History of Psychology 2010 American Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 13, No. 4, 411 423 1093-4510/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021587

GUSTAV THEODOR FECHNER:

Life and Work in the Mirror of His Diary
Anneros Meischner-Metge1
University of Leipzig

The diaries of Gustav Fechner reveal much about his motivations to develop the
field of psychophysics, as well as some of the steps toward its formulation. Together
with his publications on various subjects, the diaries show how psychophysics fits
into Fechners broader scientific program, illuminate his worldview, and reveal his
hopes for acceptance of his work by his colleagues.

Keywords: Gustav Fechner, diary, biography, psychophysics, Leipzig University

Today I finished proofing my Psychophysics and also an article . . . after earlier

doing a few experiments with Hankel.
This diary entry from July 22, 18602 shows that Fechner was intensively working
on Elements of Psychophysics until shortly before it appeared; he also refers to one of
his experimenters, Wilhelm Hankel, his successor in the chair of physics at Leipzig.
Tense, almost excited, would describe the diary entries 10 years earlier, in 1850. The
retrospective section included in Volume 2 of Elements, entitled Historical, tells us
that he came up with his world-famous idea of the psychophysical measurement
formula on October 22, 1850. However, it remains for historical research to discover
his original plans from that time, to see how excited he must have been when he first
put down these thoughts. The diaries give us a few indications.
In January 1850 Fechner noted,
In the previous year I worked up a seminar on anthropology and wrote on the body
and soul (psychomathesa). The second half of the year was almost entirely devoted
to writing a work on matters concerning the heavens and the realm beyond, though
I was not able to complete it. And so I had to neglect the work on mathematics,
which I had worked on intensively since the first of the year. I published the little
book on mystery. During the autumn vacation I was with Webers in the Harz
Mountains and traveled with Weisse to Colditz and into the Zschopau Valley. I
gave a seminar (collegium) during the summer semester on the mind-body prob-
lem, in the winter semester one on general anthropology.

Apparently, psychomathesa refers to his mathematical psychology related

to the mind-body problem. After a few entries for February, the next entries are
for SeptemberOctober 1850.
In these days I was very busy with a mathematical principle of psychology and the
interrelation of body and soul . . . For a long time now I have been thinkingalong
the lines of my views on a connection between body and soulthat mental

Anneros Meischner-Metge, Institute of Psychology, University of Leipzig.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anneros Meischner-Metge,
Kolonnadenstr. 25, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: ameisch@rz.uni-leipzig.de

411
412 MEISCHNER-METGE

intensity could be demonstrated as a function of the corporal, that is, the kinetic
energy [lebendige Kraft] of the body. I tried to understand it as a differential with
respect to the whole bodily force. But nothing came out of it at first, because I did
not take into consideration the relative, but only the absolute increase. Second, I
considered only the momentary increase, not the sum or the integral of the
increases. That is why the work remained unfinished. I wrote large volumes on the
connection between body and soul. I tried to explain it from various points of view,
as far as that was possible without making use of mathematics. But I wanted to
publish those books anyway.
Now, as I am working on a treatise about matters concerning the heavens and
the realm beyond, which I intend to publish in a book,3 I have thought about a
schema using numbers, something that I put together some time ago. In this
schema I want to present certain basic relationships between body and soul and
between lower and higher intellect (using rows of numbers); now I want to make
use of this idea in my new book. The problem of a real and not merely a schematic
or symbolic representation has occurred to me again.
In playing out that schema further, I had the idea of using geometric progressions
instead of arithmetic ones. Some relations could be represented better in this way. I
combined that idea with my former idea of making the differential of the kinetic
energy into the measure of the mental intensity; I took not the absolute, but the relative
increase into consideration. Fortunately, I also remembered that the kinetic energy
increases by summation of its absolute increases from a definite beginning point. In the
same way, the mind would sum the respective relative increases.
That is the way I found the principle with which I am now occupied. It was
October 22, while lying in bed, when I had these ideas.4 . . . If this principle could be
establishedwhich remains to be seenit would be an enormous discovery, worthy
of noting the date. The consequences as I see them are astonishing. Philosophy as a
whole will not so much be shattered by it, as be given an anchor and a grounding.
Above all, however, it is important to me that this mathematical theory not stand in
conflict with the ideas that I developed in my book on matters concerning the heavens
and the realm beyond, and vice versa . . . And though the writing of this book is nearly
finished, I dare not complete it until I see where my mathematical theory is headed in
this respect. These matters must be understood from a certain point of view.
October 22, 1850, First Draft
Kinetic energy, and thus the energy that is just effective in a system at a given
moment, can be conceived of as the sum of all the increments that have occurred
starting from its zero value.
Every increase occurring is in proportion to the kinetic energy just available,
and we presuppose that the soul senses this relative increment (for every particle,
summing up all increments and, in turn, summing up the increments to this sum
over time) in such a way that, at any given moment, the state of the soul also takes
into account the sum of all increments that have accrued to the zero value, rather
than just the one single increment effective at the moment. This is, first, because
the single increment would be an infinitely small value and, second, because we
know that the earlier state of the soul feeds into the later state in only a slightly
modified form . . . Now we can consider, first, the relationship by which the kinetic
energy of the whole system changes, and second, by what relationship the kinetic
energy of each individual particle changes compared to the whole kinetic energy,
and third, how much the kinetic energy of each particle has itself changed.

