368 THE ST. HILARY INSCRIBED STONE. 



He gives the following extended reading as what he believes to 

 be indicated : — " Imperatore Caesare Flavio Valerio Constantino 

 Pio Felice Invicto Oeesare Filio Angustorum Divi Constantii Pii 

 Augusti Filio." The date is probably a.d. 306 or 307. 



This reading may be quite correct ; but it seems to me in part 

 conjectural. In the second line I only see clearly FL and V, and 

 I incline to the opinion that the V stands alone, as an initial. 

 There is a short vertical stroke falling within the margin of the 

 L, considered by Mr. Edmonds to indicate I, and associated 

 with the V to be first letter of Julius, one of the names of the 

 younger Constantine. But this reduced form of I, often found 

 in the middle of words, as it is in FIL^O at the end of this in- 

 scription, is not, as far as I am aware, found as an initial of a 

 name. I rather susjDect that the mark is of accidental origin 

 and of no significance. The space between L and V is hardly 

 sufficient for an A, the letters being here on a rather large scale. 

 What follows the Y seems to me quite conjectural, except perhaps 

 another Y ; and I must say the same with regard to all but the 

 word PIO in the fourth line, where Canon Rogers's original 

 reading AYGrYS may be as plausible as any other proposed. 

 It seems questionable whether the fifth line has any lettering 

 beyond CAES, the stone presenting no decided marks between 

 this and the indentation close to its margin, which has been 

 guessed to be G, but may be independent of a tool. The 

 reading of this line, CAESARE FILIO AYGYSTOEYM, 

 adopted by Prebendary Scarth, was suggested to him by Dr. 

 McCaul, President of University College, Toronto, who thinks 

 "it may have been cut in 306 or 307 a.d., before "Constan- 

 tine was acknowledged as Augustus, i.e. while he was "yet 

 Csesar;" but Mr. Scarth is rather inclined to attribute the 

 repetition of that title to a mistake of the stone-cutter, a view to 

 which Prof. Hiibner also inclines. 



The word CONSTANTI, in the seventh line, wiU probably be 

 accepted as conclusive evidence that Constantine the Grreat, the son 

 of Constantius, is commemorated above, as that word is perfectly 

 distinct and occupies the whole width of the stone to its margin. 

 The publication of the great work of Professor Hiibner, 

 Inscriptiones Britannm Latince, exhibiting all similar inscriptions 

 hitherto discovered, has, no doubt, made it easier to arrive at a 



