Fobber

fobber

is a powerful tool for drawing conclusions and making predictions about populations based on sample data. It and understand the effectiveness of different options. One popular application of statistical inference is , where we compare two versions or treatments to determine the superior performer. However, Statistical inference allows us to make informed decisions A/B testing what happens when we introduce more versions or treatments to the experiment? It may seem that the introduction of additional versions in an experiment is an opportunity for even better decisions. , if not handled properly, . This challenge is known as the . Unfortunately the increased number of testable hypotheses can lead to misleading results and incorrect decisions multiple comparisons problem In this article, I explain the concept of multiple hypothesis testing, its potential pitfall, and give one possible solution supported by a Python simulation. What is multiple hypothesis testing? To understand multiple hypothesis testing, let's begin by examining the fundamental concepts of a . simple A/B test involving two variants In an A/B test, we start by formulating two competing hypotheses: the , which represents the absence of a difference between the variants, and the , suggesting the presence of a difference. null hypothesis alternative hypothesis Then we set a denoted as . This threshold determines the . Commonly used significance levels are 0.05 (5%) and 0.01 (1%), indicating the probability of significance level alpha amount of evidence required to reject the null hypothesis observing the data if the null hypothesis were true. After running the experiment and collecting the data, we calculate . The . If the p-value is less than the significance level , we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. p-values p-value represents the probability of obtaining a result as extreme as, or more extreme than, the observed data if the null hypothesis were true alpha It is important to note that a low p-value suggests strong evidence against the null hypothesis, indicating that the observed data is unlikely to occur by chance alone. However, this does not imply certainty. There remains a non-zero probability of observing a difference between the samples even if the null hypothesis is true. When we encounter a situation with , we refer to it as . In such cases, the complexity increases as we need to carefully consider the potential impact of conducting multiple tests simultaneously. multiple alternative hypotheses multiple hypothesis testing Pitfalls of multiple hypothesis testing The pitfall of multiple hypothesis testing arises when we test multiple hypotheses without adjusting the significance level . In such cases, we , meaning that we tend to (find the difference) (no difference at all). alpha inadvertently inflate the rate of ”Type I” errors reject a null hypothesis while this null hypothesis is in fact true The more hypotheses we test simultaneously, the higher the chances of finding a p-value lower than for hypothesis and erroneously concluding a significant difference. alpha at least one To illustrate this issue, consider a scenario where we want to test hypotheses to determine which of multiple new webpage designs attracts more customers with desired . Let's assume we know that , meaning the null hypothesis holds for all cases. N alpha = 0.05 none of the new designs is better than the default one N However, for each case, there is a 5% probability (assuming the null hypothesis is true) of committing a , or a . In other words, there is a 95% probability of correctly not detecting a false positive. Theoretically, the probability of having at least one false positive among the tests is equal to . For instance, when , this probability is approximately 40%, significantly higher than the initial 5%. “Type I” error false positive N 1 - (1 - alpha)^N = 1 - 0.95^N N = 10 The problem becomes more apparent as we increase the number of hypotheses tested. Even in scenarios where only a few variants and subsamples are involved, the number of comparisons can quickly accumulate. For example, comparing three designs D1, D2, and D3 for all users, then separately for users in country C1, and again for users in countries other than C1, results in a total of nine comparisons. It is easy to unwittingly engage in multiple comparisons without realizing the subsequent inflation of Type I error rates. The resurrection of a salmon using multiple hypothesis testing Let's delve into an that highlights the consequences of not controlling “Type I” errors when testing multiple hypotheses. intriguing example In 2009, To understand how this unexpected result came about, we need to explore the nature of fMRI scans. a group of researchers conducted an fMRI scan on a dead Atlantic salmon and astonishingly discovered brain activity as if it were alive! , where numerous tests are conducted on each patient. The scanners monitor changes in blood oxygenation as an indicator of brain activity. Researchers typically focus on specific regions of interest, which leads them to partition the entire body volume into small cubes called voxels. . Due to the desire for high-resolution scans, fMRI scanners serve as extensive experimental platforms Each voxel represents a hypothesis testing the presence of brain activity within that particular cube fMRI scanners end up evaluating thousands of hypotheses during a single procedure. In this case, the researchers appropriately , and However, this outcome contradicts our understanding that the . , illustrating the significance of addressing the issue of Type I errors. intentionally did not correct the initial significance level alpha = 0.001 they identified three voxels with brain activity in the deceased salmon. salmon is indeed deceased Upon correcting the significance level, the resurrection-like phenomenon disappeared Whenever multiple hypotheses are tested within a single experiment, it becomes crucial to tackle this challenge and control Type I errors. Various statistical techniques, such as the , can be employed to mitigate the inflated false positive rate associated with multiple hypothesis testing. Bonferroni correction Bonferroni correction The is a statistical procedure specifically designed to address the challenge of multiple comparisons during hypothesis testing. Bonferroni correction Theory Suppose you need to test hypotheses during an experiment while ensuring the probability of Type I error remains below . N alpha The underlying idea of the procedure is straightforward: . Remember the formula for the probability of at least one false positive? In that formula, we have , which can be decreased to diminish the overall probability. reduce the significance level required to reject null hypothesis for each alternative hypothesis alpha So, to achieve a lower probability of at least one false positive among multiple hypotheses, you can compare each p-value not with but with something smaller. alpha But what exactly is "something smaller"? It turns out that using as the significance level for each individual hypothesis ensures that the overall probability of Type I error remains below . bonferroni_alpha = alpha / N alpha For example, if you are testing 10 hypotheses ( ) and the desired significance level is 5% ( ), you should compare each individual p-value with By doing so, the probability of erroneously rejecting at least one true null hypothesis will not exceed the desired level of 0.05. N = 10 alpha = 0.05 bonferroni_alpha = alpha / N = 0.05 / 10 = 0.005 This remarkable technique works due to , which states that . While a formal mathematical proof exists, visual explanations provide an intuitive understanding: Boole's inequality the probability of the union of events is less than or equal to the sum of their individual probabilities So, when each individual hypothesis is being tested at a significance level we have a probability of a false positive. For such tests the probability of the union of “false positive” events is less than or equal to the sum of the individual probabilities. Which, in a worst-case scenario when in all N test null hypothesis holds, is equal to bonferroni_alpha = alpha / N bonferroni_alpha N N * bonferroni_alpha = N * (alpha / N) = alpha Practice To further support the concepts discussed earlier, let's conduct . We will observe the outcomes and assess the effectiveness of the Bonferroni correction. a simulation in Python Consider a scenario where we have 10 alternative hypotheses within a single test. Let's assume that in all 10 cases, the null hypothesis is true. You agree that a significance level of is appropriate for your analysis. alpha = 0.05 However, without any correction for the inflated Type I error, we expect a theoretical probability of approximately 40% of experiencing at least one false positive result. And after applying the Bonferroni correction we expect that this probability does not exceed 5%. For a specific experiment, we either get at least one False Positive or not. These probabilities can be seen only on a scale of multiple experiments. Then let’s run the simulation of each individual experiment 100 times and calculate the number of experiments with at least one False Positive (p-value below significance level)! You can find the file with all the code to run this simulation and generate graphs in my repository on GitHub - .ipynb IgorKhomyanin/blog/bonferroni-and-salmon import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# To replicate the results
np.random.seed(20000606)

# Some hyperparameters too play with
N_COMPARISONS = 10
N_EXPERIMENTS = 100

# Sample p-values
# As we assume that null hypothesis is true, 
# the p-value would be distributed uniformly
sample = np.random.uniform(0, 1, size=(N_COMPARISONS, N_EXPERIMENTS))

# Probability of type I error we are ready to accept
# Probabiltiy of rejecting null hypothesis when it is actually true
alpha = 0.05

# Theoretical False Positive Rate
# 
# 1.
# Probability that we cocnlude a significant difference for a given comparison
# is equal to alpha by definition in our setting of true null hypothesis
# Then [(1 - alpha)] is the probability of not rejecting the null hypothesis
#
# 2.
# As experiments are considered independent, the probability of not rejecting 
# the null hypothesis in [(1 - alpha)]^N
#
# 3.
# Probability that at least one is a false positive is equal to
# 1 - (probability from 2.)

prob_at_least_one_false_positive = 1 - ((1 - alpha) ** N_COMPARISONS)

# Observed False Positive Rate
# We conclude that experiment is a false positive when p-value is less than alpha
false_positives_cnt = np.sum(np.sum(sample <= alpha, axis=0) > 0)
false_positives_share = false_positives_cnt / N_EXPERIMENTS

# Bonferroni correction
bonferroni_alpha = alpha / N_COMPARISONS
bonferroni_false_positive_comparisons_cnt = np.sum(np.sum(sample <= bonferroni_alpha, axis=0) > 0)
bonferroni_false_positive_comparisons_share = bonferroni_false_positive_comparisons_cnt / N_EXPERIMENTS

print(f'Theoretical False Positive Rate Without Correction: {prob_at_least_one_false_positive:0.4f}')
print(f'Observed False Positive Rate Without Correction: {false_positives_share:0.4f} ({false_positives_cnt:0.0f} out of {N_EXPERIMENTS})')
print(f'Observed False Positive Rate With Bonferroni Correction: {bonferroni_false_positive_comparisons_share:0.4f} ({bonferroni_false_positive_comparisons_cnt:0.0f} out of {N_EXPERIMENTS})')

