Up to the middle of 1854,[C] there had been published in England and on the Continent eighty-eight complete editions of Shakspeare in English, thirty-two in German, six in French, and five, more or less complete, in Italian.  Beside these, his works had been translated into Dutch, (1778-82,) into Danish, (1807-28,) into Hungarian, (1824,) into Polish, (1842,) and into Swedish (1847-51).  The numerous American editions are not reckoned in this statement; and, to give an adequate notion of the extent of the Shakspeare-literature, we should add that the number of separately-printed comments and other illustrative publications already exceeds five hundred.  No other poet except Dante has received such appreciation,—­and not even he, if we consider in Shakspeare’s case the greater bulk of the works and the difficulty of the language.  After so many people had used their best wit and had their say, could there be any unconsidered trifle left for a new editor?  Could the sharpest eyes find more needles in this enormous haystack?  We do not pretend to have examined the whole of this polyglot library, nay, but for Herr Sillig, we had never heard of most of the books in it, but we are tolerably familiar with the more important English editions, and with some of the German comments,[D] and we must say that the freshness of many of Mr. White’s observations struck us with very agreeable surprise.  We are not fond of off-hand opinions on any subject, much more on one so multifarious and complex as this,—­we are a great deal too ready with them in America, and pronounce upon pictures and poems with a b’hoyish nonchalance that would be amusing, were it not for its ill consequence to Art,—­but we love the expression of honest praise, of sifted and considerate judgment, and we think that a laborious collation justifies us in saying that in acute discrimination of aesthetic shades of expression, and often of textual niceties, Mr. White is superior to any previous editor.

[Footnote C:  Die Shakspere-Literatur bis Mitte 1854.  Zusammengestellt und herausgegeben von P.H.  SILLIG.  Leipzig. 1854.]

[Footnote D:  Among which (setting aside a few remarks of Goethe) we are inclined to value as highly us anything Tieck’s Essay on the Element of the Wonderful in Shakspeare.]

In proof of what we have said, we will refer to a few of the notes which have particularly pleased us, and which show originality of view.

(Tempest, Act ii.  Sc. 2.)

“‘Nor scrape trenchering, nor wash, dish.’

“Dryden, Theobald, Dyce, Halliwell, and Hudson would have ‘trenchering’ a typographical error for ‘trencher,’ which they introduce into the text.  Surely they must all have forgotten that Caliban was drunk, and, after singing ‘firing’ and ‘requiring,’ would naturally sing ‘trenchering.’  There is a drunken swing in the original line which is entirely lost in the precise, curtailed rhythm of—­