have been worth some Reply in Defence of the Science attacked.  But I may fairly say of this Author, as Falstaffe does of Poins;—­Hang him, Baboon! his Wit is as thick as Tewksbury_ Mustard; there is no more Conceit in him, than is in a MALLET._ If it be not Prophanation to set the Opinion of the divine Longinus against such a Scribler, he tells us expresly, “That to make a Judgment upon Words (and Writings) is the most consummate Fruit of much Experience.” +he gar ton logon krisis polles esti peiras teleutaion epigennema.+ Whenever Words are depraved, the Sense of course must be corrupted; and thence the Readers betray’d into a false Meaning.  Tho’ I should be convicted of Pedantry by some, I’ll venture to subjoin a few flagrant Instances, in which I have observed most Learned Men have suffer’d themselves to be deceived, and consequently led their Readers into Error:  and This for want of the Help of Literal Criticism:  in some, thro’ Indolence and Inadvertence:  in others, perhaps, thro’ an absolute Contempt of It.  If the Subject may seem to invite this Digression, I hope, the Use and Application will serve to excuse it.

    [Sidenote:  Platonius corrected.]

I. In that golden Fragment, which we have left of Platonius, upon the three Kinds of Greek Comedy, after he has told us, that when the State of Athens was alter’d from a Democracy to an Oligarchy, and that the Poets grew cautious whom they libell’d in their Comedies; when the People had no longer any Desire to choose the accustom’d Officers for furnishing Choric Singers, and defraying the Expence of them, Aristophanes brought on a Play in which there was no Chorus.  For, subjoins He, +ton gar CHOREUTON me cheirotonoumenon, kai ton CHOREGON ouk echonton tas trophas, hypexerethe tes Komodias ta chorika mele, kai ton hypotheseon ho tropos meteblethe+. "The Chorus-Singers_ being no longer chosen by Suffrage, and the Furnishers of the_ Chorus no longer having their Maintenance, the Choric_ Songs were taken out of Comedies, and the Nature of the Argument and Fable chang’d._” But there happen to be two signal Mistakes in this short Sentence.  For the Chorus-Singers were never elected by Suffrage at all, but hir’d by the proper Officer who was at the Expence of the Chorus:  and the Furnishers of the Chorus had never either Table, or Stipend, allowed them, towards their Charge.  To what Purpose then is this Sentence, which should be a Deduction from the Premises, and yet is none, brought in?  Or how comes the Reasoning to be founded upon what was not the Fact?  The Mistake manifestly arises from a careless Transposition made in the Text:  Let the two Greek Words, which I have distinguished by Capitals, only change Places, and we recover what Platonius meant to infer:  “That the [A]_Furnishers_ of Chorus’s being no longer elected by Suffrage, and the [B]_Chorus-Singers_ having no Provision made for them, Chorus’s were abolished, and the Subjects of Comedies alter’d.”