j 1 6 Examination of an InfcriptionThe inscription is thus read by him—M' Dom 1 An" 133; but

Professor Ward, on a closer examination (and possibly under a pre- possession that Dr. Wallis had amgned too early a period for the introduction of Arabic numerals) thinks, that one of the charac- ters had been mifunderftood, and that it ought to be 1333. What had been taken for the fecond I being really 2, will not, however, on infpection of the fac iimile, fatisfy an unbiased perfon that an error muft not alfo be imputed to the ProfeiTor, and that what Dr. Wallis took for i, and Dr. Ward for 3, is the further {broke of the fecond n in the abbreviated w r ord anno. And this being granted, the character to denote the century muft be fought for elfewhere. The M for 1000 they both allowed to be on the pannel in which the infcription begins, and what place more proper for the cha- racter which marked the hundreds ? though, as before hinted, either from a want of expertnefs in the fculptor, or of accuracy in the delineator, it is not eaiy 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 fecond have been a character de- noting 5, the obfcurity will leflen, and the date alluded to would be 1533. To the adding of Arabian figures to Roman numerals neither of thefe learned profeflbrs made any objection, they having met with the fame mixture of characters in MSS. And I will pro- duce a fpecimen from a monumental infcription which will war- rant this reading of the Helmdon date. It is in the church of Stamford in the fame county, and on a flone commemorative of fir John Cave. According to Bridges it is thus infculped Ann" D" M' 1)' 58 m. [/] In the Diflertation of the Weidlers already mentioned are thefe words. Qua- (infcriptio) in laterculo noftro Figura I. exhibetur. But M is not a fac fimik of the figure or figures in the Plate communicated by Dr. Wallis. [ml Bridges's Hift. of Northarcptonfhire, V.I. p. 582. Between