Timon of Athens

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Timon of Athens

The Life of Timon of Athens

imon of Athens is first mentioned in the There are two epitaphs, one of which – probably 1623 First Folio (F1). The play can be the first – Shakespeare presumably intended to dated any time between the latest definite omit (Oliver).1 Tsource, North’s translation of Plutarch in 1579, and the publication in F1 in 1623. Performance Date

Publication Date According to Jowett, the earliest known performance of Timon was in 1674 by Thomas Timon of Athens is one of eighteen plays in F1 Shadwell. His adaptation, The Manhater, was which had not previously been published. Timon published in 1678. Soellner suggests that from the was entered into the Stationers’ Register on 8 evidence of its academic references, the play was November 1623 alongside other plays as “not intended for performance at the Inns of Court.2 formerly entred to other men”: Attribution Mr Blounte Isaak Jaggard. Entered for their Copie vnder the hands of Mr Doctor Worral and Mr Cole – warden, Mr William Shakspeers It is usually proposed that the play was written Comedyes Histories, and Tragedyes soe manie jointly. Some have argued that Shakespeare of the said Copies as are not formerly entered to revised an existing play by another author (e.g. other men. vizt. Comedyes. The Tempest. The Wilkins, Chapman or Day). Others believe two gentlemen of Verona. Measure for Measure. that Shakespeare’s original play was revised by The Comedy of Errors. As you Like it. All’s well another (e.g. Heywood, Chapman, Middleton that ends well. Twelft night. The winters tale. or Tourneur). In these suggestions, it is usually Histories. The thirde parte of Henry the sixt. accepted that the play was revised (not co-authored) Henry the eight. Coriolanus. Timon of Athens. 3 Julius Caesar. Tragedies. Mackbeth. Anthonie and also unfinished. Although commentators & Cleopatra. Cymbeline. have not consistently divided the play up between Shakespeare and the other author, the usual The play is entitled THE LIFE OF TYMON OF basis has been a literary judgment as to whether ATHENS on the title page but the running title a particular passage was worthy of Shakespeare is simply Timon of Athens. Many commentators or not. Oliver (who rejected co-authorship) noted have followed Chambers who believed that the that such divisionists treated the play like a plum play was unfinished. The text is very poor, with pudding, giving all the plums to Shakespeare. “many small confusions and inconsistencies”, and Later scholars, e.g. Nuttall and Klein, continued may have been an early draft. The verse is uneven to argue for Shakespeare’s sole authorship and an and “cannot be the complete and jointed work of unfinished play.4 Shakespeare”. Several scenes involving Alcibiades Vickers, in a long, vigorous chapter, has have little relevance to the main plot. Characters studied these arguments about the “unusual are inconsistent within the space of a few lines. mixtures of rhyme, irregular verse, and prose in

© De Vere Society 1 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: Timon of Athens suspect scenes”, concluding that Timon was co- Stars’, not known to have existed before 1602, authored with Thomas Middleton (1580–1627). some scholars have dated Old Timon post 1602. About one third of the play is usually allocated The influence of Old Timon on Shakespeare’s play to Middleton.5 Dawson and Minton agree, is apparent in the detailed treatment of Timon’s saying: “It is certainly not impossible that they, generosity: both the Old Timon and Shakespeare’s like the two of us working on this edition, sat play give more prominence to Timon’s life before down together on occasion and worked through he becomes bankrupt; Plutarch and Lucian only scenes that needed tinkering.”6 It remains possible mention it in passing. Similarly two important that the second author revised the unfinished details, the faithful steward and the mock manuscript of the earlier author, without bringing banquet, are in the Old Timon but not in Lucian the work to a satisfactory end. or Plutarch. Chambers believes that Shakespeare is unlikely to have had access to this manuscript Sources (or its performance in academe), suggesting that both plays depended on another source, now lost. Bullough cites Sir Thomas North’s translation Bulman (1974), however, has argued that the of Plutarch’s Lives (1579) as one of the principal Old Timon greatly influenced Shakespeare and sources for Timon; it was also the principal source most subsequent commentators have been thus for other classical plays: Julius Caesar, Coriolanus persuaded. and Antony and Cleopatra. The historical Timon Shaheen discusses (1999: 242) the many is mentioned in ‘The Life of Antony’ and referred Biblical references in Timon, compared to the to again in ‘The Life of Alcibiades’. Unlike in relatively few allusions in the sources. He notes the other classical plays, here Shakespeare also that at 4.3.172–3, the interchange between Timon used a more detailed classical source, Lucian’s (“Yes thou spok’st well of me.”) and Alcibiades Greek dialogue, Timon the Misanthrope. Lucian (“Call’st thou that harm?”) recalls the wording of was not translated into English until 1634, the Geneva Bible at Luke 6.26: “Wo be to you so Shakespeare seems to have made use of a when all men speake well of you.” Other versions Renaissance translation, probably Thomas More’s use the word “praise”. Allusions to English literary Latin text in 1506 (with subsequent reprints). works are rare, but include Lyly’s Campaspe (1584). Lucian was also adapted into various European Shakespeare himself refers to the historical Timon versions: Boiardo wrote a play in Italian c. 1487; in Love’s Labour’s Lost (usually dated 1590–5).8 Pedro Mexia produced a Spanish story in 1542; this was translated into French by Gruget and Orthodox Date into English by William Painter as novel 28 in his Palace of Pleasure (1566). Shakespeare seems Chambers suggested 1608 since Timon of to have confined his use of Lucian to Timon. Athens “clearly belongs to the tragic period” Jonson, on the other hand, made extensive use of which he proposes as 1605–1609. He asserts the Greek satirist.7 that since Shakespeare was “busy with Lear Most commentators now accept that and Macbeth” in 1605–6, Timon can be dated Shakespeare used an anonymous play extant in 1608, alongside Coriolanus and Antony and in manuscript and known now as Old Timon Cleopatra, other classical plays based on Plutarch. (Dyce MS 52, Victoria and Albert Museum). Bullough concurs. Oliver agrees with Chambers Chambers believes that Greek quotations and but observes that Shakespeare may have worked other pedantries suggest an academic audience on Timon spasmodically and over a period of for Old Timon, but that Shakespeare is unlikely time, a theory he calls “plausible but difficult to to have seen it. Bullough notes the similarities substantiate”. Soellner concurs (1959: xlii) with between Old Timon and a play called Pedantius 1607–8 but “would not be surprised” if it turned performed at Cambridge in 1580. The date of out to be earlier or later (1979: 201). Maxwell Old Timon is uncertain: Chambers hazards 1581– believes that Timon precedes Lear and prefers a 1590; Bulman (1974: 126–7) argued for a date date c. 1605, while Wells & Taylor assign 1604. of 1601, which the V&A accept. Since the Old Against Chambers’ assumptions, three Timon mentions a London inn called ‘The Seven observations may be noted:

