to Shakespeare.[1] The rest of the scene (250-296) was probably written by Shakespeare, with the exception of about eighteen lines of dialogue between the two lords and Apemantus (266-283).[2] Bad verse and blunders have marked the second scene as non-Shakespearean.[3] The first scene of the second act is Shakespeare's (II. i.). The second scene of this act is, by substantial agreement, conceded to be Shakespeare's as far as the entrance of Apemantus and the Fool (II. ii. 1-45),[4] and there is approximately similar agreement that the episode introduced by this entrance is spurious (46-132).[5] The remainder of the scene, approximately (133-243), is usually attributed to Shakespeare except ten prose lines that intrude upon the verse (196-205).[6] The first three scenes of the
- ↑ Fleay was supported in this belief by Hudson, Rolfe, Gollancz, and White. Wright thinks it likely that Shakespeare was the author of the entire passage.
- ↑ Concerning this passage Fleay argued that the unknown author retained the two lords on the stage to jeer at Apemantus, preparing more naturally for the cynic's entrance in the next scene, when he appears 'dropping after all, discontentedly, like himself.' (I. ii. S. d.) Wright considers the passage Shakespeare's.
- ↑ Among other crudities and errors, Wright mentions the following: Ventidius desires to pay his debt to Timon, thus nullifying the dramatic effect of Timon's later request for Ventidius' aid; and in the last act, senators are announced but do not enter.
- ↑ Fleay, Hudson, Rolfe, Gollancz, White, and Wright agree on this point of division.
- ↑ In this passage occurs a typical problem: The Steward urges the duns to await Timon's answer, and with the words, 'Pray, draw near,' is escorting them off, when Apemantus approaches. Whereupon, one of the duns says, 'Stay, stay!' The Steward leaves, but the duns remain throughout the next episode. Johnson suggests that at this point an entire scene is missing.
- ↑ Wright advances the theory that all of these lines, save one, are Shakespeare's. Gollancz believes lines 45-124 (approximately) to be non-Shakespearean.
