simply sketching out the substance of an intended dialogue to be afterwards elaborated.'[1] In 1869 this conception of the authorship was further discussed by Tschischwitz.[2] The theory culminated in 1874 in the analysis and argument of Fleay who stated strongly his confidence in Shakespeare's priority.[3] He concludes his Essay as follows: 'The essential part of this paper is the proof that the Shakspere part of this play was written before the other part.' Among the critics who have, in the main, subscribed to this theory are Rolfe, Hudson, Deighton, Gollancz, and Furnivall. Hudson declares that 'whatsoever may be judged of this theory in other respects it seems to make clear work with the question why there should be in this case so great discrepancy of style and execution joined with such general unity of purpose and movement.'[4] Apropos of the second theory, that Shakespeare revised an earlier play, the same critic says: 'Shakespeare's approved severity of taste and strength of judgment at that period of his life, together with his fulness and availability of resource, would hardly have endured to retain certain parts in so crude and feeble a state as we here find them.'[5] This belief in Shakespeare's priority has grown, and, unless some new subversive evidence appears, can hardly be shaken.[6]
- ↑ The Illustrated Shakespeare, edited by G. C. Verplanck (New York, 1847), Introduction to Timon of Athens.
- ↑ Jahrbuch, 1869, 160-197.
- ↑ Transactions of the New Shakspere Society, 1874.
- ↑ Shakespeare's Complete Works, edited by H. N. Hudson, Introduction to Timon of Athens.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ E. H. Wright, in The Authorship of Timon of Athens, elaborates upon the theory of Shakespeare's priority. Reasoning that nine lines of a ten-line prose passage (II. ii. 194-204) are genuine, Wright is enabled to advance the theory that the germane scenes are also Shakespeare's (III. i., and III. ii.). If these two scenes are spurious, as they