By November 22, 1850 Fechner was sharing a draft of these ideas. I sent my
work on mathematical psychology to Wilhelm Weber for him to review, though
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 413

I still have many doubts about the matter. This diary entry also shows that he sent
the same draft to the philosopher-mathematician Moritz Wilhelm Drobisch, to
hear what he says about it. Wilhelm Weber responded and addressed a problem
that still raises some heated discussion today: whether and where Fechners
formula refers to the measurement or merely to some kind of gradation of
sensation. In principle, Weber thought that real measurement of sensation was
possible, unlike his Gottingen colleague Friedrich Gauss,5 and he recommended
empirical work to secure the idea.6
Through the next years there are no diary entries; Fechner was busy with
empirical proof of his principle and the elaboration of his exact doctrine of the
functional or dependency relationship between body and soul, in general between
the corporal and the spiritual, the physical and the psychic worlds.7 Looking for
empirical proof, he discovered the observation of Ernst Heinrich Weber (Wil-
helms brother), that the threshold of the just-noticeable difference was a constant
ratio,8 and he elevated that observation to become Webers Law.9 Fechner also
enjoyed valuable support from the extensive experiments carried out by his
brother-in-law, the physiologist Alfred Wilhelm Volkmann.10
In Zend-Avesta, Fechner had introduced his basic idea as a new principle of
mathematical psychology, but he later decided, presumably in connection with
his experimental work, in favor of the name psychophysics. He first used this
name in the lecture schedule for summer semester 1857, for his course Elements
of psychophysics: Study of the measurement of sensation. It was surely not
without influence that by 1840 someone else had already coined the term,
physical psychology, as Wilhelm Wirth noticed much later in a list of terms that
he found in Fechners notes.11
Fechners reaction to the reception of his Elements of Psychophysics was of
two kinds: pleased but also disappointed. He had organized it in terms of outer and
inner psychophysics. Outer psychophysics, using the carefully designed methods
of the physiologists, particularly E. H. Weber, Karl Vierordt, and A.W. Volk-
mann, would pave the way to inner psychophysics, where he would apply the
threshold principle to conscious processes and thus achieve the psychophysical
construction of his general world-view. It pleased Fechner that this publication
had better resonance with the readers than Zend-Avesta had had, but limitation of
the discussion to outer psychophysics still disappointed him. Two years after the
appearance of the work, he learned from his friend and publisher, Hermann
Hartel, that the cost of the first volume had nearly been covered, but not that of
the second volume (only in 1866 did the two-volume work finally bring a small
profit). Fechner wrote in his diary: Habent sua fata libelli.12 All things run along
their various ways helter-skelter, but who can help a new path establish itself? It
seems that precisely those books have the hardest time making it if they try to do
something new. If it is a good path, then it will eventually break through, even if
the way is decaying and overgrown [1862 (128)].

The Broad Sweep of Fechners Diaries

Along with reflections about the project for psychophysics, Fechners diaries
contain informative self-observations as well as interesting descriptions of the
times, scientific discussions, and references to the developmental history of his
414 MEISCHNER-METGE

own writings. In the last regard, it seems that the chronology of his publications
does not correspond very well to the appearance of the themes. For example, we
find on July 25, 1842: I am writing my aesthetics, though the book did not
appear until 1876. So it was with Theory of Measuring Collectives [Kollektiv-
masslehre]: this work kept him busy for the rest of his life and remained
unfinished. If someone were to inquire into the most general purpose of Fechners
life, then the following revelation might help:

