624 Middleton (A Mad World, my Masters (4.1) 1605-6, apud Steevens in Ingleby et al. 1932, 1: 142): “Shield me you ministers of faith and grace!”

624-39 Angels . . . hideous] Addison (20 April 1711): “The Appearance of the Ghost in Hamlet is a Masterpiece in its kind, and wrought up with all the Circumstances that can create either Attention or Horrour. The Mind of the Reader is wonderfully prepared for his Reception by the Discourses that precede it. His dumb Behaviour at his first Entrance strikes the Imagination very strongly; but every Time he enters he is still more terrifying. Who can read the Speech with which young Hamlet accosts him, without trembling? [quotes 623-39]. I do not therefore find Fault with the Artifices abovementioned when they are introduced with Skill and accompanied by proportionable Sentiments and Expressions in the Writing.”

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Stubbs (1736, p. 22), within a long note on the scene, comments: “Hamlet’s Invocation of the heavenly Ministers is extremely fine; and the begging their Protection upon the Appearance of a Sight so shocking to human Nature, is entirely conformable to the virtuous Character of this Prince, and gives an air of Probability to the whole Scene. He accosts the Ghost with great Intrepidity; and his whole Speech is so full of the Marks of his Filial Piety, that we may easily observe, that his Tenderness for his Father gets the better of all Sentiments of Terror which we could suppose to arise, even in the Breast of the most undaunted Person, upon the seeing and conversing with so strange an Apparition.”

Ed. note: Stubbs’s note is remarkable on several counts; this critic is good at seeing multiple purposes for speeches. He believes that the speech is Nature, that it accords with Hamlet’s “virtuous Character,” his “Intrepidity,” his “Filial Piety.” Hamlet’s love for his father overcomes “the terror we would expect anyone to feel,” at such a shocking sight.

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Cibber (1740, pp. 60-61): <p. 60>“You have seen a Hamlet, perhaps, who on the first appearance of his Father’s Spirit has thrown himself into all the straining Vociferation requisite to express Rage and Fury, and the House has thunder’d with Applause; tho’ the mis-guided Actor was all the while (as Shakespeare terms it) tearing a Passion into Rags. —I am the more bold to offer you this particular Instance because the late Mr. Addison [d. 1719], while I sate by him to see this Scene acted, made the same Observation, asking me with some Surprize if I thought Hamlet should be in so violent a Passion with the Ghost, which tho’ it might have astonish’d, it had not provok’d him? For you may observe that in this beautiful Speech the Passion never rises beyond an almost breathless Astonishment or an Impatience, limited by filial Reverence, to enquire into the suspected </p. 60> <p. 61> Wrongs that may have rais’d him from his peaceful Tomb! and a Desire to know what a Spirit so seemingly distrest, might wish or enjoin a sorrowful Son to execute towards his future Quiet in the Grave? This was the Light into which Betterton threw this Scene which he open’d with a Pause of mute Amazement! then rising slowly, to a solemn, trembling Voice, he made the Ghost equally terrible to the Spectator as to himself! and in the descriptive Part of the natural Emotions which the ghastly Vision gave him the boldness of his Expostulation was still govern’d by Decency, manly, but not braving; his Voice never rising into that seeming Outrage or wild Defiance of what he naturally rever’d . . . .” </p. 61>

Ed. note: The pagination of the 1740 rpt. of Cibber, ed. Fone, and the pagination of the 1739 ed. are close.

624 on acting Cibber (1939, apud Williamson, p. 8, continuing after Vickers, above): “But alas! to preserve this medium, between mouthing and meaning too little, to keep the attention more pleasingly awake, by a temper’d Spirit, than by mere Vehemence of Voice, is all the Master-strokes of an Actor the most difficult to reach. In this none yet have equal’d Betterton.”

624-41 Warburton (ed. 1747): marked as a shining passage.

