[ 395 ] 
Bat as the abfurdity of this notion was clearly demon- 
ftrated in my former remarks, to which no reply has 
yet been made, I (hall take no farther notice of it 
here. 
We are alfo told by this learned (6) author, that 
the firfl: word of the fecond line was either or 
with the Nun and Aleph fo clofely connected 
as to form a kind of monogram ; the fainted; traces 
of which are, however, fcarcely, if at all, to be feen. 
That the word cut originally in the ftone was 
my, fecervnt, in my former remarks (7), 
I have rendered fufficiently clear. And that the two 
elements Nun and Aleph fhould be fo confined as to 
occupy a fpace barely fufficient for one of them, will 
not be readily admitted by any perfon moderately 
acquainted with the manner of writing obferved in 
the later Phoenician inferiptions. But to wave all 
other confiderations relative to the point in view, that 
the verb here is expreffed in the third perfon plural, 
the laft word of the infeription, O3"0% benedicat 
iis, feems evidently to prove. ’Tis worthy obfer- 
vation, that M. l’Abbe reprefents Count Caylus's 
copy of the infeription as much fuperior in point 
of accuracy to Father Gori’s ; and yet, in determin- 
ing, or rather attempting to determine, the form 
of the laft letter of ray, he apparently prefers 
the latter to the former. For he adduces Father 
Gori’s copy in fupport, or rather confirmation, of 
the other. But fuch conduct as this, in M. 1’ Abbes 
fituation, is to me no great matter of furprize. It 
is plainly intended to ferve a favourite hypothefis, 
which cannot be eafily maintained. 
(6) Memoir, de Litter. &c. ubi fup. p, 410. 
(7) See above, p. 126,127. 
E e e 2 
With 
