NOTES.

Note I.

Dramatis Personæ. In the list given in the Folio Phrynia, Timandra, and others are omitted. 'Timon's creditors' are termed 'usurers.' Ventidius is called Ventigius, Philotus, Philo, and Hortensius, Hortensis. Varro and Lucius occur among the names of the servants, and the latter has been retained by all editors except Mr Dyce in his second edition. In the play the servants address each other by the names of their respective masters: hence the confusion. Perhaps all the names assigned to the servants should be considered as names of their masters. 'Hortensius,' for instance, has not a servile sound. Flaminius and Servilius may be regarded rather as gentlemen in waiting than menials.

Sidney Walker suggests that Caphis should be Capys.

The list as given by modern editors contains successive additions and alterations made by Rowe, Johnson and Capell, which it is unnecessary to specify further.

With the exception of 'Actus Primus. Scæna Prima' at the beginning, there is in the Folios no indication of a division into Act or Scene throughout the play.

Note II.

I. 1. 1, 2. This conjecture of Farmer's is given from his own MS. in the copy of Johnson's Shakespeare which belonged to him, now in the library of Emmanuel College. In a note found in the Variorum edition, ad loc., he makes a different suggestion:

Note III.

I. 2. 1-3. We have left this corrupt passage as it stands in the Folios. Rowe made no change. Pope altered it to:

[Pg 308]

In this reading he was followed by Theobald, Hanmer and Warburton. Johnson read:

Capell has:

Steevens (1773) has:

In his edition of 1793 he read 'remember' for 'to remember.'

Note IV.

I. 2. 53-58. The Folios print Apemantus's speech as prose down to 'Timon'; then as four lines of verse:

The second has 'mird' for 'mire.' The third and fourth follow the first. Pope, whose arrangement we follow, prints as prose down to 'mire.' Capell prints the whole as verse thus:

following the Folios in the next four lines.

Steevens adopts this arrangement omitting 'most' in the second line. Sidney Walker would divide the lines thus:

Note V.

I. 2. 89-91. Mr Staunton suggests that one of the two clauses 'if we should ne'er have need of 'em' and 'should we ne'er have use for 'em' was intended to be cancelled.

[Pg 309]

Note VI.

I. 2. 113-118. The first Folio, followed substantially by the rest, has:

Rowe made no material alteration except that he put a comma after 'touch' in the last line but one.

Pope arranged thus:

Theobald:

and he adds in a note: 'The incomparable Emendation, with which the Text is here supply'd, I owe to my ingenious Friend Mr Warburton.' It was adopted by Hanmer and Johnson. Capell altered 'do come' in line 3 to 'are come;' Steevens (1785) restored 'They' for 'These' in the last line, and Malone changed 'pleas'd' in the last line but one to 'all pleas'd.'

Rann introduced the change which we have adopted in the text, placing 'th' ear' at the end of the fourth line, and reading 'Taste, touch and smell' in the fifth. Steevens, in his edition of 1793, followed this arrangement, reading in the fifth line, 'Taste, touch, smell, all pleas'd, &c.'

Note VII.

I. 2. 171, 172. We have printed this passage as prose, as it is difficult to say from the arrangement of the lines in the first and second[Pg 310] Folios, whether or not it was intended to be read as two lines of verse, the first ending 'thee,' as it certainly is in the third and fourth Folios. Pope printed it as prose. Capell eked out the metre thus:

Steevens suggested 'provided straight' in the second line.

In many parts of this play it is difficult to say whether the lines are intended to be read as irregular verse, or as rhythmical prose, and we have therefore left them as they stand in the Folios.

Note VIII.

II. 2. 89-96. This and many other passages are printed in the Folio as if they were intended to be irregular verse, where it is evident that they can only be read as prose. In such cases it is not always worth while to record how the lines were divided by the caprice or negligence of the printer. Seymour has endeavoured throughout the play to complete imperfect lines by the insertion of words, and imperfect hemistichs by the addition of entire clauses, but he has in this so far exceeded the license of conjecture that, except in the first scene of the play, we have not recorded all his proposed alterations.

Note IX.

III. 2. 60-64. Pope altered these lines as follows:

Theobald follows Pope's arrangement, but reads 'spirit' for 'sport' in the second line, an emendation which he first suggested in a letter to Warburton, still unpublished, in the British Museum. Warburton's conjecture 'coat,' which he made no allusion to in his own edition, is mentioned by Theobald in the same letter. Hanmer gives the whole passage thus:

Johnson follows the Folios except that he gives the first lines thus:

Steevens, in the edition of 1773, followed Johnson's arrangement, but adopted in the first lines a transposition proposed by Upton:

In his edition of 1793 he read as follows:

Following, in the rest, Capell's arrangement.

