Part 11

The whole number of incidents taken together, however, surprised him, and seemed scarcely explicable as jugglery, for there did not seem to be the necessary time or means for preparing so many tricks, "which often connected themselves surprisingly with desires casually expressed in momentary conversations."

Professor Scheibner said, however, that he did not regard himself as competent to form an opinion which should have scientific weight, because:

(_a_) He knows nothing about jugglery;

(_b_) He was merely a passive spectator, and could not, properly speaking, make observations--could not suggest conditions, "or gain the control which seemed necessary;" and

(_c_) He is short-sighted, "and might easily have left unnoticed something essential."

He says merely, that to him, _subjectively_, jugglery did not seem a good "or sufficient" explanation of the phenomena.

3. Professor Scheibner said that he had never seen anything of the kind before. He had never even, since his childhood, seen any exhibitions of jugglery; he does not go to see such things, because he is so short-sighted that if he went he would see nothing. In this connection he repeated his statement that from this, among other causes, he did not regard himself as competent to give an opinion. He said that many persons in Germany had demanded his opinion, but that he had refused it because he regarded his subjective impression, without objective proofs, as scientifically valueless.

4. Professor Scheibner said that he did not believe in these things before. He came to the séances because Professor Zoellner was a personal friend. He has seen very little of the sort since.

That little has been in the presence of a lady in Leipsic through whom raps occurred, and psychography. This last phenomenon consisted in communication through a little contrivance, furnished with an index or pointer, which answered questions by pointing to letters laid out before it. This it did when the lady placed her hand on the machine. The questions were "usually" not asked mentally, but spoken out. There were no tests applied to these phenomena, no conditions of exact investigation. Professor Scheibner "holds suspicion of conscious deception to be out of the question."

5. Professor Zoellner was, said Professor Scheibner, a man of keen mind, but in his investigations apt to see "by preference" what lay in the path of his theory. He could "less easily" see what was against his theory. He was childlike and trustful in character, and might easily have been deceived by an impostor. He expected everyone to be honest and frank as he was. He started with the assumption that Slade meant to be honest with him. He would have thought it wrong to doubt Slade's honesty. Professor Zoellner, said Professor Scheibner, set out to find proof for four-dimentional space, in which he was already inclined to believe. His whole thought was directed to that point.

6. Professor Scheibner thinks that the mental disturbance under which Zoellner suffered later, might be regarded as, at this time, incipient. He became more and more given to fixing his attention on a few ideas, and incapable of seeing what was against them. Towards the last he was passionate when criticized. Professor Scheibner would not say that Professor Zoellner's mental disturbance was pronounced and full-formed, so to speak, but that it was incipient, and, if Zoellner had lived longer, would have fully developed. Zoellner himself, "whose brothers and sisters frequently[A] suffered from mental disease, often feared lest a similar fate should come upon him."

[Footnote A: "Dessen Geschwister mehrfach" etc.--the words may be taken in two senses.]

7. Professor Scheibner gives no opinion on Spiritism. He can only say that he cannot explain the phenomena that he saw.

8. Professor Weber, said Professor Scheibner, "attended the Zoellner-Slade experiments under the same circumstances as he (Scheibner) himself."

9. Professor Zoellner's book, said Professor Scheibner, would create the impression that Weber and Fechner and he agreed with Zoellner throughout in his opinion of the phenomena "and their interpretation;" but this, he said, is not the case.

HALLE a.S., _July 5th_, 1886.

So much for the information given by Professor Scheibner. It now remained to see Professor Wilhelm Weber, and on the evening of July 12th I called upon him at his house in Goettingen. Of his statements I took notes during my conversation with him, as in the former instances, and copied and arranged them the same evening at my hotel. Professor Weber is now eighty-three years old, and does not lecture. He is extremely excitable and somewhat incoherent when excited. I found it difficult to induce him to talk slowly enough, and systematically enough, for me to make my notes. Professor Weber said:

1. That he thought the things he saw in the séances with Slade were different from jugglery.

2. That he did not think there was time or opportunity for Slade to prepare deceptions.

3. That he himself knew nothing of jugglery, nor did Professor Zoellner.

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.

SUMMARY.

Thus it would appear that of the four eminent men whose names have made famous the investigation, there is reason to believe one, _Zoellner_, was of unsound mind at the time, and anxious for experimental verification of an already accepted hypothesis; another, _Fechner_, was partly blind, and believed because of Zoellner's observations; a third, _Scheibner_, was also afflicted with defective vision, and not entirely satisfied in his own mind as to the phenomena; and a fourth, _Weber_, was advanced in age, and did not even recognize the disabilities of his associates. No one of these men had ever had experiences of this sort before, nor was any one of them acquainted with the ordinary possibilities of deception. The experience of our Commission with Dr. Slade would suggest, that the lack of such knowledge on their part was unfortunate.

A consideration of all these circumstances places, it seems to me, this famous investigation in a somewhat new light, and any estimate of Zoellner's testimony, based merely upon the eminence in science of his name and those of his collaborateurs, neglecting to give attention to their disqualifications for this kind of work, cannot be a fair or a true estimate.

In concluding this Report, I give sincere thanks to all of these gentlemen for their courtesy and frankness--a frankness which has alone made it possible for me to collect this evidence; and which, considering the nature of the evidence, must be regarded as most generous. To Professor Scheibner, especially, my thanks are due for the trouble he has taken in helping me to make my notes exact and truthful.

