René Descartes in Sweden: His Final Months in Stockholm and the Mystery of His Skull
Most people encounter René Descartes in a philosophy class. They know him as the French thinker behind the famous statement Cogito, ergo sum—“I think, therefore I am.” Some also know him as a mathematician whose work helped shape modern scientific thought.
Far fewer people know that the final chapter of René Descartes’ life unfolded in Sweden.
Descartes arrived in Stockholm in late 1649 after accepting an invitation from Queen Christina of Sweden. Only a few months later, on 11 February 1650, he was dead. The conventional account says that he died from pneumonia after exchanging his comfortable routine for early-morning meetings in a bitterly cold Stockholm palace.
Yet his death was only the beginning of an even stranger story.
Descartes’ body was eventually removed from Sweden and transported to France, but his skull disappeared. An intact skull later surfaced at an auction in Stockholm and was returned to Paris. For approximately two centuries, it was widely accepted as the philosopher’s skull.
Then researchers in Lund reopened the case.
A fragment of human skull that had spent much of the twentieth century dismissed as an embarrassing forgery may, according to researchers at Lund University Historical Museum, be part of the genuine skull of René Descartes. Their investigation has also raised serious questions about the supposedly authentic skull in Paris.
In brief: René Descartes came to Sweden in 1649, died in Stockholm in 1650 and was first buried at Klara churchyard. His body was later sent to France, but the identity of his skull remains disputed. Lund University Historical Museum currently describes its fragment as probably authentic, while the Musée de l’Homme in Paris continues to identify its intact specimen as the skull of Descartes.
Editorial note: The attribution of the Lund fragment has not been confirmed through DNA. This article presents the historical case developed by Andreas Manhag and Per Karsten, while also explaining why the French attribution remains defended. Their source-critical study was published by Lund University in 2020.
Who Was René Descartes?
René Descartes was born in France in 1596 and became one of the most influential thinkers in European intellectual history. He is best known as a philosopher, but philosophy represented only one part of his work.
He was also a respected mathematician and contributed significantly to the development of mathematical research. He had legal training as well and inherited enough money to live without depending on an ordinary profession. That financial independence gave him the freedom to read, think, travel and work according to his own habits.
At the centre of Descartes’ philosophy was doubt.
His famous argument can be expressed simply: if a person is capable of doubting, that person must be thinking. And if someone is thinking, then that person must exist. For Descartes, the thinking mind became the starting point from which reliable knowledge could be constructed.
This commitment to systematic doubt makes the later mystery surrounding his skull unusually appropriate. Few historical objects invite as much uncertainty as the alleged remains of the philosopher who made doubt a foundation of knowledge.
Why Did René Descartes Come to Sweden?
In the seventeenth century, Sweden was emerging as an important European power. Queen Christina wanted her royal court in Stockholm to become a centre of scholarship, culture, philosophy and scientific discussion.
Descartes was already one of Europe’s most celebrated intellectuals, making him an attractive figure for the ambitious Swedish queen. Paintings later imagined the two sitting together at a table, surrounded by books, scientific instruments and members of the Swedish court.
These paintings should not be treated as eyewitness records. As Per Karsten explains in his lecture, at least one famous depiction of Descartes and Queen Christina was painted approximately a century after the philosopher’s death. Nevertheless, it reflects the enduring idea of a meeting between French philosophy and Swedish royal power.
Descartes eventually accepted Christina’s invitation and travelled to Stockholm toward the end of 1649.
In Karsten’s dramatic telling, accepting the invitation was the great mistake of Descartes’ life.
René Descartes in Stockholm: A Disastrous Change of Routine
The journey to Stockholm subjected Descartes to more than a change of country. It forced him to abandon the daily routine under which he had spent much of his intellectual life.
Descartes was not known as an enthusiastic early riser. According to the story presented in the Lund lecture, he preferred to remain in bed until well into the day. It was there that he felt most comfortable thinking and working.
Queen Christina followed a very different schedule.
She wanted Descartes to come to the palace at five or six in the morning for philosophical discussions. Stockholm was experiencing winter, and the royal rooms were described as extremely cold. Descartes therefore had to leave his preferred environment and travel through the darkness of a Swedish winter to participate in early-morning conversations at the palace.
It is tempting to draw a direct line from these meetings to his death. That connection has certainly shaped the popular account of René Descartes in Sweden. However, the cold palace and early schedule should be understood as historical context rather than definitive medical proof of what caused his illness.