624-30 Fielding (1750, 16.5.657-60) records the reaction of Partridge to Garrick’s Hamlet’s meeting with the ghost, dressed in armor: Partridge “fell in so violent a Trembling, that his Knees knocked against each other . . . .” Asked about his fright, he says he’s not the only one: ‘ . . . if that little Man there upon the Stage is not frightened, I never saw any Man frightened in my life . . . . [P]erhaps it is the Devil—for they say he can put on what Likeness he pleases . . . . </p. 657> <p. 658> [W]hen I saw the little Man so frightened himself, it was that which took hold of me . . . . [D]id you not observe afterwards, when he found it was his own Father’s Spirit, and how he was murdered in the Garden, how his Fear forsook him by Degrees, and he was struck dumb with Sorrow . . . .’ ” </p. 659> Fielding’s joke is that Partridge prefers the actor playing the king to Garrick. The latter does nothing that anybody in the same situation would not do, </p. 659> <p. 660> while the former “ ‘speaks all his Words distinctly, half as loud again as the other.—Any Body may see he is an Actor.” </p. 660>

624-30 Lloyd (1760, p. 34): “More nature oft and finer strokes are shown, In the low whisper than tumultuous tone, And Hamlet’s hollow voice and fixt amaze, More powerful terror to the mind conveys, Than he, who swol’n with big impetuous rage, Bullies the bulky phantom off the stage.”

624-43 Gentleman (1770, 1: 17-18): <p. 17> “The prince’s address begins with becoming awe, yet I apprehend rises too suddenly into expressions ill applied to the venerable, well-known, beloved figure then before him; terror does indeed confound reason, but seldom gives birth to a passionate presumptive effusion; wherefore I must be hardy enough to offer an objection against the following lines, as to their import; [quotes 625-6).

“Nor can I by any means acquiesce in opinion that a heart so fluttered and affected as Hamlet’s is, could possibly dictate multiplied images; and certainly we discover much more of the poet and fancy than suitable feelings in [quotes 631-6 (tell . . . again?)] </p. 17> <p. 18>

“Besides, in the strictness of observation, it is worthy notice, that Hamlet in one line calls the appearance in view, a spirit [625], and immediately materializes him, by mentioning the corporeal appurtenance of bones; . . .” </p. 18>

624-43 Gentleman (1770, 1: 33): “In the performance [of Hamlet] we must . . . place Mr. Garrick far before any other competitor; his reception of, and address to the Ghost; his natural, picturesque attitude, terror-struck features, low, tremulous expression, rising in harmonious gradation, with the climax of his speech and feelings, all give us the most pleasing, I had almost said, astonishing sensibility; in all the pointed parts of the dialogue, his matchless eyes, anticipate his tongue, and impress the meaning upon us with double force; no man ever did, nor possibly, ever will, speak hemistics, broken sentences, and make transitions with such penetrating effect; in this lines the indisputable superiority of our modern Roscius; that, where other performers, and good ones too, pass unnoticed he is frequently great; where an author is languid, he gives him spirit; where powerful, due support . . . .”

624 Anon. [Steevens] (hic et ubique, St. James’s Chronicle no. 1717: Feb. 20/21, 1772, apud Vickers 5: 450): “As no Writer in any Age penned a Ghost like Shakespeare, so in our Time no Actor ever saw a Ghost like Garrick. For my part I must confess he has made me believe my old my Friend Bransby (who is tolerably substantial) to be incorporeal—and I think for the Time with my Friend Partridge in Tom Jones. But, not to be frightened out of my Wits, why will not the Actor speak Angels and Ministers! &c. upon the immediate Entrance of the Ghost? and why will he suffer his Friends Hor. and Mar. to destroy a graceful Attitude of Terror, by holding him directly?—The Seperation of the three Persons in different Positions would be more terribly Picturesque, and they should take hold of him only at [quotes 664-5] . . . .” </p. 450>

