2544+1 monster] Thirlby (1723-): “fsql devil.”

2544+1-2544+5 Theobald (ed. 1733): “This Passage is left out in the two elder Folio’s: It is certainly corrupt, and the Players did the discreet part to stifle what they did not understand.”

2544+1 Thirlby (1733-) “fsql devil Hoc ibi.”

2544+1-2544+2 [Davies] (ms. notes in Johnson, ed. 1765, opp. 8: 245): “That monster custom, who all sense doth eat Of habits, Devil, is Angel yet in this’ This reading may do, but is certainly very harsh. I shd suspect that Sh. wrote—of habits dev’lish.”

2544+1-2544+2 monster . . . deuill] Mason (1785, pp. 390-1): <p. 390> “This passage, as it stands, is little better than nonsense. I have therefore no doubt but we should adopt Dr. Thirlby’s amendment, which renders the sense of it so clear.

“Johnson’s objection to that amendment is a weak one. We are not to sacrifice sense to a </p.390><p.391> supposed antithesis; but antithesis will not be wanting, though we should adopt the amendment; the word angel may still be opposed to monster, and evil habits to actions fair and good. I wish Johnson had explained the passage, and shewn how any meaning could be extracted from it as it stands; but that he has not attempted, and only says that angel and devil are evidently opposed, which leads to no explanation.” </p.391>

2544+1-2544+2 Wesley (ms. notes in v1785): “‘To eat all sense of habits evil’ is not very intelligible. ‘Habits’ ought to be, as it is in the text, without an apostrophe, and then the reading is easy; ‘That monster, Custom, who eats all sense (all reason), the Devil of Habits (the mischievous cause of ill practices’ being continued) is angel yet in this’ etc.”

2544+1-2544+2 Seymour (1805, p. 190): “Mr. Theobald supposes corruption here, from some conceited tamperer’s having put devil into the text instead of evil. But I do not perceive any tampering; if Shakespeare wrote the passage at all he was himself sufficiently conceited to write it as it is: the obscurity does not belong to the word devil, but to custom and habit, between which there is no obvious distinction. Mr. Steevens’s correction, I think, is judicious, and should be adopted, as not only supplying sense, but improving it.”

2544+1-2544+2 eate . . . deuill] Jackson (1819, p. 355-6): “To the carelessness of the transcriber must be attributed two errors conspicuous in this passage; for ape he wrote eat, and for oft—of. I correct thus: ‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth ape, Oft habits devil, is angel yet is this.’ Meaning: However passion might influence you to sinful acts, let it not overcome you in this: Go not unto my uncle’s bed: assume the appearance of virtue, if you have it not; for even that monster, custom, whose pernicious habits all mankind ape, or imitate, and who often habits vice in the semblance of virtue, is angel yet in this: that is, however diabolical those practices may be which are sanctioned by custom, yet custom never sanctioned incestuous marriages. </p.355><p.356>

“Or, perhaps, better to read: ‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth ape, Of devils’ habits, is angel yet in this.’

“It, however, must be acknowledged that by the word ape, which I am convinced was the Author’s, and evil, as recommended by Dr. Thirlby, a very familiar sense is obtained: ‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth ape, Of habits evil, is angel yet in this.’ That monster, custom, whose evil habits all mankind doth ape, is angel yet in this.

“I prefer this reading; but Dr. Johnson seems confirmed in opinion that an opposition was meant between angel and devil, and, indeed, I think him correct; for, immediately after, showing how far vice is screened under the mask of virtue, Hamlet observes,—‘That to the use of actions fair and good He likewise gives a frock or livery, That aptly is put on.’”

2544+1-2544+2 Caldecott (ed. 1819): “That monster, custom, who devours all sense, all just and correct feeling [being also] the evil genius of [our] propensities or habits, is, nevertheless, in this particular, a good angel. Though much in our author’s manner, the folios do not seem to us to have omitted any thing that could better have been spared.”

2544+1-2544+2 Caldecott (ed. 1832): “Boswell thinks it [“Of habit’s devil’] means ‘a devil in his usual habits.’ And it has been suggested, that if a comma were placed after habits, the sense would be—’A monster or devil, who makes mankind insensible to the quality of actions, which are habitual.”

