But there is a third Italian comedy, also lately brought to light, entitled Gl’ Ingannati, which is said to have been first printed in 1537.  Here the traces of indebtedness are much clearer and more numerous.  I must content myself with abridging the Rev. Joseph Hunter’s statement of the matter.  In the Italian play, a brother and sister, named Fabritio and Lelia, are separated at the sacking of Rome in 1527.  Lelia is carried to Modena, where a gentleman resides, named Flamineo, to whom she was formerly attached.  She disguises herself as a boy, and enters his service.  Flamineo, having forgotten his Lelia, is making suit to Isabella, a lady of Modena.  The disguised Lelia is employed by him in his love-suit to Isabella, who remains utterly deaf to his passion, but falls desperately in love with the messenger.  In the third Act the brother Fabritio arrives at Modena, and his close resemblance to Lelia in her male attire gives rise to some ludicrous mistakes.  At one time, a servant of Isabella’s meets him in the street, and takes him to her house, supposing him to be the messenger; just as Sebastian is taken for Viola, and led to the house of Olivia.  In due time, the needful recognitions take place, whereupon Isabella easily transfers her affection to Fabritio, and Flamineo’s heart no less easily ties up with the loving and faithful Lelia.  In her disguise, Lelia takes the name of Fabio; hence, most likely, the name of Fabian, who figures as one of Olivia’s servants.  The Italian play has also a subordinate character called Pasquella, to whom Maria corresponds; and another named Malevolti, of which Malvolio is a happy adaptation.  All which fully establishes the connection between the Italian comedy and the English.  But it does not follow necessarily that the foreign original was used by Shakespeare; so much of the lighter literature of his time having perished, that we cannot affirm with any certainty what importations from Italy may or may not have been accessible to him in his native tongue.

As for the more comic portions of Twelfth Night,—­those in which Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and the Clown figure so delectably,—­we have no reason for believing that any part of them was borrowed; there being no hints or traces of any thing like them in the previous versions of the story, or in any other book or writing known to us.  And it is to be observed, moreover, that the Poet’s borrowings, in this instance as in others, relate only to the plot of the work, the poetry and character being all his own; and that, here as elsewhere, he used what he took merely as the canvas whereon to pencil out and express the breathing creatures of his mind.  So that the whole workmanship is just as original, in the only right sense of that term, as if the story and incidents had been altogether the children of his own invention; and he but followed his usual custom of so ordering his work as to secure whatever benefit might accrue from a sort of pre-established harmony between his subject and the popular mind.