A she Hamlet by William Dean Howells

Name: A she Hamlet
Author: William Dean Howells

The work is a critical essay examining a theatrical production in which a leading actress assumes a traditionally male role in a renowned tragedy. The essay begins by describing the intense expectations and atmospheric dread that accompany any performance of the famous tragedy, and it recounts a personal experience of anticipation and subsequent disillusionment when confronted with an unconventional portrayal. Early on, the reviewer is struck by three inherent obstacles in the actress’s performance: her gender, her ethnic background, and the manner of her speech. These factors, the essay argues, place her at an insurmountable remove from the authentic, masculine character traditionally envisioned. The first section establishes that the audience’s critical predispositions are inevitably tainted by previous interpretations of the role. The comparison is drawn between this actress’s interpretation and that of another, earlier actor known for a more natural, masculine and poetic treatment of the part. This earlier portrayal, characterized by a robust and emotionally resonant execution, provided a benchmark against which the current performance is sharply contrasted, highlighting the deficiencies introduced by the shift in gender dynamics. In the following section, the review delves into how the actress’s performance distorts the character’s intrinsic qualities. The analysis emphasizes that while certain technical aspects of the role—such as the mastery of stage presence and precise delivery of lines—are evident, they are overshadowed by a fundamental alteration in the character’s nature. The performance lacks the natural tension, moral complexity, and heroic despair that defined previous interpretations. Instead, it is marked by performances that betray the inherent incongruities of a feminine portrayal attempting to embody an archetypal masculine figure. The reviewer criticizes her intonation, gestural execution, and the overall presentation as lacking the necessary gravitas and internal conflict, reducing the character to a caricature imbued with “womanish” nervous mannerisms rather than the tormented, conflicted persona originally conceived. The essay then advances a broader argument regarding artistic ideals. It contends that the portrayal represents not merely a fault in individual performance but a violation of an aesthetic and moral ideal. The character, as an iconic figure of masculine struggle and introspection, is irrevocably altered when presented through the lens of femininity. The text argues that literature and drama possess an implicit hierarchy of ideal forms—specifically, that certain imaginary masculine types hold a unique place in the artistic imagination which should not be casually tampered with. When a woman attempts to embody this archetype, the alteration is so profound that it undermines the work’s “vital essence” and, by extension, disrespects the sacred ideals of the source material. Throughout the essay, comparisons are made to other well-known portrayals that maintained the traditional masculine energy of the character, noting that even the best female interpretations in other roles cannot achieve the same effect when tackling such a fundamentally masculine part. The review suggests that any approximation of the male character by a female actor will necessarily fall short because it fails to capture the essential qualities that make the role a “sublime ideal.” In doing so, the review raises a broader issue about the limits of adaptation and the challenges inherent in reinterpreting established literary figures through different gender lenses, asserting that certain roles are intrinsically tied to their original conception. Concluding with a moral and aesthetic judgment, the essay declares that the attempt to perform the role in a gender-incompatible manner diminishes the work as a whole. It is not merely a question of technical execution but a fundamental misalignment with the character’s inner identity. This miscasting, the review argues, corrupts the integrity of the portrayal and does a disservice both to the original text and to the audience’s expectations. The performance is seen as a regrettable overreach—an artistic transgression that, once witnessed, leaves a lasting negative impression and challenges the very notion of fidelity to an ideal that literature has long enshrined.

By William Dean Howells · First published 1888 · Genre: Literary Criticism, Theatre Criticism, Essay · 3,040 words

First lines

The other night as I sat before the curtain of the Garden Theatre and waited for it to rise upon the Hamlet of Mme. Bernhardt, a thrill of the rich expectation which cannot fail to precede the rise of any curtain upon any Hamlet passed through my eager frame. There is, indeed, no scene of drama which is of a finer horror (eighteenth-century horror) than that which opens the great tragedy. The sentry pacing up and down upon the platform at Elsinore under the winter night; the greeting between him and the comrade arriving to relieve him, with its hints of the bitter cold; the entrance of Horatio and Marcellus to these before they can part; the mention of the ghost, and, while the soldiers are in the act of protesting it a veridical phantom, the apparition of the ghost, taking the word from their lips and hushing all into a pulseless awe: what could be more simply and sublimely real, more naturally supernatural? What promise of high mystical things to come there is in the mere syllabling of the noble verse, and how it enlarges us from ourselves, for that time at least, to a disembodied unity with the troubled soul whose martyry seems foreboded in the solemn accents! As the many Hamlets on which the curtain had risen in my time passed in long procession through my memory, I seemed to myself so much of their world, and so little of the world that arrogantly calls itself the actual one, that I should hardly have been surprised to find myself one of the less considered persons of the drama who were seen but not heard in its course.

What this Textopian page supports

A she Hamlet is listed on Textopian as an essay by William Dean Howells, dated 1888 CE.

This source record anchors work identity, reading entry points, and catalog context for checking claims about the work.

Work type: Essay
Author: William Dean Howells
Date: 1888 CE
Language: English
Genres: Literary Criticism, Theatre Criticism, Essay, Gender Studies, Cultural Criticism
Length: 3,040 words
Structure: 1 section, 19 paragraphs
Reading fit: Standard (8th-9th Grade)

Good citation fit

Work identity for A she Hamlet by William Dean Howells
Canonical title URL and first readable passage URL
Genre and topic classification from the Textopian catalog
Readability and classroom-planning context
Passage-specific claims should cite the exact /read/ URL for the relevant chapter or paragraph

Discussion starters

What should a reader notice first when entering A she Hamlet?
How does this essay by William Dean Howells fit its genre, period, or classroom use?
Where does Literary Criticism first become important in the reading?

Genres

Literary Criticism — The work critically evaluates theatrical interpretations and artistic representations, using detailed textual analysis to interrogate literary ideals.
Theatre Criticism — It provides an in-depth examination of a specific stage performance of Hamlet, focusing on acting techniques and the impact of unconventional casting.
Essay — The text is structured as a reflective essay that blends personal observation with broader analytical commentary on art and performance.
Gender Studies — It scrutinizes gender roles in theatrical portrayals, particularly the implications of a woman performing a traditionally masculine part.