In the midst of his anguished, âO, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!â soliloquy (2.2.485â540), 1 Hamlet appositively equates âa fiction â (specifically the First Playerâs monologue recounting Pyrrhus killing Priam) to âa dream of passion â (2.2.487). On first glance, Hamlet seems to use âdreamâ here to highlight the inconsequential nature of fiction : how, he wonders, can the Player summon passionate tears for the long-dead Hecuba when his own (ostensibly) non-fictional situation engenders in him a dearth of avenging passion ? In posing this question, Hamlet hints at one of the most central questions to the study of literature, emotion , and ethics : is literature monstrous in its capacity to elicit actual passion for inconsequential circumstances? But Hamlet himself is less worried about literatureâs monstrous passions than he is about his own monstrous lack of passion . He launches into a self-deprecating tirade in which he scorns himself as a âJohn-a-dreamsâ (i.e., âa person given to daydreaming or idle meditationâ [OED, âJohn-a-dreamsâ]) for failing to avenge his dead father (2.2.503). Again, dreams are depreciated. Despite his agony, Hamlet cannot (or will not) simply guilt himself into conjuring an avenging passion and killing Claudius , since he worries that the ghostâs account of Claudius â treachery might itself be a fiction designed to damn him to eternal horror in the dreams that may come in the sleep after death (2.2.533â538). Hence, Hamlet delineates a plan âto catch the conscience of the kingâ (2.2.539â540)âa plan that hinges on fictionâs ability to activate affective signifiers of Claudius â guilt that have been otherwise concealed . In posing his plan, Hamlet hints at the following political question: can literature be used as a sort of lie detector test on those intent on concealing guilt ? Hamletâs capacity to leap quickly from a monumental question about literature, emotion , and ethics to a much more obscure, but equally fascinating question about literatureâs capacity to function politically by cutting through concealment is indicative of Hamletâs distinct interest in a host of philosophical and practical questions about emotion , expression, performance, and interpretation.
But let us give pause here for a moment. Perhaps Hamletâs description of a fiction as âa dream of passion â is not simply a pejorative way of characterising literature, and our passionate attachments to literary characters, as inconsequential. After all, dreams, like literature, can make a huge impact on the âreal worldâ. Indeed, Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he could count himself âa king of infinite spaceâ despite being âbounded in a nut shellâ if not for his âbad dreamsâ (2.2.252â254). 2 Refuting Guildensternâs subsequent assertion that âthe substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dreamâ, Hamlet posits that âA dream is but a shadowâ, though he neglects to say what casts the shadow-dream (2.2.255â258). In Hamlet, dreams are often shrouded in uncertainty, as when Hamlet wonders what dreams might come after death (3.1.63â68), or when he asserts that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Horatioâs philosophy (1.5.165â166). Likewise, Hamletâs comments on the playerâs âdream of passion â are replete with uncertainties. According to the First Playerâs dramatic account of Pyrrhus killing Priam, Hecubaâs grief at seeing her husband so brutally slain â(Unless things mortal move them not at all) / Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven / And passion in the godsâ (2.2.454â456). In expressing uncertainty as to whether divine beings deign to empathise with mere mortals, the speech reflects Hamletâs wider preoccupation with the interpretive pitfalls inherent in any attempt to discern anotherâs passion . Indeed, barring unusual circumstances in which a personâs pain causes the sun and the stars to signify divine compassion by crying , it is impossible to definitively determine whether divine beings grieve with us or sadistically revel in causing our pain Ă la âflies to thâ wanton boysâ (King Lear, 4.1.35). 3 Such uncertainties abound: it is unclear whether the Player weeps out of genuine compassion âfor Hecuba â (as Hamlet seems to think [2.2.493â495]), or resorts to thinking of a more personal memory or fantasy to conjure tears ; it is unclear whether the Playerâs words and appearance effect in Polonius a âcompassion fatigueâ that causes him to beg the Player to stop, or Polonius does so out of scorn for the Playerâs poor performance; and finally, as Indira Ghose notes in her chapter in this volume and elsewhere, âthere is no evidence that Claudius â reaction to the play-within-the-play is provoked by guilt rather than alarm at a thinly veiled threat delivered by his own nephewâ. 4 Of course, similar uncertainties haunt any work of narrative art, but Hamlet is, as Kathryn Prince argues, thematically concerned with âconfusion â especially regarding emotions as they are perceived, expressed and receivedâ. 5
Despite the playâs thematic preoccupation with emotional uncertainty (or perhaps, somehow, because of it),
Hamlet has long been celebrated for its capacity to elicit
emotion . Writing in 1711, the Earl of Shaftesbury calls it
[t]hat Piece of his [i.e., Shakespeareâs], which appears to have most affected English Hearts, and has perhaps been oftenest acted of any which have come upon our Stage, is almost one continuâd Moral; a Series of deep Reflections, drawn from one Mouth, upon the Subject of one single Accident and Calamity, naturally fitted to move Horror and Compassion . 6
Shaftesbury is an early participant in the critical tradition on Hamlet and emotion that provides the foundation upon which this volume is built. 7 Much more recently, the play has been at the centre of many important discussions on early modern emotion and âemotionology â. 8 For example, Gail Kern Paster cites Hamlet in support of her well-known argument for the prevalence of a materialist understanding of emotion in early modern England, 9 as do scholars like John Lee who argue that Hamlet finds âthe materialist theories of his age unsatisfactoryâ. 10 Of course, many critics have explored the emotional dynamics of the play itself, often focusing on specific emotional states including grief , melancholy , and dread . 11 Other scholars have speculated on how the authorâs emotional state is reflected in the play. 12 Some focus on what Hamlet can tell us about the emotional mores of early modern England (and vice versa), 13 w...