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Johnson (ed. 1773): “Hamlet’s speech to the apparition of his father seems to me to consist of three parts. When first he sees the spectre, he fortifies himself with an invocation. ‘Angels and ministers of grace defend us!’ As the spectre approaches, he deliberates with himself, and determines, that whatever it be he will venture to address it. ‘Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damn’d, Bring with thee airs from heaven, or blasts from hell, Be thy intents wicked or charitable, Thou com’st in such a questionable shape, That I will speak to thee. I’ll call thee, &c.’ This he says while his father is advancing; he then, as he had determined, speaks to him, and calls him—Hamlet, King, Father, Royal Dane: oh! answer me.’ Johnson.”

624-30 Gentleman (ed. 1773): “There is a striking solemnity in this address to the Ghost; it begins with a natural degree of intimidation, proceeds in a beautiful climax of imagery, and warms into a just, manly confidence of interrogation; the Author has been so correct, as not to introduce an idea or expression, but what such a personage might be supposed, on such an occasion, to form.”

624-74 Lichtenberg (1774, pp. 8-9): <p. 8>, after seeing David Garrick perform on 2 December 1774, wrote: “All the scenes in which he and the Ghost meet beggar description; they are as far removed from the commonplace scenes as life is from death. The Ghost looked very good; the colour of his armour was practically indistinguishable from the colour of the scene, and he was already there quiet and motionless, before I, who probably like every other spectator had my eyes riveted on Hamlet, noticed him. When Garrick sees him, he does not make a bow, as Smith once did, and because of it was called Sir Hamlet, but he suddenly starts back with buckling knees and outstretched arms and finally remains standing in this posture, legs well apart, with knees bent, supported by Horatio and Marcellus; thus he speaks. This expression of fear combined with the most chilling horror, which can be experienced only by a person who sees a ghost, from whom nevertheless he expects more good than ill, produced an astonishing effect. The absolute silence of the audience intensified everything so much more that, believe me, several times a cold shiver ran through me, even before he had begun his speech. I have been told that some years ago a man in the shilling gallery thought that this really was a ghost; his neighbor told him it was an actor, and the ghost was part of the tragedy. But, said the former, if that is so, why </p.8> <p. 9> then is the man in black (Garrick) terrified of it himself? The way he says the words ‘speak-speak’ [these words not spoken by Hamlet but by Horatio, 65] to the motionless thing, finally tears himself away from his friends when it beckons him, how he threatens them, ‘or I’ll make a ghost of him that lets me,’ at last resolutely follows the ghost, not like a stout-hearted man following a base, hot-headed opponent to a duel, but always like a man who follows a ghost against which all strength and cunning avail nothing, with the kind of nervousness of a little bird; all this makes the scene proceed without your even once being aware of yourself, or of London, Drury Lane and Garrick. This only happens in the general clapping which follows this scene, and then one cannot help exulting in the great genius. Garrick and Shakespeare have acknowledged each other through a third party, through mankind. Shakespeare would have it thus, and this Garrick could only know through the felicitous observation of mankind, allied to the [[close]] reading of the poet’s words. The posture Garrick falls into at the sight of the spectre lacks nothing but the raised head to serve a painter as the model for ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’ In this instance, the terror does not come from Heaven; indeed, its source is no more sublime than Hamlet is; it is no angel, and no God, but an apparition. We have a few contemporary actors in Germany who are certainly not so inferior to Garrick as many a merchant or baron returning from London claims in company, when there are no well-travelled people present; but most of them fail in the soliloquies, particularly in the meditative ones, where it should be almost a sin to look at the audience. This is just where Garrick’s strength lies.”

“On December 12th [[1774]] I saw Mr. Garrick as Hamlet for the second time; I have on this occasion observed a few things more closely. It is very moving to see young Hamlet on a cold night, waiting for the Ghost, simply because he has been told it looks like his dead father, who he is full of, whilst you can hear the kettle-drums and trumpets, to the sound of which his uncle, his father’s murderer, quaffs down his drinks at midnight. He walks up and down, waiting for the spectre; all of a sudden, Horatio says, ‘Look, Mylord it comes . . . .

