170 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS ' 



equitum Csesarlensiura Corionototarum manu prsesentissiini uumimS 

 dei votum solyit." * 



The chief difficulty in the inscription is in the words CAESA* 

 CORIONOTOTARVM. The author of the letter in Gordon's 

 Appendix thinks that we have here a new body of horse, called 

 equitea Ccesarienses (or Gasariani) Oorionototce. The latter designa-^ 

 tion he supposes to he "a corruption of the Roman name of a people 

 in these parts, perhaps Curia or Coria Otadenorum, and that Corbridge 

 was the place." Horsley rejects this explanation, and proposes three 

 other names, of which the word in the text may have been a corruption '. 

 Coritani, a people of one of the ProvincicB Ccesarienses ; Coriotiotar 

 in the anonymous Ravennas : and Crotoniata;, which last he seems to 

 have preferred. As to the explanation of the rest of the inscription, 

 he adopts the view, that prcesentissimum numen Dei signifies the Em- 

 peror, and that manu intimates that Q. Calpurnius was advanced to his 

 post by the immediate hand of the Emperor, supposed to be Gommodus 

 or Oaracalla. 



The first doubt which presents itself as to the correctness of this 

 interpretation, arises from the terms equites Ccesarienses. So far as 

 I am aware, (and I have made a diligent search on the subject,) there 

 is no example of any equites having been denominated Ccesarienses. 

 As to the reference, which is made in Gordon's Appendix to Gruter, 

 p. 445, it proves nothing to the point, for in that inscription there is 

 no mention of eq%i,ites. Nor is the well known form equites singulares 

 CoBsaris applicable here. 



Another doubt is suggested by the meaning given to manu prcesen- 

 tissimi numinis dei, as here too I have been unable to find any author- 

 ity for the interpretation, " the immediate hand of the Emperor." 



tinder such circumstances I am inclined to regard Ccesa as the par- 

 ticiple of ccedo, and agreeing with manu, which I interpret as hand or 

 T)ody. Of the suggestions relative to Corionototarum, I prefer that 

 which considers it as a corruption of Coriotiotar. As to prcesentis- 

 simi numinis dei, I understand the phrase as referring to the god to 

 whom the altar was dedicated, and whose name, along with that of the 

 legate, doubtless appeared on that part of the stone which has been 

 broken off. In construction, numinis is governed by cultor under- 

 stood : an ellipsis, which is confirmed by an inscription found in 

 Portugal J and given by Gruter and Orelli : 



