Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/179

Rh was his comment—"Where instead of 4 we have the same figure reversed; but either of them doth equally agree to what was the old shape of this figure X̄. And the difference of it from what we now use, doth rather confirm the antiquity than give us any cause to doubt of its being genuine. And this inscription being but seven years later than that on the mantle tree (at Helmdon), they do mutually confirm each other." But besides that there does not appear to be any resemblance between the 4 proper or reversed, and X̄, the then existence of any such date added to the inscription, is questionable.

In the same page of his Additions and Emendations Dr. Wallis has cited a book printed at Hamburgh in 1614, to shew that a mixture of Latin numerals and Arabic figures cannot seem strange. But the first book that was printed would not be admissible evidence in this case, without authenticating the date of the MS. from which it was printed, and this the doctor had allowed, as will appear from the annexed extracts, whilst he was remarking on a MS.. of Boethius, and on an ancient MS. treatise of ecclesiastical computation.