# Output:
# Theoretical False Positive Rate Without Correction: 0.4013
# Observed False Positive Rate Without Correction: 0.4200 (42 out of 100)
# Observed False Positive Rate With Bonferroni Correction: 0.0300 (3 out of 100) Here is a visualization of the results: The top picture represents each square as the p-value of an individual comparison (hypothesis test). The darker the square, the higher the p-value. Since we know that the null hypothesis holds in all cases, any significant result would be a false positive. The middle graph represents the experiments without correction, while the bottom graph represents the experiments with the Bonferroni correction. When the p-value is lower than the significance level (indicated by squares almost white), we reject the null hypothesis and obtain a false positive result. The experiments with at least one false positive are colored in red. Clearly, the correction worked effectively. Without correction, we observe 42 experiments out of 100 with at least one false positive, which closely aligns with the theoretical ~40% probability. However, with the Bonferroni correction, we only have 3 experiments out of 100 with at least one false positive, staying well below the desired 5% threshold. , further validating its usefulness in multiple-hypothesis testing. Through this simulation, we can visually observe the impact of the Bonferroni correction in mitigating the occurrence of false positives Conclusion In this article, I explained the concept of multiple hypothesis testing and highlighted its potential danger. This heightened probability can lead to erroneous conclusions about significant effects that may have occurred by chance if not appropriately addressed. When testing multiple hypotheses, such as conducting multiple comparisons during an A/B test, the probability of observing a rare event of “False Positive“ increases. , which adjusts the significance levels for each individual hypothesis. By leveraging Boole's inequality, this correction helps control the overall significance level at the desired threshold, reducing the risk of false positives. One possible solution to this issue is the Bonferroni correction However, it's important to recognize that every solution comes at a cost. This means that a larger sample size or stronger effects may be necessary to detect the same differences. Researchers must carefully consider this trade-off when deciding to implement the Bonferroni correction or other correction methods. When utilizing the Bonferroni correction, the required significance level decreases, which can impact the power of the experiment. If you have any questions or comments regarding the content discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to share them. Engaging in further discussion and exploration of statistical techniques is essential for better understanding and application in practice. References - My GitHub Repo with all the code needed to run the simulation and generate graphs IgorKhomyanin/blog/bonferroni-and-salmon to generate cover picture Kandinsky 2.1 Bennett, CM, MB Miller, and GL Wolford. “Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument for Multiple Comparisons Correction.” NeuroImage 47 (July 2009): S125. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(09)71202-9 Wikipedia - Boferroni Correction Wikipedia - Boole’s inequality

Tales of the Undead Salmon: Exploring Bonferroni Correction in Multiple Hypothesis Testing

টেলস অফ দ্য আনডেড সালমন: একাধিক হাইপোথিসিস টেস্টিংয়ে বনফেরোনি সংশোধন অন্বেষণ

Geschichten vom untoten Lachs: Erforschung der Bonferroni-Korrektur beim Testen mehrerer Hypothesen

Tales of the Undead Salmon: Explorando la corrección de Bonferroni en pruebas de hipótesis múltiples

Tales of the Undead Salmon : Exploration de la correction de Bonferroni dans les tests d'hypothèses multiples

मरे हुए सामन के किस्से: एकाधिक परिकल्पना परीक्षण में बोनफेरोनी सुधार की खोज

Tales of the Undead Salmon: 多重仮説検定におけるボンフェローニ補正の探索

언데드 연어 이야기: 다중 가설 테스트에서 Bonferroni 수정 탐구

Tales of the Undead Salmon: Explorando a correção de Bonferroni em testes de hipóteses múltiplas

Ölümsüz Somon Masalları: Çoklu Hipotez Testinde Bonferroni Düzeltmesini Keşfetmek

Tales of the Undead Salmon: Khám phá hiệu chỉnh Bonferroni trong thử nghiệm nhiều giả thuyết

不死鲑鱼的故事：探索多重假设检验中的 Bonferroni 校正

In the Fourth Year: Anticipations of a World Peace by H. G. Wells, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . THE LEAGUE MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE II. — THE LEAGUE MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE A Peace Congress, growing permanent, then, may prove to be the most practical and convenient embodiment of this idea of a League of Nations that has taken possession of the imagination of the world. A most necessary preliminary to a Peace Congress, with such possibilities inherent in it, must obviously be the meeting and organization of a preliminary League of the Allied Nations. That point I would now enlarge. Half a world peace is better than none. There seems no reason whatever why the world should wait for the Central Powers before it begins this necessary work. Mr. McCurdy has been asking lately, “Why not the League of Nations now?” That is a question a great number of people would like to echo very heartily. The nearer the Allies can come to a League of Free Nations before the Peace Congress the more prospect there is that that body will approximate in nature to a League of Nations for the whole world. In one most unexpected quarter the same idea has been endorsed. The King’s Speech on the prorogation of Parliament this February was one of the most remarkable royal utterances that have ever been made from the British throne. There was less of the old-fashioned King and more of the modern President about it than the most republican-minded of us could have anticipated. For the first time in a King’s Speech we heard of the “democracies” of the world, and there was a clear claim that the Allies at present fighting the Central Powers did themselves constitute a League of Nations. But we must admit that at present they do so only in a very rhetorical sense. There is no real council of empowered representatives, and nothing in the nature of a united front has been prepared. Unless we provide beforehand for something more effective, Italy, France, the United States, Japan, and this country will send separate groups of representatives, with separate instructions, unequal status, and very probably conflicting views upon many subjects, to the ultimate peace discussions. It is quite conceivable—it is a very serious danger—that at this discussion skilful diplomacy on the part of the Central Powers may open a cleft among the Allies that has never appeared during the actual war. Have the British settled, for example, with Italy and France for the supply of metallurgical coal after the war? Those countries must have it somehow. Across the board Germany can make some tempting bids in that respect. Or take another question: Have the British arrived at common views with France, Belgium, Portugal, and South Africa about the administration of Central Africa? Suppose Germany makes sudden proposals affecting native labour that win over the Portuguese and the Boers? There are a score of such points upon which we shall find the Allied representatives haggling with each other in the presence of the enemy if they have not been settled beforehand. It is the plainest common sense that we should be fixing up all such matters with our Allies now, and knitting together a common front for the final deal with German Imperialism. And these things are not to be done effectively and bindingly nowadays by official gentlemen in discreet undertones. They need to be done with the full knowledge and authority of the participating peoples. The Russian example has taught the world the instability of diplomatic bargains in a time of such fundamental issues as the present. There is little hope and little strength in hole-and-corner bargainings between the officials or politicians who happen to be at the head of this or that nation for the time being. Our Labour people will not stand this sort of thing and they will not be bound by it. There will be the plain danger of repudiation for all arrangements made in that fashion. A gathering of somebody or other approved by the British Foreign Office and of somebody or other approved by the French Foreign Office, of somebody with vague powers from America, and so on and so on, will be an entirely ineffective gathering. But that is the sort of gathering of the Allies we have been having hitherto, and that is the sort of gathering that is likely to continue unless there is a considerable expression of opinion in favour of something more representative and responsible. Even our Foreign Office must be aware that in every country in the world there is now bitter suspicion of and keen hostility towards merely diplomatic representatives. One of the most significant features of the time is the evident desire of the Labour movement in every European country to take part in a collateral conference of Labour that shall meet when and where the Peace Congress does and deliberate and comment on its proceedings. For a year now the demand of the masses for such a Labour conference has been growing. It marks a distrust of officialdom whose intensity officialdom would do well to ponder. But it is the natural consequence of, it is the popular attempt at a corrective to, the aloofness and obscurity that have hitherto been so evil a characteristic of international negotiations. I do not think Labour and intelligent people anywhere are going to be fobbed off with an old-fashioned diplomatic gathering as being that League of Free Nations they demand. On the other hand, I do not contemplate this bi-cameral conference with the diplomatists trying to best and humbug the Labour people as well as each other and the Labour people getting more and more irritated, suspicious, and extremist, with anything but dread. The Allied countries must go into the conference solid, and they can only hope to do that by heeding and incorporating Labour ideas before they come to the conference. The only alternative that I can see to this unsatisfactory prospect of a Peace Congress sitting side by side with a dissentient and probably revolutionary Labour and Socialist convention—both gatherings with unsatisfactory credentials contradicting one another and drifting to opposite extremes—is that the delegates the Allied Powers send to the Peace Conference (the same delegates which, if they are wise, they will have previously sent to a preliminary League of Allied Nations to discuss their common action at the Peace Congress), should be elected ad hoc upon democratic lines. I know that this will be a very shocking proposal to all our able specialists in foreign policy. They will talk at once about the “ignorance” of people like the Labour leaders and myself about such matters, and so on. What do we know of the treaty of so-and-so that was signed in the year seventeen something?