In February 1820 Okens Naturphilosophie fell into my hands, and I became so

enthusiastic with the first chapter, without really understanding it and certainly
without clarity about what to do with it, that it determined the direction of my spirit
for years. Gradually I was directed into a more exact course, particularly during the
translation of Biots textbook (1824), and it became clear to me that more secure
and fruitful results in natural science could only be obtained by such a path. Still
the influence of that earlier period remains a singular peak in my point of view, as
the time when the spirit of nature broke through to me . . .
Fechners biography is interesting because of his particular achievements, but
also because of his general character. In a longhand autobiography (Lebenslauf)
he wrote that his life and work led to absolutely no memorable achievements,
especially at the writing table.13 This assertion, however, contradicts what we
find in the diaries. There we have the picture of a scholar who lived and worked
over the course of seven decades in a circle of interesting and gifted people in a
prosperous university town. His openness to beauty and nobility in nature and art
was the hallmark of his personality. This elevated sphere, however, was seldom
in a favorable relationship with his actual experience of reality. Our understanding
of the whole Fechner will probably always be complicated by the persistent
division between Fechner the natural scientist, during the early period, and the
philosopher, after his illness forced him to give up his professorship of physics.
In short, we can consider Fechners biography as the key to his lifes work.
Besides the diaries, letters, and the Report on the Fechner Archive,14 three
substantial biographies serve as good sources. His nephew, the Leipzig jurist
Johannes Emil Kuntze, wrote the first one15 at the request of his widow Clara
Fechner. He had been the foster son of the Fechners since the age of 10, and had
thus shared their lives and taken part in many of their discussions, so Kuntze
rendered an intimate picture of the life of the German scholar, as the subtitle of
the biography puts it. The second biography was by Kurd Lasswitz, a famous
German author of science fiction.16 The historian Hans-Jurgen Arendt has re-
cently published a richly detailed and well-researched biography of Fechner; it not
only depicts him as an important thinker but also explores Fechners personal life,
his origins and world-view, his political positions and social connections.17
Though not exactly a biography, Michael Heidelbergers thorough study of
Fechners writings also deserve mention, and it has been translated into English.18
Gustav Theodor Fechner was born April 19, 1801, the son of a Lutheran
pastor in Grosarchen bei Muskau (today, it is Zarkie Wilkie, in Poland). In 1817
he began to study medicine in Leipzig and heard (among others) the lectures of
the anatomist-physiologist E. H. Weber and the mathematician Karl Brandan
Mollweide. Although he passed the medical examinations he did not have the
confidence and lacked the practical talent to follow the medical profession.19
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 415

After habilitation on the Philosophical Faculty (i.e., attaining the privilege to

lecture), he occasionally filled in giving lectures in physics at Leipzig University,
and he managed to eke out a living by doing literary piece-work: the publisher
Leopold Vo engaged him to translate and edit the multivolume textbooks of
physics by Biot20 and of chemistry by Thenard.21 This work, which he accepted
at first merely to support himself, had some extensive consequences. As the
quotation above shows, his excitement for the Schelling-Oken Naturphilosophie
became fused with the sure knowledge of the natural sciences.
In 1827, the Saxon government financed a study-trip to Paris, and the young
Fechner was able to visit the famous institutions, College de France and Ecole
Politechnique, and become personally acquainted with the physicists Ampere,
Biot, and Savart, as well as the chemist Thenard. His work in subsequent years
shows how intensively he used this time to ground and to extend his autodidactic
program in the natural sciences.22 In contact with the leading physicists of his day,
he developed into a respected contributor to the developing fields of electro-
physics and electro-chemistry. In 1834 he was called to the professorship of
physics at the University of Leipzig. Shortly before this, to secure his living upon
his marriage to Clara Volkmann in 1833, he had assumed various editorships,
among others, of an eight-volume edition of a house-lexicon.23 The physics
professorship now constituted an unexpected double duty. Compulsive overwork
and intensive experimentation led Fechner into psychic and physical exhaustion
by 1840; in particular, his experiments on subjective color and light phenomena24
damaged his eyesight for life. A 3-year period of convalescence ensued, and
Fechner described this in 1845 in his Story of my illness.25
The diaries show Fechner trying to manage everyday affairs during his illness,
to deal with his situation and overcome feelings of hopelessness, and finally to
give his fate some meaning. After many different medical treatments had failed
and the recommended rest-regime also brought no improvement, he began to do
some special exercises. He describes in detail how he was able to influence
physical healing processes by goal-oriented attention [1842(333 ff.)]. He noticed
that he could disengage from obsessive thoughts if he paid particular attention to
the sounds in his environment [1842(113 ff.)]. He also had some positive results
exposing himself briefly to strong stimuli. One distinguishing feature of Fechner
is that he always recognized the smallest sign of improvement as a good chance.
He experienced his whole situation as a kind of larval stage, out of which I was
made young again with new powers so I could go forth into this life.26 If he
experienced some negative effects in his environment for a time, then he made
sure to seek out some positive ones.
The diary entries indicate the vicissitudes of his condition, and then the illness
came to a dramatic end. His turn for the better was perceived as a miracle, not only
by Fechner but also by those around him.27 On the evening of October 5, 1843 he
entered the garden outside his home, without eye-blinders for the first time since
his illness, and his diary notes such a splendor of the flowers [1843(23)]. This
experience led to his thoughts about the souls of plants.28 If we look for the reason
for the miracle, one diary entry may provide a clue:

Good sleep, excellent coffee, good conversation with my wife, good news from
Alfred and about my pension, excellent lunch with good appetite; the morning was
416 MEISCHNER-METGE

spent tolerably without too much boredom, piano music throughout the whole day;
head and eyes good enough. Since more than half a year, this has been the first day
when pleasure outweighed the displeasure [1843(8)].