What is known is that Descartes became seriously ill only a few months after arriving in Stockholm.
How Did René Descartes Die in Stockholm?
René Descartes died in Stockholm on 11 February 1650. He was 53 years old, although he was approaching his 54th birthday.
The conventional explanation, and the one used by Lund University Historical Museum, is that he died from pneumonia. The lecture describes his illness as developing after approximately four months in Sweden. The museum likewise identifies him as the French philosopher and mathematician who died from pneumonia in Stockholm in 1650.
There have been later theories concerning possible poisoning, but no such theory has replaced pneumonia as the standard account. The Lund investigation into the skull is concerned primarily with what happened to Descartes’ remains after death, rather than reopening the medical question of how he died.
Where Was René Descartes First Buried in Stockholm?
Descartes was already an internationally respected figure when he died. His remains were therefore not placed in an ordinary, forgotten grave.
He was buried at Klara churchyard in Stockholm, in a specially constructed above-ground monument. According to the lecture, the outer structure was made from heavy oak, while a metal coffin containing the body was placed inside it.
The fact that the coffin remained above ground would later become important to the Lund researchers’ argument.
The arrangement was reportedly chosen because it was already expected that France would eventually request the return of Descartes’ body. Keeping the coffin above ground would make the future transfer easier.
It also meant that the body was not in direct contact with the earth. Centuries later, the colour of the Lund fragment would be interpreted as possible evidence that it had come from remains stored above ground rather than buried in soil.
France Requests the Return of Descartes’ Remains
In 1666, approximately sixteen years after Descartes’ death, preparations began to return his body to France.
The coffin was opened in Stockholm under the supervision of the French ambassador. The lecture recounts a detail that shows how differently famous human remains could be treated during this period: the ambassador asked for one of Descartes’ fingers as a personal relic.
Permission was granted. A finger was removed from the body and taken to France separately.
The rest of the remains travelled to Paris and were buried there in 1667.
That might have brought the Swedish chapter of the story to an end. Instead, it created the circumstances for a mystery that would continue for centuries.
The Skull Disappears in France
Descartes’ remains did not remain undisturbed after reaching Paris.
During the French Revolution, Alexandre Lenoir worked to protect monuments and historically important objects from destruction. According to the account presented in the lecture, Lenoir opened the coffin connected with Descartes and discovered that it contained only a limited number of bones.
Most importantly, the skull was missing.
The lecture also tells the macabre story that Lenoir used a remaining piece of frontal bone to make small bone rings. Whether every detail of this episode can be established with equal certainty, it illustrates the broader historical treatment of remains associated with famous individuals: bones could become souvenirs, relics, museum objects and commodities.
When the coffin was examined again in the early nineteenth century, the absence of the skull became the subject of serious concern. France had recovered the remains of one of its greatest thinkers, but apparently not his head.
A Skull Appears at an Auction in Stockholm
A Swedish scientist unexpectedly became central to the search.
Jöns Jacob Berzelius, one of Sweden’s most important chemists, was in France when the missing skull was being discussed. According to his recollection, he was horrified by the suggestion that a Swede might have stolen such an important part of Descartes’ remains.
Berzelius returned to Stockholm in 1821. Soon afterwards, he opened the newspaper Argus and saw an extraordinary announcement: a skull identified as that of René Descartes had been sold at an auction in Stockholm.
The alleged skull had formed part of the collection left by the scientist and explorer Anders Sparrman. A Stockholm tavern owner named Arngren had purchased it at the auction.
Berzelius contacted Arngren and persuaded him to resell the skull for the price he had paid. Berzelius was then able to send the object to France, apparently restoring an important part of the French philosopher to his homeland.
For Berzelius, the case seemed solved.
Why the Paris Skull Looked Authentic
The alleged skull carried what appeared to be an unusually detailed record of its history.
An inscription on its forehead stated that it was the skull of Descartes, removed by a man named Planström when the philosopher’s body was being transported to France in 1666. It also carried a poem celebrating Descartes and a list of people said to have owned the skull.
Several names belonged to respected historians, officials and scholars, including Johan Arckenholtz, Anders Anton von Stiernman and Olof Celsius. These were not anonymous individuals. They were educated men whose positions appeared to give credibility to the ownership record.
The evidence was literally written onto the object.
Berzelius wanted the French authorities to reunite the skull with the other remains and rebury them together. The French Academy chose a different course. The skull became an object of research and public display.
