was left unfinished by Shakespeare and afterwards completed for publication by an inferior hand. We shall not differ widely from Mr. Fleay in his selection of the non-Shakespearian portions of the play, but his theory requires him to assume that these are at best but patches on the original work, and do not contribute to the advancement of the plot. Here he fails to make out his case. Thus he says that the whole of act i. scene 2 "leaves the story unadvanced;" but surely it serves the purpose of setting before us Timon's magnificent style of living in the days of his prosperity, together with his princely bounty. Without it we jump at once from the introductory scene (act i. scene 1) to one in which we find Timon in difficulties with the duns at his gates (act ii.). Again, of act iii. he says: "these scenes by author the second add nothing to the progress of the play;" but scenes 1-4, besides being highly dramatic, are wanted to show us the ingratitude of Timon's friends; otherwise, as Dr. Furnivall points out, the tremendous change in Timon's character would be due to the refusal of help from one friend alone, Ventidius, -a refusal, too, which, whether by accident or design, is not represented on the stage, but only incidentally mentioned; while scene 5 gives the origin of the quarrel between Alcibiades and the senate, and connects itself with the concluding scene of the play. To take one more instance, Mr. Fleay thinks act iv. scene 3. 292362 is an insertion because it interferes with the sense; Apemantus's remark (line 363) "Thou art the cap of all the fools alive," being a reply to Timon's "here it (gold) sleeps, and does no hired harm" (line 291). To this Dr. Nicholson replies that as Apemantus does not care for gold, he would not call Timon a fool for saying that gold was best placed where it was out of the way, and that the connection between lines 291 and 292 is natural, for Timon's use of the word "sleeps" suggests to Apemantus to ask, as he does in line 292, "Where ly'st o' nights, Timon?" while "Thou art the cap of all the fools alive" is an appropriate answer to Timon's assertion that he would rather be a beggar's dog than Ape Rolfe thinks the play was completed for the stage some time before the printing of the Folio. mantus (line 361), and means "thou never knew'st what was good for thee; in this thou capp'st all." The following are the non-Shakespearian portions according to Fleay, with remarks by the present editor: 1. Act i. scene 1, lines 186-248, 266–283.-These prose bits, says Mr. Fleay, are "bald and cut up," and their effect is certainly something quite different from the rest of the scene; but it is possible that Shakespeare may have chosen this abrupt, snappy style of talk as something specially suitable to Ape mantus. 2. Act i. scene 2.-The halting verse cannot be Shakespeare's, but there is no reason why he may not have written Apemantus's grace, and particularly Timon's prose speech beginning "O, no doubt, my good friends," lines 91-112. 3. Act ii. scene 2, lines 46-131.-As the Page and the Fool are not introduced elsewhere, this may be a bit of the old play; but purposely left here by Shakespeare, in order to spare the audience the details of the wearisome accounts which Timon and his steward discuss off the stage. (See the remarks of Dr. Nicholson, ut supra, p. 250.) 4. Act ii. scene 2, lines 195-204.-Mr. Fleay condemns these lines in order to square with his theory that Lucius, Lucullus, and Sempronius are characters introduced by the expander of the play. 5. Act iii. the whole, except scene 6, lines 95-115. -The whole of scene 6 may be Shakespeare's; but of course every reader must judge for himself. 6. Act iv. scene 2, lines 30-50.-Connected with iv. 3. 464-543. 7. Act iv. scene 3, lines 292-362.-Possibly Shakespeare's for the reason given under 1; see also what has been said above on " 'Where ly'st o' nights?" 8. Act iv. scene 3, lines 399-412, 454-463. 9. Act iv. scene 3, lines 464-543.- Mr. Fleay thinks that Timon's relenting to the steward, and rewarding him, is "æsthetically contrary to the whole drift of the play. Had Timon been convinced that there was one 'just and comfortable man,' he would have ceased to be misanthropos, and would not have concluded his interview with Ne'er see thou man, and let me ne'er see thee." But is this so inappropriate after all? No doubt Timon is inconsistent, yet a character may be inconsistent and still true to nature, and it was not without good reason that Shakespeare left this episode where it was when, as our theory assumes, he revised the play. It is thus that Timon is redeemed from utter inhumanity, and thus that he once again appeals to our sympathy; indeed after listening to his tremendous invectives against the whole human race, vigorous as they are, we might begin to feel that he was something too far beyond the range of our experience did not this dialogue with his steward remind us that he is still a man. The speech of Timon beginning "Look thee, 't is so!" line 529, is nervous enough to be from Shakespeare's own pen. 10. Act v. scene 1, lines 1-57.