NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN BRITAIN. 243 
“The word ballis being peculiar, it would be rash to hazard a hasty explana- 
tion of it. It does not occur in Gruter. Is it the termination of some word? 
Is it.a contraction for balneis ? or has 6 been substituted for v, and should it be 
vallis? These are the most plausible suggestions which have occurred to me, 
but I am not satisfied with any of them. I have written the cognomen of the 
legate, as I think the inscription reqhires; it is necessary, however, to state that 
this name does not occur in Gruter.” 
In the year 1855, excavations were carried on at the same place, 
and a slab was discovered bearing the following inscription, as given 
by Dr. Bruce, in the interesting account published in the Archeologia 
Aliana (new series), vol. i. p. 78: 
IMP: CAES:M: AV * 
** * kk PIO F* * 
TRIB: POT X COS * 
P-P: BALLIST: A SO 
VARDVL* * * * * # 
TIS; CL PAVL 4 * (* 
PR PR° FEC, * *.* 
P: AEL* * * * * * * 
x e+ # e & HF HE * 
ow =H “HH OH Ko 
This inscription, as Dr. Bruce observes, solves the question as to 
BALLIS in that found in 1852, for BALLIST suggests BALLIST- 
ARIVM, and we are also enabled to correct the reading of the name 
of the imperial legate, by substituting Paulinus for Apellinius. So 
far every thing seems satisfactory ; but Dr. Bruce adds in a note : 
“ A comparison of the two inscriptions does not* remove all the difficulties at- 
tending the reading of the name of the Proprztor on the slab found in 1852; but 
if the name of this dignitary be not (Tiberius) Claudius Paulinus, it is difficult 
to say what it is.” 
I am unable to understand the grounds of this remark. The name 
of the legate on the second slab seems to be, beyond doubt, Tiberius 
Claudius Paulinus, and from this we have to correct the reading on 
the first slab--Caius Claudius Apellinius. The substitution of Pauli- 
nus for Apellinius seems certain. Claudius remains in both, the only 
difference being that in the first we have the abbreviation CLA, in 
the second only CL—and all that remains to be done is to get rid of 
Caius, the prenomen in the first. Can there be any doubt that the 
C preceding CLA in that inscription stands not for Cato but for cura, 
i.e. that we should read sub c[ura]? Paulini, in the genitive, con- 
firms the expansion. 