2544+1-2544+2 Knight (ed. [1839] nd): “This passage is generally printed thus:—‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat Of habit’s devil, is angel yet in this.’ The commentators, who have, contrary to the text of the quarto, made habits the genitive case, cannot explain their own reading. As we have printed the passage, we understand it to mean, that custom, who destroys all nicety of feeling—sense—sensibility,—who is the devil that governs our habits—is yet an angel in this, &c.”

2544+1-2544+2 Collier (ed. 1843): “This passage, down to ‘That aptly is put on,’ is not in the folio. Our punctuation is that recommended to us by the Rev. Dr. Morehead, of Easington, and it seems to remove part of the difficulty felt by the commentators, and makes the sense, ‘that monster, custom, who is a devil, devouring all sense of habits, is still an angel in this respect,’ &c.”

2544+1-2544+2 Verplanck (ed. 1847): “This is the old reading; and not ‘habit’s,’ as in most editions. The punctuation is that adopted by Collier; and the meaning, though harshly expressed from the condensation of the language, is this—’That monster, custom, who devours all sense, (all sensibility or delicacy of feeling,) as to habits, devil as he is, is still an angel in this other regard.’”

2544+1-2544+2 That . . . . this] Hudson (ed. 1851-6): “A very obscure and elliptical passage, if indeed it be not corrupt. We have adopted Caldecott’s pointing, which gives the meaning somewhat thus: ‘That monster, custom, who devours or eats out all sensibility or feeling as to what we do, though he be the devil or evil genius of our habits, is yet our good angel in this.’ Collier and Verplanck order the pointing thus: ‘Who all sense doth eat of habits, devil, is angel yet in this.’ Where the meaning is,—‘That monster, custom, who takes away all sense of habits, devil though he be, is still an angel in this respect.’ This also pleads a fair title to preference, and we find it not easy to choose between the two. Dr. Thirlby proposed to read, ‘Of habits evil;’ which would give the clear and natural sense, that by custom we lose all feeling of perception of bad habits, and become reconciled to them as if they were nature. The probability, however, that an antithesis was meant between devil and angel, is against this reading; otherwise, we should incline to think it right.—The whole sentence is omitted in the folio; as is also the passage beginning with ‘the next more easy,’ ending with ‘wondrous potency.’ H.”

2544+1-2544+5 That . . . on] Dyce (ed. 1857): “‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat, Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,—’&c. This passage (from ‘that monster’ to ‘put on’ inclusive) is only in the quartos, 1604, &c.—It has been variously pointed and explained: the above punctuation (which Mr. Knight is mistaken in supposing that he was the first to adopt) appears to me preferable, on the whole.—Theobald, at Thirlby’s suggestion, printed, ‘who all sense doth eat Of habits evil, is angel,’ &c. and the Rev. J. Mitford (Gent. Magazine for Feb. 1845, p. 132) proposes, ‘who all sense doth eat, If habit’s devil, is angel,’ &c.”

2544+1-2544+2 That . . . deuill] Staunton (ed. 1860): “The reading of the old text is,—‘That monster custome, who all sense doth eate Of Habits devill,’ &c. Which has been variously modified to,— ‘who all sense doth eate Of habits evil,’ &c. ‘who all sense doth eat, If habit’s devil,’ &c. and ‘’who all sense doth eat, Or habit’s devil,’ &c. The trifling change we have taken the liberty to make, while doing little violence to the original, may be thought, it is hoped, to give at least as good a meaning as any other which has been proposed.”

2544+1 sence doth eate] Roffe (N&Q, 3rd series, IV, Nov. 7, 1865, p. 367): <p.367> “With deference to Mr. Keightley, there surely is meaning in the line from Hamlet—’That monster, Custom, which all sense doth eat,’ and a meaning which would be entirely inverted by the proposed substitution of create, for eat. That Hamlet means to say of ‘Custom,’ that it eats, or destroys, our sense, or perception, of what we are accustomed to, seems absolutely proved by the fact, that in the very same scene he has already announced, in other words, such a thought with respect to ‘Custom’:—[quotes “peace . . . sence,” 3.4.34-38 (2416-20)].” </p.367>