-Some lines in this read very like Shakespeare's work. 11. Act v. scene 3.-The close of the play bears the marks of hurried revision. As to the date at which Shakespeare revised the play we have nothing but internal evidence to go upon. This would assign it to the same period as Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus, and, as Professor Dowden puts it, 1607 is a date which cannot be far astray. But we have not quite exhausted the peculiar features of this play. In the Folio it comes between Romeo and Juliet and Julius Cæsar, and is paged 80 and 81 (a mistake for 78 and 79), then 82, 81 (mistake for 80, 81), then 82 to 98, then a leaf unpaged with the actors' names printed on one side, and then comes the first page of Julius Cæsar, numbered 109, so that four leaves appear to have been cancelled. Fleay points out that this space, pp. 78-108 (now occupied by Timon), would exactly have held Troilus and Cressida, which is actually paged 79 and 80 in its second and third pages, but is otherwise unpaged. He concludes, therefore, that it was originally intended to stand where Timon does now. "But as this play was originally called The History of Troylus and Cressida (so in the Quarto Edition), and as there is really nothing tragical in the main bulk of it, it was doubted if it could be put with the Tragedies, so the editors of the Folio compromised the matter by putting it between the Histories and Tragedies, and not putting it at all in the Catalogue, though they still retained their first title for it as the tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. But if, as I conjecture, all the following plays, from Julius Cæsar to Cymbeline, were already in type and had been printed off, there was nothing to fall back upon but Pericles and the unfinished Timon "(Fleay, ut supra, p. 137). It is perhaps unsafe to infer that more than Julius Cæsar was already printed, but nevertheless this is a very happy explanation of the eccentricities of the pagination in the Folio, and explains why a whole leaf is given up to the actors' names, with a liberality which does not occur elsewhere in the book. The suggestion which follows, that the editors of the Folio "took the incomplete Timon, put it into a playwright's hands, and told him to make it up to thirty pages," seems much less probable, for there is good reason for believing that the play as we have it in the Folio had been already acted. "In old plays the entrance directions are sometimes in advance of the real entrances, having been thus placed in the theatre copy that the performers or bringers-in of stage properties might be warned to be in readiness to enter on their cue. act i. sc. 1 (Folio) is Enter Apemantus opposite 'Well mocked,' though he is only seen as in the distance by Timon after the Merchant's next words, and does not enter till after 'Hee'l spare none.' So in the banquet (sc. ii. mod. eds.) there is—Sound Tucket. Enter the Maskers, &c., before Timon's 'What means that trump?' -and Enter Cupid with the Maske of Ladies before Cupid's fore-running speech" (Dr. Nicholson, Transactions, &c., p. 252). STAGE HISTORY. In In dealing with Timon of Athens darkness is, at the outset, illumined only by conjecture. Mr. Fleay, whose theories as to Shakespeare's share in the authorship are fully disclosed in his paper on the Authorship of Timon of Athens, read before the fourth meeting of the New Shakspere Society, 8th May, 1874, and inIcluded in the first volume of its Transactions, assigns it to 1606-7 (see Life of Shakespeare passim), and supposes it to belong to the same period as "that part of Cymbeline which is founded on so-called British history" (ib. 156). Malone attributes it to 1610. Its date of composition was, we may fairly assume, near that of production, since in Shakespeare's case no cause for delay can easily have arisen. 1 And also why whole passages of prose are split up into impossible verse. 2 The Cambridge editors themselves say, "It may be that the MS. of Timon was imperfect, and that the printing was stayed till it could be completed by some playwright engaged for the purpose. But it is difficult to conceive how the printer came to miscalculate so widely the space to be left." Thais = Mr. Percival. - Mr. Gillo. = (no name). Mr. Bowman. Mr. Richards. Mr. Jevon. Mrs. Betterton. - Mrs. Shadwell. Mrs. Gibbs. Mistresses to AlPhrinias cibiades. Sercants, Messengers, several Masqueraders, Soldiers. It is dedicated to George Duke of Buckingham, the author of The Rehearsal. With customary affectation of homage to Shakespeare Shadwell says in the dedication: "I am now to present your Grace with this History of Timon, which you were pleased to tell me you liked; and it is the more worthy of you, since it has the inimitable hand of Shakespear