The French National Museum of Natural History still lists the object as the skull of the philosopher René Descartes, with the inventory number MNHN-HA-19220, and identifies the Musée de l’Homme as the place where visitors can see it.
For a long time, there appeared to be little reason to doubt it.
The Forgotten Skull Fragment in Lund
The apparent authentication of the Paris skull caused a serious problem for Lund University.
Lund already possessed a piece of human skull that had been identified as belonging to Descartes. The fragment had entered the university’s collection in 1780, approximately four decades before the intact skull resurfaced at the Stockholm auction.
Both objects could not easily be accepted as genuine. If the complete skull in Paris really belonged to Descartes, the fragment in Lund had to be false.
The Lund object consequently lost its former status. It was removed from its prominent position and placed among the miscellaneous objects of the museum’s curiosity collection. Such collections were increasingly viewed as products of an earlier, supposedly unscientific age.
During the twentieth century, museum director Otto Rydbeck repeatedly described the fragment as a forgery. It was displayed in intentionally unattractive cases among objects regarded as curious rather than scientifically valuable.
An object once presented as a relic of one of Europe’s greatest minds had become a museum embarrassment.
From an Embarrassing Forgery to a Serious Research Object
The situation began to change when researchers at Lund University Historical Museum started re-examining the institution’s oldest collections.
The museum was preparing a new exhibition, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic gave researchers additional time to investigate historical documents. Instead of beginning with the assumption that the Paris skull was authentic, they asked a more fundamental question:
What did the historical sources actually say about the Paris skull and the Lund fragment?
This was a Cartesian approach to the problem. The researchers temporarily set aside accepted conclusions and reconstructed the evidence from the surviving records.
The investigation resulted in the chapter “The True Skull of Descartes? A Source Critical Study,” written by Andreas Manhag and Per Karsten and published in 2020.
The Archival Breakthrough
The researchers began by comparing the ownership history written on the Paris skull with the documented history of the Lund fragment.
The chain of ownership for the Paris skull could be followed with reasonable confidence through Berzelius, Arngren and Anders Sparrman. Before the 1790s, however, the record became much less secure.
The history of the Lund fragment led further back.
The fragment was donated to Lund in 1780 by Andreetta Katarina Celsius, the wife of Olof Celsius. Olof Celsius was one of the people whose name appeared on the Paris skull, yet the surviving documentation pointed specifically to his wife as the person connected with the fragment.
Other names written on the Paris skull also appeared in the documented history of the Lund object, including Stiernman and Arckenholtz.
The most important discovery concerned Johan Arckenholtz.
Arckenholtz wrote that he owned a piece of Descartes’ skull. He did not claim to possess the entire cranium. He also wrote that he had seen another piece in the possession of a man named Hägerflycht.
That created a major contradiction.
If Arckenholtz and Hägerflycht possessed separate fragments, how could their names form part of the ownership history of an intact skull?
The Lund researchers concluded that several names written on the Paris skull were genuinely associated with alleged remains of Descartes—but with fragments such as the one preserved in Lund, not necessarily with the complete Paris skull.
The names that had once appeared to authenticate the Paris skull could therefore have the opposite effect. They might reveal that someone constructed a convincing but inaccurate history by combining information about several separate fragments.
Information about Planström and the stolen skull had also circulated publicly in Sweden by the eighteenth century, making it available to anyone who wanted to create a plausible inscription.
This does not automatically prove that the Lund fragment is genuine. It does, however, weaken one of the most important arguments traditionally used to support the Paris skull.
“Descartes’ Skull, 1691, No. 6”
The Lund fragment carries its own remarkable inscription.
Written on the inside of the bone are the words:
“Cartesi döskalla 1691 N. 6.”
The text can be understood as “Descartes’ skull, 1691, No. 6.”
The old Swedish form of the word for skull appears consistent with an early date. More importantly, the inscription places the object in 1691, only 41 years after Descartes’ death and much earlier than the securely documented history of the Paris skull.
The number six is especially intriguing.
Manhag and Karsten interpret it as an indication that the fragment was one of several pieces created from a single skull. In their reconstruction, Planström may have removed Descartes’ skull in 1666. Because he was deeply in debt, the skull may later have passed to his creditors.
In 1691, the creditors or later owners may have divided it into multiple pieces so that each piece could be sold separately. Under this theory, the Lund object was the sixth fragment in a small commercial series.
This remains a historical interpretation rather than a scientifically proven sequence. Nevertheless, it helps explain why eighteenth-century documents refer to different people owning pieces of Descartes’ skull at the same time.