GEO. S. FULLERTON.

* * * * *

DR. KNERR.

In 1884 rumors reached me of remarkable Spiritual communications from a revered friend and relative, Dr. Hering. These communications had come through a slate-writing Medium by the name of Patterson, and were received by two gentlemen whose names I am not at liberty to mention, but whom I will call A. and B. Both were prominent men, and both had become thorough believers in Spiritualism after several sittings with Mrs. Patterson. A. claimed to have received personal benefit from medicines thus prescribed, and learned the circumstances of his son's death which had occurred in some mysterious manner far away from home. B. has since died, and communications under his signature have come through this same Medium.

The manifestations in this province of Spiritualism, Independent Slate-Writing, would seem to be of a nature more tangible and direct than those of so-called Materializing or Trance Mediums, and, therefore, in this instance I determined to test to the utmost what had been reported to me concerning communications from one who stood so near in life.

Although I received a number of messages at my first visit, written in pencil, in many different handwritings, which the Medium alleged were written by Spirit-control of her hand, I received but one or two in the slate. The slate was a small double slate, joined together with hinges, about 10 inches by 12 inches in dimension. Inside of the slates, written on a slip of paper, carefully folded, I placed the question "Can I obtain a communication from Dr. Hering which will be characteristic of himself?" A small piece of slate pencil chipped from an ordinary pencil, perhaps an eighth of an inch long, was placed within the slates, together with the written question. The slates were then tightly screwed together at the open end, by myself, with the blade of an old knife which was at hand to serve the purpose of a screwdriver. It was then placed by the Medium in her lap, under the table, one hand, the left, resting upon the slate, the other hand remaining on top of the table, writing, with a lead pencil, messages in different handwritings, on paper.

These messages came in characters bold as John Hancock's, and in chirography as small and neat as the writing of Charlotte Bronté, whose manuscript the compositor is said to have deciphered with the aid of a magnifying glass; and between these extremes were a dozen or more styles as varied and marked as one could wish. The purport of these messages, which were written rather quickly, and without perceptible thought or hesitation, changing from one handwriting to another without the least apparent difficulty, was in some instances the veriest twaddle, while others contained tolerably good sense, even in language rather above the Medium, unless appearances were misleading, for she looked the embodiment of ignorant simplicity, and spoke far from grammatically.

The table at which we sat was a very ordinary little sewing-table, without any drawer or compartment, and before sitting down I examined it top and bottom, a privilege freely accorded. We had sat about ten minutes when the Medium brought up the slate with the little piece of pencil, which I had scratched with a knife for identification, lying on top of the slate. The screw was in its place, seemingly as I had put it. I was requested to remove the screw, which I did, and found written across the inside surface of one of the slates the words "I will try to accede to your wish," signed with the initials of my departed friend, to whose handwriting it was not dissimilar. I was much puzzled by this answer, I confess, and immediately placed within the slates another question, this time addressed to the name of another deceased friend. Again I screwed up the slates with my own hand, and kept my eyes riveted on the hands of the Medium as well as my position would permit, without getting up and bending over the table. I did not have long to wait before an answer came as before, again signed with the initials of the person addressed. How the writing came in the slate I could not surmise.

The following are specimens of the communications which were written by the Medium's controlled, possibly self-controlled, free, right hand, at my first visit:--

(In a fine, light, legible hand.)

Cannot say wether we can control the slate or no. will do our utmost to do so there are times when we cannot get the proper influences nor find the right conditions. C HERING

(In a close, heavy hand.)

we have quite as much power over you as over any other medium, mediumistic forces are not confined to a few, but exist to some extent in all. be patient we will do what we can. H

(In a sprawling back hand, the same as a subsequent one, signed Thomas Lister.)

The friend you have asked for is here and will do what he can to comply with your wish it is not necessary that you should sit with any medium to convince yourself of this truth you have enough of this power to get almost any sort of manifestations you should ask for they will develope without any effort on your part but you can materially assist them

TL

(In a neat and precise feminine hand.)

There stands by thy chair a venerable man who had passed through many years of work in his profession on the earth plane he is one that doth influence and impress thee to do many things when in the body was a phisician of the homeopathic school he sayeth that he doth feel the same interest in the progruss of the medical fraternity as when in the body. appeareth to be one of strict integrity and ranked high as a thinker thou hast many years to stay in the form and through thee a work will be completed that none other can do

L MOTT

(In a small, rather indistinct feminine hand.)

I dont think the doctors knew what my trouble was. I know if doctor Hering or Raue had treated my case I would still be in my body but its no difference as far as I am concerned I have found this life far the best leaving my mother was hard, but now I know how to get back to her I am content

CS

Clara Swencke

(In a plain masculine hand.)

if you prepare a slate the doctor will give you a message on it in his own handwrite and one characteristic of him

ESW

(In a small, rather illegible hand.)

My friend Tiedemann made a mistake in the medicine he prepared for me he never for a moment thought it would prove anything but a help but it had the effect of sending me to the higher life

W MORWITZER

(In a large, generous, open hand.)

Yea if thee dost fix a slate so as to satisfy thyself thy friend will write on it and give thee a description of his birth into everlasting life

ELIAS HICKS