# Timon of Athens (1919) Yale/Appendix C

APPENDIX C
Authorship of the Play
The exact circumstances of the writing of Timon of Athens will probably remain conjectural, but that the play is not wholly Shakespeare's creation is certain. Double authorship is constantly proclaimed by singularities of workmanship and by technical problems involving inconsistencies in character and action. Regular and highly irregular verse, rhymed and unrhymed lines, dignified prose and prose that is absurdly flat follow each other in capricious fashion. Poetry as lofty as that of King Lear is linked to doggerel, and scenes unquestionably written by Shakespeare suddenly become inane under the influence of another hand. By means of internal evidence of this character scholars have tried to determine how much of the play was written by Shakespeare and how much by the unknown assistant.
The ascriptions differ in detail, but there is some agreement regarding the portions of the tragedy attributable to Shakespeare. About the first one hundred and seventy-five lines of the play are admittedly his (I. i. 1-177). In the passage between the entrance of Apemantus and that of Alcibiades (I. i. 178-249) only the first ten lines have generally been assigned ​to Shakespeare. The rest of the scene (250-296) was probably written by Shakespeare, with the exception of about eighteen lines of dialogue between the two lords and Apemantus (266-283). Bad verse and blunders have marked the second scene as non-Shakespearean. The first scene of the second act is Shakespeare's (II. i.). The second scene of this act is, by substantial agreement, conceded to be Shakespeare's as far as the entrance of Apemantus and the Fool (II. ii. 1-45), and there is approximately similar agreement that the episode introduced by this entrance is spurious (46-132). The remainder of the scene, approximately (133-243), is usually attributed to Shakespeare except ten prose lines that intrude upon the verse (196-205). The first three scenes of the ​third act are probably interpolations (III. i,, ii., iii.). The commonplace fourth scene is not genuine (III. iv.); nor is the ill-motivated scene showing Alcibiades before the Senate (III. v.). In the sixth scene (III. vi.) I think we can safely assign only Timon's denunciation (99-116) to Shakespeare, though more considerable portions have sometimes been ascribed to him. 'From the fourth act on,' as Wright says, 'the play may be called Shakspere's.' The first scene of this act is almost certainly his (IV. i.) and about the first thirty lines of the second scene (IV. ii. 1-29) may possibly have been touched by his hand. The important third scene (IV. iii.) has evoked marked differences of opinion. Although it is generally conceded that almost the first three hundred lines are Shakespeare's (IV. iii. 1-292), the exact ending of the interpolated passage that follows (292 ff.) is disputed. Fleay would end it at about line 362, and others have adopted his conclusion; Wright, however, believes that Shakespeare's hand is not again discernible until about line 376. The rest of this episode, as far as the entrance of the Banditti, is conceded to be Shakespeare's (376-400). It has been customary to regard a few lines at the opening and a few lines at the closing of the Banditti episode as spurious, but it is quite possible that the whole passage is genuine (401-​466). The rest of the scene is probably interpolated (467-545). The first scene of the fifth act with the possible exception of the introduction (1-59) was written by Shakespeare. The second and fourth scenes are likewise his; only the third scene bears no trace of his workmanship.
Concerning the double authorship of Timon of Athens there have arisen three distinct theories:
(1) Timon of Athens of the Folio represents Shakespeare's work as interpolated and corrupted by the players. In his lectures of 1815, Coleridge stated his belief that the play was Shakespeare's throughout, and that when first written it was one of the Poet's most complete performances. He explained the un​usual versification on the ground that the play had been injured by the actors, and was of the opinion that the editors of 1623 saw only a mutilated copy of the original. This theory would be more tenable if there existed positive proof that the play was frequently acted before 1623. But such proof is not to be had. Opportunity for interpolation by the players was almost certainly limited. This theory has, generally speaking, given way before more vigorous hypotheses.
(2) Shakespeare rewrote or revised an earlier Timon of Athens, the work of an inferior dramatist. This theory, having its genesis in a belief of Farmer's that there had been an earlier popular play with Timon as a hero, was first advanced by Knight in 1838: 'Timon was a play originally produced by an artist very inferior to Shakespeare, [and] probably retained possession of the stage for some time in its first form; . . . It has come down to us not wholly rewritten but so far remodelled that entire scenes of Shakespeare have been substituted for entire scenes of the elder play.' Delius gave this theory its fullest development in 1867. With slight divergences of opinion Delius' view has been supported by the Cambridge Editors, Staunton, Dyce, Nicholson, Evans, and others. 'The original play,' say the first of these, 'on which Shakespeare worked, must have been written, for the most part, either in prose or in very irreg​ular verse.' Evans' comment may be taken as typical of the theory: 'We assume that during his reading of Plutarch Shakespeare's attention was arrested by the story of Timon; that it struck him that the character of Timon might be made effective for the stage, and, not having time or inclination to work up a complete plot into a regular five-act play he availed himself of a "Timon" which was in the hands of the theatre at the time. . . . Accordingly he rewrote about half of it, and hastily revised the rest, leaving this for the most part untouched, but inserting or altering a few lines or phrases here and there. But before he had had time to give the whole a final revision it was called for by the manager, and hurried upon the boards. These assumptions will account both for the general unity of the plan as well as for the signs of incomplete revision observable here and there.' In quality of argument, and in the support afforded it by eminent scholars, this theory will probably remain important. It has, however, been overshadowed by the third hypothesis.
