2545+2 either the deuill] Capell (1774, 1:1:141): “See n. 2555+1.”

2545+2 either the deuill] Malone (ed. 1790): “In the quarto where alone this passage is found, some word was accidentally omitted at the press in the line before us. The quarto, 1604, reads: ‘And either the devil, or throw him out, &c.’

“For the insertion of the word curb I am answerable. The printer or corrector of a later quarto, finding the line nonsense, omitted the word either, and substituted master in its place. The modern editors have accepted the substituted word, and yet retain either; by which the metre is destroyed. The word omitted in the first copy was undoubtedly a monosyllable.”

2545+2 either the deuill] Steevens (ed. 1793): “This very rational conjecture may be countenanced by the same expression in MV [4.01.217 (2128)]: ‘And curb this cruel devil of his will.’”

2546 the next more easy] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “i.e. will become more, &c.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Singer (ed. 1825): “either quell] In the line: ‘And either quell the devil, or throw him out.’ The word ’quell’ is wanting in the old copy. Malone inserted the word curb, because he found, in MV [4.01.217 (2128)], ‘And curb this cruel devil of his will.’ But the occurrence of curb in so opposite a sense just before is against his emendation.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Collier (ed. 1843): “Master the devil] ‘Master’ is the reading of the undated quarto, of the quart, 1611, and of that of 1637, so that we need not resort to any conjectural emendation such as Malone introduced.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Singer (ed. 1856): “either curb] This passage is only found in the quartos. In that of 1604 this line stands:— ‘And maister the devil,’ which destroys the rhythm. Some word appears to have been omitted after either, and Malone substituted curb, which occurs in a similar passage in MV [4.01.217 (2128)].”

2546+2 either the deuill] Dyce (ed. 1857): “the two earliest have ‘And either the deuill,’ &c.: the later quartos read as in the text,—affording a sense, but still leaving the metre imperfect (though Mr. Collier seems to think otherwise)—The line has been altered to ‘And master even the devil,’ &c., and to ‘And either curb the devil,’ &c.—Sidney Walker (Shakespeare’s Versification, &c. p. 75) cites it thus, ‘And either master the devil or throw him out,’ &c.— and by mistake attributes that lection to the quarto, 1604.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “either curb the devil] Use can either oppress the devil (i.e. habit’s devil), or throw him out with admirable power, with marvellous strength.—For this restoration of the text we are obliged to Malone, whose very rational conjecture is countenanced by the same expression in MV [4.01.217 (2128)]: ‘And curb this cruel devil of his will.’ The quarto, 1604, where alone this passage is found, reads—And either the devil. The printer or corrector of a later, finding the line nonsense, omitted the word either, and substituted master in its place. Several modern editors have accepted the substituted word, and yet retain either, by which the metre is destroyed. The word omitted in the first copy was undoubtedly a monosyllable, which Malone most ingeniously restored by the insertion of the word curb.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Staunton (ed. 1859): “The quartos, 1604 and 1605, present this line, ‘And either the devill,’ &c.; the after ones read as above [master the devil], which, as it affords sense, though destructive to the metre, we retain, not, however, without acknowledging a preference for Malone’s conjecture, ‘And either curb the devil,’ &c.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Walker (1860, 1:308): “I suspect the reading ‘master the [th’] devil’ is the right one; curb occurs fourteen lines before.129”

<n><p.308> “129Capell, in his various readings, attributes curbe to the quartos and the editions of Rowe and Pope. I know him to be wrong as to the two last, and make no doubt that Mr. Collier is right in stating master as the reading of the later quartos, while either is that of the earlier. Curb is a conjecture of Malone’s. When I wrote Note 25 on the ‘Versification,’ I had forgotten that Walker had noticed the passage here.—Ed.” </p.308></n>

2546+2 either the deuill] White (ed. 1861): “either [curb] the Devil] The 4to. of 1604 reads, ‘And either the deuill, or throw him out,’ where there has a word been lost, as both sense and rhyme make manifest. To supply its place Malone happily suggested ‘curb.’ The 4to. next in date, (which, of course, is followed by subsequent editions in that form,) has, in hope of mending the lapse, ‘And master the devil’—a correction of no more authority than Malone’s, and of not half the worth.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Dyce (ed. 1866): “The later quartos substitute ‘maister’ (and ‘master’) for ‘either,’ but leave the metre imperfect (though Mr. Collier seems to think otherwise). —The line has been amended to ‘And master even the devil, or throw him out,’ &c.’ and to ‘And either curb the devil, or throw him out,’ &c.’ which last emendation (Malone’s) is certainly objectionable on account of the word ‘curb’ occurring at the close of Hamlet’s preceding speech.—’I suspect,’ says Walker, ‘that the reading ‘[either] master the [th’] devil’ is the right one.’ Crit. Examin. &c. vol. I. p. 308. (Walker, in his Shakespeare’s Versification, &c. p. 75, cites the line with the same reading, as right, but by mistake attributes that lection to the quarto of 1604.)”

2546+2 either the deuill] Cartwright (1866, p. 37): “‘And either master the devil.’ Read lay. The quarto of 1604 has ‘and either the devil.’”

2546+2 either the deuill] Bailey (1866, 2: 12-13): “the word curb is an arbitrary but plausible interpolation by Malone, the original text being without it. A verb has evidently dropped out after either; and we can have no guide in attempting to restore it but the requirements of the context. It has jut been insisted upon by the speaker, that custom or use is good or bad according to the character of the actions repeated. In the lines before us, at the conclusion of the extract, he reiterates the sentiment, and intends, as it appears to me to put the alternative in a still more forcible manner—to tell us that custom can either bring the devil into our nature or throw him out. Now this meaning is not effected by the word curb, denoting as it does, not indeed expulsion, but still what is hostile—coercion and control; </2:12><2:13> and thus not conforming to the antithesis pervading the whole passage.

