ular verse.' Evans' comment may be taken as typical of the theory: 'We assume that during his reading of Plutarch Shakespeare's attention was arrested by the story of Timon; that it struck him that the character of Timon might be made effective for the stage, and, not having time or inclination to work up a complete plot into a regular five-act play he availed himself of a "Timon" which was in the hands of the theatre at the time. . . . Accordingly he rewrote about half of it, and hastily revised the rest, leaving this for the most part untouched, but inserting or altering a few lines or phrases here and there. But before he had had time to give the whole a final revision it was called for by the manager, and hurried upon the boards. These assumptions will account both for the general unity of the plan as well as for the signs of incomplete revision observable here and there.'[1] In quality of argument, and in the support afforded it by eminent scholars, this theory will probably remain important. It has, however, been overshadowed by the third hypothesis.
(3) Shakespeare wrote the main portions of Timon of Athens—which was completed or revised by an inferior dramatist. Verplanck, the American scholar, led the way for this theory in 1847, when he wrote: 'It is like . . . a work left incomplete and finished by another hand, inferior, though not without skill, and working on the conceptions of the greater master.' In the same connection he adds: 'The hypothesis which I should offer . . . is this: Shakespeare adopted the canvas of Timon's story as a fit vehicle for poetic satire . . . while, as to the rest, he contented himself with a rapid and careless composition of some scenes and probably on others (such as that of Alcibiades with the Senate) contenting himself with
- ↑ The Works of William Shakespeare, edited by Henry Irving and Frank A. Marshall, Introduction to Timon of Athens.
