Chapter IX: Part VI: Some Further Problems (2)

Wallace, in his letter to Prof. Barrett which follows, refers to Reichenbach's experiments with certain sensitives who declared they saw luminosity from the poles of a magnet after they had been for some time in a perfectly darkened room. Acting on Wallace's suggestion, Prof. Barrett constructed a perfectly darkened room and employed a large electro-magnet, the current for which could be made or broken by an assistant outside without the knowledge of those present in the darkened room. Under these circumstances, and taking every precaution to prevent any knowledge of when the magnet was made active by the current, Prof. Barrett found that two or three persons, out of a large number with whom he experimented, saw a luminosity streaming from the poles of the magnet directly the current was put on. An article of Prof. Barrett's on the subject, with the details of the experiment, was published in the _Philosophical Magazine_, and also in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for Psychical Research (Vol. I.).

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Rosehill, Dorking, December 18, 1876._

My dear Prof. Barrett,-- ... I see you are to lecture at South Kensington the end of this month (I think), and if you can spare time to run down here and stay a night or two we shall be much pleased to see you, and I shall be greatly interested to have a talk on the subject of your paper, and hear what further evidence you have obtained. I want particularly to ask you to take advantage of any opportunity that you may have to test the power of sensitives to see the "flames" from magnets and crystals, as also to _feel_ the influence from them. This is surely a matter easily tested and settled. I consider it has been tested and settled by Reichenbach, but he is ignored, and a fresh proof of this one fact, by indisputable tests, is much needed; and a paper describing such tests and proofs would I imagine be admitted into the _Proceedings_ of any suitable society.

You will have heard no doubt of the Treasury having taken up the prosecution of Slade. Massey the barrister, one of the most intelligent and able of the Spiritualists (whose accession to the cause is due, I am glad to say, to my article in the _Fortnightly_), proposes a memorial and deputation to the Government protesting against this prosecution by the Treasury on the ground that it implies that Slade is an habitual impostor and nothing else, and that in face of the body of evidence to the contrary, it is an uncalled-for interference with the private right of investigation into these subjects. On such general grounds as these I sincerely hope you will give your name to the memorial....--Yours very faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE. TO PROF. BARRETT

_Rosehill, Dorking. December 9, 1877._

My dear Barrett,--I am always glad when a man I like and respect treats me as a friend. I am advised by other friends also not to waste more time on Dr. C. [Carpenter], and I do not think I shall answer him again, except perhaps to keep him to certain points, as in my letter in the last _Nature_. In a proof of his new edition of "Lectures" I see he challenges me to produce a person who can detect by light or sensation when an electro-magnet is made and unmade. The Association of Spiritualists are going to experiment, as Dr. C. offers to pay £30 if it succeeds. Should you have an opportunity of trying with any persons, and can find one who sees or feels the influence strongly, it might be worth while to send him to London, as nothing would tend to lower Dr. C. in public estimation on this subject more than his being forced to acknowledge that what he has for more than thirty years declared to be purely subjective is after all an objective phenomenon.

I never had anything to do with showing or sending a medium to Huxley. He must refer to his séance a few months ago with Mrs. Kane and Mrs. Jencken (along with Carpenter and Tyndall), when ... nothing but raps occurred....--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The British Association met in Dublin in 1878, and Prof. Barrett asked Wallace to stay with him at Kingstown, or, if he preferred being nearer the meetings, with a friend in Dublin. Earlier in the year Mr. Huggins, afterwards Sir W. Huggins, O.M. and President of the Royal Society, had sent Prof. Barrett a very beautifully executed drawing of the knots tied in an endless cord during the remarkable sittings Prof. Zöllner had with the medium Slade. Sir W. Huggins invited Prof. Barrett to come and see him at his observatory at Tulse Hill, near London, and there he met Wallace and discussed the whole matter. It may not be generally known that so careful and accurate an observer as Sir W. Huggins was convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena he had witnessed with Lord Dunraven and others through the medium D.D. Home. He informed Prof. Barrett of this himself.

