for this hypothetical _nomos_ is that at Syracuse the Corinthian stater of 135 grs. was called a _decalitron_, that the Tarentine didrachm of 128 grs. (max.) was similarly divided into 10 _litras_, that the Romans employed the tenfold of the _as_ (_decussis_) and when they coined silver called their silver unit a _denarius_ as representing 10 copper _asses_, and the fact that certain copper coins such as those of Arpi, called _nomi_, were evidently regarded as containing 10 units, the half being the _quincunx_. But, as we have already seen, the real explanation of these coins seems to be that they represent reduced _asses_. We must remember that the heaviest Roman _as_ yet known is only 11 ounces, whilst the great proportion of the earliest specimens are only 10 _unciae_ or (_dextantals_). When the idea of a real copper currency for local purposes gained ground, and it was found that it was not necessary to have the _as_ of account of full weight, and at the same time to enable the state to make a profit of this copper currency which was solely for home use (just as our Mint makes a large profit of our silver coins), the first stage in reduction was to take off an ounce, or much more frequently two full ounces. I have already pointed out the vitality and universality of the _uncia_ as an unit, and have given the reasons for this. Hence arose _asses_ or _bars_ of 10 ounces. The number 10 had of course great advantages, and presently, when further reductions in the copper currency took place, certain communities clave fast to the decimal system and, instead of taking off some more whole ounces, simply reduced the ounce itself, and retained the denomination, continuing to place the marks of value as before. In those Hellenized states of Apulia just referred to this reduced copper _as_ or _litra_ was the _legal_ unit, and therefore denominated a _nomos_, especially as it probably corresponded in value (at least as money of account) to the silver unit or _nomos_ in circulation in each district. But whilst Mr Soutzo seems wrong in his view of the _nomos_, there can be no doubt that there was a consensus among the Sicilians and Italians in favour of making an intermediate unit between 1 and 100, the tenfold of the _litra_ and _as_, into a higher unit. The Syracusan _decalitron_ and the Roman _decussis_ and _denarius_ are incontrovertible facts. For the latter at least a most interesting connection with a unit of barter can be proved. We saw that by the Lex Tarpeia (451 B.C.) a cow was counted at one hundred _asses_ (_centussis_, _centumpondium_) whilst a sheep was estimated at 10 _asses_ (_decussis_). The reader will observe that, even if the theory were true that the Roman _centumpondium_ is the starting-point of the Roman weight system, and that it was borrowed from the East, the cow all the same plays a most important part in the founding of the system. It would be another instance to prove the impossibility of framing a weight