I never had anything to do with showing or sending a medium to Huxley. He must refer to his seance a few months ago with Mrs. Kane and Mrs. Jencken (along with Carpenter and Tyndall), when ... nothing but raps occurred....—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The British Association met in Dublin in 1878, and Prof. Barrett asked Wallace to stay with him at Kingstown, or, if he preferred being nearer the meetings, with a friend in Dublin. Earlier in the year Mr. Huggins, afterwards Sir W. Huggins, O.M. and President of the Royal Society, had sent Prof. Barrett a very beautifully executed drawing of the knots tied in an endless cord during the remarkable sittings Prof. Zoellner had with the medium Slade. Sir W. Huggins invited Prof. Barrett to come and see him at his observatory at Tulse Hill, near London, and there he met Wallace and discussed the whole matter. It may not be generally known that so careful and accurate an observer as Sir W. Huggins was convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena he had witnessed with Lord Dunraven and others through the medium D.D. Home. He informed Prof. Barrett of this himself.

TO PROF. BARRETT

Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. June 27, 1873.

My dear Barrett,—The receipt of a British Association circular reminds me of your kind invitation to stay with you or your friend at Dublin, and as you may be wishing soon to make your arrangements I write at once to let you know that, much to my regret, I shall not be able to come to Dublin this year. Since I met you at Mr. Huggins's I have done nothing myself in Spiritual investigations, but have been exceedingly interested in the knot-tying experiment of Prof. Zoellner and the weight-varying experiments of the Spiritualists' Association. I do not see what flaw can be found in either of them....—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In the discussion on Prof. Barrett's paper at the Glasgow Meeting of the British Association, which took place in the London Times and other newspapers, instances of apparent thought-transference were given by many correspondents. Each of these cases Prof. Barrett investigated personally, and one of them led to a remarkable series of experiments which he conducted at Buxton, with the result that no doubt was left on his mind of the fact of the transference of ideas from one mind to another independent of the ordinary channels of sense. He asked Prof. and Mrs. H. Sidgwick to come to Buxton and repeat his experiments with the subjects there—daughters of a local clergyman. They did so, and though they had less success at first than Prof. Barrett had had, they were ultimately convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena. In addition, Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mr. Frederic Myers, Prof. A. Hopkinson and Prof. Balfour Stewart, all responded to Prof. Barrett's invitation to visit Buxton and test the matter for themselves, and all came to the same conclusion as he had. Subsequently Gurney and Myers associated their name with Barrett's in a paper on the subject, published in the Nineteenth Century.

Prof. Barrett asked Wallace to read over the first report made by Prof. and Mrs. Sidgwick, which at first seemed somewhat disheartening, and the following is his reply:

REMARKS ON EXPERIMENTS IN THOUGHT READING BY MR. AND MRS. SIDGWICK AT BUXTON

The failure of so many of these experiments seems to me to depend on their having been conducted without any knowledge of the main peculiarity of thought reading or clairvoyance—that it is a perception of the object thought of or hidden, not by its name, or even by its sum total of distinctive qualities, but by the simple qualities separately. A clairvoyant will perceive a thing as round, then as yellow, and finally as an orange. Now Mr. Galton's experiments have shown how various are the powers of visualising objects possessed by different persons, and how distinct their modes of doing so; and if these distinct visualisations of the same thing are in any way presented to a clairvoyant, there is little wonder that some confusion should result. This would suggest that one person who possesses the faculty of clearly visualising objects would meet with more success than a number of persons some of whom visualise one portion or quality of the object, some another, while to others the name alone is present to the mind. It follows from these considerations that cards are bad for such experiments. The qualities of number, colour, form and arrangement may be severally most prominent in one mind or other, and the result is confusion to the thought reader. This is shown in the experiments by the number of pips or the suit alone being often right.

It must also be remembered that children have not the same thorough knowledge of the names of the cards that we have, nor can they so rapidly and certainly count their numbers. This introduces another source of uncertainty which should be avoided in such experiments as these.

The same thing is still more clearly shown by the way in which objects are guessed by some prominent quality or resemblance, not by any likeness of name—as poker guessed for walking-stick, fork for pipe, something iron for knife, etc. And the total failure in the case of names of towns is clearly explained by the fact that these would convey no distinct idea or concrete image that could be easily described. These last failures really give an important clue to the nature of the faculty that is being investigated, since they show that it is not words or names that are read but thoughts or images that are perceived, and the certainty of the perception will depend upon the simple character of these images and the clearness and identity of the perception of them by the different persons present.

If these considerations are always kept in view, I feel sure that the experiments will be far more successful.

ALFRED E. WALLACE.

Sept. 6, 1881.

* * * * *

Wallace's remarkable gifts as a lecturer are less widely known than his lucid and admirable style as a writer. Though Sir Wm. Barrett has heard a great number of eminent scientific men lecture, he considers that few could approach him for the simplicity, clearness and vigour of his exposition, which commanded the unflagging attention of every one of his hearers. Mr. Frederic Myers, no mean judge of literary merit, once said he thought Wallace one of the most lucid English writers and lecturers of his time. Prof. Barrett was anxious to induce Wallace to lecture in Dublin, and brought the matter before the Science Committee of the Royal Dublin Society, which arranges a course of afternoon lectures by distinguished men every spring. The Committee cordially supported the suggestion that Wallace should be invited to lecture, and the invitation was accepted. During his visit to Dublin, Wallace stayed with Prof. Barrett at Kingstown, and was busily engaged in revising the proof-sheets of his book on "Land Nationalisation" (1882).

In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 334) Wallace says that among the eminent men whose "first acquaintance and valued friendship" he owed to a common interest in Spiritualism was Frederic Myers, whom he met first at some seances in London about the year 1878.

* * * * *

F.W.H. MYERS TO A.R. WALLACE

Leckhampton House, Cambridge. April 12, 1890.

My dear Wallace,—I will read your pamphlet[61] most carefully; will write and tell you how it affects me; and will in any case send it on with your letter and a letter of my own to Sir John Gorst, whom I know well, and whom I agree with you in regarding as the most acceptable member of the Government.

If I am converted, it will be wholly your doing. I have read much on the subject—Creighton, etc., and am at present strongly pro-vaccination; at the same time, there is no one by whom I would more willingly be converted than yourself.

I am glad to take this opportunity of telling you something about my relation to one of your books. I write now from bed, having had some influenzic pneumonia, now going off. For some days my temperature was 105 and I was very restless at night, anxious to read, but in too sensitive and fastidious a state to tolerate almost any book. I found that almost the only book which I could read was your "Malay Archipelago" (of course I had read it before). In spite of my complete ignorance of natural history there was a certain charm about the book, both moral and literary, which made it deeply congenial in those trying hours. You have had few less instructed readers, but very few can have dwelt on that simple manly record with a more profound sympathy.

I want to bespeak you as a friend at court. When we get into the next world, I beg you to remember me and say a good word for me when you can, as you will have much influence there.

To me it seems that Hodgson's report[62] is the best thing which we have yet published. I trust that it impresses you equally. It has converted Podmore amongst other people!

I will, then, write again soon, and I am yours most truly,

F.W.H. MYERS.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER (nee BUCKLEY)

Parkstone, Dorset. January 4, 1896.

My dear Mrs. Fisher,—I am glad to hear that you are going on with your book. I am sure it will be a comfort to you. I have read one book of Hudson's—"A Scientific Demonstration of a Future Life," and that is so pretentious, so unscientific, and so one-sided that I do not feel inclined to read more of the same author's work. I do not think I mentioned to you (as I thought you did not read much now) a really fine and original work, called "Psychic Philosophy, a Religion of Natural Law," by Desertis (Redway). I should like to know if, after reading that, you still think Hudson's books worth reading. I have been much pleased and interested lately in reading Mark Twain's, Mrs. Oliphant's and Andrew Lang's books about Joan of Arc. The last two are far the best, Mrs. Oliphant's as a genuine sympathetic history, Lang's as a fine realistic story ("A Monk of Fife"). Jeanne was really perhaps the most beautiful character in authentic history, and the one that most conclusively demonstrates spirit-guidance, and both Mrs. Oliphant and A. Lang bring this out admirably.... —Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

Parkstone, Dorset. September 14, 1896.

My dear Mrs. Fisher,—I have much pleasure in signing your application for the Psychical Research Society, though the majority of the active members are so absurdly and illogically sceptical that you will not find much instruction in their sayings. Mr. Podmore's report in the last-issued Proceedings is a good illustration....

