40 NOTES ON LATIN INSCRIPTIONS 



■with him, worthy of consideration. But the tone of his remarks is 

 likely to mislead ; and perhaps did mislead Mr. Yates, when he regard- 

 ed this inscription as "evidently referring to the Ceangi." Mr; 

 Smith says that " this inscription is peculiarly interesting as referring 

 to the Cangi at an earlier date, the name being spelt as pronounced, 

 Kiangi." Now this statement, as to pronunciation and orthography 

 at an earlier date, is wholly conjectural, without any authority to sup- 

 port it. 



Nor is the suggested transposition of ex Kian, and iiii cos warranted 

 by precedent, or at all probable. MoreoA'er a very strong objection to 

 Mr. Smith's reading is derived from the difference of the prepositions. 

 In other blocks where the Ceangi are named we have the preposition 

 de, whilst here we have ex. Again, in those other blocks we have 

 Ceang., but here K is substituted for C, i for e, and g is omitted. 



But if we give up the reading ex Kiangis, what solution is there of 

 the difficulty ? The only conjecture which I can offer on the subject 

 is, that the words EX • KIAN express a date, scil. EX • K[ALENDIS] 

 IAN [VARUS]. 



It is scarcely necessary to say, that there are examples of K • IAN • 

 being used for Kalendis Januai'iis : and the only inquiry which seems 

 necessary, relative to this reading, is as to the reason of the date 

 being stated in the inscription. 



We know from Pliny xxxiv., eh. 17, that there was a law prohibit- 

 ing more than a limited production of lead in Britain — iie plus cei-to 

 modo fiat — and it seems probable to me that with a view to this law, 

 the blocks, at least in some reigns, bore marks of the time at which 

 they were made, so that it might be known what blocks were manu- 

 factured, and consequently what quantity of lead was produced during 

 the year. The mention of the consuls, or not unfrequently of one, 

 especially the Emperor, was, as is well known, the recognised mode 

 among the Romans of distinguishing the year. But it may be asked 

 — why mention Kalendis Januariis when that day was commonly 

 known to be the first of the consular year ? To this it may be an- 

 swered that it was not uncommon for the Emperors to enter on the 

 consulship at different periods of the year, and hence it may have 

 been necessary to specify in this case the date of the commencement 

 of the Emperor's fourth consulship. Another reason, peculiar to 

 Nero, for this specification, may be, that it conveyed a flattering 

 reference to his having rejected the proposition of the Senate, that 



