HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 2052 - 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.
2052 A second time I kill my husband dead,3.2.184
1857 fieb
fieb
2052-3 Fiebig (ed. 1857): “I.e. I should compare a second marriage to a second-death of my first husband, caused by myself.”
1869 tsch
tsch
2052 kill. . . dead] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “to kill dead ist ursprünglich kein Pleonasmus weil ags.cveljan, wie an. kvelja, ahd. queljan = cruciare martern, quälen ist. Der bildliche Sinn erfordert die Beifügung des Adj.” [to kill dead is originally no pleonasm because Anglo-Saxon cveljan like Old Norse kvelja and Old High German queljan are equivalent to cruciare meaning to torture or torment. The pictorial sense requires the addition of the adjective.]
1872 cln1
cln1: Tit. //
2052 kill . . . dead] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “A reduplication which occurs again in Tit. [3.1.92 (1233)] ‘He that wounded her Hath hurt me more than had he kill’d me dead.’”
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ elze1, tsch
2052 kill . . . dead] Furness (ed. 1877): “Elze: This tautology occurs not infrequently. See Tit. 3.1.92 [1233]. Tschischwitz: Originally the phrase was not tautological, because the Anglo-Saxon cveljan meant to torture. Its figurative meaning required the addition of the adjective.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1: elze1 + mnd //
2052 kill . . . dead] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Elze compares Tit. [3.1.92 (1233)]: ‘he kill’d me dead’. He might have added MND [3.2.269 (1301)]: ‘kill her dead?’”
1882 elze2
elze2stau; xref.
2052 I . . . dead] Elze (ed. 1882): “I kill my Lord that’s dead—an excellent reading, which Stuanton has inserted in his text. As the text now stands, the repeated husband looks very much like a dittography. Compare [3.2.214 (2082)]: ‘So thinke thou wilt no second husband wed, But die thy thoughts, when thy first Lord is dead.’”
1899 ard1
ard1 ≈ cln1 minus Tit. //
2052 kill . . . dead] Dowden (ed. 1899): “kill my husband, he being dead (though examples of the tautology ‘kill dead,’ meaning ‘kill,’ occur in Shakespeare). The reading of Q1 ‘lord that’s dead’ gives the sense.”
1891 dtn
dtn: standard
2052-3 Deighton (ed. 1891): “i.e. I will never allow a second husband to kiss me, never wed a second husband.
dtn
2052 kill . . . dead] Deighton (ed. 1891): “a not uncommon redundancy, expressive of thoroughness.”
1903 rlf3
rlf3=rlf1
1909 subb
subb contra unnamed editors (e,g,, ard1)
2052-3 Subbarau (ed. 1909): “Commentators generally take this as an instance of tautology for ‘kill’ and they cite Tit. [3.1.92 (1233)]: ‘He that wounded her Hath hurt me more than had he killed me dead.’ But the Queen certainly means nothing more than that she should look upon her second marriage as an act no less heinous than killing her dead husband over again: her words of course may sting Claudius in the light of the other meaning.”
1939 kit2
kit2
2052 I kill . . . dead] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “I kill my dead husband a second time, as it were, by this act of unfaithfulness.”
1980 pen2
pen2
2052 Spencer (ed. 1980): “I give offence to the memory of my first husband and trouble his spirit.”
1982 ard2
ard2: contra ard1, contra kit
2052 kill . . . dead] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “the tautology is idiomatic. Cf. Tit. [3.1.92 (1233)] (‘had he kill’d me dead’), and see OED kill v. 2 c. Hence it is unnecessary to explain, with Dowden and Kittredge, that the second killing is of a husband already dead.”
This note comment is neither attributed nor bracketed (the typical signal that the comment is original with the editor).
1987 oxf4
oxf4: OED; mnd //
2052 I kill . . . dead] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “‘To kill someone dead’ was, and remains, and English idiom (OED kill v. 2C), comparable to the German totschlagen. Compare MND [3.2.269 (1301)], ‘What, should I hurt her, strike her, kill her dead?’”
2052