“In Hamlet’s starting back there is no affected stumbling; there is nothing clumsy or schoolboyish. Whilst the Ghost speaks, Garrick stands motionless, with sword drawn, the point of which, from an arm fully outstretched directly sideways, touches the ground, the left hand again half-extended, almost flat with the fingers spread. I employ here words the strictest meaning of which the thoughtful reader must infer for himself, in order to imagine the intrinsic beauty of the picture. The look expresses astonishment and horror, the mouth is slightly open and the eyes rather more so. Immediately after the appearance of the Ghost, Hamlet pretends to be mad as you know, and comes on with thick hair, loose but not tangled; half hangs over the left shoulder; of the black stockings the left one has fallen down, and allows the tightly fitting white understocking to be seen for more than a hand’s width; the red garter hands down like a sling over the middle of the calf; everything fine and ideal.”

624-30 Anon. (St. James’s Chronicle, no. 2437, Oct. 17-19, 1776, p. 4): “The Character of Hamlet has tried to the very utmost the Abilities of all the great Actors we have ever had. And though we scorn to join in the indiscriminate and senseless Adulation of Mr. Garrick, in this Place it is but bare Truth to say of him, that in this Character for 30 Years, he has stood alone. There was some little Circumstances, however, that proved this great Man to be a Mortal: one material one we shall mention, as we see copied in larger characters than the Original, by all his servile Imitators. On seeing his Father’s Ghost, which he is prepared to see, Mr. Garrick throws himself into such an Attitude, that if Horatio did not support him, he must fall down. Allowing reasonably for Stage Trick, this appears to us to be extravagantly over-done; for Hamlet immediately speaks one of the most manly and most determined Speeches that could have been made, and which a Man knocked down with Fear could not have spoken—‘Be thou a Spirit of Health, or Goblin damned, &c.—I’ll speak to thee!.” Mr. Lewis, the weak actor Keene was reviewing, evidently followed Garrick in this stage trick and was applauded enthusiastically for it.

624-30 Anon. [Caveat] (St. James’s Chronicle, no. 2438, Oct. 19-22, 1776, p. 4), disagreeing with the reviewer about Garrick, says “The State of Preparation which this Critic supposes Hamlet to be in, is the same with that of Horatio, when he first saw the Ghost, and what said he upon the occasion? ‘It startles me with fear and wonder ,’ yet in the next Line but one, at the Request of his Companions to speak to it, he breaks out with a very fine Expostulation to the Object of his Terror, ‘What are thou that usurp’st this Time of Night? &c.’ Nevertheless, as soon as the Spirit vanishes, Bernardo cries’ How now! Horatio, you tremble and look pale.’ To me there appears nothing inconsistent in this Behaviour. And why should not Hamlet be affected in the same Manner at the first Sight of this praeternatural Appearance? Says the Critic, Hamlet immediately speaks a most manly and most determined Speech. By no Means: Hamlet’s first Exclamation at the sight is ‘Angels! and Ministers of Grace defend us!’ and the Attitude which should precede and accompany this Speech is very different from that which would be proper for that following.”

624-42 Anon (St. James’s Chronicle, no. 2439 [Oct. 21-24, 1776), p. [4]): disagrees with Theatre about Garrick’s start, “No Preparation whatsoever can guard any Son from Amazement and Terror when he sees such an awful Vision as the Ghost of his Father. Mr., Garrick’s conduct in that Scene was always such as justified the loudest Approbation of the whole House . . . . I must confess I thought that inimitable Actor a little faulty in the Process of this striking Scene; Hamlet should constantly fix his Eye upon the Ghost, and ought to dis-engage himself from Horatio and Marcellus, without turning his Back to him. This might easily be effected without any Stage Trick.”