We have all been in Switzerland this year. Violet, her mother, and five lady friends all went together to a rather newly-discovered place, Adelboden, a branch valley from that going up to the Gemmi Pass by Kandersteg. I went first for a week to Davos, to give a lecture to Dr. Lunn's party, and enjoyed myself much, chiefly owing to the company of Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, one of the most witty, earnest, advanced, and estimable men I have ever met. Dr. Lunn himself is very jolly, and we had also Mr. Le Gallienne, the poet and critic, and between them we had a very brilliant table-talk. Mr. Haweis was also there, and one afternoon he and I talked for two hours about Spiritualism. He is a thorough spiritualist, and preaches it....—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE. TO MRS. FISHER

Parkstone, Dorset. April 9, 1897.

My dear Mrs. Fisher,—I have tried several Reincarnation and Theosophical books, but cannot read them or take any interest in them. They are so purely imaginative, and do not seem to me rational. Many people are captivated by it—I think most people who like a grand, strange, complex theory of man and nature, given with authority—people who if religious would be Roman Catholics. Crookes gave a suggestive and interesting, but in some ways rather misleading address as President of the Psychical Research Society. I liked Oliver Lodge's address to the Spiritualists' Association better....—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In 1891, at the urgent request of Prof. H. Sidgwick, President of the Society for Psychical Research, Prof. Barrett undertook, with considerable reluctance, to make a thorough examination of the subject of "dowsing" for water and minerals by means of the so-called "divining rod." At the time he fully believed that a critical inquiry of this kind would speedily show all the alleged successes of the dowser to be due either to fraud or a sharp eye for the ground. As the inquiry went on, to his surprise he found that neither chicanery, nor clever guessing, nor local knowledge, nor chance coincidence could explain away the accumulated evidence, but that something new to science was really at the root of the matter. This result was so startling that Prof. Barrett had to pursue the investigation for six years before venturing to publish his first report, which appeared in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, Part xxxii., 1897. This was followed by a second report published some years later, in which he gave a fresh body of evidence on the criticisms of some eminent geologists to whom he had submitted the evidence. The reports were reviewed in Nature with considerable severity, and some erroneous statements were made, to which Prof. Barrett replied. The editor, Sir Norman Lockyer, at first declined to publish Prof. Barrett's reply, and to this Wallace refers in the following letter.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

Parkstone, Dorset. October 30, 1899.

My dear Barrett,— ... Apropos of Nature, they never gave a word of notice to my book[63]—probably they would say out of kindness to myself as one of their oldest contributors, since they would have had to scarify me, especially as regards the huge Vaccination chapter, which is nevertheless about the most demonstrative bit of work I have done. I begged Myers—as a personal favour—to read it. He told me he firmly believed in vaccination, but would do so, and afterwards wrote me that he could see no answer to it, and if there was none he was converted. There certainly has been not a tittle of answer except abuse.

I am glad you brought Lockyer up sharp in his attempt to refuse you the right to reply. I am glad you now have some personal observations to adduce. I hope persons or corporations who are going to employ a dowser will now advise you so that you may be present....—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

Parkstone, Dorset. December 24, 1900.

My dear Barrett,— ... I have read your very interesting paper on the divining rod, and the additional evidence you now send. Of course, I think it absolutely conclusive, but there are many points on which I differ from your conclusions and remarks, which I think are often unfair to the dowsers. I will just refer to one or two. At p. 176 (note) you call the idea of there being a "spring-head" at a particular point "absurd." But instead of being absurd it is a fact, proved not only by numerous cases you have given of strong springs being found quite near to weak springs a few yards off, but by all the phenomena of mineral and hot springs. Near together, as at Bath, hot springs and cold springs rise to the surface, and springs of different quality at Harrogate, yet each keeps its distinct character, showing that each rises from a great depth without any lateral diffusion or intermixture. This is a common phenomenon all over the world, the dowsers' facts support it, geologists know all about it, yet I presume they have told you that when a dowser states this fact it ceases to be a fact and becomes an absurdity!

The only other point I have time to notice is your Sect. II. (p. 285). You head this, "Evidence that the Motion of the Rod is due to Unconscious Muscular Action." Naturally I read this with the greatest interest, but found to my astonishment that you adduce no evidence at all, but only opinions of various people, and positive assertions that such is the case! Now as I know that motions of various objects occur without any muscular action, or even any contact whatever, while Crookes has proved this by careful experiments which have never been refuted, what improbability is there that this should be such a case, and what is the value of these positive assertions which you quote as "evidence"? And at p. 286 you quote the person who says the more he tried to prevent the stick's turning the more it turned, as evidence in favour of muscular action, without a word of explanation. Another man (p. 287) says he "could not restrain it." None of the "trained anatomists" you quote give a particle of proof, only positive opinion, that it must be muscular action—simply because they do not believe any other action possible. Their evidence is just as valueless as that of the people who say that all thought-transference is collusion or imposture!

I do not say that it is not "muscular action," though I believe it is not always so, but I do say that you have as yet given not a particle of proof that it is so, while scattered through your paper is plenty of evidence which points to its being something quite different. Such are the cases when people hold the rod for the first time and have never seen a dowser work, yet the rod turns, over water, to their great astonishment, etc. etc.

Your conclusion that it is "clairvoyance" is a good provisional conclusion, but till we know what clairvoyance really is it explains nothing, and is merely another way of stating the fact.

I believe all true clairvoyance to be spirit impression, and that all true dowsing is the same—that is, when in either case it cannot be thought-transference, but even this I believe to be also, for the most part, if not wholly, spirit impression.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

Parkstone, Dorset. February 17, 1901.

My dear Barrett,—I am rather sorry you wrote to any one of the Society for Psychical Research people about my being asked to be President, because I should certainly feel compelled to decline it. I never go, willingly, to London now, and should never attend meetings, so pray say no more about it. Besides, I am so widely known as a "crank" and a "faddist" that my being President would injure the Society, as much as Lord Rayleigh would benefit it, so pray do not put any obstacle in his way, though of course there is no necessity to beg him as a favour to be the successor of Sidgwick, Crookes and Myers....

* * * * *

TO REV. J.B. HENDERSON

Parkstone, Dorset. August 10, 1893.

Dear Sir,—Although I look upon Christianity as originating in an unusual spiritual influx, I am not disposed to consider [it] as essentially different from those which originated other great religious and philanthropic movements. It is probable that in your sense of the word I am not a Christian.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. J.W. MARSHALL

Parkstone, Dorset. March 6, 1894.

My dear Marshall,—We were very much grieved to hear of your sad loss in a letter from Violet. Pray accept our sincere sympathy for Mrs. Marshall and yourself.

Death makes us feel, in a way nothing else can do, the mystery of the universe. Last autumn I lost my sister, and she was the only relative I have been with at the last. For the moment it seems unnatural and incredible that the living self with its special idiosyncrasies you have known so long can have left the body, still more unnatural that it should (as so many now believe) have utterly ceased to exist and become nothingness!

With all my belief in, and knowledge of, Spiritualism, I have, however, occasional qualms of doubt, the remnants of my original deeply ingrained scepticism; but my reason goes to support the psychical and spiritualistic phenomena in telling me that there must be a hereafter for us all....—Believe me yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO DR. EDWIN SMITH

Parkstone, Dorset. October 19, 1899.

Dear Sir,—I know nothing of London mediums now. Nine-tenths of the alleged frauds in mediums arise from the ignorance of the sitters. The only way to gain any real knowledge of spiritualistic phenomena is to follow the course pursued in all science—study the elements before going to the higher branches. To expect proof of materialisation before being satisfied of the reality of such simpler phenomena as raps, movements of various objects, etc. etc., is as if a person began chemistry by trying to analyse the more complex vegetable products before he knew the composition of water and the simplest salts.

If you want to know anything about Spiritualism you should experiment yourself with a select party of earnest inquirers—personal friends. When you have thus satisfied yourself of the existence of a considerable range of the physical phenomena and of many of the obscurities and difficulties of the inquiry, you may use the services of public mediums, without the certainty of imputing every little apparent suspicious circumstance to trickery, since you will have seen similar suspicious facts in your private circle where you knew there was no trickery. You will find rules for forming private circles in some issues of Light. You can get them from the office of Light.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

PROF. BARRETT TO A.R. WALLACE

6 De Vesci Terrace, Kingstown, Co. Dublin. November 3, 1905.

My dear Wallace,— ... Just now I am engaged in a correspondence with the Secretaries of the Society for Psychical Research on the question of the Presidency for next year. I maintain that as a matter of duty to the Society you should be asked to accept the Presidency, though of course it would be impossible for you to be much more than an Honorary President, as we could not expect you often to come to London. I am anxious that in our records for future reference your Presidency should appear.... Podmore, who is proposed as President, represents the attitude of resolute incredulity, and I consider this line of action has been to some extent injurious to the S.P.R. Crookes supported my proposal, and so did Lodge, and so would Myers if he had lived. All this is of course between ourselves....

