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.