answer for as the originator of a vast deal of rhetorical rubbish
upon us in chess lectures and chess articles in periodicals.
Here (he says), for example, is a fair stereotype specimen of
this sort," and he concludes: "We recommend the above eloquent
moreceaux, taken from a chess periodical now defunct, to the
attention of chessmen at chess reunions, chess lectures, and
those who are ambitious to do a spicy article for a chess
periodical."

This appears somewhat severe on Pope, even if it be reasonable
and consistent, which may be doubted; for Forbes himself, writing
to the "Chess Player's Chronicle," in 1853, about 120 years
after Pope, and seven years before the appearance of his own
"History of Chess," thus expressed himself:

"In the present day it is impossible to trace the game of chess
with moral certainty back to its source amidst the dark shades of
antiquity, but I am quite ready to prove that the claim of the
Hindoos as the inventors, is far more satisfactory than that of
any other people."

Pope needs no defenders. There are writers of more recent date,
who have inflicted what Forbes would probably call more rhetorical
rubbish upon chess readers. Here is one other example, which
appeared in 1865:

"Though the precise birth and parentage of chess are absolutely
unknown, yet a light marks the track of this royal personage adown
the ages, by which we may clearly enough discern one significant
note of his progress, that he has always kept the very best of