Pret 
thefe points, and in doing fo has added one inftance to many 
others of erroneous ingenuity and mifapplied erudition. I hope 
to make it evident, that Jofephus, Mr. Wood, and others, are 
miftaken, and that the preceding citation, fo far from fupporting 
their ‘hypothefis, is pofitive proof of the contrary. This will 
oblige me to take a wider range than I originally defigned, and 
introduce fome remarks on Greek Palxography. 
Josepuus, who on this occafion is much relied on, is an unfafe 
guide; becaufe the profefled obje&t of his work is, to depreciate 
the antiquities of other nations to aggrandize his own. ‘Though 
eagerly purfuing this point, he is yet candid enough to own, 
that it was a matter much * inqnired into and difputed, whether 
letters were in ufe at the Trojan war. Did critical and antiqua- 
rian inquiries then fupply materials and arguments fufficient to 
decide this queftion in the negative, there can be no doubt but 
he would have embraced that fide. The opinion he delivers is, 
that the + prefent ufe of letters was unknown at that epoch to the 
Greeks. A dark expreflion, the meaning of which feems to be, 
that there were alphabetic elements in Greece in the Trojan 
times, though not applied to the recording events. The f early 
Fathers of the Church, who deferve as much credit as Jofephus, 
and other § writers quoted by Fabricius, {peak of authors antece- 
dent to Homer, and whofe ages approach very near that of the 
deftruction of Troy. 
Bur 
* Tlonan yeyovey atropia rn xas Cxrnorze Jofeph. Sup. 
t Noy evay Tey YELAAT WY NONTHY EXELS MYCE. Jofeph. Sup. 
{ Enufeb. Prep. Evang. 1. ro. 
§ Fabric. Biblioth. Grec. tom. 1. initio. 
