Skip to main content

Leslie Hotson redux

Bored and disgusted with the unsubstantiated maundering of many traditional Shakespearean scholars, I had never read the work of Canadian-born researcher Leslie Hotson (1897-1992) until this May when I picked up a used copy of his The First Night of Twelfth Night at West Side Books in Ann Arbor.

  • I was immediately enthralled by Hotson's clear-minded, lively prose and meticulous research. Although a traditional Shakespearean, Hotson indulges in no "would have", "could have", "may have", "might have", "surely must have" fol-de-rol. He follows primary sources wherever they lead; and, although his theses were reportedly attacked by his peers, his reasoning and support are impeccable -- and fascinating.

  • In my opinion, Hotson's research supports the anti-Stratfordian view that Shakespeare's plays were created by a court insider. His First Night of Twelfth Night brings the Elizabethan court to life with a view of the great play commissioned and presented as a holiday extravagance for visiting Italian nobleman, Don Virginio Orsino, Duke of Bracciano. His meticulous reportage extends to walking us through palace corridors using original architectural drawings and court records. But, I knew Hotson for a true Shakespeare-lover when I read this passage on page 65, at the beginning of his third chapter, titled "Shakespeare's Arena Stage":
In the attempt to bring Queen Elizabeth's Twelfth Night out of its centuries-old obscurity, Shakespeare's performance must stand as the prime object. Every slightest clue which might conceivably lead to light in that direction must be intently followed. We are all aware, however, of an ever-present danger: nothing is easier in any kind of investigation that to overlook a vital piece of evidence staring us in the face. For if that piece of evidence does not seem to corroborate or to fall in with our already-settled ideas, our minds either simply ignore it, or else wrest it by 'interpretation' to make it mean what we think it ought to mean. Such behavior is certainly very human, but it blocks the road to knowledge.
How can you not love a guy who talks like that? He had the mind and soul of a skeptic, witness Hotson's Dec. 3, 1992 obituary in The Independent, wherein Glynne Wickham said:
If the whole corpus of Hotson's published work in English Renaissance Drama, ranging as it does from the 1530s to 1660, seems idiosyncratic and eclectic, a unifying strain is detectable in an unwavering sense of mischief which, from the 1930s until the publication of Shakespeare by Hilliard (1977), underpinned his meticulous and exhaustive exhumations from dusty archives. Designed to shock, infuriate, stimulate and please, his narrative style ensured that all this work would be as widely scrutinised by critics and reviewers as it would command readers.
Hotson's book is available free online at Questia, Inc. --  First Night of Twelfth Night by Leslie Hotson  (Macmillan Co. 1954)

R. C. Bald's review of First Night of 'Twelfth Night' published in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1956), pp. 246-248 is available at: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2866448

Comments

Linda Theil said…
Posted for Nick Drumbolis 12/31/10:

Agreed! Hotson's clarifications of Twelfth Night draw the modern reader closer to an experience of period playing than any other work I know. All his books KICK (Mr W.H. praps least). But if you want a real rush, check out (Hotson's) Shakespeare by Hilliard (1977), in which he identifies the miniature [of Edward de Vere] by Nicholas Hilliard, as a portrait of Shakespeare..! Nick Drumbolis

Note: See Hotson's Shakespeare by Hilliard at: http://books.google.com/books?id=5ETRrSD6vpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=shakespeare+by+hilliard+by+leslie+hotson&source=bl&ots=5VNpEDQCA3&sig=CgONzS99XBKdR9tVabcB8sElWXE&hl=en&ei=SG0eTcWbI8i08QPW8pSWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h