“On the grounds here stated, I propose to supply the void in the text by the verb house, and read: ‘. . . And either house the devil . . . .’ Here house the devil would form an appropriate counterpart to throw him out. But the aptness of the term would not perhaps be sufficient of itself to establish the proposed reading house, unless it could be shown to be similarly employed by our author in other places.

“It fortunately happens that I can support my proposal by an apt quotation, in which the arch-fiend is also implicated. In Err. Pinch is introduced as saying: ‘I charge thee, Satan, hous’d within this man . . .’ Err. [4.4.54 (1338)].

“There are several other instances in which house is employed as a verb, but it is superfluous to cite them after this.”

2546+2 And . . . deuill] Elze (Athenæum, No. 2024, Aug. 11, 1866, p. 186): “In my edition of ‘Hamlet’ I have followed the later quartos in the passage: ‘And master the deuill, or throw him out’—3.4, which leaves the verse incomplete. The Lections of the latest editors, ‘And either master the devil, or throw him out,’ and ‘And either curb the devil, or throw him out,’ fill up the verse, but are, as well as the lection adopted by myself, weak and tautological. I now suppose that Shakespeare wrote: ‘And either usher the devil, or throw him out.’ The similarity of sound in the two succeeding words ‘either usher’ may very likely have been the cause that the copyist or the compositor of the Quarto of 1604 only caught the former, and left out the latter. Seven lines antè I now prefer ‘Of habits evil,’ to ‘Of habits, devil’ [2544+2].”

2546+2 And . . . deuill] H.D. (1866, p.218): “For ‘master the deuill’ three proposed readings are mentioned, viz., either master the devil, either curb the devil, and either usher the devil. Why import the ‘either’? –why not read ‘To master the devil and throw him out.’ First overcome the Devil, being enabled to do so by exercising a given tone of thought and feeling, and then cast him out.”

2546+2 either the deuill] F[orsyth] (N&Q, 3rd series, X, Dec. 1, 1866, p. 427-8): <p.427> “Mr. Staunton’s critical skill, which in general shines most conspicuously in his textual comments and suggestions, is here entirely at fault. He has laboured, with great success, by the aid of extensive reading in the old writers, contempora- </p.427><p.428> ries of Shakspere and others, and by references to the great author himself—making expressions in Shakspere’s different works to throw light on other expressions—to restore the missing sense of many passages, thus in several instances bringing order and beauty out of confusion. Neither he, however, nor any of his numerous brother commentators, in so far as I am aware, have hit on the right explanation of the line referred to. The stumbling-block of Mr. Staunton and other critics is the word ‘either.’ which they would have changed to some other word as a misprint of the early printers; while a second class of critics, represented by the editors of ‘The Globe’ edition, think the word ‘either’ should remain as it is, and that a verb following it has been accidentally omitted in the earlier editions. Hence the gap left by Messrs. Aldis and Wright, and hence the guess of Malone, who wishes to fill up the gap by the word ‘curb.’ But without doubt the critics, one and all, have missed the mark in this instance, as I hope satisfactorily to show. If the whole passage is carefully considered, I think it will be seen that the idea which Shakspere puts into the mouth of Hamlet is not that of mastering, curbing, or controlling the Evil One, but that, on the contrary, the whole context requires the sense of keeping, detaining, or housing him. Let the passage read—’Use can almost change the stamp of nature, And either house the devil, or throw him out With wondrous potency,’ and the whole appeal of Hamlet to his mother becomes consistent and logical. Only by this change can the proper antithesis and sense of the passage be brought out. The argument is, that by the influence of use or habit the evil part of our nature may be either retained and strengthened or expelled and destroyed. There can be no medium action. Persistent custom will make us either good or bad. The suggested words ‘master’ and ‘curb,’ carry no force, and are little better than tautology, since to ‘curb’ or to ‘master’ an opponent is about the same think as ‘throwing him out.’ Without doubt, the real word as originally written by Shakspere was the word ‘house.’ That such was the case I felt perfectly persuaded of before the proof appeared, and the proof seems to be conclusive enough. Imitating Mr. Staunton in other cases, I appeal from all the commentators to Shakspere himself, and bring up to substantiate the new view the following passage, hitherto completely overlooked. In Err, Adriana, thinking her supposed husband to be mad, calls in the aid of a conjuror to is cure, when this dialogue ensues (Act IV. Sc. 4): Pinch. I charge thee, Satan, housed within this man To yield possession to my holy prayers.’

“Shakspere, as is well known, made extensive use of the Bible for the purpose of argument and illustration (Bishop Wordsworth* has detected so many as four hundred references to the sacred volume), and the allusion in the above quotations seems to be to Matthew xii, 44, in which the unclean spirit, being cast out of a man, says, ‘I will return to my house, from whence I came out.’

