WCP1584

[1]

Parkstone, Dorset. Nov. 17th. 1895

My dear Myers¹

I had written a long letter about Eusapia² for the "Journal" but as I don't want to enter on discussion <I> shall not send it. I wish however to state, to you, me chief points:-

1. I object to havong two standards of evidence — one to prove phenomena, the other to prove fraud. What you and the others call "proofs" of fraud you would utterly reject as"proofs" of phenomena.

2. I object to the total ignoring of the possible effect of "thought-transference", or "willing", which the society is committed to as a vera causa.

3. I am amazed at the total silence of every one but Mr Maskelyne as to the one remarkable phenomenon which occurred when the hands were admittedly both secured, and which affords the material for a test — the lifting of the wicker table.

4. I am equally amazed at the Report in the Journal for November, in which the most trivial of the phenomena — touches on the body of those next to the medium &c. — ate [are] hypothetically explained, whole more important things,- as the "enormous hand", the chair "lifted on to the table", — the musical box on <the> floor "playing"- are passed over with no adequate description and no adequate explanation.

5. I am greatly surprised that in what were to be test seances you permitted total darkness. you object, & properly, to anything at a dark seance being evidence — except the best luminous phenomena — & yet almost all your alleged proofs of fraud occurred in total³ darkness or great obscurity. With even light enough to see the outline of figures such explanations as raps being made with Eusapia's head would have been either proved or disproved. You could not have had a much less satisfactory series of sittings had all been in full light, & you would probably have had some positive tests.

6. The analogy of the case of Mrs Piper should, I think, have saved Eusapia from being declared to be a proved impostor. With people who get nothing from her but simple easily-learnt facts, the "fishing" of Phinuit was a "proof of imposture" by Mrs Piper. You and others [2] know it was no proof at all. Yet you accept analogous physical conditions & movements in Eusapia's case to be "proof".

Finally — my judgment is, that the series of seances were quite inconclusive. They proved no "fraud" on the part of Eusapia, while the failure was almost certainly due to the perhaps involuntary but not less real antagonism of most of the sitters, and to the codition of almost complete darkness.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace

(To Myers, Nov.17/95.)⁴