[ 437 ] 
Oxford infcription, when he makes it to refer to I 
know not what obfcure town called Tfabeth, the 
fainteft traces of which are not to be met with in « 
any antient writer? A notion this void of the lead:', 
appearance of authority, . and deftitute of the very • 
fhadow of a reafon for its fupport ! 
The twenty-third Citiean infcription is alfo re- - 
markable for the exhibition of a very antient form j 
of Kcphy and of a pretty unufual one of Dzade, re- 
fembling the character that reprefented the fame ele- - 
ment amongft the Palmyrenes. This likewife fome- 
times appears upon the Phoenician (96) coins. The 
figure of Vau here feems by fome accident to have been 
deformed, before the autograph was deffroyed. It 
neverthelefs bears a fort of rude refemblance to the 
fEolic Digamma , which (97) owed its origin to this 
letter. As it has deviated, however, confiderably from 
the primitive character, cut at firfl in the done j I have 
not afligned it a place in the Phoenician alphabet, de- 
duced from the infcriptions found amongft the ruins 
of Citium, and now attending thefe remarks. 
Thus have I finilhed my remarks upon M. l’Abbe 
Barthelemy’s reflections on certain Phoenician mo- 
numents, and the alphabets refulting from them ; and 
endeavoured to redtify fome miftakes, that occur in 
this celebrated performance. How far I have fuc- 
ceeded in my defign the learned world, with candour 
and impartiality, will decide. I have alfo attempted 
to explain four of the Citiean infcriptions, in the 
courfe of thefe: remarks j and hope the explications 
(96) Joan. Baptift. Biancoft, De Antiq. Hebraor . (A Gracor . 
Lit. p. 32. Bononias, 1748. 
(97) Chifh. ubi fup. 
given, 
