2031 thirlby (1747-53): “This verse is not in P. It interrupts the rhymes.”

2035+1 Johnson (ed. 1765): “Here seems to be a line lost, which should have rhymed to love.”

2035+1 Jennens (ed. 1773): “Here a line seems wanting, either before or after this, which should rhyme to love.”

2035+1 love] Steevens (ed. 1778): “This line is omitted in the folios. Perhaps a triplet was designed, and then instead of love, we should read, lust. The folio gives the next line thus: ‘For women’s fear and love holds quantity.’ STEEVENS. ”

2035+1 love] Malone (ed. 1785): “There is, I believe, no instance of a triplet being used in our author’s time. Some trace of the lost line is found in the quartos, which read: ‘Either none in neither aught, &c.’ Perhaps the words omitted might have been of this import: ‘Either none they feel, or an excess approve; In neither aught, or in extremity.”

2035+1 euen . . . loue] Wesley (ms. notes in v1785): “(S. reads ‘even as they lust’) This, Mr. Steevens, is not a genteel supposition.”

2035+1 Boswell (ed. 1821): “Mr. Malone, in his Appendix to Mr. Steevens’s Shakspeare, 1778, had hastily observed, in the foregoing note, “There is, I believe, no instance of a triplet being used in our author’s time;” but having discovered his mistake, expunged the remark in his own edition. Mr. Steevens, most disingenuously, restored it to its former place, in order that he might triumphantly refute, in the note below, an acknowledged error; and Mr. Gifford, misled by this interpolation, has animadverted upon Mr. Malone. BOSWELL.”

2035+1 SINGER (ed. 1821): “This line is omitted in the folio. There appears to have been a line omitted in the quarto which should have rhymed to this.”

2035+1 Singer (ed. 1856): “The couplet at the close of this speech is not in the folio.”

2036 Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Here seems to have been a line lost, which should have rhymed with love. Malone supposes it to have been of this import: ‘Either none, they feel or an excess approve’; some trace of it is found in the quartos, which read: ‘Either none in neither aught.’ Steevens guesses, there might perhaps a triplet have been designed, and then instead of love, we should read lust.—In the folio, this line is omitted and the next line given thus: ‘For women’s fear and love holds quantity.’ There are many irregularities of that kind in the text. See for ex. p. 7, where we must suppose a line to have been lost after ‘Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets. See also p. 84, [2.2.474 (1515)], where in the quarto half a line, viz. the words ‘then senseless Ilium,’ have been inadvertently omitted by the compositor. Again, p.98, [3.1.83 (1737)] where the words ‘of us all’ wanting in the quarto, are restored from the folio.”

2035+1 Clark and Wright (ed. 1866): “[3.2.156, 157 (2025, 2026)]. Jennens prints in brackets the line of the Quartos which we have omitted, and conjectures, as Johnson had done before him, that a line is lost either before or after it, which should rhyme to ‘love.’ As in the Quartos the line ‘For women feare too much, even as they love,’ occurs at the top of a page, the omission is more likely to have been caused by a line having dropped out at the foot of the previous page. Mr Keightley marks the omission of a line after ‘love.’ Malone supposes that the ‘Either none’ of the Quartos in line 158 was the commencement of the lost line, which he suggests may have run as follows: ‘Either none they feel, or an excess approve.’ Steevens proposes to retain the omitted line, reading ‘lust’ for ‘love,’ making a triplet rhyme with the preceding lines.

“The Quarto probably gives us the author’s first thought, incomplete, as well as the lines which he finally adopted, as they stand in the Folio. The thought will hardly bear to be expanded over four lines.”

2035+1 Keightley (1867, p. 293): “A line riming with this is lost.”

