[ 4i3 ] 
4 . I can at prefent fee no reafon why M. 1 Abbe 
fhould fuppofe this infeription to run in the firft per- 
fon, rather than the third. Perhaps he will th ^ 
the Maltefe infeription, as by him explained, affords 
us a remarkable inftance of fuch an uncommon mode, 
of expreflion. But this, I humbly, conceive, is no 
reafon at all; becaufe in one particular infeription 
fome peculiarities may appear, as is often the cate, 
that in others do not occur. Befides, the p oft u ate 
he begs, or rather affumes, will, I am perfuaded, 
not be fo readily granted him by the learned. 
r M. l’Abbe has added a fiditious Schin to the 
beginning of the fecond line, not the famteft traces, 
of which are difcernible- on the ftone. Nay, that 
Schin could never have been there, is. felf-evident, at 
firft fight, from the very face of the mlcriptiom 
6. The word obltt, pax, formed, according to 
M. l’Abbe, of the fiiditious Schin and the. two hilt 
letters of the fecond line, was molt certainly never 
a part of this infeription. 
7 He fuppofes an hiatus in the fecond line, and 
another in the third ; whereas not a Angle letter is 
wanting in the infeription, nor any of the words lo 
effaced as to be rendered illegible, by the injuries of 
8. For the words mfi> DU, 
«n. 3C&. which clearly prefent themfelves 
to our view in the infeription, he has taken th 
berty to infert mm WN% 
Z±?V, without the leaft ftaadow of a reaioi 
for fud/ Jr arbitrary infertion; feveral of his le ters 
being purely imaginary, and not the famteft. tra 
them having ever exifted on the ftone. T ^ c 
