i 
PHILEBUS OF PLATO, ETC. 165 
the number of men at each oar; and this is the view taken by most 
of the opponents of the theory of three or more tiers of oars. A 
very strong argument in its favour is derived from the practice on 
board the war-galleys of the 16th and 17th centuries, in which each 
oar was worked by five rowers: quinqueremes they are called by the 
advocates of this view of the question. But, reply the others, in 
this case, how do you account for the terms @pavttyjs, fvyitns and 
Qakapicns, which, say they, were unmistakably applied to the upper, 
middle and lower tiers of rowers respectively, and to the oars used 
by them? Barras de la Penne’ (following the Scholiast on Aristo- 
phanes, Hanae), thinks that they received these names from their 
position, fore, aft or amidships. The @pavirys, who sat nearest to 
the stern, was placed higher than the Oadapirys, used a longer oar 
and received higher pay. Jn his opinion, the confusion has arisen 
from a failure to realize the well known fact that remus is often used 
with the signification of remex ; just as we say ‘‘a good oar” for “a 
good oarsman.” Certainly many passages, in the Ancient Classics, 
admit of this explanation ; but there are others, in which the supra- 
position of the one class of rowers seems to be too clearly indicated 
to be disposed of thus easily. Lastly, the great difficulty has always 
been the fact that, although, in the great majority of pictures repre- 
senting war-ships, only one tier of oars is to be seen; still in a few 
coins and some monuments, notably in the figures on Trajan’s column, 
vessels are depicted, in which we apparently distinguish two tiers of 
oars. 
Here, I think, lies the way out of this last difficulty. Why only 
two? “Because there was not room for more on the coins,” say the 
apologists ; but this does not apply to the marbles. It has been 
remarked that, where there are two tiers visible, the oars in the 
lower tier do not exactly resemble those in the upper tier ; and it has 
been suggested that one of these tiers consists of dummies—possibly, 
guards to prevent one oar from interfering with the other: It may 
be objected that such dummies would have materially impeded the 
vessel’s progress, against a wind or through rough water. After read- 
ing M. de la Graviére’s vigorous protest against the admission of what 
he has stated to be a practical impossibility—whatever history or 
the monuments might say to the contrary—I was led to the con- 
clusion that there must be some mode of reconciling fact with 
tradition; and the following suggested itself to me as not improbable. 
‘ 
