The Remarkable Image of Mr. Longstaff
This letter written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was published in an article published in The Freethinker on 30 september 1928.
Article & Letter
We have received the following from the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:—
Sir, — You would he wise not to make comments upon Psychic matters which are founded upon the statements of ignorant interviewers in the general Press. Do you usually find them correct in the matter of Rationalism? I am amazed that a responsible paper should take this absurd report about the origin of the remarkable picture of Mr. Longstaff as serious.
There has never been the slightest difference of opinion between the artist and myself as to the facts and be entirely agrees with my description. It has never been claimed that he was obsessed when he Painted it, which is what he very properly denies. The facts were that he came to a Seance in my flat, that an artist friend established his identity beyond all doubt, that he was naturally much excited mentally by this, and that while under this psychic influence he painted a picture which represents the whole psychic philosophy of life. How then have I exaggerated in saying that the picture is psychic? I think that you owe me an apology.
Yours faithfully,
Arthur Conan Doyle.
The Express has done what it could to atone for its error by publishing a full contradiction to-day — September 22.
I must confess that Sir Arthur puzzles us a little. When, for example, we read the postscript to his letter, we took it that the Express had admitted itself to be in error, and had published almost an apology for what it had said. lint on referring to the paper, all it amounts to is that Sir Arthur sent the Express a letter which ran on the same lines as the one above, and it was printed. If that means the Express did "what it could to atone for its error by publishing a full contradiction," then I can only say that Sir Arthur and ourselves appear to be talking in different languages. It was Sir Arthur who contradicted the Express, not the Express that tried to atone for its error, etc. The paper merely gave Sir Arthur the right of reply.
It was not the paper's version of the origin of the picture that was dealt with in last week's "Views and Opinions," but the artist's own repudiation of the absurd idea that the picture was painted under ghostly influence. Mr. Longstaffe went to a seance in Sir Arthur's flat, and there a dead artist friend "established his identity beyond all doubt." But this appears to be a description of Sir Arthur's frame of mind, not of that of Mr. Longstaffe. Sir Arthur says that he was "naturally" much excited mentally, and it was under this influence that he painted the picture. But the artist does not say that he was under great mental excitement, or that he painted his picture while still in that state. He says he was in his normal state, that he painted this picture as he painted his other pictures, and that far from his being conscious of any ghostly influence, it was painted as a consequence of "several conversations" with Sir Arthur, and altered in some minor details, also at Sir Arthur's suggestion, after it was finished. And neither in the letter to the Express, nor in the one above printed does Sir Arthur deny what Mr. Longstaffe says.
Sir Arthur thinks we owe him an apology. We should have no hesitation in apologizing if we only knew what we had to apologize for. What we did was to put the statement of the artist against that of Sir Arthur. If Sir Arthur will he good enough to state in what particular we have misrepresented him, he will find us quite ready to make the apology he desires. At present we are under the impression that we are quite justified in assuming that testimony given under "psychic" influence is of all testimony most open to suspicion.
