1 For example, p. 50, n. 2: the information does not come from Dr. Durkan, but from M. Connat, Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, as cited. Dr. Durkan does cite M. Connat, not in the article given ('Cultural Background …’), but in ‘Education in the Century of the Reformation’ (reprinted in Essays in the Scottish Reformation, ed. D. McRoberts, p. 14, n. 35). To cite MacPhail, J. R. R., Papers from the Collection of Sir William Fraser (Scottish History Society, 1924)Google Scholar, simply as Fraser Papers is confusing. P. 50, n. 3: the reading sols tournois is impossible for s. tournois and should be sous tournois; the explanation could have been found in a Petit Larousse Illustre. On p. 51 the explanation of Bazoche is wrong in detail; the correct explanation is given by John MacQueen, Ballatis of Luve (1970), p. xxxvii, who cites the Oxford Companion to French Literature. I have not given all the errors on these two pages. Much of the book is marred by carelessness of this sort.

2 For example, p. 223, n. 2, the date 1700 is wrong; the manuscript, if I remember correctly, has a date on it of 1676 or 1678; p. 225,1. 10, for analyzed read annalized (that is, written in annals); 1. 24, the emendation to Captiver's is wrong since it ruins the meter; p. 227, she does not indicate that she is normalizing the text, but there are nine normalizations, and in stanza three, 1. 7, read be for is.