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. June 27, 1873._

My dear Barrett,--The receipt of a British Association circular reminds me of your kind invitation to stay with you or your friend at Dublin, and as you may be wishing soon to make your arrangements I write at once to let you know that, much to my regret, I shall not be able to come to Dublin this year. Since I met you at Mr. Huggins's I have done nothing myself in Spiritual investigations, but have been exceedingly interested in the knot-tying experiment of Prof. Zöllner and the weight-varying experiments of the Spiritualists' Association. I do not see what flaw can be found in either of them....--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In the discussion on Prof. Barrett's paper at the Glasgow Meeting of the British Association, which took place in the London _Times_ and other newspapers, instances of apparent thought-transference were given by many correspondents. Each of these cases Prof. Barrett investigated personally, and one of them led to a remarkable series of experiments which he conducted at Buxton, with the result that no doubt was left on his mind of the fact of the transference of ideas from one mind to another independent of the ordinary channels of sense. He asked Prof. and Mrs. H. Sidgwick to come to Buxton and repeat his experiments with the subjects there--daughters of a local clergyman. They did so, and though they had less success at first than Prof. Barrett had had, they were ultimately convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena. In addition, Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mr. Frederic Myers, Prof. A. Hopkinson and Prof. Balfour Stewart, all responded to Prof. Barrett's invitation to visit Buxton and test the matter for themselves, and all came to the same conclusion as he had. Subsequently Gurney and Myers associated their name with Barrett's in a paper on the subject, published in the _Nineteenth Century_.

Prof. Barrett asked Wallace to read over the first report made by Prof. and Mrs. Sidgwick, which at first seemed somewhat disheartening, and the following is his reply:

REMARKS ON EXPERIMENTS IN THOUGHT READING BY MR. AND MRS. SIDGWICK AT BUXTON

The failure of so many of these experiments seems to me to depend on their having been conducted without any knowledge of the main peculiarity of thought reading or clairvoyance--that it is a perception of the object thought of or hidden, not by its name, or even by its sum total of distinctive qualities, but by the simple qualities separately. A clairvoyant will perceive a thing as round, then as yellow, and finally as an orange. Now Mr. Galton's experiments have shown how various are the powers of visualising objects possessed by different persons, and how distinct their modes of doing so; and if these distinct visualisations of the same thing are in any way presented to a clairvoyant, there is little wonder that some confusion should result. This would suggest that one person who possesses the faculty of clearly visualising objects would meet with more success than a number of persons some of whom visualise one portion or quality of the object, some another, while to others the name alone is present to the mind. It follows from these considerations that cards are bad for such experiments. The qualities of number, colour, form and arrangement may be severally most prominent in one mind or other, and the result is confusion to the thought reader. This is shown in the experiments by the number of pips or the suit alone being often right.

It must also be remembered that children have not the same thorough knowledge of the names of the cards that we have, nor can they so rapidly and certainly count their numbers. This introduces another source of uncertainty which should be avoided in such experiments as these.

The same thing is still more clearly shown by the way in which objects are guessed by some prominent quality or resemblance, not by any likeness of name--as poker guessed for walking-stick, fork for pipe, something iron for knife, etc. And the total failure in the case of names of towns is clearly explained by the fact that these would convey no distinct idea or concrete image that could be easily described. These last failures really give an important clue to the nature of the faculty that is being investigated, since they show that it is not _words_ or _names_ that are read but thoughts or images that are perceived, and the certainty of the perception will depend upon the simple character of these images and the clearness and identity of the perception of them by the different persons present.

If these considerations are always kept in view, I feel sure that the experiments will be far more successful.

ALFRED E. WALLACE.

Sept. 6, 1881.

* * * * *

Wallace's remarkable gifts as a lecturer are less widely known than his lucid and admirable style as a writer. Though Sir Wm. Barrett has heard a great number of eminent scientific men lecture, he considers that few could approach him for the simplicity, clearness and vigour of his exposition, which commanded the unflagging attention of every one of his hearers. Mr. Frederic Myers, no mean judge of literary merit, once said he thought Wallace one of the most lucid English writers and lecturers of his time. Prof. Barrett was anxious to induce Wallace to lecture in Dublin, and brought the matter before the Science Committee of the Royal Dublin Society, which arranges a course of afternoon lectures by distinguished men every spring. The Committee cordially supported the suggestion that Wallace should be invited to lecture, and the invitation was accepted. During his visit to Dublin, Wallace stayed with Prof. Barrett at Kingstown, and was busily engaged in revising the proof-sheets of his book on "Land Nationalisation" (1882).

