or exactly 80 Babylonian cubits, which is probably the dimension Hyginus copied out, though either he or some bungling copier wrote “feet” for “cubits,” just as the lithographers have altered all Mr. Pullan’s decimals of a foot into inches, because they did not understand the unusual measures which were being made use of. There is still another mode in which this question may be looked at. It appears so strange that the architects should have used one modulus for the plan and another for the height, that I cannot help suspecting that in Satyrus’s work the dimensions were called 21 Babylonian or 25 Greek cubits, or some such expression. The difference is not great (9 inches), and it seems so curious that Greek cubits should have been introduced at all that we cannot help trying to find out how it was. In the previous investigation it appeared that the only two vertical dimensions obtained beyond those quoted by Pliny which were absolutely certain were 126 feet or 72 cubits for the height of the building, and 8 cubits or 14 feet for the quadriga. Now, if we assume thrice 21 cubits for the height, we have 63 cubits, and this with 8 cubits for the quadriga, and 9 for the entablature of the basement, making together 17 cubits, complete the 80 we are looking for. In other words, we return to the identical ratios from which we started, of 17´´ and 21´´, if these figures represented in inches the dimensions of the steps, as they are always assumed to be by Messrs. Newton, and Pullan, and Smith. If it were so, nothing could be more satisfactory; but, to make the ratio perfect, the last dimension, instead of 9 cubits, ought to be 8·8; so that we should get a total of 4 inches too short, instead of being in excess, as it was by the last calculation. It would, of course, be easy to apportion this as one inch to each of the four parts; but that is inadmissible in a building planned with such exactitude as this, and I therefore merely state it in order to draw to it the attention of some one cleverer at ratios than I am, confessing that I am beaten, though only by an inch. Personally I feel inclined to believe that the architects were content to use the figures of their plan in determining their heights, and made them 8, 9, 21, 63, 72, 80 cubits, &c., and to obtain this were content with the imperfect ratio of 17 to 21. By this process it will be observed that they obtained the ratio that the first figure should be 1/8 and 1/10 of the two last respectively, and the second figure 1/7 and 1/8 of 63 and 72 respectively; and there may be other ratios which I have failed to detect. The real difficulty is, that this involves abandoning to a certain extent Pliny’s figures, which at present I do not feel inclined to agree to. All this, however, is mere idle speculation, in no way affecting the scheme of restoration, though amusing as a problem in Greek art. _Architectural Ordinance._