"N. 'Wilt thou have this man,' &c.
"The man says: 'I, M. take thee N. to my wedded wife,' &c.
"The woman says: 'I, N. take thee M. to my wedded husband,'" &c.
Again, "Forasmuch as M. and N. have consented together," &c.
All these passages would go to show that the letters are initials either of some word by which the sex was denoted, or of some very common Christian names of each sex, which were formerly in use.
I grant that, in the baptismal service, N. may possibly stand for nomen.
Thos. Cox.
Preston.
Arabic Numerals.—I am not entitled to question either the learning or the "acumen" of the Bishop of Rochester; but I am entitled to question the interpretation which E. S. T. tells us (Vol. ii., p.27.) he puts upon the Castleacre inscription. My title to do so is this:—that in the year of grace 1084 the Arabic numerals were not only of necessity unknown to the "plaisterers" of those walls, but even (as far as evidence has been yet adduced) to the most learned of England's learned men.
As to the regular order in crossing himself, that will entirely depend upon whether the plaister was considered to be a knight's shield, and the figures the blazonry, or not. Is it not, indeed, stated in one of your former numbers, that this very inscription was to be read 1408, and not 1048? I have already hinted at the necessity of caution in such cases; and Mr. Wilkinson of Burnley has given, in a recent number of your work, two exemplifications. The Bishop of Rochester certainly adds another; though, of course, undesignedly.