WCP3449

[1]¹

GEANIES,

ROSSSHIRE, N. B.

Aug 8^th / [18]90

Dear Mr. Wallace,

Even where matters of science and logic are concerned pre-possession counts. I can quite appreciate your way of regarding my position; but if you had my bias against the preter-human, instead of your own in favour of it, I do not think you would see that position so unscientific and illogical as it now appears. For while to you the evidence in my Darwin letters is good as merely corroborating what you already believe on other grounds, to me it is not good enough for the purpose of establishing so enormous and seemingly improbable a doctrine. From my point of view, in [2] order to do this, the evidence would require to prove the preter-human power capable of manifesting itself under several reasonable alterations of conditions, designed to include merely human powers of trickery — seeing that trickery is expressly designed to prevent one detecting "how" the phenomena are produced under one given set of conditions.

I did not know — or had forgotten — that the cage test has been tried by others with alleged success, but I still think it reasonable to require, either that one should oneself have the opportunity of seeing it so tried, or else that several highly competent [illeg. word crossed out] as well as impartial witnesses should bear testimony to the facts — reasonable ^{to require,} I mean[?], before one's judgement instils[?] assent. [3]

But what you say is that I ought to be satisfied with the one test which Williams¹ himself suggested. And so I may in the first instance, as my letters to Darwin show. Not until I had recovered from the immediate astonishment, and had time to reflect as above, did I see that I had been too precipitate in concluding that the one test was sufficient. And it still seems to me that my second thoughts — or more matured reflections — were neither "unscientific" nor "illogical".

Perhaps it is worth while to give a practical illustration of these abstract principles. But for the fact that he is now dead, I could have introduced to you an American medium who would have [4] gone to your own house, and allowed you to furnish your own cabinet, hand-cuffs, canvas sack, string, sealing-wax, and seal. Having fastened his hands together behind his back by means of handcuffs as tightly-fitting as possible, you might have taken him to the cabinet, placed him inside the sack, tied the mouth of the sack as tightly round with ^the string as you could, sealed the knots and likewise the two ends of the string to the outside of the sack. Lastly, you might have shut and locked the cabinet door. Then, after a period varying from one to two minutes, you would have heard the medium knock, and on opening the door would have found him [5] outside the sack, with his hands hand-cuffed behind his back as before — the mouth of the sack being wide open, and all the knots and seals intact. This performance the medium should repeat any number of times, and offer to do so naked if you preferred.

Having seen him do this (it was some years after I had written my first letters to Darwin on these topics), and meditated upon all possible explanations that occured[sic] to me, I was completely baffled. It seemed quite as miraculous as anything that Williams had shown. Therefore, according to your canon, I ought to have been satisfied as to preter-human agency. And so, I [6] think, ought you, unless you can suggest "how" it was done — and unless I add what I now do add, viz. that I persuaded this man to explain the trick.

Therefore I say, as a mere matter of method, if there be such a thing as preter-human power of the kind alleged, it can only demonstrate its existence by continuing to act under several reasonable changes in the conditions. Therefore, also, if the cage test had succeeded with me, although I could still have said (as you observe) that I did not yet know "how" the phenomena were produced, I should have gone a very much longer way in proving that they were not produced by trickery — just as, by parity of reasoning, failure of this test indicated trickery as regards the other. [7]

Touching the mental questions, I do not think that the fact of the answers being unexpected, or contrary to expectation, is in itself enough to justify belief in any preterhuman thought-reader. What can be more [illeg. word crossed out] unexpected than the answers which we get in dreams — where I suppose you allow that we supply, not only the answers, but the persons who give them, as well as an apparently objective memory of circumstances? Psychologically, no doubt, the facts about Bellew etc. are memorable, since they show (according to my eventual idea of them) that a man may unconsciously — or sub-consciously — supply the other side of a dialogue when he is wide awake, just as well as he can when fast asleep. But remarkable as this fact may be, I cannot see that it justifies any appeal to the super-human in order to account for it. [8]

As for the copies of my letters to Darwin, they must originally have been due to some member of his family having submitted the letter to the perusal of friends ; and therefore it is only right that I should now inform the family as to my reproduction of the news[?] which they supress[?]. This it appears to me, you ought also to convey to the man who showed you the copies. As Darwin writes he has no idea who this man can be, or how he gained access to my letters ; but intends to make enquiries. For my own part I do not care to know who he is, since, under the circumstances, he is no doubt well advised in maintaining secrecy. But in return for his showing you the letters without first obtaining my permission — or even ensuring as to the issue of my [2 words illeg.] — it is but due to him that you should show him the present letter.

Yours truly | Geo[rge]. J. Romanes [signature]

*P.S.¹ During the last 14 years no one has been able to show me a medium who can perform under one change of conditions; and where am I to find men if not among the spiritualists?