HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 1807 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 1018-2022 ed. Eric Rasmussen
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
1807 The Courtiers, souldiers, schollers, eye, tongue, sword,3.1.151
1773 v1773
v1773
1807 Warner (apud Steevens ed. 1773): “The poet certainly meant to have placed his words thus: ‘The courtier’s, scholar’s, soldier’s, eye, tongue, sword;’ otherwise the excellence of tongue is appropriated to the soldier, and the scholar wears the sword.”
1807 Farmer (in Steevens ed. 1773 10: Qq5v): “This regulation is needless. So, in Tarquin and Lucrece: ‘Princes are the glass, the school, the book, Where subjects eyes do learn, do read, do look.’ And in Quintilian: “Multum agit tescus, aetas, conditio; ut in faminis, tenibus, pupillis, liberos, parentes, conjuges, alligantibus.”
1773 jen
jen
1807 The...sword,] Jennens (ed. 1773): “H. transposes these words, and reads scholar’s, soldier’s, &c. in order to make them read more regularly with tongue and sword. But the fo’s point in such a manner as to differ from the above sense, thus, O what a noble mind is here o’erthrown, the courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s! Eye, tongue, sword, the expectation, &c.”
1790- Wesley
Wesley = Warner; Farmer
1807 The Courtiers, souldiers, schollers, eye, tongue, sword] Wesley (1790, pp.45-6): “(Warner says the poet meant to say ‘The courtier’s, scholar’s <p. 45> <p. 46> soldier’s eye, tongue, sword’. ) I will not affirm how the Poet meaned to have placed his words; but Warner has certainly placed them better than they stand in the text. The English couplet and Latin sentence quoted by Farmer, prove only that words may be misplaced.”
1805 seymour
seymour
1807-1810 The Courtiers...of all obseruers] Seymour (1805, p. 176): “The same reflection is uttered by Lady Percy, in application to Hotspur, in the Second Part of King Henry IV. ‘—By his light, Did all the chivalry of England move To do brave acts; he was indeed the glass Wherein the noble youth did dress themselves. And again, He was the mark and glass, copy and book, That fashion’d others.”
-1845 mhun1
mhun1
1807 The...sword] Hunter (-1845, f. 236v): “‘Soldiers’ & ‘Scholars’, or else ‘tongue’ and ‘sword’ have changed places. In fact it was the former, & the true order is presented to us in the old play, ‘The Courtier, Scholar, Soldier, all in him.’”
1845 hunter
hunter = mhun1
1807 The...sword.] Hunter (1845, p. 244): <p. 244>“It should rather be ‘The courtier’s, scholar’s, soldier’s eye, tongue, sword;’ and the newly discovered quarto might seem to authorize an editor to make the change: ‘the courtier, scholar, soldier, all in him.’”</p. 244>
1861 wh1
wh1
1807 White (ed. 1861): “‘The courtier’s, scholar’s, soldier’s, eye, tongue, sword’:-- The folio and the 4to. of 1604 have ‘The courtiers, soldiers, scholars, eye, tongue sword,’ thus destroying a correspondence between the two terms of the sentence, which I do not hesitate to restore, having the support of the 4to. of 1603, where the line is ‘The Courtier Schollar, Souldier all in him.’”
1872 cln1
cln1
1807 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): "The right order would be ’scholar’s, soldier’s,’ corresponding to ’tongue, sword,’ and this is found in the quarto of 1603. The other quartos and folios read as in the text, probably by oversight."
1899 ard1
ard1
1807 souldiers, schollers] Dowden (ed. 1899): “The order ‘scholar’s soldier’s’ corresponding to ‘tongue, sword’ may be more rhetorically, but not therefore dramatically, correct.
1807