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
vie