—and so on. To which the answer is that we ought not to have been kept ignorant of these things. A day will come when the Foreign Offices of all countries will have to recognize that what the people do not know of international agreements “ain’t facts.” A secret treaty is only binding upon the persons in the secret. But what I, as a sample common person, am not ignorant of is this: that the business that goes on at the Peace Congress will either make or mar the lives of everyone I care for in the world, and that somehow, by representative or what not, I have to be there. The Peace Congress deals with the blood and happiness of my children and the future of my world. Speaking as one of the hundreds of millions of “rank outsiders” in public affairs, I do not mean to respect any peace treaty that may end this war unless I am honestly represented at its making. I think everywhere there is a tendency in people to follow the Russian example to this extent and to repudiate bargains in which they have had no voice. I do not see that any genuine realization of the hopes with which all this talk about the League of Nations is charged can be possible, unless the two bodies which should naturally lead up to the League of Nations—that is to say, firstly, the Conference of the Allies, and then the Peace Congress—are elected bodies, speaking confidently for the whole mass of the peoples behind them. It may be a troublesome thing to elect them, but it will involve much more troublesome consequences if they are not elected. This, I think, is one of the considerations for which many people’s minds are still unprepared. But unless we are to have over again after all this bloodshed and effort some such “Peace with Honour” foolery as we had performed by “Dizzy” and Salisbury at that fatal Berlin Conference in which this present war was begotten, we must sit up to this novel proposal of electoral representation in the peace negotiations. Something more than common sense binds our statesmen to this idea. They are morally pledged to it. President Wilson and our British and French spokesmen alike have said over and over again that they want to deal not with the Hohenzollerns but with the German people. In other words, we have demanded elected representatives from the German people with whom we may deal, and how can we make a demand of that sort unless we on our part are already prepared to send our own elected representatives to meet them? It is up to us to indicate by our own practice how we on our side, professing as we do to act for democracies, to make democracy safe on the earth, and so on, intend to meet this new occasion. Yet it has to be remarked that, so far, not one of the League of Nations projects I have seen have included any practicable proposals for the appointment of delegates either to that ultimate body or to its two necessary predecessors, the Council of the Allies and the Peace Congress. It is evident that here, again, we are neglecting to get on with something of very urgent importance. I will venture, therefore, to say a word or two here about the possible way in which a modern community may appoint its international representatives. And here, again, I turn from any European precedents to that political outcome of the British mind, the Constitution of the United States. (Because we must always remember that while our political institutions in Britain are a patch-up of feudalism, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanoverian monarchist traditions and urgent merely European necessities, a patch-up that has been made quasi-democratic in a series of after-thoughts, the American Constitution is a real, deliberate creation of the English-speaking intelligence.) The President of the United States, then, we have to note, is elected in a most extraordinary way, and in a way that has now the justification of very great successes indeed. On several occasions the United States has achieved indisputable greatness in its Presidents, and very rarely has it failed to set up very leaderly and distinguished men. It is worth while, therefore, to inquire how this President is elected. He is neither elected directly by the people nor appointed by any legislative body. He is chosen by a special college elected by the people. This college exists to elect him; it meets, elects him, and disperses. (I will not here go into the preliminary complications that makes the election of a President follow upon a preliminary election of two Presidential Candidates. The point I am making here is that he is a specially selected man chosen ad hoc.) Is there any reason why we should, not adopt this method in this new necessity we are under of sending representatives, first, to the long overdue and necessary Allied Council, then to the Peace Congress, and then to the hoped-for Council of the League of Nations? I am anxious here only to start for discussion the idea of an electoral representation of the nations upon these three bodies that must in succession set themselves to define, organize, and maintain the peace of the world. I do not wish to complicate the question by any too explicit advocacy of methods of election or the like. In the United States this college which elects the President is elected on the same register of voters as that which elects the Senate and Congress, and at the same time. But I suppose if we are to give a popular mandate to the three or five or twelve or twenty (or whatever number it is) men to whom we are going to entrust our Empire’s share in this great task of the peace negotiations, it will be more decisive of the will of the whole nation if the college that had to appoint them is elected at a special election. I suppose that the great British common-weals over-seas, at present not represented in Parliament, would also and separately at the same time elect colleges to appoint their representatives. I suppose there would be at least one Indian representative elected, perhaps by some special electoral conference of Indian princes and leading men. The chief defect of the American Presidential election is that as the old single vote method of election is employed it has to be fought on purely party lines. He is the select man of the Democratic half, or of the Republican half of the nation. He is not the select man of the whole nation. It would give a far more representative character to the electoral college if it could be elected by fair modern methods, if for this particular purpose parliamentary constituencies could be grouped and the clean scientific method of proportional representation could be used. But I suppose the party politician in this, as in most of our affairs, must still have his pound of our flesh—and we must reckon with him later for the bloodshed. These are all, however, secondary considerations. The above paragraph is, so to speak, in the nature of a footnote. The fundamental matter, if we are to get towards any realization of this ideal of a world peace sustained by a League of Nations, is to get straight away to the conception of direct special electoral mandates in this matter. At present all the political luncheon and dinner parties in London are busy with smirking discussions of “Who is to go?” The titled ladies are particularly busy. They are talking about it as if we poor, ignorant, tax-paying, blood-paying common people did not exist. “L. G.,” they say, will of course “insist on going,” but there is much talk of the “Old Man.” People are getting quite nice again about “the Old Man’s feelings.” It would be such a pretty thing to send him. But if “L. G.” goes we want him to go with something more than a backing of intrigues and snatched authority. And I do not think the mass of people have any enthusiasm for the Old Man. It is difficult again—by the dinner-party standards—to know how Lord Curzon can be restrained. But we common people do not care if he is restrained to the point of extinction. Probably there will be nobody who talks or understands Russian among the British representatives. But, of course, the British governing class has washed its hands of the Russians. They were always very difficult, and now they are “impossible, my dear, perfectly impossible.” No! That sort of thing will not do now. This Peace Congress is too big a job for party politicians and society and county families. The bulk of British opinion cannot go on being represented for ever by President Wilson. We cannot always look to the Americans to express our ideas and do our work for democracy. The foolery of the Berlin Treaty must not be repeated. We cannot have another popular Prime Minister come triumphing back to England with a gross of pink spectacles—through which we may survey the prospect of the next great war. The League of Free Nations means something very big and solid; it is not a rhetorical phrase to be used to pacify a restless, distressed, and anxious public, and to be sneered out of existence when that use is past. When the popular mind now demands a League of Free Nations it demands a reality. The only way to that reality is through the direct participation of the nation as a whole in the settlement, and that is possible only through the direct election for this particular issue of representative and responsible men. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. H. G. Wells (1918). In The Fourth Year. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10291/10291-h/10291-h.htm This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.