I have a vast amount of material unpublished on "dowsing" and am convinced the explanation is subconscious clairvoyance....—Yours very sincerely,

W.F. BARRETT.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

Broadstone, Wimborne. April 20, 1906.

My dear Mrs. Fisher,—If you mean "honest" by "thoroughly reliable," there are plenty of such mediums, but if you mean those who give equally good results always, and to all persons, I should say there are none....

I am reading Herbert Spencer's "Autobiography" (just finished Vol. I.). I find it very interesting, though tedious in parts. I am glad I did not read it before I wrote mine. He certainly brings out his own character most strikingly, and a wonderful character it was. How extraordinarily little he owed either to teaching or to reading! I think he is best described as a "reasoning genius."—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

LORD AVEBURY TO A.R. WALLACE

48 Grosvenor Street, W. May 1, 1910.

My dear Wallace,—I have been reading your biography with great interest. It must be a source of very pleasant memories to you to look back and feel how much you have accomplished.

It surprises me, however, how much we differ, and it is another illustration of the problems [?] of our (or rather I should say of my) intellect.

In some cases, indeed, the difference is as to facts.

You would, I am sure, for instance, find that you have been misinformed as to "thousands of dogs" being vivisected annually (p. 392).... As to Spiritualism, my difficulty is that nothing comes of it. What has been gained by your seances, compared to your studies?

I see you have a kindly reference to our parties at High Elms in old days, on which I often look back with much pleasure, but much regret also.

If you would give us the pleasure of another visit, do propose yourself, and you will have a very hearty welcome from yours very sincerely,

AVEBURY.

* * * * *

A lecture delivered by Prof. Barrett before the Quest Society in London, entitled "Creative Thought," was published by request, and as it discussed the subject of evolution and the impossibility of explaining the phenomena of life without a supreme Directing and Formative Force behind all the manifestations of life, he was anxious to have Wallace's criticisms. At that time he had not read Wallace's recently published work on a similar subject, and he was greatly surprised to find how closely his views agreed with those of the great naturalist.

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 coincide with mine, and how admirably and clearly you have expressed them. If it were not for your adopting throughout, 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, proves 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 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.

Dear Mr. Smedley,—I am quite astonished at your wasting your money on an advertising astrologer. In the horoscope sent you there is not a single definite fact that would apply to you any more than to thousands of other men. All is vague, what "might be," etc. etc. It is just calculated to lead you on to send more money, and get in reply more words and nothing else....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.



PART VII

Characteristics

"There is a point of view so lofty or so peculiar that from it we are able to discern in men and women something more than and apart from creed and profession and formulated principle; which indeed directs and colours this creed and principle as decisively as it is in its turn acted on by them, and this is their character or humanity."—LORD MORLEY.

"As sets the sun in fine autumnal calm So dost thou leave us. Thou not least but last Link with that rare and gallant little band Of seekers after truth, whose days, though past, Shed lustre on the hist'ry of their land. And thine, O Wallace, thine the added charm Of modesty, thy mem'ry to embalm."—Anonymous.

(Received with a bunch of lilies-of-the-valley, a few days after Dr. Wallace's death.)

Addison somewhere says that modesty sets off every talent which a man can be possessed of. This was manifestly true of Alfred Russel Wallace. When, for instance, honours were bestowed upon him, he accepted or rejected them with the same good-humour and unspoilable modesty. To Prof. E.B. Poulton, whose invitation for the forthcoming Encaemia had been conveyed in Prof. Bartholomew Price's letter, he wrote:

Godalming. May 28, 1889.

My dear Mr. Poulton,—I have just received from Prof. B. Price the totally unexpected offer of the honorary degree of D.C.L. at the coming Commemoration, and you will probably be surprised and disgusted to hear that I have declined it. I have to thank you for your kind offer of hospitality during the ceremony, but the fact is, I have at all times a profound distaste of all public ceremonials, and at this particular time that distaste is stronger than ever. I have never recovered from the severe illness I had a year and a half ago, and it is in hopes of restoring my health that I have let my cottage here and have taken another at Parkstone, Dorset, into which I have arranged to move on Midsummer Day. To add to my difficulties, I have work at examination papers for the next two or three weeks, and also a meeting (annual) of our Land Nationalisation Society, so that the work of packing my books and other things and looking after the plants which I have to move from my garden will have to be done in a very short time. Under these circumstances it would be almost impossible for me to rush away to Oxford except under absolute compulsion, and to do so would be to render a ceremony which at any time would be a trial, a positive punishment.

Really the greatest kindness my friends can do me is to leave me in peaceful obscurity, for I have lived so secluded a life that I am more and more disinclined to crowds of any kind. I had to submit to it in America, but then I felt exceptionally well, whereas now I am altogether weak and seedy and not at all up to fatigue or excitement.—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE. Prof. Poulton pressed him to reconsider his decision, and he reluctantly gave way.

* * * * *

Godalming. June 2, 1889.

My dear Mr. Poulton,—I am exceedingly obliged by your kind letters, and I will say at once that if the Council of the University should again ask me to accept the degree, to be conferred in the autumn, as you propose, I could not possibly refuse it. At the same time I hope you will not in any way urge it upon them, as I really feel myself too much of an amateur in Natural History and altogether too ignorant (I left school—a bad one—finally, at fourteen) to receive honours from a great University. But I will say no more about that.—Yours very faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In due course he received the degree. "On that occasion," says Professor Poulton, "Wallace stayed with us, and I was anxious to show him something of Oxford; but, with all that there is to be seen, one subject alone absorbed the whole of his interest—he was intensely anxious to find the rooms where Grant Allen had lived. He had received from Grant Allen's father a manuscript poem giving a picture of the ancient city dimly seen by midnight from an undergraduate's rooms. With the help of Grant Allen's college friends we were able to visit every house in which he had lived, but were forced to conclude that the poem was written in the rooms of a friend or from an imaginary point of view."

His friend Sir W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, with others, was promoting his election to the Royal Society, and wrote to him:

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

Kew. October 23, 1892.

Dear Mr. Wallace,— ... When you were at Kew this summer I took the liberty of saying that it would give great pleasure to the Fellows of the Royal Society if you would be willing to join their body. I understood you to say that it would be agreeable to you. I now propose to comply with the necessary formalities. But before doing so it will be proper to ask for your formal consent. You will then, as a matter of course, be included in the next annual election.

Will you forgive me if I am committing any indiscretion in saying that I have good authority for adding (though I suppose it can hardly be stated officially at this stage) that no demand will ever be made upon you for a subscription?—Believe me yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

Kew. January 12, 1893.

Dear Mr. Wallace,— ... I was very vexed to hear that I had misunderstood your wishes about the Royal Society. Of course, the matter must often have presented itself to your mind, and I confess that it argued a little presumption on the part of a person like myself, so far inferior to you in age and standing, to think that you would yield to my solicitation.

I was obliged for my health to go to Eastbourne, and there I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Huxley, who, you will be glad to hear, is wonderfully well, and an ardent gardener! His present ambition is to grow every possible saxifrage.

I told him that I had had the audacity to approach you on the subject of the Royal Society. He heartily approved, and expressed the strongest opinion that unless you had some insuperable objection you ought to yield. All of us who belong to the R.S. have but one wish, which is that it should stand before the public as containing all that is best and worthiest in British Science. As long as men like you stand aloof, that cannot be said. Lately we have been exposed to some very ill-natured attacks: we have been told that we are professional, and not discoverers. Well, this is all the more reason for your not holding aloof from us. I wish you would think it over again. Huxley went the length of saying that to him it seemed a plain duty. But this is language I do not like to use.

As to attending the meetings or taking part in the work of the Society, that is immaterial. Darwin never did either, though he did once come to one of the evening receptions, and enjoyed it immensely.

In writing as I do I am not merely expressing my own opinions, but those of many others of my own standing who are keenly interested in the matter.

It is not a great matter to ask. I have the certificate ready. You have but to say the word. You will be put to no trouble or pecuniary responsibility. That my father-in-law arranged, long ago.

To dissociate yourself from the R.S. really amounts nowadays to doing it an injury. And I am sure you do not wish that.

With all good wishes, believe me yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

TO SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER

Parkstone, Dorset. January 17, 1893.

