♦ KNOWLEDGE 



recent letters, because they simply consist of the reiteration of the 

 previous exposition of your thesis admitted into these columns. 

 Judging from the correspondence (or rather utter absence of it) 

 elicited by your letters and those of Miss Naden on the same sub- 

 ject, the seed fell upon but barren ground indeed. For some reason 

 which I will make no attempt to fathom, the readers of Knowledge 

 do not appear to care two straws about Hylo-Idealism. — Alex. 

 Inglis. I do not know whether such forecasts as the late Lieut. 

 Saxby used to publish are now sold. I imagine that if sold they 

 can hardly be " got for a payment" small enough to represent their 

 value, which would be somewhat less than nothing (at least if the 

 purchaser put faith in them).— W. C. Pen-n. Questions can not be 

 answered by post. Yes ; great faith is put in the moon as an index 

 of weather by country people ; also in fortune-telling, and other 

 foolish fancies. — J. B.^iley. Certainly, J should understand upwards 

 of one hundred to mean more than otie hundred, not less. But 

 never mind me. — W. N. Kidiington. Editor has nothing to do with 

 such matters. Try local newsvendors.— F. W. H. and Meter. From 

 opposite sides you deal with the question of necessity and supreme 

 law. To one I answer that if necessity makes a man objectionable, 

 it becomes necessary that he should be corrected. We may, as ycO 

 seem to suggest, feel sorry for him, because of his necessity ; so 

 we might feel sorry at having to shoot a tiger who had been driven 

 by necessity to propose eating us. To "Meter" I note that 

 his or her view, the ordinary theological view, is open to some 

 trifling objections. If only one view of right and wrong had com- 

 mended itself to the nations, the idea that that view was of super- 

 natural origin, or divinely inspired, would run to some degree on 

 all-fours. But as this is very far from being the case, as multi- 

 tudinous ideas about right and wrong prevail in different nations, 

 and are nearly all thought to be of divine origin, a certain degree 

 of difficulty is introduced. However, though Mr. Foster was 

 allowed to examine here the system of ethics arising, as Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer has shovra, out of the process of evolution, and 

 commending itself as best for the progress and welfare of the 

 world, he carefully refrained (you may have noticed) from dis- 

 cussing the question of a divinely-communicated moral law. The 

 subject is one which cannot be dealt with in these columns. — 

 G. "W. DoDD.s. Do not know. Surely the makers or sellers would give 

 you the best advice on such points.— R.F.H. I see no great difficulty 

 about the unfortunate conditien of the Dnmba Sheep. If that 

 creature had by ordinary evolution, acting simply through natural 

 selection, reached that unsatisfactory state, of course it would be 

 strange to consider how a race had actually been brought to its end 

 by a process which usually fits races better to contend with adverse 

 conditions in their surroundings. But with domestic animals, arti- 

 ficially selected and treated, such pecuUarities can readily be under- 

 stool. The Sandwich Islanders are a case in point ; for their race 

 would come to an end, if my information is correct (and it comes 

 from their king), but for special surgical assistance. — W. H. 

 BcLPiTT. Thanks.— J. H. M. The reviewer's innocent remark 

 must not lead to a discussion about the innocents. The subject 

 is outside our range, and few, I fancy, care much about it. — F. 

 We.st. Have forwarded your article to the writer who deals with 

 inventions. — K. A. H. We shall not have space, I fear, for 

 the papers you kindly suggest. They are a little outside our 

 line. (With regard to a personal interview, your chambers, though 

 near the publishing office of Knowledge, are not within fifty miles 

 of the room where I am writing these replies. — A. Brothees. The 

 angle subtended by the image does not change at all. Surely the 

 result observed requires no explanation. What else could happen ? 

