It has become too much the fashion in our day to exalt Tyndale at the expense of Coverdale. This is ungenerous and unjust: they were both of them great and shining lights in the hemisphere of the Reformation. Tyndale's learning and decision of character gave him great advantages as a translator from languages then but little known; while Coverdale's cautious, pains-taking perseverance enabled him to render most essential service to the sacred cause of Divine Truth. Our inquiry commenced with the question, why the words "translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englyshe" appeared upon the title-page to some copies of Coverdale's Bible, 1535. I must remind my excellent friend, the Rev. HENRY WALTER, that while the copy in the British Museum, and that at Holkham, has those words, a finer and unsophisticated copy in the library of Earl Jersey of the same edition has no such words; and that the four editions subsequently published by Coverdale all omit the words "Douche and Latyn," and insert in their place, "faythfully translated in English." My decided impression is, that the insertion of those words on the first title-page was not with Coverdale's knowledge, and that, lest they should mislead the reader, they were omitted when the title was reprinted; and a dedication and prologue were added when the copies arrived in England, the dedication and preface being from a very different fount of type to that used in printing the text.

It must also be recollected that Coverdale altered his prologue to the reader in the copies dedicated to Edward VI. Instead of "To helpe me herein I have had sondrye translacyons, not onely in Latyn but also of the Douche interpreters," the last four words are omitted, and he has inserted, "in other languages." Coverdale, with indefatigable zeal, made use of every translation in his power. Tyndale's Pentateuch had been for several years published, and had passed through two editions. His translation of Jonah, with a long prologue, was printed in 1530 and 1537, and republished in Matthew's (Tyndale's) Bible in 1549. The prologue is inserted in The Works of Tyndale, Frith, and Barnes, and the translation of Jonah by Tyndale is denounced by Sir Thomas More. Why MR. WALTER doubts its existence I cannot imagine. The title-page is given at full length by Herbert in his Typographical Antiquities; and it is a fact that Henry Walter, in 1828, in his Second Letter to the Bishop of Peterborough, clearly states that which in 1852 he says is "adhuc sub judice." Coverdale rejected from the canon all apocryphal chapters and books, and placed them together as a distinct part, in four of his editions, between the Old and New Testaments, and in one between Esther and Job. In this he neither copied from the Latin nor the German.

No subject connected with English history has been more confused and misrepresented than the history of the English Bible. Mr. Anderson's errors in quotation are most remarkable,—a fact much to be regretted in so laborious a compilation. In his selection of passages to prove the superiority of Tyndale over Coverdale (Annals, vol. i. pp. 587, 588), in copying forty-six lines he has made two hundred and sixty-one errors; viz. 191 literal errors in spelling, 5 words omitted, 1 added, 2 words exchanged for others, 11 capitals put for small letters, 47 words in Italics which ought to be Roman, 3 words joined, and 1 divided. These extracts ought to have been correct, for accurate reprints were within his reach; it probably exhibits the most extraordinary number of blunders in as short a space as could be found in the annals of literature. Mr. Anderson is equally unfortunate in nearly all his extracts from written documents and printed books: let one more instance suffice. He quotes the just and memorable words of Dr. Geddes in eulogy of our translations made in the reign of Henry VIII. It is astonishing how little obsolete the language of it is, even at this day, and "in point of perspicuity and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom, and purity of style, no English version has yet surpassed it." To this extract Mr. Anderson adds a note (vol. i. p. 586.): "These words are applied by Geddes, by way of distinction, to Tyndale, and not to Coverdale, as sometimes quoted." They occur in Dr. Geddes's Prospectus for a New Translation of the Holy Bible, 4to. 1786, p. 88. His words 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.

Let us now take another view of the question. The purpose of the passage is to record the occurrence of a series of omens, the harbingers of "fierce events." "The graves stood tenantless;" "the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber;" "the moist star was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse:" each circumstance is distinct. But what did "asters with trains of fire," and "disasters in the sun" do? Mr. Knight says that Malone's proposal to substitute "astres" for "as stars," appears to get rid of the difficulty; but not until the English language admits of the formation of a perfect sentence without a verb will it do so. In short, there is nothing gained by the substitution, as Malone saw when he proposed to turn "disasters" into "disasterous," and to supply the verb.

I have no alteration of my own to propose; but I think possibly a suggestion as to the directions to be taken in search of the right text may be of service. In the case of a line or lines being lost, nothing can be done; but I discern a gleam of hope in two other directions. In the first place it is to be observed, that the thoughts of the speaker would in all probability be turned to night-portents. There is a reference to the same circumstances in Julius Cæsar, Act II. Sc. 2., as having occurred in the night, and been seen by the watch. Now, though there is certainly no reason why Horatio might not have enumerated spots in the sun as one of the omens preceding terrible events, it seems scarcely probable that it was in the order of his allusions to the events of the "fearful night" preceding the death of Cæsar. Let the corruption then be sought for here. Or look for a verb in the place of "disasters" that shall intelligibly connect "the sun" with what precedes. "As stars" must not be changed into "asters" until it can be shown that such change is necessary to a better constructed sentence than any which has yet been suggested.

SAMUEL HICKSON.