THE LEAGUE MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE

 The Sunken Empire

This Guy Thinks He’s Cracked the UFO Code (I Reviewed His Book Quantum Paranormal and Tore It Apart)

1811 Dictionary in the Vulgar Tongue: Section F

When you post something on the Facebook WordPress group on Christmas Eve about the poor quality of plug-ins and it gets 131 reactions and 118 comments within a few hours, basically all in agreement, you know you are not alone in how you feel. The post in question was about the poor quality of far too many WordPress plug-ins, including paid for premium plug-ins, not just free ones. To be clear from the outset, I’ll continue to refer to plug-ins throughout this but I also mean themes and all other WordPress products, services and add-ons. I’d been meaning to write something about this for a while, but I’ve been busy non-stop with a new WooCommerce site and my main business for months. It’s clear from my own experience, and validated by many other people in the Facebook discussion on Christmas Eve, that too many WordPress plug-ins are simply not up-to-scratch. This not only damages the reputation of WordPress but also wastes valuable time that developers, web-site builders, designers, and end-users don’t have to spare. There are many reasons for this poor level of quality including the false idea that anyone can write a plug-in and sell it, an almost universal lack of quality control, a lack of knowledge many developers of the industry the plug-in is written for, and often poor documentation and best practices etc etc In recent weeks I’ve personally fixed a number of paid-for plug-ins on behalf of the developers simply because I just wanted to get them to work and couldn’t wait for them to do it. Almost none of them gave any thanks, or even an apology for their code simply not working. And I’ve ended up getting refunds on too many for my liking. Refunds costs us more money than developers lose I don’t want to ever have to ask for a refund for a plug-in. if I do it means I’ve already lost more money than I’ll get back because of the time wasted and the delays in the project which mean delays in earning money. The option to refund should always be there of course — and not all plug-ins offer them — but when you buy something after researching the plug-in itself, competing plug-ins, reading reviews etc, you should have a good idea if it will work for you or not. Refunds should be rare. Any company that refuses to offer refunds because of the potential for fraudulent refunds presumably doesn’t understand the huge market for nulled plug-ins. Nulled plug-ins are obviously bad for developers, but they are also bad for the future of WordPress and the end user. If developers don’t earn what they deserve from their hard work and skills they will stop developing, and then everyone loses out. But many people have told me they use nulled versions first to test plug-ins because of the poor quality of so many and difficulties in getting refunds. I’m sure some go on to pay the developer, but many will probably not get around to it even if they do continue to use the plug-in. What’s wrong with existing review sites? If you need a plug-in to achieve a particular task it’s easy to search Google and find lots of reviews that should help you make a decision on which one to buy. But if you do this, you’ll find that many — most? — of these ‘review’ sites and compilations of ‘best plug-ins for X’ are written by people who have never tested them in real life, or if they have ‘tested’ them, they may have installed them, looked at the settings and concluded it works. Many of them are nothing more than lists of affiliate links where every plug-in ’works’ and is ‘worth buying’ — ‘just click here please’. Ker-ching! Someone suggested WPHive which I’ve had a brief look at and their stated aim is to provide a better repository of plug-ins which is great. But, from what I can gather, it is based largely on automatic code testing. While there’s certainly a role for automatic code testing, it’s not something that can be easily done by anyone except for the actual developers of the code. And it seems most plug-in developers don’t have the level of knowledge to set up and run correct unit testing. WPHive explain that their system will fail and mark a product as having major errors if their automated system finds any error at all. And it fails if the plug-in has any dependencies that are not core WordPress. So, straight away, lots of plug-ins will fail their testing as they do rely on other plug-ins to work. This is not an attack on WPHive. I don’t know enough about it to make any definitive statements but certainly the level of automatic testing they describe and how they mark plug-ins as having errors is clearly not a viable method to prove conclusively if a plug-in actually works properly. So, what’s the answer? It’s only by actually using a plug-in on a real project, that has real-word consequences (normally financial), that we can see if it works well or not, and what its limitations are. People using a plug-in in a professional setting can provide valuable feedback that helps other potential users/purchasers of the plug-in, the developers, and the WordPress platform as a whole. Reviews on sites like Codecanyon are often superficial and in some cases clearly fake (this applies to other sites as well, I’m not pointing my finger solely at Codecanyon). Genuine queries, bug reports or complaints often go unanswered by the developer, or they reply with a promise that ‘a fix is coming in the next release’ and months go by without any fix. Going back to WPHive, their aim is to quality-check every plug-in and claim to have tested 50,000 so far — although as I’ve already said, this is based on simplistic and flawed automatic testing. Yes, there is a role for some automated processes, such as checking ratings on other sites, checking how often something is updated, running profile testing to measure the speed impact of the plug-in and so on. These are all valuable metrics. But only by real users installing, configuring, and working with a plug-in can genuine feedback be gained that is useful to others. A plug-in can look amazing until you start to use it and you realise it lacks basic features that it appeared to have, or should have, and the developer either refuses to add the feature or, worse, tells you that you don’t need the feature (and that’s especially annoying when they have no knowledge of the business sector you operate in or what is actually needed). I write this as someone who started programming around 40 years ago and has released software, and has been paid to develop software and web sites. These days though I am in the online retail business but I use my experience as a programmer and developer to produce our own sites and systems. I’m basically more of a hacker — in the correct use of the word — than a professional developer. The only time I’m the best programmer in the room is when I am alone, and even that presumes there isn’t a fly hovering about. But I get things done and often find myself at loggerheads with self-declared ‘professional developers’ of plug-ins who know half of what I do and refuse to accept something can be done, normally before I just do it myself. Perhaps it’s fair to say I have higher expectations than some, but if I do that’s just because I know what can be done and what should be available, while many end users are just fobbed off and disappointed the plug-in doesn’t fulfil their business needs because they don’t have the technical background to know the developers are just being lazy or incompetent. I also come from a background where, having first used WordPress sometime around 2005 or 2006, I never for one moment thought I would be using it professionally. But it has grown and matured, and perhaps it’s fair to say I am too old to be re-inventing the wheel each time I want to do something, and I now find myself using it, and largely happily. But my experience in the last year of actively using the platform, plug-ins and themes, and developing my own code for it, makes me think it is at a bit of a crossroads and if things aren’t handled properly, it may easily take the wrong turn. No CMS platform is perfect. No E-commerce platform is perfect. And no community is perfect. But they can all be made better. Bigger platforms than WordPress have disappeared, and no platform has a right to ever-lasting success. I explain my recent ‘conversion’ to WordPress to make it clear I may be unaware of solutions that solve the problems I’ve mentioned. For instance, I hadn’t heard of WPHive until this conversation on Facebook, although that doesn’t seem to be the answer I’m looking for. What we can do next This is a very rough idea, literally based on thoughts since my post on Christmas Eve Maybe there is something out there already that does what I feel is missing. Or maybe what I feel is missing is not something others would want. If there’s no demand for it, great, I can get on with other things — I really shouldn’t have spent the time writing this out as my TODO list is huge as it is ;) And if someone is already doing this, even better! Point me to it! But if not, I’m proposing some form of WordPress Quality Mark that can be awarded to plug-ins that meet certain standards. This is not as simple as it may sound, as quality marks tend to require a strict pre-defined list of conditions products must meet to qualify. Just defining those would be a big task alone, and designing them to suit the various types of plug-ins even more so, and likely impossible given the wide range of use cases for plug-ins. So maybe all that is needed is a review site that focuses on real-life use. A site where the aim isn’t to list every available plug-in that does X, but a small number that do it well. I think the focus should be more on software that works well, rather than simply attacking software that doesn’t. In my teenage years I used to enjoy reading occasional writing by Jeff Minter, the games designer and programmer, who would sometimes review software for magazines like ZZap!64. His philosophy was basically along the lines of ‘If you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say it at all’ or, in other words, he preferred to give his time praising great products rather than attacking bad ones. That said, while there’s no need to review every single plug-in and criticise it — life is too short and there are too many poor plug-ins — if a plug-in is well-known, well-promoted and well-used then it certainly needs to be reviewed and problems or limitations highlighted. Any such project would need the co-operation of users who are prepared to provide feedback on the use of plug-ins, developers prepared to provide free copies for people to use (probably in the form of a refund after reviews are written rather than up-front freebies — the aim is to get people who really need and use the software to use it, not to attract bargain hunters), and developers prepared to accept constructive criticism and use it to improve their products. Depending on how it develops it may even eventually need funding to employ people to manage it — probably in the form of payment from developers on a sliding scale depending on their size/revenue — although this is not something I want to be part of. Not that I am against the idea, simply because something along those lines is a much bigger task and one I absolutely do not have the time or will to do. Other potential income streams include affiliate links — but only as long as they are clearly marked as such and have absolutely no influence on the review of the product or the award of any mark. There’s no point working towards this only to replicate the sham review sites that already exist. Any such site or awarding body would need transparency in how it operates and who is behind it. As far as I can see WPHive doesn’t even say who operates the site unless you click on the LinkedIn Icon where you see it seems to be by weDevs (again, sorry, I’m not picking on WPHive, it’s just the only one I’ve found that is vaguely similar). And plug-ins also need more transparency. Too many are for sale by ‘companies’ (often individuals) with no real contact details, and users/purchasers don’t have much — if any — knowledge of who they are buying from. This alone is a huge issue the platform faces. It’s down to us, developers, web-site builders, end-users and, in some cases, devotees to WordPress to do what we can to ensure the eco-system stays on track and develops in the right way and, alongside the work that goes on developing the core WordPress platform, ensuring a decent level of plug-ins is essential to that. I’ve created a group on Facebook called (very much a temporary title I would imagine) and invite anyone interested in this concept — whether end-users, web site builders, programmers and especially plug-in developers — to join and discuss this in more detail. WP Quality Mark Being totally honest, I’m incredibly busy so may not be able to devote much time to this (otherwise I would set this up as a business and would have launched with a fancy-pants web site with payment methods setup for developers, rather than this very long and very boring Medium post!) If there is a demand for this, hopefully we can find the right people to work on it together. But again, if there is no demand, great, let’s all get on with our other work, or if something already exists that does this that I’m not aware of, please let me — and others — know. I’m not remotely precious about this idea and have far too much in my life, both personally and professionally, to devote much time to this and I’m more than happy for others to take the basics of this idea and run with it if they wish. I only hope it is done with the right reasons, and not just to replicate the existing vapid review sites that exist solely to make money. WordPress deserves better. And we deserve better. Join in now! Please feel free to leave comments here but it would be better to join the group and post there. At the moment it is a public group but depending on whether or not it attracts any spam or abuse etc, it may change status to a private group and require approval to join. You can find the Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/wpqualitymark ps. please excuse any typos etc, it’s Christmas and I really should be doing other things! Previously published at https://johnrisby.medium.com/its-time-for-some-quality-control-for-wordpress-plug-ins-a-proposal-7ac9d9865b3

