Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-17

swered and unanswering riddles Ours be
1t to ask: Let who will reply. Here is an
extract from the press of not long ago:
The 'Pesti Hirlap states that a band
of twenty gypsies have been arrested at
Jaszbereny, Hungary, on charge of can
nibalism. Some of the prisoners have con-
fessed that eighteen chilrren have been
eaten. The police now state that they have
found the remains of cannibal feast in one
OF the gypsy vans
Not a reader of this CHASTITY paragraph
but has beer shocked and thrilled with hor-
ror, horror 'traceable not to the sad trag-
edy of the children's death, but to the grue-
some fact that they We're eaten! How is
this feeling SO deeply rooted In us all to be
accounted for? 1t is not a mere question of
civilization for the naked savage tearing a
live cub limp from limb, and devouring it
raw and bleeding, would certainly be less
civilized than were these clothed gypses
eating roast child, as they presumably did,
with knife and fork. Yet 1t is the latter
who fill us with this peculiar loathing.
Moreover. when all else that is evil and
abominable has been forbidden by divine
law, before human law took shape, it was
silent with regard to the sckening outrage
of man eating man. Nor can 1t be fairly
urged that such practice is held to be
criminal, because, If 1t were not, 1t would
lead to murder. The native cannibal has a
claim 10 be heard, and he, despite the gyp-
sizes, has his traditions. He does not kill to
eat. 1t Is the slain in battle that constitute
his feast. Neither does 1t, in any way,
meet the case to protest that It is unnat-
ural whatever may be meant by that some
what vague expression. Granted that it is,
and that the meaning conveyed by it Is
clear II does not stand alone in that re-
spect Other things also are unnatural.
and we deplore condemn them; but for
none of them does the average man ex-
perience such shrinking disgust as he
does for this which to him Is unapproach-
able as a revolving thing. Why and whence
this conviction?
Passing by other such illustrations from
human practice and prejudice, and up into
the clearer and less turbid atmosphere of
pure reason, it is disquieting to find the
metaphysician himself mailing up the No
thoroughfare" board. He lays a sacrilegious
hand on the working apparatus OF life,
and annihilates it by proof You seek to
avoid him, and he bids you not to think of
moving. for motion, he blandly adds, is in
conceivable. A body can move only In the
place where 1t is, or in some place where
1t is not But In the place where It is not IT
does not exist. In the place where it is it
does not move. for 1t cannot move and he
stationary at the same time Therefore
there can be no motion. You attempt dis
proof by raising your hand or foot accord
ing to your temperament and he doubt
less feels the impact; but his sorrow Is not
for himself, but for you, who have delegated
to the material animal an argument for
which abstract intelligence in you had been
demonstrably incapable. That is how dogs
argue, with their teeth. not with their
brains.
Beaten back. time after time we con-
graduate ourselves on having at least one
unassailable position In the exact science
of mathematics, only to find ourselves once
more defeated, and our rout made complete
When figures fail US we are indeed In par
ious case. And they do fail us. 1t is true
that two and two make four; but that
sturdy assurance is appreciably discounted
by the calculation resulting In two by
itself also making four. Thus:
let "a b.
-. abba * as-h2
ta-bl ia + ~ (a-b)
Alb
which means that the symbols a and b
each representing the figure 2, 2-4; in
other words, any given sura is also the
double of itself
Assurtsdly Hamlet, Prince of Denpark.
knew more than thing OF two, and no
thoughtful Horatio IL likely 70 forget it.