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[1].
By
- ↑ Treatise of Algebra, p. 9. "I know that in the editions which we now have of Boetius, Bede, and other ancient authors, these figures are now frequently used: but I do not believe they were found in the ancient manuscript copies from whence these printed copies were taken; but, in those, all their numbers were expressed by the Latin numeral letters (and in divers ancient manuscripts I have so seen it), and therefore I do not bring those as an argument of their antiquity, nor do I believe they were in use (in these western parts) when these authors were first written." I find these figures also used in an ancient treatise of ecclesiastical computation, in verse, called. Masse Computi, of which I have seen divers copies in MS. and I think it is also printed, which he says was written in 1200. But though we may from hence gather the age of this work to have been about the year 1200, yet I confess it doth not from hence follow certainly that they were then in use; however, we now find them in some of those copies which we have, for it is possible that in the first original, the numbers here