In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 334) Wallace says that among the eminent men whose "first acquaintance and valued friendship" he owed to a common interest in Spiritualism was Frederic Myers, whom he met first at some séances in London about the year 1878.

* * * * *

F.W.H. MYERS TO A.R. WALLACE

_Leckhampton House, Cambridge. April 12, 1890._

My dear Wallace,--I will read your pamphlet[61] most carefully; will write and tell you how it affects me; and will in any case send it on with your letter and a letter of my own to Sir John Gorst, whom I know well, and whom I agree with you in regarding as the most acceptable member of the Government.

If I am converted, it will be wholly _your_ doing. I have read much on the subject--Creighton, etc., and am at present strongly pro-vaccination; at the same time, there is no one by whom I would more willingly be converted than yourself.

I am glad to take this opportunity of telling you something about my relation to one of your books. I write now from bed, having had some influenzic pneumonia, now going off. For some days my temperature was 105 and I was very restless at night, anxious to read, but in too sensitive and fastidious a state to tolerate almost any book. I found that almost the only book which I could read was your "Malay Archipelago" (of course I had read it before). In spite of my complete ignorance of natural history there was a certain charm about the book, both moral and literary, which made it deeply congenial in those trying hours. You have had few less instructed readers, but very few can have dwelt on that simple manly record with a more profound sympathy.

I want to bespeak you as a _friend at court_. When we get into the next world, I beg you to remember me and say a good word for me when you can, as you will have much influence there.

To me it seems that Hodgson's report[62] is the _best_ thing which we have yet published. I trust that it impresses you equally. It has converted _Podmore_ amongst other people!

I will, then, write again soon, and I am yours most truly,

F.W.H. MYERS.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER (_née_ BUCKLEY)

_Parkstone, Dorset. January 4, 1896._

My dear Mrs. Fisher,--I am glad to hear that you are going on with your book. I am sure it will be a comfort to you. I have read one book of Hudson's--"A Scientific Demonstration of a Future Life," and that is so pretentious, so unscientific, and so one-sided that I do not feel inclined to read more of the same author's work. I do not think I mentioned to you (as I thought you did not read much now) a really fine and original work, called "Psychic Philosophy, a Religion of Natural Law," by Desertis (Redway). I should like to know if, after reading that, you still think Hudson's books worth reading. I have been much pleased and interested lately in reading Mark Twain's, Mrs. Oliphant's and Andrew Lang's books about Joan of Arc. The last two are far the best, Mrs. Oliphant's as a genuine sympathetic _history_, Lang's as a fine realistic story ("A Monk of Fife"). Jeanne was really perhaps the most beautiful character in authentic history, and the one that most conclusively demonstrates spirit-guidance, and both Mrs. Oliphant and A. Lang bring this out admirably.... --Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 14, 1896._

My dear Mrs. Fisher,--I have much pleasure in signing your application for the Psychical Research Society, though the majority of the active members are so absurdly and illogically sceptical that you will not find much instruction in their sayings. Mr. Podmore's report in the last-issued _Proceedings_ is a good illustration....

We have all been in Switzerland this year. Violet, her mother, and five lady friends all went together to a rather newly-discovered place, Adelboden, a branch valley from that going up to the Gemmi Pass by Kandersteg. I went first for a week to Davos, to give a lecture to Dr. Lunn's party, and enjoyed myself much, chiefly owing to the company of Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, one of the most witty, earnest, advanced, and estimable men I have ever met. Dr. Lunn himself is very jolly, and we had also Mr. Le Gallienne, the poet and critic, and between them we had a very brilliant table-talk. Mr. Haweis was also there, and one afternoon he and I talked for two hours about Spiritualism. He is a thorough spiritualist, and preaches it....--Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE. TO MRS. FISHER

