A Fragmentary Analysis of TIMON OF ATHENS (Shakespeare)
by Joseph Suglia
“Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible, be daily before your eyes, but death chiefly, and you will never entertain any abject thought, nor too eagerly covet anything.”
—Epictetus, The Enchiridion
“A friend asks only for your time and not money.”
—From a fortune cookie. Chinatown, Chicago, 2019
Athenian lord Timon has an embarrassment of wealth, and he doesn’t seem in the least embarrassed about it. He is generous—absurdly, promiscuously generous, prodigal to the point of profligacy. His Lucullan feasts are well-attended. Of course, he is parasitized by the mob—by the mob of disgusting parasites who call themselves his “friends.” As if they were a pack of baphometic daemons, his “friends” eat up his money until he has nothing left. When the creditors demand repayment, Timon has nothing to give them. None of his “friends” helps Timon in his time of need; the pseudo-friends to whom he appeals for money—Lucullus, Lucius, and Sempronius—refuse his entreaties, even while they are wearing the jewelry that Timon gifted them. Timon is soon on course for self-immolation. He is so aggrieved that he spends the rest of his life in a wasteland, where he execrates the whole of humanity.
So goes the epitasis of Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens (circa 1605-1608), largely based on Plutarch’s life of Antony and Lucian’s dialogue on Timon. It is an allegory of language (this is not something that I will pursue in depth here) and an allegory of misanthropy and sounds particularly allegorical when Timon declares dismally to Alcibiades: “I am Misanthropos and hate mankind” [IV:iii]. It is clear that Timon is allegorizing misanthropy in the general and in the abstract. However, Shakespeare’s great play, one of the most underestimated in the Western literary canon, is not a misanthropic play, despite appearances, but a subtle critique of Timonian misanthropy.
TIMON IS NOT APART FROM HUMANITY; HE IS A PART OF HUMANITY
Timon retreats to the wasteland in order to avoid human contact and to correct the errors of his personal past, to correct the mistakes that he made when he was rich (profligate liberality, exploitability). And what does he do while in the wasteland? He socializes still!
Even while wasting away in the wasteland, Timon is thronged by other human beings. In the same way that the Forest of Arden in As You Like It is an overpopulated desert, there are too many people in the wasteland, and Timon can’t escape contact with them. Timon curses Alcibiades for approaching him: “The canker gnaw thy heart / For showing me again the eyes of man!” [IV:iii]. He withdraws from humanity and yet draws humanity to him at the same time.
The obvious question floating in my mind: If Timon wishes to be left alone, why does he ask Apemantus to report to Athens that Timon has money: “Tell them there I have gold” [IV:iii]. He knows well, and Apemenatus tells him as much, that he will soon be thronged with Athenians. Apemantus even affirms that the rogues of Athens will come for him, seeking money: “I’ll say thou’st gold: / Thou wilt be thronged to shortly” [IV:iii]. This is a strange paradox or a koan: If he wants to be left alone, why does Timon send Apemantus as a messenger to Athens? And why is the message that Apemantus carries, in effect, “I have money. Come to see me!”?
Apemantus and Timon are paradoxes: both misanthropes and social animals at the same time. If Apemantus dislikes humanity so much, why does he attend Timon’s well-attended dinners? He doesn’t eat the food that is prepared; he instead show-offily eats roots and drinks water. Why even go to one of Timon’s parties if he is not there for the food? Apemantus does relish piercing the revelers with caustic insults. Everyone appears to know who he is, and he interacts with the partygoers.
The most interesting thing about Shakespeare’s punk-rock play is that it is a condemnation of the whole of humanity—and of Timon along with it! This condemnation extends to misanthropy. Timon’s misanthropy does not go far enough; it leaves Timon immune. Timon is not apart from humanity; he is a part of humanity, even after he renounces it. The play suggests the impossibility of liberating oneself from humanity, the impossibility of ever being alone while being alive, something that brings the work—the strangest, darkest, most nihilistic, most heterodox work in the Shakespearean canon—in close proximity to the shocking literature of Roland Topor. Timon the Misanthrope thinks that he is soaring over the unhuman crowd, but he is one of them; he is a member of the crowd.