It is Time To Have A Quality Control For WordPress plugins

The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . The Robber Robbed here The Robber Robbed Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. —Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar. Behold, the fool saith, “Put not all thine eggs in the one basket”—which is but a manner of saying, “Scatter your money and your attention;” but the wise man saith, “Put all your eggs in the one basket and—watch that basket” —Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar. What a time of it Dawson’s Landing was having! All its life it had been asleep, but now it hardly got a chance for a nod, so swiftly did big events and crashing surprises come along in one another’s wake: Friday morning, first glimpse of Real Nobility, also grand reception at Aunt Patsy Cooper’s, also great robber-raid; Friday evening, dramatic kicking of the heir of the chief citizen in presence of four hundred people; Saturday morning, emergence as practising lawyer of the long-submerged Pudd’nhead Wilson; Saturday night, duel between chief citizen and titled stranger. The people took more pride in the duel than in all the other events put together, perhaps. It was a glory to their town to have such a thing happen there. In their eyes the principals had reached the summit of human honor. Everybody paid homage to their names; their praises were in all mouths. Even the duelists’ subordinates came in for a handsome share of the public approbation: wherefore Pudd’nhead Wilson was suddenly become a man of consequence. When asked to run for the mayoralty Saturday night he was risking defeat, but Sunday morning found him a made man and his success assured. The twins were prodigiously great, now; the town took them to its bosom with enthusiasm. Day after day, and night after night, they went dining and visiting from house to house, making friends, enlarging and solidifying their popularity, and charming and surprising all with their musical prodigies, and now and then heightening the effects with samples of what they could do in other directions, out of their stock of rare and curious accomplishments. They were so pleased that they gave the regulation thirty days’ notice, the required preparation for citizenship, and resolved to finish their days in this pleasant place. That was the climax. The delighted community rose as one man and applauded; and when the twins were asked to stand for seats in the forthcoming aldermanic board, and consented, the public contentment was rounded and complete. Tom Driscoll was not happy over these things; they sunk deep, and hurt all the way down. He hated the one twin for kicking him, and the other one for being the kicker’s brother. Now and then the people wondered why nothing was heard of the raider, or of the stolen knife or the other plunder, but nobody was able to throw any light on that matter. Nearly a week had drifted by, and still the thing remained a vexed mystery. On Saturday Constable Blake and Pudd’nhead Wilson met on the street, and Tom Driscoll joined them in time to open their conversation for them. He said to Blake—“You are not looking well, Blake; you seem to be annoyed about something. Has anything gone wrong in the detective business? I believe you fairly and justifiably claim to have a pretty good reputation in that line, isn’t it so?”—which made Blake feel good, and look it; but Tom added, “for a country detective”—which made Blake feel the other way, and not only look it, but betray it in his voice— “Yes, sir, I got a reputation; and it’s as good as anybody’s in the profession, too, country or no country.” have “Oh, I beg pardon; I didn’t mean any offense. What I started out to ask was only about the old woman that raided the town—the stoop-shouldered old woman, you know, that you said you were going to catch; and I knew you would, too, because you have the reputation of never boasting, and—well, you—you’ve caught the old woman?” “D——— the old woman!” “Why, sho! you don’t mean to say you haven’t caught her?” “No; I haven’t caught her. If anybody could have caught her, I could; but nobody couldn’t, I don’t care who he is.” “I am sorry, real sorry—for your sake; because, when it gets around that a detective has expressed himself so confidently, and then—” “Don’t you worry, that’s all—don’t you worry; and as for the town, the town needn’t worry, either. She’s my meat—make yourself easy about that. I’m on her track; I’ve got clues that—” “That’s good! Now if you could get an old veteran detective down from St. Louis to help you find out what the clues mean, and where they lead to, and then—” “I’m plenty veteran enough myself, and I don’t need anybody’s help. I’ll have her inside of a we—inside of a month. That I’ll swear to!” Tom said carelessly— “I suppose that will answer—yes, that will answer. But I reckon she is pretty old, and old people don’t often outlive the cautious pace of the professional detective when he has got his clues together and is out on his still-hunt.” Blake’s dull face flushed under this gibe, but before he could set his retort in order Tom had turned to Wilson, and was saying, with placid indifference of manner and voice— “Who got the reward, Pudd’nhead?” Wilson winced slightly, and saw that his own turn was come. “What reward?” “Why, the reward for the thief, and the other one for the knife.” Wilson answered—and rather uncomfortably, to judge by his hesitating fashion of delivering himself— “Well, the—well, in fact, nobody has claimed it yet.” Tom seemed surprised. “Why, is that so?” Wilson showed a trifle of irritation when he replied— “Yes, it’s so. And what of it?” “Oh, nothing. Only I thought you had struck out a new idea, and invented a scheme that was going to revolutionize the time-worn and ineffectual methods of the—” He stopped, and turned to Blake, who was happy now that another had taken his place on the gridiron: “Blake, didn’t you understand him to intimate that it wouldn’t be necessary for you to hunt the old woman down?” “B’George, he said he’d have thief and swag both inside of three days—he did, by hokey! and that’s just about a week ago. Why, I said at the time that no thief and no thief’s pal was going to try to pawn or sell a thing where he knowed the pawnbroker could get both rewards by taking into camp the swag. It was the blessedest idea that ever struck!” him with I “You’d change your mind,” said Wilson, with irritated bluntness, “if you knew the entire scheme instead of only part of it.” “Well,” said the constable, pensively, “I had the idea that it wouldn’t work, and up to now I’m right anyway.” “Very well, then, let it stand at that, and give it a further show. It has worked at least as well as your own methods, you perceive.” The constable hadn’t anything handy to hit back with, so he discharged a discontented sniff, and said nothing. After the night that Wilson had partly revealed his scheme at his house, Tom had tried for several days to guess out the secret of the rest of it, but had failed. Then it occurred to him to give Roxana’s smarter head a chance at it. He made up a supposititious case, and laid it before her. She thought it over, and delivered her verdict upon it. Tom said to himself, “She’s hit it, sure!” He thought he would test that verdict, now, and watch Wilson’s face; so he said reflectively— “Wilson, you’re not a fool—a fact of recent discovery. Whatever your scheme was, it had sense in it, Blake’s opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. I don’t ask you to reveal it, but I will suppose a case—a case which will answer as a starting-point for the real thing I am going to come at, and that’s all I want. You offered five hundred dollars for the knife, and five hundred for the thief. We will suppose, for argument’s sake, that the first reward is and the second offered by to pawnbrokers and—” advertised private letter Blake slapped his thigh, and cried out— “By Jackson, he’s got you, Pudd’nhead! Now why couldn’t I or fool have thought of that?” any Wilson said to himself, “Anybody with a reasonably good head would have thought of it. I am not surprised that Blake didn’t detect it; I am only surprised that Tom did. There is more to him than I supposed.” He said nothing aloud, and Tom went on: “Very well. The thief would not suspect that there was a trap, and he would bring or send the knife, and say he bought it for a song, or found it in the road, or something like that, and try to collect the reward, and be arrested—wouldn’t he?” “Yes,” said Wilson. “I think so,” said Tom. “There can’t be any doubt of it. Have you ever seen that knife?” “No.” “Has any friend of yours?” “Not that I know of.” “Well, I begin to think I understand why your scheme failed.” “What do you mean, Tom? What are you driving at?” asked Wilson, with a dawning sense of discomfort. “Why, that there any such knife.” isn’t “Look here, Wilson,” said Blake, “Tom Driscoll’s right, for a thousand dollars—if I had it.” Wilson’s blood warmed a little, and he wondered if he had been played upon by those strangers; it certainly had something of that look. But what could they gain by it? He threw out that suggestion. Tom replied: “Gain? Oh, nothing that you would value, maybe. But they are strangers making their way in a new community. Is it nothing to them to appear as pets of an Oriental prince—at no expense? Is it nothing to them to be able to dazzle this poor little town with thousand-dollar rewards—at no expense? Wilson, there isn’t any such knife, or your scheme would have fetched it to light. Or if there is any such knife, they’ve got it yet. I believe, myself, that they’ve seen such a knife, for Angelo pictured it out with his pencil too swiftly and handily for him to have been inventing it, and of course I can’t swear that they’ve never had it; but this I’ll go bail for—if they had it when they came to this town, they’ve got it yet.” Blake said— “It looks mighty reasonable, the way Tom puts it; it most certainly does.” Tom responded, turning to leave— “You find the old woman, Blake, and if she can’t furnish the knife, go and search the twins!” Tom sauntered away. Wilson felt a good deal depressed. He hardly knew what to think. He was loath to withdraw his faith from the twins, and was resolved not to do it on the present indecisive evidence; but—well, he would think, and then decide how to act. “Blake, what do you think of this matter?” “Well, Pudd’nhead, I’m bound to say I put it up the way Tom does. They hadn’t the knife; or if they had it, they’ve got it yet.” The men parted. Wilson said to himself: “I believe they had it; if it had been stolen, the scheme would have restored it, that is certain. And so I believe they’ve got it yet.” Tom had no purpose in his mind when he encountered those two men. When he began his talk he hoped to be able to gall them a little and get a trifle of malicious entertainment out of it. But when he left, he left in great spirits, for he perceived that just by pure luck and no troublesome labor he had accomplished several delightful things: he had touched both men on a raw spot and seen them squirm; he had modified Wilson’s sweetness for the twins with one small bitter taste that he wouldn’t be able to get out of his mouth right away; and, best of all, he had taken the hated twins down a peg with the community; for Blake would gossip around freely, after the manner of detectives, and within a week the town would be laughing at them in its sleeve for offering a gaudy reward for a bauble which they either never possessed or hadn’t lost. Tom was very well satisfied with himself. Tom’s behavior at home had been perfect during the entire week. His uncle and aunt had seen nothing like it before. They could find no fault with him anywhere. Saturday evening he said to the Judge— “I’ve had something preying on my mind, uncle, and as I am going away, and might never see you again, I can’t bear it any longer. I made you believe I was afraid to fight that Italian adventurer. I had to get out of it on some pretext or other, and maybe I chose badly, being taken unawares, but no honorable person could consent to meet him in the field, knowing what I knew about him.” “Indeed? What was that?” “Count Luigi is a confessed assassin.” “Incredible!” “It’s perfectly true. Wilson detected it in his hand, by palmistry, and charged him with it, and cornered him up so close that he had to confess; but both twins begged us on their knees to keep the secret, and swore they would lead straight lives here; and it was all so pitiful that we gave our word of honor never to expose them while they kept that promise. You would have done it yourself, uncle.” “You are right, my boy; I would. A man’s secret is still his own property, and sacred, when it has been surprised out of him like that. You did well, and I am proud of you.” Then he added mournfully, “But I wish I could have been saved the shame of meeting an assassin on the field of honor.” “It couldn’t be helped, uncle. If I had known you were going to challenge him I should have felt obliged to sacrifice my pledged word in order to stop it, but Wilson couldn’t be expected to do otherwise than keep silent.” “Oh, no; Wilson did right, and is in no way to blame. Tom, Tom, you have lifted a heavy load from my heart; I was stung to the very soul when I seemed to have discovered that I had a coward in my family.” “You may imagine what it cost to assume such a part, uncle.” me “Oh, I know it, poor boy, I know it. And I can understand how much it has cost you to remain under that unjust stigma to this time. But it is all right now, and no harm is done. You have restored my comfort of mind, and with it your own; and both of us had suffered enough.” The old man sat awhile plunged in thought; then he looked up with a satisfied light in his eye, and said: “That this assassin should have put the affront upon me of letting me meet him on the field of honor as if he were a gentleman is a matter which I will presently settle—but not now. I will not shoot him until after election. I see a way to ruin them both before; I will attend to that first. Neither of them shall be elected, that I promise. You are sure that the fact that he is an assassin has not got abroad?” “Perfectly certain of it, sir.” “It will be a good card. I will fling a hint at it from the stump on the polling-day. It will sweep the ground from under both of them.” “There’s not a doubt of it. It will finish them.” “That and outside work among the voters will, to a certainty. I want you to come down here by and by and work privately among the rag-tag and bobtail. You shall spend money among them; I will furnish it.” Another point scored against the detested twins! Really it was a great day for Tom. He was encouraged to chance a parting shot, now, at the same target, and did it. “You know that wonderful Indian knife that the twins have been making such a to-do about? Well, there’s no track or trace of it yet; so the town is beginning to sneer and gossip and laugh. Half the people believe they never had any such knife, the other half believe they had it and have got it still. I’ve heard twenty people talking like that to-day.” Yes, Tom’s blemishless week had restored him to the favor of his aunt and uncle. His mother was satisfied with him, too. Privately, she believed she was coming to love him, but she did not say so. She told him to go along to St. Louis, now, and she would get ready and follow. Then she smashed her whisky bottle and said— “Dah now! I’s a-gwyne to make you walk as straight as a string, Chambers, en so I’s bown’ you ain’t gwyne to git no bad example out o’ yo’ mammy. I tole you you couldn’t go into no bad comp’ny. Well, you’s gwyne into my comp’ny, en I’s gwyne to fill de bill. Now, den, trot along, trot along!” Tom went aboard one of the big transient boats that night with his heavy satchel of miscellaneous plunder, and slept the sleep of the unjust, which is serener and sounder than the other kind, as we know by the hanging-eve history of a million rascals. But when he got up in the morning, luck was against him again: A brother-thief had robbed him while he slept, and gone ashore at some intermediate landing. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/102/pg102-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

