Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2544+2 {Of habits deuill, is angell yet in this} | 3.4.162 |
|---|
1723- mtby3
mtby3
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Thirlby (1723-): “f Of habits evil.”
1728-33? mtby4
mtby4
2544+2 deuill] Thirlby (ms. letter to Theobald, p. 65): “f—who all sense doth eat of habits evil, &c.”
Transcribed by BWK, who adds: “Thirlby letter to Theobald (see Thirlby doc.) recommends emendation evil for devil: emendation #70 (in red ink) 425.25-29 (Pope1, v.6). This appears to be Thirlby’s first one for Hamlet because the next before this is p. 360 crossed out and it is not Hamlet. He labels this suggestion “f—who all sense doth eat of habits evil, &c. “ According to Smith, the f means pretty strong conjecture. THEO1 credits his emendation to the sagacious Dr. Thirlby and goes on with an interpretation. This is not one of those instances when, as Smith points out, Theobald put Thirlby’s name at the bottom and thus implied that the justification came from Thirlby also. Thirlby seldom seems to justify his emendations, though there is some discussion of some items (none with this one).”
1733 theo1
theo1: mtby3
2544+2 deuill] Theobald (ed. 1733): “Habit’s Devil certainly arose from some conceited Tamperer with the Text, who thought it was necessary, in Contrast to Angel. The Emendation of the Text I owe to the Sagacity of Dr. Thirlby. ‘That Monster Custom, who all Sense doth eat Of Habits evil, is Angel, &c.’ i.e. Custom, which by inuring us to ill Habits, makes us lose the Apprehension of their being really ill, as easily will reconcile us to the Practice of good Actions.”
1733- mtby3
mtby3
2544+2 habits deuill] Thirlby (1733-): “Why was this [note on 2544+2] put before what follows [Theobald’s on 2544+1]. I think I know. Without doubt you do, but I am afraid you will not tell.”
Transcribed by BWK, who adds: “What I think Thirlby means here is that Theobald got his emendation from Thirlby (who loaned Theobald his pope1 with its marginalia) and credited Thirlby with the one note on [3.4.163 (2544+2)] while deciding to retain the [3.4.162 (2544+2)] reading.”
1747-53 mtby4
mtby4 = mtby3 on conj. devil for monster
1765 john1
john1, john2 = theo2 + contra Thirlby
2544+2 deuill] Johnson(ed. 1765): “I think Thirlby’s conjecture wrong, though the succeeding editors have followed it; Angel and Devil are evidently opposed.”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john1
john1 has Devil in text; v1773 has evil.
1774 capn
capn ≈ theo1 without attribution
2544+2 deuill] Capell (1774, 1:1:141): “The corruption . . . runs through all editions prior to the third modern’s: that gentleman’s conjecture about the cause it arose from, seems not ill-founded; namely,—from some conceited amender, either printer or copyist, who thought ‘devill’ was necessary, to be contrasted with ‘angel.’”
capn quotes from theo note without further attribution to Thirlby and without mention of emendation evil in tjoh1, tjoh2, prior to theo1.
1790 mal
mal = v1785 minus theo1 +
2544+2 deuill] Malone (ed. 1790): “Dr. Thirlby conjectured that Shakspeare wrote—of habits evil. I incline to think with him; though I have left the text undisturbed. From That monster to put on, is not in the folio. malone.”
mal retains john1 challenge to Thirlby conjecture, but substitutes this new note in support of Thirlby, for the note by theo, which had been maintained through v1785.
1791- rann
rann ≈theo1
2544+2 deuill] Rann (ed. 1791-): “devil, as he is—Of habits evil.”
Embedded variant in italics is conjectural emendation introduced in tjoh1 and accounted for in theo1.
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal +
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Steevens (ed. 1793): “I would read —Or habit’s devil. The poet first styles custom a monster, and may aggravate his description by adding, that it is the ‘dæmon who presides over habit.’—That monster custom, or habit’s devil, is yet an angel in this particular. Steevens.”
1814 Morehead
Morehead
2544+2 Of habits deuill]]
Morehead (1814, pp. 14-15): <p.14> “A very slight alteration in another passage will restore sense, where there is none now. In the famous scnee with his mother, being the fourth of this third act, Hamlet says: ‘That monster custom, who all sense doeth eat Of
habit’s devil, is angel yet in this </p.14><p.15> . . . etc.’