WHEN HIS LANGUAGE ENDS, ALL LANGUAGE SHALL END
Timon of Athens is an allegory of language. It suggests that language is empty. Timon’s parasitical “friends” make empty promises and justify the non-performance of their promises with empty words. Timon spends more money than he has and thus defaults on his loans. The Poet promises to craft a poem in honor of Timon that he will never present, the Painter promises to paint a likeness of Timon that he has no intention of completing, etc. Flavius claims that “the world is but a word” [II:ii], the world only extends as far as language does, and that the “breath is gone whereof this praise is made” [II:ii].
It is no wonder that Timon looks forward to the apocalyptic death of language, the reduction of human words to muteness, to silence. Ultimately, all we have are words. When human language dies, humanity dies—and this is something that Timon welcomes in his final words, as if the language of humanity will die when his language dies: “Lips, let sour words go by, and language end” [V:ii]. When his language ends, Timon suggests, all language shall end.
HE IS EITHER GENEROUS TO EVERYONE OR GENEROUS TO NO ONE
Timon moves from indiscriminate generosity to indiscriminate human-hatred. Life is a zero-sum contest, for Timon. He knows only absolutes. Much as Coriolanus, another one of Shakespeare’s simpletons, either loves his motherland Rome or hates Mother Rome, Timon either loves Athens or hates Athens.
Timon is either a profligate prodigal or a human-hater. There is no middle ground for him. He is a quasi-borderline, as if he were afflicted with a version of Borderline Personality Disorder. He absolutely loves or absolutely hates—not one individual, but the totality of humanity.
Note Timon’s use of the word “therefore,” as if he were drawing a logical conclusion:
There’s nothing level in our cursed natures,
But direct villainy. Therefore, be abhorr’d
All feasts, societies, and throngs of men! [IV:iii]
He proclaims that he holds no brief for human beings and their communities and rituals, holds no brief for those who compose the human species because they are unequal (it is as if he were attempting to refute Hobbes, whom Shakespeare certainly read, and read with great admiration, according to Ben Johnson). Allow me to paraphrase further: “Human beings are unequal except that they are equal in villainy; therefore, all of human society should be hated!”
Again, Timon is either generous to everyone or generous to no one. As we have known at least since Hegel, opposites interpenetrate. Opposites are inwardly connected; they belong to the same system.
Leftism is nothing more than the inversion of rightism, and Satanism is nothing more than the obverse of Christianity. An opposite is not completely different from the original term. The opposite of something is related to that thing.
Timon, a man whose fortune suddenly changes to misfortune, is not a genuine misanthrope at all. For he only hates humanity after he has been exploited. Had he not been exploited, as Apemantus suggests, he would never have converted to misanthropy. As Apemantus phrases it, Timon’s misanthropy is forced: “This is in thee a nature but affected” [IV:iii]. Timon’s human-hatred is a pre-reflexive, ungenuine, affected misanthropy. It is an immature misanthropy.
Apemantus, who, in many respects, is the raisonneur of the play, is suggesting, quite rightly, that Timon’s rejection of sociality is the mere opposite of promiscuous sociality. Apemantus says, in prose: “The middle of humanity thou never knewst, but the extremity of both ends” [IV:iii]. Apemantus has a more nuanced view of humankind than Timon does.
Jonathan Swift knew that Timon’s misanthropy is naïve and simplistic. This is likely why Swift refuses to identify as a Timonian human-hater. Swift acknowledges that he is a misanthrope, but not a misanthrope in Timon’s manner (see Swift’s letter to Alexander Pope, 29 September 1725). Timon’s misanthropy is not intelligent enough for Swift.
