234 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN BRITAIN. 
this or any other interpretation of the term, as applied to «a building, 
can be confirmed. 
P.S.—Since the foregoing was in type, I have observed in Hen- 
zen’s Index, “Coh.I. Lingonum Gordiana,” with the reference to 
Orelli’s n. 975=Horsley’s Durham, n. xii., but it does not appear 
whether this statement was made through inadvertence or with the 
intention of correcting the opinion expressed in n. 6626. 
38. The following is the inscription, found at Ilkley, to which I 
referred in the last article :— 
RVM CAES 
AVG« 
ANTONINI 
ET VERI 
IOVI DILECTI 
CAECILIVS 
LVCAN «8 
PRAEF COH 
Horsley expands it thus: “Pro salute Imperatorum Caesarum 
Augustorum Antonini et Veri Jovi dilecti Czecilius Lucanus praefectus 
cohortis.”’ 
The point, which at once attracts attention, is the use of the unique 
phrase—Jovi dilecti, especially as applied to but one of the Emperors 
named on the stone. Horsley compares the Homeric* d.otpedées 
BaoiAjes, but the illustration throws but little light on this remarkable 
compliment so strangely limited to one of the Emperors. For my 
part, I am persuaded that the reading is erroneous. Independently 
of the objection arising from the unprecedented epithet, there is a 
singular omission—according to Horsley’s expansion—of the deity to 
whom the altar was erected. This should, in my judgment, be sup- 
plied from the fifth line; and I venture to suggest that the true 
reading is IOVI: DOLIC: TI: ze. LOVI DOLIC[HENO] TI[BE- 
RIVS], Tiberius being the preenomen of Cecilius Lucanus. The 
epithet appears in various forms, such as Dolicenus, Dolcenus, Dole, 
and D. 
39. Inthe Gentleman’s Magazine, for November, 1860, an account is 
given of the proceedings of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, at their 
® Horsley might have cited 5:/:Aos, which more closely expresses the Latin Jovi 
dilectus. 
