Surely this is rather arbitrary dealing! We start from our theory that the original poet described the armour of "the monuments" though _they_ are "of the prime," while he professedly lived long after the prime--lived in an age when there must have been changes in military equipment. We then cut out, as of the seventh century, whatever passages do not suit our theory. Anybody can prove anything by this method. We might say that the siege scene on the Mycenaean silver vase represents the Mycenaean prime, and that, as there is but one jersey among eight men otherwise stark naked, we must cut out seven-eighths of the _chitons_ in the _Iliad_, these having been interpolated by late poets who did not run about with nothing on. We might call the whole poem late, because the authors know nothing of the Mycenaean bathing-drawers so common on the "monuments." The argument compels Mr. Leaf to assume that a shield can be called [Greek: teuchea] in the plural, so, in _Iliad_, VII. 122, when the squires of Menelaus "take the [Greek: teuchea] from his shoulders," we are assured that "the shield (aspis) was for the chiefs alone" (we have seen that all the host of Pandarus wore shields), "for those who could keep a chariot to carry them, and squires to assist them in taking off this ponderous defence" (see VII 122). [Footnote: _Iliad_, vol. i. p. 583.] We do "see VII. 122," and find that not a _single_ shield, but pieces of gear in the plural number were taken off Menelaus. The feeblest warrior without any assistance could stoop his head and put it through the belt of his shield, as an angler takes off his fishing creel, and there he was, totally disarmed. No squire was needed to disarm him, any more than to disarm Girard in the _Chancun de Willame_. Nobody explains why a shield is spoken of as a number of things, in the plural, and that constantly, and in lines where, if the poet means a shield, prosody permits him to _say_ a shield, [Greek: therapontes ap oopoon aspid elonto].