”In corroboration for the view taken of this speech of Hamlet, and further to establish the probability of the suggested emendation, I may reefer to the use by Shakspere in other places of the term house as a verb. Let the two following examples suffice, both taken from Err. [cites from 3.1.9 (627), and 5.4?].” </p.428>

<n><p.428> “[*On Shakspeare’s Knowledge and Use of the Bible, by Charles Wordsworth, D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrews, certainly one of the most valuable illustrations of the writings of Shakespeare which have lately been produced. Having accidentally omitted to call attention to it on the first appearance, we are glad of this opportunity of supplying that omission.—Ed. ‘N.&Q.’]”</p.428></n>

2546+2 either the deuill] Wetherell (N&Q, 3rd series, X, Dec. 29, 1866, pp. 503-4): <p.503> “I am glad to see so clever a recovery of a lost word. F[orsyth] is certainly right, if indeed a word of the old reading has been entirely lost. I should, however, prefer a restoration according to the sound of the doubtful passage so excellently urged of late in the Athenæum. Something like the following may be, after all, the correct reading:— </p.503><p.504> ‘For use almost can change the stamp of nature, And hie there the devil, or throw him out With wondrous potency.’

“Instead of the genuine stamp of nature a counterfeit can be speedily acquired by the fore of habit alone. We must, indeed, as I think, seek an antithesis to the summary expression ‘throw him out,’ and in the sense of ‘ejecting’ the verb, ‘to house’ is admirable. It will be observed, however, in the passages adduced by F[orsyth] in support of his reading, that ‘possession’ is introduced. Here is only the simple action ‘dismissal,’ and to summon quickly would therefore be more correct.” </p.503>

2546+2 And either the deuill] Keightley (1867, p. 294): “So 4to 1604, but omitting ‘master;’ while 4to 1600 [sic] and the undated omit ‘either.’ Malone read curb for ‘master’—a most needless alteration.”

2546+2 either] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “overcome. Die Globe-Edit. setzt nur either und deutet das fehlende Verb durch Punkte an. Elze schlägt either usher vor, aber der Vers klingt hart und der Gedanke passt nicht in den Zusammenhang, da von den g u t e n Wirkungen der Uebung die Rede ist. Dyce VII. 232. liest: either master, was sich schon eher hören lässt, da the stamp of nature unsere Sündhaftigkeit, also der Teufel selbst ist, den die Gewöhnung an das Gute in uns bezwingt, oder mit Hilfe der Gnade (wondrous potency) ganz vertreibt. Ich nehme an, dass in Q2 either für over verdruckt, der Rest des Verbums overcome ausgefallen war, und dass man in der Q. v. 1611 master wiederum nur aus either conjicirt hat.” [overcome. The Globe Edition has only either and indicates the missing verb by periods. Elze suggests either usher, but the line sounds harsh and the thought does not fit the context, since the talk is of the good effect of practice. Dyce VII. 232. has either master, a reading I also prefer, since the stamp of nature is our sinfulness and thus the devil himself, whom our habit of goodness overcomes in us, or with the help of divine grace (wondrous potency) drives out completely. I assume that in Q2 either is a misprint for over and the rest of the verb overcome was left out, and that in the Q of 1611 master has again only been inserted to go with either.]

2546+2 either the deuill] Hudson (ed. 1872): either curb] “Curb is wanting in all the old copies. Sense and verse alike require that or some equivalent word.”

2546+2 And either . . . him out] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “An imperfect line, which various conjectures have endeavoured to amend, by inserting ‘curb,’ ‘quell,’ ‘mate,’ ‘lay,’ ‘house,’ ‘aid,’ ‘usher,’ or by reading with Pope, ‘And master ev’n the devil.’ It seems more probable that something is omitted which is contrasted with ‘throw out,’ and this may have been ‘lay’ or ‘lodge.’ The latter was the technical word used in Harsnet’s Declaration, c. 12.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Moberley (ed. 1873): “Either quell him once for all of 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.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Ingleby (1875, pp. 123-8): <p.123> “Now for a case in which the old copies concur to leave us at the mercy of conjecture. In the same quarto editions of Hamlet we read [quotes 2546+1-2546+2]. </p.123><p.124> Unhappily this passage, defective by one word (probably a verb following on ‘either’ and governing ‘the devill’), is not in the first quarto, nor yet in any of the early folio editions. The defect is so miserably supplied by the dateless quarto (1607) that the modern editor is driven to the conclusion that the word there given is a mere conjecture, and that the defect must be anew conjecturally supplied. This quarto reads:—’For use almost can change the stamp of nature, and maister the devill, or throwe him out With wonderous potency.’

“Here ‘maister’ is not only bad on the score of rhythm, but still leaves the line short. Not improbably it was intended to supply the word for which ‘either’ was conceived to be a misprint. Pope and Capell followed this lead, and read ‘And master even the devil—’ But all other editors have wisely retained ‘either’: viz., ‘And either curb the devil’—Malone; ‘And either quell the devil’—Singer: while the late Mr. Bolton Corney proposed to read, ‘And either aid the devil’—and Mr. Cartwright, ‘And either lay the devil.’ A correspondent of Notes and Queries (3rd S. x. 426) signing himself F. proposed, ‘And either house the devil’; conceiving (like Mr. Corney) that the missing word should be antithetical to throw out, and not perceiving that no very ‘wondrous potency’ would be required to house a demon, who was already by nature in possession! The Cambridge editors favour couch and lodge; both words being found in Harsnet’s Declaration, c. 12, the former in the sense of subdue, the latter in </p.124><p.125> the sense of confine. (Clarendon Press Edition of Hamlet, p. 189-190.) Two other conjectures privately communicated to us deserve mention. Our valued friend, Professor Sylvester, proposed to read, ‘And either mask the devil’—conceiving that ‘maister’ might be misprint for the true word. In this course he is somewhat countenanced by a passage occurring in a prior speech of Polonius (iii.1): ‘We are oft to blame . . . the devil himself’ [1697-1700].

