2. Dr. Johnson (1994) states that Maudsley based his views on
White's (1867) biography of Swedenborg. Since only the White biography
is cited by Dr. Johnson, it appears that that was the basis for Dr.
Johnson's biographical summary of Swedenborg as well, although
nowhere cited as such. Current contemporary major biographies and
reference material concerning Swedenborg (e.g. Sigstedt 1952, Toksvig
1948, Woofenden 1988) are not mentioned. The omission may be
significant, since these more recent sources would have made clear a pattern
of possible bias. To begin with, White's case is largely based on a
single source, the statement of the innkeeper Brockmer, made decades
after the purported incidents took place, and a partial and perhaps
nearly complete fabrication (Sigstedt 1952, Toksvig 1948, Talbot, this
issue). (It appears likely that Brockmer had grievances based on critical
remarks in Swedenborg's work of his [Brockmer's] religious sect,
and due to Swedenborg having left his lodging amidst charges
that Brockmer tampered with Swedenborg's papers [ibid.].) Then the Swedish clergyman
Mathesius, the promulgator of Brockmer's statement - and cited by Maudsley -
also appears to have been hostile
to Swedenborg's teachings, if not Swedenborg personally (ibid.).
(Perhaps significantly, Mathesius himself later became insane [Sigstedt 1952, Talbot, this issue].) And, finally, White himself appears to
have been biased in this version of his Swedenborg biography, an
apparent reprisal for White's being dismissed from his position at
the Swedenborg Society publishing house (Sigstedt 1952, Woofenden
1988). Indeed, as Collie (1988) points out, Maudsley's acceptance of
White's account was surprisingly - for Maudsley - credulous.