With this guarantee of his pension, Fechners livelihood was secure, and a great
burden was surely lifted!
Because he could not expect his sight to return completely, Fechner had to
give up his professorship of physics, but in 1846 he announced lectures on
philosophical themes; for one thing he did not want to accept the retirement funds
without doing something in return. His first lecture began with this explanation
of his world-view and his research program:

My previous subject was natural science, and I have taught and worked in this area
for many years. In the meantime, fate or as I would prefer to think of it, a higher
purpose has with a heavy hand turned me from that path. The eye disease that
kept me constrained to a dark room for years is now somewhat alleviated, though
it left me with some disadvantages that now make it impossible for me to make
good observations. A mental illness connected with this problem for the longest
time prevented me from carrying out the simplest thought processes, and there are
still some remnants of this problem for the time being, at least where mathematical
thinking is concerned. Without keen use of the eyes and of mathematics, one
cannot find any healing in physics. Since I was no longer allowed to observe
external nature in any fruitful way, I was thus disposed to turn inward, to see how
our inner nature is related to outer nature in so many ways; indeed it was always
my inclination to look at the one from the point of view of the other . . .
Fechner thus understood the interruption of his career in physics as a higher
calling. He certainly did not mind giving up the administrative work of institute
director; indeed, in a letter to Bettina von Arnim he confessed that this work had
contradicted his spiritual constitution.
Professionally nothing changed for him after this. He remained a professor in
the Philosophical Faculty of the university; without any direct obligation, he gave
lectures on various themes,29 usually with only five to seven people in the
audience. His main activities were his writing and his active participation in social
life, especially as a member of the Leipzig Art Club, and in scientific life as a
member of the Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig.
Without a doubt, Fechners religious faith was the grounding for his life and
work after he left physics, but he also took limitless joy in his intellectual pursuits.
From the diary entry of November 6, 1862, we know that he considered himself
a follower of Naturphilosophie, perhaps of Lorenz Okens type.

Last winter, with Weies encouragement, a philosophical circle began to meet;

the original members were Weie, Drobisch, Ahrens, Lipsius, Hermann, Seidel,
Ziller, and myself. Later Gtz and Jordan joined in. In this circle are represented
the widest possible philosophical directions, except materialism, which has no
supporter. Weie and Seidel are idealists of the new direction; Drobisch and Ziller
are Herbartians; Ahrens is a follower of Kraus; Hermann is basically a Kantian; I
am a Naturphilosoph of a certain direction.

In 1851 Fechner published a book that was intended to make his general
philosophical view known, Zend-Avesta. He was convinced that his new approach
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 417

and his new methods would find recognition among philosophers,30 but these
expectations were bitterly disappointed. In his 1856 book, Professor Schleiden
and the Moon [Professor Schleiden und der Mond], he addressed his regrets, with
bitterness, to his publisher Vo:
One thousand copies of Zend-Avesta were printed, and less than 200 sold, and
probably those only because people expected a novel like Nanna . . . The natural
scientist looks at the book and blindly notices plant soul, world soul, fools soul!
If he would only pay some attention, he could find a better way, but he must
remain somewhat hindered by his illness.31

Fechners assessment of the reactions of his scientific colleagues is confirmed

in an exchange of letters between the physiologists Carl Ludwig and Emil
DuBois-Reymond, which date to the period when he was writing Zend-Avesta.
Ludwig wrote on April 15, 1849 to his colleague in Berlin:
The two days in Leipzig, where I stayed with Weber, were stimulating. Fechner
was his lovable old self; he seems to be making every effort to forget about
physics, and he is attempting, as Weber believes, to convince himself that the
miraculous is the truth.

DuBois-Reymond answered, with sarcasm, on May 17:

Fechner is definitely very confused. How could someone who has written so well
on measurement succumb to such self-delusion, without having some kind of
organic brain defect? I am grateful for his poetry of physics, the suffering bastard
child of his dimmed powers of mind. Too bad about his divine talent . . .32

Fechner looked for more opportunities to bring his world-view to the attention
of representatives of philosophy and science. He insisted that, in philosophical
thought, he stood on the same foundation of empirical research as the physicists,
and his work on atomic theory (1855) was one of his first attempts to prove this.33
In the controversy between the dynamic and the atomic viewpoints, Fechner
posited the necessity of a shared scientific and philosophical analysis. In many
ways, this book on atomic theory represented Fechners first foray into scientific
discussion after Zend-Avesta. He employed his knowledge of physics, which was
maintained to some degree by his close contact with Wilhelm Weber, in a
high-stakes controversy that was currently raging in philosophy and natural
science. Most of all, he wanted to use his position as an atomist to support his
synechological view (his tendency to see continuity), as opposed to the monado-
logical approach of Leibniz, Herbart, and Lotze.34 The physical meaning of
simple atoms might be understood in an entirely different sense, in that they do
not have independent souls, but are simply the final elements of a system.35
By 1862 Fechner had some assurance that the scientific world at least valued
his writings on atomic theory and psychophysics, as well as some other things that
he had published in the professional journals. He had hoped for more, however:
When I survey the success of my writings, I have to call it only moderate, and in
many cases they are total failures . . . Works such as Nanna, Zend-Avesta, and On
the Question of the Soul have not exactly improved my reputation among the
scientists. Even with my closest acquaintances, these works have had little luck.
418 MEISCHNER-METGE