“Another valued friend, Mr. C. J. Munro, half-seriously suggested, ‘And entertain the devil’—conceiving that ‘either’ might be a press error for entertain. All other conjectures which I have seen are so utterly imbecile, that I will spare their proposers the ordeal of criticism. It is not easy to discover why the seven verbs, curb, quell, lay, aid, house, couch, and lodge should find more favour than a score of others, apparently as well suited to the sense and measure of the line as any of those. How soon are the resources of the conjectural critics exhausted! how meagre is the evidence adduced in favour of any single conjecture! Yet the requirements of the passage are by no means severe, nor are the means for complying with them either narrow or recherché. It is rather an embarrass des richesses that hinders ours [sic] decision. To call over a few of the candidates for admission into the text: curb suggests rein, rule, thrall, bind, chain, &c.; quell, lay, and couch suggest charm, worst, quench, foil, balk, cross, thwart, daunt, shame, cow, </p.125><p.126> tame, &c.; while aid suggests fire, rouse, stir, serve, feed, &c. Besides which there are many disyllables that would answer the purposes of sense and measure, as abate, abase, &c. And why not read, ‘And over-maister the devil’—seeing that the word ‘o’ermaster occurs in a former scene in this play? We are not now attempting the settlement of this question, but merely pointing out what a wealth of suggestion has been ignored by the self-complacent critics who have so feebly attempted it. But as a preliminary to its settlement, we venture to call attention to the evident requirements of the passage. ‘The stamp of nature’ is not new to us in this connection, nor in this play; we have had it twice in the second ghost scene, viz., the ‘vicious mole of nature’ [1.4.24 (621+8)]: so that an antithesis is not only not required, but is impertinent. Use, he would say, can either subdue ‘habit’s devil,’ by following out his own prescription of gradual weaning from evil, or (if the worst come to the worst and revolution be necessary) cast him out: and either of these can such use, or change of habits, effect ‘with wondrous potency.’ The key-note of the whole passage is ’Reformation, by gradually subduing evil habits’; and so far from Hamlet’s advice, ‘assume a virtue if you have it not,’ being (as Charles Knight understood it) a recommendation of hypocrisy; ‘the homage paid by vice to virtue,’ it is given solely with the view of facilitating inward amendment, and is therefore honest and sincere. Very similar advice was given by Lewis Vives in a book which, not improbably, may have been Shakespeare’s </p.126><p.127> closet-companion, viz., The Introduction to Wysedom: Englished by [Sir] Richard Morysine: 1540, Sig. B ii. ‘Let every man desyre uprighte thinges, and flee the crooked: chose the good, and refuse the evyll, this use and custome shall tourne well doinge almost into nature, and so worke, that none, but suche as are compelled, and suche as are in stryfe, found the weaker, shall be brought to evyll.’

“Robert Ascham, too, in his Toxophilus, 1545, book ii. (Arber’s Reprint, p. 141), has the same proposition in somewhat different words . . . . ‘And in stede of the fervent desyre, which provoketh a chylde to be better than hys felowe, lette a man be as muche stirred up with shamefastnes to be worse than all other. * * * * * And hereby you may se that that is true whiche Cicero sayeth, that a man by use, may be broughte to a newe nature.’

“This, in fact, is exactly what is meant in Sir Joshua Reynolds’ Fifteenth Discourse, where we are recommended ‘to reign a relish till we find a relish come, and feel that what began in fiction terminates in reality’: and Sir Walter Scott, in the Bride of Lammermoor, chapter vi., observes, ‘that when a man commences by acting a character, he frequently ends by adopting it in good earnest.’

“The missing word, then, must at least import the subduing of the devil of habit. In the first quarto we have the expression, ‘And win [i.e., wean] yourself by little as you may,’ </p.127><p.128> from the sin to which you [the queen] have habituated yourself. Now, that weaning by little and little, or gradually weaning the will and affections from the customary sin, ‘recurring and suggesting still,’ is just what the missing word, were it recovered, would assuredly be found to express or to imply. Lay and shame are equally acceptable in sense, and both afford a perfect rhythm. Perhaps shame is the finer reading of the two. At the same time, it must be owned, that Hamlet’s prescription is calculated to do but little for the sinner: at best, we fear, to ‘skin and film the ulcerous place.’ Kant well says: ‘People usually set about this matter [i.e., the reformation of character] otherwise, fighting against particular vices, and leaving the common root whence they sprout untouched. And yet mankind * * * is just so much the more readily awakened to a profounder reverence for duty, the more he is taught to exclude therefrom all foreign motives that self-love might foist into the maxims of conduct.’

“We can hardly say that conjecture has yet determined the best reading here; though it cannot be said that sufficient indications are wanting for its guidance. Unfortunately it is in the very nature of the case, that some doubt should continue to vex this passage, after conjecture has done its work.” </p/128>

