NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN BRITAIN. 233 
examples,* and which, in this particular case, is established by the 
following inscription in Fabretti, p. 486 :— 
C+ CAESIDIO 
C:F:-CRV: DEXTRO 
EQ: COH: VIII: PRAET 
COH - I: LINGONVM 
EQVITAT® &c. 
Camden gives an inscription, found at Moresby in Cumberland, 
which mentioned the second cohort—and it is believed that the same 
corps was noticed in two inscriptions (Horsley, nn. xiii. and xiv.) 
found at Ilkley in Yorkshire. One of these is so remarkable, that it 
deserves special notice, and I shall therefore consider it in a separate 
article. But to return to the Lanchester inscriptions—an obvious 
suggestion relative to L* GOR is, that it may: be a misreading of 
LINGON ; but we may not disregard the leaf-stops in n. xii, after 
COH, I, L and GOR. 
There remains but one other point requiring notice—the use of 
the word principia, of which I have never seen any other example 
except on the stone found near Bath (Vide article, n. 6 of these 
Notes), on which the letters between PR and PIA are illegible. Mr. 
Gale regarded the principia as “either the quarters of the legionary 
soldiers called the principes, or the place where the ensigns were 
kept ;’’ whilst Mr. Horsley “rather concludes it to be the General’s 
pavilion.” Dr. Bruce interprets the term as denoting “the chief 
military quarters,” or ‘officers’ barracks.” 
Mr. Smith (Collect. Antiq. iv. p. 142) observes : 
“The principia mentioned ia the inscription, it need scarcely be observed, 
means the quarters of the chief officers, and place of deposit of the standards. 
The word occurs in an inscription of the time of Elagabalus [?] lately dug up 
near Bath, and published in the Journal of the Archeological Institute.” 
Mr. Smith doubtless inferred the meaning of the word principia, 
as found in the Lanchester and Bath inscriptions, from its signification, 
when applied to a place ina camp. But there is no authority, so far 
as Iam aware, eitherin ancient authors or in inscriptions, whereby 
* In Horsley’s Britannia Romana (Cumberland, |xi.) we have the same mistake. He 
reads I‘ HIS: EQ prime Hispanorum equitum; it-shovld be prime Hispanorum 
éequitate. In Cumberland, lii., and in Northumberland, Ixxxviii., the reading is Gallorum 
equitum, instead of Gallorum equitata. 
