Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/161

Rh the inscription from a drawing made in conformity to Professor Ward's idea of it.

In Dr. Wallis's letter to Dr. Plot he writes—"I have given you this particular account of the mantle-tree, and caused it to be exactly delineated, that upon the whole matter you may see how little reason there is to suspect any thing of forgery and imposture." That the Doctor had not any intention to deceive the Royal Society I am fully persuaded, though not equally satisfied of the exactness of the drawing. Or if it be a fac simile, there is a part of the inscription which shall be by and by noticed, that might not, as I apprehend, be accurately carved.

Notwithstanding the avowed particularity of Dr. Wallis's account, he neglected to mention the kind of mansion and room in which he met with this ornamented mantle-piece, a point that deserved some regard. For supposing the parlour to have been co-eval with the date of the year that the Arabic numerals 1133 import, it is an older room than Westminster Hall; and if the whole building was of the same era, Helmdon Parsonage is probably far more antient than any other rectory-house in the kingdom. But if, which is the only probable supposition, the edifice had been rebuilt again and again, and had likewise undergone many repairs in the course of five centuries and a half, does it not somewhat border on the marvellous that all the workmen employed should have been so extremely careful as not to have in the least injured this relic of antiquity? for the Doctor apprises us "that he did not remember any other defacing than a late paring off of one letter with a knife, by a person whom curiosity prompted to see the colour of the wood underneath."