Dear Mr. Thiselton-Dyer,—I have been rather unwell myself the last few days or should have answered your very kind letter sooner. I feel really overpowered. I cannot understand why you or anyone should care about my being an F.R.S., because I have really done so little of what is usually considered scientific work to deserve it. I have for many years felt almost ashamed of the amount of reputation and honour that has been awarded me. I can understand the general public thinking too highly of me, because I know that I have the power of clear exposition, and, I think, also, of logical reasoning. But all the work I have done is more or less amateurish and founded almost wholly on other men's observations; and I always feel myself dreadfully inferior to men like Sir J. Hooker, Huxley, Flower, and scores of younger men who have extensive knowledge of whole departments of biology of which I am totally ignorant. I do not wish, however, to be thought ungrateful for the many honours that have been given me by the Royal and other Societies, and will therefore place myself entirely in your hands as regards my election to the F.R.S.

I am much pleased to hear that Huxley has taken to gardening. I have no doubt he will do some good work with his saxifrages. For myself the personal attention to my plants occupies all my spare time, and I derive constant enjoyment from the mere contemplation of the infinite variety of forms of leaf and flower, and modes of growth, and strange peculiarities of structure which are the source of fresh puzzles and fresh delights year by year. With best wishes and many thanks for the trouble you are taking on my behalf, believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED B. WALLACE.

* * * * *

In 1902 the Standard announced that the degree of D.C.L. was to be conferred upon him by the University of Wales. He wrote to Miss Dora Best, who had sent him the information:

I have not seen the Standard. But I suppose it is about the offer of a degree by the University of Wales. You will not be surprised to hear that I have declined it "with thanks." The bother, the ceremony, the having perhaps to get a blue or yellow or scarlet gown! and at all events new black clothes and a new topper! such as I have not worn this twenty years. Luckily I had a good excuse in having committed the same offence before. Some ten years back I declined the offer of a degree from Cambridge, so that settled it.

P.S.—Having already degrees two—LL.D. (Dublin) and D.C.L. (Oxford)—I might have quoted Shakespeare: "To gild refined gold, to paint the lily," etc. But I didn't!—A.R.W.

* * * * *

In 1908 he received the Order of Merit, the highest honour conferred upon him. To his friend Mrs. Fisher he wrote:

Dear Mrs. Fisher,—Is it not awful—two more now! I should think very few men have had three such honours within six months! I have never felt myself worthy of the Copley Medal—and as to the Order of Merit—to be given to a red-hot Radical, Land Nationaliser, Socialist, Anti-Militarist, etc. etc. etc., is quite astounding and unintelligible!...

There is another thing you have not heard yet, but it will be announced soon. Sir W. Crookes, as Secretary of the Royal Institution, wrote to me two weeks back asking me very strongly to give them a lecture at their opening meeting (third week in January) appropriate to the Jubilee of the "Origin of Species." I was very unwell at the time—could eat nothing, etc.—and was going to decline positively, having nothing more to say! But while lying down, vaguely thinking about it, an idea flashed upon me of a new treatment of the whole subject of Darwinism, just suitable for a lecture to a R.I. audience. I felt at once there was something that ought to be said, and that I should like to say—so I actually wrote and accepted, provisionally. My voice has so broken that unless I can improve it I fear not being heard, but Crookes promised to read it either wholly, or leaving to me the opening and concluding paragraphs. I was very weak—almost a skeleton—but I am now getting much better. But finishing up the "Spruce" book, and now all these honours and congratulations and letters, etc., are giving me much work, yet I am getting strong again, and really hope to do this "lecture" as my last stroke for Darwinism against the Mutationists and Mendelians, but much more effective, I hope, than my article in the August Contemporary Review, though that was pretty strong.—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

How more than true "Sunlight's"[64] words have come, "You will come out of the hole! You will be more in the world. You will have satisfaction, retrospection, and work"! Literally fulfilled!—A.R.W.

* * * * *

And to Mr. F. Birch:

December 30, 1908.

Dear Fred,— ... I received a letter from Lord Knollys—the King's Private Secretary—informing me that His Majesty proposed to offer me the Order of Merit, among the Birthday honours! This is an "Order" established by the present King about eight years ago, solely for "merit"—whether civil or military—it is a pity it was not civil only, as the military have so many distinctions already. So I had to compose a very polite letter of acceptance and thanks, and then later I had to beg to be excused (on the ground of age and delicate health) from attending the investiture at Buckingham Palace (on December 14th), when Court dress—a kind of very costly livery—is obligatory! and I was kept for weeks waiting. But at last one of the King's Equerries, Col. Legge (an Earl's son), came down here about two weeks ago bringing the Order, which is a very handsome cross in red and blue enamel and gold—rich colours—with a crown above, and a rich ribbed-silk blue and crimson riband to hang it round the neck! Col. Legge was very pleasant, stayed half an hour, had some tea, and showed us how to wear it. So I shall be in duty bound to wear it on the only public occasion I shall be seen again (in all probability), when I give (or attempt to give) my lecture.[65] Then, I had a letter from Windsor telling me that chalk portraits of all the members of the Order were to be taken for the collections in the Library, and a Mr. Strang came and stayed the night, and in four hours completed a very good life-size head, in coloured chalk, and so far, so good!—Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

Wallace regarded "Sunlight's" prophecy about "retrospection" as being fulfilled in 1904, when he received the invitation of Messrs. Chapman and Hall to begin collecting material for his autobiography which was subsequently published in two large volumes, under the title of "My Life."

Referring to this work he wrote to Mrs. Fisher:

Broadstone, Dorset. April 17, 1904.

Dear Mrs. Fisher,—Thanks for your remarks on what an autobiography ought to be. But I am afraid I shall fall dreadfully short. I seem to remember nothing but ordinary facts and incidents of no interest to anyone but my own family. I do not feel myself that anything has much influenced my character or abilities, such as they are. Lots of things have given me opportunities, and those I can state. Also other things have directed me into certain lines, but I can't dilate on these; and really, with the exception of Darwin and Sir Charles Lyell, I have come into close relations with hardly any eminent men. All my doings and surroundings have been commonplace!

I am now just reading a charming and ideal bit of autobiography—Robert Dale Owen's "Threading my Way." If you have not read it, do get it (published by Truebner and Co. in 1874). It is delightful. So simple and natural throughout. But his father was one of the most wonderful men of the nineteenth century—Robert Owen of New Lanark—and this book gives the true history of his great success. Then R.D. Owen met Clarkson and heard from his own lips how he worked to abolish the slave trade.

Then he had part of his education at Hofwyl under Fellenberg, an experiment in education and self-government wonderfully original and successful. He afterwards worked at "New Harmony" with his father, and met during his life almost all the most remarkable people in England and America.

This book only contains the first twenty-seven years of his life and I am afraid he never completed it. Such a book makes me despair!—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

When "My Life" was published, he wrote to the same old and valued friend:

Broadstone, Wimborne. November 7, 1905.

My dear Mrs. Fisher,—The reviewers are generally very fair about the fads except a few. The Review invents a new word for me—I am an "anti-body"; but the Outlook is the richest: I am the one man who believes in Spiritualism, phrenology, anti-vaccination, and the centrality of the earth in the universe, whose life is worth writing. Then it points out a few things I am capable of believing, but which everybody else knows to be fallacies, and compares me to Sir I. Newton writing on the prophets! Yet of course he praises my biology up to the skies—there I am wise—everywhere else I am a kind of weak, babyish idiot! It is really delightful!

Only one is absolutely savage about it all—the Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury. The reviewer devotes over three columns almost wholly to the fads—as to all of which he evidently knows absolutely nothing, but he is cocksure that I am always wrong!...—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

He always thought that he was deficient in the gift of humour: "I am," he wrote to Mr. J.W. Marshall (May 6, 1905), "still grinding away at my autobiography. Have got to my American lecture tour, and hope to finish by about Sept. but have such lots of interruptions. I am just reading Huxley's Life. Some of his letters are inimitable, but the whole is rather monotonous. I find there is a good deal of variety in my life if I had but the gift of humour! Alas! I could not make a joke to save my life. But I find it very interesting." "Unless somebody," he wrote to Miss Evans, "can make me laugh just before the critical moment I always have a horrid expression in photographs." Yet another observant friend remarked that "he had a keen sense of humour. It was always his boyish joyous exuberance which touched me. He never grew old. When I had sat with him an hour he was a young man, he became transfigured to me." ... "The last time I saw Dr. Wallace," writes Prof. T.D.A. Cockerell of Colorado, "was immediately after the Darwin Celebration at Cambridge in 1909. I was the first to give him the details concerning it, and vividly remember how interested he was, and how heartily he laughed over some of the funny incidents, which may not as yet be told in print. One of his most prominent characteristics was his keen sense of humour, and his enjoyment of a good story." In the summer of 1885 he spent a holiday with Prof. Meldola at Lyme Regis. "After our ramble," said the Professor, "we used to spend the evenings indoors, I reading aloud the 'Ingoldsby Legends,' which Wallace richly enjoyed. His humour was a delightful characteristic. 'The inimitable puns of T. Hood were,' he said, 'the delight of my youth, as is the more recondite and fantastic humour of Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll in my old age.'"

