Note 68 — [? Addison.[68]
Reading edition
Nichols suggests that this paper may be by Addison, because in No. 131 Addison has the following note: "For the benefit of my readers, I think myself obliged here to let them know that I always make use of an old-fashioned e, which very little differs from an o. This has been the reason that my printer sometimes mistakes the one for the other; as in my last paper, I find, those for these, beheld for behold, Corvix for Cervix, and the like." The internal evidence supports this view; but the paper is not included in Addison's Works.