alarm'd the whole World, and then led it to gather Cockle-shells. In short, the question is not what the Author might have said, but what he has actually said; it is not whether a different Word will agree with the sense, and turn of the Period, but whether it was used by the Author; If it was, it has a good Title still to maintain its post, and the authority of the Manuscript ought to be follow'd rather than the fancy of the Editor: for can a Modern be a better Judge of the Language of the purest of the Antients, than those Antients who wrote it in the greatest purity? or if he could, was ever any Author so happy, as always to choose the most proper Word? Experience shews the impossibility. Besides, of what use is verbal Criticism when once we have a faithful Edition? It embarrasses the Reader instead of giving new light, and hinders his Proficiency by engrossing his time, and calling off the attention from the Author to the Editor: it encreases the expence of Books, and makes us pay an high price for Trifles, and often for Absurdities. I will only add,with
