Abstract

Emanuel Swedenborg has been a literary celebrity for more than two centuries because of his vivid depictions of heaven and hell. But to a considerable extent this renown has also excluded him from the history of science, to which he actually belongs. He was active as an exegete and a visionary only during the last twenty‐five years of his long life, and before he got a divine call to found a new Christian church he had published a great number of scientific works.Immanuel Kant's negative polemics in Träume eines Geistersehers offers an explanation as to why historians of science have only rarely taken an interest in Swedenborg, but it is not the only one. Swedenborg does not seem to have exerted any particular impact on contemporary science, and many of his writings—for example, the voluminous manuscripts on the human brain—remained unpublished for more than a century. He was employed not as a university professor but as a civil servant in the College of Mines, and therefore he had no actual disciples. Consequently his contributions to science have mostly been studied by literary historians as precursors to his visionary works.Francesca Maria Crasta, an Italian historian of science, has reacted against the prevailing views that depict Swedenborg as a visionary fool. As she declares in the preface to this new book on Swedenborg's philosophy of nature, she set out to study him as a scientist in the context of his time, an approach that perhaps makes him less exciting but certainly better defined historically. Within self‐imposed limits she has carried out her task quite well. She has carefully analyzed the scientific works published through 1734, including the magnum opus Principia rerum naturalium published in that year. This means that she has discussed Swedenborg's studies of inorganic nature in toto. On the other hand, she has abstained from addressing his extensive studies of the human body during the following decade, an effort that resulted in two large works in print and a great number of posthumously published manuscripts.The title of Crasta's book may therefore arouse unmet expectations, but what it does provide is valuable enough. The author starts with a survey of Swedenborg's works in natural philosophy from 1716 to 1734, in which she proves herself to be well versed both in the original sources and in the secondary literature. In the next four chapters she then discusses, in sequence, how Swedenborg discerned the origin of the universe in the mathematical point and its further development up to the birth of the planetary system through a series of finite particles. She emphasizes that Swedenborg got his decisive inspiration from Descartes, an author “constantly present although very seldom directly quoted in the Swedenborgian Principia” . No doubt this is a correct observation; the notorious scarcity of references in Swedenborg's writings makes life complicated for those who are trying to describe his intellectual background in detail.It is not surprising, then, that Crasta has not been able to detect any previously unknown sources. However, she has presented fresh and interesting aspects of the intellectual environment in which Swedenborg's philosophy of nature took shape. One example is her comparisons between Swedenborg's, Leibniz's, and Vico's ways of using the concepts of “mathematical” and “metaphysical” point, which show that Leibniz and Vico distinguish clearly between them while Swedenborg lets them merge. In that context she has also noticed that in the later parts of the Principia Swedenborg starts to make use of eggs and similar biological metaphors . This is an important observation that lends support to her thesis that mechanistic Cartesianism is balanced in Swedenborg's philosophy of nature by the influence of Leibniz. Quite reasonably, Crasta also maintains that Swedenborg's presentation of magnetism comes much closer to Leibniz's optimism than to the Neoplatonic idea of decay he had met in Thomas Burnet .Another topic of particular interest is the question of a potential Swedenborgian influence on Kant's Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels , although not as transmitted by Buffon, as has sometimes been assumed, but by Thomas Wright's An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe . Crasta has been unable to reach a firm conclusion, but she has proved that this is an issue well worth raising. Despite some inaccuracies with regard to chronological and bibliographical data, this learned book is a substantial contribution to our understanding of Emanuel Swedenborg as a scientist in his time