Minor Queries Answered.
Cycle of the Moon.
—Can any of your correspondents inform me in what year the new moon last fell on the 1st of January? I am no astronomer, but I believe the moon's cycles is a period of nineteen years, and that whenever the new moon falls on the 1st January, the cycle begins.
BENBOW.
Birmingham.
[The above matter is made the more puzzling to all who are not astronomers, by the pertinacity with which popular writers persist in speaking of the moon's motions as if they were regular.
There is no particular beginning to the cycle of nineteen years: anybody may make it begin when he pleases. What it means is this: that in any set of nineteen years, the new and full moons generally (not always) fall on the same days as in the preceding nineteen years. For instance, in 1831, the 14th of March was a day of new moon: go on nineteen years, that is, to the 14th of March, 1850; most probably, not certainly, this must be a day of new moon. It happens, however, otherwise; for in 1850 the new moon is on the 13th. But in the Aprils of both years, the new moons are on the 12th; in the Junes, on the 10th. All that can be said is, that where any day of any year is new moon, most probably that day nineteen years is new moon also, and certainly either the day before or the day after. In that cycle of nineteen years, which is called the cycle of the golden number, there is an arbitrary beginning, which has something to do with the new moon falling near the 1st of January. The cycle in which we now are, began (that is, had the year marked 1) in 1843.
To find the last time when the new moon fell on the 1st of January with certainty, would be no easy problem for any but an astronomer. The nearest which our correspondent can do is this. Take Mr. De Morgan's recently published Book of Almanacs, and turn to almanac 37. Take the day in question (Jan. 1), and from the first of the Roman numbers written opposite (xxx.) subtract one (xxix.). Look back into the new style index (p. 7.), then any one year which has the epact 29 is very likely to have the new moon on the 1st of January; epact 30 may also have it. Now, on looking, we find that we are not in that period of the world's existence at which epact 29 makes its appearance; no such thing has occurred since 1699, nor will occur until 1900. We are then in a period in which new moons on the 1st of January are comparatively infrequent. Our best chance is when the epact is 30, as in 1843: here there is a narrow miss of what we want, for it was new moon on the day previous, as late as seven in the evening.
Our correspondent's notion that the moon's cycle begins with a new moon on the 1st of January, is probably derived from this, that the calendar is so contrived that for a very long period the years which have 1 for their golden number, have a new moon near the 1st of January, either on it, or within a day of it.]
Cocker's Arithmetic.
—At a sale of books by Messrs. Puttick and Simpson, a copy of Cocker's Arithmetic was sold for 8l. 10s., date 1678, said to be one of the only two extant. It is stated Dr. Dibdin had never seen any edition printed in the seventeenth century, and mentions the thirty-second as the earliest he had met with. I have in my possession a copy bearing date 1694, seeming to be one of a further impression of the first edition, as it gives no edition, but simply has in the title page:
"This impression is corrected and amended with many additions throughout the whole."
"London: Printed by J. R. for T. P., and are to be sold by John Back, at the Black Boy on London Bridge, 1694."
Perhaps you can give me some information on the edition, if you think it a fit subject for your valuable publication.
E. K. JUTT.
Frome, Somerset.
[Mr. De Morgan, in his Arithmetical Books, says that the earliest edition he ever possessed is that of 1685: and what edition was not stated. The fourth edition was of 1682, the twentieth of 1700. The matters cited by our correspondent, which we have omitted, are in all, or nearly all, editions. We have heard of three copies of the first edition: one sold in Mr. Halliwell's sale, one in the library of the Roman Catholic College at Oscott, and one sold by Puttick and Simpson, as above, in April last: but we cannot say that these are three different copies, though we suspect it. Our correspondent's edition is not mentioned by any one. The fifty-second edition, by Geo. Fisher, appeared in 1748, according to the Catalogue of the Philosophical Society of Newcastle.]
Sanskrit Elementary Books.
—Will some one of your correspondents kindly inform me what are the elementary works necessary for gaining a knowledge of Sanskrit?
DELTA.
[Wilson's Sanskrit Grammar (the 2nd edition), and the Hitopadesa, edited by Johnson, are the best elementary works.]
Townley MSS., &c.
—I request the favour to be informed where are the Townley MSS.? They are quoted by Sir H. Nicolas in Scrope and Grosvenor Rolls. Also where are the MSS. formerly penes Earl of Egmont, often quoted in the History of the House of Yvery? And a folio of Pedigrees by Camden Russet?
S. S.
[The Townley Heraldic Collections are in the British Museum, among the Additional MSS., Nos. 14,829-14,832. 14,834. In the same collection, No. 6,226. p. 100., are Bishop Clayton's Letters to Sir John Perceval, first Earl of Egmont.]
"Man is born to trouble," &c.
—In an edition of The Holy Bible, with TWENTY THOUSAND EMENDATIONS: London, 1841, I read as follows, at Job v. 7.: "For man is NOT born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards." Query 1. Is there any authority from MSS., &c. for the insertion of the word "not"? 2. Is this insertion occasioned by the oversight of the printer or of the editor?
N.
[There is no authority for the insertion of the word "not," that we can find, either in MSS. or commentators. As to the oversight of the printer or editor we cannot speak; but are rather inclined to attribute that and other emendations to the second-sight of one of the parties concerned. Our correspondent will find Dr. Conquest's emandated Bible ably criticised by one of the best Hebrew scholars of the day in the Jewish Intelligencer, vol. ix. p. 84.]