Sedulius Scottus: De Rectoribus Christianis, “On Christian Rulers.” (review)

This book is a bilingual edition, Latin and English on facing pages, of one of the main works of Sedulius Scottus, the ninth-century Irish scholar and poet who was active in Carolingian circles c. 850. Dyson is a historian of political theory aiming at an audience with similar interests. A person reading the book to learn firsthand what Sedulius Scottus wrote on the subject of Christian kingship will be fairly well served. However, readers who study Sedulius Scottus or medieval Latin literature and are engaged in literary criticism will need to continue to rely on the previously published Latin text and English translation.

The central error of the volume is Dyson’s misapprehension of the character of Sigmund Hellmann’s critical edition (Sedulius Scottus [Munich, 1906], pp. 1–91). He believes Hellmann did not take into account Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 103 (“Hellmann appears to have taken no notice” [of Migne], p. 20). This mistaken view supplies the rationale for choosing between Hellmann and Migne as it suits him and making a small number of conjectural emendations. In fact, Dyson misidentifies the author and date of the Migne text, ascribing it to the Spicilegium of Luc D’Archery (1655–77) rather than Angelo Mai (Spicilegium Romanum, 1842), who used the Vatican Palatine manuscript (P). Dyson does not understand that Hellmann’s text is based on all extant manuscripts and the editions of Mai and Traube (MGH, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, vol. 3, 1896) and that citations in the critical apparatus to “P corr. Mai” mean Migne.

Despite charging him with such a remarkable dereliction, Dyson praises Hellmann and claims that his text is based on Hellmann (“the text printed here is in most respects the one established by him” [p. 21]). This statement does not prove to be true. Wording, spelling, and punctuation are closest to Mai, including copying some of Migne’s errors (e.g., creseunt [poem line 6] on p. 162 and the unmetrical final line of the poem on p. 190).

The preference for Migne sometimes leads Dyson to reject Hellmann’s clearly better readings. For example, Dyson prints: “Ob hoc coelestum transcurrens prata librorum/Florida congessi vobis, rex, inclyta serta” (p. 44, Preface, lines 11–12): [“To this end, passing across the flowery meadows/Of heavenly books, I have plucked for you, O King,/Splendid wreaths”] instead of Hellmann’s “Ob hoc caelestum transcurrens prata librorum/Florida congessi vobis, rex inclite, serta” (p. 19) [“For this reason, running through the meadows of heavenly books, I have gathered flowery garlands for you, renowned king”]. Taking florida with prata instead of serta and preferring inclyta to inclite misses the Latinity of the word order of line 12 and leaves the under-whelming single word vocative “rex.” (Similarly, compare Hellmann, p. 28, line 23 and Dyson, p. 64; and Hellmann, p. 76, lines 1–4 and Dyson, p. 164.)

Adding to the problem, there are instances where Dyson prints the text of Migne but translates Hellmann: “fickleness” (p. 159) translates Hellmann’s mutabilitate (p. 73, line 14), not Migne’s mobilitate; “equipped” (p. 163) translates Hellmann’s ornatus (p. 75, line 9), not Migne’s ordinatus.

Regarding the translation, Dyson claims to improve on the translation of E. G. Doyle (Sedulius Scottus: On Christian Rulers and the Poems [Binghamton, NY, 1983]), which he considers “often unduly free” (p. 21). A literal translation of an obscure passage, however, is no help, as seen in the Preface, lines 4–5, when Sedulius writes, “Artibus egregiis sapientia Celsitonantis/Praeposuit hominem cunctis animalibus orbis.” The translation “By excellent arts the wisdom of the Heavenly Thunderer/Has set man over all the creatures of the world” (p. 45) misses the point that God has given arts to humans: “The wisdom of the heavenly-thunderer set man by means of excellent arts before all the animals of the world.”

The introduction mainly surveys political theory starting in the fourth...