with enamel brown, of the same warm tint, and as perfectly vitrified as that used in all other parts of the window, except in the letters of the first-mentioned inscription. It is clear from this—to say nothing of the identity of the style of drawing, and texture of the glass—that the scroll is of the same date as the rest of the window. The inscription has been carefully rubbed out with emery-powder (?); scratches produced by abrasion are very perceptible, with the exception of part of the letters "Ro," in the word "Roberti," and of a small flourish employed to fill up the line, which have been left untouched,—the first, probably because, being at the extremity of a piece of glass, it was thought it would be hidden by the lead; the second, because it was unnecessary to remove it, the palimpsest inscription being shorter than the original one. These portions of enamel brown are in all respects identical with the enamel brown of the scroll; and the belief that the inscription was executed simultaneously with the scroll is strengthened by the observation, that some of the letters, such as the a in "statu," the R in "Roberti," the J in "Joh'ni'," the h in "hoc," and the a in "vitriari," have been, like other letters in the window, illuminated with the yellow stain, which still exists, being on the opposite side of the glass to that which has been abraded, and is of exactly the same depth of tint as the yellow of the small flourish, and of the leaves, &c., before mentioned. Moreover, the original inscription makes sense with the date, which is written on two cartouches at the bottom of the outer lights, thus,—"Aō d'ni Mº CCCCC∘XXXIII." On the other hand, the letters of the palimpsest inscription are written with an enamel brown, of a much blacker or colder tint than that used throughout the rest of the window; and they are not illuminated with yellow, the consequence of this inscription having been subjected to a less heat in burning than the rest of the glass; which is evident from the enamel brown of these letters having been so imperfectly fluxed that a great portion of it has already fallen off the glass, an accident tending to facilitate the discovery of the original inscription.
From the exact similarity of the form of the letters used in both inscriptions, it may be inferred that but a short time elapsed between the painting of the first and substitution of the second legend. And from the use of the words "orate pro bono statu," in the first, and of the initials R. I. at the end of the second inscription, it may naturally be concluded that the alteration was made in the lifetime and at the instance of the donor. Perhaps a feeling of humility led to the substitution of simple initials for the more ostentatious display of his name at fuller length.
It is not easy to make out the exact reading of the donor's surname as given in the original inscription. The difficulty arises from the letter immediately following the h, and which appears to be an m. But the three black letter minims may also form ni, and though no dot over the i is now perceptible, it is possible that it may have been obliterated. If so, the word would be a contraction for "Johannis," and thus the surname would appear to be "Johnes," or "Jones," (the son of John). It can be proved that the Welsh took modern surnames, relinquishing the prefix "ap," about 1533. Assuming the surname to be Jones, the most probable surmise is, that the donor of the window was the rector for the time being of Llanrhaiadr. The Salusbury family were then the chief landed proprietors in the parish. There is a tradition that the painted glass was brought from Basingwerk Abbey, near Holywell; but this seems destitute of foundation.
