III.ii.81 (324,2) He does deny him, in respect of his, What charitable men afford to beggars] That is, in respect of his fortune, what Lucius denies to Timon is in proportion to what Lucius possesses, less than the ususal alms given by good men to beggars.

III.ii.90 (324,3) I would have put my wealth into donation, And the best half should ha’ return’d to him] Hanmer reads,

  I would have put my wealth into partition,
  And the best half should have attorn’d to him.

Dr. Warbarton receives attorn’d.  The only difficulty is in the word return’d, which, since he had received nothing from him, cannot be used but in a very low and licentious meaning, (see 1765, VI, 212, 6)

III.iii.5 (325,4) They have all been touch’d] That is, tried, alluding to the touchstone.

III.iii.11 (325,5) His friends, like physicians,/Thrive, give him over?] The original reading is,

  —­his friends, (like physicians)
  Thrive, give him over?

which Theobald has misrepresented.  Hanmer reads, try’d, plausibly enough.  Instead of three proposed by Mr. Pope, I should read thrice.  But perhaps the old reading is the true.

III.iii.24 (326,6) I had such a courage] Such an ardour, such an eager desire.

III.iii.28 (326,8) The devil knew not what he did] I cannot but think that, the negative not has intruded into this passage, and the reader will think so too, when he reads Dr. Warburton’s explanation of the next words.

III.iii.28 (326,9) The devil knew not what he did, when he made men politick; he cross’d himself by’t:  and I cannot think, but in the end the villainies of man will set him clear] [Set him clear does not mean acquit him before heaven; for then the devil must be supposed to know what he did:  but it signifies puzzle him, outdo him at his own weapons.  WARBURTON.] How the devil, or any other being, should be set clear by being puzzled and outdone, the commentator has not explained.  When in a crowd we would have an opening made, we say, Stand clear, that is, out of the way of danger.  With some affinity to this use, though not without great harshness, to set clear, may be to set aside.  But I believe the original corruption is the insertion of the negative, which was obtruded by some transcriber, who supposed crossed to mean thwarted, when it meant, exempted from evil.  The use of crossing, by way of protection or purification, was probably not worn out in Shakespeare’s time.  The sense of set clear is now easy; he has no longer the guilt of tempting man.  To cross himself may mean, in a very familiar sense, to clear his score, to get out of debt, to quit his reckoning.  He knew not what he did, may mean, he knew not how much good he was doing himself.  There is then no need of emendation. (1773)