Similarly, in Paragraph 379 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche distances himself from Timonian misanthropy. Nietzsche knew not the love of hatred, but contempt. Contempt is hatred’s icy cousin, and Nietzsche knew well the aristocratic pleasures of contempt, as he knew well that hatred is an all-enmeshing obsession.
HE MOCKINGLY IMITATES THE MOCKING IMITATORS
Timon’s attitude toward art undergoes a change. First, he believes that art is almost the direct representation of human nature: “The painting is almost the natural man” [I:i]. Art is like reality itself; it shows things as they are: “[T]hese penciled figures are / Even such as they give out” [I:i]. He is naïve, again, and has a naïve, pre-reflexive attitude toward art. At the beginning of the play, he actually believes that art is honest!
In the fifth act of the play, Timon considers art to a sham, a kind of fakery, a confidence trick, a lie. The Painter is said to draw “counterfeit” and the Poet is said to compose “fiction” [V:i]. Timon mockingly imitates the mocking imitators.
What Nietzsche writes about Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Julius Caesar may also be written about Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens: Shakespeare slyly ridicules poetry and all other forms of art. There is in Timon of Athens the playful disparagement of poetry as a kind of frivolity (see Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, Paragraph Ninety-Eight).
HE IS A MISANTHROPE, IT IS TRUE, BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT HE MISANTHROPIZES HIMSELF
Timon is a misanthrope, it is true, but it is also true that he misanthropizes himself. His misanthropy comes from his autolatry, his self-worship, his narcissism, and his inability to forgive himself for his prodigal liberality. It is for this reason that Flavius says of Timon: “[H]e is set so only to himself” [V:ii]
Timon, or Timonian misanthropy, presages the cultural movement in this century known as the “incel” movement. “Incel” is a portmanteau abbreviation of “involuntary celibate.” “Incels” are sexually disappointed young men, men who cannot find sexual release with women and who despise these same women for rejecting them. Often, “incels” are “black-pilled,” which seems to mean that they are anticipating a dreary, hopeless future for themselves and, often, for everyone else.
I see the similarity in that “black-pilling” involuntary celibates transfer their self-hatred onto a world that does not bend to them, much in the way that Timon transfers his self-hatred onto a world that is indifferent to him.
Misanthropy is founded on narcissism and on narcissistic self-hatred. Misanthropes project their hatred of themselves onto the numberless faces that they will never see.
Misanthropy is an immature response to the venality of humanity. Rather than inventing more nuanced, cleverer ways of dealing with people, the misanthrope thinks: “Because a small group of people mistreated me, all of humanity should be condemned.” It is as if the misanthrope were saying: “Because I was exploited and because no one helped me when I was abject, die, everyone, die!”
It is important to highlight that this play is critical of Timon’s liberality and his misanthropy.
HE REINTERPRETS HIS PERSONAL EXPLOITATION AS INFECTION BY PESTILENTIAL HUMANITY
In his final words, Timon says, dismally: “My long sickness / Of health and living now begins to mend” [V:ii]. Dying is the healing, the “mending,” of the sickness of life, the remedying of that disease which is life. Timon reinterprets his personal exploitation as infection by pestilential humanity.
Timon is someone who seems endlessly fascinated by Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), to the extent that I would describe him as a syphillographer, a syphillologist, and a syphillophile. This makes perfect sense when we consider that Timon associates venereal disease with human life, since, after all, human life is a Sexually Transmitted Disease.
ONE IS THE CANNIBAL AND THE OTHER IS THE CANNIBALIZED
Timon of Athens sets forth the dreariest vision of humankind of any Shakespearean play. In the fourth line of the text, the Painter says that the world “wears… as it grows” [I:i]: that is, the world is progressively wearing itself down, depleting itself, exhausting itself, decomposing, rotting, putrefying, in the same way that Timon’s fortunes are shrinking and shriveling.
