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.