4. That he can testify to the _facts_ as described by Zoellner, and that
he could not himself have described the occurrences better than they are
described in Zoellner's book:--to the _facts_ he is willing to testify,
the _means_ he declares unknown to him, but does not regard jugglery as
a sufficient explanation. If another can understand, he said, how
jugglery can explain the facts, well and good--he can not.
5. That he had never seen anything of the kind before, and has not
since; it being his only experience of Spiritualism.
6. That he had the greatest freedom to experiment and set conditions,
and that the conditions were favorable to observation.
7. That he regarded Professor Fechner as one of the best observers in
the world, and Professor Scheibner as an excellent observer.
8. That Professor Zoellner _was not_ at that time, in any sense, in an
abnormal mental condition.
Professor Weber seemed unwilling to speak decidedly on the subject, but
showed that he leaned to the Spiritistic interpretation of the facts. He
said that the things done indicated intelligence on the part of the
doer.
Having now before us the testimony given by these survivors of the
famous investigation, I will collect briefly the facts relating to each
of those concerned--adding in one or two cases from other sources--and
point out the nature and value of their testimony to the occurrences
recorded by Professor Zoellner.
1. As to Professor Wundt, who is by profession an experimental
psychologist, and an observer. Professor Wundt did not regard the
investigation, so far as he participated, as in any respect thorough or
satisfactory. The conditions of observation were not present. When
called upon by Professor Ulrici to describe the occurrences as he saw
them, he said he would not willingly describe what he had not had
opportunity to observe.
2. As to Professor Zoellner, the chief witness and author of the book
published, a number of points are worthy of note.
(1.) The question of his mental condition at the time of the
investigation. It is asserted by Baron Hellenbach (see _Geburt und Tod_
etc., Wien, 1885, S. 96) that Zoellner was of sound mind up to his
death. The statement should have due weight, but the author's general
attitude towards Spiritism should not be overlooked. I do not consider
his testimony for Zoellner's sanity as good as that of Fechner or
Scheibner against. Of the four men mentioned as connected with him,
Wundt, Weber, Fechner and Scheibner, three (all except Weber) are
decidedly of the opinion that his mental condition was not normal. The
opinion of Wundt, as of a man whose profession would not permit him to
speak hastily upon this topic, I would regard as of special value; but
if we rule that out upon the ground that Wundt was not impressed by the
investigation, and might naturally be inclined to underrate Zoellner,
who was, we have left the opinions of Fechner and Scheibner, both
Zoellner's colleagues at Leipsic, both particular friends of Zoellner,
and both inclined to agree with him as to the reality of the facts he
describes. Both of them regarded Zoellner at the time as of more or less
unsound mind. His disease, as described by them, seems to have been
chiefly emotional, showing itself in a passionate dislike of
contradiction, and a tendency to overlook any evidence contrary to a
cherished theory.
To the general change in his nature due to his disease Professor
Scheibner testifies; and Professor Fechner's belief as to his mental
condition is specially worthy of note from the fact that, although
recognizing it to be abnormal, he still holds his powers of observation
to be sound, and upon this ground is inclined to assent to the facts
described. If anyone could be tempted to make Zoellner as sane as
possible, it would be one in the position of Professor Fechner.
Professor Weber's testimony I will examine later. Upon the question
whether the peculiar form of Zoellner's disease would be likely to
affect his powers of observation, the following points may throw some
light.
(2.) It is evident, both from what Zoellner has himself printed and from
what Professor Scheibner has said, that Zoellner's interest in the
investigation centered in his attempt to prove experimentally what he
already held to be speculatively true as to a fourth dimension of space.
In a paper published in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_, for April,
1878, he says:
"At the end of my first treatise, already finished in manuscript in the
course of August, 1877, I called attention to the circumstance that a
certain number of physical phenomena, which, by 'synthetical conclusions
_à priori_' might be explained through the generalized conception of
space and the platonic hypothesis of projection, coincided with
so-called Spiritualistic phenomena. Cautiously, however, I said:--'To
those of my readers who are inclined to see in Spiritualistic phenomena
an _empirical_ confirmation of those phenomena above deduced in regard
to their _theoretical_ possibility, I beg to observe that from the point
of view of idealism there must first be given a precise definition and
criticism of _objective reality_'" etc. Now this reference to
Spiritualistic phenomena was made before Zoellner had seen anything of
the kind, and his attitude was evidently a receptive one. Moreover, we
have Professor Scheibner's testimony to the fact that during the whole
investigation his attention was entirely directed towards the subject of
the fourth dimension, and an experimental demonstration 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 séances 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.
4. As to Professor Scheibner. His position is simply that he cannot see
how the whole series of phenomena can reasonably be attributed to
jugglery, though he admits that each single thing he saw, alone
considered, might possibly be. He does not regard himself, however, as
able to give an opinion which should have objective value; because he
was merely a passive spectator, and could not, properly speaking, make
observations--could not suggest conditions,--because he knows absolutely
nothing about jugglery, and the possibilities of deception, and because
he is so short-sighted that he may easily have overlooked something of
importance--so short-sighted that he never goes to see a juggler,
because he sees nothing.
5. As to the last witness, Professor Weber, his testimony agrees more
decidedly with that of Professor Zoellner. He was present at eight
séances, declares the occurrences to have been as represented by
Professor Zoellner, and denies that Zoellner was in any sense insane.
But Professor Weber is from Goettingen, and was at the time of the
investigation in Leipsic on a visit; it is not improbable that those of
Professor Zoellner's colleagues, who lived and worked at the same
University with him, may have had better opportunities for judging as to
his mental condition than one who only saw him occasionally. Moreover,
Professor Weber's opinion as to the qualifications of the men with whom
he was associated does not seem to have been always sound. One who could
look upon Professor Fechner as one of the best observers in the world,
and Professor Scheibner, as for the purpose in hand, an excellent
observer, neglecting entirely to note that one was partly blind and that
the other could not see well, might readily overlook the fact of a not
very pronounced mental aberration on the part of a third person. And as
to Professor Weber's opinion of the phenomena, it is well to note that
Professor Weber was seventy-four years old at the time, had had no
previous experience in investigations of this kind and was quite
ignorant of the arts of the juggler. Whatever may be a man's powers of
reflection at seventy-four, it is natural to suppose that his powers of
perception, especially when exercised in a quite new field, are not at
that age what they were some years previously.