Shakespearean Tragedy/Note S

Layout 2

NOTE S.

KING LEAR AND TIMON OF ATHENS.

That these two plays are near akin in character, and probably in date, is recognised by many critics now; and I will merely add here a few references to the points of resemblance mentioned in the text (p. 246), and a few notes on other points.

(1) The likeness between Timon’s curses and some of the speeches of Lear in his madness is, in one respect, curious. It is natural that Timon, speaking to Alcibiades and two courtezans, should inveigh in particular against sexual vices and corruption, as he does in the terrific passage iv. iii. 82-166; but why should Lear refer at length, and with the same loathing, to this particular subject (IV. vi. 112–132)? It almost looks as if Shakespeare were expressing feelings which oppressed him at this period of his life.

The idea may be a mere fancy, but it has seemed to me that this pre-occupation, and sometimes this oppression, are traceable in other plays of the period from about 1602 to 1605 (Hamlet, Measure for Measure, Troilus and Cressida, All’s Well, Othello); while in earlier plays the subject is handled less, and without disgust, and in later plays (e.g. Antony and Cleopatra, The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline) it is also handled, however freely, without this air of repulsion (I omit Pericles because the authorship of the brothel-scenes is doubtful).

(2) For references to the lower animals, similar to those in King Lear, see especially Timon, I. i. 259; II. i. 180; III. vi. 103 f.; IV. i. 2, 36; IV. iii. 49 f., 177 ff., 325 ff. (surely a passage written or, at the least, rewritten by Shakespeare), 392, 426 f. I ignore the constant abuse of the dog in the conversations where Apemantus appears.

(3) Further points of resemblance are noted in the text at pp. 246, 247, 310, 326, 327, and many likenesses in word, phrase and idea might be added, of the type of the parallel ‘Thine Do comfort and not burn,’ Lear, II. iv. 176, and ‘Thou sun, that comfort’st, burn!’ Timon, V. i. 134.

(4) The likeness in style and versification (so far as the purely Shakespearean parts of Timon are concerned) is surely unmistakable, but some readers may like to see an example. Lear speaks here (IV. vi. 164 ff.):

Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back;Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kindFor which thou whipp’st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear;Robes and furr’d gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.None does offend, none, I say, none; I’ll able ’em:Take that of me, my friend, who have the powerTo seal the accuser’s lips. Get thee glass eyes;And, like a scurvy politician, seemTo see the things thou dost not.

And Timon speaks here (IV. iii. 1 ff.):

O blessed breeding sun, draw from the earthRotten humidity; below thy sister’s orbInfect the air! Twinn’d brothers of one womb,Whose procreation, residence, and birth,Scarce is dividant, touch them with several fortunes,The greater scorns the lesser: not nature,To whom all sores lay siege, can bear great fortune,But by contempt of nature.Raise me this beggar, and deny’t that lord:The senator shall bear contempt hereditary,The beggar native honour.It is the pasture lards the rother’s sides,The want that makes him lean. Who dares, who dares,In purity of manhood stand uprightAnd say ‘This man’s a flatterer’? if one be,So are they all: for every grise of fortuneIs smooth’d by that below: the learned pateDucks to the golden fool: all is oblique;There’s nothing level in our cursed natures,But direct villany.

The reader may wish to know whether metrical tests throw any light on the chronological position of Timon; and he will find such information as I can give in Note BB. But he will bear in mind that results arrived at by applying these tests to the whole play can have little value, since it is practically certain that Shakespeare did not write the whole play. It seems to consist (1) of parts that are purely Shakespearean (the text, however, being here, as elsewhere, very corrupt); (2) of parts untouched or very slightly touched by him; (3) of parts where a good deal is Shakespeare’s but not all (e.g., in my opinion, III. v., which I cannot believe, with Mr. Fleay, to be wholly, or almost wholly, by another writer). The tests ought to be applied not only to the whole play but separately to (1), about which there is little difference of opinion. This has not been done: but Dr. Ingram has applied one test, and I have applied another, to the parts assigned by Mr. Fleay to Shakespeare (see Note BB.).^[1] The result is to place Timon between King Lear and Macbeth (a result which happens to coincide with that of the application of the main tests to the whole play): and this result corresponds, I believe, with the general impression which we derive from the three dramas in regard to versification.

↑ These are I. i.; II. i.; II. ii., except 194–204; in III. vi. Timon’s verse speech; IV. i.; IV. ii. 1–28; IV. iii, except 292–362, 399–413, 454–543; V. i., except 1–50; V. ii; V. iv. I am not to be taken as accepting this division throughout.

[1] These are I. i.; II. i.; II. ii., except 194–204; in III. vi. Timon’s verse speech; IV. i.; IV. ii. 1–28; IV. iii, except 292–362, 399–413, 454–543; V. i., except 1–50; V. ii; V. iv. I am not to be taken as accepting this division throughout.

[1]