posed antiquity of the Shalford date[1]" And possibly these figures might have admitted of another amendment, viz. of 1582 for 1382. Mr. North, in his letter to the earl of Morton having justly observed, that, "in deeds of the reign of Elizabeth the figure 5 is frequently so like the figure 3 as to make a recourse to the other part of the deed necessary to ascertain it[2]." And all will allow that in sculptured inscriptions there is likely to be greater difficulty in decyphering the figure.
A misconception of the dates in which same Arabian numerals are clearly discernible, has occasioned much perplexity; and to me it appears very, very dubious, whether the date on the mantle-tree of the chimney in the Rectory-house of Helmdon in the county of Northampton, has not hitherto been misread. The fame of this mantle-tree extended from England to Germany, from Oxford to Wirtemberg[3]; and I choose to refer to it, because it was the first inscription brought forward in the controversy. Dr. Wallis communicated his sentiments upon it to the Royal Society, and with his paper was exhibited a drawing of the whole mantle-piece, of which there is an engraving in the Philosophical Transactions[4]. With the hope of rendering what I have to offer upon the subject the more easily understood, my ingenious and obliging neighbour, Mr. Peete of Dartford, has furnished me with the enclosed facsimile of this engraving, as also with a copy of the engraving of
- ↑ Archaeologia, V. I. p. 140. For the opinion of Dr. Ward there is a reference to Philosophical Transactions abridged, V. X. p. 1265.
- ↑ Archaeologia, V. X. p. 370.
- ↑ De characteribus numerorum vulgaribus et eorum ætatibus, &c. A Joanne Friderico Weidlero, et M. Georgio Weidlero—Witembergiæ, 1727. p. 14. An account of this Dissertation was published in the Philosophical Transactions, V. XI. III. Art. I. No 474. It was communicated to the Royal Society by Professor Ward.
- ↑ Ibid. Vol. XIII. No 154. The same Plate is also published in his Treatise of Algebra.