 — S. B. B. The puzzle is well kno>vn. All the cut squares, though 

 they seem to fit so as to form other squares, really form incomplete 

 figures. — Commentator. Your "Darwinism debated" is more than 

 debateable. — W. Reynolds. Letter should have been sent to 

 *' Mephisto." Your corrections are right ; but surely no one could 

 be for a moment in doubt.— G. G. G. Neither do I (K. P.) know 

 the author of those lines. The thought is tender and touching, 

 the form occasionally rough, — as in the line " And lovedst all 

 and renderedst good for ill." Does not the popular conception of 

 a future life, so viewed — as all men who have loved and 

 lost must view it, if they accept it— seem unutterably sad ? Even 

 the mere poetic presentation of that which my reason rejects 

 is for me inexpressibly saddening. Thanks very much for 

 the stanzas.— E. L P. "Has Hallyards ever been a certain 

 successful novelist." — Alex. Mackie. A slight change.- — Robert 

 liEWiNS, M.D. A story occurs to me (E. P.) apropos of your theory 

 of Hylo-Idealism, which I may throw in here in reply to your 

 latest communication— received since the Acting Editor replied to 

 you as above. A man in " the States " was commenting un- 

 favourably on the Royal arms of England and their heraldic 

 supporters. He objected definitely to the Crown, and effusively 

 abused the Lion, — but his remarks on the Unicorn were comparatively 

 vague ; — " Gaiddarn a Unicom, any way " was his sentiment in 



regard to that highly idealistic creature. I tliink the general 

 interest in Hylo-Idealism is equal in enthusiasm to that felt in the 

 Unicorn of Heraldry— there or thereabouts. —The letter on M. Renan 

 and G. Eliot trenches on dangerous ground. — P. M. Yearslev. 

 Quite agree with you. But oh ! don't let us invite that one to 

 express his views. One who " never seems at a loss on any sub- 

 ject" is seldom to be trusted.— One who is x.ir Connected with 

 THE Vegetarian Society, the Stcdy of Sfx-.-ri'TTEBv, the Royal 

 Astronomical Society, or a Certain Well-known Weekly 

 Si'iENiiEic Paper — what a nom-de-plumc '. — is bewildering. As he 

 sends anonymoBS impertinence, he probably is connected with the 

 Vegetarian Society, Ac, 4c. But he may be merely crazed. Who 

 is " the astronomer who is going to regenerate the world by harping 

 on with his ideas about ' snn-spottery ' ?" " One who, &c.," implies 

 that the Conductor of Knowledge harps on that way. But 

 Knowledge has had very little to say about sun-spottery, and that 

 little has not come from the Conductor. In former years, I grant 

 " One who, Ac," the Conductor of Knowledge exposed the trick 

 by which some impecunious persons tried to get money and position 

 out of ingeniously-imagined influences of sun-spots on our weather ; 

 but the snake was not only scotched, it was killed at that time ; 

 long before Knowledge was started. Who hopes to get 

 money out of that dead trick note? What is there, by 

 the way, about sun-spots in Knowledge for August 7th, that 

 " One who A-c." points to that number ? Does he in any way or 

 degree know what he is talking about ? I imagine not. From 

 the rudeness of " One who &c." to the contributors to Know- 

 ledge, I imagine he has wished to contribute and been found — 

 naturally — unequal to the work. His writing — though disguised 

 — seems famihar to the conductorial eye. — W. Paton. I (E. P.) 

 am most emphatically of your opinion. Within a few weeks you 

 will have good evidence on that point.— J. E. Walker. It is most 

 improbable that the indistinct articulation is caused by the tabes. 

 Possibly the carbons of the distant microphone have " set," or the 

 fault may be that the diaphragm in the home receiver is out of 

 adjustment. The best plan would be to ask the lessors to over- 

 haul the apparatus. 



Notice. — In future weekly numbers of Knowledge, the answers 

 o correspondents will occupy much reduced space. We can no 

 onger undertake to answer all questions addressed to us, or to 

 •xplain why letters intended to be published are not suitable for 



©\xv aaJbist Column. 



Br "Five of Clubs." 



SOLUTION OF PROBLEM. 



I FOUND when I reached England (for it is of course now no 

 secret that " Five of Clubs " and the " Conductor of Know- 

 ledge" are one and the same person) that I had not sent, as I 

 supposed, the solution of the fine double-dummy problem which 

 appeared on June 26. I had written a full analysis of the problem, 

 and had certainly intended either to send it with the problem, or 

 with the next batch of papers forwarded from my home in Mis- 

 souri. But it is clear I did not do so, and that analysis is lying 

 somewhere perdu among the multitudinous papers, letters, 

 pamphlets, maps, Ac, &c., 4c., which I have brought to my 

 home in England. This is the more unfortunate as I find very few 

 of our Whist-readers have succeeded in solving the problem. Of 

 course many, knowing that it originally appeared,- as I have 

 recently learned — in the Field, would not have had anything to say 

 about it, having already either solved it or seen the solution. But 

 from the letters of many it appears to have been freely tried, and 

 with very little success. Some who have been thus foiled have 

 objurgated me very freely for the omission to give the promised 

 solution, one or two deeming the delay merely a clever trick on my 

 part either to cover some mistake in the problem or to increase the 

 number of readers of Knowledge. I should have thought the 

 latter effect would certainly not be produced by any trick of the 

 imagined sort, but quite the reverse; while as for delay being a 

 satisfactory way of trying to hide a mistake, I have observed that 

 the longerVorrection is deferred the worse are the effects of a mis- 

 take, and my own constant rule has been to acknowledge any 

 mistake I may have made as quickly as possible. 



