mes of age." Hence
7_x_ = 21, _x_ = 3, and the other ages are 15, 18.

* * * * *

Eighteen answers have been received. One of the writers merely asserts
that the first occasion was 12 years ago, that the ages were then 9, 6,
and 3; and that on the second occasion they were 14, 11, and 8! As a
Roman father, I _ought_ to withhold the name of the rash writer; but
respect for age makes me break the rule: it is THREE SCORE AND TEN. JANE
E. also asserts that the ages at first were 9, 6, 3: then she calculates
the present ages, leaving the _second_ occasion unnoticed. OLD HEN is
nearly as bad; she "tried various numbers till I found one that fitted
_all_ the conditions"; but merely scratching up the earth, and pecking
about, is _not_ the way to solve a problem, oh venerable bird! And close
after OLD HEN prowls, with hungry eyes, OLD CAT, who calmly assumes, to
begin with, that the son who comes of age is the _eldest_. Eat your
bird, Puss, for you will get nothing from me!

There are yet two zeroes to dispose of. MINERVA assumes that, on _every_
occasion, a son comes of age; and that it is only such a son who is
"tipped with gold." Is it wise thus to interpret "now, my boys,
calculate your ages, and you shall have the money"? BRADSHAW OF THE
FUTURE says "let" the ages at first be 9, 6, 3, then assumes that the
second occasion was 6 years afterwards, and on these baseless
assumptions brings out the right answers. Guide _future_ travellers, an
thou wilt: thou art no Bradshaw for _this_ Age!

Of those who win honours, the merely "honourable" are two. DINAH MITE
ascertains (rightly) the relationship between the three ages at first,
but then _assumes_ one of them to be "6," thus making the rest of her
solution tentative. M. F. C. does the algebra all right up to the
conclusion that the present ages are 5_z_, 6_z_, and 7_z_; it then
assumes, without giving any reason, that 7_z_ = 21.

Of the more honourable, DELTA attempts a novelty--to discover _which_
son comes of age by elimination: it assumes, successively, that it is
the middle one, and that it is the youngest; and in each case it
_apparently_ brings out an absurdity. Still, as the proof contains the
following bit of algebra, "63 = 7_x_ + 4_y_; [** therefore] 21 = _x_ + 4
sevenths of _y_," I trust it will admit that its proof is not _quite_
conclusive. The rest of its work is good. MAGPIE betrays the deplorable
tendency of her tribe--to approp