in it, which never made more masterly strokes than in this." Then with arrogance no less customary he continues: "Yet I can truly say, I have made it into a play." The Prologue addressed to the Wits who sate in judgment on new plays contains an allusion to Shakespeare in which Shadwell contrives once more to puff himself: In th' art of judging you as wise are grown, In the epilogue also Shadwell shelters himself behind Shakespeare: If there were hope that ancient solid wit From a glance at the cast it will be seen what liberties have been taken with Shakespeare's story. The names of the characters and the characters themselves have been altered. In the Stuart period a piece with no love interest might well be regarded as outside conception. Shadwell has accordingly presented Timon as faithless to his mistress, Evandra, who loves him passionately and is constant to the end; and enamoured of Melissa, a mercenary creature who oscillates between him and Alcibiades accordingly as their fortunes rise or fall. Apart from the fact that his lines are cacophonous and contemptible, Shadwell's theories are fatal to the play. Constancy such as Evandra shows is enough to have reconciled Timon to the world, since devotion so exemplary in woman might compensate for any amount of masculine shortcoming. The dignity and pathos of the death are lost when the messenger of Alcibiades returns at the close of the fifth act to say: My noble lord, I went as you commanded And found Lord Timon dead and his Evandra Stab'd and just by him lying in his tomb, &c. It is needless to dwell upon an atrocity which ranks with the happy termination to Lear and other perversions of the same epoch. Not more defensible is the treatment of Flavius, rechristened Demetrius, and of Apemantus. Downes speaks of this play as a success. His words are: "Timon of Athens alter'd by Mr. Shadwell; 't was very well acted, and the music in 't well perform'd; it wonderfully pleas'd the Court and City; being an excellent moral" (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37). A different impression is conveyed in the epilogue to The Jew of Venice of George Granville, Lord Lansdowne, produced twenty-three years later. In this, after complaining of the bad taste of audiences, the writer continues: How was the scene forlorn, and how despis'd When Timon, without music, moraliz'd! Shakespeare's sublime, in vain entic'd the throng, Without the charm of Purcell's syren song. -Works, ed. 1752, p. 184. This wretched version held the stage for near a century. Concerning the performance we know nothing. Evandra is a sort of die-away character in which Mary Betterton would be seen to advantage, Betterton would assumably be suited to Timon, and Harris, an excellent actor, would do justice to Apemantus. Sandford was a noted stage-villain. Ann Shadwell, the wife of the adapter, was not much of an actress, but Melissa is not much of a part. On the 27th June, 1707, Shadwell's Timon was revived by the summer company at the Haymarket. Mills was Timon, Verbruggen Apemantus, Booth Alcibiades, Norris the Poet, Bullock Phæax, Johnson Ælius, Mrs. Porter Evandra, and Mrs. Bradshaw Melissa. Drury Lane witnessed its production on 8th Dec. 1720, when Booth was Timon, Mills Apemantus, Walker Alcibiades, Pinkethman the Poet, Mrs. Thurmond Evandra, and Mrs. Horton Melissa; and Covent Garden on 1st May, 1733, with Milward as Timon, Quin as Apemantus, Walker as Alcibiades, Mrs. Hallam as Evandra, and Mrs. Buchanan as Melissa. Milward revived it for his benefit at Drury Lane 20th March, 1740, repeating his performance of Timon. Quin was once more Apemantus, Mills was Alcibiades, Woodward the Poet, Mrs. Butler Evandra, and Mrs. Pritchard Melissa. It was played for the last recorded time for Hales's benefit at Covent Garden 20th April, 1745. Quin was still Apemantus, Hippisley Phæax, Theophilus Cibber the Poet, Woodward Isander, Mrs. Pritchard Evandra, and Miss Hippisley Chloe. The other characters are not given. Hales, since all sorts of rash experiments were permitted at benefits, was assumably Timon. At Dublin Shadwell's play was given about 1715 at Smock Alley Theatre. The cast of the performance, a rare thing in early Dublin An adaptation from Shakespeare and Shadwell by James Dance, better known by his acting name of Love, was published in 1768, and was produced near the same time by its author at the theatre erected by him and his brother in Richmond. Like Dance's other dramas, it is a poor compilation. Love played Apemantus, Aikin was Timon; Fawcett, Lucullus; Cautherley, Alcibiades; and Mrs. Stephens, Evandra. Richard Cumberland was the next adapter of Timon. His version was produced 4th December, 1771, at Drury Lane under Garrick's management, with Barry as Timon, Bannister as Apemantus, Packer as Flavius, Palmer as Lucius, Hurst as Lucullus, Baddeley as the soldier, and Crofts (his first appearance on the stage) as Alcibiades. Mrs. Barry was Evanthe. Cumberland 1 The Elringtons were a family of clever actors. Thomas Elrington was at that time manager of the theatre. 