_Parkstone, Dorset. April 9, 1897._

My dear Mrs. Fisher,--I have tried several Reincarnation and Theosophical books, but _cannot_ read them or take any interest in them. They are so purely imaginative, and do not seem to me rational. Many people are captivated by it--I think most people who like a grand, strange, complex theory of man and nature, given with authority--people who if religious would be Roman Catholics. Crookes gave a suggestive and interesting, but in some ways rather misleading address as President of the Psychical Research Society. I liked Oliver Lodge's address to the Spiritualists' Association better....--Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In 1891, at the urgent request of Prof. H. Sidgwick, President of the Society for Psychical Research, Prof. Barrett undertook, with considerable reluctance, to make a thorough examination of the subject of "dowsing" for water and minerals by means of the so-called "divining rod." At the time he fully believed that a critical inquiry of this kind would speedily show all the alleged successes of the dowser to be due either to fraud or a sharp eye for the ground. As the inquiry went on, to his surprise he found that neither chicanery, nor clever guessing, nor local knowledge, nor chance coincidence could explain away the accumulated evidence, but that something new to science was really at the root of the matter. This result was so startling that Prof. Barrett had to pursue the investigation for six years before venturing to publish his first report, which appeared in the _Proceedings_ of the Society for Psychical Research, Part xxxii., 1897. This was followed by a second report published some years later, in which he gave a fresh body of evidence on the criticisms of some eminent geologists to whom he had submitted the evidence. The reports were reviewed in _Nature_ with considerable severity, and some erroneous statements were made, to which Prof. Barrett replied. The editor, Sir Norman Lockyer, at first declined to publish Prof. Barrett's reply, and to this Wallace refers in the following letter.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 30, 1899._

My dear Barrett,-- ... Apropos of _Nature_, they never gave a word of notice to my book[63]--probably they would say out of kindness to myself as one of their oldest contributors, since they would have had to scarify me, especially as regards the huge Vaccination chapter, which is nevertheless about the most demonstrative bit of work I have done. I begged Myers--as a personal favour--to read it. He told me he firmly believed in vaccination, but would do so, and afterwards wrote me that he could see no answer to it, and if there was none he was converted. There certainly has been not a tittle of answer except abuse.

I am glad you brought Lockyer up sharp in his attempt to refuse you the right to reply. I am glad you now have some personal observations to adduce. I hope persons or corporations who are going to employ a dowser will now advise you so that you may be present....--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. December 24, 1900._

My dear Barrett,-- ... I have read your very interesting paper on the divining rod, and the additional evidence you now send. Of course, I think it absolutely conclusive, but there are many points on which I differ from your conclusions and remarks, which I think are often unfair to the dowsers. I will just refer to one or two. At p. 176 (note) you call the idea of there being a "spring-head" at a particular point "absurd." But instead of being absurd it is a _fact_, proved not only by numerous cases you have given of strong springs being found quite near to weak springs a few yards off, but by all the phenomena of mineral and hot springs. Near together, as at Bath, hot springs and cold springs rise to the surface, and springs of different quality at Harrogate, yet each keeps its distinct character, showing that each rises from a great depth without any lateral diffusion or intermixture. This is a common phenomenon all over the world, the dowsers' facts support it, geologists know all about it, yet I presume they have told you that when a dowser states this fact it ceases to be a fact and becomes an absurdity!

The only other point I have time to notice is your Sect. II. (p. 285). You head this, "Evidence that the Motion of the Rod is due to Unconscious Muscular Action." Naturally I read this with the greatest interest, but found to my astonishment that you adduce no evidence at all, but only opinions of various people, and positive assertions that such is the case! Now as I _know_ that motions of various objects occur without any muscular action, or even any contact whatever, while Crookes has proved this by careful experiments which have never been refuted, what _improbability_ is there that this should be such a case, and what is the value of these positive assertions which you quote as "evidence"? And at p. 286 you quote the person who says the more he tried to prevent the stick's turning the more it turned, as _evidence_ in favour of muscular action, without a word of explanation. Another man (p. 287) says he "could not restrain it." None of the "trained anatomists" you quote give a particle of _proof_, only positive opinion, that it must be muscular action--simply because they do not believe any other action possible. Their evidence is just as valueless as that of the people who say that all thought-transference is collusion or imposture!

I do not say that it is not "muscular action," though I believe it is not always so, but I do say that you have as yet given not a particle of proof that it is so, while scattered through your paper is plenty of evidence which points to its being something quite different. Such are the cases when people hold the rod for the first time and have never seen a dowser work, yet the rod turns, over water, to their great astonishment, etc. etc.

Your conclusion that it is "clairvoyance" is a good provisional conclusion, but till we know what clairvoyance really is it explains nothing, and is merely another way of stating the _fact_.