Volkmann and E. H. Weber, among the scientists, and Weie and Lotze, among
philosophers, have pretty much the same opinion about them.
This has all been very discouraging for me. For the near future, these ideas
will encounter judgments that will not permit them into current discussion, or else
they simply do not yet fit into current discussion.

After Fechner had established the foundations of his scientific views and empir-
ical methods in writings about atomic theory, psychophysics, evolution, and experi-
mental aesthetics, he decided to publish his philosophical ideas explicitly once more
in The Day-View Opposed to the Night-View [Die Tagesansicht gegenuber der
Nachtansicht]. This book put together all that he had attempted to explain in his earlier
philosophical writings, and he featured many fundamental conclusions that were
based on his understanding of epistemology and belief.36 Less expansively than in
Zend-Avesta, thus more clearly and understandably, he declared his standpoint on the
most important issues. He was apparently trying to answer all the questions that came
up repeatedly. No one can deny that the majority of these questions could still come
up in discussion today, and Fechners answers still contain interesting possibilities for
thought, as well as attempts at solutions to these perennial questions about determin-
ism and indeterminism, stochastic psychic processes, aestheticsthe mind-body
problem in general, but also the value of induction and analogy in epistemology.
Only a single-minded view of some selected methods can explain the widespread
characterization of Fechner as an elementist; his writings on psychophysics, atomic
theory, and aesthetics clearly show him to be a holistic thinker. It was his particular
capacity to recognize and methodically to develop complex forms and complicated
systems by means of simple relationships, not through reduction but by stepwise
analysis. For example, his analysis of material systems begins with thorough consid-
eration of the relationships involving one particle, and then he considers a second
particle, and so forth, moving from the partial system to the universal. Along with the
principle of causality, his empirical findings led him to another basic principle, the
tendency to stability. He also put particular emphasis on the threshold, of course.
Fechners question, whether psychic simplicity can arise from physical multiplicity,
connects to modern considerations of the issue: how the perceptual system can extract
the important information in a short time from an endless stream of stimuli. Fechners
version of human consciousness as an integral part of a universal consciousness has
parallels in later ideas about the achievement of the perceptual system.37
Fechner proposed to his publisher this text for the advertisement of The
Day-View Opposed to the Night-View:

As opposed to the current predominant world-view, which finds its roots in

materialism, pessimism, religious unbelief, and the so-called new belief, the author
of this book develops a more enlightened world-view and thus completes the work
of several earlier works on the same theme.

The book appeared in 1879, the same year that Wilhelm Wundt founded the
Institute for Experimental Psychology (the worlds first) at Leipzig University. In
1875 Wundt was called to Leipzig, and there are some indications, but unfortunately
no proof, that Fechner was involved in hiring him. Friedrich Zllner, Leipzigs
pioneering astrophysicist, formally nominated Wundt, but he and Fechner were
meeting weekly at the time in a small circle. Fechner was apparently convinced that
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 419

younger researchers, such as Wundt and Georg Elias Muller, were developing
psychophysics further. During his final 10 years Fechner again worked intensively on
psychophysics, likely for two reasons: the possibility of psychophysical research in
Wundts laboratory and the suggestion of Fechners friend and publisher Hartel that
it was time to prepare a second edition of Elements of Psychophysics.
Fechner did indeed take an active interest in psychophysical research that was
carried out in Wundts Institute: he asked critical questions, did calculations, and
proofed the resulting tables. His critique of two of Wundts students, Volkmar Estel
and Gustav Lorenz, is a good example of this interaction.38 In 1882 Fechner published
Revision of the Main Points of Psychophysics [Revision der Hauptpunkte der
Psychophysik] as a kind of substitute for a second edition of his Elements of
Psychophysics 426 pages. His immediate reason for this publication, rarely men-
tioned in the history of psychology, was a book by G. E. Muller, On the Foundations
of Psychophysics [Zur Grundlegung der Psychophysik].39 In the preface of Revision
Fechner praises Muller as the one who had done the most for psychophysics, and his
very positive attitude toward this Gttingen psychophysicist is evident in other places
as well.40 In 1886 Adolf Elsas published Ueber Psychophysik, which challenged the
very possibility of psychic measurement; Fechner reacted immediately, because he
found Elsass arguments to be so new and fundamental, and so well expressed that
they threatened to undermine the most important foundations of his lifes work. He
paraphrased one of Christoph Wielands verses, And so I have once again saddled
up my battle steed to ride into the romantic Land of Psychophysics, and because I am
86 years old, this is surely the final time. In just 69 pages Fechners article defines
a clear and convincing position based on the principles of psychic measurement and
Webers Law, showing how creative and discussion-loving Fechner still was in his
old age. He answered his critics with humor: The Tower of Babel could not be
completed because the laborers could not understand each other. Likewise, my edifice
of psychophysics will continue being built because the laborers cannot understand
each other as they delve into it.41
In his speech to commemorate the centennial of Fechners birth, Wundt drew
on his own experience of Fechners forays into criticism and controversy:
His characteristic pleasure in battles of opinion was by no means due to a tendency
to contradict everything and then hold fast to his conviction when he should admit
he was wrong; rather, when that happened, and it was rare, he would readily
concede to the other side of the argument. Even less did his actual argument stem
from any kind of personal irritability; rather, his polemic always illuminated his
positive feelings toward others. Any conflict that became unrelenting he would
simply break off with the remark that, although the opinion expressed may well
have some advantages and many supporters, he himself could not accept it. This
meant that a controversy with him took a form of intellectual enjoyment of the
most unusual kind, and a person would always come away, even from the most
hopeless battle of this sort, with the feeling of having gained something.