The Robber Robbed

The Jewel Robbery at the Grand Metropolitan

Poirot Investigates by Agatha Christie, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . The Million Dollar Bond Robbery V. The Million Dollar Bond Robbery “What a number of bond robberies there have been lately!” I observed one morning, laying aside the newspaper. “Poirot, let us forsake the science of detection, and take to crime instead!” “You are on the—how do you say it?—get-rich-quick tack, eh, mon ami?” “Well, look at this last coup, the million dollars’ worth of Liberty Bonds which the London and Scottish Bank were sending to New York, and which disappeared in such a remarkable manner on board the Olympia.” “If it were not for the mal de mer, and the difficulty of practising the so excellent method of Laverguier for a longer time than the few hours of crossing the channel, I should delight to voyage myself on one of these big liners,” murmured Poirot dreamily. “Yes, indeed,” I said enthusiastically. “Some of them must be perfect palaces; the swimming-baths, the lounges, the restaurant, the palm courts—really, it must be hard to believe that one is on the sea.” “Me, I always know when I am on the sea,” said Poirot sadly. “And all those bagatelles that you enumerate, they say nothing to me; but, my friend, consider for a moment the geniuses that travel as it were incognito! On board these floating palaces, as you so justly call them, one would meet the élite, the haute noblesse of the criminal world!” I laughed. “So that’s the way your enthusiasm runs! You would have liked to cross swords with the man who sneaked the Liberty Bonds?” The landlady interrupted us. “A young lady as wants to see you, Mr. Poirot. Here’s her card.” The card bore the inscription: Miss Esmée Farquhar, and Poirot, after diving under the table to retrieve a stray crumb, and putting it carefully in the waste-paper-basket, nodded to the landlady to admit her. In another minute one of the most charming girls I have ever seen was ushered into the room. She was perhaps about five-and-twenty, with big brown eyes and a perfect figure. She was well-dressed and perfectly composed in manner. “Sit down, I beg of you, mademoiselle. This is my friend, Captain Hastings, who aids me in my little problems.” “I am afraid it is a big problem I have brought you to-day, Monsieur Poirot,” said the girl, giving me a pleasant bow as she seated herself. “I dare say you have read about it in the papers. I am referring to the theft of Liberty Bonds on the Olympia.” Some astonishment must have shown itself in Poirot’s face, for she continued quickly: “You are doubtless asking yourself what I have to do with a grave institution like the London and Scottish Bank. In one sense nothing, in another sense everything. You see, Monsieur Poirot, I am engaged to Mr. Philip Ridgeway.” “Aha! and Mr. Philip Ridgeway——” “Was in charge of the bonds when they were stolen. Of course no actual blame can attach to him, it was not his fault in any way. Nevertheless, he is half distraught over the matter, and his uncle, I know, insists that he must carelessly have mentioned having them in his possession. It is a terrible set-back in his career.” “Who is his uncle?” “Mr. Vavasour, joint general manager of the London and Scottish Bank.” “Suppose, Miss Farquhar, that you recount to me the whole story?” “Very well. As you know, the Bank wished to extend their credits in America, and for this purpose decided to send over a million dollars in Liberty Bonds. Mr. Vavasour selected his nephew, who had occupied a position of trust in the Bank for many years and who was conversant with all the details of the Bank’s dealings in New York, to make the trip. The Olympia sailed from Liverpool on the 23rd, and the bonds were handed over to Philip on the morning of that day by Mr. Vavasour and Mr. Shaw, the two joint general managers of the London and Scottish Bank. They were counted, enclosed in a package, and sealed in his presence, and he then locked the package at once in his portmanteau.” “A portmanteau with an ordinary lock?” “No, Mr. Shaw insisted on a special lock being fitted to it by Hubbs’s. Philip, as I say, placed the package at the bottom of the trunk. It was stolen just a few hours before reaching New York. A rigorous search of the whole ship was made, but without result. The bonds seemed literally to have vanished into thin air.” Poirot made a grimace. “But they did not vanish absolutely, since I gather that they were sold in small parcels within half an hour of the docking of the Olympia! Well, undoubtedly the next thing is for me to see Mr. Ridgeway.” “I was about to suggest that you should lunch with me at the ‘Cheshire Cheese.’ Philip will be there. He is meeting me, but does not yet know that I have been consulting you on his behalf.” We agreed to this suggestion readily enough, and drove there in a taxi. Mr. Philip Ridgeway was there before us, and looked somewhat surprised to see his fiancée arriving with two complete strangers. He was a nice-looking young fellow, tall and spruce, with a touch of greying hair at the temples, though he could not have been much over thirty. Miss Farquhar went up to him and laid her hand on his arm. “You must forgive my acting without consulting you, Philip,” she said. “Let me introduce you to Monsieur Hercule Poirot, of whom you must often have heard, and his friend, Captain Hastings.” Ridgeway looked very astonished. “Of course I have heard of you, Monsieur Poirot,” he said, as he shook hands. “But I had no idea that Esmée was thinking of consulting you about my—our trouble.” “I was afraid you would not let me do it, Philip,” said Miss Farquhar meekly. “So you took care to be on the safe side,” he observed, with a smile. “I hope Monsieur Poirot will be able to throw some light on this extraordinary puzzle, for I confess frankly that I am nearly out of my mind with worry and anxiety about it.” Indeed, his face looked drawn and haggard and showed only too clearly the strain under which he was labouring. “Well, well,” said Poirot. “Let us lunch, and over lunch we will put our heads together and see what can be done. I want to hear Mr. Ridgeway’s story from his own lips.” Whilst we discussed the excellent steak and kidney pudding of the establishment, Philip Ridgeway narrated the circumstances leading to the disappearance of the bonds. His story agreed with that of Miss Farquhar in every particular. When he had finished, Poirot took up the thread with a question. “What exactly led you to discover that the bonds had been stolen, Mr. Ridgeway?” He laughed rather bitterly. “The thing stared me in the face, Monsieur Poirot. I couldn’t have missed it. My cabin trunk was half out from under the bunk and all scratched and cut about where they’d tried to force the lock.” “But I understood that it had been opened with a key?” “That’s so. They tried to force it, but couldn’t. And, in the end, they must have got it unlocked somehow or other.” “Curious,” said Poirot, his eyes beginning to flicker with the green light I knew so well. “Very curious! They waste much, much time trying to prise it open, and then—sapristi! they find that they have the key all the time—for each of Hubbs’s locks are unique.” “That’s just why they couldn’t have had the key. It never left me day or night.” “You are sure of that?” “I can swear to it, and besides, if they had had the key or a duplicate, why should they waste time trying to force an obviously unforceable lock?” “Ah! there is exactly the question we are asking ourselves! I venture to prophesy that the solution, if we ever find it, will hinge on that curious fact. I beg of you not to assault me if I ask you one more question: Are you perfectly certain you did not leave the trunk unlocked?” Philip Ridgeway merely looked at him, and Poirot gesticulated apologetically. “Ah, but these things can happen, I assure you! Very well, the bonds were stolen from the trunk. What did the thief do with them? How did he manage to get ashore with them?” “Ah!” cried Ridgeway. “That’s just it. How? Word was passed to the Customs authorities, and every soul that left the ship was gone over with a toothcomb!” “And the bonds, I gather, made a bulky package?” “Certainly they did. They could hardly have been hidden on board—and anyway we know they weren’t because they were offered for sale within half an hour of the Olympia’s arrival, long before I got the cables going and the numbers sent out. One broker swears he bought some of them even before the Olympia got in. But you can’t send bonds by wireless.” “Not by wireless, but did any tug come alongside?” “Only the official ones, and that was after the alarm was given when every one was on the look-out. I was watching out myself for their being passed over to some one that way. My God, Monsieur Poirot, this thing will drive me mad! People are beginning to say I stole them myself.” “But you also were searched on landing, weren’t you?” asked Poirot gently. “Yes.” The young man stared at him in a puzzled manner. “You do not catch my meaning, I see,” said Poirot, smiling enigmatically. “Now I should like to make a few inquiries at the Bank.” Ridgeway produced a card and scribbled a few words on it. “Send this in and my uncle will see you at once.” Poirot thanked him, bade farewell to Miss Farquhar, and together we started out for Threadneedle Street and the head office of the