name. 'Panthion' occurs in F1,
among 'the names of all the actors,' and in a stage direction at the
beginning of Act II Sc. 2, but never in the text. 'Panthino' is found
twice in the text, and once in a stage direction at the beginning of Act
I. Sc. 3. The blunder 'Panthmo,' I. 3. 76, which is the reading of F1,
shows that the original MS. had 'Panthino,' not 'Panthion.'

NOTE II.

I. 1. 28 sqq. Mr Sidney Walker (_Criticisms on Shakespeare_, III. p. 9)
says we ought 'perhaps' to read

'No,
I will not, for it boots not.'

Doubtless he meant also to re-arrange the following lines, and so get
rid of the Alexandrine at 30; thus:

'_Val._ No,
I will not, for it boots not.

_Pro._ What?

_Val._ To be
In love, where scorn is bought with groans; coy looks
With heart-sore sighs; one fading moment's mirth,' &c.

NOTE III.

I. 2. 53. _What a fool is she._ The first Folio reads 'What 'foole is
she,' doubtless to indicate an ellipsis of the indefinite article,
which, for the sake of the metre, was to be slurred over in
pronunciation. As we have not followed the Folio in reading _th'_ or
_th_ for _the_ before a consonant, so we have thought it best to insert
here the omitted letter _a_, especially as the use of the apostrophe is
by modern custom much more restricted than it was in the Folio. For
example, we find _'Save for God save_ (_Tempest_, II. 1. 162), and _at
'nostrils for at's nostrils_ or _at the nostrils_ (_Id._ II. 2. 60).

NOTE IV.

II. 1. 68, 69. This passage is corrupt. The usual explanation, which
satisfies Delius, is inadmissible, because Valentine would certainly not
appear, like the Knight of La Mancha, without his hose. A rhyming
couplet was probably what the author intended. Many conjectures might be
made, as for example:

'For he, being in love, could not see to garter his hose;
And you, being in love, cannot see to beyond your nose.'

Or, 'to put spectacles on your nose.' Or possibly, 'to put on your
shoes,' the point of which remark Valentine's disordered dress might
make clear to the audience. Rosalind, when enumerating the marks of a
man in love, mentions the untied shoe as well as the ungartered hose,
_As You Like It_, Act III. Sc. 2. The same misprint, 'hose' for 'shoes,'
occurs in the first edition of Greene's _Groatsworth of Wit_. See Mr
Dyce's preface to his edition of Greene's _Dramatic Works_, p. xxviii.

NOT