One thing remains to be said in reference to our text. It is well known, that in James the First's reign, a statute was passed for exscinding profane expressions from plays. In obedience to this many passages in the Folios have been altered with an over-scrupulous care. When we have seen the metre, or, as is sometimes the case, even the sense marred by these changes, and the original contains no offensive profanity, we have recalled Shakespeare's words. Our object in the foot-notes has been (1) to state the authority upon which a received reading rests, (2) to give all different readings adopted into the text by other editors, and (3) to give all emendations suggested by commentators. When no authority is mentioned for the reading of the text, it must be understood that all the Folios agree in it, as well as all editors previous to the one mentioned, as authority for an alteration. Thus, in the _Comedy of Errors_, III. 1. 71, '_cake here_] _cake_ Capell' indicates that 'cake here' is the reading of the four Folios, of Rowe, Pope, Theobald Hanmer, Warburton, and Johnson. Mere differences of spelling are not noticed, except (1) in corrupt or disputed passages, where the 'ductus literarum' is important as a help towards the determination of the true text, and (2) when the variation is interesting etymologically or characteristic of a particular edition. In the same way, differences of punctuation are recorded only when they make a difference in the sense, or when they may serve as a guide to the restoration of some corrupt, or the explanation of some difficult, passage. Misprints also are passed over as a general rule. We have noticed them occasionally, when they appeared to be remarkable as indicating the amount of error of which the old printers were capable. We have endeavoured faithfully to record any variation of reading, however minute (except, as before said, mere differences of spelling or punctuation), adopted by any editor, and to give that editor's name. Sometimes, however, we have passed over in silence merely arbitrary rearrangements of the metre made in passages where no change was required and no improvement effected. In recording conjectures, we have excepted only (1) those which were so near some other reading previously adopted or suggested, as to be undeserving of separate record, and (2) a few (of Becket, Jackson, and others) which were palpably erroneous. Even of these we have given a sufficient number to serve as samples. We will now proceed to explain the notation employed in the foot-notes, which, in some cases, the necessity of compressing may have rendered obscure. The four Folios are designated respectively by the letters F1, F2, F3, and F4, and the quarto editions of separate plays, in each case, by the letters Q1, Q2, Q3, &c.