Human relations are anthropophagous relations, the play is suggesting: In every relationship between any given two human beings, one is the cannibal and the other is the cannibalized, one is dominant and the other submissive. Alcibiades looks forward ghoulishly to a “breakfast of enemies” that would be “bleeding new” [II:i]. Apemantus knows that wherever two human beings meet, one is the predator and the other is the prey, one is more active and the other is more passive: “What beast couldst thou be that were not subject to a beast? And what a beast art thou already that seest not thy loss in transformation!” [IV:iii]. In other words, humanity has devolved into the purely bestial: “The strain of man’s bred out into baboon and monkey” [I:i]. Apemantus asks, rhetorically “Who lives that’s not depraved or depraves?” [I:ii], and it is the clear that Apemantus knows well that Timon’s friends are devouring him: “It grieves me to see so many dip their meat in one man’s blood” [I:ii].
The distinction between eater and eaten runs throughout the play. Timon’s friend-enemies are feeding upon him, eating his flesh, slicing him up: “Cut my heart in sums—” [III:iv], Thomas cries out as the creditors come for him. Flavius declares that the creditors ate of his “lord’s meat”; “they could smile and fawn upon his debts, / And take down th’interest into their gluttonous maws” [III:iv]. This is an interesting use of antiprosopopoeia (the representation of human beings as objects): Timon is represented as the meat on which his “friends” feast. The creditors come, demanding payment and charging interest—they are metaphorically ingesting Timon.
Timon is preyed upon by creditors who wear the jewels that Timon has given them. The “strange event,” Titus says of his master, is that “he wears jewels now of Timon’s gift / For which I wait for money” [III:iv]. Here is the sickening cosmic irony: Timon has given gifts to recipients who now demand payment for those same gifts. In the very diagesis in which he claims to have warned Timon about keeping a tighter purse, Lucullus says that he ate Timon’s food!: “Many a time and often I ha’ dined with him, and told him on’t, and come again to supper to him of purpose to have him spend less…” [III:i]. The “friends” who are wearing Timon’s gifts refuse to lend him any money and charge Timon for the gifts that he has given them.
It is as if Shakespeare were canalizing Machiavelli, whom Shakespeare might have read and who claimed, in The Prince, that human beings are, in general, “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous.” One might add, according to the metaphorics of Shakespeare’s underestimated play: self-interested, swinish, gruesome, callous, lazy, unreliable.
THE REAVING THIEVES AND THE WATERY NOTHINGNESS OF THEIR WORDS
At the end of the third act, Timon feeds the parasites lukewarm water. He tosses the water at the false friends and tosses them out of his house. “Smoke and lukewarm / water / Is your perfection” [III:vii], he declares. As Jesus evicts the money changers and the dove hawkers from the temple, Timon evicts the false friends from his house, baptizing them with tepid water, a kind of reverse christening.
Why water? Why smoke? The smoke is the vapor emanating, paradoxically, from the lukewarm water—and the vaporous, lukewarm water is the perfect metaphor for the reaving thieves and the watery nothingness of their words. Water literalizes the metaphor of friendship as liquid—that is to say, as not solid, not trustworthy, not constant. As Flaminius asks, rhetorically, “Has friendship such a faint and milky heart / It turns in less than two nights?” [III:i].
Liquid metaphors drench the text. Apemantus is a root-eater and water-drinker, and water, as I will explain below, symbols the reversion to nature and the desertion of fortune.
HE DIGS IN THE EARTH
Fortune overtakes nature, as it always does in Shakespeare. Timon tells us, recalling As You Like It (written around ten years earlier), that brothers who are twins by nature will fight against each other as soon as one brother grows more fortunate than the other: “Twinned brothers of one womb / Whose procreation, residence and birth / Scarce is dividant, touch them with several fortunes, / The greater scorns the lesser” [IV:iii].
It is no wonder that Timon favors nature to fortune. It is no wonder that Timon reverts to nature, to eating roots and drinking water: “Earth, yield me roots” [Ibid.].
The stage direction makes it plain: Timon digs in the earth [Ibid.], excavating for roots, much in the way that his model Apemantus does—Apemantus, the ape man whom Timon is aping. Timon, then, turns against fortune and turns toward nature, for he knows well that fortune quickly converts into misfortune.
HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DESTRUCTION
Only a coarse and lazy reading of the play would suggest that Timon is innocent of his exploitation and eventual destruction. Sharper, more careful readers will not think of Timon as an innocent victim. Both meanings are supportable: His friends are parasitical, and Timon is complicit in his demolition.
HE GIVES MORE THAN IS ASKED FOR AND THEN GROWS SPITEFUL WHEN HIS LARGESSE IS NOT RETURNED
Timon refuses to allow the recipients of his gifts to give him anything of equal value. It might be tempting to describe his gifts as a kind of potlatch, but let us remember that (according to Mauss and Bataille) potlatch places the recipient of the gift in the uncomfortable position of having to out-give the original giver. This is not the case here. Timon does not accept the repayment of debts—in that sense, Timon does not loan money; he gives it. He refuses Ventidius’ offer to repay the money that Timon has given him. Timon’s response is that gifts should be given freehandedly: “[T]here’s none / Can truly say he gives if he receives” [I:ii]. He gives promiscuously, but not entirely without the reciprocity of interest (I will discuss this matter later on).
Not only that: Timon cannot accept a gift without giving something to the giver in exchange. When Lucullus gives Timon two brace of greyhounds, Timon’s response is that they should not be received “without fair reward” [I:ii]. As the Second Lord phrases it: There is “no meed but [Timon] repays / Sevenfold above itself, no gift to him / But breeds the giver a return exceeding / All use of quittance” [I:i]. In other words, Timon has the tendency of giving beyond compensation, beyond remuneration.
More so: Timon gives excessively. He gives more than is asked for and then grows spiteful when his largesse is not returned. He ransoms Ventidius from debtor’s prison—and even offers to support him financially after he is freed: “’Tis not enough to help the feeble up, / But to support him after” [I:i]. Timon is too trusting, too naïve, too credulous, and gives too readily, too quickly to the firstcomer; he guarantees more than is requested. (When Timon is down in a financial hole, incidentally, Ventidius does not come to his aid.)
Worst of all, Timon is financially illiterate; indeed, his knowledge of money is at best lineamental. He is not financially hyperopic enough to see that his lavish expenditures exceed his income. When Timon complains that Flavius never warned him about the rapid decrease in his funds, the servant says: “You would not hear me: / At many leisures I proposed—” [II:ii]. Timon interrupts Flavius before Flavius can conclude his sentence of explanation, inadvertently proving Flavius’ point: Timon is a terrible listener and hence a terrible learner. When, in his previous life, Timon is overly generous to those around him, he speaks of a “bond in men” to “build [the] fortune” of others [I:i; emphasis mine]. He uses this word—bond—as if it were a divine commandment to give his servant Lucilius a massive raise.
HE IS AS MUCH OF AN EXPLOITER AS THE FLATTERING PARASITES WHO FAWN OVER HIM
Timon seems to be a selfless giver—“more welcome are you to my fortunes / Than my fortunes to me” [I:ii], he says to Ventidius—and yet Timon does expect compensation. He just doesn’t expect monetary compensation. As Nietzsche reminds us, no one gives without expecting a reward.
Timon is every bit as parasitical as his so-called “friends.” Timon says: “[W]hat need we have any friends, if we should ne’er have need of ’em?” [I:ii]. He is saying, in effect: “Because I give to you, you will give to me, if I ever need you!” But this does not follow logically; it is an argument that contains false inference. Timon discovers his non sequitur too late.
He is an exploiter in a culture of exploitation—he is as much of an exploiter as the flattering parasites who fawn over him.
EVEN WHILE WASTING AWAY IN THE WASTELAND, TIMON GIVES MONEY TO THE UNWORTHY
Unfortunately, there is one thing about Timon that only changes very late in the play: Even while in self-imposed exile, even after renouncing and repudiating humanity, Timon gives away his money!
