HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 377 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
377 I shall not looke vppon his like againe.1.2.188
1765 john1
john1
377 I shall] Holt (apud ed. 1765, Appendix 8:L12): “‘“Eye shall not look upon his like again.This seems to me more the true spirit of Shakespeare than I.’ Mr. Holt.
“The emendation of Sir T. Samwel.”
1765 john2
john2 = john1
377 I shall]
1768 john3
john3 = john2
377 I shall]
Ed. note: Neither john2 nor john3 incorporated the appendix note into the body of the text.
1773 v1773
v1773 ≈ john3
377 I shall] Johnson & Steevens (ed. 1773): “from Sir—Samuel’s emendation.”
Ed. note: john’s appendix was probably by Steevens.
1775- mtol3
Tollet S.a. 12: Stowe; Sandys
377 I shall] Tollet (ms. notes, 1775-): “Eye shall not look upon his like again So in Stowe’s Chronicle p. 746, ‘In the greatest pompe that ever eye behelde.’ So in Sandy’s Travels p. 150 ‘We past [sic] this day through the most pregnant and pleasant valley that ever eye beheld.’ ”
FOLGER has 2 ms. notebooks bound into one S.a. 12, possibly by Tollet. A section at the back is a response to Steevens’s work. There is a note on a page headed “Vol. 10,” that says “P.59 plate—with Mr Tollet’s remarks.” Would Tollet refer to himself as Mr. Tollet? This appears to be in the same handwriting as the rest. In any case, this notebook has a source for the use of “Eye”: P. 105
Can I find out the date of this? Is it before 1778 when Steevens 1st adds this info? The card catalogue dates it by external evidence as 1775 and refers to it as a response to the 1773 text which was given to him for comments. So Steevens could have taken these analogues from Tollet w/o crediting him.: two analogues that Ste adds in v1778?
1778 v1778
v1778 = john3; ≈ Tollet without attribution
377 I shall] Steevens (ed. 1778): “So, in Stowe’s Chronicle, p. 746, ‘In the greatest pompe that ever eye behelde.’ Again, in Sandys’s Travels, p. 150: ‘We went this day through the most pregnant and pleasant valley that ever eye beheld.’ ”
Ed. note: Only very slightly different from Tollet ms. notes.
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778 except Holt note erroneously attributed to Sandy’s
377 I shall]
1787 ann
ann = v1785 +
377 I shall] Henley (Bell 6:24): “So St. Paul: ‘Eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard,’ &c. * * *”
1790 mal
mal = v1785 except Holt note erroneously attributed to Stamwell
377 I shall]
1790 ays2
ays2
377 I shall] Ayscough (ed. 1790): “Eye is certainly more worthy of Shakespeare.”
Ed. note: He retains I in the text.
1791- rann
rann standard
377 I shall] Rann (ed. 1791-): “Eye shall not look.”
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal except changes spelling of Samwell or Stamwell to Samuel
377 I shall]
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793 except spelling “Sir Thomas Samwell” +
377 I shall] Steevens (ed. 1803: “Again, in Sidney’s Arcadia, Lib. III. p.203, edit. 1633: ‘—as cruell a fight as eye did ever see.’ ” When I look this up and get a modern ed. I can modernize the citation, too.
1807 Pye
Pye: Steevens on Holt +
377 I shall] Pye (1807, p. 310): “I cannot agree with Mr. Holt in preferring the baronet’s emendation. To write naturally is the general characteristic of Shakespear, and if he is occasionally induced to write otherwise, do not let us mutilate the text to multiply the examples.”
Ed. note: Though no one had used Eye for I, Pye seems to be the 1st to bother to refute Samwell. Since Pye spells "Samwell," he appears to get the info from v1803.
1807 Douce
Douce: Holt
377 I shall] Douce (1807, 2:204): “In further support of the proposed elegant emendation, ‘Eye shall not look, &c.’ this passage in 1 Corinth. ch. ii. v.9, may be adduced, —‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, the things which he hath prepared for them that love him.’ An objection of some weight may however be made to this change; which is, that in recitation some ambiguity might arise, or at least the force of it would not be perceived; whereas the other reading could not be mistaken.”
1808 Weston
Weston: Holt; Whalley without attribution
377 I shall] Weston (1808, p. 18): “There is no occasion for Mr. Holt’s reading of Eye for I. Hyllus says to Deianira, having killed the best man in the world, thou ne’er shalt see his like again, or such another—opoion allon xx ocei pote [Grk: Hardin help with accents and spelling ] Sophocles Trachiniæ v.812.” In The Women of Trachis, the line reads: “the best of all men | on earth, such as you shall never see again.” v. 812 is correct; 821 in TLN 376, Whalley and Dodd, is wrong.
The Loeb 1994: “killing the noblest man of earth, one such as you shall never see again!”
Random House, trans. R. C. Jebb: “slaying the noblest man in all the world, whose like thou shalt see nevermore.”
Check Weston to make sure where the quotation marks should go.
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
377 I shall]
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
377 I shall]
-1845 mHunter
mHunter: contra Samwell [unnamed]; contra ays2
377 I] Hunter (-1845, fol. 223r): “It is so in the old copy [Q1?] also.—Some commentator has suggested ‘Eye’ and Ayscough says that reading is ‘certainly more worthy of Shakspear: I do not think it however to be so much in Shakspeare’s manner. I do not notice an instance of his using Eye in that way:—and the present reading is natural and good. “Aye” is ever printed I in the old press. See n. 54
Ed. note: Not in Ayscough’s 1784 ed. ays3 repeats the ays2 note.
1872 cln1
cln1
377 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “A lax construction for ‘upon whose like I shall not look again.’”
1877 v1877
v1877: Steevens (Holt-Samwell); Douce
377 I shall]
Ed. note: Furness cites Steevens rather than john, who 1st cited Holt/Samwell.
377