I believe all true clairvoyance to be spirit impression, and that all true dowsing is the same--that is, when in either case it cannot be thought-transference, but even this I believe to be also, for the most part, if not wholly, spirit impression.--Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 17, 1901._

My dear Barrett,--I am rather sorry you wrote to any one of the Society for Psychical Research people about my being asked to be President, because I should certainly feel compelled to decline it. I never go, willingly, to London now, and should never attend meetings, so pray say no more about it. Besides, I am so widely known as a "crank" and a "faddist" that my being President would injure the Society, as much as Lord Rayleigh would benefit it, so pray do not put any obstacle in _his_ way, though of course there is no necessity to beg him as a favour to be the successor of Sidgwick, Crookes and Myers....

* * * * *

TO REV. J.B. HENDERSON

_Parkstone, Dorset. August 10, 1893._

Dear Sir,--Although I look upon Christianity as originating in an unusual spiritual influx, I am not disposed to consider [it] as _essentially_ different from those which originated other great religious and philanthropic movements. It is probable that in _your_ sense of the word I am not a Christian.--Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. J.W. MARSHALL

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 6, 1894._

My dear Marshall,--We were very much grieved to hear of your sad loss in a letter from Violet. Pray accept our sincere sympathy for Mrs. Marshall and yourself.

Death makes us feel, in a way nothing else can do, the mystery of the universe. Last autumn I lost my sister, and she was the only relative I have been with at the last. For the moment it seems unnatural and incredible that the living self with its special idiosyncrasies you have known so long can have left the body, still more unnatural that it should (as so many now believe) have utterly ceased to exist and become nothingness!

With all my belief in, and knowledge of, Spiritualism, I have, however, occasional qualms of doubt, the remnants of my original deeply ingrained scepticism; but my reason goes to support the psychical and spiritualistic phenomena in telling me that there _must_ be a hereafter for us all....--Believe me yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO DR. EDWIN SMITH

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 19, 1899._

Dear Sir,--I know nothing of London mediums now. Nine-tenths of the alleged frauds in mediums arise from the ignorance of the sitters. The only way to gain any real knowledge of spiritualistic phenomena is to follow the course pursued in all science--study the elements before going to the higher branches. To expect proof of materialisation before being satisfied of the reality of such simpler phenomena as raps, movements of various objects, etc. etc., is as if a person began chemistry by trying to analyse the more complex vegetable products before he knew the composition of water and the simplest salts.

If you want to _know_ anything about Spiritualism you should experiment yourself with a select party of earnest inquirers--personal friends. When you have thus satisfied yourself of the existence of a considerable range of the physical phenomena and of many of the obscurities and difficulties of the inquiry, you may use the services of public mediums, without the certainty of imputing every little apparent suspicious circumstance to trickery, since you will have seen similar suspicious facts in your private circle where you _knew_ there was no trickery. You will find rules for forming private circles in some issues of _Light_. You can get them from the office of _Light_.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

PROF. BARRETT TO A.R. WALLACE

_6 De Vesci Terrace, Kingstown, Co. Dublin. November 3, 1905._

My dear Wallace,-- ... Just now I am engaged in a correspondence with the Secretaries of the Society for Psychical Research on the question of the Presidency for next year. I maintain that as a matter of duty to the Society you should be asked to accept the Presidency, though of course it would be impossible for you to be much more than an Honorary President, as we could not expect you often to come to London. I am anxious that in our records for future reference your Presidency should appear.... Podmore, who is proposed as President, represents the attitude of resolute incredulity, and I consider this line of action has been to some extent injurious to the S.P.R. Crookes supported my proposal, and so did Lodge, and so would Myers if he had lived. All this is of course between ourselves....

I have a vast amount of material unpublished on "dowsing" and am convinced the explanation is subconscious clairvoyance....--Yours very sincerely,

W.F. BARRETT.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Broadstone, Wimborne. April 20, 1906._

My dear Mrs. Fisher,--If you mean "honest" by "thoroughly reliable," there are plenty of such mediums, but if you mean those who give equally good results always, and to all persons, I should say there are none....

