. Alfred Russel Wallace 



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 Prop. Barrett 



Parkstone, Dorset. October 30, 1899. 



My dear Barrett, — . . . Apropos of Nature, they never 

 gave a word of notice to my book* — probably they would 

 say out of kindness to myself as one of their oldest con- 

 tributors, since they would have had to scarify me, especially 

 as regards the huge Vaccination chapter, which is neverthe- 

 less about the most demonstrative bit of work I have done. 

 1 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 K. Wallace. 



To Prof. Barrett 



Parkstone, Dorset. December 24, 1900. 



My dear Barrett, — ... I have read your very interest- 

 ing 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 con- 

 clusions and remarks, which I think are often unfair to the 

 dowsers. 



> " Tlie Wonderful Century." 

 206 



