:

Swedenborg Verlag, 1979), p. 121.