* * * * *

Wallace loved to give time and trouble in aiding young men to start in life, especially if they were endeavouring to become naturalists. He sent them letters of advice, helped them in the choice of the right country to visit, and gave them minute practical instructions how to live healthily and to maintain themselves. He put their needs before other and more fortunate scientific workers and besought assistance for them.

"The central secret of his personal magnetism lay in his wide and unselfish sympathy," writes Prof. Poulton.[66] "It might be thought by those who did not know Wallace that the noble generosity which will always stand as an example before the world was something special—called forth by the illustrious man with whom he was brought in contact. This would be a great mistake. Wallace's attitude was characteristic, and characteristic to the end of his life.

"A keen young naturalist in the North of England, taking part in an excursion to the New Forest, called on Wallace and confided to him the dream of his life—a first-hand knowledge of tropical nature. When I visited 'Old Orchard' in the summer of 1903, I found that Wallace was intently interested in two things: his garden, and the means by which his young friend's dream might best be realised. The subject was referred to in seventeen letters to me; it formed the sole topic of some of them. It was a grand and inspiring thing to see this great man identifying himself heart and soul with the interests of one—till then a stranger—in whom he recognised the passionate longings of his own youth. By the force of sympathy he re-lived in the life of another the splendid years of early manhood."

The late Prof. Knight recalled meeting him at the British Association in Dundee, during the year 1867, when Wallace was his guest for the usual time of the gathering. He wrote:

I, and everyone else who then met him at my house, were struck, as no one could fail to be, by his rare urbanity, his social charm, his modesty, his unobtrusive strength, his courtesy in explaining matters with which he was himself familiar but those he conversed with were not; and his abounding interest, not only in almost every branch of Science, but in human knowledge in all its phases, especially new ones. He was a many-sided scientific man, and had a vivid sense of humour. He greatly enjoyed anecdote, as illustrative of character. During those days he talked much on the fundamental relations between Science and Philosophy, as well as on the connection of Poetry with both of them. When he left Dundee he went to Kenmore, that he might ascend Ben Lawers in search of some rare ferns.

In 1872 I saw him, after meeting Thomas Carlyle and Dean Stanley at Linlathen, when Darwin's theory was much discussed, and when our genial host—Mr. Erskine—talked so dispassionately but decidedly against evolution as explanatory of the rise of what was new. A little later in the same year Matthew Arnold discussed the same subject with some friends at the Athenaeum Club, defending the chief aim of Darwin's theory, and enlarging from a different point of view what Wallace had done in the same direction. I remember well that he characterised the two men as fellow-workers, not as followers, or in any sense as copyists. Wallace's versatility not only continued, but grew in many ways with the advance of years. It was seen in his appreciation of the value of historical study. Quite late in life he wrote: "The nineteenth century is quite as wonderful in the domain of History as in that of Science." Comparatively few know, or remember, that he and his young brother Herbert—on whom he left an interesting chapter in memoriam—both wrote verses, some of which were of real value.

It may be safely said that few scientific men have sympathetically entered into bordering territories and therein excelled. The whole field of psychical research was familiar to him, and he might have been a leader in it.

My last meeting with him was at his final home, the "Old Orchard," Broadstone, in 1909. I was staying at Boscombe in Hants, and he asked me to "come and see his garden, while we talked of past days." He had then the freshness of boyhood, blent with the mellow wisdom of age.—W.A.K.

The eminent naturalist and traveller, Dr. Henry O. Forbes, who later explored the greater part of the lands visited by Wallace, contributes the following appreciation of the latter's scientific work:

As a traveller, explorer and working naturalist, Wallace will always stand in the first rank, compared even with the most modern explorers. It ought not to be forgotten, however, how great were the difficulties, the dangers and the cost of travel fifty years ago, compared with the facilities now enjoyed by his successors, who can command steam and motor transport to wellnigh any spot on the coasts of the globe, and who have to their hand concentrated and preserved foods, a surer knowledge of the causes of tropical diseases, and outfits of non-perishable medicines sufficient for many years within the space of a few cubic inches. Commissariat and health are the keys to all exploration in uncivilised regions. Wallace accomplished his work on the shortest of commons and lay weeks at a time sick through inability to replenish his medical stores.

He was no mere "trudger" over new lands. Where those before him, and even many after him, have been able to see only sterile objects, his discerning eyes perceived everywhere a meaning in the varying modes of organic life, and in response to his sympathetic mind Nature revealed to him more of her multitudinous secrets than to most others. Wallace's Amazonian travels were far from unfruitful, in spite of the irreparable loss he sustained in the burning of his notes and the bulk of his collections in the vessel by which he was returning home; but it was in the Malay Archipelago that his most celebrated years of investigation were passed, which marked him as one of the greatest naturalists of our time. As a methodical natural history collector—which is "the best sport in the world" according to Darwin—he has never been surpassed; and few naturalists, if any, have ever brought together more enormous collections than he. The mere statement, taken from his "Malay Archipelago," of the number of his captures in the Archipelago in six years of actual collecting, exceeding 125,000 specimens—a number greater than the entire contents of many large museums—still causes amazement. The value of a collection, however, depends on the full and accurate information attached to each specimen, and from this point of view only a few collections, including Darwin's and Bates's, have possessed the great scientific value of his.

Wallace's Eastern explorations included nearly all the large and the majority of the smaller islands of the Archipelago. Many of them he was the first naturalist to visit, or to reside on. Ceram, Batjian, Buru, Lombok, Timor, Aru, Ke and New Guinea had never been previously scientifically investigated. When in 1858 "the first and greatest of the naturalists," as Dr. Wollaston styles Wallace, visited New Guinea, it was "the first time that any European had ventured to reside alone and practically unprotected on the mainland of this country," which, dangerous as it is now in the same regions, was infinitely more so then. Of the journals of his voyagings, "The Malay Archipelago" will always be ranked among the greatest narratives of travel. The fact that this volume has gone through a dozen editions is witness to its extraordinary popularity among intelligent minds, and hardly supports the belief that his scientific work has been forgotten. Nor can this popularity be a matter of much surprise, for few travellers have possessed Wallace's powers of exposition, his lucidity and charm of style. Professor Strasburger of Bonn has declared that through "The Malay Archipelago" "a new world of scientific knowledge" was unfolded before him. "I feel it ... my duty," he adds, "to proclaim it with gratitude." Wallace's narrative has attracted during the past half-century numerous naturalists to follow in his tracks, many of whom have reaped rich aftermaths of his harvest; but certain it is that no explorer in the same, if in any other, region has approached his eminence, or attained the success he achieved.

As a systematic zoologist, Wallace took no inconsiderable place; his metier, however, was different. He described, nevertheless, large sections of his Lepidoptera and of his birds, on which many valuable papers are printed in the Transactions of the learned societies and in various scientific periodicals. Of the former, special mention may be made of that on variation in the "Papilionidae of the Malayan Region," of which Darwin has recorded: "I have never in my life been more struck by any paper." Of the latter, reference may be drawn to his account of the "Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago" and his paper on the "Passerine Birds," in which he proposed an important new arrangement of the families of that group (used later in his "Geographical Distribution") based on the feathering of their wings. Without a lengthy search through the zoological records, it would be impossible to say how many species Wallace added to science; but the constant recurrence in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum of "wallacei" as the name bestowed on various new species by other systematists, and of "Wallace" succeeding those scientifically named by himself, is an excellent gauge of their very large number.

In the field of anthropology Wallace could never be an uninterested spectator. He took a deep interest, he tells us, in the study of the various races of mankind. His accounts of the Amazonian tribes suffered greatly by the loss of his journals; but of the peoples of the Malay Archipelago he has given us a most interesting narrative, detailing their bodily and mental characteristics, and showing how their distribution accorded with that of the fauna on the opposite sides—Malays to the West, Papuans to the East—of Wallace's Line. If fuller investigation of the New Guinea tribes requires some modification in regard to their origin, his observations, as broadly outlined then, remain true still. His opinions on the origin of the Australian aborigines—that they were a low and primitive type of Caucasian race—which, when first promulgated, were somewhat sceptically received, are now those accepted by many very competent anthropologists.