“Habit’s devil is quite unintelligible, and it has been changed by some into habits evil; but as angel is mentioned immediately afterwards, it appears that there was the antithesis of devil in the text. The following construction may appear harsh, but in the rapidity of speaking it is very easily supposable, and I have no doubt gives the words of the poet: ‘That monster custom, who all sense doth eat Of habits, devil, is angel yet in this, &c.’ ‘Custom, which erases the feeling of habits, thought a devil in common, is yet an angel in this, &c.’” </p.15>
1815 Becket
Becket
2544+2 Of ] Becket (1815, 1:60): “The sense requires that we should read, ‘If habit’s devil, is angel yet in this.’”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813 +
2544+2 deuill] Boswell (ed. 1821): “‘Of habit’s devil, means, I think, a devil in his usual habits.’ Boswell.” Errata: habits for habit’s.
1826 sing1
sing1 ≈ theo1 (mtby conj.), v1773 + magenta underlined
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Singer (ed. 1826): “Dr. Thirlby proposed to read, ‘Of habits evil.’ Steevens would read, ‘Or habits’ devil.’ It is evident that there is an intended opposition between angel and devil; but the passage will perhaps bear explaining as it stands:—‘That monster custom, who devours all sense (feeling, or perception) of devilish habits, is angel yet in this,’ &c. This passage might perhaps have been as well omitted after the example of the editors of the folio; but, I presume, it has been retained upon the principle which every where guide the editors, ‘To lose no drop of that immortal man.’ Here the quarto of 1603 has two remarkable lines:—‘And, mother, but assist me in revenge, And in this death your infamy shall die.’”
1854 del2
del2
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Delius (ed. 1854): “Der Gegensatz zwischen angel und devil zeigt, dass wie Ersteres auch Letzteres sich auf monster custom beziehen, devil also Apposition dazu sein muss, die freilich von dem Subject durch den Zwischensatz getrennt ist. Das Ungeheuer, die Gewohnheit, welches alles Bewustsein des gewohnten Thuns verschlingt, d. h., welches bewirkt, dass man nicht mehr weiss, was man gewohnheitsmässig thut, ist, obgleich Teufel, doch darin ein Engel, dass es uns auch gute Handlungen leicht und bequem macht, wie ein Kleid, das uns passt. Die Herausgeber verbinden meistens entweder of habit’s devil mit who all sense doth eat, oder fassen of habits devil zusammen als Apposition zu monster custom.” [The contrast between angel and devil shows that the latter like the former refers to monster custom. Devil must thus be in apposition to it, separated of course from the subject by the inserted clause. The monster, habit, which devours all consciousness of customary behavior, i. e., which makes it so that one no longer knows, what one is accustomed to do, is, although a devil, also an angel in that he makes good behavior easy and comfortable, like a garment that fits us. Most editors connect of habit’s devil either with who all sense doth eat or tie of habits devil as an appositive to monster custom.]
1856b sing2
sing2: theo1 (mtby conj.)
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Singer (ed. 1856): “The old copies have, ‘Of habit’s devill.’ I adopt Dr. Thirlby’s emendation, for what sense can be made of habit’s devil? The old copy indicates clearly the misprint, for the word is here devill, while just below and elsewhere it is uniformly divell when the evil spirit is meant.”
1857 fieb
fieb ≈ v1793 (conj.), Schlegel + magenta underlined
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “There has been proposed the reading: ‘That monster custom, who all sense doth eat Of habit’s evil,’ etc., which several succeeding editors have followed; but angel and devil are evidently opposed. Steevens would read—’Or habit’s devil.’ The poet first styles Custom monster, and may aggravate and amplify his description by adding, that it is the ‘dæmon who presides over habit:—that monster custom, or habit’s devil, is yet an angel in this particular. The commmon text which we have left undisturbed, may be explained: Custom, that monster, who eats or devours all feeling of habit’s devil, i.e. of the devilish quality of habit, (all consciusness of what we are doing by devilish habit) is angel yet in this; etc. A. W. von Schlegel, by a change of punctuation, finds the following meaning: That monster, custom, who destroys all sense, besides being habit’s devil, or, after having been habit’s devil, is angel yet in this point, that etc.”
