That this would be the case in Mr. Charnock’s plan he himself admits. He says that a trireme was a galley more formidable than the bireme, “having one tier of oars extending between the masts, a second abaft the mainmast, and a third forward, near the prow or stem before the foremast.” The quadriremes he describes as having had “their oars ranged like the triremes, with the difference of having two tiers of oars one above the other, abaft the mainmast.” “The quinqueremes,” he adds, “were also of the same description, with the addition of the second tier of oars forward.” He then goes on to state that “the octoremes had two tiers of oars in the midships, and _three_ at the stem and stern, making in all eight.” This is no doubt an easy method of solving the difficulty, so far as regards biremes, triremes, quadriremes and octoremes, but our author fails to explain how his principle can be applied to vessels of a larger description, or even how the number of rowers each of these classes are said to have contained was placed at the oars. The latter he does not attempt, and as summarily dismisses the former by questioning the existence altogether of any vessels with more than three tiers of oars placed either directly or obliquely above each other, in the face of the most ample evidence to the contrary. However, the theory Mr. Charnock considers unanswerable would not be the most perfect in practice, even in vessels of an inferior class to the octoreme. The oars would be more effective in midships than at any other part of the vessel, yet our author places the greatest number of these aft and forward, near “the prow or stem and near the stern.” If there is any merit in his scheme, it would consist in placing the three banks in midships, and one aft in the case of a quadrireme; one aft and one forward in the case of a quinquereme; and two instead of three near the “stem and stern.” [Sidenote: Vossius’s views.]