rOUND IN BRITAIN. Ill 



(a) In p. 170, we have the following inscription on an altar : 



FORTVlN^AE 



COHIBATAVOR 



CVIPRAEEST 



MELACCINIVS 



MARGE LLYSPlliS. 

 Fortunm Coh. I. Batavorum cm praeesf Melacdnius Marce.llus Free. \^fecius\. 

 To Fortune the 1st Cohort of Batavians, commanded by Melaccinius Marcellns 

 the Prefect. 



This expansion is the same as that given by Horsley, but as there is 

 no authority for a gens Melacciiiia^ I think that the fourth line should 

 have been read, M. Flaccinius, i. e., Marcus Flaccinius, as Dr. Hunter 

 read it. Even if the second letter be E (not E), as Horsley thought, I 

 should prefer M. Ulacciuiv.s, i. e., Marcus Elaccinius. Elac.cinius 

 may be regarded as another form of AUecmins. In p. 314, we have 

 another misstatement of the gens in a different form. There G. Ccep. 

 Charifino are expanded as in the second edition, Caio Ccepione Cha- 

 ritino, instead of Caio Ccepio Cliaritlno. 



(b) In p. 243, we have the following epitaph : 



D M 



AVRFFAIAE 



DSALONAS 



AVRMARCVS 



OOBSEQCON 



IVGISANCTIS 



SIMAEQVAEVI 



XITANNISXXXIII 



SINEVLLAMACVLA 

 " Diis Manibus Aurelice Faiae domo Salonas Aurelius ilarcus 3 obsnquio eovjugis 

 sanctissimce quce vixit annis xxziii sine ulla macula. To the divine manes of 

 Aurelia Faia, a native of Salona, Aurelius Marcus, a centurion, out of affection for 

 his most holy wife, who lived thirty-three years without any blemish, [erected 

 this]." 



I cannot accept the reading, ohseq(\uo) conpig(is'), given by Dr. 

 Bruce, as correct. The letters on the stone are obseq conjugi^ and 

 should, I think, have been expanded obsequens coiijugi. 



(c;) In p. 273, an altar is figured, that bears the following inscription : 



DEOSANCTO 

 SILVANOYE 

 NATORES 



BANNES-S 