One subject on which these two giants of Leipzig University and of the history of
psychology could not agree was spiritism. Fechner wrote to Wundt on June 25, 1879:
My esteemed colleague,
There are still many things that I could say about your remarks in your article,
but I dont see why we should argue about this anymore; I would rather not argue
420 MEISCHNER-METGE

with you on this subject at all, since we are both convinced that we cannot change
one anothers opinion on the issues at hand. You will continue to recognize
spiritism as something that cannot be investigated, that is not factual, and I will
continue to say that it is factual and will try to investigate it. My thanks for the kind
gift of your article and my warm greetings.
With greatest respect, yours, Prof. Fechner42

As Fechner once wrote on such issues, I am careful about belief, but also
careful about unbelief.43 The diary for 1875 contains long passages, with many
cross-outs and corrections, obviously referring to table-rapping and other seance
phenomena that were under discussion in Leipzig at that time.
Actually the inexplicability of something using the laws and forces that are
understood up to now cannot prove that this thing does not exist, just because it is
not understood or properly recognized up to this point . . . One confuses inexpli-
cability, using given laws and forces, with a proof against the thing, and these are
very different . . . To argue against somethings existence is not to prove that it
does not exist . . . We could just as well argue that magnetic or electrical forces and
the force of gravity are magical or matters of belief, and once we understand
electrical and magnetic movements then the magic is gone; perhaps the same thing
will happen with these mystical movements?
Fechner broadest and most general work on measurement was his Kollektiv-
malehre: he worked on it for decades but had to leave it unfinished. It is unfortu-
nately not clear to us why this work took him so long. Oswald Kulpe noticed that the
problem of observational errors turned up already in Fechners measurements of the
galvanic chain, so that he needed to make adjustments for them.44 In the analysis of
the most varied types of collective artifacts, he determined that there were devia-
tions from the Gauss curve, so he sought a more general law of distribution. Fechner
discussed some fundamental principles of his Kollektivmalehre already in a lecture
in 1849, On the Mathematical Treatment of Organic Forms and Processes [Uber die
mathematische Behandlung organischer Gestalten und Prozesse],45 and in the first
announcement of his experimental aesthetics in 1871.46 This work was finally
completed and published 10 years after his death by G. F. Lipps,47 and it quickly
attracted strong interest. According to Heidelberger, Fechners theory contributed to
the theory of probability by presenting an empirical science of objective chance
phenomena in nature.48 If so, this extensive collection of data and its analysis had
influence far beyond what Fechner had intended for it: compared to psychophysics, he
considered Kollektivmalehre to be of merely practical interest.
The physical chemist and Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald remembered that
Fechner was busy with Kollektivmalehre just days before his death.
I see it as something very fortunate that I personally came to know Gustav Theodor
Fechner, the founder of measurement psychology. I had read much of his writing,
and I had admired this rare personality for some time. So, when I arrived in
Leipzig, I took the opportunity to make a cordial visit. Even as I entered his
apartment, I felt at home because the floor of the entryway was strewn with white
sand, as I was accustomed to in my own homeland. I was then taken to see the old
gentleman, whose nearly blind eyes were staring into infinity. In spite of his age
he was lively as a youngster. He had heard of me, probably from Wundt, and he
immediately asked me whether, in my many measurements, there were any cases
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 421

in which one and the same value showed up again and again. At the time he was
engaged with this very problem in his Kollektivmalehre, and he was interested in
including the widest variety of cases of this kind. Unfortunately, I could not
provide him with such data, or I would have gladly done so in order to repeat my
contact with him. He quickly engaged me in a lively conversation, and I was
reluctant to end it, but it was late and so I took my leave. I never saw him again,
because he died a few weeks later, 86 years old.49

Finally, we should briefly mention Fechners literary works. Already as a

medical student he wrote two satires about medicine, of course under a pseud-
onym, Dr. Mises. There followed several more humorous, and at the same time
serious, publications on human relations, poetry, and mysteries, as well as
contributions to literary magazines. His first publication50 and his very last51 were
both of the literary genre. As honored citizen and Leipzig original, he took
aim in 1886 at the new Mende Fountain, calling it a true miracle. With obvious
pleasure, Fechner showed that his ironic and satiric spirit remained alive until the
end. Fechner died on November 18, 1887.

