More on Timon of Athens

These thoughts are indebted to an article on Timon by Leo Paul S. de Alvarez in Alvis and West, Shakespeare as Political Thinker (ISI, 2000).

1) The play begins with a collection of Athenian artisans coming onstage, and we are immediately reminded that we are in Athens, the city of beauty and philosophy. Before he appears onstage, Timon has already been described as a patron of Athenian arts. The Poet assesses the Painter?s work by saying that the art ?tutors nature?Eand the ?artificial strife?Eof the painting is ?livelier than life?E(1.1.37-38). Timon agrees: ?The painting is almost the natural man,?Ehe says (1.1.157). Like the Poet, Timon is not saying that art approximates the natural man; Timon goes on to suggest that painting particularly is able to pierce through the devices and pretenses with which we clothe ourselves to the true natural man beneath. This seems to be the meaning of his claim that ?since dishonor traffics with man?s nature/ he is but outside?E(1.1.158-159). Man is embedded in networks of honor-giving and honor-receiving, in a ?traffic?Eor commerce of honor. This causes men to hide their true nature, and present an outside for the consumption of others. Civilized man, concerned as they are with honor and reception by others, cannot be seen for what they are. But ?these penciled figures are even such as they give out?E(1.1.159-160). For Timon at the beginning, art manifests nature more overtly than man himself in his social life. Yet, at this point in the play he does not follow up the insight that there is a disjunction between is and seems, between the outside that is presented and the reality of the man. In his mind, it appears, man is so fully socialized that his outside has become his nature. Civilization has become second nature, not merely a cloak to hide under. Consistently, Timon sees all Athenians, including Apemantus, as brothers who can dine together. He sees Athens knit together by a network of exchange and gift-giving, and expects everyone else to think the same. Given the opposition of civilization and nature, Timon is on the side of civilization.

2) From his first appearance, Apemantus offers a counter-point to Timon?s celebration of artifice and social life. He is a ?cynic?Ewhose speech is peppered with references to dogs. And he sees Athenians as little better than brainless dogs, liars, pretenders, barbarians. He belittles the painting by comparison with nature: ?He wrought better that made the painter?E(1.1.198). Yet, there is no humanist celebration of the dignity of man here, for he immediately adds ?yet he?s but a filthy piece of work?E(1.1.199). Apemantus is the first to introduce the theme of cannibalism that recurs through the play. Refusing to dine with Timon, Apemantus replies ?No, I eat not lords?E(1.1.204). The implication is that the meal is a place where through flattery Timon?s guests are seeking to consume him (1.2.36ff). And it is not only men who eat other men, but the ladies too. When Timon says that Apemantus would ?anger ladies?Ewere he to eat the lords, Apemantus replies: ?O, they eat lords. So they come by great bellies?E(1.1.206). Sex thus becomes another form of cannibalism, women eating the men who eat men. Apemantus?Egrace is no thanksgiving, but a prayer that he will never have to be dependent on another.

3) Timon of Athens introduces a key theme that also dominates Coriolanus . What turns men bestial is ingratitude. Timon has freely given of his wealth to others, but in his need they respond with lame excuses. Lucullus says ?this is no time to lend money, especially upon bare friendship without security?E(3.1.38-40). Lucius withdraws because ?I have no power to be kind?E(3.2.55). Sempronius is offended that he is Timon?s ?last refuge,?Eand refuses because of the slight to his friendship (3.3.8ff.). The strangers who witness these proceedings highlight the basic problem: ?O, see the monstrousness of man/ when he looks out in an ungrateful shape!?E(3.2.72-73). Social life depends in Athens on gift-giving, but gift-giving only binds people together if it is combined with memory and gratitude. Without gratitude, gift-giving becomes either bribery (the receiver responds out of grim duty) or treachery (the receiver refuses to respond).

4) In any case, it is ingratitude that sparks Timon?s powerful vituperative attacks on his friends, Athens, humanity in general. At his first feast, he was the recipient of flattery and the giver of food and gifts. At the second feast, where he throws hot water at his friends and pelts them with stones, he sees their flattery as the predation that it is and chases his friends from the table (3.6.88ff.). Significantly, his offers ?thanks?Efor the meal, but the thanks is a warning to the gods to avoid generosity, and a prayer that the gods would bring universal treachery and betrayal. The prayer ends with a triple repetition of ?nothing.?EThis is where ingratitude has led ?Eto nothing. The patron of the arts leaves the city of arts to return to the wood, cursing as he goes (4.1.1ff.). When Alcibiades comes by his wilderness cave, he gives, as he did in the city, but now he sees giving as a form of cursing rather than blessing (4.3.134). Ingratitude is a universal solvent of social life, and it is endemic in all societies that are outside the realm of gratia .