2544+1-2544+2 all . . . deuill] Bailey (1866, 2:11-12): <2:11> “The expression all sense of habit’s devil, which has been much canvassed, and even vindicated, is to my mind pure nonsense; and the emendation proposed by Dr. Thirlby, ‘habits evil,’ seems entitled to adoption. Dr. Johnson objects to it on the ground that it destroys the antithesis between devil and </2:11><2:12> angel; but the real antithesis is evidently enough between monster and angel. There is another antithesis, too, which is required, and which the emendation restores—that between habits evil and actions fair and good. The sense of the whole is, that custom, while it renders us insensible to our habitual vices, has the compensating effect of making good actions easy to be done.” </2:12>

2544+1 all . . . eate] Keightley (1867, p. 294): “create] The verb ‘eate’ here could never have come from the poet’s pen; for it makes pure nonsense. I read create with the greatest confidence, of which the first two letters must have been effaced in the MS. We have an exact parallel in smell ‘all’ (Tim. [1.1.204, 206 (247, 249)]. See also on AWW [1.1.162 (166)], [2.1.54, 69 (654, 672)]. ‘Sense’ seems here, as in MM [4.4.29 (2300)], to signify kind, manner, way.”

2544+1 That monster . . . Livery] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): “This passage (which is taken from the Quartos, the Folio omitting all between ‘if you have it not,’ and ‘refrain to-night’) has been variously pointed and variously explained. We take its meaning to be, ‘That monster, custom, who devours or destroys all sense of shame in evil-doing, and is the very devil or evil genius of bad habits, is yet an angel in this particular.’”

2544+1 Moberley (ed. 1873): “This noble passage contains Shakspere philosophy of custom (Greek Here), in which, happier than some professed moralists, he sees that the function of habit is to work upward towards a formed resolution. For his view of chance (Greek Here), see Mac. [1.3.43-44 (255-56)] note; and for that of art and nature the passage of the WT there quoted.”

2544+1-2544+2 Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “The reading of these lines as given in the text is substantially that of the quartos. The whole passage ‘That monster . . . . put on’ [3.4.162-5 (2544+1-2544+4)] is omitted in the folios. Many conjectures have been made, but the words as they stand yield a very intelligible sense and require no alteration. That monster Custom, who destroys all natural feeling and prevents it from being exerted, and is the malignant attendant on habits, is yet angel in this respect, &c. The double meaning of the word ‘habits’ suggested the ‘frock or livery,’ in [3.4. 164-5 (2544+4)].”

2544+1-2544+2 Moberley (ed. 1873): “This noble passage contains Shakspere’s philosophy of custom (Greek Here), in which, happier than some professed moralists, he sees that the function of habit is to work upward towards a formed resolution. For his view of chance (Greek Here), see Mac, [1.3.43-44 (255-56)], note; and for that of art and nature the passage of the WT there quoted.”

