spiritualism 



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 co- 

 incide with mine, and how admirably and clearly you have 

 expressed them. If it were not for your adopting through- 

 out, 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, proA^es 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 



213 



