are: "The first compleat edition of an English version of the whole Bible, from the originals, is that of Tyndale's and Coverdale's together." It is to the united labours of these two great men that Dr. Geddes applies his just, and, for a Roman Catholic, liberal eulogium. Amidst a mass of errors Mr. Anderson complains, in a note on p. 569., that Lewis's _History of the English Bible_ is "grievously in want of correction!" Mr. Anderson's _Annals_ are encumbered with a heavy disquisition on the origin of printing, which reminds us of Knickerbocker's _History of New York_, in which we find to a considerable extent learned accounts of the cosmogony of creation, because, if the world had not been created, in all probability New York would not have existed: the same probability connects the origin of printing with the history of the English Bible. Why the annalist should have omitted any notice of those important Roman Catholic translations at Rheims and Douay, after a long account of Wickliffe's, which was from the same source, is as difficult to account for as is his total silence with regard to a most important revision of the New Testament made in the reign of Edward VI., called by the Company of Stationers "the most vendible volume in English," and which was introduced into Parker's, or the Bishop's Bible, in 1568. A good historical work on this subject is greatly needed, showing not only the editions and gradual improvement, but also the sources whence our translation was derived, and its faithfulness and imperishable renown. GEORGE OFFOR. "AS STARS WITH TRAINS OF FIRE," ETC. (Vol. v., p. 75.) Your correspondent A. E. B. has shown on more than one occasion so high an appreciation of the wonderful powers of Shakspeare, and his speculations in connexion therewith are so ingenious, that I feel considerable regret when I am compelled to dissent from his conclusions. I believe with him, that Shakspeare's learning has been very much underrated; but at the same time it must be confessed, that so soon as we abandon the intuition, which some would substitute for learning, by which his knowledge was acquired, the latter ceases to be "mysterious." I regret, however, to say that, if it could be shown that he wrote "asters," and with the intention which A. E. B. claims for him, my conclusion would be against that misuse of learning which left the meaning of a passage dependent on the antithesis between two words used each in a sense different from the usual one, and not understood by the audience to whom they were addressed.