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.
Pages:
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255