A New Edition of Prudentius

Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina by M. P. Cunningham; Aurelii Prudentii Clementis

Review by: A. Hudson-Williams
The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Dec., 1967), pp. 293-296
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/708495 .
Accessed: 11/11/2013 05:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:37:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

293

maintained its usual high standardin printing and production) ought to know
better.
As literary critic Rudd shows a disciplined responseto the texture of a poem
in his handling of imagery (e.g. p. 34) and he is not afraid of making value
judgements. A wider question arisesabout the nature of Horace's satire. Rudd
says of i. 6: 'Horatian satire as a whole implies a conscious rejection of public
life' (p. 37) and of i. I : 'in its matter it is essentiallya Hellenistic poem' (p. 30).
This should perhaps be stressed more, for a modern reader may note with
surprisethat not long after the social upheaval of the time of the Proscriptions
Horace chose to treat discontent and acquisitiveness in terms of gambits of
Greek moralizing. One of Rudd's chapter-titlesmay be queried. While 'entertainments' will be understood rightly by the reader of Graham Greene as
referring to some of Horace's less ambitious pieces, 'diatribes', though explained as the author's speaking direct to the audience, will none the less
suggest invective. Would 'homilies' be an acceptable alternative?
Rudd is urbane in argument and free from polemic. He writes well and
offers some pleasing turns of phrase, such as his description of the mild satire
that nourishes what it pretends to attack as an activity 'like firing a water
pistol at a vegetable marrow' (p. 16). He has a good knowledgeof the traditions
of English literature (see, e.g., p. 144) and can also use unobtrusively an uncloistered analogy such as Joe Louis. None but a dull pedant would object
to an occasional facetiousnessthat is perhaps in the manner of Horace himself.
This happy blend of historical scholarship and literary criticism is aimed at
a wide audience. It should afford profit and pleasure to students of the classical
background to English literature as well as to students of Latin and to professional classical scholars.
University
CollegeLondon

A NEW

MICHAEL COFFEY

EDITION

OF PRUDENTIUS

CUNNINGHAM: Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina (Corpus

Christianorum,Series Latina, cxxvi). Pp. 1+430. Turnhout: Brepols,

M. P.
I966.

Paper, 850 B.fr.

FORstudents of Prudentius, the most considerableof the ChristianLatin poets,

Bergman performed an invaluable service by the publication of his critical
edition in the Vienna Corpusin 1926. In spite of its great merits, however, cer-

tain doubts were cast on his methods by some, and a new investigation and
assessment of the manuscript tradition have since seemed desirable. But the
task of reconsidering the three hundred or so manuscripts of Prudentius no
one found sufficiently tempting until it was undertaken by Maurice Cunningham some years ago. The present edition in the CorpusChristianorumis the result
of his researches.
Cunningham has examined, with the help of microfilms and photographs,

numerous manuscripts,and he reportsreadingsfrom about thirty-five.Whereas Bergman divided his manuscripts into two classes, each subdivided into
two families, Cunningham distinguishesfive classesrepresentedby the Puteanus
(A), the Ambrosianus
(B), both of the sixth century, and three others, which
he designates ', A, and 9, known through manuscripts mainly of the ninth

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:37:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

