No fraud
Sir: It would be nice if the anonymous writer, who pronounced in 'A Spectator's Notebook' (February 17) that Gilbert Murray exercised fraudulent telepathy, had done his homework. He would then have learnt that in Murray's second address to the SPR he spoke of auditory hyperaesthesia, but also said that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it could not extend to becoming aware of unspoken thoughts, as he had done.
I can confirm this reluctance for I knew the Murrays well. (I once spent six months with them on Boar's Hill.) Professor Murray told me categorically that, apart from telepathy not fitting in with his philosophy, he particularly disliked a reputation for doing 'that sort of thing ' since it might detract from the weight carried by his views on vital matters such as his work for the League of Nations. To those who knew Professor Murray it was typical of his extreme intellectual honesty that, against his philoso phy and inclinations, he was eventually driven by the evidence to accept a telepathic explanation. Putting it at its lowest, what possible advantage could Professor Murray, with the views he held, have hoped to reap by such fraud? Rosalind Heywood 3 The Drive, London SW20 From Sir Roger Chance Sir: If one is to judge by the letters of protest, the charge of ' fraud ' in A Spectator's Notebook of February 17 against Professor Gilbert Murray is clearly unwarranted. Those of us who knew him are shocked. Moreover, the writer has misrepresented the true facts of the case. Do you condone his error?
Roger Chance The Athenaeum, London SW1
Previous page