Wallace's contributions to Geographical Science were only second in importance to those he so pre-eminently made to biology. Though skilled in the use of surveying instruments, he did little or no map-making—at all times a laborious and lengthy task—for, with more important purposes in his mind, he could not spare the time, nor did the limitations to his movements permit any useful attempt. Yet he did pure geographical work quite as important. The value of the comparative study of the flora and fauna of neighbouring regions, the great differences in the midst of much likeness between the organic life of neighbouring land masses, was a subject that was always in Wallace's mind during his exploration of the Amazon Valley, for he perceived that the physical geography and the distribution of these animals and plants were of the greatest service in elucidating their history where the geological record was defective. As is well known, the visual inspection of the geological structure of tropical countries is always difficult and often impossible to make out because of the dense vegetation upon the surface and even the faces of the river gorges. But for the loss of his collections and notes we should have had from Wallace's pen a Physical History of the Amazon. This loss was, however, amply made up by his very original contributions to the geography of the Malay Archipelago. "The Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago" and "The Physical Geography of the Malay Archipelago" (written on Eastern soil, with the texts of his discourses around him) were the forerunners of his monumental "Geographical Distribution of Animals," elaborated in England after his return. "To the publication of the 'Geographical Distribution of Animals' we owe the first scientific study of the distribution of organic life on the globe, which has broadened ever since, and continues to interest students daily; his brilliant work in Natural History and Geography ... is universally honoured," are the opinions of Dr. Scott speaking as President of the Linnean Society of London.

One of Wallace's most important contributions to the physical geography of the Malay region was his discovery of the physical differences between the western and the eastern portions of the Archipelago; i.e. that the islands lying to the east of a line running north from the middle of the Straits of Bali and outside Celebes were fragments of an ancient and larger Australian continent, while those to the western side were fragments of an Asiatic continent. This he elucidated by recognising that the flora and fauna on the two sides of the line, close though these islands approached each other, were absolutely different and had remained for ages uncommingled. This line was denominated "Wallace's Line" by Huxley, and this discovery alone would have been sufficient to associate his name inseparably with this region of the globe.—H.O.F.

Like Darwin, Wallace gave excessive attention to the suggestions and criticisms of people who were obviously ignorant of the subjects about which they wrote. He was never impatient with honest ignorance or considered the lowly position of his correspondents. He replied to all letters of inquiry (and he received many from working men), and always gave his best knowledge and advice to anyone who desired it. There was not the faintest suggestion of the despicable sense of superiority about him.

"I had, of course, revelled in 'The Malay Archipelago' when a boy," says Prof. Cockerell, "but my first personal relations with Dr. Wallace arose from a letter I wrote him after reading his 'Darwinism,' then (early in 1890) recently published. The book delighted me, but I found a number of little matters to criticise and discuss, and with the impetuosity of youth proceeded to write to the author, and also to send a letter on some of the points to Nature. I have possibly not yet reached years of discretion, but in the perspective of time I can see with confusion that what I regarded as worthy zeal might well have been characterised by others as confounded impudence. In the face of this, the tolerance and kindness of Dr. Wallace's reply is wholly characteristic: 'I am very much obliged to you for your letter containing so many valuable emendations and suggestions on my "Darwinism." They will be very useful to me in preparing another edition. Living in the country with but few books, I have often been unable to obtain the latest information, but for the purpose of the argument the facts of a few years back are often as good as those of to-day—which in their turn will be modified a few years hence.... You appear to have so much knowledge of details in so many branches of natural history, and also to have thought so much on many of the more recondite problems, that I shall be much pleased to receive any further remarks or corrections on any other portions of my book.' This letter, written to a very young and quite unknown man in the wilds of Colorado, who had merely communicated a list of more or less trifling criticisms, can only be explained as an instance of Dr. Wallace's eagerness to help and encourage beginners. It did not occur to him to question the propriety of the criticisms, he did not write as a superior to an inferior; he only saw what seemed to him a spark of biological enthusiasm, which should by all means be kindled into flame. Many years later, when I was at his house, he produced with the greatest delight some letters from a young man who had gone to South America and was getting his first glimpse of the tropical forest. What discoveries he might make! What joy he must have on seeing the things described in the letter, such things as Dr. Wallace himself had seen in Brazil so long ago!"

Wallace's critical faculty was always keen and vigilant. Unlike some critics, however, he relished genuine and well-informed criticism of his own writings. Flattery he despised; whilst the charge of dishonesty aroused strongest resentment. Deceived he might be, but he required clear proof that his own eyes and ears had led him astray. Romanes, who had propounded the forgotten theory of physiological selection, charged Wallace with adopting it as his own. This was not only untrue, it was ridiculous; and Wallace, after telling him so and receiving no apology, dropped him out of his recognition. During Romanes' illness Mr. Thiselton-Dyer wrote to Wallace and sought to bring about a reconciliation, and Wallace replied:

* * * * *

Parkstone, Dorset. September 26, 1893.

My dear Thiselton-Dyer,—I am sorry to hear of Romanes' illness, because I think he would have done much good work in carrying out experiments which require the leisure, means and knowledge which he possesses. I cannot, however, at all understand his wishing to have any communication from myself. I do not think I ever met Romanes in private more than once, when he called on me more than twenty years ago about some curious psychical phenomena occurring in his own family; and perhaps half a dozen letters—if so many—may have passed between us since. There is therefore no question of personal friendship disturbed. I consider, however, that he made a very gross misstatement and personal attack on me when he stated, both in English and American periodicals, that in my "Darwinism" I adopted his theory of "physiological selection" and claimed it as my own, and that my adoption of it was "unequivocal and complete." This accusation he supported by such a flood of words and quotations and explanations as to obscure all the chief issues and render it almost impossible for the ordinary reader to disentangle the facts. I told him then that unless he withdrew this accusation as publicly as he had made it I should decline all future correspondence with him, and should avoid referring to him in any of my writings.

This is, of course, very different from any criticism of my theories; that, or even ridicule, would never disturb me; but when a man has made an accusation of literary and scientific dishonesty, and has done all he can to spread this accusation over the whole civilised world, my only answer can be—after showing, as I have done (see Nature, vol. xliii., pp. 79 and 150), that his accusations are wholly untrue—to ignore his existence.

I cannot believe that he can want any sympathy from a man he says has wilfully and grossly plagiarised him, unless he feels that his accusations were unfounded. If he does so, and will write to me to that effect (for publication, if I wish, after his death), I will accept it as full reparation and write him such a letter as you suggest.—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

Kew. September 27, 1897.

Dear Mr. Wallace,—I am afraid I have been rather guilty of an impertinence which I hope you will forgive.

Romanes is an old acquaintance of mine of many years' standing. Personally, I like him very much; but for his writings I confess I have no great admiration.

Pray believe me I had no mission of any sort on his part to write to you. But I feel so sorry for him that when he told me how much he regretted that he did not stand well with you, I could not resist writing to tell you of the calamities that have befallen him.

I must confess I was in total ignorance of what you tell me. I don't see how, under the circumstances, you can do anything. I was never more surprised in my life, in fact, than when I read your letter. The whole thing is too childishly preposterous.

Romanes laments over me because he says I wilfully misunderstand his theory. The fact is, poor fellow, that I do not think he understands it himself. If his life had been destined to be prolonged I should have done all in my power to have induced him to occupy himself more with observation and less with mere logomachy.

I cannot get him to face the fact that natural hybrids are being found to be more and more common amongst plants. At the beginning of the century it was supposed that there were some sixty recognisable species of willows in the British Isles: now they are cut down to about sixteen, and all the rest are resolved into hybrids.—Ever sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

Wallace was a seeker after Truth who was never shy of his august mistress, whatever robes she wore. "I feel within me," wrote Darwin to Henslow, "an instinct for truth, or knowledge, or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of virtue." This was equally true of Wallace. He had a fine reverence for truth, beauty and love, and he feared not to expose error. He paid no respect to time-honoured practices and opinions if he believed them to be false. Vaccination came under his searching criticism, and in the face of nearly the whole medical faculty he denounced it as quackery condemned by the very evidence used to defend it. He very carefully examined the claims of phrenology, which had been laughed out of court by scientific men, and he came to the conclusion that "in the present (twentieth) century phrenology will assuredly attain general acceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of the mind. Its practical uses in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory treatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane, will gain it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of the sciences; and its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years of the nineteenth century will be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness and prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time they were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and discovery."[67]

Wallace was not even scared out of his wits by ghosts, for, unlike Coleridge, he believed in them although he thought he had seen many. Whether truth came from the scaffold or the throne, the seance or the sky, it did not alter the truth, and did not prejudice or overbear his judgment. He shed his early materialism (which temporarily took possession of him as it did of many others as a result of the shock following the overwhelming discoveries of that period) when he was brought face to face with the phenomena of the spiritual kingdom which withstood the searching test of his keen observation and reasoning powers. Prejudices, preconceived notions, respect for his scientific position or the opinions of his eminent friends or the reputation of the learned societies to which he belonged—all were quietly and firmly put aside when he saw what he recognised to be the truth. If his fellow-workers did not accept it, so much the worse for them. He stood four-square against the onslaught of quasi-scientific rationalism, which once threatened to obliterate all the ancient landmarks of morality and religion alike. He made mistakes, and he admitted and corrected them, because he verily loved Truth for her own sake. And to the very end of his long life he kept the windows of his soul wide open to what he believed to be the light of this and other worlds.

