It grieved all the companie,
His crueltie to see;

For neither friend nor foe could help
But he must spoiled bee.

The bloudie Jew now ready is
With wheted blade in hand
To spoyle the blood of innocent,
By forfeit of his bond.

And as he was about to strike
In him the deadly blow:
Stay (quoth the Judge) thy crueltie
I charge thee to do so.

Sith needs thou wilt thy forfeit have
Which is of fleshe a pound:
See that thou shed no drop of bloud,
Nor yet the man confound.

For if thou doe, like murtherer,
Thou here shalt hanged be:
Likewise of fleshe see that thou cut
No more than 'longs to thee.

For if thou take either more or lesse,
To the value of a mite,
Thou shalt be hanged presently
As is both law and right.

Gernutus now waxt frantic mad,
And wotes not what to say:
Quoth he at last, ten thousand crownes
I will that he shall pay.

And so I grant to set him free:

The Judge doth answer make, You shall not have a penny given, Your forfeiture now take.

At the last he doth demand,

But for to have his own:

No, quoth the Judge, do as you list,
Thy judgment shall be showne.
Either take your pound of fleshe (qd. he)-
Or cancell me your bond,

O cruel Judge, then quoth the Jew,
That doth against me stand!

And so with griped grieved minde
He biddeth them farewell:

All the people prays'd the Lord
That ever this heard tell.

Good people that do hear this song,
For truth I dare well say,
That many a wretch as ill as he
Doth live now at this day.

That seeketh nothing but the spoyle
Of many a wealthie man,
And for to trap the innocent,
Deviseth what they can.

From whom the Lord deliver me,
And every christian too,

And send to them like sentence eke,
That meaneth so to doo.

Printed at London by E. P. for J. Wright, dwelling in
Gilt-spur-street.

It will be proper to subjoin what the ingenious Mr. Warton has observed upon this subject:-'It

may

be objected,' says he, that this ballad might have been written after, and copied from Shakspeare's play. But if that had been the case, it is most likely, that the author would have preserved Shakspeare's name of Shylock for the Jew; and nothing is more likely, than that Shakspeare, in copying from this ballad should alter the name from Gernutus to one more Jewish. Another argument is, that our ballad hast he air of a narrative written before Shakspeare's play; I mean, that if it had been written after the play, it would have been much more full and circumstantial. At present, it has too much the nakedness of an original.'

It would, indeed, be absurd to think, that this ballad was taken from Shakspeare's play, as they differ in the most essential circumstances. The sum borrowed is in the former a hundred crowns, in the latter three thousand ducats: the time limited for payment in the one is only three months, in the other a year and a day in the play the merchant's motive for borrowing (which is finely imagined by Shakspeare, and is conducive to the general plot), is not on account of his own necessities, but for the service

of his friend. To these we may add, that the close of the story is finely heightened by Shakspeare. A mere copyist, such as we may suppose a balladmaker, would not have given himself the trouble to alter circumstances: at least he would not have changed them so much for the worse. But this matter seems to be placed out of all doubt by the first stanza of the ballad, which informs us, that the story was taken from some Italian novel. This much therefore is certain (as Mr. Warton observes), that Shakspeare either copied from that Italian novel, or from this ballad. Now we have no translation, I presume, of such a novel into English. If then it be granted, that Shakspeare generally took his Italian stories from their English translations, and that the arguments above, concerning the prior antiquity in this ballad, are true, it will follow, that Shakspeare copied from this ballad.'

Upon the whole, it is very likely, that the Italian novel, upon which this ballad seems founded, took its rise (with an inversion of the circumstances) from the above-mentioned story in the Life of Pope Sixtus V. the memory of which must have been then recent. I should be glad if any of your readers can give any further light into this affair, and if possible, acquaint the public from whence Shakspeare borrowed the other part of this fable concerning Portia and the caskets; which, it is more than probable, is drawn from some other novel well known in his time.

I cannot conclude without remarking, with what art and judgment Shakspeare has wove together these different stories of the Jew and the caskets; from both which he has formed one general fable, without having recourse to the stale artifice of ekeing out a barren subject with impertinent underplots. I am, Sir,

T.

Your humble Servant, &c.

N° 17. THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1754.

Paulo plus artis Athenæ.

Hor.

Scarce more with Athens Science chose to dwell,
Or Grecian poets Grub-street bards excel.

Sir,

TO MR. TOWN.

THOUGH many historians have described the city of London (in which we may include Westminster) with great accuracy, yet they have not set it out in the full light, which at present it deserves. They have not distinguished it as an University, Paris is an University, Dublin is an University, even Moscow is an University. But London has not yet been honoured with that title. I will allow our metropolis to have been intended, originally, only as a city of trade; and I will further own, that scarce any sciences, except such as were purely mercantile, were cultivated in it, till within these last thirty years. But from that period of time, I may say a whole army, as it were, of arts and sciences have amicably marched in upon us, and have fixed themselves as auxiliaries to our capital.

The four greater faculties, I mean Theology, Law, Medicine, and Philosophy, which are taught in other universities, are in their highest perfection here. The prosperity of the first may be seen by the crowded churches every Sunday, and the discipline of the second by the numberless young students, who constantly dine in their respective halls at the several inus of court. These two faculties have of late received considerable improvements, but particularly that of Theology; as is manifest from several new and astonishing opinions, which have been started among us. There have risen, within these few years, very numerous tribes of Methodists, Moravians, Middletonians, Muggletonians,

are

Hutchinsonians, &c. In a word, our sects multiplied to such an infinite degree, that (as Voltaire has before observed) every man may now go to heaven his own way.' Can the divinity-schools boast such sound doctrine as the Foundery in Moorfields? Or were ever Fellows of Colleges such adepts in matrimony, as the reverend Doctors of the Fleet, or the Primate of May-Fair?

The theory of Medicine may undoubtedly be taught at Oxford and Cambridge in a tolerable manner; but the art itself can only be learned, where it flourishes, at London. Do not our daily papers give us a longer list of medicines, than are contained in any of the dispensatories? And are we not constantly told of surprising antidotes, certain cures, and never-failing remedies for every complaint? And are not each of these specifics equally efficacious in one distemper as another, from the Grand Restorative Elixir of Life down to the Infallible Corn-Salve, as thousands have experienced? With what pleasure and admiration have I beheld the Machaon of our times, Dr. Richard Rock, dispensing from his one-horse chaise his Cathartic Antivenereal Electuary, his Itch-powder, and his Quintessence of Vipers! It may be asked, is he a Graduate? Is he a Regular Physician? No, he is superior to Regularity. He despises the formality of Academical Degrees. He styles himself M. L. He is a London Physician, or as Moliere would express it, C'est un Medicin de Londries.

After Medicine let us consider Logic. How is that most useful art taught in the two Universities? Is it not clogged with such barbarous terms, as tend to puzzle and confound rather than enlighten or direct the understanding? Is it not taught in a dead, I had almost said, in a Popish tongue? Is it not over-run with dry distinctions and useless subtleties? Where then is it to be learned in all the purity of