NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN BRITAIN. 405 
“the name EVTVCHES is EIVS ADOPTATVS HERES” is unin- 
telligible. If his meaning be that the name implies that he was “‘ the 
adopted heir of his master,” there is not the slightest foundation for the 
supposition, either in the name or in the inscription. Mr. Warner 
with equally little reason supposes the two altars to have been erected 
by the same freedman. Mr, Hunter and Mr. Scarth infer from the 
name CALPVRNIVS the rank of this priest as ‘a member of the noble 
Calpurnian family.” To me there seems to be no ground for this infer- 
ence ; indeed, so far as we know, he may have derived this name, as a 
libertus, from the nomen gentilitium of his master. As to his con- 
nection with Quintus Calpurnius Concessinius, “legate in Britain under 
Caracalla,” it is sufficient to observe, that there was no person of that 
name who is known to have held the office of legate. Mr. Wright, 
(Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 358), mentions an individual with the 
first two of these names as a governor of Britain, ‘‘ believed to be of 
the age of Commodus,” but this statement is erroneous. The only 
Quintus Calpurnius Concessinius, known in inscriptions found in 
Britain, was a pre@fectus equitum. Vide Horsley, Brit. Rom., North- 
umberland, evil, and art. 9 of my notes. 
55. Since the publication of Part VI., I have had the opportunity 
of perusing extracts of letters from the late Sir S. Rush Meyrick to 
the late Samuel Lysons, Esq., and from the late Sir Wm. Drummond 
to the late Rev. Danl. Lysons, on the subject of the God Nodons or 
Nodens. Sir Samuel Meyrick was of opinion that “ Deus Nodens 
** seems to be Romanised British, which correctly written in its original 
“language would be Deus Noddyns, /.e., the god of the abyss, or it 
“may be ‘God the preserver,’ from the verb noddi, to preserve, both 
“words being derived from Nawdd which signifies ‘protection.’ I 
* think the latter translation best expresses the idea of Silvianus, and it 
* exactly answers to another epithet of the British deity, as mentioned 
“on an altar in Camden, found at Wigton, in Cumberland (Gough’s 
“Edit. ii. p. 172)—DEO CEADIO, &c. 
“Instead of Ceadio Camden writes Ceaico, but as in numerous in- 
“‘stances he puts JEO for DEO, and such like, I think he may be 
‘* presumed to have mistaken the d for anz. Duw Ceidiaw is ‘ God the 
“ preserver.’”’ There are but few, I think, who will view this etymology 
with any favour. Sir Wm. Drummond in his first letter on this 
subject takes the same view as that which I expressed in article 34, and 
