The mere fact of overlooking so important a point as the horse's complete knowledge of the German language is a characteristic example of the ease with which scientists may be deceived, directly they enter a field in which the method of inquiry is quite new to them.

That which happened here to Stumpf took place also in the case of those investigators who entered on observations with the spiritistic medium Slade, concerning, for example, the deflection of the magnetic needle. I shall have to return to this, and will merely remark here that these men were also obliged, even though they may themselves not have been aware of it, to deal with this matter according to methods of inquiry which were perfectly new to them. These investigators were most assuredly most admirable workers both in the study and the laboratory, but there they had merely to contend with error, never with fraud. And now, where it was at all events within the bounds of possibility that they were about to witness a sort of conjuring trick, their science was utterly at fault; they formed a circle, holding one another's hands, doing everything, in fact, that the trickery of the medium demanded of them. The observer, far from making his own conditions, allowed them to be imposed on him, and did not even perceive that he was doing nothing but just what seemed good to the medium.

The same thing occurred with Crookes, whose belief it was that spiritistic mediums, and Home in particular, were able by means of a psychic force at their command to make material objects lighter or heavier, and consequently to set them in motion. Never once did Crookes remark that he had entered a sphere of observation in which he was not at least at home. It is Lehmann's greatest merit to have pointed out that those experiments of Crookes, so often brought forward in support of spiritism, really prove nothing at all. From the accounts of the proceedings published by Crookes himself, it is perfectly evident that not only did he insist on no objective conditions at all, but that he simply allowed himself to be completely directed by Home. And there are such fundamental differences between the two accounts, that Lehmann was able from the second publication to furnish proofs of the impossibility that the siance should really have taken its course in the manner depicted in the first. He shows that Crookes had not the vaguest conception of the extreme importance of those particulars which he passed over in his first report.

The two descriptions, according to Lehmann, differ so entirely, that had Crookes himself realized those discrepancies he could not have given the one "without laying himself open to a charge of conscious fraud."

It has already been hinted in the above that it is not from men of science, who believe themselves- a final court of appeal in these investigations, that a decision is as a rule to be sought, but rather, in very many cases, from the conjurer. I am, however, perfectly well aware that conjurers have been found to maintain the genuine character of the phenomena. Zollner, for instance, invoked the testimony of Bellachini. But in according this unquestioning recognition to Bellachini's evidence, Zollner himself entered a territory with which he was totally unacquainted. In the first place, not every conjurer is necessarily a competent judge of his own art. And just with regard to Bellachini, it is well known that he was often quite taken aback by the performance of some new trick. In the profession he was never looked upon as a really quick-witted conjurer. We must, therefore, not consider all conjurers properly qualified to examine occultistic phenomena. The question further depends not merely on the professional competency of the conjurer, but also on his personal character, and more particularly on his regard for the interests of science.

Let it not be forgotten that the conjurer regards as a colleague the medium engaged in the service of occultism, and, as we know, clericus clericum non decimat As an instance of the lengths to which esprit de corps may be carried in these matters, let me cite the following: - About fifteen years ago a so-called magnetic lady, Mrs. Abbott, made her appearance in Berlin. The strongest men tried in vain to lift her from the ground; their united efforts were equally unavailing to lift the chair on which she was sitting. In one special attitude it was found impossible to make her fall back an inch; together with more to the same effect. I pointed out at the time that the whole thing turned on a very clever application of the laws of mechanics relating to the lever. To remove all remaining doubt the famous wrestler Abs was called to Berlin, and he declared in public that he found it impossible to raise the woman from the ground. I do not think I am guilty of the slightest indiscretion if I now state that the chief actor in the scene has long since acknowledged the accuracy of my explanation, and admitted the imposture. And just the same motives which prevented him from exposing it would prevail with very many conjurers under similar circumstances.

All this one must remember in judging of the value of evidence from these sources.

I am, of course, not at least opposed to the serious investigation of the phenomena of occultism by real inquirers; I even go so far as to consider this most desirable. .Only let one beware of believing oneself an expert, unless one is really so. I hold the impartial examination of these matters perfectly legitimate, and think that all those who, like Wundt, would forbid it, utterly in the wrong. It is customary with a priori reasoners to perceive in the mere fact that any one is making a study of either occultism or spiritism a . sufficient proof that he is himself a spiritist or occultist. With just as good logic, retorts Dessoir, might we argue that all criminologists must of necessity be criminals. It, unfortunately, happens that in point of fact a really unprejudiced inquiry into occultistic phenomena hardly ever takes place. On the one hand, we have investigators who either overlook or underrate the most important sources of error, and therefore themselves become duped; whilst, on the other, are those who, like Wundt, simply disdain to apply any test at all. Neither course is justifiable.