payment page
Among other things, we understand Timon to be a character of extremes. He was foolish in Athens to spend his bounty thoughtlessly on people whom he be1lieved to be his friends, but once he discovered they only liked him for his wealth, he left the city immediately and cursed all humanity. Later, the senators urge Alcibiades not to slay everyone in Athens because only a select few are responsible for his slights; Timon would have done well to learn the same lesson. Not everyone in Athens—and certainly not all of humanity—is guilty of shallow flattery. Indeed, many men liked and honored him, including his servants and members of the senate. But, being an extremist, Timon transformed from a man who loved giving gifts to his friends to a man who wished plague and misfortune on all. That is, he went from being a philanthropist to a misanthropist. Ultimately, the lesson he teaches is one of moderation. Though he himself fails to learn this lesson, Alcibiades does.
Apemantus is a cynic who consistently voices his suspicions about the intentions of others. As a cynic, he stands slightly outside of his own society, looking at others with a scornful attitude. However, Apemantus’s cynicism isn’t identical to Timon’s misanthropy. Whereas Timon curses all of humanity without exception, Apemantus is more discriminating. He sees people for who they really are. In this case, he is particularly concerned with identifying those who swarm around Timon as flatterers. In a way, by warning Timon that he’s surrounded by shallow sycophants, Apemantus shows a degree of true friendship. He further appears as a friend to Timon by finding him in the woods. The two men are clearly kindred spirits, even as they trade insults. Yet the two men never show any affection to each other. Perhaps Apemantus doesn’t want to be like the other flattering figures in Timon’s life. But by the same token, he doesn’t attempt to soften Timon’s misanthropy and convert him to a more moderate cynicism. In the end, then, Apemantus seems merely to want to watch.
Timon’s philosophy of friendship is firmly rooted in what we might term a “gift economy.” That is, he believes that friendship must be rooted in reciprocal acts of generosity. However, there are several problems with the way Timon goes about living this theory of friendship. First, he shows his friendship through acts of generosity so lavish that he has to indebt himself to make them possible. He’s therefore not great with money management. Second, there’s a contradiction between what he says to others and what he expects from them. He repeatedly insists that his friends needn’t give him anything in return, but when he really needs their help, he’s dismayed to find that none will come to his aid. Of course, the stinginess of his friends isn’t, strictly speaking, Timon’s fault. Indeed, their view of financial exchange is one that excludes the idea of friendship altogether, being rooted instead in questions of value, profit, and security. In this way, then, Timon’s downfall is rooted in the fact that his emphasis on friendship and generosity is incommensurate with the workings of a finance economy.
