In the years 1818 and 1845 the full moon fell on Easter Day, having been particularly directed to fall before it in the act for the change of style and in the English missals and prayer-books of all time: perhaps it would be more correct to say that Easter Day was directed to fall after the full moon; "but the principle is the same." No explanation was given in 1818, but Easter was kept by the tables, {354} in defiance of the rule, and of several protests. A chronological panic was beginning in December 1844, which was stopped by the _Times_ newspaper printing extracts from an article of mine in the _Companion to the Almanac_ for 1845, which had then just appeared. No one had guessed the true reason, which is that the thing called the moon in the Gregorian Calendar is not the moon of the heavens, but a fictitious imitation put wrong on purpose, as will presently appear, partly to keep Easter out of the way of the Jews' Passover, partly for convenience of calculation. The apparent error happens but rarely; and all the work will perhaps have to be gone over next time. I now give two bits of paradox.
Some theologians were angry at this explanation. A review called the _Christian Observer_ (of which Christianity I do not know) got up a crushing article against me. I did not look at it, feeling sure that an article on such a subject which appeared on January 1, 1845, against a publication made in December 1844, must be a second-hand job. But some years afterwards (Sept. 10, 1850), the reviews, etc. having been just placed at the disposal of readers in the _old_ reading-room of the Museum, I made a tour of inspection, came upon my critic on his perch, and took a look at him. I was very glad to remember this, for, though expecting only second-hand, yet even of this there is good and bad; and I expected to find some hints in the good second-hand of a respectable clerical publication. I read on, therefore, attentively, but not long: I soon came to the information that some additions to Delambre's[739] statement of the rule for finding Easter, belonging to distant years, had been made by Sir Harris Nicolas![740] Now as I myself furnished my friend Sir H. N. with Delambre's digest of {355} Clavius's[741] rule, which I translated out of algebra into common language for the purpose, I was pretty sure this was the ignorant reading of a person to whom Sir H. N. was the highest _arithmetical_ authority on the subject. A person pretending to chronology, without being able to distinguish the historical points--so clearly as they stand out--in which Sir H. N. speaks with authority, from the arithmetical points of pure reckoning on which he does not pretend to do more than directly repeat others, must be as fit to talk about the construction of Easter Tables as the Spanish are to talk French. I need hardly say that the additions for distant years are as much from Clavius as the rest: my reviewer was not deep enough in his subject to know that Clavius made and published, from his rules, the full table up to A.D. 5000, for all the movable feasts of every year! I gave only a glance at the rest: I found I was either knave or fool, with a leaning to the second opinion; and I came away satisfied that my critic was either ignoramus or novice, with a leaning to the first. I afterwards found an ambiguity of expression in Sir H. N.'s account--whether his or mine I could not tell--which might mislead a novice or content an ignoramus, but would have been properly read or further inquired into by a competent person.
The second case is this. Shortly after the publication of my article, a gentleman called at my house, and, finding I was not at home, sent up his card--with a stylish west-end club on it--to my wife, begging for a few words on pressing business. With many well-expressed apologies, he stated that he had been alarmed by hearing that Prof. De M. had an intention of altering Easter next year. Mrs. De M. kept her countenance, and assured him that I had no such intention, and further, that she greatly doubted my having the power to do it. Was she quite sure? his authority was very good: fresh assurances given. He was greatly relieved, for he had some horses training for after Easter, which {356} would not be ready to run if it were altered the wrong way. A doubt comes over him: would Mrs. De M., in the event of her being mistaken, give him the very earliest information? Promise given; profusion of thanks; more apologies; and departure.
Now, candid reader!--or uncandid either!--which most deserves to be laughed at? A public instructor, who undertakes to settle for the world whether a reader of Clavius, the constructor of the Gregorian Calendar, is fool or knave, upon information derived from a compiler--in this matter--of his own day; or a gentleman of horse and dog associations, who, misapprehending something which he heard about a current topic, infers that the reader of Clavius had the ear of the Government on a proposed alteration. I suppose the querist had heard some one say, perhaps, that the day ought to be set right, and some one else remark that I might be consulted, as the only person who had discussed the matter from the original source of the Calendar.
To give a better chance of the explanation being at once produced, next time the real full moon and Easter Day shall fall together, I insert here a summary which was printed in the Irish Prayer-book of the Ecclesiastical Society. If the amusement given by paradoxers should prevent a useless discussion some years hence, I and the paradoxers shall have done a little good between us--at any rate, I have done my best to keep the heavy weight afloat by tying bladders to it. I think the next occurrence will be in 1875.