He was, then, a man of lofty ideals, and his idealism was at the base of his opposition to the materialism which boasted that Natural Selection explained all adaptation, and that Physics could give the solution of Huxley's poser to Spencer: "Given the molecular forces in a mutton chop, deduce Hamlet and Faust therefrom," and which regarded mind as a quality of matter as brightness is a quality of steel, and life as the result of the organisation of matter and not its cause.

"We have ourselves," wrote Prof. H.F. Osborn in an account of Wallace's scientific work which Wallace praised, "experienced a loss of confidence with advancing years, an increasing humility in the face of transformations which become more and more mysterious the more we study them, although we may not join with this master in his appeal to an organising and directing principle." But profound contemplation of nature and of the mind of man led Wallace to belief in God, to accept the Divine origin of life and consciousness, and to proclaim a hierarchy of spiritual beings presiding over nature and the affairs of nations. "Whatever," writes Dr. H.O. Forbes, "may be the last words on the deep and mysterious problems to which Wallace addressed himself in his later works, the unquestioned consensus of the highest scientific opinion throughout the world is that his work has been for more than half a century, and will continue to be, a living stimulus to interpretation and investigation, a fertilising and vivifying force in every sphere of thought."

It is perhaps unprofitable to go further than in previous chapters into his so-called heresies—political, scientific or religious. Yet we may imitate his boldness and ask whether he was not, perhaps, in advance of his age and whether his heresies were not shrewd anticipations of some truth at present but partially revealed. Take the example of Spiritualism, which, I suppose, has more opponents than anti-vaccination. No one can overlook the fact that Spiritualism has many scientific exponents—Myers, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett and others. Prejudices against Spiritualism are as unscientific as the credulity which swallows the mutterings of every medium. Podmore's two ponderous volumes on the History of Spritualism are marred by an obvious anxiety to make the very least, if not the very worst, of every phenomenon alleged to be spiritualistic. That kind of deliberate and obstinate blindness which prided itself on being the clear cold light of science Wallace scorned and denounced. He did not insist upon spiritualistic manifestations shaping themselves according to his own predesigned moulds in order to be investigated. He watched for facts whatever form they assumed. He fully recognised that the phenomena he saw and heard could be easily ridiculed, but behind them he as fully believed that he came into contact with spiritual realities which remain, and which led him to other explanations of the higher faculties of man and the origin of life and consciousness than were acceptable to the materialistic followers of Haeckel, Buechner and Huxley. And who dares dogmatically to assert in the name of science and in the second decade of the twentieth century, when the deeper meanings of evolution are being revealed, and the philosophy of Bergson is spoken about on the housetops, that he was wrong? In these views may he not become the peer of Darwin?

At first blush it may seem to be a bad example of special pleading to attempt to discover the reason for his opposition to vaccination in his idealism. But it is not far from the truth. He believed in a Ministry of Public Health, that doctors should be servants of the State, and that they should be paid according as they kept people well and not ill. Health is the natural condition of the human body when it is properly sustained and used. And chemicals, even in sickness, are of less importance than fresh air, light and proper food. He ridiculed, too, the notion of unhealthy places. "It is like," he wrote to Mr. Birch, "the old idea that every child must have measles, and the sooner the better." To the same correspondent, who was contemplating going into virgin forests and who expressed his fear of malaria, he replied: "There is no special danger of malaria or other diseases in a dense forest region. I am sure this is a delusion, and the dense virgin forests, even when swampy, are, in a state of nature, perfectly healthy to live in. It is man's tampering with them, and man's own bad habits of living, that render them unhealthy. Having now gone over all Spruce's journals and letters during his twelve years' life in and about the Amazonian forests, I am sure this is so. And even where a place is said to be notoriously 'malarious,' it is mostly due not to infection only but to predisposition due to malnutrition or some bad mode of living. A person living healthily may, for the most part, laugh at such terrors. Neither I nor Spruce ever got fevers when we lived in the forests and were able to get wholesome food." "Health," he said to the present writer, "is the best resistant to disease, and not the artificial giving of a mild form of a disease in order to render the body immune to it for a season. Vaccination is not only condemned upon the statistics which are used to uphold it, but it is a false principle—unscientific, and therefore doomed to fail in the end." Besides which, he believed in mental healing, and had recorded definite and certain benefit from spiritual "healers." And he reminded himself that amongst doctors (witness the blind opposition encountered by Lister's discoveries) were found from time to time not a few enemies of the true healing art, and obstinate defenders of many forms of quackery. Wallace made no claim to be an original investigator. He knew his limitations, and said again and again that he could not have conducted the slow and minute researches or have accumulated the vast amount of detailed evidence to which Darwin, with infinite patience, devoted his life. He was genuinely glad that it had not fallen to his lot to write "The Origin of Species." He felt that his chief faculty was to reason from facts which others discovered. Yet he had that original insight and creative faculty which enabled him to see, often as by flashlight, the explanation which had remained hidden from the eyes of the man who was most familiar with the particular facts, and he elaborated it with quickening pulse, anxious to put down the whole conception which filled his mind lest some portion of it should escape him. Therein lay one secret of his great genius. He often said that he was an idler, but we know that he was a patient and industrious worker. His idleness was his way of describing his long musings, waiting the bidding of her whom God inspires—Truth, who often hides her face from the clouded eyes of man. For hours, days, weeks, he was disinclined to work. He felt no constraining impulse, his attention was relaxed or engaged upon a novel, or his seeds, or the plan of a new house, which always excited his interest. Then, apparently suddenly, whilst in one of his day-dreams, or in a fever (as at Ternate, to recall the historical episode when the theory of Natural Selection struck him), an explanation, a theory, a discovery,[68] the plan of a new book, came to him like a flash of light, and with the plan the material, the arguments, the illustrations; the words came tumbling one over the other in his brain, and as suddenly his idleness vanished, and work, eager, prolonged, unwearying, filled his days and months and years until the message was written down and the task fully accomplished. Whilst writing he referred to few books, but wrote straight on, adding paragraph to paragraph, chapter to chapter, without recasting or revision.[69] And the result was fresh, striking, original. It was a creation. The work being done, he relapsed into his busy idleness. The truth, as he saw it, seemed to come to him. Some people called him a prophet, but he was not conscious of that high calling. I do not remember him saying that he was only a messenger. Perhaps later, when he was reviewing his life, he connected his sudden inspirations with a higher source, but for their realisation he relied upon a foundation of veritable facts, facts patiently accumulated, a foundation laid broad and deep. He had the vision of the prophet allied with the wisdom of the philosopher and the calm mental detachment of the man of science. Perhaps another explanation of his genius may be found in his open-mindedness. Truth found ready access to his conscience, and always a warm welcome, and he saw with open eyes where others were stone-blind.

He belonged to our common humanity. No caste or acquired pride or unapproachable intellectualism cut him off from the people. His simple humanness made him one with us all. And his humanity was singularly comprehensive. It led him, for instance, to investigate the subject of suffering in animals. He noticed that all good men and women rightly shrank from giving pain to them, and he set himself to prove that the capacity for pain decreased as we descended the scale of life, and that poets and others were mistaken when they imputed acute suffering to the lower creation, because of the very restricted response of their nervous system. Even in the case of the human infant, he concluded that only very slight sensations are at first required, and that such only are therefore developed. The sensation of pain does not, probably, reach its maximum till the whole organism is fully developed in the adult individual. "This," he added, with that characteristic touch which made him kin to all oppressed people, "is rather comforting in view of the sufferings of so many infants needlessly sacrificed through the terrible defects of our vicious social system."

To Wallace pain was the birth-cry of a soul's advance—the stamp of rank in nature is capacity for pain. Pain, he held, was always strictly subordinated to the law of utility, and was never developed beyond what was actually needed for the protection and advance of life. This brings the sensitive soul immense relief. Our susceptibility to the higher agonies is a condition of our advance in life's pageant.

