66 to which the knight replies: Nay, if you be an undertaker, I am for you*;" a retort which Mr. Tyrwhitt imagined to contain an allusion to some persons who, in 1614, "had undertaken, through their influence in the House of Commons, to carry things according to His Majesty's wishes ;" and who, in consequence of this conduct, were stigmatised with the invidious name of undertakers. † But we find, from a reference to the Journals of the House of Commons, that the terms Takers and Undertakers had been frequently used in King James's parliaments, anteriorly to 1614 ‡, and Mr. Ritson pertinently observes, that " Undertakers were persons employed by the King's purveyors to take up provisions for the royal household, and were no doubt exceedingly odious §;" so that an allusion to this epithet, in a political sense, if one were here intended, could not serve to appropriate the date of 1614. This being the case, there can be no hesitation in adopting the opinion of Ritson and Mason, who conceive Sir Toby intended a mere quibble on the word, of which the simple meaning is, that of one man taking upon himself the quarrel of another. § Having set aside, therefore, any chronological inference from this source, let us turn to Mr. Chalmers, who seems to have determined the date of this drama on better grounds. Yet of the three intimations on which he has formed his conclusion, the first, derived from a supposed reference to the British Undertakers for the plantation of Ulster, we believe to be entitled to as little credit as the kindred hypothesis of Mr. Malone. The second, which is founded on the evident intention of our poet to place in a ludicrous light the then very fashionable rage for duelling, is exclusively his own, and carries with it no inconsiderable weight. "In Twelfth Night," he remarks, Shakspeare tried to effect, by ridicule, what the state was unable to perform by legislation. The duels, which were so incorrigibly fre 66 quent in that age, were thrown into a ridiculous light by the affair between Viola and Sir Andrew Ague-cheek. Sir Francis Bacon had lamented, in the House of Commons, on the 3d of March, 1609-10, the great difficulty of redressing the evil of duels, owing to the cor ruption of man's nature. * King James tried to effect what the Parliament had despaired of effecting; and, in 1613, he issued · An Edict and Censure against Private Combats †,' which was conceived with great vigour, and expressed with decisive force; but, whether with the help of Bacon, or not, I am unable to ascertain. This is another remarkable event in 1613, which the commentators have. overlooked, though it may have caught Shakspeare's eye.” ‡ The third, common to both chronologers, but which has only received its due influence, in the chronological scale, from the statement of Mr. Chalmers, turns on the declaration of Fabian to Sir Toby, that he would not give his part of the sport, alluding to the plot against Malvolio, " for a pension of thousands to be paid from the Sophy §;" and on the assertion of Sir Toby to Sir Andrew Aguecheek, that Viola had been "fencer to the Sophy." || Now it appears from Mr. Chalmers, that "in 1613, Sir Anthony Shirley published his travels into Persia; with his dangers and distresses, and his strange and unexpected deliverances;" that "Sir Robert Shirley, the brother of Sir Anthony, arrived in October, 1611, as Ambassador from the Sophy; bringing with him a Persian Princess, as his wife;" that "he remained here, through the whole of the year 1612, at an expence to King James of four pounds a day," and that "he departed in January, 1613."¶ These intimations induced Mr. Chalmers to infer, "that Twelfth Night was written in 1613, while these various objects were in the *Howe's Chronicle, 1004, under the year 1613. It was printed by Barker, the King's Printer, the same year. § Reed's Shakspeare, vol. v. p. 334. Act ii. sc. 5. Ibid. vol. v. p. 372. Act iii. sc. 4. ¶ Supplemental Apology, pp. 444, 445. to which the knight replies : — Nay, if you be an undertaker, I am for you*;" a retort which Mr. Tyrwhitt imagined to contain an allusion to some persons who, in 1614, “had undertaken, through their influence in the House of Commons, to carry things according to His Majesty's wishes ;" and who, in consequence of this conduct, were stigmatised with the invidious name of undertakers. † But we find, from a reference to the Journals of the House of Commons, that the terms Takers and Undertakers had been frequently used in King James's parliaments, anteriorly to 1614 ‡, and Mr. Ritson pertinently observes, that "Undertakers were persons employed by the King's purveyors to take up provisions for the royal household, and were no doubt exceedingly odious §;" so that an allusion to this epithet, in a political sense, if one were here intended, could not serve to appropriate the date of 1614. This being the case, there can be no hesitation in adopting the opinion of Ritson and Mason, who conceive Sir Toby intended