Endnotes
1. Translation by David K. Robinson.
2. All diary excerpts are from Gustav Theodor Fechner, Tagebucher 1828 bis 1879,
ed. Anneros Meischner-Metge and Irene Altmann, 2 vols., Quellen und Forschungen zur
sachsischen Geschichte, nr. 27 (Leipzig: Verlag der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Leipzig; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004).
3. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Zend-Avesta oder uber die Dinge des Himmels und des
Jenseits. Vom Standpunkt der Naturbetrachtung (Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 1851).
4. Compare Gustav Theodor Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, vol. 2 (Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Hartel, 1860), 545.
5. Rudolf Wagner, Der Kampf um die Seele (Gttingen: Verlag der Dieterichschen
Buchhandlung, 1857), 93 ff.
6. Gottlob Friedrich Lipps, ed., Zwei Briefe von Wilhelm Weber an G. Th.
Fechner uber das psychische Ma, Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der Kniglich
Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-physikalische
Klasse 57 (1905): 388 395.
7. Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, vol. 1, p. 8.
8. Ernst Heinrich Weber, Tastsinn und Gemeingefuhl, in Rudolph Wagner, Hand-
wrterbuch der Physiologie mit Rucksicht auf physiologische Pathologie, vol. 3, part 2
(Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1846): 481588; 559 f.
9. Compare Gustav Theodor Fechner, Elemente der Psychophysik, vol. 1, p. 64; and
vol. 2, p. 558.
10. Fechner-Volkmann correspondence can be found at the Universitats- und Land-
esbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, in Halle.
11. Wilhelm Wirth, Gustav Theodor Fechner, Sachsische Lebensbilder, ed.
Sachsische Kommission fur Geschichte, vol. 2 (Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1938): 97113; 101.
12. Books have their fate (in Latin).
13. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Sammlung Darmstadter F 2e 1850.
14. After Fechners death his widow asked Wilhelm Wundt to take charge of the
scientific papers that Fechner left behind. This large collection from his Nachlass was
taken over in 1895 by the Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig, which estab-
lished a Fechner Archive. This part of Fechners Nachlass was destroyed during World
War II, but luckily the psychophysicist Gottlob Friedrich Lipps had already compiled a
422 MEISCHNER-METGE

