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 like