WCP2612

[1]

Oct. 29. 1895

Dear Dr Wallace,

It is most kind of you to take the trouble of pointing out slips in my book¹ and I am really most sincerely obliged. I have written to Redway² and will insert an erratum slip list; other alteration cannot be made in the state [2] of the proofs. Of course no analogy of one branch of natural force to another can be complete and when I see the word "transparent" it is only to convey an analogy. Probably our whole phraseology for electrical phenomena will become obsolete before very long but meanwhile it is ^{I think}/ fairly accurate to say that of a wire [3] conveying a current, that there is electricity there in it, but that though electrical {^energy force (i.e. {^energy force having an electrical origin) can affect a magnet at a distance there is no "electricity" in the intermediate space. Glass then can be permeated without by electrical {^force energy without being permeable by electricity. But your friend is of course quite right in his presentment and [4] I will try to put in an explanatory note that my illustration must not be taken as a scientific (accurate) statement. I feel that one ought to choose illustrations which don’t need grand[illeg] in this way and had I had the the advantage of his remarks earlier could have struck out the passage.

With sincere thanks | Yours very truly | Stanley de Brath³ [signature]

I am much disgusted at the Eusapia Palladino⁴ affair in this months Journal S. P. R. This kind of thing will [illeg.] as long as there is paid mediumship it seems to me.