Simone Deléani has produced the first twenty of St Cyprian's dossier of letters, using the Diercks's CCSL edition, with his own orthographical modifications. Sometimes however he has preferred the alternative given in the critical apparatus, providing each time his reasons in his notes. He has provided a French translation along with the Latin text, the first since Bayard (1925). For the moment Deléani has restricted himself to the first twenty letters. He has chosen to part company with the usual order in which the letters are presented. Pamèle (1568) tried to put them in chronological order and this has been followed, more or less, by subsequent editors. Deléani wishes to use a chronological arrangement too, but one also determined by subject matter. Thus we have here the undated letters 1–4 left together but on grounds that they deal with disciplinary matters, with sixteen others on the beginnings of the Decian persecution. These he regroups according to theme: (i) 7, 5 and 6 on relations between the exiled bishop and his clergy and confessors; (ii) 9 and 20 are grouped with letter 8 from the Roman presbyterate to which they are clearly a reply. The remainder, on the theme of (i), are simply regrouped chronologically, hence 13, 14, 11, 10 and 12, 15, 16 and 17, 18 and 19. By means of such a regrouping Deléani has sought, successfully I think, to improve on Clarke's presentation of the letters which he finds leaves ‘une impression, inévitable, de dispersion’ (p. 12). However, he wishes to build on Clarke's work, which he justifiably praises. One example of this is in his commentary on letter 8 where he tries to defend Cyprian's position on the grounds that there were two divergent conceptions of the appropriateness of voluntary exile in the early Church. However, I cannot find evidence for such a view before Cyprian himself. Tertullian will, after all, only concede that flight is better than apostasy but otherwise regards flight as a betrayal (Ad uxorem 1.3.4; cf. De fugitate 5.1). The issue is a complex one, I believe, and to do with Cyprian's deliberate policy of undermining the claim of the confessor having suffered physically to exercise a form of ministerial priesthood: if martyrdom can be extended beyond suffering physically then no special sacramental power thus accrues from the act of confession itself. This, it seems to me, was really an original, ideological tour de force, the authorship of which was Cyprian's alone. It was also a self-justificatory defence of his own action. Like every commentator of whom I am aware, Deléani fails to appreciate a very real change of face when Cyprian addresses his clergy and when he writes to the confessors. In the former case he is invariably more critical about them than when talks to them face-to-face (letter 15, cf. 16). Some would admire his cleverly bureaucratic strategy (I certainly do not), but this feature of the letters needs to be brought out. Deléani has nevertheless provided a significant commentary, particular in his linguistic handling of the text, which will be a valuable contribution to future study.