E. S. T.

_Arabic Numerals._--With regard to the subject of Arabic numerals, and the
instance at Castleacre (Vol. ii., pp. 27. 61.), I think I may safely say
that no archæologist of the present day would allow, after seeing the
original, that it was of the date 1084, even if it were not so certain that
these numerals were not in use at that time. I fear "the acumen of Dr.
Murray" was wasted on the occasion referred to in Mr. Bloom's work. It is a
very far-fetched idea, that the visitor must cross himself to discover the
meaning of the figures; not to mention the inconvenience, I might say
impossibility, {340} of reading them after he had turned his back upon
them,--the position required to bring them into the order 1084. It is also
extremely improbable that so obscure a part of the building should be
chosen for erecting the date of the foundation; nor is it likely that so
important a record would be merely impressed on the plaister, liable to
destruction at any time. Read in the most natural way, it makes 1480: but I
much doubt its being a date at all. The upper figure resembles a Roman I;
and this, with the O beneath, may have been a mason's initials at some time
when the plaister was renewed: for that the figures are at least sixty
years later than the supposed date, Mr. Bloom confesses, the church not
having been built until then.

X.P.M.

* * * * *

CAXTON'S PRINTING-OFFICE.

(Vol. ii., pp. 99. 122. 142. 187. 233.)