624 Malone (-1778, fol. 50v): “This invocation seems to have been imitated by Middleton in A Mad World My Masters 1640 ‘Shield me you ministers of faith & grace’”

624-30 Cibber (apud Davies, 1784, p. 29): Betterton “opened the scene with a pause of mute amazement; then, rising slowly to a solemn, trembling voice, he made the Ghost equally terrible to the spectator and himself; and, in the descriptive part of the natural emotions which the ghoastly vision gave him, the boldness of his expostulation was still governed by decency; manly, but not bracing; his voice never rising to that seeming outrage or wild defiance of what he naturally revered.”

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Davies (1784, 3: 28-31): <p. 28> “Hamlet’s address to the ghost, in this act, is justly esteemed one of those situations in which the actor of merit may display, to the full, his greatest abilities.—Taylor was the original performer of Hamlet; and his excellences, in that character, were so remarkable, that, from the remembrance of them, Sir William Davenant taught Betterton a lesson which gained him universal and lasting reputation. His manner of address to the vision is recorded, by Cibber, that the rea- </p. 28> <p. 29> der will not be displeased to see them quoted here: [quotes Cibber as above]

“Mr. Macklin, whose judgement merits the utmost deference, differs in his opinion respecting the behaviour of Hamlet to the Ghost, from Betterton and Garrick. With pleasure I have heard him recite the speech of Hamlet to the Ghost, which he did with much force and energy. After the short ejaculation of ‘Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!’ he endea- </p. 29> <p. 30> voured to conquer that fear and terror into which he was naturally thrown by the first sight of the vision, and uttered the remainder of the address calmly, but respectfully, and with a firm tone of voice, as from one who had subdued his timidity and apprehension. Mr. Henderson, a most judicious actor and accurate speaker, seems to have embraced a method not unlike that of Mr. Macklin.

“How far tradition may be permitted to govern. in this question, I will not say: but Downs, the stage-historian, in his peculiar phrase, informs us, ‘That Mr. Betterton took every particle of Hamlet from Sir William Davenant, who had seen Mr. Taylor, who was taught by Mr. Shakspeare himself.

If we give credit to Downs, we must grant that the author was the best interpreter of his own meaning. Nor can I, indeed, conceive, that any sudden resolution, on the appearance of so questionable a shape as the vision of a dead father, can </p. 30> <p. 31> so far support a son as to be free from terror and affright. It is not in nature to assume such courage as will withstand a sight so awful and tremendous.

“Towards the close of Hamlet’s speech. the words themselves are strongly expressive of the uncommon impression still remaining on his mind: ‘—And we, fools of nature, So horridly to shake our disposition With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls’ [639-41]

“Colley Cibber, when in company with Mr. Addison at the tragedy of Hamlet, tells us, that they were both surprised at the vociferous manner in which Wilks spoke to the Ghost. This was greatly censured by them both, and with justice; for awe and terror will never excite a loud and intemperate exertion of the voice.

“Wilks was so far mistaken, in this treatment of Hamlet’s Ghost, that [Barton] Booth, one day at rehearsal, reproached him for it. ‘I thought,’ said he, ‘Bob, that last night </p. 31> <p. 32> you wanted to play at fisty-cuffs with me: you bullied that which you ought to have revered. When I acted the Ghost with Betterton, instead of my awing him, he terrified me!’ But divinity hung round that man!’ To this rebuke, Wilks, with his usual modesty, replied, —‘Mr. Betterton and Mr. Booth could always act as they pleased: he, for his part, must do as well as he could.’

