Mabcii 1, 1886.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



165 



clumsiness of this pai'ticular rogue, that it was not quite 

 so easy a matter to bring into Josephus's narrative per- 

 sons whom either he carefully ignored or else knew 

 nothing about. The attempt would be like trying to 

 introduce a chasuble as part of the costume of a Roman 

 soldier, ia an ancient painting correctly presenting the 

 warlike garb of Rome's defenders. 



* * * 



Mr. John Ruskin has done good service in recording 

 his opinions about Darwin, (Hbbon, Kingsloy, Mill, Vol- 

 taire, St. Augustine, and Grove; for though no one of 

 any sense will accejit his venom for good medicine, he 

 has managed to set a strong black mark against the 

 writings — nay against the whole mental and moi-al cha- 

 racter — of a man not included in the list of widely-read 

 authors whom he tries to vilify. John Ruskin versiis 

 Darwin is Impudence versus Dignify with a vengeance. 



* * * 



A.s some critics — who must bo singularly keen — regard 

 my introduction of a paragraph headed "A Positivist 

 View of the Sermon on the Mount " as a proof that I am 

 myself a Positivist, I may take the opportunity of re- 

 marking that I am not a lover of retrogression, and that 

 I regard Positivism as the most retrogressive idea of 

 religion existing, and as therefore hopeles.5ly impossible. 

 But indeed its history — its rise, progre.ss, decay, and 

 obviously approaching demise — show as much. 



* * * 



Albeit, for Comte's keenness of vision in certain direc- 

 tions I have a high respect. 



* * * 



Last month, for reasons connected with the change 

 mentioned above, much matter set up under my own 

 name had to appear, or the type be distributed. A critic 

 of the cheap sort is kind enough to suggest that much 

 more of the number was of my writing. He regards me 

 ai identical with Mr. Clodd, with " A Fellow of the Royal 

 Astronomical Society," with " Mephisto," and with the 

 author of the Whist game. He also regards me as author 

 of the notices of books. In this he pays me a fourfold 

 compliment of a very high character. On nearly all 

 matters which we have studied in common I think 

 much as my friend Mr. Clodd does; but if of an 

 envious nature, I should certainly envy him the 

 graceful and felicitous style shown in his " Child- 

 hood of Religion " and other charming works. My 

 friend " A Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society^" 

 has become more widely known by his admirable letters 

 in a contemporarj' than thousands who have sought f:ime 

 for their own name. The Whist game in last month's 

 number like that in the present is by one of the finest 

 living players ; and " Mephisto " achieved such success 

 last year in triumphing over Blackburne, Mackenzie, 

 Mason, and others, as to have made a name among the 

 absolutely " first-best " chess players of the day. As for 

 the notices of books the grer-t majority were not from 

 my ]ien. 



* * # 



I SPEAK above of " cheap critics.'' A critic in Health 

 appears to have taken this expression (used in the preface 

 to my " Strength and Happiness ' ) somewhat to himself 

 ■ — which is not my fault. He dwells on his objection.s, 

 for the odd reason that "critics have usually treated Mr. 

 Proctor very kindly." I admit the soft impeachment : 

 but there are critics and critics. 



<B\\x Cl)fs!5 Column. 



Bt Mephisto. 



^^gJVEK among the best of Chess players tliere are 

 but very few whose memory is equal to the task 

 of retaining the dift'orent variations o£ each 

 particular Opening. It would, therefore, seem to 

 be unreasonaljle to expect an ordinary player to 

 discern analogous variations in the Bishop's 

 Opening, Two Knights Defence, PetrofE's Defence, 

 Four Knights game, &c. But we intend to make our readers 

 acquainted with a main variation in all these Openings, without 

 asking them to commit many variations to their memory, but simply 

 by impressing the picture of the one principal position upon their 

 minds. 



Black. 



■mfr&. 



/fW4 



* mm. mm. mm 



m wm. m. 



m ^ m& ..«, 



m Si 





^'■mmP- 



I! ij '•"" 



White. 



This is a position not unfavourable to the second player, for if 

 White now pla\s 5. KtxKt, V to Q-l follows with a fair game. 

 ."). r. X P (eh) likewise gives White no advantage, for Black replies 

 with K y. P. then C. Kt x Kt, P to Q4. 7. KKt to Kt.5 (ch), K to 

 Kt sq. 8. Q to B3, Q to Q2 ! 0. Kt to QiiS, P to KU3. 10. Kt to 

 R3, Kt to Kt."), &c. Black will have a better development in spite 

 of the position of his K. White's best move is 5. Castles ; thi.s we 

 will e.^amine later on. 



Now by bearing in mind the above position, our readers will be 

 able to defend themselves against an attack which constantly causes 

 the loss of many games, because it may be brought about by a 

 transposition of moves of the vaiious Openings we have mentioned 

 above. To avoid future danger we will show how this position may 

 be arrived at in these various Openings. 



I'.ishop's IVtroffs Two Kniglits Four Knights 



Opening. Defence, Defence. lianie. 



, P to K4 



P to K4 

 B to B4 

 Kt to Kl!;i 

 Kt to KB :i 

 KtxP 



Kt to B3 

 'Kt toQP.:! 



IVtroffs 

 Defence, 



P toK 4 

 ■ P to K4 

 , Kt to KB3 

 " Kt to Kl'.S 

 , B to B4 

 ' J<rxl' " 



Kt to B3 



1. 



P to K4 

 1' 10^4 

 Kt t o KB3 



■ KtTo QB3 

 B to B4 



■ Kt to B3 

 Kt to P>3 



PJo K4 

 Plo K4 

 Kt to KB3 

 Kt to QK.3 

 Kt to B3 



Kt to B3 

 BtoB4 



Kt to l^l!3 



Kt X P 



Kt X P 



Whites continuation, as indicated, would be: — 



h. Castles Kt x Kt 



6. QPxKt QtoK2 



7. E to K sq. P to Q3 



8. Kt to Kto Kt to Q sq. 



9. P to B4 P to B3 



10. PxP QPxP 



11. Q to R5 (ch) P to Kt3 

 ]•-'. Q to R4 B to Kt2 



If P X. Kt, 13. B < P, 1,1 tu B4 (ch). 14. K to R sq., and White will 