(3) Shakespeare wrote the main portions of Timon of Athens—which was completed or revised by an inferior dramatist. Verplanck, the American scholar, led the way for this theory in 1847, when he wrote: 'It is like . . . a work left incomplete and finished by another hand, inferior, though not without skill, and working on the conceptions of the greater master.' In the same connection he adds: 'The hypothesis which I should offer . . . is this: Shakespeare adopted the canvas of Timon's story as a fit vehicle for poetic satire . . . while, as to the rest, he contented himself with a rapid and careless composition of some scenes and probably on others (such as that of Alcibiades with the Senate) contenting himself with ​simply sketching out the substance of an intended dialogue to be afterwards elaborated.' In 1869 this conception of the authorship was further discussed by Tschischwitz. The theory culminated in 1874 in the analysis and argument of Fleay who stated strongly his confidence in Shakespeare's priority. He concludes his Essay as follows: 'The essential part of this paper is the proof that the Shakspere part of this play was written before the other part.' Among the critics who have, in the main, subscribed to this theory are Rolfe, Hudson, Deighton, Gollancz, and Furnivall. Hudson declares that 'whatsoever may be judged of this theory in other respects it seems to make clear work with the question why there should be in this case so great discrepancy of style and execution joined with such general unity of purpose and movement.' Apropos of the second theory, that Shakespeare revised an earlier play, the same critic says: 'Shakespeare's approved severity of taste and strength of judgment at that period of his life, together with his fulness and availability of resource, would hardly have endured to retain certain parts in so crude and feeble a state as we here find them.' This belief in Shakespeare's priority has grown, and, unless some new subversive evidence appears, can hardly be shaken.
​Although the dual authorship of Timon of Athens has been long admitted, comparatively little has been done to identify the second author. The inferior parts of the play have been variously ascribed—with meagre evidence, in every case—to Thomas Heywood (d. 1650?), George Wilkins (fl. 1607), John Day (fl. 1606), and Cyril Tourneur (1575?-1626). Verplanck surmises that when the play was wanted by Heming and Condell 'some literary artist like Heywood was invited to fill up the accessory and subordinate parts of the play upon the author's own outline, and this was done, or attempted to be done, in the manner of the great original, as far as possible, but with distinction of his varieties of style.' Delius believed that both Pericles and Timon showed the ​hand of George Wilkins, but his evidence is unconvincing. Wright, in commenting upon this latter theory, declares, with reason, that 'the nearer a reviewer comes to thinking that George Wilkins wrote the regular though wooden verse of the first two acts of Pericles, the farther he will be from a belief that the same man wrote the highly irregular verse of the interpolations in Timon.'
Fleay does not press his theory strongly, but points out that in ratio of rhyme to blank verse, irregularities of length, and double endings, Timon of Athens resembles closely The Revenger's Tragedy (1607) by Tourneur. He notes that Tourneur is fond of quoting Latin.
Fleay subjoins passages from The Revenger's Tragedy which he finds to be in exactly the strain of the unknown author of Timon of Athens, and states positively his belief that 'Cyril Tourneur was the only person connected with the King's Company who could have written the other part of the play.' It should be observed that Fleay's identification of Tourneur as reviser of Timon loses force if Tourneur's authorship of The Revenger's Tragedy be denied.
* ↑ Fleay was supported in this belief by Hudson, Rolfe, Gollancz, and White. Wright thinks it likely that Shakespeare was the author of the entire passage.
* ↑ Concerning this passage Fleay argued that the unknown author retained the two lords on the stage to jeer at Apemantus, preparing more naturally for the cynic's entrance in the next scene, when he appears 'dropping after all, discontentedly, like himself.' (I. ii. S. d.) Wright considers the passage Shakespeare's.
* ↑ Among other crudities and errors, Wright mentions the following: Ventidius desires to pay his debt to Timon, thus nullifying the dramatic effect of Timon's later request for Ventidius' aid; and in the last act, senators are announced but do not enter.
* ↑ Fleay, Hudson, Rolfe, Gollancz, White, and Wright agree on this point of division.
* ↑ In this passage occurs a typical problem: The Steward urges the duns to await Timon's answer, and with the words, 'Pray, draw near,' is escorting them off, when Apemantus approaches. Whereupon, one of the duns says, 'Stay, stay!' The Steward leaves, but the duns remain throughout the next episode. Johnson suggests that at this point an entire scene is missing.
