The play here edited is one of the most neglected in the canon. There is no money in it, since it is never read in schools and very rarely in universities; and the commentators have therefore for the most part either given it the go-by or (if they were committed to ‘The Complete Works ’) merely scratched the surface. Dr Johnson is, as ever, the most enlightening; but he disliked the play and even his grip on the dialogue seems slack at times. Of modern critics I owe most to Mr A. E. Thistleton. He really lays his mind alongside his problems, sometimes with fruitful results, and though his determination to justify everything he finds in the F. text leads him into absurdities–he goes so far as to give a dramatic explanation of ‘legegs’ (2. 2. 66) which is palpably a misprint for ‘legges’–his conservatism is at least bracing. I have profited too from the editions of the play by Professor J. L. Lowes in the American Tudor Shakespeare and by Mr W. O. Brigstocke in the English Arden Shakespeare, while Professor Herford's pithy footnotes in The Eversley Shakespeare are always worth pondering. Yet, when all is said, I found a very great deal to do–to do, that is, merely by way of exegesis, quite apart from textual problems.