[235] Bulletins de l'Acad. de Belgique, xxi. 2; Revue Philosophique, vi. pp. 223-5; Physiologische Psychologie, 2te Aufl. p. 103. Compare Münsterberg's views, Beiträge, Heft 2, p. 174. [236] Physiol. Optik, pp. 562-71. [237] Physiol. Psych., pp. 107-8. [238] Grundtatsachen des Seelenlebens, pp. 526-30. [239] Cf. _supra_, vol. I. p. 515 ff. [240] See Archiv f. Ophthalm., v. 2, 1 (1859), where many more examples are given. [241] Untersuchungen, p. 250; see also p. 242. [242] I pass over certain difficulties about double images, drawn from the perceptions of a few squinters (e.g. by Schweigger, Klin. Untersuch über das Schielen, Berlin, 1881; by Javal, Annales d'Oculistique, lxxxv. p. 217), because the facts are exceptional at best and very difficult of interpretation. In favor of the sensationalistic or nativistic view of one such case, see the important paper by Von Kries, Archiv f. Ophthalm., xxiv. 4, p. 117. [243] Physiologische Untersuchungen im Gebiete der Optik, v. [244] Cf. E. Mach, Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen, p. 87. [245] Cf. V. Egger, Revue Philos., xx. 488. [246] Loeb (Pflüger's Archiv, xl. 274) has proved that muscular changes of adaptation in the eye for near and far distance are what determine the form of the relief. [247] The strongest passage in Helmholtz's argument against sensations of space is relative to these fluctuations of seen relief: "Ought one not to conclude that if sensations of relief exist at all, they must be so faint and vague as to have no influence compared with that of past experience? Ought we not to believe that the perception of the third dimension may have arisen _without_ them, since we now see it taking place as well _against_ them as _with_ them?" (Physiol. Optik, p. 817.) [248] Cf. E. Mach, Beiträge, etc., p. 90, and the preceding chapter of the present work, p. 86 ff. [249] I ought to say that I seem always able to see the cross rectangular at will. But this appears to come from an imperfect absorption of the rectangular after-image by the inclined plane at which the eyes look. The cross, with me, is apt to detach itself from this and then look square. I get the illusion better from the circle, whose after-image becomes in various ways elliptical on being projected upon the different surfaces of the room, and cannot then be easily made to look circular again. [250] In Chapter XVIII, p. 74, I gave a reason why imaginations _ought_ not to be as vivid as sensations. It should be borne in mind that that reason does not apply to these complemental imaginings of the real shape of things actually before our eyes. [251] Hermann's Handb. der Physiologie, iii. 1. p. 565-71. [252] Bulletin de l'Académie de Belgique, 2me Série, xix. 2.