2544+1-2544+2 eate . . . deuill] Furness (ed. 1877): “Theobald: ‘Habit’s devil’ arose from the supposed necessity of contasting devil and angel. ‘Habits evil’ I owe to the Sagacity of Dr Thirlby.That is, 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. Theobald, in his correspondence with Warburton (Nichols’s Illust. of Lit. ii, 574), says: ‘I would read and point ‘doth eat Of habit’s evil,’ &c., i.e. of the evil of habit.’ [Herein he is followed by Singer (ed. 2) and White, Ed.] Johnson: I think Thirlby’s conjecture wrong; angel and devil are evidently opposed. Malone: I incline to think with Dr Thirlby. Steevens: I would read: Or habit’s devil. The poet first styles custom a 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. Boswell: ‘Habit’s devil’ means a devil in his usual habits. Becket (i, 60) and Mitford (Gent. Maga. 1845) both conjectured ‘If habit’s devil’; the latter paraphrases: ‘If that monster, custom, which in general is the devil of habit, leading to evil, yet in this thing acts the good part of angel,’ &c. Caldecott: ‘That monster, custom, who devours all sense, all just and correct feeling, (being also) the evil genius of (our) propensities or habits, is, nevertheless, in this particular a good angel.’ It has been suggeted that if a comma were placed after ‘habits’ the sense would be—’A monster or devil, who makes mankind insensible to the quality of actions which are habitual.’ Knight: The edd. who have made ‘habits’ the genitive case cannot explain their own reading. As we print the passage it means: custom, who destroys all nicety of feeling,—sense,—sensibility,—who is the devil that governs our habits,—is yet an angel in this, &c. Collier (ed. i): Our punctuation means that monster, custom, who is a devil, devouring all sense of habit, is still an angel in this,’ &c. Singer (ed. ii): 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 sprit is meant. Delius (ed. i): The opposition between ‘angel’ and ‘devil’ shows that the latter as well as the former refers to ‘monster, custom’: ‘devil,’ therefore, must be in apposition, separated, it is true, from the subject by the subordinate clause. Collier (ed. ii): We now adopt Thirlby’s emendation, although it is very possible that an opposition between ‘devil’ and ‘angel’ was intended. Still, the passage is decidedly corrupt. White: The text of the Qq is clearly wrong. ‘Angel’ is opposed to ‘monster’ in the line above. The old text also nullifies the force of the important word ‘likewise,’ two lines below. Stuanton: The trifling change we have taken the liberty to make, while doing little violence to the original, may be thought, it is hoped, to give at least as good a meaning as any other which has been proposed. Keightley: The verb ‘eate’ here could never have come from the poet’s pen; for it makes pure nonsense. I read create with the greatest confidence, of which the first two letters must have been effaced in the poet’s MS. We have an exact parallel in smell, ‘all,’ in Tim. [1.2.126 (470)]. ‘Sense’ seems here to signify kind, manner, way. [Keightley’s text reads: ‘That monster, custom, who all sense doth create Of habits, devil is angel yet in this,’ &c., which is to me unintelligible. Ed.] Clarendon: The words as they stand yield a very intelligible sense and require no alteration. That monster, Custom, who destroys all natural feeling and prevents it from being exerted, and is the malignant attendant on habits, is yet angel in this respect, &c. The double meaing of the word ‘habits’ suggested the ‘frock or livery’ in [3.4. 164-5 (2544+4)]. Moberly: This noble passage contains Shakespeare’s philosophy of custom (Greek Here), in which, happier than some professed moralists, he sees that the function of habit is to work upward towards a formed resolution.”

2544+1-2544+5 That monster . . . put on] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “This is omitted in the folio. Many attempts have been made to emend it, but without really emending it. As it stands, the meaning seems to be: That monster, custom, who destroys all sensibility (or sensitiveness), the evil genius of our habits (that is, bad ones), is yet an angel in this respect, that it tends to give to our good actions also the ease of readiness of habit. M. paraphrases the latter part of the passage thus: ‘Just as a new dress or uniform becomes familiar to us by habit, so custom enables us readily to execute the outward and practical part of the good and fair actions we inwardly desire to do.’ No doubt, as Wr. remarks, the double meaning of habits suggested the frock or livery.”

2544+1 That . . . on] Elze (ed. 1882): “Only in Q2. All explanations of this passage are more or less strained and unsatisfactory and I feel convinced that it is corrupt—Compare Marlowe, Hero and Leander, Third Sestiad (ed. Dyce, in I vol., p. 292 b): —’But custom, that the apoplexy is Of bed-rid nature and lives led amiss, And takes away all feeling of offence, Yet braz’d not Hero’s brow with impudence.”

2544+1 monster custome] Kinnear (1883, p. 406): “‘custom’ is a ‘monster’ because he is both a good and an evil angel . . . Shakespeare employs ‘use’ and ‘custom’ indifferently; ‘habit’ is the state of mind produced by ‘use’ or ‘custom.’ So TGV [5.4.1 (2120)]—’How use doth breed a habit in a man!’ and the parallel passage, AYL [2.1.2 (608)],—’Hath not old custom made this life more sweet’ &c. ‘sense’ and the line in which it occurs is explained by line 37,—’If damned custome have not braz’d it [your heart] so That it is proof and bulwark against sense.’ So Per. [1 Chorus, 27—’Bad child; worse father! to entice his own To evil should be done by none: But custom what they did begin Was with long use account no sin.’”

2544+1 custome . . . sence] Leo (1885, pp. 91-2): <p.92> “The same words ‘custom’ and ‘sense’ in juxtaposition occur in the same scene, [3.4.37-8 (2419-20)]: ‘If damned custome haue not brasd it so, That it be proofe and bulwark against sense.’