1858 col3
col3: mtby
2544+2 Of habits deuill]
Collier (ed. 1853): “We were formerly disposed to think that ‘Of habits devil’ of the old copies might be preserved; but we now adopt Thirlby’s emendation, although it is very possible that an opposition between ‘devil’ and ‘angel’ was intended. By reading ‘habits evil’ the sense of the poet is considerably cleared, but still the passage is decidedly corrupt.”
1861 wh1
wh1: theo1 (mtby), col, dyce
2544+2 of habits deuill] White (ed. 1861): “The old text is, ‘of habits deuill,’ which is, in my judgment, so clearly wrong that I shall only refer the reader to the Variorum edition, and to Mr. Collier’s and Mr. Dyce’s, if he desire to see the best that can be made of it. It seems manifestly, as Dr. Thurlby [sic] suggested to Theobald, a sophistication, based upon the supposition that ‘angel’ required to be contrasted with ‘devil;’ whereas it is opposed to ‘monster’ in the line above. It also nullifies the force of the important word ‘likewise,’ two lines below.”
1866 Elze
Elze
2544+2 habits deuill] Elze (Athenæum, No. 2024, Aug. 11, 1866, p. 186): “I now prefer ‘Of habits evil’ to ‘Of habits, devil.’”
1866 H.D.
H.D. ≈ theo1 (Thirlby conj.) without attribution
2544+2 Of habits deuill] H.D. (1866, p.218): “‘Of habits, Devil’ (instead of evil) should stand to preserve the contrast in the text ‘Of habits, Devil—is Angel yet in this.’”
Transcribed by ECR (5/99).
1869 tsch
tsch: mtby3
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Thirby’s vorgeschlagene Lesart of habits evil ist wohl die richtige, da die habitus mali (denn evil ist postposives Adjectiv wie in der folgenden Zeile fair and good) einen richtigen Gegensatz zu den actiones honestae et bonae bilden. Der Gegensatz ist also nicht in devil und angel sondern in monster und angel zu suchen, der Sinn also: Der Unhold, d. i. der Teufel Gewohnheit, der alle Erkenntniss (sense wie oben 71. 74. gebraucht) böser Neigungen verschlingt, ist darin doch Engel, dass er der Uebung tugendsamer und guter Thaten eine Art Umhang oder Gewand verleiht, das sich bequem anlegt. Wie die Mutter dem Guten wieder zu gewinnen sei, zeigt der Prinz im Folgenden.” [Thirby’s suggested reading of habits evil is probably the right one, since the habitus mali forms a proper contrast to the actiones honestae et bonae (for evil is a postpositive adjective as in the following line fair and good). The opposite should therefore be sought, not in devil and angel, but in monster and angel. The sense is thus: the monster, that is the devil habit, who devours all knowledge (sense as above in lines 71 and 74) of evil inclinations, is however an angel in that he gives a kind of cover or cloak to the practice of virtuous and good deeds that can be comfortably put on. The prince shows in the following passage how his mother can be won over to the good.]
1870 rug1
rug1: pope
2544+2 Moberley (ed. 1870 ): “If thus read and punctuated, the meaning must be ‘the devil who inspires all bad habits.’ Or we might read with Pope ‘of habit’s devil’ (canceling the preceding comma), and explain ‘who devours all that sense of the real vileness of an evil habit,’ which seems better.”
1872 hud2
hud2
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Hudson (ed. 1872): “The meaning is, that, that custom eats out all sense or consciousness of evil habits. The old copies have devil instead of evil; but the hopeless disagreement of editors about it, and the hard straining to justify it, show that devil can hardly be right. On the other hand, evil makes the whole passage orderly, coherent, and apt. Though custom is a monster in that it takes away all sense of evil habits, yet it is an angel in this respect, that it also works in a manner equally favourable to good actions.”
1873 rug2
rug2=rug1 for 2544+2 (comment on full line)
rug2 ≈ sing
2546+2 either the deuill] Moberley (ed. 1873): either quell the devil] “Either quell him once for all or baffle his attacks whenever they arise. The word ‘quell’ is, however, an insertion; the third word in the line having been omitted in the copies.”
1878 Bulloch
Bulloch: cam1
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Bulloch (1878, p. 231): “My . . . emendation[s] appeared in the Cambridge notes at the time . . .’O shapeless devil.’”
Bulloch gives a set of 15 collation variants, including extra-editorial sources.