2546+2 either the deuill] Furness (ed. 1877): “master] Malone: For the insertion of the word curb I am answerable. The printer or corrector of a late Quarto, finding the line nonsense, omitted the word either, and substituted master in its place, The modern editors have accepted the substituted word, and yet retain either: by which the metre is destroyed, The word omitted in the first copy was undoubtedly a monosyllable. Steevens: This very rational conjecture may be countenanced by the same expression in MV [4.1.443 (2364)]. Singer (ed. i) [reading ‘either quell,’ followed by Moberly]: The occurrence of curb in so opposite a sense just before is against Malone’s emendation. Staunton: ‘Master,’ which, as it affords sense, though destructive to the metre, we retain, not, however, without acknowledging a preference for Malone’s emendation. Walker, Vers. 75: Read ‘either master th’devil,’ &c. Moreover, ‘curb’ occurs fourteen lines before.—Crit, i, 308. Bailey (ii, 12): Ham. means to say that custom can either bring the devil into our natures, or thow him out. I therefore propose: ‘And either house the devil,’ which forms an appropriate counterpart to’throw him out.’ Forsyth proposed the same word in his Notes, &c., 102, and also in N. & Qu., 1 Dec. ‘66. Elze (Athenæum, 11 Aug. ‘66) proposes, ‘And either usher the devil, and thinks that the similarity of sound in the two consecutive words, ‘either usher,’ may have caused the compositor of Q1 to omit the latter. H.D. (Athenæum, 18 Aaug. ‘66): Why not read, ‘To master the devil, and throw him out.’ Bolton Corney (N. & Qu., 8 Dec. ‘66): Read ‘And either aid the,’ &c. J. Wetherell (N. & Qu., 22 Dec. ‘66) believes that sound and sense are satisfied by ‘And hie there the devil’; a speedy summons is hereby contrasted with a dismissal implied in ‘throw him out.’ Cartwright (New Readings, &c., p. 37): Read ‘And either lay the,’ &c. Nicholson (N. & Qu., 19 Dec. 1868): I propose, ‘And either throne,’ &c. Its alliteration explains its omission, and why ‘cast out,’ the wording of ever version, was changed into ‘throw out.’ It restores to the line its musical tone. It gives the exact sense required. Persistence in well-doing, whether by doing good or by leaving evil undone, exorcises the Tempter with wondrous potency; but persistence in evil so destroys rebelling conscience, that the prince of this world uresistingly ascends our vacant throne, and makes of us willing and unrespective servants for his work. Lastly, it gives not only the exact sense, but the full sense, required by the context, whether above or below it. Clarendon: It seems more probable that something is omitted which is contrassted with ‘throw out,’ and this may have been ‘lay’ or ‘lodge.’ The latter was the technical word used in Harsnet’s Declaration, c. 12. Moberly [reading ‘either quell’’]: Either quell him once for all, or baffle his attacks whenever they arise. Ingleby (Sh. Hermeneutics, p. 125) records two emendations suggested to him by friends: Sylvester proposes, ‘either mask the devil,’ of which Q3 is the corruption. Compare [3.1. 46-48 (1698-1700)]. And C.J. Munro ‘half-seriously’ suggests: ‘And entertain the devil.’ ‘It is not easy to discover,’ says Ingleby, ‘why [the words suggested by Malone, Singer, and the rest] should find more favor than a score of others just as good.’ Curb suggests rein, rule, thrall, bind, chain, &c.; quell, lay, and couch suggest charm, worst, quench, foil, balk, cross, thwart, daunt, shame, cow, tame, &c.; while aid suggests fire, rouse, stir, serve, feed, &c. Besides which, there are many disyllables that befit the sense and measure, as abate, abase, &c. And why not read ‘over-maister,’ which occurs in a former scene? Thus we see what a wealth of suggestion has been ignored! We venture to call attention to the evident requirements of the passage: ‘The stamp of nature’ is not new to us in this connection, nor in this play; we have had it twice in the second ghost-scene, viz. ‘the vicious mole of nature,’ and ‘the stamp of one defect.’ Now Hamlet would say, Use almost can change, or convert, this stamp of nature’; so that an antithesis is not only not required, but is impertinent. Use, he would say, can either subdue ‘habit’s devil’ by following out his own prescription of gradual weaning from evil, or (if the worst come to the worst, and revolution be necessary) cast him out; and either o f these can such use, or change o habit, effect ‘with wondrous potency.’ The keynote of the whole passage is ‘Reformation, by gradually subduing evil habits; and so far from Hamlet’s advice, ‘assume a virtue if you have it not,’ being a recommendation of hypocrisy, it is given solely with the view of facilitating inward amendment, and is therefore honest and sincere. The missing word, then, must at least import the subduing of the devil of habit. In the First Quarto we have the expression, ‘And win [i.e. wean] yourself by little as you may’ from the sin to which you [the Queen] have habituated yourself. Now, that weaning by little and little, or gradually weaning the will and affections from the customary sin, ‘recurring and suggesting still,’ is just what the missing word, were it recovered, would assuredly be found to express or imply. Lay and shame are equally acceptable in senese, and both afford a perfect rhythm. Perhaps shame is the finer reading of the two. At the same time it must be owned that Hamlet’s prescription is calculated to do little for the sinner; at best, we fear, to ‘skin and film the rancorous place.’ We can hardly say that the conjecture has yet determined the best reading here, though it cannot be said that sufficient indications are wanting for its guidance. Unfortunately, it is in the very nature of the case that some doubt should continue to vex this passage, after conjecture has done its work.”

2546+2 And either the deuill] Neil (ed. 1877): “curb] “So we read with Malone, Steevens, Boswell, Chalmers, Singer, White, Keightley, Hudson, etc. Quartos 1604, 1605, read And either, the; quarto 1611, and maister the; quartos 1619 and 1676, and master the, which Rowe, Knight, Collier, Elze, etc., accept. Tschischwitz reads overcome; Mr Bullock of Aberdeen, wither up. E. Forsyth proposed house; Dr B. Nicholson, throne; C.E. Moberly, quell; Ingleby, lay or shame, leaning favourably to the latter; the Clarendon Press editors, couch or lodge. Overmaster, mate, hoist, overmatch, mask, entertain, and many other readings, all conjectural, have been suggested.”

2546+2 And either the deuill] Bulloch (1878, p. 231): “My . . . emendation[s] appeared in the Cambridge notes at the time . . . ‘And wither up the devil.’”