“Or, as we read in the first Folio—‘If damned custome haue not braz’d it so, That it is proofe and bulwarke against Sense.’ </p.92><p.92>

“That monster custom, who eats up (destroys) all sense, being a devil in his habits (use, custom), is yet an angel in this . . . —habit here to be understood in the double sense of ‘custom’ and ‘costume,’ the latter for the pun with the following ‘frock or livery.’”</p.92>

2544+1-2544+5 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This omitted passage is obscure with the special Shaksperean obscurity that comes of over-condensations. He omitted it, I think, because of its obscurity. Its general meaning is plain enough—that custom helps the man who tries to assume a virtue, as well as renders it more and more difficult for him who indulges in vice to leave it. I will paraphrase: ‘That monster, Custom, who eats away all sense, the devil of habits, is angel yet in this, that, for the exercise of fair and good actions, he also provides a habit, a suitable frock or livery, that is easily put on.’ The play with the two senses of the word habit is more easily seen than set forth. To paraphrase more freely: ‘That devil of habits, Custom, who eats away all sense of wrong-doing, has yet an angel-side to him, in that he gives a man a mental dress, a habit, helpful to the doing of the right thing.’ The idea of hypocrisy does not come in at all. The advice of Hamlet is: ‘Be virtuous in your actions, even if you cannot in your feelings: do not do the wrong thing you would like to do, and custom will render the abstinence easy.’”

2544+1-2544+3 Barnett (1889, p. 52): “That monster, custom, who all feeling doth destroy, and is the attendant devil of bad habits, is an angel in this respect, that he gives a livery, which is easily put on, for the performance of good actions.”

2544+1-2544+4 Orger (1890, pp. 83-4): <p.83> “The word ‘likewise,’ of the fourth line, indicates that the ‘giving a frock or livery’ has been </p/83><p.84> already implied by the preceding words; and we can easily detect it in the word ‘habits,’ of the second. But the words, ‘all sense doth eat,’ must be grossly corrupted if they were intended to have any connexion with the idea of clothing.

“I think ‘all’ is a mistake for ‘ill,’ and ‘eat’ for ‘coat,’ which will further entail the change of ‘sense’ to ‘deeds,’ and the transposition of ‘habit’ for ‘devil.’

“We shall then have the following—’That monster, custom who ill deeds doth coat In devil’s habit, is angel yet in this . . . put on.’” </p/84>

2544+1-2544+5 That . . . on] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “This passage is not in Ff. In Qq. (except in that of 1676) there is no stop between eat and of. Many emendations have been suggested, and many far-fetched explanations put forth. The passage is certainly a difficult one. Who all sense doth eat is well paraphrased by the Clarendon Press edd.: ‘Who destroys all natural feeling, and prevents it from being exerted: ‘Of habits devil, is rendered by the same edd.: ‘and is the malignant attendant on habits.’ Might not devil possibly stand as a sort of adjective to habits, meaning that custom is a monster of diabolical habits?”

2544+1-2544+2 Deighton (ed. 1891): “‘that monster, Custom, who destroys all natural feeling and prevents it from being exerted, and is the malignant attendant on habits, is yet angel in this respect, etc. The double meaning of the word ‘habits’ suggested the “frock or livery” in [3.4. 164-5 (2544+4)]’ (Cl. Pr. Edd.). I believe we should read ‘out’ for ‘eat,’ and ‘devilish’ for ‘devil.’”

2544+4 That . . . put on] Deighton (ed. 1891): “that, to accustom us to the practice of good actions, he, besides what he does, furnishes us with the garb of virtue which we can easily put on, if we so desire.”

2544+1-2544+5 Dowden (ed. 1899): “With the pointing above, no emendation is required: Custom, who destroys all sensibility, the evil spiritof our habits, is yet an angel in this, etc. The emendation suggested by Thirlby to Theobald ‘of habits evil’ is plausible; but it effaces the opposition of ‘angel’ to ‘devil.’ Staunton reads ‘eat, Of habits’ devil’; Grant White, ‘eat of habit’s evil’; Johnson, ‘eat of habits, devil.’ Clar. Press notes: ‘The double meaning of the word ‘habits’ suggested the frock or livery.’”

