After the translators of the Authorized Version of the Bible had finished their work, six men, according to Anthony Walker, or twelve, according to the report of the Synod of Dort, assembled at Stationers’ Hall to survey and revise the whole work; for, as the translators apprised their readers in the preface to the AV, ‘neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.’ Anthony Walker, in his sketch of the life of John Bois, reports: ‘Whilst they were imployed in this last businesse, he, & he only, took notes of their proceedings: which notes he kept till his dying day.’ The notes, it has been thought, were lost.

One of the most sumptuous and surely also one of the most important among the nearly thirty volumes pertaining to the theatre which have been published so far by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique is Le Lieu théâtral à la Renaissance. It will be remembered that the 1962 Colloquium at Royaumont dealt with Les Tragédies de Sénèque et le théâtre de la Renaissance. Some of the scholars who presented papers on that occasion returned to address the Congress of the following year (J. L. Flecniakoska, R. Lebègue,J. Lefebvre). In fact, as we read in the Avant-propos to the volume dealing with the influence of Seneca, ‘quelques séances furent consacrées à des travaux préparatoires en vue du Colloque international des Sciences Humaines, “Le lieu theatral a la Renaissance.”’

The so-called ‘Vinland map’ seems to possess an innate capacity for creating confusion and misunderstandings. Released by Yale University (with unfortunate timing) on the eve of Columbus Day 1965, the map at once caused a public outcry, both here and abroad, unusual for any historic document—let alone an object of that most intricate technical discipline, the history of cartography. There can be no doubt that the public storm was provoked by a misunderstanding, and the attendant world-wide curiosity therefore was aroused for the wrong reasons—even though it may have involved a vague feeling for the real (and very considerable) intrinsic interest which the map represents. Extensive comments were heard from such diverse sources as the Foreign Minister of Italy, Amintore Fanfani; Harvard's Samuel Eliot Morison; and Vladimir Nevsky, a Soviet geographer, who pronounced the map to be a clever fake.