“The Ghost, though not meanly represented since the time of Booth, has never been equal to the action of that comedian. His slow, solemn, and under, tone of voice, his noiseless tread, as he had been composed of air, and his whole deportment, inspired the audience with that feeling which is excited by awful astonishment! The impression of his appearance in this part was so powerful, upon a constant frequenter of the theatres for near sixty years, that he assured me, when, long after Booth’s death, he was present at the tragedy of Hamlet, as soon as the </p. 32> <p.33 > name of the Ghost was announced on the stage, he felt a kind of awe and terror, ‘of which,’ said he, ‘I was soon cured by his appearance.’ Quin, who loved and admired Booth, some years before he left the stage, to oblige his old friend Ryan, acted the Ghost with the approbation of the public, and as near to the manner of his old master as he possibly could.

“Let me add here, that the situation of Æneas, when he is surprised by the vision of his wife, Creüsa, is similar to that of Hamlet, and is strongly pictured by the exclamation of — ‘Obstupui, steteruntque comæ, et vox faucibus hæsit!’

“These words are so expressive of extreme terror of mind, that no fortitude could enable any man to recover from it by calm effort of deliberation. The senses are too much disturbed to be brought into their proper tone by any thing but time.” </p. 33>

The above is from my xerox

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Editor (The Gentleman’s Magazine 58.2 (1788): 779, on Fuseli’s illustration for Hamlet’s first view of the ghost: “Mr. Fuseli has at last completed his scene in the tragedy of Hamlet. It is the first interview of the Prince of Denmark with the apparition of his father. Though it would not be easy to overpraise this performance, it is difficult to furnish its appropriate commendation, as words, however skillfully disposed, are but weak representatives of such design and colouring as our truly animated painter has displayed on his expressive canvas. We, therefore, leave the task of encomium to Mr. Boydell’s numerous and scientific subscribers, observing only, that the venerable magnificence of the royal spectre—his armour illuminated by partial glimpses of the moon—the dreary expanse of lurid air and ruffled water behind him—Hamlet’s struggle to get loose—and his eye rivetted all the while on the ghost in respectful attention, that bespeaks astonishment free from pusillanimity—are circumstances announcing the perfect judgement of the Alderman, when he allotted this sublime subject to the pencil of Fuseli.

“The remaining figures, though inferiors of the scene, are rendered conspicuous on account of expression judiciously varied in their attitudes and faces. The apparition was no fresh object to either of them. The scholastic and recollected Horatio is, therefore, so much familiarized to it, that he confines his solicitudes to the security of the Prince of Denmark; but the less calm and philosophic Marcellus, who has not yet reconciled his eye to supernatural appearances, steals half a look at the phantom as he shrinks away from it, seeming to doubt his own safety if he ventures on more than a furtive glance at this aweful visitant from another world.

“Some artists engaged in the princely undertaking of Messrs. Boydell may be said to receive patronage from it; but from Mr. Fuseli, whose imagination is thoroughly impregnated by Shakspeare, the work itself derives an Herculean support . . . .”

624-74 Anon. (1789, p. 12): “Just and impressive as our actor may be esteemed in this and the foregoing scene [both 1.2], the following one, in my opinion, is most assuredly his masterpiece. In that truly celebrated scene, where Hamlet encounters his father’s spirit, Mr. Kemble shines with super-eminent lustre. . . . The performer’s reception of the Ghost can only raise one emotion in the minds of his audience, that of silent admiration: surprise and terror, in reality, benumbs all his limbs.”

624-74 Goethe (1796, 5:11:194-5): <5:11:194> Wilhelm Meister, playing the part of Hamlet, is so distracted by his speech about Danish drunkenness “that, like the spectators, he forgot about the Ghost, and was therefore quite terrified when Horatio said, ‘Look, my lord, it comes!’ He turned around sharply, and the tall noble figure with its soft silent tread in the seeming heavy armor made such a strong effect on him that he stood there petrified and could only murmur the words, ‘Angels and ministers of grace defend us!’ He stared at the figure, took a few deep breaths, and delivered his address to the Ghost in such a distraught, broken and compulsive manner that the greatest of artists could not have done better. </p. 194> <p. 195>

“His translation of this passage was a great help to him, for he had kept very close to the original, conveying the surprise and fright, the horror that was seizing hold of Hamlet’s mind as he said: ‘Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned . . . . O! answer me.’ ” </p. 195>

624 Angels . . . vs] Seymour (1805, p. 156): “So exclaims Penitent on the appearance of the devil in Mrs. Hairbrain’s shape, in A Mad World My Masters: ‘Shield me, ye ministers of faith and grace.’”

