Saint Cyprien: Lettres 1-20 (review)

This book is a magisterial treatment of the first twenty letters in the Cyprianic corpus, consisting of four disciplinary letters ( ep.1–4), the thirteen letters ( ep.5–7, 10–19) which Cyprian enclosed with his defensive letter to the clergy of Rome ( ep.20), and the exchange of letters ep.8 and ep.9, the one sent to the clergy of Carthage by the clergy of Rome and the other Cyprian's spirited rejoinder. The dense and closely-packed commentary is accompanied by the admirable Latin text established by Diercks for Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina III B (1994) and by an exemplary translation that, by design, keeps closely to the Latin, retains the full flavor of Cyprian's rhetorical mode, and brings out faithfully the subtle nuances of Cyprian's linguistic usages. Diercks's text is modified in a few, relatively minor, instances in ep.1, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 17 but substantially (fifteen times) in ep.8 where Deléani (D.) argues, not altogether persuasively, for the correction of a number of solecisms found in the main manuscript tradition (p. 371–72, 444–48), positing that the erroneous readings are due to an ignorant or inattentive (and unknown) scribal copyist of the fourth or fifth century C.E. As might be expected from an indefatigable contributor to the invaluable Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea, D. has conscientiously and fully brought up to date relevant bibliographical references and altogether has achieved a landmark and scholarly contribution to the field. Given the density of the commentary, it is possible to highlight in this brief review only a few of the many virtues of this major contribution to patristic studies.

Whilst retaining the long-established numbering of the letters, D. sensibly re-orders their presentation, producing them (apart from ep.1–4) in their chronological sequence and in their logical groupings. These groups are preceded by substantial and rich essays of analysis: by reading these essays and the accompanying letters in sequence, one is led through the unfolding dramas of the opening months of the persecution of Decius. (Slightly curiously, whilst arguing for an earlier receipt of ep.8 and dispatch of ep.9—some four months before writing ep.20 [p. 384]—D. nevertheless places these two letters immediately before ep.20 as a group of letters to and from Rome. In reading some of the preceding letters, however, it would be relevant to know if this chronology is correct and that this exchange of letters had already occurred.)

There is valuable and careful discussion throughout of Cyprian's citations of and allusions to his scriptural text, Cyprian being an important witness to the Old Latin African version of the Bible and his text being so frequently normalized to the familiar Vulgate by inattentive scribes. Cyprian's exploitation of his texts is fully and subtly explored (both elsewhere in the letters and in his treatises) and the relation of his language to other versions (both Latin and Greek) is carefully analyzed. This attention to detail very considerably enriches the commentary and our appreciation of Cyprian's message.

Above all, D. is acutely alert to Cyprian's language, paying meticulous attention to the accepted grammatical usages in later (literary) Latin, to the nuances of Cyprian's vocabulary and verbal usages, to his rhetorical tropes and stylistic habits, thereby refining the interpretation of his text in a large number of points. This literary aspect of Cyprian's writing is here given its deserved treatment and our appreciation of the subtlety of his style is greatly enhanced. The extensive "Index Analytique" (p. 471–79) and "Note Complémentaire 6" (p. 430–35) stand as clear witness to the close attention paid throughout the commentary to Cyprian's linguistic usages.

My own (and much less fulsome) commentary on these letters, composed now a quarter of a century ago, was designedly historical in focus—and without the benefit of Diercks's text. Whilst D. pays due...