James Hamilton has written a book on the philosophy of theater that is admirable for its analytic clarity and for the wide knowledge of theatrical practice that it brings to bear on philosophical questions. The book's main thesis is that theatrical performances are not presentations or executions or completions of texts, but the meaning of this thesis is not completely clear. Hamilton sometimes expresses the thesis specifically in relation to "literary" texts. This is the thesis in its weak form. Sometimes, however, he voices it in a strong form, relating to a class of artworks wider than literary texts. In this article, the author outlines a framework within which he argues that Hamilton's thesis in either its weak or its strong form should be accepted as an intensional claim about either moral or ontological independence, but it should be rejected as an extensional claim. Then, the author discusses a line of reasoning Hamilton uses in support of his thesis, and argues that it is invalid. (Contains 32 notes.)