ared 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 apol