London and Scottish Bank. On production of Ridgeway’s card, we were led through the labyrinth of counters and desks, skirting paying-in clerks and paying-out clerks and up to a small office on the first floor where the joint general managers received us. They were two grave gentlemen, who had grown grey in the service of the Bank. Mr. Vavasour had a short white beard, Mr. Shaw was clean shaven. “I understand you are strictly a private inquiry agent?” said Mr. Vavasour. “Quite so, quite so. We have, of course, placed ourselves in the hands of Scotland Yard. Inspector McNeil has charge of the case. A very able officer, I believe.” “I am sure of it,” said Poirot politely. “You will permit a few questions, on your nephew’s behalf? About this lock, who ordered it from Hubbs’s?” “I ordered it myself,” said Mr. Shaw. “I would not trust to any clerk in the matter. As to the keys, Mr. Ridgeway had one, and the other two are held by my colleague and myself.” “And no clerk has had access to them?” Mr. Shaw turned inquiringly to Mr. Vavasour. “I think I am correct in saying that they have remained in the safe where we placed them on the 23rd,” said Mr. Vavasour. “My colleague was unfortunately taken ill a fortnight ago—in fact on the very day that Philip left us. He has only just recovered.” “Severe bronchitis is no joke to a man of my age,” said Mr. Shaw ruefully. “But I am afraid Mr. Vavasour has suffered from the hard work entailed by my absence, especially with this unexpected worry coming on top of everything.” Poirot asked a few more questions. I judged that he was endeavouring to gauge the exact amount of intimacy between uncle and nephew. Mr. Vavasour’s answers were brief and punctilious. His nephew was a trusted official of the Bank, and had no debts or money difficulties that he knew of. He had been entrusted with similar missions in the past. Finally we were politely bowed out. “I am disappointed,” said Poirot, as we emerged into the street. “You hoped to discover more? They are such stodgy old men.” “It is not their stodginess which disappoints me, mon ami. I do not expect to find in a Bank manager a ‘keen financier with an eagle glance’ as your favourite works of fiction put it. No, I am disappointed in the case—it is too easy!” “Easy?” “Yes, do you not find it almost childishly simple?” “You know who stole the bonds?” “I do.” “But then—we must—why——” “Do not confuse and fluster yourself, Hastings. We are not going to do anything at present.” “But why? What are you waiting for?” “For the Olympia. She is due on her return trip from New York on Tuesday.” “But if you know who stole the bonds, why wait? He may escape.” “To a South Sea island where there is no extradition? No, mon ami, he would find life very uncongenial there. As to why I wait—eh bien to the intelligence of Hercule Poirot the case is perfectly clear, but for the benefit of others, not so greatly gifted by the good God—the Inspector McNeil, for instance—it would be as well to make a few inquiries to establish the facts. One must have consideration for those less gifted than oneself.” “Good Lord, Poirot! Do you know, I’d give a considerable sum of money to see you make a thorough ass of yourself—just for once. You’re so confoundedly conceited!” “Do not enrage yourself, Hastings. In verity, I observe that there are times when you almost detest me! Alas, I suffer the penalties of greatness!” The little man puffed out his chest, and sighed so comically that I was forced to laugh. Tuesday saw us speeding to Liverpool in a first-class carriage of the L. & N.W.R. Poirot had obstinately refused to enlighten me as to his suspicions—or certainties. He contented himself with expressing surprise that I, too, was not equally au fait with the situation. I disdained to argue, and entrenched my curiosity behind a rampart of pretended indifference. Once arrived at the quay alongside which lay the big transatlantic liner, Poirot became brisk and alert. Our proceedings consisted in interviewing four successive stewards and inquiring after a friend of Poirot’s who had crossed to New York on the 23rd. “An elderly gentleman, wearing glasses. A great invalid, hardly moved out of his cabin.” The description appeared to tally with one Mr. Ventnor who had occupied the cabin C 24 which was next to that of Philip Ridgeway. Although unable to see how Poirot had deduced Mr. Ventnor’s existence and personal appearance, I was keenly excited. “Tell me,” I cried, “was this gentleman one of the first to land when you got to New York?” The steward shook his head. “No, indeed, sir, he was one of the last off the boat.” I retired crestfallen, and observed Poirot grinning at me. He thanked the steward, a note changed hands, and we took our departure. “It’s all very well,” I remarked heatedly, “but that last answer must have damped your precious theory, grin as you please!” “As usual, you see nothing, Hastings. That last answer is, on the contrary, the coping-stone of my theory.” I flung up my hands in despair. “I give it up.” • • • • • • • When we were in the train, speeding towards London, Poirot wrote busily for a few minutes, sealing up the result in an envelope. “This is for the good Inspector McNeil. We will leave it at Scotland Yard in passing, and then to the Rendezvous Restaurant, where I have asked Miss Esmée Farquhar to do us the honour of dining with us.” “What about Ridgeway?” “What about him?” asked Poirot with a twinkle. “Why, you surely don’t think—you can’t——” “The habit of incoherence is growing upon you, Hastings. As a matter of fact I did think. If Ridgeway had been the thief—which was perfectly possible—the case would have been charming; a piece of neat methodical work.” “But not so charming for Miss Farquhar.” “Possibly you are right. Therefore all is for the best. Now, Hastings, let us review the case. I can see that you are dying to do so. The sealed package is removed from the trunk and vanishes, as Miss Farquhar puts it, into thin air. We will dismiss the thin air theory, which is not practicable at the present stage of science, and consider what is likely to have become of it. Every one asserts the incredibility of its being smuggled ashore——” “Yes, but we know——” “You may know, Hastings. I do not. I take the view that, since it seemed incredible, it was incredible. Two possibilities remain: it was hidden on board—also rather difficult—or it was thrown overboard.” “With a cork on it, do you mean?” “Without a cork.” I stared. “But if the bonds were thrown overboard, they couldn’t have been sold in New York.” “I admire your logical mind, Hastings. The bonds were sold in New York, therefore they were not thrown overboard. You see where that leads us?” “Where we were when we started.” “Jamais de la vie! If the package was thrown overboard, and the bonds were sold in New York, the package could not have contained the bonds. Is there any evidence that the package did contain the bonds? Remember, Mr. Ridgeway never opened it from the time it was placed in his hands in London.” “Yes, but then——” Poirot waved an impatient hand. “Permit me to continue. The last moment that the bonds are seen as bonds is in the office of the London and Scottish Bank on the morning of the 23rd. They reappear in New York half an hour after the Olympia gets in, and according to one man, whom nobody listens to, actually before she gets in. Supposing then, that they have never been on the Olympia at all? Is there any other way they could get to New York? Yes. The Gigantic leaves Southampton on the same day as the Olympia, and she holds the record for the Atlantic. Mailed by the Gigantic, the bonds would be in New York the day before the Olympia arrived. All is clear, the case begins to explain itself. The sealed packet is only a dummy, and the moment of its substitution must be in the office in the Bank. It would be an easy matter for any of the three men present to have prepared a duplicate package which could be substituted for the genuine one. Très bien, the bonds are mailed to a confederate in New York, with instructions to sell as soon as the Olympia is in, but some one must travel on the Olympia to engineer the supposed moment of the robbery.” “But why?” “Because if Ridgeway merely opens the packet and finds it a dummy, suspicion flies at once to London. No, the man on board in the cabin next door does his work, pretends to force the lock in an obvious manner so as to draw immediate attention to the theft, really unlocks the trunk with a duplicate key, throws the package overboard and waits until the last to leave the boat. Naturally he wears glasses to conceal his eyes, and is an invalid since he does not want to run the risk of meeting Ridgeway. He steps ashore in New York and returns by the first boat available.” “But who—which was he?” “The man who had a duplicate key, the man who ordered the lock, the man who has not been severely ill with bronchitis at his home in the country—enfin, that ‘stodgy’ old man, Mr. Shaw! There are criminals in high places sometimes, my friend. Ah, here we are. Mademoiselle, I have succeeded! You permit?” And, beaming, Poirot kissed the astonished girl lightly on either cheek! About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Agatha Christie (2020). Poirot Investigates. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61262/pg61262-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.

