It is acknowledged that the development of speculative theology in the thirteenth century cannot be understood in isolation from the biblical commentaries of the period, and the importance of Dominicans in the latter field is well known, though many of their works remain unedited. One of the least studied is William of Luxi, now firmly identified as a Dominican active in Paris in the 1270s (pace Sulavik, Bale's claim that he was a fourteenth-century Franciscan was certainly not prompted by a Cambridge manuscript of William; what Bale cites is the Merton manuscript used by Sulavik himself). His postils on the minor prophets, canonical Epistles and Apocalypse were recommended by Landolfo Colonna as the best available (Sulavik quotes his letter but fails to mention Billanovich's identification of the author). We must be grateful to Sulavik for editing a sample of William's works (the postils on Baruch and Jonah, and in an appendix three more prologues and three more expositions of Jerome's prologues), and for examining his sources (though it is a pity that his large-scale borrowings are not detailed in the apparatus fontium); as a bonus the biblical text used by William is reconstructed on the basis of his lemmata and three Parisian manuscripts. Unfortunately the edition itself, taken from Sulavik's doctoral thesis, is all too obviously the work of someone still struggling to master the necessary linguistic and palaeographic skills. His punctuation often obscures both sense and syntax; to quote two extreme examples,‘ut in oratione Ieremie ipse; enim futuram captiuitatem predixit’ (132.50-1),‘decem tribus … nomine patris uocate sunt due, alie tribus nomine Iuda (151.93-5). Sulavik's periodic supplements are sometimes sound, sometimes unnecessary, sometimes harmful; for example at 29.46-7 ‘noli meminisse iniquitatis patrum nostrorum, ut scilicet punias filios’ is not improved by the insertion of non after ut; at 44.20-3 ‘supple peruenient’ supplies a verb for ‘in mortem’ in the lemma, and ‘et temporalem … et eternam’ explains ‘mortem’, but Sulavik treats ‘et temporalem’ as part of the object of ‘supple’ and inserts a misleading second ‘supple’ before ‘et eternam’. He has made some good emendations in texts edited from a single inaccurate manuscript, but much nonsense remains (for example ‘premittitur’ in ‘Paulus … propria fragilitate corporis premittitur’ [123.45] should obviously be ‘premitur’), and he has added some of his own (for example in ‘secundus prologus … est diuiditur in duas partes’ [148.1-2] ‘est’ is not even in the manuscript); abbreviations are liable to be interpreted ungrammatically (for example on p. 149, where the manuscript text is correct, Sulavik prints ‘prophetam’ for ‘propheta’, ‘populum’ for ‘populi’, ‘quem’ for ‘que’) or unintelligently (for example at 144.41, where he prints ‘id est putant, id est Esdre VII’, the first manuscript ‘.i.’ means ‘id est’, but the second means ‘I Esdre’). The edition is far from unusable; but it must be used with caution.