110 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS 



Rsetornm in p. 237, in L = Livgonura, pp. 848, 31-9, and in others 

 which ifc is unnecessary to mention. Dr. Bruce would, doubtless, have 

 stated these, as he has specified other similar cases in the same publi- 

 cations; but the popular character of his work prevented him from 

 specially noticing in every instance points that are of interest chiefly, if 

 not solely, to scholars. This adaptation to the general reader is, indeed, 

 a distinctive and very attractive feature of the book. On its claims in 

 this respect to the attention of all who take an interest in the Roman 

 period of British history, it would be both easy and agreeable to enlarge, 

 but, as such a treatment of the subject would be inconsistent with my 

 purpose in this series of articles, and unsuited to the wants of those for 

 whom my Notes are intended, I shall limit my present remarks to the 

 critical examination of those inscriptions which appear, as presented in 

 this new edition, ^to be susceptible of emendation. 



77. In some cases Dr. Bruce retains his former readings^ although 

 they seem to require correction. 



rors named were Marcus Aiirelius Antoninus and Vents, and that the date is con- 

 sequenuly A.D. 165-169." Dr. Bruce observes, '-'The inscription belongs to a 

 period between A.D. 162, when the epithets, Medicis, Parthicis, were assumed by 

 the emperors, and A.D. 169, when Verus died." There can be no doubt that his 

 determination of t.he period is incorrect. The only question regarding- the date 

 as fixed by me is whether 166 is not preferable to 165. The latter is justified 

 by Orelli's n. 3-59. Tlio remarks on this subject in Merivale's "History of 

 the Romans under tlie Empire," vii. p. .5*73, are not accurate. He says, '' On the 

 conclusion of peace in 166, he (Verus) hastened bact to Eome, where Aurelius 

 received him. with open arras, and threw a veil over his want of personal prowess 

 by conducting' a joint triumph with him. The two emperors assumed the titles 

 of Partliicus, Armeniacus and Medicus, though Aurelius refused, at first, a share 

 in honours for which he had not personally contended." To this is subjoined a 

 note: "Of these and several triumphal designations, Medicus alone, it is said, 

 never occurs in medals or inscriptions, to avoid perhaps a possible raisiuterpre. 

 tation." As Mr. Merivale's account might produce an en oneous impression, it 

 seems necessary to state the facts. In 163, the title Armeniacus was offered to 

 both Verus and Antoninus. The former accepted it, and it appears on his coins 

 of the year, but the latter declined it for a time. In 164, Armeniacus appears 

 on the coins of both. In 165, the title Parthisus was offered to both. Verus 

 accepted it, and it appears on. his coins of the year, but Antoninus declined it for 

 a time. In 166, they were both styled Parthicus and Medicus. On the coins of 

 Antoninus we find only two of the titles, either Arm. and Parih. or Parth. and 

 Med., but in some of those of Verus the three titles. The statement, noticed by 

 Mr. Merivale in the note, is contradicted by the existence of several examples of 

 Medicus both on coins and stones. 