Malone arranged as follows:

In a note, however, he says, 'I do not believe this speech was intended by the authour for verse.'

Note X.

III. 3. 8. Hanmer made here one of his audacious alterations:

Capell emulated him thus:

Note XI.

III. 3. 19. Hanmer altered the passage thus:

Capell follows Hanmer, except that he replaces 'no' in the first line.

Steevens (1793) follows Capell in the first two lines, reading in the third:

Mr. Staunton suggests that the passage once stood:

Mr. Dyce, in his second edition proposes the following arrangement:

Note XII.

III. 5. 14-18. The first Folio, followed substantially by the rest, has:

Rowe arranged the lines as follows:

Pope read:

[Pg 313]

Theobald follows Pope verbatim, and so Hanmer, except that he reads 'setting this fact aside.' Warburton proposed 'setting this fault aside.' Johnson read:

Steevens, in his edition of 1773, restored 'his fate' from the Folios in the first line, giving the reading we have adopted in the text.

Note XIII.

III. 5. 49-51. The first Folio has here:

The second Folio:

The third and fourth Folios, spelling apart, follow the second.

Rowe placed a comma after 'Judge,' and this punctuation was adopted by all subsequent editors.

Pope altered the passage thus:

He was followed by Theobald, Hanmer and Warburton, and by Johnson in his text; the last named however proposed a different arrangement of the preceding line and the substitution of 'felon' for 'fellow' in line 49, thus:

This suggestion was adopted substantially by Rann. The reading[Pg 314] 'felon' had been independently proposed by Theobald (Nichols's Illustrations, II. 475).

Capell and Steevens (1773) followed Pope. Steevens (1778) read:

In 1793 he read:

This was followed in the Variorum Editions of 1803 and 1813.

Malone (1790) read:

and was followed by Boswell (1821).

Mr Knight (1839) returned to the arrangement and readings of the first Folio. Singer (ed. 2) adopted this arrangement, but read 'felon' for 'fellow.' In his first edition he followed the arrangement of the second Folio, reading 'felon.'

Mitford suggests:

or:

Note XIV.

V. 1. Johnson calls attention to the impropriety of placing the entry of the Banditti in one act and that of the Poet and Painter in another, when the latter were mentioned as within view when Apemantus parted from Timon. 'It might be suspected,' he says, 'that some scenes are transposed, for all these difficulties would be removed by introducing the Poet and Painter first, and the thieves in this place. Yet I am afraid the scenes must keep their present order, for the Painter alludes to the Thieves, when he says, he likewise enriched poor straggling soldiers with great quantity.'

Note XV.

V. 1. 59. After the word 'enough' in the first Folio a space has slipped up, but there is no trace of any stop. The punctuation, as Mr Dyce observes, is important to the sense of the preceding line.

[Pg 315]

Note XVI.

V. 1. 131. The word 'canterisynge' for 'cauterizing,' is found very frequently in an old surgical work, printed in 1541, of which the title is 'The questyonary of Cyrurgyens.' The heading of one of the chapters is, 'Here foloweth the fourthe partycle, where as be moued and soyled other dyffycultees touchyng the maner of canterisynge or searynge.' The instrument with which the operation is performed is in the same book called a 'cantere.' The form of the word may have been suggested by the false analogy of 'canterides,' i.e. cantharides, which occurs in the same chapter.

Note XVII.

V. 3. 3, 4. Mr Staunton prints as follows:

He regards these lines as the only part of the inscription which the soldier could read, the rest being in some different language. But this explanation introduces a fresh difficulty. The difficulty would be lessened by supposing the legible lines to be inscribed not on the tomb but on the rock beside it, and the epitaph proper to be written not in a different language but in a different character: a notion which might be suggested to the author by the Gothic letters commonly found on ancient monuments.

In the Globe edition we adopted the emendation 'rear'd' because, with the change of a single letter, it yields something approaching to a satisfactory sense. But we incline to think that the words were originally intended as an epitaph to be read by the soldier. The author may have changed his mind and forgotten to obliterate what was inconsistent with the sequel, or the text may have been tampered with by some less accomplished playwright. Anyhow the close of the play bears marks of haste, or want of skill, and the clumsy device of the wax cannot have been invented and would scarcely be adopted by Shakespeare.

In the epitaph given in the next scene two inconsistent couplets are combined into a quatrain.

Note XVIII.

V. 4. 62. Some editors attribute the conjecture 'render'd' to Mason; but the earliest mention of it which we have remarked is in Lord Chedworth's volume of Notes (1805).

[Pg 316]
[Pg 317]

[Pg 318]

[Pg 319]

---