s; and
there he is in the histories of astronomy to {168} this day. Salmasius[296]
will have Aratus to have meant him, and proposes to read [Greek: eleioio]:
he did not observe that Phaeinus is a very common adjective of Aratus, and
that, if his conjecture were right, this Phaeinus would be the only
non-mythical man in the poems of Aratus.

[When I read Sir George Lewis's book, the points which I have criticized
struck me as not to be wondered at, but I did not remember why at the time.
A Chancellor of the Exchequer and a writer on ancient astronomy are birds
of such different trees that the second did not recall the first. In 1855 I
was one of a deputation of about twenty persons who waited on Sir G. Lewis,
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of a decimal coinage. The
deputation was one of much force: Mr. Airy, with myself and others,
represented mathematics; William Brown,[297] whose dealings with the United
States were reckoned by yearly millions, counted duodecimally in England
and decimally in America, was the best, but not the only, representative of
commerce. There were bullionists, accountants, retailers, etc. Sir G. L.
walked into the room, took his seat, and without waiting one moment, began
to read the deputation a smart lecture on the evils of a decimal coinage;
it would require alteration of all the tables, it would impede calculation,
etc. etc. Of those arguments against it which weighed with many of better
knowledge than his, he obviously knew nothing. The members of the
deputation began to make their statements, and met with curious denials. He
interrupted me with "Surely there is no doubt that the calculations of our
books of arithmetic are easier {169} than those in the French books." He
was not aware that the _universally admitted_ superiority of decimal
_calculation_ made many of those who prefer our system for the market and
the counter cast a longing and lingering look towards decimals. My answer
and the smiles which he saw around, made him give a queer puzzled look,
which seemed to say, "I may be out of my depth here!" His manner changed,
and he listened. I saw both the slap-dash mode in which he dealt with
subjects on which he had not thought, and the temperament which admitted
suspicion when the means of knowledge came in his way. Having seen his two
phases, I wonder neither at his more than usual exhibition of shallowness
when shallow, nor at the intensity of the contrast when he had g