Fair Foul and Right Wrong: The Language of Alchemy in Timon of Athens
Anna
Feuer
Wolfson College, Oxford
anna.feuer@wolfson.ox.ac.uk
Anna Feuer, "Fair Foul and Right Wrong: The Language of Alchemy in Timon of Athens." [EMLS 16.1 (2012): 3] http://purl.org/emls/16-1/feuetimo.htm
First calcine, and after that putrifie,A metal undergoing transmutation exists in three stages: its initial impure form, its second base form, in which it “dies utterly,” and its third rejuvenated and perfected form. Taking ice as an example, Ripley describes how any semblance of form or order is broken down; the impure substance is reduced to water, its initial or most primitive state. The decomposition of the body not only prepares the substance for the final phase of physical perfection, but also “will free the hidden spirit within matter” (Nicholl 37). Ripley explains: “Our Solution is cause of our Congelation / For the Dissolution on the one side corporall / Causeth Congelation on the other side spirituall” (Ripley 18). With the breakdown of the body comes perfection of the spirit; as matter is reduced to nothing, spirit reaches its highest state.
Dissolve, distil, sublime, descend and fixe,
With Aqua Vita oft times both wash and drie,
And make a marriage of the body and spirit betwixt…
Then shall the bodie die utterlie of the flux…
The third day againe to life he shall arise (Ripley, EEBO document image 50)
Structurally, then, the play has moved from gold to lack of gold to gold again. This structure has some relationship to an alchemical process…While Timon completes the cycle by finding material gold again, he does not attain spiritual gold…His idealism is shattered—transformed—and it is not recovered. (Bergeron 368)Bergeron reads Timon as a failed alchemist. Timon begins the play as a successful alchemist with a seemingly endless supply of gold, loses it, then finds it again; however, when he digs gold out of the ground in Scene xiv, it is “common” gold, not “spiritual gold.” Bergeron concludes that Timon fails in his alchemical pursuits. If knowledge is an end of spiritual alchemy, the knowledge Timon ultimately gains does not contribute to spiritual enlightenment but instead produces a suicidal misanthrope.
If I want gold, steal but a beggar’s dogHere the Senator explains that Timon will repay any gift disproportionately—he gives the Senator gold to thank him for a beggar’s dog and offers many “straight and able” horses in exchange for just one. He depicts these gift exchanges as magical or perhaps alchemical. Give a dog to Timon, it comes back as gold; one inferior horse becomes several better horses. However, the Senator does not celebrate Timon’s abilities, but instead follows this description with: “It cannot hold. No reason / Can sound his state in safety” (iii.12-13). He claims that Timon’s financial situation poses a lending risk, but also concludes that this pattern of transmutation “cannot hold.” Events that follow show us that it certainly cannot.
And give it Timon, why, the dog coins gold.
If I would sell my horse and buy twenty more
Better than he, why, give my horse to Timon—
Ask nothing, give it him—it foals me straight
And able horses (Shakespeare iii.5-10)
Under the golden name of Alchymistry there lyeth lurking no small calamity; wherein there be such several shifts and suits of rare subtleties and deceits, as that not only wealthy men are thereby many times improverished, and that with the sweet allurement of this art, through their own covetousness, as also by the flattering baits of hoped gain: but even wise and learned men hereby are shamefully overshot…cousening Knaves do commonly abuse to their own lust and commodity, and to the others utter undoing. (210)Similar concerns are addressed in Samuel Harsnett’s Declaration of Egregious Popishe Impostures (1603) and Thomas Lodge’s The Anatomie of Alchymie (1595); Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist (1610) offers the most famous image of a deceitful alchemist in the form of Dr Subtle. Timon’s friends, the play’s “gilded newts,” are clearly false alchemists, as they mask their “base metal” natures in noble exteriors. However, Shakespeare also identifies two minor characters as “cousening Knaves” who falsify appearances: the Poet and the Painter.
a spirit; sometime’t appears like a lord, sometime like a lawyer, sometime like a philosopher with two stones more than’s artificial one. He is very often like a knight; and generally in all shapes that man goes up and down in from fourscore to thirteen, this spirit walks in. (Shakespeare iv.104-108)Although the fool is ostensibly insulting Varro’s Servant, this passage is also a self-reflexive meditation on the actor, a spirit who takes all shapes. The “artificial one” refers to the philosopher’s stone, the key to the alchemist’s success. The actor (and by extension the playwright) turn base to noble, a whoremaster into a knight. The Poet, the Painter, and the actors are the play’s only successful alchemists, but Shakespeare is sure to depict their alchemical pursuits as mired in deceit. Despite their appearances, they are still found base metal.
The painting is almost the natural man;Artifice is natural to human beings, says Timon, for dishonor has made man’s outside appearance his most important characteristic. Still, Timon is shocked when his friends’ true natures differ from their exteriors; their artificialities act upon Timon just as Timon’s sincere generosity acts upon them. Tragedy perverts or stalls the alchemical process by locking the noble hero in his most degenerate state. In Timon, Shakespeare also attributes the tragic fall to the artificer, the alternate identity of the alchemist. The Poet and the Painter point to another layer of artifice on top of the tragedy—the play itself, as a piece of art, is Timon’s ultimate example of false alchemy.
For since dishonour traffics with man’s nature,
He is but outside; these penciled figures are
Even such as they give out. (Shakespeare i.161-164)
Works Cited
This article was originally written for Professor James Shapiro’s “Shakespeare in 1606” course at Columbia University. I would like to thank Professor Shapiro for his guidance and criticism.
[1] According to Jowett, “confound,” meaning “to bring to ruin or destroy” or “To destroy the purity, beauty, or usefulness of; to spoil, corrupt” (OED), occurs eleven times in the play, over twice as often as in any of Shakespeare or Middleton’s other plays. The word always occurs in those sections attributed to Shakespeare. The word has clear alchemical implications, particularly in its second definition.
Responses to this piece intended for the Readers' Forum may be sent to the Editors at M.Steggle@shu.ac.uk.
© 2012-, Annaliese Connolly and Matthew Steggle (Editors, EMLS).