This article provides an overview of the historic discussion surrounding the Helmdon mantle-tree in the context of broader debate on the introduction of Arabic numerals into Britain, and considers what degree the date interpretation correlates with the regional pattern of architectural history.
The 1683 publication by John Wallis of an account of the Helmdon mantle tree prompted a two-hundred-year debate and discussion of the origins and history of use of the Arabic numerals in England. In his letter ‘concerning an Antient Mantle-tree in Northampton-shire’, Wallis described the dated and decorated mantle-tree which at that time was located in the chimney of the parsonage house in Helmdon, then the residence of the Rector William Richards.
Wallis was keenly interested in the history and development of mathematics and in particular the modern Arabic numerals and believed that the date carved on the Helmdon mantle-tree, which he interpreted as Ao Doi Mo 133 (Anno Domini Millesimo 133 [1133]), demonstrated the use of Arabic numerals in England in the 12th century.
Wallis further discussed the Helmdon mantle-tree in his Treatise of Algebra in which he attempted to provide a comprehensive account of the origins and development of the modern numeric system, tracing these through antiquity with numerous references to historic manuscripts and ancient authors where examples of knowledge of their use could be found. He specifically framed his work in an English context by exploring mathematical learning in the later medieval period and explored two themes: the date of transmission of Arabic learning through Spain to the rest of Europe, and the role of Englishmen in acquiring and propagating these new ideas to England.
In the following years were published a series of articles in the Philosophical Transactions and other publications, discussing the date of the Helmdon mantlepiece and other identified examples of dates, and the history of introduction and use of Roman and Arabic numerals in England.
In 1735 John Ward, (Fellow of the Royal Society and Professor at Gresham College) provided further commentary on the Helmdon and Colchester dates and the history of the origins and use of Arabic numbers. Ward suggested that the Helmdon date should be 1233 not 1133, with the ‘2’ being of an elongated shape resembling a ‘1’.
The case of the Helmdon mantle-tree and the antiquity of numerals was next taken up by the Reverend Samuel Denne in a lengthy letter published in Archaeologia. Denne considered it “very dubious” whether the Helmdon date had not been misread, noting that if the date of 1133 were accurate and contemporary with the room in which it was set, it would make the room older than Westminster Hall and the Helmdon Parsonage older than any other rectory house in Britain. He was not satisfied with the exactness of Dr Wallis’ drawing and had a facsimile of the inscription produced. He remarked as to whether Wallis had read the inscription with a bias to support his existing hypothesis, and that afterwards had trusted to memory for what he imagined he had seen. He suggested that in the reading of the inscription as interpreted by Ward and Wallis, what Wallis took for 1 and Ward for 2 in the third panel, was actually the ‘furthest stroke of the second ‘n’ in the abbreviated word anno’. This being the case, the character denoting the century must be sought elsewhere. The character in the first panel, Denne suggested, combines the letters M and D (thousand and 500). Denne went on to offer a confusing interpretation of the inscription which was described in a published response in 1802 as “chaos come again”.
The last antiquarian input on the subject was by Henry Dryden in 1888 who produced a new scale drawing from photographs. He noted that in nearly all of the disputed dates brought forward in the discussion of the antiquity of numerals, errors had arisen from the second characters (the hundreds) being misread, including the numeral for ‘5’ being straightened and misinterpreted as ‘1’, and an old form of 4, being taken for 0. Dryden thought it odd that both Ward and Wallis should have mistaken the first panel for ‘M’ and says that the second panel is indisputably ‘doi’. The third panel he suggests may include a combined M and D or V, with part of the second letter being broken off, followed by 33 or 55. He agrees that the initials W.R are those of William Renalde, providing strong corroborative evidence for a date interpretation of 1533 or 1555, thus reading the Helmdon inscription as “A(nn)o Do(min)i Mo V 33 or 35”.
Following this overview of the antiquarian debate the article goes on to consider three main points: Does the overall form of the timber correspond with the interpreted date, does the date correspond with the commonly accepted history and usage of the Latin and Arabic numerals in England, and finally, are there parallels for the form of lettering and the use of combined Latin and Arabic numerals and abbreviations?
For the full version of the article please refer to the 2024 Northamptonshire Past and Present.
Editor’s note:
Amir Bassir is a Heritage Consultant and built heritage specialist, currently working at The Environment Partnership (TEP) Ltd. He has carried out numerous historic building projects across the country and has a specific interest in East Midlands vernacular architecture and Industrial Archaeology. He became intrigued in the history of the mantlepiece and visited St Mary Magdalene on several occasions.
See also: documents 52,53,54 |