2546+2 And either the ] Rolfe (ed. 1878): And either master the] “The gap in the earlier text has been filled by “curb,” “quell,” “mate,” “lay,” “house,” “aid,” “mask,” “shame,” etc. Master may have been conjecture of the editor of the 4th quarto, but it has at least that much of authority in its favor, and completes the sense as well as any other word. It has been objected that it mars the metre; but if we read it “master th’ devil,” it is like a hundred other lines in S. This reading is adopted by Walker, D. (2d ed.), and F. “Curb” is preferred by Sr., W., and H. Furnivall suggests “tame.””

2546+2 either the deuill] Hudson (ed. 1881): either shame] “The sense of out extends back over shame; the meaning being, ‘And either shame the Devil out or force him out.’ See Critical Notes.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Hudson (ed. 1881): <p.329> “Not in the folio. The second and </p.329><p.330> third quartos read ‘And either the devil’; the later quartos, ‘And master the devil’; thus leaving both sense and metre defective. Some editors combine the two readings,—’And either master the devil’; but this, again, makes the line unmetrical. Pope and Capell read ‘And master even the devil’; Malone, ‘And either curb the devil.’ But the Poet seems to have intended the alternative sense of either making the Devil glad ot leave or compelling him to leave. And the phrase, ‘shame the Devil,’ was part of an old proverb, which Shakespeare quotes elsewhere. So in 1H4 [3.01.57-60 (1582-5)]: ‘And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the Devil By telling the truth; tell truth, and shame the Devil: If thou have power to raise him, bring him hither, And I’ll be sworn I’ve power to shame him hence.” </p.330>

2546+2 And either the deuill] White (ed. 1883): “either tame] “And either: After these words a monosyllable has been lost in the old copies. It might have been ‘tame,’ or (as Malone read) ‘curb,’ if that word did not occur a few lines above, but I feel sure not ‘quell,’ as Singer reads: that is too strong. To tame the devil is to change the stamp of nature.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Perring (1885, pp. 316-7): <p.316> “Now I do not pretend to be able to guess what the exact word was which originally filled the vacancy. There are many which would serve the turn. ‘Resist’ would have Apostolic, ‘renounce’ Patristic authority to back it; ‘rebuke’ would not be without precedent. If, however, we can light upon a verb used by Shakespeare himself, albeit elsewhere, in the same connexion, it would come to us with a sort </p.316><p.317> of recommendation from the author. Now in TN [3.4.97 (1620)], Sir Toby says to Malvolio, ‘What, man! defy the devil.’ In Wives we have ‘Now shall the devil be shamed.’ The former word would fit in with the metre (for I need scarcely say that ‘either’ is frequently treated as a monosyllable), and would give the sense required, or at least a tolerable sense. These would be no harm in introducing defy—italicized, if you like—into the text. But no doubt the original word might have been a totally different one with more force and point. Perhaps we should give the preference to ‘master,’ the word found in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Quartos.”

2546+2 either the deuill] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Plainly there is a word left out, if not lost here. I am inclined to propose a pause and a gesture, with perhaps an inarticulation.”

2546+2 Mull (ed. 1885): “The Cambridge editors print the line thus, as in the early quartos: ‘And either . . . the devil or throw him out,’ and they make the following remarks upon it: [quotes cam1 CN here, followed by MACD CN].

“Something is mutilated, not omitted, I think; and the word I restore exactly meets the demand of the Cambridge editors, viz. the something that is contrasted with ‘throw out.’ My restoration seems to be self-convincing; and by those especially who are familiar with the changes often made by careless copyists or printers in words that possess a similar phonetic ring, it will probably be regarded as satisfactory. Thus tether for either were easily interchanged.

“Staunton adopts, ‘And master the devil,’ which, he says, ‘as it affords sense, though destructive to the metre, we retain; not, however, without acknowledging a preference for Malone’s conjecture, ‘And either curb the devil.’”

2546+2 And either the deuill] Mull (1888, p. 16): <p.16> “In all the copies it is printed ‘And either the devil.’ I have shown in my edition how the simple change I have made to tether restores the true word and its lucid sense. An exactly similar phrase is used in [4.1.18 (2608)], where the King forecasts the charge that will be made against him for not restraining, tethering Hamlet—’We should have kept him short.’

“The corruption has occasioned much perplexity, and many verbal alterations have been suggested to extract some satisfactory sense. The latest is that of Professor H. Morley, which is a violent and rugged change: ‘Either subdue the devil.’” </p.16>