century: of these three he regards as the principal members respectively the

Thuaneus (T), the Egmondanus(E), and the St. Gall (S). All the manuscripts,
however, he finds subject to some degree of contamination and none offers
any single tradition. These five manuscripts Cunningham utilizes consistently,
when they are available, supplementing them with other members of their
classes according to need or interest. Several manuscripts which do not lend
themselves to any particular classification are also reported from time to time.
A description of the manuscripts is given in Cunningham's Introduction; on
their inter-relationship he has written in Sacris Erudiri xiii (1962), 5-59. In
establishing his text, Cunningham, unlike Bergman, does not rate any one
tradition superior to another and steadfastly refuses to be dazzled by the
antiquity either of A or of B.
Cunningham is the first to admit that his study of the manuscripts has not
resulted in many departures from previous texts; and few new readings of
significance are reported. His principal object has been rather to provide the
reader with full and reliable information on manuscript readings in any given
case. Valuable is his verification of the accuracy of Bergman's reports; in some
cases, notably Cath. 7. 81, where for Bergman's unmetrical reading, stemma
prisci, Cunningham finds no authority, these reports have been corrected.
Students of Prudentius should feel grateful to Cunningham for his unremitting
labours. They serve as a useful complement to and, in some cases, corrective of,
the work of Bergman.
Besides the account of the manuscripts, the Introductionincludes an index of
orthographical variations, a list (the references not always given) of prosodic
and metrical peculiarities, and a general bibliography of Prudentius, largely
confined to work published after 1950, when the Guillen-Rodriguez edition
appeared; readers without access to the latter (and they are many) would
have liked a full list of works expressly relating to textual or exegetical matters.
Cunningham's text is very conservative and conjectural readings are rare.
I note over a hundred differences in reading from the text of Bergman; of
these about one-third have already been adopted by Lavarenne or Thomson
or both, and nearly all seem desirable; a case can be made for most of the
remainder and few seem really improbable. In regard to punctuation, the
editor seems to imply, somewhat alarmingly (Introduction, p. xxxv) that
marks of punctuation in Latin texts might well be dispensed with, but fortunately, though niggardly of the comma, he consents in the main to pander
to editorial convention. In fact, his punctuation does at times differ strikingly
from that of Bergman. In orthography he largely follows A and B; like Bergman
he adopts Hisus - Iesus. This principle can be overworked and leads to the
appearance on successive pages of the horrid title Amartigenia.
The apparatus criticus is generally, but not invariably, clear. One type of
entry is puzzling: e.g. Apoth. 2 pr. 25 (chief mss. ABTES; sycofantarumread)
'sycofantarum] A, -ph- B', or Peri. 8. 8 (TESbQ; ueniatread) 'ueniat] T, ueniet
V'. The bulk could profitably be reduced by the omission of insignificant
manuscript variations and of such irrelevancies as the correction of printing
errors in previous editions (e.g. Apoth. 741 and 763). Occasional conjectures
are mentioned (including several of Heinsius), some of interest, others obscure
or improbable (e.g. Apoth. 764 olla for uluae Collins).
On specific questions of reading I offer the following observations. In some
passages of Prudentius, notably Cath. 3. Ioo, 6. 6, 10. 9-16 and 130, there

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:37:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

295

exists a striking discrepancy between A and the later manuscripts; in these

four passages, where Bergman (so Lavarenne) followed A, Cunningham (like
Thomson) prefers the later manuscripts, adopting the view in the two latter
passages that the readings of A represent the poet's earlier version, the later
manuscripts his revision. Cath. 3. 18 seria ludicra uerba iocos, where Bergman
conjectured uera, I would suggest acerba (cf. Symm. 2. 149-50 acerba--suauia);
5. 161-4 are considered spurious by Cunningham on seemingly inadequate
grounds; Apoth. 941, where he reads concideret,he imputes strange Latinity to
Lavarenne and Thomson through his misunderstanding of conciderent,the
subject of which must be poena et mors (cf. 938-9); Psych. 515 objecting to
durauit for lack of authority he reads formauit, at which modern editors have
shied (may not the poet have written firmauit?); Symm. I. 497 olido . . . cultu
read by Cunningham calls for a parallel (why not stolido ... cultu with S? so
Thomson; cf. 2. 819 cultibusa stolidis) ; 2. 47 the less well-attested malum,which
Cunningham adopts, looks very like a gloss (as does diuitum in Peri. 2. 233);
2. 505 numinibusqui (so C.) has good authority, but would be strengthened
by a parallel from P. (cf. 360 numina quae); Peri. 5. 362 erutamis very obscure
(elatam seems possible enough for Prudentius and the reading is strongly supported by I. 30 lota mens in fonte rubro); 1o. 483 saeuia (= saeuitia), attested by
Z alone, seems very hazardous; 13. 94 the plural expeditein 93 supports carnifices(voc.), not carnificis(genit.).
Cunningham's text contains four conjectural readings (Symm. 2. 868 serapen
is obelized) : Symm. I pr. 74 seps, 2. o016 censu, and two of his own, Peri. 8. 17,
where he unaccountably alters the normal ut quisquepotest to u. q. potes, and
10. 223, where for pontifex summussedes he writes p. s. sedet in spite of 226 tu,
sacrate,... solueris. One or two suggestions made in the apparatus do not convince: e.g. Symm. I. 298flamina for fumina (the latter confirmed by 302 fiumina)
and Peri. 13. 32 the unmetrical biberefor uiuere.
In respect of punctuation Cunningham adopts a number of improvements on
Bergman made by Lavarenne or Thomson or both, but also departs significantly at times from all three, not always happily. Interesting is his treatment
of Apoth. 32-33 (commas after legis and amicitiae), which gives construction
to the otherwise obscure amicitiae. In Apoth. 490 his full stop after Christumand
in Ham. 270 after bacas, granted the use of ac uelut = uelut (cf. ac si = quasi Symm.
2 pr. 19: Hofm.-Szant. 479'), reads well. In Peri. IO. 178 Cunningham's
hermaphrodite deities (comma after duplici) are very questionable (cf. Symm.
2. 223 duplex sexus = mares et feminae). Certainly faulty is the punctuation in
Symm. 2. 555 and Peri. 10. 994 (comma, not stop, needed after both Veneri
and inconditus); Apoth. 488 cannot be a question; 107-8 comma and questionmark have curiously exchanged places.
There is one mystifying feature of Cunningham's edition and that is the
very unusual Latinity which he employs: phenomena of a kind that we do
not associate with the austerities of a critical edition tend to appear from time
to time. Thus codexmay be feminine (p. xx, ? 65 aliae codicesand p. xxiii, ? 8o),
and quaternioseems to be invariably so (e.g. p. xi) ; and such abnormal combinations occur as traditio quem (p. xxvii, ? Io8), aliae uerba (p. xxix, ? 121),
litterae . . . amissi (on Psych. 575-94). The nominative and accusative cases are
liable to exchange functions: e.g. intellegas scriba prior locumfecisse (p. xii, ? 16)
or adsunt uersusquosdamquos... (p. xviii, ? 50), etc. The moods are temperamental and the indicative, for example, may appear after consecutive

