On the Tragedies of Shakespeare

Overview

About thirty pages, an essay by Charles Lamb, first published in Leigh Hunt’s Reflector in 1811, arguing that Shakespeare’s great tragedies are actually better read than seen performed. Lamb builds this genuinely counterintuitive claim through specific, concrete failures of stagecraft rather than vague Romantic preference for the page over the boards, examining Hamlet, King Lear, Richard III and Iago in turn.

Lamb contends that acting reduces Hamlet’s inward thought to gesture, that Lear’s storm and madness cannot be represented without becoming either painful or absurd, and that stage Richards and Iagos make villainy attractive through the actor’s own theatrical charisma. The essay speaks for the Romantic view of Shakespeare as a poet of the mind, and was long quoted against the theatre.

What happens

Hamlet’s inward thought reduced to gesture. Lamb argues that acting reduces Hamlet’s inward, constantly qualifying thought to definite physical gesture and vocal delivery, foreclosing the interpretive openness a reader’s own sustained imagination can maintain when encountering the same language privately on the page.

Lear’s storm and the risk of absurdity. Lamb turns to King Lear, arguing that the storm and Lear’s subsequent descent into madness cannot be adequately staged without becoming either genuinely painful to watch or tipping unintentionally into absurdity, undermining rather than achieving the sublime terror the same material produces when read.

Stage villains made attractive. Lamb extends his argument to villainous characters, contending that skilled actors playing Richard III and Iago make these figures genuinely attractive through theatrical charisma, a charm that actively overwhelms the moral horror their words alone convey on the unperformed page.

A foundational Romantic statement. Taken together, Lamb’s specific arguments about Hamlet, Lear and Shakespeare’s villains build toward a broader claim that would become foundational for the Romantic view of Shakespeare, treating him as fundamentally a poet of the mind rather than primarily a practical man of the theatre.

Long quoted against performance. The essay’s arguments were long quoted afterward specifically against theatrical performance of Shakespeare, becoming a standing reference point for readers and critics skeptical of whether stage representation could ever adequately capture what they considered Shakespeare’s essential poetic and psychological achievement.

How to read it

Read Lamb’s specific examples, Hamlet’s reduced inwardness, Lear’s risked absurdity, villains made attractive, as building a cumulative case through concrete stagecraft problems rather than asserting a vague general preference for reading over performance; each example addresses a distinct, specific way theatrical representation can actively undermine rather than merely fail to enhance the text.

Pay close attention to how Lamb’s argument about Hamlet connects theatrical embodiment’s specificity to a loss of interpretive openness; a particular actor’s particular choices necessarily foreclose possibilities a reader’s own imagination can sustain indefinitely without ever needing to settle on one definitive interpretation.

Notice how Lamb’s treatment of stage villains extends his argument into genuinely uncomfortable moral territory; suggesting that skilled performance can make villainy attractive implies theatrical charm can actively work against a tragedy’s own deepest ethical purposes rather than remaining a neutral, merely aesthetic consideration.

Consider the essay’s historical position within the broader Romantic reassessment of Shakespeare; Lamb’s argument here helped establish an influential critical tradition treating Shakespeare primarily as a poet whose greatest achievement lay in psychological depth rather than practical theatrical craft.

Read this essay alongside Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare to compare two influential eighteenth and early nineteenth-century critical treatments of Shakespeare, Johnson’s more balanced assessment of theatrical and literary achievement together against Lamb’s more pointed Romantic argument for reading over performance specifically.

Questions it raises

• Does Lamb’s argument that acting reduces Hamlet’s inward thought to definite gesture hold up given how differently various actual performances and directors have interpreted the role across the centuries since Lamb wrote? Does this variety in performance actually preserve rather than foreclose interpretive openness?
• How persuasive is Lamb’s claim that Lear’s storm and madness risk becoming absurd or merely painful onstage? Does this argument depend on the specific theatrical conventions and staging technology available in Lamb’s own period, or does it hold up against more sophisticated modern theatrical techniques?
• What does Lamb’s argument about villains becoming attractive through skilled performance suggest about the relationship between aesthetic pleasure and moral judgment more broadly? Does this tension exist only in theatrical performance, or does it extend to how readers might also find compelling prose villains attractive on the page?
• How does Lamb’s essay’s influence on subsequent Romantic criticism of Shakespeare compare to its actual persuasiveness as a specific argument about staging? Has the essay’s historical importance outlasted the strength of its individual claims about particular plays and performances?
• Given that Shakespeare himself was a practical man of the theatre who wrote these plays specifically for performance, how should a reader weigh Lamb’s argument that they are better read than seen against Shakespeare’s own evident original theatrical intention?
• What does the essay’s genuine influence on subsequent skepticism toward Shakespearean performance suggest about the relationship between literary criticism and actual theatrical practice? Did Lamb’s argument meaningfully shape how Shakespeare was subsequently staged, or did theatrical practice largely continue independent of this influential critical position?