2546+2 And either the deuill] Maclachlan (ed. 1888):And either pall the devil] “The Cambridge Editors, after mention of various words to fill the want, suggested by others, as curb, quell, mate, lay, house, aid, usher, seem to give their preference in favour of lay or lodge, still unable, however, to decide for any word. Pope struck out either and inserted master e’en; Knight following him without e’en. One and all unconsciously assume that the Queen and they have to deal with a personal demon. She was not possessed! There is a word that implies the process recommended by Hamlet and exactly expresses the result, and still is adversative to the rest of the line. I suggest pall.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Barnett (1889, p. 53): “A word is omitted in the original. Insert “quell.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Irving (ed. 1890): “This line is not in Ff; Q.2, Q3, read and either the devil, an evident misprint, which the printer of Q4 changed to and Maister the Devil, which makes no sort of metre, and is doubtless a mere conjecture, without authority. A word is evidently wanting, and that word is evidently a single syllable, or something which by the help of elision will be equivalent to a single syllable. So much we know, and no more; though it seems probable (by no means certain) from the alternative word either, that the lost verb is one which would contrast with throw him out. The field for guess-work is thus illimitable, and to me it seems scarcely worth guessing when the most brilliant guess will be a guess only. I have inserted in the text the word lay (Cartwright’s conjecture), not because I have any confidence that that is the right word, but because some insertion is necessary in order to fill up the hiatus, and lay will at least do as well as anything else. Dr. Ingleby, naming the five conjectures which do not seem to him ‘utterly imbecile,’ says very reasonably (The Still Lion, 1874, pp. 115-119): ‘It is not easy to see why the five verbs, curb, quell, lay, aid, and house found more favour than a score of others, apparently as well suited to the sense and measure of the line as any of these. How soon are the resources of the conjectural critics exhausted! how meagre is the evidence adduded in favour of any single conjecture! yet the requirements of the passage are by no means severe, nor are the means for complying with them either narrow or recherché. It is rather an embarras des richesses that hinders our decision. To call over a few of the candidates for admission into the text: curb suggests rein, rule, thrall, bind, chain, &c., quell and lay suggest charm, worst, quench, foil, balk, cross, thwart, daunt, shame, cow, &c., while aid and house suggest fire, rouse, stir, serve, lodge, feed &c. Besides which there are many dysyllables that would answer the purposes of sense and measure, as abate, abase, &c.” The whole passage is very interesting and acute, and seems to me the most sensible consideration that has been made of the subject. Dr. Ingleby’s conclusion is that the missing word ‘must at least import the subduing of the devil of habit,’ and that, while it is obviously impossible to come to a positive decision, lay and shame are perhaps the best of the innumerable conjectures. It is impossible to leave this subject without mentioning Dr.George McDonald’s note on this passage in his edition of the play, p. 179: ‘I am inclined to propose a pause and a gesture, with perhaps an inarticulation’: The italics are the author’s, the note of admiration mine.”

2546+2-2546+3 And either . . . potency] Deighton (ed. 1891): “and either completely overcome the devil, or at least expel him from our nature with irresistible force. The reading in the text is a conjecture of Jennings; various other conjectures have been made, e.g. curb, lay, lodge, quell, shame, overcome, the earlier quartos giving ‘And either the devil,’ that later, ‘And master the devil.’”

2546+2 either the deuill] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Q omits the verb; Q4 omits either and inserts master. Several editors follow Q4. Pope and Capell, ‘And master even’ (or ev’n); Malone, “And either curb.’ Quell, lay, shame, and other verbs have been proposed. ‘Master’ may be derived from the early stage, and has somewhat more authority than any other word.”

2546+2 master] Verity (ed. 1904): “So the 4th Quarto (1611), omitting, however, either. The 2nd and 3rd Quartos (1604 and 1605) have And either the. In the Folio the whole line is absent. (F.)

“The 4th Quarto has some authority, as it was printed during Shakespeare’s life; and master gives good sense. Nor does it present any real difficulty metrically. “And either master the devil / or throw / him out / is a perfectly defensible line. The scansion de’il is what we get in [2.2.577 (1617)] and elsewhere (see also [1.4.36 {621+20)); while the semi-trisyllabic 3rd foot represents one of the commonest variations of the normal ‘iambic’ type.

“Other verbs than master have been suggested to fill the place vacant in the earlier Quartos, e.g. curb, lay, quell. But they have no authority and no superiority of sense, and really originate in the idea of making the metre a little easier. Malone, for instance, proposed curb, remarking that if we retain either and master, ‘the metre is destroyed.’ Now we know better, thanks to the labor of Abbott and others. Metrical criticism was the weakness of that older Shakespearian scholarship, to which our debt in other respects is incalculable.”

2546+2 And either the devill] Bullen (ed. 1907): “’either master the.’—Quartos 2, 3 ‘And either the’; Quarto 4 supplied ‘Maister’ as the missing word and omitted ‘either.’ (The passage is not found in the Folio.) Malone conjectured ‘curb’ from MV [4.1 217 (2128)], ‘And curb this cruel devil.’”

2546+2 either] Subbarau (ed. 1909): “May it not be that either of Qq 2 and 3 was a misprint for enfetter—written illegibly, the cross line of ƒ mistaken for a stroke which cancelled that letter?”

2546+2 And either the deuill] Cuningham (1922, p. 428) suggests inserting quell before the, missed by the compositor because if its similarity to deuill; worthwhile because it supplies a “perfect meaning”; and because it is connected to Montaigne (Essay xxii, p. 106 and p. 105, Dent rpt., which he quotes). Ed. note: Cuningham (like Warburton) praises Sh. for the sense he, Cuningham, has discovered in the phrase he emends.

2546+2 And either...the deuill] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Q2 ‘And either the deuill.’ The compositor has prob. as so often elsewhere omitted a word. It is conceivable, on the other hand, that ‘either’ (sp. eyther’) may be a misprint pr miscorrection of ‘exorcise,’ a word which suits the context and must come near Sh.’s meaning. For want of a better, it may serve to fill the gap in the text. MSH. pp. 302-3.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Harrison (ed. 1937): “Some such words as ‘quell’ has been omitted in the Quarto.”

2546+2 either] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “either master] The devil in a man (the evil in his character) may be kept under control by good habits or may even be quite eradicated therby. Maister was first supplied in the Third Quarto (1611), which omits either. The Second Quarto has ‘And either the.’”

2546+2 either] ] Rylands (ed. 1947): “exorcise] The text reads ‘And either the devil or throw him out,’ showing that a word has been dropped. Dover Wilson suggests that ‘either’ is a misprint by the compositor for ‘exorcise’ which would give the necessary sense.”

