Mr. Gough pointed out that the third side of the stamp was engraved in letters of a rude and negligent form, and different in character from the inscriptions on the two other sides. But he failed in seeing that the remaining sides are both imperfect; and that the latter half of one of the inscriptions, and the first half of the other, are deficient, in consequence of the stone, which was at first much larger, having been broken or reduced in size, and subsequently again rubbed down and smoothed on two of its sides before one of these sides was cut with the rude lettering above alluded to. When these circumstances are attended to, the inscriptions on the three sides appear to stand as follows:— 1. LJULIVENISD . . . . . OPOBALSAMTU . . . . . 2. . . . . . . ASMVRNESBIS . . . . . . MPETUEXOVO 3. FSEKUNDI ATALBAS. The name of the proprietor is evidently L. JUL. IVENIS [L(_ucius?_) _Jul(ius) Ivenis_]; and I may remark in passing, that the cognomen of IVENIS is one which has been found recurring among the Roman pottery-stamps found in England. It is impossible to fill in, with anything like precision and certainty, the defective words in the two first inscriptions. But judging from the analogy of other similar and more perfect stamps, these two inscriptions probably read somewhat as follows when the seal was entire. 1. L. JUL. IVENIS D_iapsoricum_ OPOBALSAM_a_TU_m_ _ad Claritatem_.—_L. Jul. Ivenis’ Opobalsamic Diapsoricum for clearing of the sight._ The adjective, OPOBALSAMATUM, has hitherto been generally found united upon medicine-stamps with one of two collyria—viz. with _Stacticum_ (as in seal No. IV.); or with _Diapsoricum_, as in seals found at Jena and Lyons. The D preserved in the first line is, in all probability, the initial letter of the latter collyrium.