What Was “Skull Blasting”?
The proposed method of dividing the skull is sometimes called skull blasting.
The name sounds as though explosives were involved, but the historical method was more controlled. Seeds, peas or grains could be inserted through the opening at the base of a skull. Water was then added.
As the seeds absorbed water, they expanded. The growing pressure gradually forced the bones apart along the natural sutures of the skull. This could produce six or seven relatively large fragments without cutting or smashing the cranium.
The method could be used for anatomical preparation, but it could also increase profits. A seller might earn more by offering several pieces of a famous person’s skull than by selling one complete object.
During the period of European curiosity cabinets, human remains were frequently collected with little consideration for the dignity or wishes of the deceased. A fragment associated with a famous philosopher could function as a relic, a conversation piece and a symbol of its owner’s learning and social status.
In that environment, even the skull of the philosopher of reason could become merchandise.
The Wooden Container That Fits the Fragment
The Lund investigation uncovered another unusual piece of circumstantial evidence.
Only one other object in the museum’s collection was recorded as entering the institution in the same year as the skull fragment: a small, round, turned wooden container.
At first sight, the vessel seemed unremarkable. It carried no written explanation and no clear description in the museum’s records. Its lid, however, was decorated with a small carved skull. Even the sutures between the different bones were marked on the miniature head.
When the researchers placed the alleged Descartes fragment inside the container, it fitted almost exactly.
The internal diameter of the vessel was approximately 150 millimetres. The maximum diameter of the fragment was approximately 147 millimetres.
The researchers believe the wooden cup may have been made specifically to hold and display the bone.
They also propose that several comparable containers may once have existed, with each protecting a different fragment. If that interpretation is correct, other pieces attributed to Descartes may still survive unidentified in private collections or on old Swedish estates.
The perfect fit is not genetic proof. A suitable container could have been found or adapted later. But when combined with the shared acquisition date, carved skull and historical ownership records, it becomes another part of the cumulative case.
The Colour of the Lund Bone
The physical appearance of the Lund fragment also attracted attention.
It is relatively light and grey-white. Karsten argues that this colour is consistent with bone that was kept above ground and never came into direct contact with soil.
That would fit the description of Descartes’ first tomb at Klara churchyard in Stockholm. His metal coffin was placed within an above-ground structure rather than buried directly in the earth.
Bones buried in soil can absorb substances that gradually produce darker brown or yellow-brown colouring. In the lecture, the Paris skull is presented as an example of a bone that appears to have been exposed to such conditions, while the lighter Lund fragment is interpreted as more consistent with the Stockholm tomb.
Colour alone cannot establish identity. Conservation, cleaning, storage conditions and other environmental factors may also affect a bone. It is therefore best understood as supporting evidence within the Lund hypothesis, not as an independent authentication.
The Mistake Made With the Skull Sutures
One of the original arguments against the Lund fragment concerned its open sutures.
In the early twentieth century, anatomist Carl Magnus Fürst examined the piece. Because the sutures had not completely closed, he concluded that the bone must have belonged to a much younger person.
Descartes was nearly 54 when he died. If open sutures proved that the individual was young, the fragment could not be his.
The fragment was consequently declared a forgery.
Modern osteologists are much more cautious about using cranial sutures to determine an individual’s age. Sutures may remain open in elderly people, while they may close earlier in others. The lecture cites Immanuel Kant as an example of an old individual whose skull retained open sutures.
The observation made by Fürst was real, but the conclusion drawn from it was too certain. What had been treated as decisive evidence against authenticity is no longer considered a reliable method of excluding Descartes.
Is the Lund Fragment Really Part of René Descartes’ Skull?
The evidence assembled in Lund is substantial but not conclusive.
The strongest parts of the case include:
- The fragment entered the Lund collection in 1780, before the intact skull resurfaced in Stockholm.
- Its ownership history corresponds closely with names later written on the Paris skull.
- Historical documents refer to Arckenholtz owning a fragment rather than an entire skull.
- Another alleged fragment was recorded in Hägerflycht’s possession.
- The internal inscription dates the Lund bone to 1691 and labels it “No. 6.”
- The fragment fits a wooden container acquired in the same year.
- Its colour is considered consistent with an above-ground tomb.
- The open sutures do not exclude a person of Descartes’ age.
Together, these findings provide a coherent argument. Yet coherence is not the same as identification.
