[ 2g 9 ] 
mains upon if, unlefs perhaps the lafh And as to 
the Date, which has been read 1035, I cannot come 
into that Sentiment for thefe Rea Tons. 
The fame Objection lies here againft the Shape of 
the Figure Five, as in the other Date, for the Rea- 
fon there given. And what has been taken for a 
Cipher in the Place of Hundreds, I apprehend to be 
only an imperfect Four, which wants the oblique 
Stroke, defcending on each Side tranfverfly from the 
circular Part in this manner £> ; for which there appears 
to be Pvoom at the Bottom of the Circle, which does not 
come fo low as the other Figures before and after it, 
tho it equals them in Hight at the Top. There is a 
Sample of this Figure both in yohannes de Sacro 
Bofco and Roger Bacon, as alfo in the Manufcript of 
the Inner Temple cited above, which fhews that it 
remained in Ufe till the fixteenth Century. As this 
Infcription is cut in Relief, the extreme Parts of that 
Figure might “as well be broken off, as the much 
greater Parts of the mutilated Letters in the Lines 
above it. And I would further obferve, that the 
Probability of this Opinion feenis to be not a little 
confirmed by a parallel Inffancc of the fame Figure, 
which formerly came before this Society, in a Date 
found at Colchefter ; the Figures of which were at 
firft thought to exprefs the Year 1090, that in the 
Place of Hundreds being taken for a Cipher, as in the 
prefent Cafe, by not attending to the fide Strokes, 
which were pretty near defaced ; till upon a more 
accurate View of the Original by a very worthy 
Member, and skilful Antiquary, that Miftake was 
difeovered, and the Date found to be 1490. For a 
further Account of which, together with a Draught - 
O o z of 
