IV. 3. 285. Although it is not necessary to omit a syllable on account of the metre, as Mr Sidney Walker seems to have thought, we have adopted one of his conjectures for the reason mentioned in note (IX). A similar error, which has hitherto escaped notice, seems to occur in IV. 2. 83, where the word ‘Of,’ which in the original MS. was part of the stage direction ‘Holof.’, has crept into the text. If this hypothesis be true, it follows that the frequently recurring error of ‘_Nath._’ for ‘_Hol._’ is not due to the author himself, but to an unskilful corrector. NOTE XVIII. IV. 3. 295. Mr Dyce omits lines 295–300, _For when would you...true Promethean fire_; and lines 308–315, _For where is...forsworn our books_, which are repeated in substance, and, to some extent verbatim, in the latter part of the speech. There can be no doubt that two drafts of the speech have been blended together, and that the author meant to cancel a portion of it; but as there also can be no doubt that the whole came from his pen, we do not venture to correct the printer’s error. We would ‘lose no drop of the immortal man.’ The error is indeed a very instructive one. It goes to prove that the first Quarto was printed from the author’s original MS.; that the author had not made a ‘foul copy’ of his work; and that he had not an opportunity of revising the proof sheets as they passed through the press. For the same reason we have retained V. 2. 805–810. NOTE XIX. IV. 3. 341. We have here retained ‘make,’ because the inaccuracy is so natural, that it probably came from the pen of the author. It escaped correction in all the Quartos and Folios, as well as in Rowe’s and Pope’s editions. NOTE XX. V. 1. 24, 25. The reading which we have given in the text, and which had occurred to us before we discovered that Capell had hit upon nearly the same conjecture, comes nearer to the words and punctuation of the Quartos and Folios than Theobald’s, which, since his time, has been the received reading. Sir Nathaniel is not represented elsewhere as an ignoramus who would be likely to say ‘bone’ for ‘bene.’ Holofernes patronizingly calls him ‘Priscian,’ but, pedagogue-like, will not admit his perfect accuracy. ‘A little scratched’ is a phrase familiar to the schoolmaster, from his daily task of correcting his pupils’ ‘latines.’ Capell’s conjecture, given in his _Notes_, Vol. I. p. 44 of the Various Readings, is ‘Nath. _Laus Deo bone intelligo._ Hol. _Bone! bon, fort bon; Priscian._’ In his printed text he follows Theobald. Some corruption is still left in line 22: _insanie: ne intelligis_. Perhaps we should read _insano fare: intelligis..._ NOTE XXI. V. 1. 110. There is some corruption in this passage, which cannot with certainty be removed. In the subsequent scene five ‘worthies’ only are presented, viz. Hector by Armado, Pompey by Costard, Alexander by Nathaniel, Hercules by the Page, and Judas Maccabæus by Holofernes. NOTE XXII.