the manner in which the play came to be so composed, we come to the more difficult question still-Who was the second author? The ratio of rhyme to blank verse, the irregularities of length (lines with four accents and initial monosyllabic feet), number of double endings, &c., agree with only one' play of all that I have analysed (over 200), viz. The Revenger's Tragedy. But I am doubtful as to pressing this argument very strongly, unless we give up (as I am quite ready to do) the notion of the play being finished in 1623, as The Revenger's Tragedy was written in 1607. The evidence of general style, however, appears to me strongly to confirm the conjecture that Cyril Tourneur was the second author. If we could find out the date of his death, it might help to determine the question as to when his part was written: but, so far as I know, there is no reason whatever why he should not have written it in either 1608 or in 1623.

This bit seems to me exactly in the metre of Shakespeare's recaster :

"In the morning

When they are up and drest, and their mask on,

Who can perceive this save that eternal eye,

That sees thro' flesh and all. Well, if any thing be damn'd,
It will be twelve o'clock at night, that twelve will never 'scape."
Revenger's Tragedy, p. 322 (Dodsley's edition).

Tourneur quotes Latin too :

"Curæ leves loquuntur, majores stupent."

"Duke. My teeth are eaten out.

Vind. Had'st any left?

Hip. I think but few.

Vind. Then those that did eat are eaten.
Duke. O my tongue!" &c. (p. 354.)

Sometimes there is a whole page like this.

Here again is a bit in the style of metre we want :

"'Tis well he died; he was a witch.

And now, my lord, since we are in for ever,

The work was ours which else might have been slipt,
And, if we list, we could have nobles clipt,
And go for less than beggars: but we hate
To bleed so cowardly: we have enough,

I' faith we're well, our mother turn'd, our sister true,
We die after a nest of dukes, adieu." (P. 384.)

But with less than extracting the whole play, I cannot expect to produce conviction on this point; and I have already taken as much space as can be afforded now. I subjoin the numerical data for the metrical examination of The Revenger's Tragedy as near as I can count them in such a badly printed edition as we yet have.

Deficient and short lines about 125.

For the data of the metre of Timon, and other arguments derived from the sums mentioned (50 talents, &c.), and similar statistical matters, I refer to Part II. of this paper, which contains nothing opposed to my present views except that I have transferred since three prose bits from and one verse bit to, Shakespeare. This Part II. is reprinted as it stood in 1869, for reasons given in the note on its first page. The additional matter given in this Part I. formed part of my first essay on the subject, which was remodelled into the present form of Part II. at the request of Mr. P. A. Daniel in 1868.

I have only to add that the essential part of this paper is the proof that the Shakespeare part of this play was written before the other part the theory how this came to be done is accessory and unimportant. If any one likes to believe as I did in 1869 that the unfinished play of Shakespeare was given to another theatre poet to finish in 1607, he is welcome to his belief: he avoids some difficulties and incurs others. But that Knight's theory as held by Delius, &c., is untenable, I hold to be proven: the un-Shakespearian parts were certainly the latest written.

ON "TIMON OF ATHENS."*

PART II. (1869.) [Reprinted verbatim.]

(Read May 8, 1874.)

1

THIS question is so intricate, and involves considerations of so many kinds, that I shall, for the purpose of raking the argument clear, pursue a somewhat irregular course in its arrangement. shall first submit to the reader, in a tabular form, the results that I have arrived at after a careful and prolonged investigation of the question. This Table is grounded on an examination of every line of the play, one by one, as regards the metre ; on a specific analysis of the plot with regard to the bearing of each scene or portion of a scene on every other; and on a minute examination of the Folio of 1623 with regard to the printing and spelling of proper names, stage directions, &c., which have been altered by modern editors, without authority and on (I think) insufficient grounds. The first portion of the subjoined table shows in parallel columns the parts of the play which I believe to be undoubtedly Shakespeare's, and those which I assign to a second author: the other portion gives a metrical analysis of the lines assigned to each.

It will be observed that I have divided the Scenes into five distinct portions, other than the Act-and-Scene division; and have marked these A, B, C D, E, F. This arrangement I believe to be that which Shakespeare intended for his Act-divisions; but, at present, I wish it to be regarded only as a convenient arrangement for purposes of reference in this discussion.

This paper was written in 1868 by Mr. Fleay, and sent in 1869 to Mr. W. G. Clark, of Trinity College, Cambridge, the senior of the joint-editors of the Cambridge Shakspere. In his rooms it remained till yesterday, when his friend, Mr. W. Aldis Wright, took it out and posted it to me. It reached me this morning, Wednesday, April 8, 1874, and I post it at once to Mr. Childs, to print for The New Shakspere Society's Transactions. This course is taken because Mr. Fleay heard in 1870 that a German critic had published a paper for the German Shakspere Society, in which he took a similar view of Timon to that which Mr. Fleay had before taken. The German critic's views may, after all, be very different from those expressed in the present paper; but Mr. Fleay wishes, in any case, to avoid the charge of plagiarism.-F. J. FURNIVALL.

It will conduce to ease of comprehension, if we begin with the latter divisions; as the difficulties in the end of the play are easier to examine than the early ones. We commence, therefore, with F.

The

In F, there is only one passage at all doubtful; the rest coheres, is in one style; and that style is certainly Shakespeare's. doubtful piece is Act v. Sc. 3. The objections are:

F.-1. Lines 3, 4,

"Timon is dead, who hath out-lived his span:

Some beast read this! There does not live a man,"

must be-in spite of the alteration of read into rear'd, as proposed by Warburton-intended for Timon's epitaph. In this case we have a soldier, who cannot read" (1. 6), first reading, and then taking, in wax, an inscription, which, in Sc. 4, turns out to be quite

different.

F.-2. The "Soldier" of this scene is the "Messenger" of Sc. 4. This would be of little importance, but as it is (as we shall see) only one instance of several in this play of a like kind, the cumulative weight of the whole becomes considerable.

F.-3. The last four lines, telling us that Alcibiades ("our captain"), an aged interpreter, young in days, makes the fall of Athens the mark of his ambition, which fact we knew scenes ago, cannot be Shakespeare's.

scene.

E. From Act iv. Sc. 3 to Act v. Sc. 1, 1. 118, must be in one There is no possibility of a break in the Acts, unless a very awkward one at "Exit Alcibiades" (as arranged by modern editors); for, as the text stands, Apemantus (iv. 3, 1. 356) sees the poet and painter coming; and the curtain cannot be allowed to fall without their presenting themselves. In the Folio there is no division into Acts or Scenes. I imagine the inordinate length of the scene, and the extreme shortness of Act v., are the chief reasons for the modern division. In this division (E) the omissions fall into two sections: (1) The Steward part. ("Flavius" is an alteration of the editors.) (2) The prose portions with Apemantus, Banditti, and Poet and Painter.