But we guess what is passing in the reader’s mind.  He thinks that all this proves the prandium to have been a meal of little account; and in very many cases absolutely unknown.  But still he thinks all this might happen to the English dinner—­that might be neglected; supper might be generally preferred; and, nevertheless, dinner would be as truly entitled to the name of dinner as before.  Many a student neglects his dinner; enthusiasm in any pursuit must often have extinguished appetite for all of us.  Many a time and oft did this happen to Sir Isaac Newton.  Evidence is on record, that such a deponent at eight o’clock, A.M., found Sir Isaac with one stocking on, one off; at two, said deponent called him to dinner.  Being interrogated whether Sir Isaac had pulled on the minus stocking, or gartered the plus stocking, witness replied that he had not.  Being asked if Sir Isaac came to dinner, replied that he did not.  Being again asked, “At sunset, did you look in on Sir Isaac?” Witness replied, “I did.”  “And now, upon your conscience, sir, by the virtue of your oath, in what state were the stockings?” Ans.  “In statu quo ante bellum.”  It seems Sir Isaac had fought through that whole battle of a long day, so trying a campaign to many people—­be had traversed that whole sandy Zaarah, without calling, or needing to call at one of those fountains, stages, or mansiones,[7] by which (according to our former explanation) Providence has relieved the continuity of arid soil, which else disfigures that long dreary level.  This happens to all; but was dinner not dinner, and did supper become dinner, because Sir Isaac Newton ate nothing at the first, and threw the whole day’s support upon the last?  No, you will say, a rule is not defeated by one casual deviation, nor by one person’s constant deviation.  Everybody else was still dining at two, though Sir Isaac might not; and Sir Isaac himself on most days no more deferred his dinner beyond two, than he sate with one stocking off.  But what if everybody, Sir Isaac included, had deferred his substantial meal until night, and taken a slight refection only at two?  The question put does really represent the very case which has happened with us in England.  In 1700, a large part of London took a meal at two, P.M., and another at seven or eight, P.M.  In 1839, a large part of London is still doing the very same thing, taking one meal at two, and another at seven or eight.  But the names are entirely changed:  the two o’clock meal used to be called dinner, and is now called luncheon; the eight o’clock meal used to be called supper, and is now called dinner.