Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
1240 NOTES TO VOLUME II.
did not study Swedenborg’s Itinerarium (Documents 205 and 206),
which on almost every page bears testimony of the interest he took
in all the fine arts.
(25) On p. 194 he declares that Swedenborg "continued his
explanation of the Book of Revelation only to chapter XIX." He
does not seem to have the least knowledge of Swedenborg’s work the
"Apocalypse Revealed ," where the whole of the Revelation is explained.
Fifthly. When conflicting evidence is produced, or when an
historian has to examine testimony which is borne respecting unusual
phenomena, he is expected to act the part of an impartial, unbiassed
judge, and to pass his judgment in accordance with the evidence that
is presented, and not according to his own prejudices, his likes and
dislikes. This principle Fryxell has violated in the following cases :
(26) On p. 236, in a footnote, Fryxell maintains that Kant’s
Letter to Madame von Knobloch was written before and not after
his Träume eines Geistersehers, ignoring the complete proof to the
contrary which was furnished by Dr. Im. Tafel in Part IV of his
Urkunden, and which has been reproduced with additions in Docu
ment 272 of the present work.
(27) On p. 185 he declares that the fact concerning the "Con
flagration in Stockholm," constituting Document 273, is "imperfectly
affirmed;" thus setting completely aside the result of Kant’s in
vestigation which he had made on the spot, and concerning which
he wrote to Madame von Knobloch, "What can be brought forward
against the authenticity of this occurrence [the conflagration in Stock
holm] ? My friend who wrote this to me has examined all, not only
in Stockholm, but also, about two months ago, in Gottenburg, where
he is well acquainted with the most respectable houses, and where
he could obtain the most authentic and complete information, for
only a very short time has elapsed since [ 1759] ; and most of the in
habitants are still alive who were eye-witnesses of this occurrence."
Yet Fryxell declares this circumstance to be "imperfectly affirmed."
(28) In the same category he places "a few other relations," among
which is the story of the "Lost Receipt" (Document 274), of which
he likewise declares that "it is imperfectly affirmed," although its
principal features are affirmed by nine independent witnesses, among
whom is Letocard, the Secretary of the Dutch legation, who was
present when this affair took place, and Kant’s friend, who exa
mined all on the spot in Stockholm .
(29) In respect to the "Queen’s Story" (Document 275) he sets
aside the testimony of the Academician Thiébault, of Count Höpken,
and Count Tessin, who derived their information immediately from
the Queen herself and from Swedenborg, and he adopts the account
20
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