report for the Academy, explaining how to use Fechners own words; Lipps thus left us
with an invaluable document that describes the contents of the destroyed archive. Gottlob
Friedrich Lipps, Bericht uber das Fechner-Archiv, Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der
Kniglich Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-
physikalische Klasse 57 (1905): 247312.
15. Johannes Emil Kuntze, Gustav Theodor Fechner (Dr. Mises): Ein deutsches
Gelehrtenleben (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1892).
16. Kurd Lasswitz, Gustav Theodor Fechner (Stuttgart: Frommann, 1896).
17. Hans-Jurgen Arendt, Gustav Theodor Fechner: Ein deutscher Naturwissen-
schaftler und Philosoph im 19. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1999).
18. Michael Heidelberger, Die innere Seite der Natur: Gustav Theodor Fechners
wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann,
1993); Michael Heidelberger, Nature from Within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his
Psychophysical Worldview, trans. Cynthia Klohr (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 2004).
19. Kuntze, 38.
20. Jean-Baptiste Biot, Lehrbuch der Experimental-Physik oder Erfahrungs-
Naturlehre, trans. Gustav Theodor Fechner, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 1824).
21. Louis-Jacques Thenard, Lehrbuch der theoretischen und praktischen Chemie,
trans. Gustav Theodor Fechner, 7 vols. (Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 182528).
22. Some of his most influential works in physical science were these: Gustav
Theodor Fechner, Lehrbuch des Galvanismus und der Elektrochemie (Leipzig: Leopold
Vo, 1829); Elementar-Lehrbuch des Elektromagnetismus nebst Beschreibung der haupt-
sachlichen elektromagnetischen Apparate (Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 1830); Maabestim-
mungen uber die galvanische Kette (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1831); and Repertorium der
Experimental-Physik, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 1832).
23. Gustav Theodor Fechner, ed., Das Hauslexikon: vollstandiges Handbuch prak-
tischer Lebenskenntnisse fur alle Stande, 8 vols. (Leipzig 1834 1838). See Tagebucher
1875 (52 f.) concerning this editorial work.
24. Especially these three articles: Gustav Theodor Fechner, Ueber die subjektiven
Complimentarfarben, Annalen der Physik 44 (1838): 221245; 513535; Ueber eine
Scheibe zur Erzeugung subjektiver Farben, Annalen der Physik 45 (1838): 227232;
Ueber die subjektiven Nachbilder und Nebenbilder, Annalen der Physik 50 (1840):
193221; 427 470.
25. Kuntze, 105 ff.
26. Kuntze, 116.
27. Wolfgang G. Bringmann and William D.G. Balance, Der Psychologe, der sich
selbst geheilt hat, Psychologie Heute 3 (1976): 43 48.
28. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Nanna oder uber das Seelenleben der Pflanzen
(Leipzig: Leopold Vo, 1848), ch. XVIII.
29. The annual volumes of Announcement of Lectures [Vorlesungsverzeichnis] of the
University of Leipzig list the following lecture courses by Fechner during this period: On the
Highest Good and Human Will [Uber das hchste Gut und den menschlichen Willen] (1846);
On the Relationship between Body and Soul [Uber die Beziehung zwischen Leib und Seele]
(1846/47); Introduction to Natural Philosophy [Einleitung in die Naturphilosophie] (1847); On
Last Things and the Freedom of the Will [Uber die letzten Dinge und die Willensfreiheit]
(1847 49); Natural Philosophy [Naturphilosophie] (1848/49); General Anthropology [Allge-
meine Anthropologie] (1849 50); On the Origin and Division of the Human Race [Uber die
Entstehung und Einteilung des Menschengeschlechts] (1850/51); On Races and Languages of
People [Uber Rassen und Sprachen der Menschen] (1851); and Elements of Psychophysics
[Elemente der Psychophysik], starting in 1857.
30. Fechner, Zend-Avesta, 169 ff.
 SPECIAL SECTION: GUSTAV FECHNER IN THE MIRROR OF HIS DIARY 423

31. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Professor Schleiden und der Mond (Leipzig: Adolf
Gumprecht, 1856), 25.
32. Estelle DuBois-Reymond and Paul Diepgen, eds., Zwei groe Naturforscher des
19. Jahrhunderts. Ein Briefwechsel zwischen Emil du Bois-Reymond und Carl Ludwig
(Leipzig: Barth, 1927), 47 49.
33. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Ueber die physikalische und philosophische Atomen-
lehre (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1855).
34. Heidelberger, Die Innere Seite der Natur, 180 202.
35. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Ueber die physikalische und philosophische Atomen-
lehre, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1864), 248.
36. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Die Tagesansicht gegenuber der Nachtansicht
(Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1879).
37. F. Heider, Die Leistung des Wahrnehmungssystems, Zeitschrift fur Psycholo-
gie 114 (1930): 371394.
38. Gustav Theodor Fechner, In Sachen des Zeitsinnes und der Methode der richtigen
und falschen Falle, gegen Estel und Lorenz, Philosophische Studien 3 (1885): 137.
39. Georg Elias Muller, Zur Grundlegung der Psychophysik. Kritische Beitrage
(Berlin: Grieben, 1878).
40. Letter from Gustav Theodor Fechner, 17 December 1879, Berufungsangelegen-
heit, in Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Sammlung Darmstadter (1926): 49.
41. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Ueber die psychischen Maprincipien und das We-
bersche Gesetz, Philosophische Studien 4 (1887): 161230.
42. Briefwechsel Fechner-Wundt, Wundt-Nachla, Universitatsarchiv Leipzig.
43. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Erinnerungen an die letzten Tage der Odlehre und
ihres Urhebers (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1876), 6.
44. Oswald Kulpe, Zu Gustav Fechners Gedachtnis, Vierteljahresschrift fur wis-
senschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie 25 (1901): 191217; 200.
45. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Ueber die mathematische Behandlung organischer Ge-
stalten und Prozesse, Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der Kniglich Sachsischen Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse 1 (1849): 98 120.
46. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Zur experimentellen sthetik, Abhandlungen der
Kniglich Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-
physikalische Klasse 9 (1871): 553 635.
47. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Kollektivmalehre, ed. Gottlob Friedrich Lipps
(Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1897), foreword [Vorwort].
48. Heidelberger, Die Innere Seite der Natur, 354.
49. Wilhelm Ostwald, Lebenslinien. Eine Selbstbiographie, vol. 2: Leipzig 1887
1905 (Berlin: Klasing, 1905), 96 f.
50. Dr. Mises, Beweis, da der Mond aus Jodine bestehe (Germanien [sic]: Penig,
1821).
51. Gustav Theodor Fechner, Zur Kritik des Leipziger Mendebrunnens (Leipzig:
Breitkopf, 1887).
Received September 3, 2010
Accepted September 7, 2010 y