Now, I am inclined to think the deductions hitherto drawn from the foregoing facts are not altogether of the soundest. In the first place, _Is the inscription rightly translated?_ Secondly, _Does "Hyngham" refer to a person or a place?_ In answer to the first question, I offer an alternative reading for consideration; in reply to the second, I offer evidence that a place is meant. If I am right in my contentions fresh light is thereby thrown upon several problems, at present unsolved, in respect to these Macro plays. To take the points in order. The inscription as given by Mr. Pollard in his introductory remarks on page xxx, varies somewhat from the text as given on pages 34 and 73: _que_ is _quem_ and co_n_sto is given as co_n_sta[s]. My own text (40,_d_) follows the latter, which for the sake of the ensuing argument I quote again, with contractions, etc., duly indicated: O liber, si q_u_is cui co_n_stas forte q_u_eret_u_r, Hyngham, qu_em_ monacho dices, sup_er_ o_mn_ia co_n_sta[s]. Now if for qu_em_ we read qu_od_ and for co_n_sta[s] we substitute co_n_sta[t], we get on surer ground. The original hardly conveys the idea that _constas_ occurs twice, though there is evidently a play on "_constas_," "constat"; at least that is a possible reading. In this instance, too, the verb _constare_ seems to be used in the sense of _value_, and one hardly sees where Dr. Warner's _belong_ comes in. If _quod_ and _constat_ are accepted, the translation would be something like this: "O book, if haply anyone should ask to what [place] you are precious, tell them Hyngham, which [_quod_] to a monk is precious beyond all [places]." That is, the book is precious to Hyngham; Hyngham is precious beyond all places to the monks. This brings me to the next point. Assuming this translation to be correct (and I invite discussion), it seems pretty clear that the ownership of the manuscripts of _Mankind_ and _Wisdom_ was not to a _Monk_ Hyngham, but to a monk or monks of Hyngham. Facts again seem to confirm alike this new view and also the Eastern Counties tradition. Hyngham, Hingham, or Ingham, as a surname, is not common in the district; on the contrary, it is uncommonly rare. It belongs more to the north, especially to Lancashire and Yorkshire. Its occurrence now-a-days in Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, and Manchester, may be regarded as fifty or sixty to two, or at most three, for other large towns all over the country; whilst in the Eastern Counties it is simply not to be found. This is especially and particularly the case as regards Lincoln, Grimsby, Boston, Stamford, Norwich, Yarmouth, Ipswich, Bury-St.-Edmunds, Cambridge, Colchester, Chelmsford, etc. The facts are at least significant.