2544+1-2544+ 5 That monster . . . put on] Bullen (ed. 1907): “This passage is not in the Folio. The difficulty lies in the words ‘who all sense doth eat’: the rest is fairly intelligible. Dowden takes ‘who all sense doth eat’ to mean ‘who destroys all sensibility;’ but probably the word ‘eat’ is corrupt. Query ‘cheat’? Custom may be said to ‘cheat all sense’ from the fact that a man who constantly indulges in vicious courses come to regard vice as in itself amiable. Dekker, in the Second part of the Honest Whore, says truly enough ‘Custom in sin gives sin a lovely dye;’ and all will remember the famous passage in Pope’s Essay on Man, ll. 216-220, ‘Vice is a monster. . . We first endure, then pity, then embrace.’”

2544+1-2544+2 That monster . . . this] Goggin (ed. 1913): “’custom, a monster that eats up all natural feeling and is the evil spirit of our habits (for it engenders them), is yet in this respect a good angel.’”

2544+1-2544+4 Cuningham (1922, p. 428): disagrees with the solutions in cam and v1877: the opposition is between angel and monster. Pope’s comma after eate, followed by many, obscures the meaning and should be removed, and deuill should be evil, as conjectured by Thirlby and followed by Theobald. The sense then is: Custom is a monster in destroying all sense of evil habits and conversely . . . etc.

2544+1 sence] Craig (ed. 1931): “feeling, sensibility.”

2544+1-2544+2 deuill] Ridley (ed. 1934): “The easiest emendation of this passage is to omit (with Q2) the comma after eat, and read (with Theobald-Thirlby) evil for devil.”

2544+1-2544+5 That monster...put on] Wilson (ed. 1934): “F1 omits. MSH. pp. 28-9, 167.”

2544-2544+5 Assune . . . put on] Boas (ed. 1935): “Good habits can be as easily acquired as evil.”

2544+1-2544+2 That monster . . . deuill] Parrott and Craig (ed. 1938): “Custom which destroys all sense (i.e., recognition) of evil habits.”

2544+1-2544+5 That monster . . . put on] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Custom, who is a monster because he takes away our feeling of the badness of evil habits, is yet an angel in this point, namely, that he likewise makes good actions easy. Monster and angel stand in antithesis. The Folios omit the passage. The Second Quarto reads deuill for evil. The emendation was suggested to Theobald by Thirlby. Many editors retain devil; but evil is necessary to mark the antithesis between bed habits and good, and monster makes a satisfactory antithesis to angel.”

2544+1-2544+5 Rylands (ed. 1947): “that monster, custom, who destroys all sensibility, being the evil genius of our habits, is yet a good angel in that he makes us more prompt in our good actions.”

2544+1 all . . . eate] Evans (ed. 1974): “wears away all natural feeling.”

2544+1 who all sence doth eate] Spencer (ed. 1980): “which destroys all sensibility.”

2544+1-2544+5 That monster . . . put on] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “i.e. Custom, which erodes or eats away all sense (perception) of evil in what we habitually do, likewise creates a habit whereby we readily get into the way of doing what is good. ‘How use doth breed a habit in a man’ (tgv [5.4.1 (2120)]). The general sense is that though custom makes bad ways acceptable, it can equally lead to the adoption of good ways. This is a traditional idea, going back ultimately to Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, ii.1-4) And it requires us, as Theobald long ago perceived, to emend Q2 devil to evil. Most who do so accept habits evil as a plural (so that habits balances actions in the next line), but the possessive habit’s evil was at one time advocated by Theobald in his correspondence with Warburton (Nichols, Illustrations of Lit. Hist., ii.574). With d and e often indistinguishable, the error of devil for evil is a simple one (cf. MSH, pp.320-1;Sisson, NR); that the emendation has been long and frequently resisted is due to the attractiveness of an antithesis (insisted on by Johnson) between devil and angel. Yet this seeming justification for the Q2 reading may well have been, as Theobald supposed, the source of its error. Along with Dover Wilson, Kittredge, and Sisson, I take the true antithesis to be that of angel with monster and evil with fair and good. Custom is a monster because of what it habituates us to, and to add that it is a devil seems tautlogous. Farnham, however, sees custom as a monster because of its ‘double form, part devil and part angel’. All attempts – including his – to interpret Q2 as it stands involve some wrenching of the syntax. Johnson, with a comma after habits, makes devil parenthetic; more often a comma after eat instead leaves us with two unsatisfactory absolutes: custom eats away all sense or feeling (not only all sense . . . of a defined particular), and custom is the devil or ‘evil genius’ of habits in general. For Farnham it is ‘a devil in, or in respect of, habits’, for Kermode (Riverside) ‘like a devil in establishing bad habits’; but although the words no doubt could hold such sense, one could hardly say that they transparently convey it. Moreover all these renderings (unless perhaps the last, where bad is then intrusive) have the drawback of presenting all habits as of the devil, whereas the point of the passage is that custom facilitates good deeds as well as bad. To make the reference to both aspects clear, the word evil, as Kittredge notes, seems essential. This reading is also more compatible, I believe, with the strict significance of habit. Its original meaning, dress, was still the usual one (as in [3.4.135 (2518)], [1.3.70 (535)]); and indeed the passage beautifully illustrates how a word which at first referred to clothing can come to denote customary behavior. (Cf. [1.4.29 (621+13)] and n.) Here of course it carries on from assume, put on the garb of, in [3.4. 163 (2544+2)], and in turn leads on to the frock or livery of [3.4. 164-5 (2544+4)]. Other proposed emendations, such as Or for Of, or Staunton’s Oft habits’ devil, hardly need discussing.

