but, as in the case of the trireme, she would still be a quadrireme, only of a larger size, if she had more than four oblique rows. There is, however, a limit beyond which oars could not be worked when placed over each other in any fashion. That limit would be reached at the fifth horizontal row, and, for the reasons already named, a sixth row, however obliquely placed—for obliquity has also its limits—would be useless. Therefore, while a quinquereme had five horizontal rows, and the same number of oblique rows, forming a _quincunx_ thus:— [Illustration] a galley must have acquired another name when she had _more than five of these oblique rows_. For instance, vessels with six oblique rows were, in our opinion, called hexiremes; with seven rows, septiremes; with eight rows, octoremes, and so forth; up to Ptolemy Philopator’s tesseracontoros. That the number of men placed on board the ships of the ancients was regulated, as at present, by the work they had to perform, and by the size of the ship, there can be no doubt; but the number of men had nothing in itself to do with the class or grade of the galley. In some triremes there may have been only fifty rowers, in others five hundred. Our theory does not require the number of men to harmonize with the number assigned by Polybius, Athenæus, and other authors, to differently-rated galleys. Thus, in the trireme, with the thirty oars and one hundred and fifty rowers, it would not be necessary to place five men at _each_ oar, as Mr. Howell has proposed. [Illustration: TRANSVERSE MIDSHIP-SECTION OF A QUINQUEREME.] [Sidenote: Suggested plan of placing the rowers.] Six men to each of the oars of the highest bank, five to each oar of the second, and four men to each oar of the third bank, would give the requisite number of one hundred and fifty rowers, who would be far more effective than if placed in the manner he describes. So in the case of the quinquereme, with her three hundred rowers, instead of placing six men (presuming there were no reliefs) to each of her fifty oars, our theory, while it equally solves the difficulty created by the statement of Polybius (a difficulty which could only arise in quinqueremes with so large a crew as three hundred rowers), is one which could be carried out with much more practical effect; for, by placing on the 1st bank 8 men × 5 = 40; 2nd, 7 × 5 = 35; 3rd, 6 × 5 = 30; 4th, 5 × 5 = 25; 5th, 4 × 5 = 20; there would be 150 on each side, or 300 rowers in all, as represented on the preceding page, in the transverse midship-section of what a quinquereme really must have been.