The clearest solution would probably involve DNA comparison. In his lecture, Karsten discusses several possible sources: a biological relative, the finger reportedly removed in 1666 or bones known with certainty to have belonged to Descartes.
Each possibility presents difficulties.
Descartes has no known living descendants who could provide a straightforward reference sample. Destructive testing of rare museum remains also raises scientific and ethical concerns. The surviving bones in France may not offer a reliable comparison either.
The lecture points to a troubling discrepancy. Contemporary descriptions say Descartes was transported in a metal coffin with an identifying metal plate. During the French Revolution, however, Lenoir reportedly recovered a wooden coffin containing only a small number of remains.
The Lund researchers therefore suspect that the wrong grave or coffin may have been opened in France. If so, testing those bones would not necessarily solve the mystery.
No published DNA comparison has yet established that the Lund fragment belonged to René Descartes.
The French Case for the Paris Skull
The Lund interpretation is not universally accepted.
Philippe Charlier, a French physician and forensic anthropologist who has studied the Paris skull, has defended its authenticity. The French case relies on its reconstructed ownership history and on non-invasive examinations indicating that the skull’s sex, estimated age and geographic characteristics are compatible with Descartes.
Researchers associated with the Paris object have also reported that craniofacial reconstruction corresponds closely with contemporary portraits of the philosopher.
Compatibility, however, is different from individual identification. A skull can match a person’s general biological profile without necessarily belonging to that person.
The dispute therefore involves two different types of argument.
The French case emphasizes the traditional chain of custody, anatomical compatibility and long institutional acceptance. The Swedish case emphasizes archival contradictions, earlier documentation, references to multiple fragments, the 1691 inscription and the physical context of the Lund object.
As of 2026, neither institution has abandoned its position. The French museum officially presents the intact skull as Descartes’, while Lund University Historical Museum describes its fragment as probably authentic rather than conclusively proven.
Where Can the Alleged Skulls Be Seen Today?
Visitors can currently encounter two different versions of the story.
The intact skull associated with René Descartes is displayed at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. The French National Museum of Natural History identifies it as the philosopher’s skull in its official collection catalogue.
The alleged fragment is displayed at Lund University Historical Museum in southern Sweden. It forms part of the museum’s permanent exhibition Treasures from Five Continents, where it is presented among discoveries resulting from research into the university’s older cultural and ethnographic collections.
The museum’s current description carefully states that the fragment was previously believed to be false but has now proved likely to be authentic.
The use of “likely” is important. It reflects a strong historical argument without claiming that the scientific question has been settled.
René Descartes, Sweden and the Importance of Stockholm
The story gives Sweden a much larger place in Descartes’ biography than many general accounts acknowledge.
Stockholm was not simply the city where he happened to die. It was where his routines changed, where his final intellectual relationship developed, where he became ill, where he was first buried and where his remains were later opened before being transported to France.
Stockholm was also where the intact alleged skull resurfaced in 1821. The Swedish capital therefore stands at both the beginning and the nineteenth-century revival of the mystery.
Lund became important for a different reason. Its university museum preserved an object that several generations of scholars had dismissed. By retaining the fragment, its container and the associated collection records—even while treating the object as a forgery—the museum made it possible for later researchers to reconsider the case.
The story consequently connects three cities:
Stockholm, where Descartes died and was first buried; Paris, where most of his alleged remains and the intact skull were taken; and Lund, where the disputed fragment has been preserved since 1780.
What the Skull Mystery Teaches Us About Historical Knowledge
The controversy is not only about determining where part of a famous philosopher’s body ended up. It also demonstrates how historical knowledge is created.
For almost two centuries, the writing on the Paris skull was treated as evidence of authenticity. The names seemed impressive, the story was plausible and the object had been delivered by a respected scientist.
Once that conclusion became established, the Lund fragment was interpreted in relation to it. Because the Paris object was considered genuine, the Lund object had to be false.
The new research reversed the direction of the question. Instead of using the Paris skull to judge the Lund fragment, the researchers independently examined the records connected with both objects.
That revealed something easily overlooked: an inscription is not automatically proof simply because it is old. Names written on an object may document ownership, but they may also have been copied, misunderstood or deliberately added to create a convincing story.
Museum labels can also influence how objects are perceived. A fragment labelled “forgery” and placed in an unattractive curiosity case may receive little serious attention. The same fragment, placed within a research exhibition and supported by archival evidence, can become an internationally discussed historical object.
A Perfectly Cartesian Mystery
There is a fitting irony in the fact that the remains of René Descartes have produced such uncertainty.
Descartes taught that inherited assumptions should be questioned. Knowledge should not rest only on authority, tradition or appearances. Claims should be examined carefully, and apparent certainty should be tested.
That is precisely what happened in Lund.
Researchers doubted the accepted account, returned to original records and discovered contradictions. Their work may eventually lead to a new historical consensus—or further research may reveal weaknesses in the Swedish interpretation.
Either outcome would be consistent with the method associated with Descartes. The purpose of doubt is not to reject all knowledge. It is to build stronger knowledge by identifying what has not yet been adequately demonstrated.
Conclusion
René Descartes’ journey to Sweden lasted only a few months, but it created a historical connection that has survived for almost four centuries.
He came to Stockholm at the invitation of Queen Christina. He exchanged his preferred late mornings for philosophical discussions in the cold Swedish capital. He became ill and died on 11 February 1650. He was buried at Klara churchyard, removed from his tomb sixteen years later and transported to France.
His body continued travelling after death, while parts of it may have been removed, collected, divided and sold.
The skull in Paris may be genuine. The fragment in Lund may be genuine. It is also possible that future evidence will require the history of both objects to be revised again.
For now, the most responsible conclusion is that the Lund fragment has moved from the category of obvious forgery to that of a credible but unconfirmed historical relic. Its provenance raises serious questions about the intact Paris skull, while the absence of decisive DNA evidence keeps the case open.
René Descartes once made doubt the beginning of philosophical inquiry. Centuries after his death in Stockholm, his own skull continues to demand exactly that.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did René Descartes live in Sweden?
Yes. René Descartes moved to Stockholm in late 1649 after receiving an invitation from Queen Christina of Sweden. He spent the final months of his life there and died in the city on 11 February 1650.
Why did René Descartes go to Stockholm?
Queen Christina invited Descartes to Sweden for intellectual and philosophical discussions. She wanted leading European thinkers to contribute to the scholarly life of her court in Stockholm.
How did René Descartes die?
The conventional account is that René Descartes died from pneumonia in Stockholm. The cold Swedish winter and his early-morning journeys to the royal palace are often included in the story of his final illness, although they do not by themselves establish the medical cause.
Where was René Descartes buried in Sweden?
He was first buried at Klara churchyard in Stockholm. His metal coffin was placed inside an above-ground wooden structure, partly because his remains were expected to be returned to France later.
When was Descartes’ body returned to France?
His coffin was opened in Stockholm in 1666, and the remains were transported to France. They were buried in Paris in 1667.
Where is René Descartes’ skull?
The answer is disputed. An intact skull identified as Descartes’ is displayed at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. Lund University Historical Museum displays a separate skull fragment that researchers believe is probably genuine.
Is the skull fragment in Lund authentic?
It has not been conclusively authenticated. Historical documents, an old inscription, its ownership history, its storage container and its physical characteristics support the Lund researchers’ case. However, no decisive DNA comparison has established that it belonged to René Descartes.
What does the inscription on the Lund fragment say?
The inscription reads “Cartesi döskalla 1691 N. 6,” meaning approximately “Descartes’ skull, 1691, No. 6.” Researchers interpret the number as possible evidence that the skull was divided into several pieces.
Can visitors see the Descartes skull fragment in Sweden?
Yes. As of 2026, the fragment is included in the Treasures from Five Continents exhibition at Lund University Historical Museum. Current visiting information should be checked directly with the museum before travelling.
Learn Swedish Through Swedish History and Culture
The story of René Descartes in Stockholm is one example of how learning about Sweden’s history can provide a deeper understanding of the country, its culture and its place in European history.
At Online Swedish, our B2 Swedish Course is also known as the Sverigekurs, or “Sweden Course.” In addition to developing upper-intermediate Swedish language skills, the course introduces learners to factual texts about Swedish history, language, culture and traditions.
Students work on reading, listening, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar while gaining a broader understanding of Swedish society and cultural life. This combination can be especially useful for people who plan to live in Sweden permanently and want to prepare for the Swedish citizenship knowledge requirements.
The course can also provide valuable supplementary preparation for the society component of the Swedish citizenship examination, officially known as the medborgarskapsprov and often informally referred to as the medborgarskapstest.
Please note: The Sverigekurs is a Swedish language, history and culture course. It is not the official citizenship examination and does not guarantee a passing result. Applicants should always check the latest requirements and official preparation information published by the Swedish Migration Agency .