• there is no external evidence of “a tragic and therefore more likely to have been in 1600 period” in 1606–09; (when Middleton was untried) than 1605 when • not all tragedies belong to this “tragic he was more successful. Bulman argues (1974) for period” anyway (e.g. Romeo, Titus and a similar date based on similarities with Poetaster Richard III are usually dated to the 1590s); • another classical tragedy based on Plutarch, and other plays of Jonson around this time as well Julius Caesar, is usually dated c. 1599. as the parallels in the legal references between Twelfth Night (performed at the Middle Temple Furthermore, we could argue that although in 1602) and Timon, as well as Old Timon. Timon is placed among the tragedies in F1, it does not seem to have been intended for that Oxfordian Dating position, or even considered as a tragedy. Since the title page calls the play The Life of Timon The usual dating from an Oxfordian perspective of Athens, it might have more affinities with is between 1592 and 1604, when Oxford, the Merchant of Venice (usually dated c. 1596) in its disillusioned and impoverished nobleman, concern for “affectional and monetary bonds . . . withdrew from fashionable society and presumably material and intangible goods” (Katherine Maus, devoted his time to embellishing his plays. He was in the introduction to the play in the Norton described by Chapman as being, during his youth, Shakespeare).9 Bulman, however, argues for a date as “liberal as the sun”, but by 1586 he was vitually c. 1601, due to simularities with Jonson’s ‘comical bankrupt. The later action of Timon’s isolation satires’ (1974: 126). Wiggins dates this play to and exile accord well with Oxford’s later life. It is 1607. likely that Oxford never intended the play to be performed, perhaps to be confined to a reading Internal Orthodox Evidence group. It would thus have been left among his papers at his death, later revised to some extent by Various metrical and other stylistic tests have Middleton, but not even finished by the second placed Timon of Athens as among the later plays in author. the canon. However, as there is doubt about the E. T. Clark proposes an earlier date because sole authorship, tests remain unreliable. of the dramatist’s use of Plutarch. Oxford had bought a copy of Amyot’s French translation in External Orthodox Evidence 1569, ten years before North’s translation. She dates an original version to 1576 when The History 10 Bevington argued (1999) for a general comparison of the Solitary Knight was performed at court. between James I and Timon, but this view has This play, however, may have been based on not attracted many adherents. Dixon Wecter Chaucer’s ‘Knight’s Tale’. attempted to link events in the play to the treatment of Essex, generous nobleman, let down Conclusion by friends with a later rebellion. He suggested that the play dated from 1605. Sandra Billington The play can be dated anywhere between the latest argued for an earlier date about 1600, coinciding source, North’s translation of Plutarch in 1579 with Essex’s fall from grace. She argued for (possibly Amyot’s translation of Plutarch in 1559) allusions to Timon in Marston’s Jack Drum’s and the publication in the First Folio in 1623. Entertainment (1600). The Prologue to Jack Drum states that the audience will have to endure Notes “mouldy fopperies of stale Poetry, / Vnpossible drie musty Fictions”, which possibly refers to 1. For further discussion, see Oliver (1959: xxxiii– a recent production of Shakespeare’s play. She iv), Bulman (1976: 104). Draper notes Timon’s suggests that when Essex, under house arrest in inconsistencies: J. W. Draper, “The Theme May 1600, wrote to Elizabeth that “shortly they of Timon of Athens”, The Modern Language will play me upon the stage”, he was alluding to a Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, Jan., 1934, 20–31. forthcoming production of Timon of Athens. She 2. Soellner (1979: 148) suggests that the appeal of Timon to young lawyers would have suited it believes that this production was unsuccessful,

