[55] But the edges of the ring show (as Franks pointed out) traces of long wear. He goes on to say: ‘The engraving, moreover, scarcely looks like the work of a goldsmith. I would therefore suggest, that the Queen had probably offered this ring at some shrine, and the priests connected with the shrine had engraved her name within the ring, to record the royal giver.’ _Proc. Soc. Antiq._, 2nd Series, vol. vi, p. 307. [56] 888. Her lædde Beocca ealdorman West Sea na ælmessan and Ælfredes cyninges to Rome. ⁊ Æþelswiþ cuen, sio wæs Ælfredes sweostor cyninges, forþferde, ⁊ hire lic liþ æt Pafian. [57] Professor Stephens of Copenhagen, _Runic Monuments_, Part II, p. 463, dated it ‘about A.D. 700–800’: but in this estimate he has been guided (I think) not by anything in the artistic design or execution, but simply by the large proportion of Runes in the mixed lettering, a criterion of very doubtful value. CHAPTER XI SOME CLOSING REFLECTIONS Among the various criticisms which have been elicited by the Alfred Jewel during the two hundred and seven years which have elapsed since its discovery in the year 1693, the opinion that the name it bears is that of the king has not met with more than one definite and formulated objection. This objection, if it had prevailed, would have excluded the production of such a work in king Alfred’s time, as a thing impossible. But the question thus raised has evoked evidence of so overpowering a nature as not only to neutralize the objection, but also to increase the balance of probability in favour of the opinion that the person named on the Jewel is Alfred of Wessex. The name, combined with the costliness and the strongly marked individuality of the work, draws the mind naturally to think of the most remarkable person who bore that name; but, in addition, we have to consider that it was found in the neighbourhood of the very spot which is most closely associated with the career of the selfsame person. In these obvious prima facie elements of the case, there is an accumulation of probability, which fully justified Hickes in saying that from his first sight of the Jewel he had never doubted its having been a personal possession of king Alfred’s[58]. To this central and primary body of evidence other instances of probability have been added in the course of the present Essay. The investigation of the Epigraph led us to the conclusion that the diction answered well to the time of king Alfred’s life, and also that it bore some resemblance to an analogous piece of his admitted writing.