Ethics discussion

I was reading the book and later on I found some quotes and ended up a bit confused with these two different translations.

One of them uses "passion" and the other "passive emotion" for the same term. I find a huge difference between them, they are at opposite ends to me (I should note that English is not my first language).

Here's an extract from Part IV, the only difference is that particular term.

[Translated by Samuel Shirley] (the one I was reading)
Corollary
Hence it follows that man is necessarily always subject to passive emotions, and that he follows the common order of Nature, and obeys it, and accommodates himself to it as far as the nature of things demands.
PROPOSITION 5
The force and increase of any passive emotion and its persistence in existing is defined not by the power whereby we ourselves endeavor to persist in existing, but by the power of external causes compared with our own power.


[Translator: Robert Harvey Monro Elwes]
Corollary.—Hence it follows, that man is necessarily always a prey to his passions, that he follows and obeys the general order of nature, and that he accommodates himself thereto, as much as the nature of things demands.
PROP. V. The power and increase of every passion, and its persistence in existing are not defined by the power, whereby we ourselves endeavour to persist in existing, but by the power of an external cause compared with our own.


The translator of the first one, Samuel Shirley, states the following about the term:
"The corresponding nouns, ‘actio’ and ‘passio,’ are difficult to render. I cannot reconcile myself to translating ‘passio’ as ‘passion,’ which is too violent a word and is grotesquely inappropriate to many of the ‘passiones’ of Parts III and IV. I translate it, with reservations, as ‘passive emotions,’ emotions whereby we are subject to that which is outside our control. The term ‘actiones’ I translate as ‘activity’ or ‘active emotions,’ according to context. However, it should be noted that Spinoza is not always consistent in his specialised use of ‘actiones,’ and sometimes employs it in the familiar neutral sense of ‘actions.’"


Under all my current confusion I think that probably both translations might be correct but in depends in which specific part of the text they are used. But I have no idea, I find a notorius difference between the two.

Anyone more familiar with Spinoza knows sth about this?

Regarding to your question, I just looked to the spanish translation that I use and it translate passio and actio for ''pasión/ acción''. The spanish translater used the same option that Robert Harbey Monro Elwes.

The one thing that you need to have always in mind is that, regardless of how does passio/actio were translated, this two concepts for Spinoza do not have a different origin. Both of them are external affecti to the body of an individual. The difference between them is how the subject that is affected by them does know them.

That is to say: if he can give an Causa adæquata of what does affect him, then he can act (agere). If he can not, then he is under a passion (pati).
[Ethics, pars III, Definitiones I,II,III]

Now talking about the translantion, I believe that translating passio por 'passive emotion' it can be misleadind, because it subjectify too much what is a physical occurrence in its origin, and I don't see why the translation of passio for passion is ''too violent (...) and (...) grotesquely inappropriate to many of the ‘passiones’ of Parts III and IV''. He should give an example of the violence and grotesque of the word.

Anyway, I hope that this may helpful to you.

Of topic. I wonder why you cannot tag a false quote on Goodreads. Do you know the source of this pseudo Spinoza quotation " :
“The more you struggle to live, the less you live. Give up the notion that you must be sure of what you are doing. Instead, surrender to what is real within you, for that alone is sure....you are above everything distressing.”"