Take another instance. Amongst his numerous correspondents there were not a few who decided not to take life, for food, or science, or in war. One young man who went out with the assistance of Wallace to Trinidad and Brazil to become a naturalist, and to whom he wrote many letters[70] of direction and encouragement, gave up the work of collecting—to Wallace's sincere disappointment—and came home because he felt that it was wrong to take the lives of such wondrous and beautiful birds and insects. Another correspondent, who had joined the Navy, wrote a number of long letters to Wallace setting forth his conscientious objections to killing, arrived at after reading Wallace's books; and although Wallace endeavoured from prudential considerations to restrain him from giving up his position, he nevertheless wholly sympathised with him and in the end warmly defended him when it was necessary to do so. The sacrifice, too, of human life in dangerous employments for the purpose of financial gain, no less than the frightful slaughter of the battlefield, was abhorrent to Wallace and aroused his intensest indignation. Life to him was sacred. It had its origin in the spiritual kingdom. "We are lovers of nature, from 'bugs' up to 'humans,'" he wrote to Mr. Fred Birch.

By every means he laboured earnestly to secure an equal opportunity of leading a useful and happy life for all men and women. He championed the cause of women—of their freer life and their more active and public part in national service. He found the selective agency, which was to work for the amelioration he desired, in a higher form of sexual selection, which will be the prerogative of women; and therefore woman's position in the not distant future "will be far higher and more important than any which has been claimed for or by her in the past." When political and social rights are conceded to her on equality with men, her free choice in marriage, no longer influenced by economic and social considerations, will guide the future moral progress of the race, restore the lost equality of opportunity to every child born in our country, and secure the balance between the sexes. "It will be their (women's) special duty so to mould public opinion, through home training and social influence, as to render the women of the future the regenerators of the entire human race."

He was acutely anxious that his ideals should be realised on earth by the masses of the people. He had a large and noble vision of their future. And he had his plan for their immediate redemption—national ownership of the soil, better housing, higher wages, certainty of employment, abolition of preventable diseases, more leisure and wider education, not merely for the practical work of obtaining a livelihood but to enable them to enjoy art and literature and song. His opposition to Eugenics (to adopt the word introduced by Galton, which Wallace called jargon) sprang from his idealism and his love of the people, as well as from his scientific knowledge. On the social side he thought that Eugenics offered less chance of a much-needed improvement of environment than the social reforms which he advocated, whilst on the scientific side he believed that the attempt, with our extremely limited knowledge, to breed men and women by artificial selection was worse than folly. He feared that, as he understood it, Eugenics would perpetuate class distinctions, and postpone social reform, and afford quasi-scientific excuses for keeping people "in the positions Nature intended them to occupy," a scientific reading of the more offensive saying of those who, having plenty themselves, believe that it is for the good of the lower classes to be dependent upon others. "Clear up," he said to the present writer one day, when we drifted into a warm discussion of the teachings of Eugenists; "change the environment so that all may have an adequate opportunity of living a useful and happy life, and give woman a free choke in marriage; and when that has been going on for some generations you may be in a better position to apply whatever has been discovered about heredity and human breeding, and you may then know which are the better stocks."

"Segregation of the unfit," he remarked to an interviewer after the Eugenic Conference, at which much was unhappily said that wholly justified his caustic denunciation, "is a mere excuse for establishing a medical tyranny. And we have enough of this kind of tyranny already ... the world does not want the eugenist to set it straight.... Eugenics is simply the meddlesome interference of an arrogant scientific priestcraft."

Thus his radicalism and his so-called fads were born of his high aspirations. He was not the recluse calmly spinning theories from a bewildering chaos of observations, and building up isolated facts into the unity of a great and illuminating conception in the silence and solitude of his library, unmindful of the great world of sin and sorrow without. He could say with Darwin, "I was born a naturalist"; but we can add that his heart was on fire with love for the toiling masses. He had felt the intense joy of discovering a vast and splendid generalisation, which not only worked a complete revolution in biological science, but has also illuminated the whole field of human knowledge. Yet his greatest ambition was to improve the cruel conditions under which thousands of his fellow-creatures suffered and died, and to make their lives sweeter and happier. His mind was great enough and his heart large enough to encompass all that lies between the visible horizons of human thought and activity, and even in his old age he lived upon the topmost peaks, eagerly looking for the horizon beyond. In the words of the late Mr. Gladstone, he "was inspired with the belief that life was a great and noble calling; not a mean and grovelling thing that we are to shuffle through as we can, but an elevated and lofty destiny."

* * * * *

But we must not be tempted into further disquisition. As he grew older the public Press as well as his friends celebrated his birthdays. Congratulations by telegram and letter poured in upon him and gave him great pleasure. Minor poets sang special solos, or joined in the chorus. One example may be quoted:

ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE

8TH JANUARY, 1911

A little cot back'd by a wood-fring'd height, Where sylvan Usk runs swiftly babbling by: Here thy young eyes first look'd on earth and sky, And all the wonders of the day and night; O born interpreter of Nature's might, Lord of the quiet heart and seeing eye, Vast is our debt to thee we'll ne'er deny, Though some may own it in their own despite. Now after fourscore teeming years and seven, Our hearts are jocund that we have thee still A refuge in this world of good and ill, When evil triumphs and our souls are riv'n; A friend to all the friendless under heav'n; A foe to fraud and all the lusts that kill.

O champion of the Truth, whate'er it be! World-wand'rer over this terrestrial frame; Twin-named with Darwin on the roll of fame; This day we render homage unto thee; For in thy steps o'er alien land and sea, Where life burns fast and tropic splendours flame. Oft have we follow'd with sincere acclaim To mark thee unfold Nature's mystery. For this we thank thee, yet one thing remains Shall shrine thee deeper in the heart of man, In ages yet to be when we are dust; Thou hast put forth thy hand to rend our chains, Our birthright to restore from feudal ban; O righteous soul, magnanimous and just!

W. BRAUNSTON JONES.

Sir William Barrett, one of Wallace's oldest friends, visited him during the last year of his life, and thus describes the visit:

In the early summer of 1913, some six months before his death, I had the pleasure of paying another visit and spending a delightful afternoon with my old friend. His health was failing, and he sat wrapped up before a fire in his study, though it was a warm day. He could not walk round his garden with me as before, but pointed to the little plot of ground in front of the French windows of his study—where he had moved some of his rarer primulas and other plants he was engaged in hybridising—and which he could just manage to visit. His eyesight and hearing seemed as good as ever, and his intellectual power was undimmed....

Dr. Wallace then, pointing to the beautiful expanse of garden, woodland and sea which was visible from the large study windows, burst forth with vigorous gesticulation and flashing eyes: "Just think! All this wonderful beauty and diversity of nature results from the operation of a few simple laws. In my early unregenerate days I used to think that only material forces and natural laws were operative throughout the world. But these I now see are hopelessly inadequate to explain this mystery and wonder and variety of life. I am, as you know, absolutely convinced that behind and beyond all elementary processes there is a guiding and directive force; a Divine power or hierarchy of powers, ever controlling these processes so that they are tending to more abundant and to higher types of life."

This led Dr. Wallace to refer to my published lecture on "Creative Thought" and express his hearty concurrence with the line of argument therein; in fact he had already sent me his views, which, with his consent, I published as a postscript to that lecture.

Then our conversation turned upon recent political events, and it was remarkable how closely he had followed, and how heartily he approved, the legislation of the Liberal Government of the day. His admiration for Mr. Lloyd George was unfeigned. "To think that I should have lived to see so earnest and democratic a Chancellor of the Exchequer!" he exclaimed, and he confidently awaited still larger measures which would raise the condition of the workers to a higher level; and nothing was more striking than his intense sympathy with every movement for the relief of poverty and the betterment of the wage-earning classes. The land question, we agreed, lay at the root of the matter, and land nationalisation the true solution. In fact, ever since I read the proof-sheets of his book on this subject, which he corrected when staying at my house in Kingstown, I have been a member of the Land Nationalisation Society, of which he was President.

Needless to say, Dr. Wallace was an ardent Home Ruler and Free Trader,[71] but on the latter question he said there should be an export duty on coal, especially the South Wales steam coal, as our supply was limited and it was essential for the prosperity of the country—and "the purchaser pays the duty," he remarked. I heartily agreed with him, and said that a small export duty had been placed on coal by the Conservative Government, but subsequently was removed. This he had forgotten, and when later on I sent him particulars of the duty and its yield, he replied saying that at that time he was so busy with the preparation of a book that he had overlooked the fact. He wrote most energetically on the importance of the Government being wise in time, and urged at least a 2s. export duty on coal.