Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/162

116 The inscription is thus read by him—Mo Domi Ano 133; but Professor Ward, on a closer examination (and possibly under a prepossession that Dr. Wallis had assigned too early a period for the introduction of Arabic numerals) thinks, that one of the characters had been misunderstood, and that it ought to be 1233. What had been taken for the second 1 being really 2, will not, however, on inspection of the fac simile, satisfy an unbiased person that an error must not also be imputed to the Professor, and that what Dr. Wallis took for 1, and Dr. Ward for 3, is the further stroke of the second n in the abbreviated word anno. And this being granted, the character to denote the century must be sought for elsewhere. The M for 1000 they both allowed to be on the pannel in which the inscription begins, and what place more proper for the character which marked the hundreds? though, as before hinted, either from a want of expertness in the sculptor, or of accuracy in the delineator, it is not easy to decypher the figure annexed. Take the whole for one character and it will make an M very uncouth, and perhaps an unique ; but let the second have been a character denoting 5, the obscurity will lessen, and the date alluded to would be 1533. To the adding of Arabian figures to Roman numerals neither of these learned professors made any objection, they having met with the same mixture of characters in MSS. And I will produce a specimen from a monumental inscription which will warrant this reading of the Helmdon date. It is in the church of Stamford in the fame county, and on a stone commemorative of sir John Cave. According to Bridges it is thus insculped—Anno Dni Mo Do 58.