Oct. 5, 1883.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



215 



TRUTH AND POKER. 



By Riciiaed A. Proctor. 



AN angry man is apt to appear unfavourably in a 

 fencing bout. He aims wildly at a seemingly 

 exposed but really well guarded spot, leaving himself open 

 to a riposte which, but for his wild attack, might easily 

 have been foiled. I fear Mr. Labouchere must be angry 

 with me, he has twice attacked me so thoughtlessly. (Yet 

 have I given him no just cause for anger.) Truth need 

 not have a bad memory, though untruth we arc told should 

 have a good one. One week it rushes out with upraised 

 cudgel, to fell me to earth by calling my article on 

 Poker in Longman's Magazine a silly paper which proves 

 too lengthily that two and two make four, yet (strangely) 

 quoting as "curious" my enumeration of poker hands: 

 next week another way of hitting at Proctor's Poker is 

 tried (any stroke seems right to the blindly angry). 



" A correspondent writes " (says Mr. Labonchere) " to point 

 ont the inaccuracy of Mr. Proctor's ' Poker Fissures/ which I 

 cited last week. ' There can,' ho says, ' bo only 78 possible pairs 

 in an ordinary pack of cards, and not 1,098,240, if any two 

 cards of the same denomination constitute "a pair." So, too, in 

 regard to " triplets ; " he thinks there can be 54,912 ; I contend 

 there can only be 52. Again: lie makes "fours" produce 624, 

 whilst I can only make them produce 13. It appears to me that 

 your authority (whom you did not appear to deem much of an 

 authority) considers any two cards to be "a pair," instead of two 

 cards of the same denomination.' I merely quoted the calculations 

 from an article on Poker, by Mr. Proctor, in Longman' s Magazine, 

 quantum laleant." 



Yes ; but, my good sir, you should have a better 

 memory : you accompanied your quotation with the re- 

 mark that my article proved only that "two and two make 

 four, with other such matters of universal cognition." (I 

 quote from memory, but I can trust mg memory.) It 

 would seem that now you are in doulit whether two and 

 two make four, and not (perhaps) five, or (it may be) three. 

 After showing your familiarity with whist by confounding 

 " finessing " with " underplay," you further illustrate your 

 " universal cognition " by inserting preposterous comments 

 as possibly valid criticism, — but possibly not, you cannot 

 for the life of you .say which. Permit me to remark (I 

 will not say " explain," lest you should remind me then 

 of your " universal cognition ") that though there are 

 only 78 possible " paiis " in an ordinary pack of 

 cards, there are 1,098,240 "pair hands" at poker; though 

 there are only fifty-two possible " threes," yet there are 

 54,912 "triplet hands"; though there are but thirteen 

 " fours," yet are there (as I have said and shown) G24 

 " four hands ; " and lastly if (becoming tempor.arily idiotic) 

 I liad supposed amj two cards to be a " pair," I should still 

 not have arrived at the number 1,098,240, the total 

 numlier of two-card combinations in a pack being only 

 1,32G. 



[Tlieso and similar relations in card games I may shortly 

 discuss in these columns — at the risk, even, of 1 icing told 

 (by, but not with, Truth) that I am dealing with matters of 

 universal cognition.] 



EVOLUTION OF CONDUCT. 



^T/'lI-'^T says the doctrine of evolution with regard to 

 VV the ethical side of this twofold assertion that 

 lies at the bottom of all religion] Though we cannot 

 fathom the nature of the inscrutable Power that ani- 

 mates the world, wo know, nevertheless, a great many 

 things that it does. Does this eternal Power, then, 



work for righteousness 1 Is" there a divine sanction for 

 holiness and a divine condemnation for sin 1 Are the 

 principles of right living really connected with the intimate 

 constitution of the universe 1 If the answer of science to 

 these questions be affirmative, then the agreement with 

 religion is complete, both on the speculative and on the 

 practical sides ; and that phantom which has been the 

 abiding terror of timid and superficial minds — that phantom 

 of the hostility between religion and science^is exorcised 

 now and for ever. Now, science began to return a de- 

 cisively affirmative answer to such questions as these, when 

 it began, with Mr. Spencer, to explain moral beliefs and 

 moral sentiments as products of evolution. For clearly, 

 when you say of a moral belief or a moral sentiment that 

 it is a product of evolution you imply that it is something 

 which the universe through untold ages has been labouring 

 to bring forth, and you ascribe to it a \'alue proportionate 

 to the enormous efibrt that it has cost to produce 

 it. Still more, when with Mr. Spencer we study the 

 principles of right living as part and parcel of the whole 

 doctrine of the development of life upon the earth ; 

 when we see that, in an ultimate analysis, that is right 

 which tends to enhance fulness of life, and that is 

 wrong which tends to detract from fulness of life, — 

 we then see that the distinction between right and wrong 

 is rooted in the deepest foundations of the universe ; we 

 see that the very same forces, subtle and exquisite and 

 profound, which brought upon the scene the primal germs 

 of life and caused them to unfold, which through countless 

 ages of struggle and death have cherished the life that 

 could live more perfectly and destroyed the life that could 

 only live less perfectly, until humanity, with all its hopes and 

 fears and aspirations, has come into being as the crown of all 

 this stupendous work — -we see that these very same subtle 

 and exquisite forces have wrought into the very fibres of 

 the universe those principles of right living which it is man's 

 highest function to put into practice. The theoretical 

 sanction thus given to right living is incomparably 

 the most powerful that has ever been assigned in any 

 philosophy of ethics. Human responsibility is made more 

 strict and solemn than ever, when the eternal Power that 

 lives in every event of the universe is thus seen to be in 

 the deepest possible sense the author of the moral law that 

 should guide our lives, and in obedience to which lies our 

 only guarantee of the happiness which is incorruptible — 

 which neither inevitable misfortune nor unmerited obloquy 

 can ever take away. — John Fiske. 



RELIEF OF SEA-SICKNESS. 



IN spite of the fact that much has been written on the 

 suliject, people still continue to suffer from sea-sick- 

 ness, which proves the unreliability of our therapeutic 

 resources. Therefore the following experience of Dr. T. M. 

 Kendall, who has recently had 200 cases under his charge, 

 may prove interesting : — 



jiany people, as soon as seasickness commences, have 

 recourse to oranges, lemons, kc. Now oranges are very 

 much to be avoided, on account of their bilious tendency, 

 and even the juice of a lemon should only be allowed in 

 cases of extreme nausea. 



Cliaiiipagne, too, is a very common remedy, and, with- 

 out doubt, in many cases does good ; but this appears to 

 be chieiiy due to its exhilarating effects, as if it be dis- 

 continued, tlie result is bad, and a great amount of prostra- 

 tion follows. 



Creosote is a very old but still very good remedy, and, 

 in cases accompanied by great prostration, is very useful ; 



