The lectures seeks to correct some misconceptions stated in the passage. The original motif of the passage is a discourse on the authenticity of the very famous memoir of Chevalier de Seingalt written in the 18th century. Now, the passage enumerates how parts of the autobiographical memoir must be made up by presenting three different instances. Chevalier claimed that while living in Switzerland, he was quite affluent and spent money on lavish parties. Yet, there were witness accounts of him having borrowed money while residing there. This creates a discrepancy in his story. The lecture mitigates this objection by considering the logic of borrowing money for a wealthy person. As most of the money was tied in estates, he had to sell the properties before getting the actual money in his hand. This could be a reason why he had to borrow money.

Another objection that the passage raises is the accuracy of chevalier’s conversation with Voltaire. Although they do not object to their actual rendezvous, they do object to how properly, the author’s memory served him while recalling these conversations. The lecturer again refutes these allegations by recounting witness account of chevalier consulting notes and journals he used to keep while writing his memoir. Chevalier claimed that every night, after talking to Voltaire, he would try to write down everything they talked about and maintained a routine account of it. This is, evidently, supported by the witness accounts.

Lastly, the passage raises an objection on the reputed escape from the jail using a metal object to bore a hole in the ceiling of his prison cell by Chevalier. They claim that since he had powerful friends, he might have simply bribed his way out from behind the bars and subsequently, made up a sensational story in order to create a regaling tale. However, the lecturer asks a plausible question in response to this objection. There were people in the same prison with even more influential friends than chevalier had, yet they could never bribe their way out of the jail. Another question raised by the lecturer pertains to the prison accounts. They state that the prison had to repair the ceiling of the cell where chevalier was incarcerated after his escape. There can be no other possible explanation for those accounts other than the fact that chevalier escaped using a means very similar to the one elucidated in his memoir.