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:37:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

296

ut (p. xiii,

? 22, p. xxxix, ? I34). A touch of whimsy is lent to the Conspectus

siglorumby the elucidation of I as lectiofacta a scriba ipso se ipse corrigens.Utinam

se ipse corrigat editor!

The text is followed by an Index locorums. scripturae,an Index auctorum,which

In spite of
might have been fuller, and a new and useful Indexrerumnotabilium.
Cunningham's appeal to Lavarenne, 9Itude,etc., and Deferrari-Campbell,
an outstanding need is a full and up-to-date Index uerborum
et
Concordance,
locutionum.
I note misprints in the text in Ham. 254, Psych. 599, Symm. I. 587, Peri. 3. 92,
10. 305 and 820, II. 23.
A. HUDSON-WILLIAMS
University
Collegeof Wales,Aberystwyth

SIDONIUS
W. B. ANDERSON:
Sidonius, Letters.With an English translation. Vol. ii.
Classical
Library). Pp. xv+650. London: Heinemann, 1965.
(Loeb
Cloth, 25s. net.
ANDRE LOYEN: SidoineApollinaire.Tome i: Podmes.Texte 6tabli et
traduit. (Collection Bude.) Pp. lii+200 (mostly double). Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, I960. Paper.
THE first volume of W. B. Anderson's Loeb edition of Sidonius, containing
the Poemsand Books i-ii of the Letters,appeared in 1936 (reviewed by W. H.
Semple, C.R. li [19371, 21-23). It was soon seen to be a contribution to scholarship of a high order, both by its interpretation of Sidonius's tortuous and
involved Latin and by its many historicalnotes. As Semple observed, 'Nothing
so comprehensive and substantial has been done for the exegesis of Sidonius
since the great Sirmond's edition of 1614.'
It was perhaps his consciousnessof the high standard he had set himself
that made ProfessorAnderson hesitate to submit a definitive text of the second
volume, although he continued to work on it until his death in 1959. His
manuscript, 'some parts of which had been revised by Anderson, but of which
the greater part was in pencil, full of tentative corrections and alternative
phrases, roughly written-sometimes scribbled-as a first draft with marginal
queries and reminders' (pp. vii-viii) was handed over after his death to
ProfessorW. H. Semple to prepare for the press. The translation before us is
therefore Semple's revision of Anderson's draft. The Latin text and critical
notes were added by ProfessorE. H. Warmington, who based them upon those
of Luetjohann and Mohr. Warmington also contributed the great majority of
the footnotes-Anderson had provided very few-and the preface, as well
as a series of additional notes on the text (pp. 609-23).
Since 1937 much work has been done both on Sidonius and on late Roman
and Visigothic Gaul. Loyen's Rechercheshistoriques, his Sidoine Apollinaire et
l'espritpricieux en Gaule aux derniersjoursde l'empire, and his Bud6 edition of the

poems have illuminated many points of language and context in this often

deliberately obscure writer; Mrs. Chadwick's Poetryand Lettersin Early Christian

Gaul and K. F. Stroheker's Der senatorischeAdel im spdtantiken Gallien have

given detail and precision to the social and cultural background of Sidonius.

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:37:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions