of its existence.  Bearing in mind, therefore, the mental attitude in which, and the object with which, Zoellner approached this investigation, we cannot look upon any subjective, or emotional, mental disturbance, which results, as described, in making him narrow his attention more and more upon a few ideas, and disregard or find it difficult to observe what seems contrary to them, as without objective significance, particularly where we know the man to be a total stranger to investigations of such a nature as this one, and not only quite ignorant as to possible methods of deception, but unwilling to doubt the integrity of the Medium.

(3.) There are things in Zoellner’s own accounts which indicate a certain lack of caution and accuracy on his part, and tend to lessen one’s confidence in his statements.  As an instance of inaccuracy, I may mention the statement he makes in his article in the Quarterly Journal of Science as to the opinions of his colleagues.  Professor Zoellner says: 

“I reserve to later publication, in my own treatises, the description of further experiments obtained by me in twelve seances with Mr. Slade, and, as I am expressly authorized to mention, in the presence of my friends and colleagues, Professor Fechner, Professor Wilhelm Weber, the celebrated electrician from Goettingen, and Herr Scheibner, Professor of Mathematics in the University of Leipsic, who are perfectly convinced of the reality of the observed facts, altogether excluding imposture or prestidigitation.”

Here the attitude of the four men is not correctly described, and Professor Zoellner’s statement does them injustice, as Professor Scheibner remarked.  At least two of the men were merely inclined to accept the facts, and to these two the words “perfectly convinced” will not apply.

As one out of numerous instances of lack of caution, I may refer to Zoellner’s statements, that at certain times writing was heard upon the slates, giving no proof whatever to show that the writing was really done at the time of hearing the sounds, and apparently quite ignorant of the fact that deception may readily be practiced on this point.

3.  As to Professor Fechner.  The fact is admitted that he was, at the time of the investigation, suffering from cataract, which made all observation extremely defective.  Moreover, he was present at but two of the sittings, and has stated that he did not regard these as very decisive.  His attitude towards the phenomena described is based on his faith in Professor Zoellner’s powers of observation, and not on what he saw himself.  He does not, therefore, as an independent witness would, add anything to the force of Professor Zoellner’s testimony.