HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 2064 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
2064 The violence of {eyther,} <other> griefe, or ioy,3.2.196
1765 john1/john2
john1
2064-5 Johnson (ed. 1765): “What grief or joy enact or determine in their violence, is revoked in their abatement.”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john1
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
1790 mal
mal = v1785
1793 v1793
v1793 =v1785
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
1819 cald1
cald1
2064 eyther] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Either, and other, the reading of the folios, were the same words; and we conceive it to be the accuracy of modern times that discovers the difference between enactors and enactures; it would have been discernible by a reader of Shakespeare’s day.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
1832 cald2
cald2 = cald1
1843 col1
col1
2064 eyther] Collier (ed. 1843): “the folio . . . : other, for ‘either’ . . .must be wrong.”
1854 del2
del2
2064 Delius (ed. 1854): “Plurale dieses Verses rühren daher, dass unter violence eigentlich zwei verschiedene violences, of grief und of joy verstanden werden.” [The plurals in this line come from the fact that by violence two different violences\ are understood, of grief and of joy.]
1869 tsch
tsch: Rob. of Gl., Theodric analogues
2064-5 The violence . . . their own] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Sind verschiedene Subjekte in der Einzahl durch or oder nor mit oder ihre Correlate either und neither, verbunden, so ist eine zwiefache Auffassung möglich. Es können nämlich die einzelnen Subjecte, auch wenn ihnen ein gemeinsames Prädicat nur abwechselnd, oder nur dem Einen mit ausschluss des Andern zukommt, als eine Anzahl von Individuen mit gleichem Prädicate z u s a m m e n g e f a s s t werden, oder es wird die a u s s c h l i e s s e n d e Natur derselbe ins Auge gefasst. Das Letzere, wodurch der S i n g u l a r des Zeitworts bedingt wird, ist allerdings der gewöhnlichere Fall; doch ist auch die Zusammenfassung durch den Plural namentl. bei Dichtern anzutreffen. Der Gebrauch reicht bis ins Ae. Cf. Rob. of Gl. II. 414. Vor wanne eny byssop oper abbod deyde in Engeland Her londes und her rentes pe kyng in his honde. Aus neuster Zeit Th. Campbell, Theodric: For there nor yew nor cypress spread t h e i r gloom. In unserer Stelle liegt dabei eine rein mentale Zerlegung des doppelten Genitivverhältnisses vor; der Redende stellt sich vor, als ob gesagt würde: the violence of grief or the violence of joy, was dann wieder für violent grief or violent joy steht, so dass nach obigem der Gebrauch von their sich rechtfertigt. M. II. 151.” [If different singular subjects are connected by or or nor or their correlates either and neither, two interpretations are possible. That is, the individual subjects can, even when a common predicate belongs to them either alternately or to one but not the other, be collected as a number of individual subjects with the same predicate, or their exclusive nature is shown. The last, by which the singular of the verb is required, is of course the more common case, though collecting them through the plural is found, particularly with poets. This usage goes back into Old English. Cf. Rob. of Gl. II. 414. Vor wanne eny byssop oper abbod deyde in Engeland Her londes und her rentes pe kyng in his honde. In the present time, Th. Campbell, Theodric: For there nor yew nor cypress spread t h e i r gloom. In our place appears a purely mental separation of the double Genitive relationship. The speaker acts as though what would be said is: the violence of grief or the violence of joy, which then again stands for violent grief or violent joy, so that the usage described above justifies the use of their. M. II. 151.]
1872 cln1
cln1: xref., del2
2064-5 Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Another instance of the verb agreeing in number with the nearer substantive ‘enactures.’ Compare [1.2.38 (217)]. This is more natural than to suppose with Delius that ‘violence’ referring both to grief and joy is a kind of plural.”
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ del2, cln1
2064-5 Furness (ed. 1877): “Delius: The plural is to be explained by supposing that in ‘violence’ there are two ‘violences’ understood; ‘of grief’ and ‘of joy.’ Clarendon: A more natural explanation is that the verb is attracted by the nearer substantive ‘enactures.’ Compare [1.2.38 (217)].”
1891 dtn
dtn: xref; Abbott
2064-5 Deighton (ed. 19891: “the violence of either grief or joy destroys those passions, and at the same time puts an end to the execution of their purpose; for the confusion of proximity due to the intervening enactures, cp. Above [1.2.37, 38 (216, 217)], and see Abb. §412.”
1939 kit2
kit2
2064-5 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “When either grief or joy is violent, it exhausts itself by its own force, and thus the resolutions formed under its impulse come to naught.”
1974 evns1
evns1
2064-65 The violence . . . destroy] Evans (ed. 1974): “i.e. both violent grief and violent joy fail of their intended acts because they destroy themselves by their very violence.”
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ cln1 without attribution + magenta underlined
2064-5 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The very extremity of (either) passion inhibits its translation into action. With the plural verb, cf. [1.2.38 (217)]. enactures (OED’s only instance), enactments, i.e. fulfilment in deeds.”
1984 chal
chal
2064-65 Wilkes (ed. 1984): “i.e. the violence of grief and joy does not survive translation into action.”
1993 dent
dent
2064-65 Andrews (ed. 1993): “Because of the violent passions (irrational impulses) they entail, both Grief and Joy sow the seeds of destruction for any ‘Enactures’ (avowed purposes) they prompt in the very moment when such vows are sworn; because as soon as the passion that gave rise to the vow subsides, the vow subsides with it.”
1997 evns2
evns2 = evns1
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: ≈ dtn; RJ //
2064-5 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. violent grief and joy destroy themselves in the very act of manifesting or fulfilling themselves. See RJ 2.6.9: ’These violent delights have violent ends.’”
2064