1881 hud3
hud3 ≈ theo1
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The meaning appears to be, that, though custom is a monster that eats out all sensibility or consciousness of evil habits; yet, on the other hand, it is an angel in this respect, that it works in a manner equally favourable to good actions.—In this passage custom, habit, and use all have about the same meaning; I mean the second use,—‘For use almost,’ &c.”
hud3 ≈ theo1 (Thirlby)
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Of habits evil] So Thirlby proposed, and Theobald printed. The quartos have devill instead of evil. The passage is not in the folio. With devil, the text seems to me quite insusceptible of any fair or fitting explanation; and the hard shifts that have been resorted to for the purpose of making sense out of it are to me strong argument of corruption. See foot-note 29.”
1883 wh2
wh2
2544+2 Of habits deuill] White (ed. 1883): “Of habits evil: that is, that monster, custom, who by mere repetition destroys (eats) all consciousness of evil in what is habitual, is also an angel because he gives in like manner, by habit, the livery, or sign of service, to good, etc.”
1885 macd
macd ≈ mtby without attribution
2544+2 habits deuill] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “I suspect it should be ‘Of habits evil’—the antithesis to angel being monster.”
1885 mull
mull
2544+2 habits] Mull (ed. 1885): “harbouring.”
1888 mulls
mulls: contra Morgan
2545+2 Mull (1888, pp. 15-16): <p.15> “The Rev. A.A. Morgan, in his ‘Mind of Shakespeare,’ p. 39, </p.15></p.16> adopts this reading of the text, and says that the meaning is, ‘Who destroys in us the keen sense of habit’s
evil consequences.’ I think he is right in substituting
of for
oft, but wrong in making ‘habits’ the possessive of ‘devil.’ The meaning doubtless is, ‘which destroys (‘eat’) in us all sense of devilish habits, makes us unsusceptible of them.” <p.16>
1929 trav
trav: xref.
2544+2 Of habits deuill]
Travers (ed. 1929): “that rules, devil-like (cp. [3.4.37 (2419)], over habits.”
1934 cam3
cam3: theo (Thirlby); MSH
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Wilson (ed. 1934): Of habits evil] “(Theobald aft. Thirlby) Q2 ‘Of habits deuill.’ The misprint would be easy (v. MSH. pp. 320-1), especially as the compositor, like all edd. since Johnson, may have been misled by the supposed antithesis between ‘devil’ and ‘angel,’ whereas Sh. intends, I think, to contrast ‘monster’ with ‘angel’ and ‘habits evil’ with ‘habits fair and good.’”
1958 mun
mun: Wilson
2544+2 habits deuill] Munro (ed. 1958): “habits evil] “The printer’s misreading of eule (evle = evil) as dule (dvle = devil) was easy enough (see Dover Wilson: MSH, 321). evil is an adjective qualifying habits (= evil habits), and a paraphrase is that Custom which ogre-like swallows up all sensibility to evil habits is nevertheless angelic in that it lends fair and good actions becoming semblance. Even here there is a play on words, habit: frock or livery.”
1974 evns1
evns1: theo
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Evans (ed. 1974): “i.e. though it acts like a devil in establishing bad habits. Most editors read (in lines 161-62) eat / Of habits evil, following Theobald.”
1980 pen2
pen2
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Spencer (ed. 1980): “being the evil genius of our habits. For devil many editors prefer the emendation ‘evil’; the meaning is then ‘custom, which deprives one of all feeling for the evil nature of habits.’”
pen2
2544+2 angell yet] Spencer (ed. 1980): “nevertheless our good genius.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4: xref.
2544+2 deuill] Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “The assumption behind this emendation of Q2’s deuill is that Shakespeare wrote vilde which Compositor X then muddled in much the same way as Compositor Y turned thumbe into the vmber [3.2.359 (2229)].”
1988 bev2
bev2
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Bevington (ed. 1988): “devil-like in prompting evil habits.”
1993 dent
dent
2544+2 Of habits deuill] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Who acts like a devil in devouring our ‘Sense’ (awareness) of the bad things we do habitually.”
dent: xrefs.
2544+2 habits] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Are garments; compare line 132. Hamlet wants his mother to cast off her bad habits and don new ones based on alert ’Remembrance’ of the instruction he has given her. Compare [1.5.110-112 (795-7)], [4.5.175 (2927)].”
2544+2
