Oct. 12, 1883.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



25^ 



been suirgesterl by your " Stanzas" (note also that your impressive 

 use of italics is followed) : — 



The Tillage Green ! the Tillage Green ! How beautiful it is ! 

 I saw a goose upon it, with melancholy phiz ! 



I saw a goose upon it 1 and she waddled to and fro ! 

 Yes, to and fro ! Aye, to and fro ! And likewise fro and to ! 

 She vaddled so, I could not tell if she were one or two ! 



Muse on the mystic meaning in the last line. The goose must hare 

 waddled pretty fast, I admit ; but the thing is at least as possible 

 as gazing on stars with down-bowed head. The velocity of revo- 

 lution indicated in the following lines is far greater : — • 

 There was a man from Yankee land 



Who round a walnut tree, 

 Did run so fast — that lissome man — 

 His OKn hack he could see ! 



— Pee.ion'xe. Pardon me, no one here has denied that compositors 

 do good and useful work in pointing matter not properly punctuated 

 by the author. Sir E. Beckett expressly called attention to the 

 point, in his remarks on the comma. There is scarcely a writer 

 who does not give the compositor work of this kind. If calling 

 attention to the annoyances which arise from point-peppering 

 means want of due recognition of compositors' care in pointing 

 your plea is good enough : but then it does not. Your friend "a 

 compositor of thirty years' experience " calls attention to certain 

 inconsistencies in punctuation which he has noted in Kxowledge. 

 They are chiefly "printer's errors" overlooked by author in 

 jiroof correction ; or (in the case of two articles) overlooked 

 by " reader," for these articles were not seen in proof by 

 the author. I might as reasonably insert a letter calling 

 attention to every case of imperfect type, inverted letters, 

 p for p, d for d, and so forth. With regard to the position of ) 

 outside or inside " period," comma, or ?, I leave that to com- 

 positors, not deeming the matter worth contesting. But what 

 your friend thinks a redundancy — the use of both a comma and a 

 d.ash, — is no redundancy at all : his remarks on that point show 

 that he has no idea of the real use of the dash. A comma, a dash, 

 ■ind a comma plus a dash, mean three different things. When you 

 throw in words not distinctly parenthetical, where if the words 

 were omitted no comma would come in, you use the dash only ; but 

 if a comma would come in, the introduction of the dashed in words 

 does not justify the omission of the comma. When but one dash 

 is used, as where words are thrown in at the end of a 

 sentence, one should use a dash only or a comma and a 

 dash, according to the degree in which one may wish 

 the reader's mind to pause, so to speak, before it con- 

 siders the added idea. One may even find it well, in certain 

 cases, to use a semicolon and a dash. The colon and dash have a 

 special and well-known use. In passing, I may note that in some 

 cases a paragraph may conveniently be closed with a colon instead 

 of a period. I could jjoint to many cases in which for want of this 

 or some other way of indicating connection between two successive 

 paragraphs (rightly put as separate paragraphs, however) the open- 

 ing sentences of the second are perplexing : really carrying on the 

 idea dealt with in the first paragraph, they are read as if intro- 

 ducing a new idea. See especially Do Morgan's " Budget of 

 Paradoxes" for cases in point. Lastly, if your friend cannot 

 see a good reason why in the sentence " It is singular, too, 

 how along with meanness," &c. a comma should be set each side 

 of the too, whereas in the senteuce "This too may sometimes 

 be seen &c." no commas are wanted, all I can say is that I can 

 very well understand how it happens that he remains a com- 

 positor after so many years' experience. — F. ,1. F. Ilave not tried 

 the system. — Aqvx Pui!.\. Do not know which is the best filter for 

 domestic use. — W. E. Crowtiier. Thoroughly agree that hygiene 

 should be made a subject of special instruction ; but cannot find room 

 even for an abstract of so long a letter. — K. U. Riches. Thanks. 

 Subject suitable, but now no space.— W. B. Thanks. Yet I think 

 the Kigmarole inventor scarcely meant that. I have forgotten 

 whether his letter came under my attention or not. Think not. — 

 H. Os.sipoKK. If the matter were really one for discussion and the 

 person who has adopted that name would keep to discussion, it 

 might be done. But as a matter of fact, that jjerson knows perfectly 

 well that his pretended system is baseless. There is also not a single 

 argument in his book which should perplex you. Here is one 

 simple proof that the whole system is absurd. Were it true, the 

 sun, as you can see from his own illustrations, would vary enor- 

 mously in apparent size during the day. Your own eyes should 

 show you then that the theory is nonsense, — very well as a catch- 

 penny, but not really held by the writer and lecturer who defends 

 it. The other person, poor fellow, is not responsible : ho really 

 thinks the theory true ; imagine what sort of a mind his must be ! 