The Million Dollar Bond Robbery

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . There Was No Money. There Was No Robbery Chapter XI. There Was No Money. There Was No Robbery There was one point that struck every one in Fetyukovitch’s speech. He flatly denied the existence of the fatal three thousand roubles, and consequently, the possibility of their having been stolen. “Gentlemen of the jury,” he began. “Every new and unprejudiced observer must be struck by a characteristic peculiarity in the present case, namely, the charge of robbery, and the complete impossibility of proving that there was anything to be stolen. We are told that money was stolen—three thousand roubles—but whether those roubles ever existed, nobody knows. Consider, how have we heard of that sum, and who has seen the notes? The only person who saw them, and stated that they had been put in the envelope, was the servant, Smerdyakov. He had spoken of it to the prisoner and his brother, Ivan Fyodorovitch, before the catastrophe. Madame Svyetlov, too, had been told of it. But not one of these three persons had actually seen the notes, no one but Smerdyakov had seen them. “Here the question arises, if it’s true that they did exist, and that Smerdyakov had seen them, when did he see them for the last time? What if his master had taken the notes from under his bed and put them back in his cash‐box without telling him? Note, that according to Smerdyakov’s story the notes were kept under the mattress; the prisoner must have pulled them out, and yet the bed was absolutely unrumpled; that is carefully recorded in the protocol. How could the prisoner have found the notes without disturbing the bed? How could he have helped soiling with his blood‐ stained hands the fine and spotless linen with which the bed had been purposely made? “But I shall be asked: What about the envelope on the floor? Yes, it’s worth saying a word or two about that envelope. I was somewhat surprised just now to hear the highly talented prosecutor declare of himself—of himself, observe—that but for that envelope, but for its being left on the floor, no one in the world would have known of the existence of that envelope and the notes in it, and therefore of the prisoner’s having stolen it. And so that torn scrap of paper is, by the prosecutor’s own admission, the sole proof on which the charge of robbery rests, ‘otherwise no one would have known of the robbery, nor perhaps even of the money.’ But is the mere fact that that scrap of paper was lying on the floor a proof that there was money in it, and that that money had been stolen? Yet, it will be objected, Smerdyakov had seen the money in the envelope. But when, when had he seen it for the last time, I ask you that? I talked to Smerdyakov, and he told me that he had seen the notes two days before the catastrophe. Then why not imagine that old Fyodor Pavlovitch, locked up alone in impatient and hysterical expectation of the object of his adoration, may have whiled away the time by breaking open the envelope and taking out the notes. ‘What’s the use of the envelope?’ he may have asked himself. ‘She won’t believe the notes are there, but when I show her the thirty rainbow‐colored notes in one roll, it will make more impression, you may be sure, it will make her mouth water.’ And so he tears open the envelope, takes out the money, and flings the envelope on the floor, conscious of being the owner and untroubled by any fears of leaving evidence. “Listen, gentlemen, could anything be more likely than this theory and such an action? Why is it out of the question? But if anything of the sort could have taken place, the charge of robbery falls to the ground; if there was no money, there was no theft of it. If the envelope on the floor may be taken as evidence that there had been money in it, why may I not maintain the opposite, that the envelope was on the floor because the money had been taken from it by its owner? “But I shall be asked what became of the money if Fyodor Pavlovitch took it out of the envelope since it was not found when the police searched the house? In the first place, part of the money was found in the cash‐box, and secondly, he might have taken it out that morning or the evening before to make some other use of it, to give or send it away; he may have changed his idea, his plan of action completely, without thinking it necessary to announce the fact to Smerdyakov beforehand. And if there is the barest possibility of such an explanation, how can the prisoner be so positively accused of having committed murder for the sake of robbery, and of having actually carried out that robbery? This is encroaching on the domain of romance. If it is maintained that something has been stolen, the thing must be produced, or at least its existence must be proved beyond doubt. Yet no one had ever seen these notes. “Not long ago in Petersburg a young man of eighteen, hardly more than a boy, who carried on a small business as a costermonger, went in broad daylight into a moneychanger’s shop with an ax, and with extraordinary, typical audacity killed the master of the shop and carried off fifteen hundred roubles. Five hours later he was arrested, and, except fifteen roubles he had already managed to spend, the whole sum was found on him. Moreover, the shopman, on his return to the shop after the murder, informed the police not only of the exact sum stolen, but even of the notes and gold coins of which that sum was made up, and those very notes and coins were found on the criminal. This was followed by a full and genuine confession on the part of the murderer. That’s what I call evidence, gentlemen of the jury! In that case I know, I see, I touch the money, and cannot deny its existence. Is it the same in the present case? And yet it is a question of life and death. “Yes, I shall be told, but he was carousing that night, squandering money; he was shown to have had fifteen hundred roubles—where did he get the money? But the very fact that only fifteen hundred could be found, and the other half of the sum could nowhere be discovered, shows that that money was not the same, and had never been in any envelope. By strict calculation of time it was proved at the preliminary inquiry that the prisoner ran straight from those women servants to Perhotin’s without going home, and that he had been nowhere. So he had been all the time in company and therefore could not have divided the three thousand in half and hidden half in the town. It’s just this consideration that has led the prosecutor to assume that the money is hidden in some crevice at Mokroe. Why not in the dungeons of the castle of Udolpho, gentlemen? Isn’t this supposition really too fantastic and too romantic? And observe, if that supposition breaks down, the whole charge of robbery is scattered to the winds, for in that case what could have become of the other fifteen hundred roubles? By what miracle could they have disappeared, since it’s proved the prisoner went nowhere else? And we are ready to ruin a man’s life with such tales! “I shall be told that he could not explain where he got the fifteen hundred that he had, and every one knew that he was without money before that night. Who knew it, pray? The prisoner has made a clear and unflinching statement of the source of that money, and if you will have it so, gentlemen of the jury, nothing can be more probable than that statement, and more consistent with the temper and spirit of the prisoner. The prosecutor is charmed with his own romance. A man of weak will, who had brought himself to take the three thousand so insultingly offered by his betrothed, could not, we are told, have set aside half and sewn it up, but would, even if he had done so, have unpicked it every two days and taken out a hundred, and so would have spent it all in a month. All this, you will remember, was put forward in a tone that brooked no contradiction. But what if the thing happened quite differently? What if you’ve been weaving a romance, and about quite a different kind of man? That’s just it, you have invented quite a different man! “I shall be told, perhaps, there are witnesses that he spent on one day all that three thousand given him by his betrothed a month before the catastrophe, so he could not have divided the sum in half. But who are these witnesses? The value of their evidence has been shown in court already. Besides, in another man’s hand a crust always seems larger, and no one of these witnesses counted that money; they all judged simply at sight. And the witness Maximov has testified that the prisoner had twenty thousand in his hand. You see, gentlemen of the jury, psychology is a two‐ edged weapon. Let me turn the other edge now and see what comes of it. “A month before the catastrophe the prisoner was entrusted by Katerina Ivanovna with three thousand roubles to send off by post. But the question is: is it true that they were entrusted to him in such an insulting and degrading way as was proclaimed just now? The first statement made by the young lady on the subject was different, perfectly different. In the second statement we heard only cries of resentment and revenge, cries of long‐concealed hatred. And the very fact that the witness gave her first evidence incorrectly, gives us a right to conclude that her second piece of evidence may have been incorrect also. The prosecutor will not, dare not (his own words) touch on that story. So be it. I will not touch on it either, but will only venture to observe that if a lofty and high‐ principled person, such as that highly respected young lady unquestionably is, if such a person, I say, allows herself suddenly in court to contradict her first statement, with the obvious motive of ruining the prisoner, it is clear that this evidence has been given not impartially, not coolly. Have not we the right to assume that a revengeful woman might have exaggerated much? Yes, she may well have exaggerated, in particular, the insult and humiliation of her offering him the money. No, it was offered in such a way that it was possible to take it, especially for a man so easy‐going as the prisoner, above all, as he expected to receive shortly from his father the three thousand roubles that he reckoned was owing to him. It was unreflecting of him, but it was just his irresponsible want of reflection that made him so confident that his father would give him the money, that he would get it, and so could always dispatch the money entrusted to him and repay the debt. “But the prosecutor refuses to allow that he could the same day have set aside half the money and sewn it up in a little bag. That’s not his character, he tells us, he couldn’t have had such feelings. But yet he talked himself of the broad Karamazov nature; he cried out about the two extremes which a Karamazov can contemplate at once. Karamazov is just such a two‐sided nature, fluctuating between two extremes, that even when moved by the most violent craving for riotous gayety, he can pull himself up, if something strikes him on the other side. And on the other side is love—that new love which had flamed up in his heart, and for that love he needed money; oh, far more than for carousing with his mistress. If she were to say to him, ‘I am yours, I won’t have Fyodor Pavlovitch,’ then he must have money to take her away. That was more important than carousing. Could a Karamazov fail to understand it? That anxiety was just what he was suffering from—what is there improbable in his laying aside that money and concealing it in case of emergency? “But time passed, and Fyodor Pavlovitch did not give the prisoner the expected three thousand; on the contrary, the latter heard that he meant to use this sum to seduce the woman he, the prisoner, loved. ‘If Fyodor Pavlovitch doesn’t give the money,’ he thought, ‘I shall be put in the position of a thief before Katerina Ivanovna.’ And then the idea presented itself to him that he would go to Katerina Ivanovna, lay before her the fifteen hundred roubles he still carried round his neck, and say, ‘I am a scoundrel, but not a thief.’ So here we have already a twofold reason why he should guard that sum of money as the apple of his eye, why he shouldn’t unpick the little bag, and spend it a hundred at a time. Why should you deny the prisoner a sense of honor? Yes, he has a sense of honor, granted that it’s misplaced, granted it’s often mistaken, yet it exists and amounts to a passion, and he has proved that. “But now the affair becomes even more complex; his jealous torments reach a climax, and those same two questions torture his fevered brain more and more: ‘If I repay Katerina Ivanovna, where can I find the means to go off with Grushenka?’ If he behaved wildly, drank, and made disturbances in the taverns in the course of that month, it was perhaps because he was wretched and strained beyond his powers of endurance. These two questions became so acute that they drove him at last to despair. He sent his younger brother to beg for the last time for the three thousand roubles, but without waiting for a reply, burst in himself and ended by beating the old man in the presence of witnesses. After that he had no prospect of getting it from any one; his father would not give it him after that beating. “The same evening he struck himself on the breast, just on the upper part of the breast where the little bag was, and swore to his brother that he had the means of not being a scoundrel, but that still he would remain a scoundrel, for he foresaw that he would not use that means, that he wouldn’t have the character, that he wouldn’t have the will‐power to do it. Why, why does the prosecutor refuse to believe the evidence of Alexey Karamazov, given so genuinely and sincerely, so spontaneously and convincingly? And why, on the contrary, does he force me to believe in money hidden in a crevice, in the dungeons of the castle of Udolpho? “The same evening, after his talk with his brother, the prisoner wrote that fatal letter, and that letter is the chief, the most stupendous proof of the prisoner having committed robbery! ‘I shall beg from every one, and if I don’t get it I shall murder my father and shall take the envelope with the pink ribbon on it from under his mattress as soon as Ivan has gone.’ A full program of the murder, we are told, so it must have been he. ‘It has all been done as he wrote,’ cries the prosecutor. “But in the first place, it’s the letter of a drunken man and written in great irritation; secondly, he writes of the envelope from what he has heard from Smerdyakov again, for he has not seen the envelope himself; and thirdly, he wrote it indeed, but how can you prove that he did it? Did the prisoner take the envelope from under the pillow, did he find the money, did that money exist indeed? And was it to get money that the prisoner ran off, if you remember? He ran off post‐haste not to steal, but to find out where she was, the woman who had crushed him. He was not running to carry out a program, to carry out what he had written, that is, not for an act of premeditated robbery, but he ran suddenly, spontaneously, in a jealous fury. Yes! I shall be told, but when he got there and murdered him he seized the money, too. But did he murder him after all? The charge of robbery I repudiate with indignation. A man cannot be accused of robbery, if it’s impossible to state accurately what he has stolen; that’s an axiom. But did he murder him without robbery, did he murder him at all? Is that proved? Isn’t that, too, a romance?” About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (2009). The Brothers Karamazov. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/28054/pg28054-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html .

Stories, News & Mentions about FOBBER

Fobber’s Stories on HackerNoon