I am reading Herbert Spencer's "Autobiography" (just finished Vol. I.). I find it very interesting, though tedious in parts. I am glad I did not read it before I wrote mine. He certainly brings out his own character most strikingly, and a wonderful character it was. How extraordinarily little he owed either to teaching or to reading! I think he is best described as a "reasoning genius."--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

LORD AVEBURY TO A.R. WALLACE

_48 Grosvenor Street, W. May 1, 1910._

My dear Wallace,--I have been reading your biography with great interest. It must be a source of very pleasant memories to you to look back and feel how much you have accomplished.

It surprises me, however, how much we differ, and it is another illustration of the problems [?] of our (or rather I should say of my) intellect.

In some cases, indeed, the difference is as to facts.

You would, I am sure, for instance, find that you have been misinformed as to "thousands of dogs" being vivisected annually (p. 392).... As to Spiritualism, my difficulty is that nothing comes of it. What has been gained by your séances, compared to your studies?

I see you have a kindly reference to our parties at High Elms in old days, on which I often look back with much pleasure, but much regret also.

If you would give us the pleasure of another visit, _do_ propose yourself, and you will have a very hearty welcome from yours very sincerely,

AVEBURY.

* * * * *

A lecture delivered by Prof. Barrett before the Quest Society in London, entitled "Creative Thought," was published by request, and as it discussed the subject of evolution and the impossibility of explaining the phenomena of life without a supreme Directing and Formative Force behind all the manifestations of life, he was anxious to have Wallace's criticisms. At that time he had not read Wallace's recently published work on a similar subject, and he was greatly surprised to find how closely his views agreed with those of the great naturalist.

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 15, 1911._

My dear Barrett,--Thanks for your proofs, which I return. It is really curious how closely your views coincide with mine, and how admirably and clearly you have expressed them. If it were not for your adopting throughout, as an actual fact, the (to me) erroneous theory of the "subconscious self," I should agree with every word of it. I have put "?" where this is prominently put forward, merely to let you know how I totally dissent from it. To me it is pure assumption, and, besides, proves nothing. Thanks for the flattering "Postscript," which I return with a slight suggested alteration.

Reviews have been generally very fair, complimentary and flattering. But to me it is very curious that even the religious reviewers seem horrified and pained at the idea that the Infinite Being does not actually do every detail himself, apparently leaving his angels, and archangels, his seraphs and his messengers, which seem to exist in myriads according to the Bible, to have no function whatever!--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

PROF. BARRETT TO A.R. WALLACE

_6 De Vesci Terrace, Kingstown, Co. Dublin. February 18, 1911._

My dear Wallace,-- ... Thank you very much for your kind letter and comments. I have modified somewhat the phraseology as regards the "subliminal self." I think we really agree but use different terms. There _is_ a hidden directive power, which works in conjunction with, and is temporarily part of, our own conscious self; but it is below the threshold of consciousness, or is a subliminal part of our self.

I should like to have come over to Broadstone expressly to ask your views on the parts you queried. For I have an immense faith in the soundness of your judgment, and in the accuracy of your views _in the long run_.

I should like also immensely to see you again and in your lovely home....--Yours ever sincerely,

W.F. BARRETT.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 20, 1911._

My dear Barrett,--I wrote you yesterday on quite another matter, but having yours this morning in reply to my criticisms of your Address, I send a few lines of explanation. Most of my queries to your statements apply solely to your expressing them so positively, as if they were absolute certainties which no psychical researcher doubted. My main objection to the term "subliminal self" and its various synonyms is, that it is so dreadfully vague, and is an excuse for the assumption that a whole series of the most mysterious of psychical phenomena are held to be actually explained by it. Thus it is applied to explain all cases of apparent "possession," when the alleged "secondary self" has a totally different character, and uses the dialect of another social grade, from the normal self, sometimes even possesses knowledge that the real self could not have acquired, speaks a language that the normal self never learnt. All this is, to me, the most gross travesty of science, and I therefore object totally to the use of the term which is so vaguely and absurdly used, and of which no clear and rational explanation has ever been given.

You are now one of my oldest friends, and one with whom I most sympathise; and I only regret that we have seen so little of each other.--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 2, 1911._

Dear Mr. Smedley,--I am quite astonished at your wasting your money on an advertising astrologer. In the horoscope sent you there is not a single definite fact that would apply to you any more than to thousands of other men. All is vague, what "might be," etc. etc. It is just calculated to lead you on to send more money, and get in reply more words and nothing else....--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.