2546+2 either the] Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): either [tame] the] “A word has dropped out of the Quarto text.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Munro (ed. 1958): “Furnivall in a private note writes that in this passage Hamlet insists that ‘use’ll either put down or put out the devil of lust.’ For either C.J. Munro suggests entertain (Furness, 1: 304) and Dover Wilson exorcise. The latter remarks that these guesses have no proper basis. Many editors print a series of dots after either to mark a hiatus; but this prejudges the issue and it seems preferable to print Q2 as it stands.”

2546+2 Evans (ed. 1974): “A word seems to be wanting after either; for conjectures see the Textual Notes.”

2546+2 And either the deuill] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Q2 omits the verb, doubtless accidentally. (The passage is not in F.) The fourth quarto edition (1611) has “and maister the devil’; and, although this quarto’s changes have no known authority, the choice of this word to fill the gap could be due to stage practice. Other plausible suggestions are ‘curb’, ‘lay’, ‘oust’, ‘quell’, ‘shame’, or ‘tame’, or to replace ‘either’ by ‘exorcize’. Perhaps, however, the use of either . . . or demands a word contrasting with throw . . . out, such as ‘aid’, ‘house’, or ‘speed’.”

2546+2 lodge] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “receive hospitably, afford accommodation for. An editorial conjecture to supply a gap in Q2, which is the only text at this point and deficient in both metre and sense. It is obvious that either is balanced by or and hence that a verb stating an alternative to throw out has been omitted. Attempts to make either itself the verb, by emending it to entertain (see SQ, ix, 586-7) or exorcise (suggested by Dover Wilson faute de mieux), or by explaining it as a trisyllable meaning ‘make easier’ (Hulme, pp.224-5), can be confidently dismissed. Q3 maister, though often followed, lacks authority and, whether as a substitute for either or an addition to it, is metrically unsatisfactory. It is also, along with many suggested monosyllables—the much favored curb (for a recent advocacy of which see Studia Neophilogica, L, 181-3), lay, quell, etc. – of inappropriate sense. For although all these verbs provide a contrast with throwing the devil out, they equally deprive him of his power; and the anti-thesis fundamental to this whole passage is between the good and bad effects of custom, between the custom (= use, l.70) which induces surrender to the devil’s power and that which establishes power over him (cf. Bailey, ii. 11-13; Sisson, NR). Hence the alternative to throwing him out is to let him in, to give him accommodation. This is recognized in such conjectures as aid and throne; but of all the words which have been proposed those which best fit the requirements are house and lodge. House, proposed—apparently independently—by Bailey and Forsyth (N&Q, 3rd ser. X, 427-8; Shakespeare: Some Notes, pp.101-4), and read by Chambers (RL) and Sisson, is supported by the parallel usage in Err. Iv.iv.51, ‘I charge thee, Satan, hous’d within this man.’ Yet lodge, as well as having the exact sense required, seems to have had particular currency in contexts of devil-possession. Cf. Harsnet, Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostors, chs. 12-13, e.g. ‘Fie holy Fathers . . . that you . . . make good the chase . . . even into hell itself, and thence start the devil, and hunt him afresh, and lodge him with Sara Williams’; etc. Because the priest in exorcism is said the lodge the devil in some appointed place, it is sometimes mistakenly supposed that the word in itself implies confinement or restriction (e.g. Ingleby, Shakespeare Hermeneutics, pp. 123ff.). Clark and Wright, who suggested it, thought of it as equivalent to lay. More properly considered, to lodge the devil is of course to grant him admission and opportunity (OED lodge v. 2, to ‘show hospitality to’, ‘to provide with a habitation’) This at least supplies the necessary meaning in good metre, though in the nature of things the attempt to supply a word that is lost can only clutch at surmise.

“Another possibility might be clothe, which, sustaining the previous metaphor, would suggest the provision of a habit for the devil which would disguise his presence.”

2546+2 either the deuill] Edwards (ed. 1985): “A verb is missing. Many editions supply ‘master’ from the 1611 quarto. It may well be that this omission is not the compositor’s fault; that Shakespeare had not found the word he wanted before he gave up the passage.”

2546+2 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “Either the compositor has omitted the verb at this point, or, possibly, Shakespeare failed to supply one. Various conjectures as to what it should have been have been made, beginning with the Maister of Q3. The one adopted here seems appropriate for two reasons. ‘Speak the truth and shame the devil’ (Tilley T566) was proverbial, and so fits well into sayings. Furthermore, since a shamed devil would depart of his own accord, the conjecture provides the required antithesis to throw his out. See 1H4 [3.1.57 (1583)], ‘tell truth, and shame the devil,/If thou have power to raise him, bring him hither,/And I’ll be sworn I have power to shame him hence.’”

2546+2 Bevington (ed. 1988): “(A defective line usually emended by inserting the word master after either, following the fourth quarto and early editors).”

2546+2 either the deuill] Andrews (ed. 1993): shame] “The Quarto text appears to be missing a word; shame is used elsewhere in similar contexts and is thus supplied here. Compare 1H4 [3.1.57 (1583)]. Many editions follow the 1611 Third Quarto and print master; others supply curb, house, or lodge.”

2546+2 shame] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “It is usually assumed that there is a word missing in Q2 and that it should provide some alternative to throw him out. We adopt Hudson’s emendation because the proverb ’tell truth and shame the devil’ (Dent, T566) is used three times by Shakespeare in 1H4 (3.1.54, 55 and 58); see t.n. for other editorial emendations. Oxf emends to ’either in the devil’, explaining that this means ’take in’.”