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._