2035+1 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Der nur in Q2 f. vorhandene Vers: "For women fear too much even as they love," wird leider von den Herausgebern ausgelassen, weil er sich in der F1 nicht findet. Elze vermuthet jedenfalls mit Recht, dass die Editoren ihn deshalb aufgaben, weil es ihnen nicht möglich war, den in Q2 ausgefallenen Vers mit dem Reimworte auf love wieder aufzufinden, oder nicht wagten, ihn auf eigene Verantwortung herzustellen. Indessen giebt die Q2 die Ergänzung selbst an die Hand. Der Vers 178 fängt nämlich dort an: Either none und fährt dann erst fort: in neither aught, etc. was natürlich keinen Sinn giebt. Es ist fast mit Gewissheit anzunehmen, dass Either none der Anfang des Verses sei, der auf die Zeile: For women fear too much etc. folgen sollte. Der Setzer der Q2 ist aus Versehn -- wahrscheinlich durch either und neither und die ähnlichen Anfänge: f o r w o m e n f e a r und A n d w o m e n ’ s f e a r verleitet -- in den andern Vers hineingerathen. Ist Either none nun wirklich der Anfang jenes zu For women fear etc. reimenden Verses, so ist mit either naturgemäss auch das er im zweiten Satzgliede gegeben, in welchem ausserdem noch als Reimwort kein anderes als "above" zu vermuthen sein kann. Die ganze Rede bewegt sich in Gegensätzen; also wird zu dem none der Gegensatz nur in all zu suchen sein. Wir erhalten somit: Either nóne . . . or . . . áll above. Die Ergänzung ergiebt sich so leicht, dass ich kein Bedenken trug, um den ersten Vers zu retten, sie in den Text aufzunehmen. Die Contraction von either kann neben ähnlich gebrauchten whether undwhither nicht auffallen. Die Nachstellung der Präpos. above ist namentlich anch all der englischen Sprache sehr geläufig und findet sich schon in den alten Perioden. So Alisander 512. He schal bee kyng al above. Auch in Townl. Myst. p. 22 heisst es: When I made him to be Alle angels abuf. Cf. M. III. p. 489. -- Es ist natürlich, dass unser Text v. 177 mit Q2 fortfahren muss: A n d women’s fear nicht For wie die F1 ändern musste.” [The line which appears only in Q2 f.: For women fear too much even as they love, has unfortunately been left out by the editors because it is not found in F1. Elze, however, suspects with reason that the editors took it out because it was not possible for them to discover a rhyming word for love in the omitted Q2 line, or because they did not dare to take responsibility for restoring it. Meanwhile Q2 itself provides the completion. For line 178 begins there with Either none and then continues in either aught etc. which naturally makes no sense. It can be assumed almost with certainty that Either none is the beginning of the verse that should follow the line For women fear too much etc. The print setter of Q2 got into the other verse by mistake - probably misled by either and neither and the similar beginnings for women fear and And women’s fear. If Either is now indeed the beginning of that For women fear etc. rhyming line, then we also have with either naturally an or in the second part of the sentence, in which moreover there can be no other rhyming word than above. The whole speech moves in opposites; thus the opposite to none must be sought in all. We get with this: Either nóne . . . or . . . áll above. The restoration is so easy that I have not hesitated to take it into the text in order to save the first verse. The contraction of either cannot be remarkable next to similar treatment of whether and whither. Putting a preposition after a noun is of course very common in the English language. Thus in Alisander 512 He schal bee kyng al above. Also in Townl. Myst. p. 22 it reads: When I made him to be Alle angels abuf. Cf. M. III. p. 489. -- It is natural that our text, line 177, must continue with Q2 And women’s fear, not For as F1 had to change it.]

2035+1 Furness (ed. 1877): “Johnson: [After the line in the Qq] a line seems to have been lost, which should have rhymed with ‘love.’ Steevens: Perhaps a triplet was designed, and then instead of ‘love’ we should read lust. Malone: Perhaps the words omitted might have been of this import, ‘Either none they feel, or an excess approve. Knight: There can be no doubt that the line from the Qq should be struck out, it being superseded by line 157. Cambridge Editors: As the line in the Qq occurs at the top of the page, the omission [conjectured by Johnson, Jennens, and others] is more likely to have been caused by a line having dropped out at the foot of the previous page. The Quarto probably gives us the author’s first thought, incomplete, as well as the lines he finally adopted, as they stand in the Folio. The thought will hardly bear to be expanded over four lines. Tschischwitz retains the line from the Qq, and in order to do so ‘without hesitation’ supplies the missing phrase thus: ‘Either none at all or one man all above; And women’s fear,’ &c.”

2035+1 Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “After 2035 Qq have a line not in Ff. ‘For women fear too much , even as they love:’ And the next line begins with And. Many editors conjecture that a line has dropped out either before or after this line, which is without a rhyme, and thus obviously imperfect. The Cambridge editors suggest (what indeed had been my instinctive impression before turning to their note) that the Qq. give us Shakespeare’s first thought, incomplete, as well as the lines which he finally adopted as they stand in the Ff.”

2035+1 Dowden (ed. 1899): “Perhaps a line, rhyming with that given in Q, has been lost; perhaps the Q line had been cancelled and was printed by mistake.”

2035+1 Wilson (ed. 1934): “F 1 and many edd. Omit. MSH. p. 27. There is no rhyme to ‘love.’”

2035+1 loue] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(love too much).”

2035+1 Wilkes (ed. 1984): “For F Q And hold quantity are equivalent; [3.2.167 (2036)] in Q is preceded by the line For women fear too much, even as they love which does not fit into the rhyme pattern. Editors take it as a first version of the idea expressed in [3.2.167 (2036)], which has survived by mistake in the printed text: in F it does not appear.”

2035+1 Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “perhaps the completing line was dropped in the printing house, or perhaps the couplet was incompletely crossed out by Shakespeare.”

2035+1 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “This line (not in F1) stands out in Q2 as an uncompleted couplet. It may be a ’false start’ by Shakespeare, or it may be that its companion line has been omitted.”