What is she but a foul, unbending Rebell,
And gracelesse Traitor to her louing Lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple

To offer warre when they should kneele for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacie, and sway,

When they are bound to serue, loue, and obay."
Act v. Sc. 2.

(SHAKESPEARE.)

[P.S. The lists formerly given in this paper of peculiar words were only preliminary to my edition of Henry VI.; in which the whole question of "once-used" words will be thoroughly discussed, and the method of using them in discriminating authorship laid down in detail.]'

Hereupon follows my division of The Taming of the Shrew into Shakespearian and non-Shakespearian portions, with the results of the rhyme-test as applied to each. Nothing more is, I think, needful to confirm Dr. Farmer's theory as to the authorship, and Mr. Collier's as to the date, of this play.

The Induction (not Shakespeare's) is rhymeless, evidently with
intention, just as the play in Hamlet is rhymed: to distinguish the
play within the play. The rhyme-ratio of rhyme to verse, I to 24;
that is, of rhyme to blank, I to 23; places this play in 1602:
exactly where I anticipated it would come, for other reasons: it
comes at the extreme end of the Second Period along with Twelfth
Night and As You Like It. (See my paper on Twelfth Night.)
The difference of the ratios in the Shakespeare and other parts of
the play (7'4 and 24) is so great as to distinctly show the value of
the rhyme-test in determining authorship when properly used.

[P.S. Since this paper was written, I have seen reason to enlarge
the hypothesis I proposed in it to the following purport :-The
original Taming of a Shrew was written by Shakespeare and
Marlowe in conjunction for L. Pembroke's company; Shakespeare
writing the prose scenes and Marlowe the verse. In 1600 The
Whole Contention, Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, and The Taming of
a Shrew, became the property of the Chamberlain's men, all having
formerly belonged to Pembroke's. Shakespeare re-wrote his own
part of the Taming of a Shrew, and Lodge re-wrote Marlowe's;
hence our present play The Taming of the Shrew. Shakespeare also
re-wrote Hamlet (perhaps his own part only at first, Lodge helping
him by re-writing Marlowe's for the first Quarto); he also touched
(slightly) the other plays. All this was done in 1601-2.
See my
paper on Henry VI., “Macmillan's Magazine,” Nov. 1875.—
F. G. F., Jan. 1876.]

UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA.

CHAPTER V.

ON "TIMON OF ATHENS."

PART I. (1874.)

(Read May 8, 1874.)

SYMPSON, Knight, and others have held that this play is not entirely the work of Shakespeare: but they have, so far as I know, all proceeded on the hypothesis that Shakespeare took up an older work of an inferior writer, and founded on it our present play, by retouching, rewriting, and interpolating new scenes. The object of the present paper is to show that the nucleus, the original and only valuable part of the play, is Shakespeare's; and that it was completed for the stage by a second and inferior hand.

Before going into details as to metre, &c., I will examine the scenes of the play in order: In Act i. Sc. 1, I find nothing that we can reject except the prose parts, l. 186-248, and 1. 266–283. The former of these is exactly in the same style as other prose talk with Apemantus, which we shall presently see must be rejected: it is bald, cut up, and utterly unlike the speeches of the same personages in the other parts of the same scene; and above all, it has nothing to do with the plot, and does not advance the story a step: the latter bit is clearly parenthetical: after Timon has said, "Let us in !" one of the rest who entered with Alcibiades says, "Come, shall we in? and taste L. Timon's bountie?" and after a little conversation, he and his friend, another of the rest, go in together. So I think Shakespeare arranged it his alterer

empties the stage of all but Apemantus, who stays in order to "drop after all discontentedly like himself" in the next scene: but as there was a bit of Shakespeare to be used up (and we shall see that he could not afford to lose a line, for reasons to be given hereafter), the alterer brings in two extra Lords to talk to Apemantus, so that, after all, Apemantus has no opportunity of leaving the stage discontentedly like himself. This is too clumsy for Shakespeare, whether doing his own work, or vamping another man's. The prose therefore in this scene I reject: the verse, which all hangs together, I retain: it is Shakespeare's certainly; for instance

"All those which were his fellowes but of late,
Some better than his valew, on the moment
Follow his strides, his Lobbies fill with tendance,
Raine Sacrificiall whisperings in his eaer,

Make Sacred euen his styrrop, and through him
Drinke the free Ayre."

Act i. Sc. 2, on the other hand, has not a trace of Shakespeare in it. Ventigius (who is called Ventidius in the Shakespeare part of the play) offers to repay the 5 talents advanced by Timon, and tells of the death of his father. This is certainly not known to the author of the last part of Act ii. Sc. 2, where the information as to Ventidius's father is given again, but no allusion is made to Ventidius's offer. Timon quotes hackneyed Latin: the whole scene is inferior, and leaves the story unadvanced, and it contains the first mention of Lords Lucius and Lucullus, of whom, with their worthy colleague Sempronius, there is no notice in the original part of the play. The steward also, or at any rate some one who talks very like the steward of the second author's scenes, is here called Flavius, and here only. But in Act ii. Sc. 2, Flavius is given by Shakespeare as the name of one of Timon's servants who is not the steward. As to the poor humour, poorer metre, and wretched general style of this scene, I need say nothing: it is manifest on a mere cursory reading, but I give a specimen of the poetry, the best I can find.

"He commands vs to prowide, and giue great guists,
and all out of an empty Coffer:

Nor will he know his Purse, or yeeld me this,
To shew him what a Begger his heart is,
Being of no power to make his wishes good.
His promises flye so beyond his state,

That what he speaks is all in debt; he owis for every word;
He is so kind that he now pays interest for 't,

His Land's put to their Bookes."

However fine this may be, it is certainly not in the style of Shakespeare, or of the preceding scene.

But in Act ii. Sc. I we come on the genuine play again :

"For I do feare,

When every Feather stickes in his own wing,

Lord Timon will be left a naked gull,

Which flashes now a Phoenix."

There is the true ring in this.

Act ii. Sc. 2 is also genuine, except the prose part, 1. 46-131, and 195-204. When Timon has demanded an explanation of the steward, and the steward has desired the duns to cease their importunity till after dinner, he adds to them, "Pray you walk neere! I'le speak with you anon;" and straightway gives the explanation desired: but the playwright who improved the drama wanted Apemantus to talk nonsense to the Page and Fool of a harlot (unknown 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. This prose part must be accepted or rejected along with the prose in Act i. Sc. I.

Timon is

The other smaller bit is also evidently an insertion. going to try his friends: he calls for Flavius and Servilius, his servants; they come; he says he will despatch them severally: accordingly, he tells one to go to Sempronius the other to Ventidius. But the second author, having already in a previous scene intro