178 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS 



VICTOEJAE 

 . . GG AIFE 

 NSSENECIO 

 N COS FELIX 

 ALAIASTO 

 ...M PExi. 



Horsley reads it thus : Victorise Augustomm nostrorum fecit nepos 

 Sosii Senecionis consulis Felix alse primse Astorum prsefectus. 



There can, I think, be no doubt that this reading should be 

 at once rejected. It is plain that the names in the second and third 

 lines after AVGG are ALFENVS SENECIO ; and the only real diffi- 

 culty in the inscription is the initial letter or letters of the fourth line 

 before COS. To me it seems most probable that we should read 

 instead of N either YC or V alone. In a mural tablet found at Ris- 

 ingham, as given by Bruce, (Roman Wall, p. 287,) and Surridge, (ATb- 

 tice», &c., PI. III.,) we find the words ALFENI SENECI[0]NIS 

 YOCOS, which, with *HenzeH, n. 6701, I would read, as here, VC 

 COS i. e. vir clarissimus consularis. 



Alfenus Senecio was legatus Augusti in Britain under ScTerus and 

 Caracalla, the two Augtisti noticed in the Benwell inscription. He is 

 mentioned also on two other stones found at Greta Bridge and Brough, 



As the Risingham tablet gives the 3rd Consulship of Severus and 

 the 2nd of Caracalla as the date of its erection, it may be inferred that 

 Senecio was in the island at some time between 205 and 207 A. D. 



From an inscription found at Naples, and given by Gruter, p. 208y 

 Orelli, n. 4405, and Mommsen, n. 2646, it also appears that he was. 

 Sub-Prsefect of the fleet at Misenum. 



Horsley offers a suggestion as to tracing ASTORVM to Asia in 

 Liguria, not to the Astures, , a people of Spain. There can be na 

 reasonable doubt, however, that the latter are intended. In Bruce's 

 Roman Wall, p. 110, we have an inscription on a stone found at the 

 same place, Benwell, which is decisive on the point : 



* There are other diflSlculties in this inscription, on which, however, I do not feel compe- 

 tent to oifer an opinion, as the only copies, which I have seen of it, are the above mentioned j 

 and of these Bruce's is on too small a scale for distinctness, whilst Surridge's accuracy seems 

 very doubtful. Indeed, if his copies of inscriptions be no more reliable than his interpreta- 

 tions, they are worse than useless. Henzen (as above cited) gives a restoration of the whole 

 inscription with but partial success. 