 — E. W. livHLii.v. Thanks for very amusing extract from .Vini- 



Chester Courier : well hit, M. C. .'— W. G. Woollcombe. Perhaps 

 some reader can name good and reliable books in French and 

 German, on Geometry of Two Dimensions, and Higher Plane 

 Curves. — W. Bitler. Alas, have never seen, nor therefore used, 

 that particular telescope. — TJxcertaix. Let us try to understand 

 each other. You raised the question — What is natural and what is 

 supernatural ? I admitted the perplexing nature of such an inquiry, 

 and later expressed the belief that so metaphysical a subject would 

 not interest readers and ought not to occupy space here. You find 

 in this evidence of a wish to burke freedom of speech. Now I think 

 you must know very well that if I have not inserted your remarks 

 on a very difficult and not particularly interesting question it is not 

 because they are personally distasteful to me. I have to omit nine- 

 tenths at least (I expect 99-lOOths would be nearer the mark) of 

 what is sent for insertion in the Correspondence columns ; and quite 

 a large proportion of what is so omitted is full of interest for me, 

 and often agrees pretty closely with my own views. I agree with a 

 good deal that you say. I am not very clear you may not be right 

 and I wrong where! differ from you. I may be wrong even 

 in thinking most of our readers would not be interested by 

 an inquiry dealing with so perplexing, so shifty a matter 

 as the true place of the defining line between what is 

 natural and what would be supernatural. I can only act to the 

 best of my judgment. But omitting your communication involves 

 no interference with your freedom of speech. If many are in- 

 terested in the matter you can readily find your audience. As to the 

 question you have raised — there are certain properties of matter and 

 certain laws according to which these properties act under various 

 conditions ; some of these properties and laws have been determined, 

 many have not, but the properties and laws are there all the same : 

 I take it that the supernatural is in ordinary thought distinguished 

 from the natural in this, that while everything which happens con- 

 sistently (whether provahly so or not) with the actual properties 

 and laws of matter, is natural, any event not consistent with these 

 properties or laws is supernatural. An event may seem super- 

 natural which is really natural. A Labouchere will regard 

 as a miracle what a Carpenter would regard as consistent 

 with the laws, known or unknown, of matter. But an 

 event would be really supernatural, if for its occurrence, 

 the properties and laws of matter had to be temporarily 

 changed or held in suspense. — W. H. Collins. (1) I agre e with 

 you that 28S is a value of x satisfying the equation ^x-i-l+ \/2x 

 = 7 ; there is no occasion to write — ,/x + 1 ; for — 17 is a value of 

 v^2S9. (2.) Prof. Cayley meant, I suppose, that Mr. Glaisher had 

 completed the determination of the factors of the missing three 

 millions out of the first nine million numbers. — H. G. A. Browx. 

 There is certainly no fault to be found with your readiness as a 

 writer, and your freedom of diction. But the article is rather long for 

 what it aims to establish (in which, by the way, I quite agree with 

 you), that in making room for science in education we ought not to 

 exclude literatm-e or become too scientific. As that freed fellow 

 says in the Andria, the rule in such matters should be Xe quid 

 nimis. Only he said it rather more laconically than your article. 



^iir Cbrss Column. 



By Mephisto, 



SOLUTION'. 

 Problem No. 100, p. 208. 

 1. B to B2 (disc ch) 1. Q takes Q 



Kt to Q7 (ch) 



3. Kt to B7 (ch) 



4. li to Kt5 (ch) 



5. P to Ql (ch) 



2. Q takes Kt 



3. Q takes Kt 



4. Q to Q4 



5. P takes P (en p ch) mate 



CHESS playing is practised in different ways. There are persons 

 who find their enjoyment in playing what are usually termed 

 skittling games. To a casual observer it may seem that the mere 

 moving of the pieces constitutes sufficient amusement for them. 

 To these frivolous devotees of the game. Chess playing serves 

 merely as a mechanical pastime. Such players may, however, bo 

 quite as fond of the game as the raoro serious class, who love to 

 dive into the depths and intricacies of Chess, and who find their 

 intellectual enjoyment increase in proportion to the difficulties of 

 the game. Chess then becomes an intense mental exercise, a 

 struggle of mind against mind. 



Wo have a well founded belief that the struggle is not decided 