a mere quibble on the word, of which the simple meaning is, that of one man taking upon himself the quarrel of another. § Having set aside, therefore, any chronological inference from this source, let us turn to Mr. Chalmers, who seems to have determined the date of this drama on better grounds. Yet of the three intimations on which he has formed his conclusion, the first, derived from a supposed reference to the British Undertakers for the plantation of Ulster, we believe to be entitled to as little credit as the kindred hypothesis of Mr. Malone. The second, which is founded on the evident intention of our poet to place in a ludicrous light the then very fashionable rage for duelling, is exclusively his own, and carries with it no inconsiderable weight. "In Twelfth Night," he remarks, Shakspeare tried to effect, by ridicule, what the state was unable to perform by legislation. The duels, which were so incorrigibly fre 66 * Reed's Shakspeare, vol. v. p. 373. Act iii. sc. 4. Chalmers's Supplemental Apology, p. 442. § Reed's Shakspeare, vol. v. p. 374. note. + Ibid. vol. v. p. 374. quent in that age, were thrown into a ridiculous light by the affair between Viola and Sir Andrew Ague-cheek. Sir Francis Bacon had lamented, in the House of Commons, on the 3d of March, 1609-10, the great difficulty of redressing the evil of duels, owing to the cor ruption of man's nature.* King James tried to effect what the Parliament had despaired of effecting; and, in 1613, he issued · An Edict and Censure against Private Combats †,' which was conceived with great vigour, and expressed with decisive force; but, whether with the help of Bacon, or not, I am unable to ascertain. This is another remarkable event in 1613, which the commentators have. overlooked, though it may have caught Shakspeare's eye.” ‡ The third, common to both chronologers, but which has only received its due influence, in the chronological scale, from the statement of Mr. Chalmers, turns on the declaration of Fabian to Sir Toby, that he would not give his part of the sport, alluding to the plot against Malvolio, " for a pension of thousands to be paid from the Sophy §;" and on the assertion of Sir Toby to Sir Andrew Aguecheek, that Viola had been "fencer to the Sophy." || Now it appears from Mr. Chalmers, that "in 1613, Sir Anthony Shirley published his travels into Persia; with his dangers and distresses, and his strange and unexpected deliverances;" that " Sir Robert Shirley, the brother of Sir Anthony, arrived in October, 1611, as Ambassador from the Sophy; bringing with him a Persian Princess, as his wife;" that "he remained here, through the whole of the year 1612, at an expence to King James of four pounds a day," and that "he departed in January, 1613." ¶ These intimations induced Mr. Chalmers to infer, "that Twelfth Night was written in 1613, while these various objects were in the * Howe's Chronicle, 1004, under the year 1613. + It was printed by Barker, the King's Printer, the same year. § Reed's Shakspeare, vol. v. p. 334. Act ii. sc. 5. Ibid. vol. v. p. 372. Act iii. sc. 4. ¶ Supplemental Apology, pp. 444, 445. eye, or in the recollection of the public;" a conclusion which we see no reason to dispute. The dramatic career of our immortal poet could not be closed with a production, in its kind, more exquisitely finished, than the comedy of Twelfth Night. The serious and the humorous scenes are alike excellent; the former 66 give a very echo to the seat Where love is thron'd," * and are tinted with those romantic hues, which impart to passion the fascinations of fancy, and which stamp the poetry of Shakspeare with a character so transcendently his own, so sweetly wild, so tenderly imaginative. Of this description are the loves of Viola and Orsino, which, though involving a few improbabilities of incident, are told in a manner so true to nature, and in a strain of such melancholy enthusiasm, as instantly put to flight all petty objections, and leave the mind rapt in a dream of the most delicious sadness. The fourth scene of the second act more particularly breathes the blended emotions of love, of hope, and of despair, opening with a highly interesting description of the soothing effects of music, in allaying the pangs of unrequited affection, and in which the attachment of Shakspeare to the simple melodies of the olden time is strongly and beautifully expressed. From the same source which has given birth to this delightful portion of the drama, appears to spring a large share of that rich and frolic humour which distinguishes its gayer incidents. The delusion of Malvolio, in supposing himself the object of Olivia's desires, and the ludicrous pretensions of Sir Andrew Ague-cheek to the same lady, fostered as they are by the comic manœuvres of the convivial Sir Toby, and the keen-witted Maria, furnish, together with the professional drollery of Feste the jester, an ever-varying fund of pleasantry * Reed's Shakspeare, vol. v. p. 306. Act ii. sc. 4. |