p. 387, l. 3 _and Silvio_. I have added this entrance of Silvio’s here, which is not marked in the former editions, but later Laura addresses him. p. 387, l. 4 _He’s gone_. 4to 1679 and 1724 give this speech as prose but I have arranged it metrically. p. 389, l. 25 _from Silvianetta_. 4to 1679 ‘from the Silvianetta’. p. 391, l. 17 _But e’er_. 1724 prints this speech as prose. I have followed 4to 1679. p. 392, l. 7 _and Sabina_. I have added Sabina’s exit. There exists in the former editions great confusion between Silvio and Sabina here. 4to 1679 and 1724 give Silvio’s three speeches to Galliard with prefix ‘Sab.’ p. 393, l. 1 _Scene II_. I have numbered the scene. 4to 1679 reads ‘Enter Laura, as before, in a Night-Gown. Scene, A Chamber.’ p. 393, l. 8 _Enter Silvio_. The confusion between Silvio and Sabina continues in the former editions. 4to 1679 and 1724 both give Silvio’s entrance but mark his speech ‘Sab.’ In Laura’s speech (line 14) both read ’.abina, see the Rooms’, which I have altered to ‘Silvio, see the Rooms’. Both read (line 18) ‘Enter to Sil....’. p. 394, l. 32 _and Silvio_. I have added Silvio’s entrance. The confusion continues. p. 399, l. 7 _Aside_. Omitted in 1724. 4to 1679 reads ‘and laughing.’ p. 400, l. 1 _Scene III_. I have numbered this scene. p. 400, l. 18 _Aside_. 4to omits. p. 401, l. 18 _Hold, much mistaken_. 4to 1679 and 1724 as prose. I have arranged metrically. p. 401, l. 24 _Aside_. 4to 1679 omits. p. 401, l. 36 _This is_. 4to 1679 and 1724 as prose. I have arranged metrically. p. 402, l. 10 _Ex. Jul. Fil_. 4to 1679 omits this. p. 402, l. 26 _Exeunt_. 4to 1679 gives no stage direction. 1724 reads ’.xit’, but obviously all go out. p. 403, l. 23 _Scene IV_. I have numbered this scene. p. 403, l. 3 _I a wandring_. 4to omits ‘a’. p. 406, l. 31 _And here I vow_. I have arranged this speech metrically. Former editions print as prose. NOTES: CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY. ABDELAZER. p. 6 _Montero-Caps_. Spanish _montero_ = a hunter. A Spanish hunting-cap with two flaps for the cars. Pepys, 20 March, 1660, sees ‘two monteeres for me to take my choice of’. p. 7 _Beasts_. 17th century French _beste_ = an obsolete card game said to have resembled Nap; also certain penalties at Ombre and Quadrille. The word most frequently occurs in connection with Ombre, which is derived from the Spanish _hombre_=man. The one who undertakes the game has to beat each of the other two; if he fails he is said to have been beasted and pays a forfeit to the pool. It has been suggested that ‘unable to sustain himself as a man, Hombre, he becomes beast.’ c.f. _The Feign’d Astrologer_, iii, I (4to 1668), where Lewis speaks of A kind of Lady-ordinary Where they were beasting it, for that game’s in Fashion still, though _Hombre_ be more courtly. Butler, _Hudibras_ (1678), iii, 1, l. 1007, has-- These at Beste and Ombre woo And play for love and money too.