[ 412 ] 
fubmit to the conftderation of the Royal Society 
the following fhort ftridtures upon it, referving to 
myfelf the liberty of being more explicit and parti- 
cular on this head in my future diflertation. 
1. With regard to the fecond Citiean infcription, 
the third letter of the firft word is not Mem, but 
Capb i as moft: evidently appears from the autograph 
itfelf, now in the pofteffion of the Univerftty of 
Oxford. Farther, that DJtf. ought to be rendered 
dormiam, dorm i o, or jaceo, as M. l’Abbe af- 
ferts, had that been the firft: word of the infcription, 
as mod; certainly it is not, we fhall fcarce be. able 
to learn from any lexicographer. 
2. The fixth word of the firft: line is Hhur , Chur , 
or Hur, not Chad , as M. l’Abbe feems to imagine ; 
the laft letter of that word being manifeftly Rejch , 
and fufficiently diftinguifhed by its length from 
Daleth y which occurs twice in the beginning of this 
line. 
3. The term cannot bear a relation to any 
particular city, town, or country, as our learned an- 
tiquary is pleafed to fuppofe j becaufe this would 
imply, that the fepulchral infcription had only a fingle 
perfon for its objed. But this notion is intirely over- 
thrown by the word in the fecond line, and 
7VJ, in the third ; both of which are evidently plu- 
rals in conftru&ion, and confequently cannot refer 
to lefs than two particular perfons. Befides, as the 
moft antient infcriptions were probably the fhorteft: 
and moft: limple, the age of the monument itlelf 
feems to announce a duality of perfons at leaft to have 
been pointed at by the infcription. 
I can 