to “an evening performance at one of the Inns Other Cited Works of Court”. Honigmann likewise argues that the play was intended for the Inns of Court on the Bevington, David, “James I and Timon of Athens”, basis of similarities in satirical tone of Timon Comparative Drama, 33.1, 1999: 56–87 and Troilus and Cressida (E.A.J. Honigmann, Billington, Sandra, “Was Timon of Athens Performed “Timon of Athens.” SQ 12 (1961): 3-20). before 1604?” Notes and Queries, 45 (243).3 3. See Oliver (1959: xxii). Oliver attributes the (1998): 351–53 proposition of authors of an original play (which Bullough, G., Narrative and Dramatic Sources of was subsequently revised by Shakespeare) to Shakespeare, vol. I,London: Routledge, 1957 Delius, J. M. Robertson and Dugdale Sykes Bulman, James C., Jr., “The Date and Production of respectively. In respect to the revisers suggested, Timon Reconsidered”, Shakespeare Survey, 27 Oliver notes that “Verplank, for example, 1974: 111–126 suggested Heywood; Fleay, Tourneur; and Bulman, James C., Jr. “Shakespeare’s Use of the Parrott, Chapman.” (1959: xxiin). For a more Timon Comedy”, Shakespeare Survey 29 (1976): detailed summary see Klein (2001: 62). 103–16 4. See Klein (2001: 62–66), especially the Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare: a study of facts publisher’s note in the title pages, which, as and problems, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Vickers (2002: 288n) has observed, provides 1930 a somewhat embarrassed disclaimer of Klein’s Dawson, Anthony B. and Minton, G. E. (eds), Timon treatment, which “establishes Timon as one of of Athens, London: Methuen Arden 3, 2008 Shakespeare’s late works, arguing, contrary to Greenblatt, Stephen (ed.), The Norton Shakespeare, recent academic views, that evidence for other Norton: New York, 1997 author beside Shakespeare is inconclusive”. Jowett, John (ed.), Timon of Athens, Oxford: OUP, Nuttall (1989: 32-4) enlists the unfinished- 2004 play theory of Chambers and Ellis-Fermor, Klein, Karl (ed.), Timon of Athens, Cambridge: CUP, stating assertively that this ‘is widely regarded 2001 as having finally routed the disintegrators’ (33) Maxwell, J. C. (ed.), Introduction to The Life of Timon and, reiterating later, “the severest disintegrator of Athens, by William Shakespeare, Cambridge: cannot confidently banish Shakespeare from CUP, 1957 a single line or phrase” (34). Vickers (2002: Nelson, Alan H., Monstrous Adversary: The Life of 288) provides a thorough summation of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Liverpool: relevant arguments and usefully points out LUP, 2003 that, although Nuttall concludes that “the Nuttall, A. D. (ed.), Timon of Athens, Hemel arguments for regarding Timon of Athens as Hempstead: Twaynes World Author Series, a collaboration are too strong to be ignored” 1989 (1989: 39), his handling nevertheless reveals the Oliver, H. J. (ed.), Timon of Athens, London, Methuen: opposite tendency. Arden 2 Edition, 1959 5. Vickers quotes Wells & Taylor (1987: 79) in Shaheen, Naseeb, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s relation to Klein’s discussion of the same Plays, Newark: U. of Delaware Press, London, quotation (2001: 64). 1999 6. Dawson and Minton discuss the question of Soellner, Rolf (ed.), Timon of Athens: Shakespeare’s collaboration in detail (2008: 1–9). Pessimistic Tragedy, Columbus: Ohio State UP, 7. J. R. Mulryne, “Jonson’s Classicism”, The 1979 Cambridge Companion to Ben Jonson, ed. Harp Vickers, B., Shakespeare, Co-Author, Oxford: OUP, and Stewart (2000: 172). 2002 8. Biron: … “Nestor play at pushpin with the boys,/ Wecter, Dixon, “The Purpose of Timon of Athens”, And critic Timon laugh at idle toys!” (Love’s PMLA, 43, 1928: 701–21 Labour’s Lost, 4.3.167–8) Wells, S. & G. Taylor, William Shakespeare: a textual 9. Maus goes on to discuss in her introduction to companion, Oxford: OUP, 1987 The Life of Timon of Athens (Norton, 1997: Wiggins, Martin (ed.) British Drama 1533–1642: A 2245–2251) the manner in which “love and Catalogue, Volume V: 1603–1608. Oxford, money are here almost inextricable” (2246), OUP, 2015 monetary and intangible goods are interrelated. Wilson, J. Dover (ed.), Timon of Athens, Cambridge: 10. See Clark (1974: 30–46). Nelson (2003: 53) CUP, 1961 corroborates Oxford’s purchase of Plutarch’s works in French in 1569.