He gives money to Alcibiades (“There’s gold to pay thy soldiers—” [IV:iii]), he throws gold at the prostitutes without getting or asking for anything in return (“There’s more gold” [Ibid.]), he squanders money on thieves. His gives money to everyone besides the Poet, the Painter, and the Senators. What, then, has changed about Timon—if anything?
(Interestingly, one of the prostitutes is named Phrynia, a name which almost certainly is an allusion to Phryne, the high-end batrachian call girl of Ancient Greece. And as deep readers of Greek history will know, the historical Alcibiades was a kind of prostitute himself.)
Has he changed at all? He gives now out of spite, not out of love—but the ridiculous excessive liberality has not changed. He gives out of different motives than he gave before, but he still gives—indeed, squanders—what he has. “More whore, more mischief first—” [IV:iii], he says to the prostitutes, whom he pays to sow discord, and pays Alcibiades to wage war against the Athenians. But he is still Timon the Spendthrift. As far as the thieves are concerned: Timon might curse them, but the thieves might as well say, in contemporary American English slang, “I still got your money, dude.”
Has Timon truly changed? Even while wasting away in the wasteland, Timon still gives money to the unworthy. If I were to be even more curmudgeonly, I would like to suggest that Timon hasn’t learned his lesson: He is still giving to the parasites who are feeding upon him.
Timon of Athens is the complex character study of a misanthrope who never succeeds in hating humanity as much as humanity deserves to be hated.
 Much like Thersites in Shakespeare’s earlier Troilus and Cressida, Apemantus is a cynical philosopher. In the fourth act, Timon has transformed himself into the likeness, into a grotesque burlesque of Apemantus, the ascetic who eats nothing but roots and who drinks nothing but water (perhaps in denial of the opulent pleasures of affluence). A defensible reading of Apemantus’ name would be Ape-mantus: the Ape Man, as well as the Man Who Is Aped. He is an ape man, and he recognizes that other human beings are apes. And he is aped by Timon, who takes on Apemantus’ misanthropy. There is a flaw in Timon’s imitation of Apemantus, however. Though Timon takes on the human-hating position of Apemantus, there is something forced, something affected in Timon’s misanthropy. Apemantus is not a hater of the whole of humankind. It would be accurate to say that Apemantus has contempt for humanity, but there is no evidence that he is gripped and entangled by that obsession which is called “hatred.” Apemantus seems to approach Timon in the desert only in order to torment him further and to prevent him from copying his mannerisms: “Do not assume my likeness” [IV:iii]. Timon and Apemantus are not pleased to see their doubles. It would not be relevant for me to pursue a sustained comparison between Thersites and Apemantus here.
 Here is another of the play’s cosmic ironies: In the sixth scene of the third act, Alcibiades pleads to the senators for the life of one of his rogue soldiers. They banish him for his alleged impudence. At the end of the play, these same senators will plead for their lives with the grinning submission of passive chimpanzees when confronted by a dominant chimpanzee. The Third Senator proposes “decimation and a tithed death” [V:v] for the Athenian people. “Decimation” does not mean “destruction.” It means “the killing of every tenth being.”
 The thrust and the tenor of this essay is not to explore the ways in which the play is an allegory of language (I am more concerned here with the ways in which it is an allegory of misanthropy), but let me give some indications of how such an analysis would proceed. There are apostrophes, in the rhetorical sense, throughout the text. A (rhetorical) apostrophe is an address to someone or something that is absent. Here is a partial list of apostrophizing in the text: The Poet addresses an absent Timon as “Magic of bounty” [I:i]. Both the Poet and the Painter frequently speak of Timon in absentia. Flavius apostrophizes Timon in his lord’s absence: “My dearest lord…” [IV:ii]. Timon apostrophizes money: “O thou sweet king-killer…” [IV:iii]. In the third scene of the fourth act, Flavius apostrophizes the gods (“O you gods!”).
 This statement is every bit as insane as when Timon says to Apemantus: “[T]hou’rt an Athenian, therefore welcome” [I:i; emphasis mine].