2 A son, assumably, of the late manager of Smock Alley, whose daughter Thomas Elrington married. 3 A well-known actor at Drury Lane, the husband of an actress even better known, who played Evandra. 4 The famous Quin, then a youth of twenty-two. 5 Actor, song-writer, and dramatist. 6 A good actor and a pleasing poet. 7 Subsequently known as Mrs. Elizabeth Haywood, a voluminous writer introduced by Pope into the Dunciad, book ii. has the grace, in his advertisement to the printed version (8vo, 1771), to express his wish that he could have brought the play upon the stage with less violence to its author, and to hope that his own errors may be overlooked or forgiven in the contemplation of the "many passages of the first merit" which are still retained. He adds, "as the entire part of Evanthe and with very few exceptions the whole of Alcibiades are new, the author of the alteration has much to answer for" (Memoir, i. 384). His affectation of modesty is sufficiently transparent. On the plea that the play is now out of print, he burdens his memoirs with a long extract which may figure among any future illustrations of bathos. Cumberland chronicles that "public approbation seemed to sanction the attempt at the first production of the play" (ib. i. 385); but owns that it was subsequently passed over with neglect. It was indeed conspicuously unsuccessful, as appear to have been most alterations of Timon. Francis Gentleman, in his Dramatic Censor, does not include Timon among the plays on which he comments, and we are accordingly without the light which his criticisms cast upon the representations of other Shakespearean works. Genest gives a full description of the changes made by Cumberland, and is lenient in his verdict, speaking of some of the shortening as judicious, and declaring that in the respect of making in the scenes from Shakespeare few alterations except omissions Cumberland is much superior to Shadwell. Genest admits that the additions of both coalesce badly with the original, but holds that both have improved that part of the play which concerns Alcibiades" (Account of the English Stage, v. 319). To make, as does Cumberland, Evanthe the heroine, the daughter of Timon, and present her as beloved by Lucius and Alcibiades, and favouring the latter, is, as has been observed, injudicious. The reckless extravagance of Timon in spending his money on sycophants becomes unpardonable when his wealth, or a portion at least of it, should belong to his daughter. Fifteen years later, at Covent Garden, 13th May, 1786, yet one more alteration was tried with insuccess. Timon of Athens, altered from Shakespeare and Shadwell, is attributed in the Biographia Dramatica to Thomas Hull, a well-known actor and dramatist, for whose benefit it was given. From the same authority we learn that it was coldly received. This version has never been printed. The following is the cast: Timon Holman, Apemantus= Wroughton, Alcibiades = Farren, Flavius = Hull, Lucullus = Quick, Lucius = Wewitzer, Evandra = = a young lady, her first appearance, Melissa = Mrs. Inchbald. With the exception of the representative of Evandra, the foregoing actors constitute a strong cast. The young lady, according to the Theatrical Journal for May, 1786, “is said to be a sister of Mrs. Kemble, formerly Miss Satchell." Miss Satchell, afterwards Mrs. Stephen Kemble, was the daughter of a musical-instrument maker. The débutante is praised for her figure, manner, and deportment, and declared to have been "natural and affecting." Hull's alteration, it is said, “ought to be consigned to oblivion," a fate which soon attended it. Genest fails to chronicle who was the young lady playing Evandra. He says, however, that Flavius was quite in Hull's line, that Wroughton was a very good Apemantus, and that Quick and Wewitzer played well and did not make their parts too comic (Account of the English Stage, vi. 402). A long interval elapses before Timon of Athens is again heard of, and it is then (28th October, 1816), for the first time, announced as in Shakespeare's version. Even now, however, some modification was found necessary. This was accomplished by the Honourable George Lamb. In the advertisement to the play the adapter says: "The present attempt has been to restore Shakespeare to the stage, with no other omissions than such as the refinement of manners has rendered necessary · the short interpolation in the last scene has been chiefly compiled from Cumberland's alteration." Genest, who gives an analysis of the play, praises it highly, saying that it "does Lamb considerable credit, and adding, with a certain amount of hyperbole, that "it is not only infinitely better than any of the former alterations, but it may serve as a model of the manner in which Shakespeare's plays should be adapted to the modern |