¹ This idea occurred to me before I had seen a photograph, or had been given precise inforation about spaces and traces. As to length, Mr. P. J. Parsons kindly traced out for me ‘quae vult dupla’ pronouncing it half a letter too long. But ‘quae volt’ seems at least as likely (note ‘quom’ in line 2), and in this scribe's hand would probably save a little space, bringing the restoration within an acceptable range as far as length is concerned (Mr Parsons agrees). The crucial point is whether the trace of what, in my restoration, would have to be the D in DUPLA is so definite as to rule out this possibility. This trace is described (Nisbet et. al., p. 145) as ’apparently a short oblique, desceding from left to right, a little above base-level(i.e. an interpunct; or from the right side of A, K, M, R, X)’, which leads Nisbet to give most consideration to ‘quadrupla’. Mr W. S. Barrett suggests to me that the ‘apparent short oblique’ might conceivably be a cross-section from the thick base of a D.

² The above note presupposes familiarity with the first publication by Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet in JRS 69 (1979), 125–55. I am grateful to several colleagues for discussion, particularly Messrs. W. S. Barrett, P. J. Parsons, and N. J. Richardson.Google Scholar