* ↑ Wright advances the theory that all of these lines, save one, are Shakespeare's. Gollancz believes lines 45-124 (approximately) to be non-Shakespearean.
* ↑ Wright develops an ingenious theory that the first two of these scenes are Shakespeare's. White holds that Shakespeare wrote some dozen lines in the first scene (III. i. 5466).
* ↑ Three characters, Titus, Hortensius, and Philotus, appear here for the only time in the play. The introduction of a character called Lucius, apparently not the Lucius of the next act, is also puzzling.
* ↑ Hudson assigns to Shakespeare all lines spoken while Timon is on the stage (28-116).
* ↑ Hudson and Wright include these lines in their ascriptions, but Fleay and Rolfe do not.
* ↑ Hudson maintains that Shakespeare wrote approximately the first four hundred and sixty-four lines of this scene.
* ↑ Wright ascribes to Shakespeare approximately lines 479-508 and 530-543.
* ↑ Wright thinks it possible that Shakespeare wrote these lines, since they constitute the introduction to his own scene.
* ↑ A characteristic problem occurs in this act in connection with the entrance of the Poet and Painter. At IV. iii. 356, Apemantus says: 'Yonder comes a poet and a painter.' Yet these characters do not actually enter until about two hundred lines later at the beginning of the fifth act. Thus the leisurely approach of the Poet and Painter becomes an absurdity. To meet the difficulty Hudson substituted 'parcel of soldiers' for 'poet and painter.' Wright explains the confusion by declaring that Apemantus' words occur in a spurious passage; in this case the premature announcement was made by the interpolator.
* ↑ This was the conviction of many German scholars, among them Schlegel, Gervinus, and Ulrici. Elze, however, believed that parts of the play were due to an old Timon (William Shakespeare, 1876); Wendlandt thought that Shakespeare had left part of the play in rough draft (Jahrbuch, 1888); Kullmann suggested that there had been three authors {Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte, 1882); and Bulthaupt ascribed only a small part of the play to Shakespeare. 'I conjecture,' says Ulrici, '. . . that Shakespeare originally made a rapid and hurried sketch of "Timon of Athens," only that this was done with greater hurry and carelessness than usual . . . but that subsequently—after the piece had been brought upon the stage—he found himself nevertheless obliged to work out some parts with more care.' (Shakespeare's Dramatic Art, Vol. I, p. 523.)
* ↑ A passage in the third act (III. iii. 32-34) may be interpreted as a satire upon the Puritans. Coleridge considered this an actor's interpolation.
* ↑ Pictorial Edition, 1838.
* ↑ Jahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft, 1867, pp. 335 ff.
* ↑ The Works of William Shakespeare, edited by Henry Irving and Frank A. Marshall, Introduction to Timon of Athens.
* ↑ The Illustrated Shakespeare, edited by G. C. Verplanck (New York, 1847), Introduction to Timon of Athens.
* ↑ Jahrbuch, 1869, 160-197.
* ↑ Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874.
* ↑ Shakespeare's Complete Works, edited by H. N. Hudson, Introduction to Timon of Athens.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ E. H. Wright, in The Authorship of Timon of Athens, elaborates upon the theory of Shakespeare's priority. Reasoning that nine lines of a ten-line prose passage (II. ii. 194-204) are genuine, Wright is enabled to advance the theory that the germane scenes are also Shakespeare's (III. i., and III. ii.). If these two scenes are spurious, as they have been usually considered, Shakespeare's share of the play has been inadequately motivated. If, on the other hand, these two scenes are from his pen, Shakespeare himself has motivated Timon's misanthropy, and his priority in composition is rendered more likely. (A second apparent gap in the play has been the lack of motivation for the assistance given Timon by Alcibiades. Wright shows how the interpolator tried to close this gap, and suggests how Shakespeare himself may have planned to fill it.) As an additional argument for Shakespeare's priority Wright also notes that every point at which the play follows a source 'falls within a scene that Shakespeare wrote—that every episode or line for which a source is known comes from his pen.' In concluding his argument for Shakespeare's priority Wright says: "Ten spurious scenes and passages scattered through Shakspere's play and filling one third of it; and Shakspere never using them, never counting on them, never, except to suggest one (III. vi. 60: "Alcibiades is banished.") making a mention of them,—unaware of them. Lift them bodily from the play, and not a word will tell that they were ever in it. The fact is final. Those scenes and passages were no nucleus around which Shakspere built his play. They were extensions to the play he had already built.'
* ↑ The Illustrated Shakespeare, edited by G. C. Verplanck, (New York, 1847), Introduction to Timon of Athens.
* ↑ Jahrbuch, 1867, p. 175.
* ↑ The Authorship of Timon of Athens, p. 101.
* ↑ Dodsley's Edition, pp. 322, 384.
* ↑ See Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874, pp. 138-139.