1. This article is the second part of a review article of two editions of the poetry of Giraut de Bornelh, that of Kolsen (1910 and 1935) and that of Sharman (1989). All references to Part I (subsequently "I") refer to the first part of this article, published TENSO 9.1 (1993).
2. Sharman's analysis of the manuscripts (324-25) for the text in question recognizes that the "MSS fall into two groups: (1) ABDEIKNQTc and (2) CMRSgV, although IK, Sg, and V are eclectic" (324). Within the two groups she has also identified NTc, QIK, and CRM as affiliated. The fact that she has not followed the process of recensio through to a more detailed organization of the manuscripts allows her to state that "EIKMN" have a common error in l. 19 (colp for clop)" (325). Were this a common error, it would argue against her own conclusions. It is again more likely a case of anomalous agreement.
5. Neither Kolsen nor Sharman identify the base manuscript or manuscripts used for the establishment of their versions of the three verses in question. Examination suggests that they may have followed A, B, or N, although the strength of this statement rests on the form of one phrase in verse 50: cuder'us in Kolsen and cuidera us in Sharman. MS A reads: cuidera us; B: cuideraus; and N: cuider us. The other manuscripts have forms of cugera or cuiera. On the other hand, in verse 51 Sharman has published noghes, a spelling observed only in MS Sg.
6. A number of errors in Part I were found during the work on Part II. 1) I, 15, note a: A[(DE)N](V(Sg)(CR)]Q should read A[(DE)T][V(Sg)(CR)]Q. 2) In the Record of Variants: v. 10 [(V(Sg)(CRM)][Q(IK)] should read [V(Sg)(CRM)][Q], III, quel should read III. 17. quel, v. 21. fugir AB should read fugir AB[(DE)(NTc)], v. 47. (Tc)[V(Sg)(CRM)][Q(IK)] should read Tc[V(Sg)(CRM)][Q(IK)].