Timon of Athens. Edited by K. Deighton

HANDBOUND AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR : W. J. CRAIG TIMON OF ATHENS THE WORKS OF I SHAKESPEARE I TIMON OF ATHENS EDITED BY K. DEIGHTON METHUEN AND CO. 36 ESSEX STREET: STRAND LONDON First Published in 1905 CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION vii TIMON OF ATHENS INTRODUCTION IN the folio of 1623 we have the first known edition of our play. There it is called The Life of Tymon of At/tens, with the Timon Athens and the circum running titles, of ; stances, presently to be noted, in which it was inserted in its particular place are supposed to have a bearing upon the question of its authorship. Though the date of com position can only be inferred, the style, habit of thought, and metrical indications alike point to some date between 1606 and 1610. The story of Timon was well known in Shakespeare's day, and he himself in Love's Labour s Lost " refers to critic Timon." For details he appears to have drawn from three sources Painter's Palace of Pleasure?* Plutarch's Life of Marcus Antonius, and, directly or in directly, from Lucian's. Dialogue entitled Timon or the Misanthrope. There was also an old play of Timon, cir- citer 1600, which contains many of the incidents used by Shakespeare, though none, I think, which he could not have derived elsewhere, unless it be the return of the faithful steward to join his master in his self-imposed exile. In the preface to his edition of this drama, published by the " Shakespeare Society in 1842, Dyce says, I leave to others a minute discussion of the question whether or not Shake speare was indebted to the present piece. I shall merely viii INTRODUCTION observe, that I entertain considerable doubts of his having been acquainted with a drama, which was certainly never performed in the metropolis, and which was likely to have been read only by a few of the author's particular friends to whom transcripts of it had been presented." From an early period suspicions have been expressed as to the genuineness of Timon as we now have it. The older commentators accounted for its condition by supposing the folio version to be printed from a manuscript largely mangled and interpolated by the actors. Of this sup position I shall speak later on. Modern criticism is mainly represented by two schools, one of which holds that Shakespeare worked upon an earlier play, part whereof he retained the that his left was ; other, portion, incomplete, supplemented by some contemporary dramatist. The latter of these theories I take first as more adequately satisfying the requirements of the case, though I am far from believing that the adulteration is anything like as extensive as its extreme advocates would make out. To Verplanck, I believe, we owe the first suggestion of an escape from the difficulties by which we are met. In the Introduction l to his edition of Shakespeare, published in 1 842, this scholar " writes as follows : The hypothesis which I should offer certainly with no triumphant confidence of its being the truth, but as more probable than any other is this : Shake- peare, at some time during that period, when his temper, state of health, or inclination of mind, from whatever cause, strongly prompted him to a severe judgment of human nature and acrimonious moral censure, adopted the canvas of Timoris story as a fit vehicle of poetic satire, in the 1 Quoted by Rolfe, pp. 38, 39 of his Introduction to Timon of Athens. INTRODUCTION ix highest sense of the term, as distinguished alike from per sonal lampoons and from the playful exhibition of transient follies. In this he poured forth his soul in those scenes and soliloquies, the idea of which had invited him to the sub as to the he himself ject ; while, rest, contented with a rapid and careless composition of some scenes, and probably on others (such as that of Alcibiades with the senate) con tenting himself with simply sketching out the substance of an intended dialogue to be afterwards elaborated. In this there is no improbability, for literary history has pre served the evidence of such a .mode of composition in Milton and others. The absence of all trace of the piece from this time till it was printed in 1623 induces the sup position that in this state the author threw aside his un finished work, perhaps deterred by its want of promise of stage effect and interest, perhaps invited by some more con genial theme. When, therefore, it was wanted by his friends ( and fellows,' Heminge and Condell, after his death, for the press and the stage, some literary artist like Heywood was invited to fill up the accessory and subordinate parts of the the author's outline and this was done or play upon own ; attempted to be done, in the manner of the great original, as far as possible, but with little distinction of his varieties of style. " Upon this hypothesis, I suppose the play to be mainly and substantially Shakespeare's, filled up, indeed, by an inferior hand, but not interpolated in the manner of Tate, Davenant, or Dryden, with the rejection and adulteration of of the so that its would be parts original ; history nearly that of many of the admired paintings of Rubens and Murillo, and other prolific artists, who often left the details INTRODUCTION and accessories of their work to be completed by pupils or dependants." This theory was between 1868 and 1874 worked out in great detail by Fleay, with whom Hudson and Rolfe are in general accord. The conclusion at which Fleay arrived is shown in the subjoined conspectus of the portions which he assigns to Shakespeare and of the extent to which the two latter critics concur.1 2 Fleay. Rolfe. I. i. 1-185, 249-264, 284- 293- II. i. (whole). II. ii. 1-45, 132-242. INTRODUCTION xi ' ' walk neere ! I 'le with anon them, Pray you, speak you ; and the desired but the straightway gives explanation ; playwright who improved the drama wanted Apemantus to talk nonsense to the Page and the Fool of a harlot (un known in the rest of the piece) : so he makes the steward ' ' say, Pray, draw neere ! and go out with Timon, apparently to have out their explanation. Caphis and Co. do not draw neere, but stop to talk to Apemantus. When we Ve had enough of that, in come Timon and the steward, who ' again says, Pray you, walk neere,' which the creditors do this time, and Timon and the steward go on with their talk as if they had never left the stage to say anything outside." Here it is to be noted that the steward is not again made " " to say Pray you, walk near." His invitation, Pray, draw near," is, I contend, manifestly addressed to Timon, for the latter's exit after line 44, due to Pope, is unknown " to the folio while the walk are ; words, Pray you, near," not an invitation to draw near, but a request to the servants to walk a little way off, out of earshot. But there is a further difficulty which Fleay's excision does not remove. " In line 49 Timon says, Do so, my friends. See them well entertained." Now, the former part of the line is addressed to the servants ; the latter to the steward. Yet, in any hypothesis, the steward pays no heed to this injunc tion. To cut out these words also, would be to make l Timon's exit abrupt and discourteous. Again, it helps us nothing to suppose, with Johnson, that a whole scene is missing, since this would involve an inordinately long interval before Timon and the steward return to the scene, 1 In a matter of so much doubt I have left both exits as usually printed, together with the re-entry of Timon and the steward after line 118. xii INTRODUCTION and at the same time leave the former's injunction disre garded. In spite of the stage-directions, I am fully per suaded that there is no exit by Timon and the steward, but that they only walk about apart from the servants. Still, to these, during the steward's disclosures, some dialogue must be given whether it be with Apemantus, the Page, and the or themselves for when Timon Fool, among ; again " comes forward, his words, You make me marvel," etc., show that a revelation not to be told in a few sentences has been made to him. A more important difficulty, which Johnson was the first to in IV. point out, occurs iii., where Apemantus descries the poet and the painter approaching. The talk, says " Fleay, goes on for 60 lines, and then enter Banditti ! more talk with Banditti 6 3 lines, and then enter Steward ! ' more talk (80 lines), and then at last enter poet and ' painter ! To avoid this, modern editors make the curtain fall the this when steward goes out ; but makes matters worse the and must be ' ; poet painter coming yonder,' not only while that interminable talk goes on, but while the curtain is down : imagine this to be Shakespeare's arrangement ! But suppose the curtain does not fall ? Then the poet and painter enter as the steward goes out : ' and one of the first things they tell us is that 'tts said he gave unto his steward a mighty sum.' No, as the play stands, the curtain must fall in the middle of a scene, and the poet and painter wait yonder all the while.

Load more