624-42 Drake (1817, 2: 412-13): “With a still higher degree of anxiety, curiosity, and terror, does Hamlet, as might naturally be expected, invoke the spirit of his father; his address being wrought up to the highest tone of amaze- </p. 412><p. 413> ment and emotion, and clothes with the most vigorous expression of poetry: [quotes 624-42].

“The doubts and queries of this most impressive speech are similar to those which are allowed to be entertained, and directed to be put, by contemporary writers on the subject of apparitions." </p. 413>

624 Angels . . . vs:] Schlegel (ed. ?): “Engel und Boten Gottes steht uns bei! —” [Angels and God’s emissaries stand by us —]

624 Hunter (1845, 2: 222): “An exclamation of surprise rather than of apprehension. No doubt Shakespeare had often heard among his townsmen at Stratford the exclamation Lord bless me! on some occasion of sudden surprise, especially if accompanied with any feeling in the presence of danger, in which bless is used in a sense now faded, importing defence, protection. Seeing this to be the exclamation of unsophisticated nature, he puts it into the mouth of Hamlet, only clothing the sentiment in a less homely garb; making it, indeed, befitting a prince and a scholar. The idea of surprise predominates over the idea of apprehension. He did not mean that he needed protection in the presence of so gracious a figure, and the exclamation must be understood to escape him almost as much involuntarily as the more ordinary expression above alluded to not infrequently does from less cultivated minds in similar circumstances.”

624 [Pause] Hunter (1845, 2: 222): “A pretty long pause should ensure after it [the exclamation] is spoken, to allow him to recollect himself.”

624 Angels . . . vs:] Collier (1853, p. 421): “There is a singular marginal instruction to the player of the part of Hamlet, that after he has exclaimed,— ‘Angels and Ministers of grace defend vs!’ he is to pause before he continues. This seems natural, and therefore judicious; and we may, perhaps, infer that such was the mode in which Richard Burbage (the original representative of the character) delivered the address. From him it may have been handed down to the time of the old corrector through Joseph Taylor, who followed Burbage in this and some other principal parts. During this pause we may suppose that the actor was gasping for breath, with his eyes fixed upon the apparition, and unable for some moment to proceed.”

Collier (1853, p. 528) adds: “We can well remember that John Kemble made a similar pause, and other actors hd done so after him.”

Ed. note: Evidence suggests that Collier forged the notes he refers to from the Perkins F2.

624-43 Wade (1855, p. 5): “When his father’s ghost, ‘in his habit, as he lived,’ starts up visibly before him, he addresses it in a speech which seems to have been thoughtfully prepared for the occasion, in the course of which he virtually complains that he, a ‘fool of nature,’ should be ‘horridly shaken in his disposition, With thoughts beyond the reaches of his soul;’ he deliberately argues, too, upon the safety of that soul; . . . . ”

624 Collier (ed. 1858): “Pause.]] This minute stage-direction, showing the particular manner of the old actor of the character of Hamlet, ought to be preserved, and is in the margin of the corr. fo. 1632. It seems natural that the performer should ‘pause’ to recover breath after his exclamation, and before he tremblingly proceeds with his question to the Ghost. We believe that the modern practice on our stage has been uniform in this respect,—possibly, from the oldest tradition.”

