116 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS 



opinion that the words before annorum XXX were civis Norici, i. e., a 

 citizen of Noricum. Dr. Bruce, however, retains Horsley's Noricus as 

 the name of the person. In support of my view, I may refer to cives 

 JVorica, in n. 825, " Rom. Inschrift. in Dacien," by Ackner & Miiller. 



(b) In p. 236, Dr. Bruce remarks, relative to the date of an inscrip- 

 tion figured in p. 235 : 



" Severus Alexander became sole emperor in 222, and was assassinated in 23S." 



In Brit. Rom. Inscrip., p. 156, I had fixed the year with, I think, 



certainty, to 225, the date of the consulship of Fuscus II. and Dexter. 



(c) In p. 331, two of Horsley's inscriptions are joined, so as to form 

 one, in the belief that the stone had been broken into two pieces. 



"DEOMATVNO 

 PRO-SALVTE- 



BONOGENERIS 

 HVMANIIMPE 



EANTE-C**** 

 ********* 



AYG-PR-PR-POSVIT 



AC-DEDICAVIT 



C-A-CJ5CILI0?A??? 

 Deo Blatuno pro salute [Antonini Csesaris nati] ? bono generis humani impe- 

 rante C**** [leg.] Aug. Pr. Pr. posuit ac dedicavit C. A. Ccecilius. To the God 

 Matunus, for the safety of Antoninus Cfesar, born for the good of the race of 



mankind ; by order of , imperial legate and propreetor. It was erected 



and dedicated by Cains Aulas Csecilius (?)." 



Dr. Bruce remarks : 



" The name of the emperor for whose welfare the dedication was made, and to 

 whom is applied the proud but not unprecedented title of " born for the benefit 

 of mankind," is lost, in consequence of the fracture of the stone. It is here sup- 

 plied, in accordance with a suggestion made to the writer by his friend, Mr. 

 Roach Smith. There can be little doubt that one of the Antonines — probably 

 Caracalla — was intended. The god Matunus is not elsewhere mentioned." 



On the probability of the two stones being portions of one, and of 

 the inscription being thus broken betwen them and a missing portion, 

 I shall offer no remark, as I have not seen either of those that exist. 

 My impression, however, is in favor of Horsley's view, that the two 

 are not fragments of one stone ; and, even if they are, I cannot accept 

 the proposed restoration, for there is no authority for the bare form, 

 Antonini Ccesaris ; and I think that the emperor, whose name is lost, 

 was not one of the Antonines, as I have never met with an example 