“A suggested interpretation of deuill as mourning (Fr. deuil) as mourning, in the dual sense of sorrow (dole) and the garments that betoken it, is at least ingenious; but the interpretation of all sense doth eat to mean that custom nourishes itself entirely on the senses (A. Upton in Language Behavior, ed. J. Akin, etc., 1970, pp.301-2) is ruled out by the context, which insists that sense has failed to function (2455+1-2456+4).

“The F cuts in this speech along with the obscurities of Q2 (cf. 2546 and LN) suggest, as Sisson remarks, ‘difficult copy’ (NR, ii.224); but the obstacles may have been as much in the style as in the hand.”

2544+1-2544+5 Edwards (ed. 1985): “Custom is a monster who destroys sensitivity, and thus leads to devilish habits; but also angel, in that he can make us accustomed to good actions.”

2544+1-2544+5 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “The general sense of this passage is conveniently summed up in two commonplace phrases: ‘Custom makes sin no sin’ (Tilley C934), and ‘Custom is overcome with custom’ (Dent C932.1). But it becomes contorted through Shakespeare’s inability to resist the temptation to quibble held out by the word habit.”

2544+1-2544+2 who . . . deuill] Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “i.e. which destroys our ability to recognize bad habits for what they are.”

2544+1 who . . . eate] Bevington (ed. 1988): “which consumes all proper or natural feeling, all sensibility.”

2544+1 - 2544+5 That monster custome . . . is put on] Srigley (2000, p. 30): Bacon takes up the subject of the corrective role of habit “in his Advancement of Human Learning where he discusses the use of habit in the implantation of both vice and virtue within an individual.” Like Bacon, Shakespeare “has Hamlet explain the same double role of habit to his mother [quotes 2544+1 - 2544+5]. Similarly, Bacon gives practical advice on how to superinduce a habit in a human being so that a vice can be transformed into a virtue.”

2544+1-5 That. . . on] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “This passage and the one at 165-8 are not in F. Again Edwards argues that Shakespeare marked them for deletion, and Hibbard comments dismissively on 159-63: ’The general sense of this passage is conveniently summed up in two commonplace phrases: "Custom makes sin no sin" (Tilley, C934) and "Custom is overcome with custom" (Dent, C932.1). But it becomes contorted through Shakespeare’s inability to resist the temptation to quibble held out by the word habit.’ Earlier editors agree: Caldecott remarks, ’Though this passage is much in our author’s manner, the folios do not seem to have omitted any thing that could better have been spared’, and MacDonald says, ’This omitted passage is obscure with the special Shakespearean obscurity that comes of over-condensation. He omitted it, I think, because of its obscurity.”

2544+1 monster Custom] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. Custom who is a monster.”

2544+1-2 who. . . devil] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “ who destroys all sensitivity to wicked or devilish practices. Theobald and many editors emend devil to ’evil’; Johnson and others defend devil because of the antithesis with angel. Hibbard (who prints these lines in an appendix) emends it to ’vile’ on the assumption that the word in the manuscript. was ’vilde’; Oxf emends to ’devilish’. (See Jenkins).”