674 Marshall (1875, p. 9) notes that Hamlet uses the plural here, defend us. Later he will use the singular [2484].

624 Elze (1882, p. 136): “Compare Middleton, A Mad World my Masters, IV, 1 (Works, ed. Dyce, II, 386):— ‘Shield me, you ministers of faith and grace.’ Is this to be considered an allusion? It is not contained in Dr Ingleby’s Centurie of Prayse. Marston, The Insatiate Countesse, A. II (Works, ed. Halliwell, III, 122): Angels of grace, Amen, Amen, say to’t.”

624 MacDonald (ed. 1885) points to the similar invocation in the queen’s closet [2484].

624 defend] Travers (ed. 1929): Because no comma precedes it, Hamlet expresses desire rather than command.

624-887 Wilson (ed. 1934) includes among the scenes that matter significantly, those between Hamlet and the ghost, and Horatio and Marcellus in the cellarage scene. He also includes in this list the scenes with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in 2.2, with Ophelia in 3.1. These scenes properly interpreted, once the text is certain, tell us what Hamlet/Hamlet is about.

624-30 Wilson (1935, pp. 71-2) < p. 71> At this point, </ p. 71> <p. 72> Ham.’s response is standard Protestantism: the spirit may be angel or devil. </ p. 72>

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Hamlet, like Horatio, is a scholar and knows how an apparition should be addressed. He understands the danger of speaking to a spirit (see note on [54]), and he is fully alive to the possibility that this may be a demon in his father’s shape. Accordingly he begins by invoking the angels and all good spirits (ministers or agents of God’s grace) to protect him; and then calling the apparition by his father’s name, he adjures it to tell its errand. By using this form of words he avoids to some extent the danger involved in accosting it if it should be a demon; for in that case he has not, strictly speaking, addressed it at all.”

624 Ministers of grace] Spencer (ed. 1980): “messengers from God”

624-30 Angels . . . vs:] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A prayer for protection against a possible evil spirit.”

624 Ministers] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “messenger of God. Cf. [2551]; MM 5.1.115 (2484), ‘you blessed ministers above.’

624 Ministers] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “agents”

624-30 Angels . . . mee] Maguin (ed. 1995): “Hamlet recontre le spectre pour la première fois. Il confirme ici le pari pris en toute connaissance de cause quant á la nature de l’apparition (voir [456]n; egalement [1638-45]n). . . . &c.”

624 Ministers] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “agents, messengers. ’Angels and ministers of grace’ is another example of hendiadys, i.e. ’Angels who minister grace’ (Wright, 186).”

624 Angels] Crystal (2008, pp. 163-4): <p. 163> “In the sense ’divine messenger,’ this is Anglo-Saxon in origin, occuring in the tenth-century Lindisfarne </p. 163> <p. 164> Gospels. But in the sense of ’lovely being’—a person resumbling an angel—the OED’s first citation is in fact Romeo’s reaction to hearing Juliet’s first words [2.1. (000)] . . . . ” </p. 164>

624 Angels and Ministers of grace defend vs] Pequigney (2008, private communication): “Calvin’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms, on Ps. 35.4-7, discusses ’the angels, who are the ministers of grace and salvation, and the appropriate guardians of the faithful. . . .’ Shakespeare drops the phrase ’of salvation,’ and whereas Calvin conceives of his designated guardian or defensive spirits as identical (’angels are’), Shakespeare differentiates them (’angels and’), thereby making problematic the nature of the ’ministers of grace.’ The name in the play can signify spiritual creatures endowed with grace, rather than purveyors of grace, which seems to be Calvin’s sense. Shakespeare has Hamlet use the name in an invocation. Calvin denounces the Papist practice of the invocation of angels and saints as impious, sacrilegious, and superstitious (cf. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.12.2-3, and the commentary on Ps. 50.14-15). Although angels may be assigned by God to protect Christians on earth, they cannot be directly addressed; all prayers must be addressed to God, with Christ our only mediator and intercessor. This is standard Protestant doctrine. Shakespeare borrows the term in question from Calvin and, amusingly, puts it in a Catholic form of supplication that Calvin would have condemned.”