At the opening of his commentary on Book 5 of the Carmen paschale (5.1–163), aptly entitled ‘The Fall of Judas’, D. cites Fichtner, Flieger and Thraede (Jesus in Hexametern [1993]), who have worked determinedly over the past two decades to improve knowledge and the critical reputation of late-antique Biblical Epic beyond the more disparaging comments of many earlier critics, notably E.R. Curtius, who despised the genre as a poor substitute for the original. Like Thraede and his associates, D. sets out under the aegis of ‘careful philological and theological interpretation’ (p. 3) to ‘get a bit farther’ (as they say, p. 3) than those frequently reductive reviews. As a significant step forward in studies of late-antique literature and Sedulius in particular, D.'s commentary is an important contribution to the field.

In his introduction, D. observes that much work yet remains to be done in the area of late-antique biblical poetry, despite the recent advances. This is certainly true, and it explains the ambitious scope of his commentary (550 pages). The bulk of existing criticism, he says, has tended to focus on the ‘epic’ tenor of these poems or the extent to which they reflect the rhetorical practices of writers in the genre (p. 5). While this approach is suitable to the study of Juvencus, he says, whose Euangeliorum libri quattuor is closest in time and style to classical epic (my emphasis), the literary technique of Sedulius is altogether different and so demands a different approach (p. 5). D. therefore incorporates the existing research on epic and rhetorical paraphrase into his commentary (see especially Part 3) but also devotes much needed attention to the biblical narrative behind the poetry as well as the author's idiosyncrasies of rhetoric and style. D. concludes that Sedulius is not just an epic imitator or paraphraser, but more ‘a communicator of the biblical message’ (p. 291) who synthesises features of epic and rhetoric into what D. calls a work of ‘poetic edification’ (poetischen Erbauung).

The scope of D.'s commentary includes three separate sections: a general introduction; the commentary proper; and a two hundred-page analysis of the structure and style of the Carmen paschale. Part 1 offers a brief introduction and a facing-page translation of the Latin in German. The next 238 pages (Part 2) contain eight sections parcelling out the commentary in units of about twenty lines. D. gives each of these sections a thematic title (e.g. ‘The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus’), and in each of them his modus operandi is consistent. Section 6.1, for example, ‘The Apostrophe and Imprecation of Judas’, is representative of his approach throughout the commentary. This episode deals with the betrayal and arrest of Jesus at the hands of Judas (5.59–68), whose ‘fall’ is the focus and title of D.'s commentary. D. opens the section with a brief overview of the ‘biblical account’, in which he offers general observations on the relationship of the poetic passage to the biblical, in this case to say that Sedulius structures his scene slightly differently but in no offence to the original. D. then summarises the biblical narratives in preparation for a closer analysis of the poetry (in this case, of Matt. 26:47–56, Luke 22:47–53 and John 18:1–12). Logically, D. then proceeds to review the narrative arrangement of the episode in the Carmen paschale (5.59–68) and here he notes the greater emphasis in the poetry on rhetorical language that Sedulius uses to revile the apostate, Judas. D. then provides a brief paragraph on how Sedulius relates to Juvencus in his treatment of the scene (Ev. 4.511–36), since both poets versify the episode and since Thraede and his associates have laid the groundwork for this digression. These brief comparisons are a strength of D.'s commentary, since they provide a continuous stylistic and generic touchstone from which to approach the Carmen paschale. The remainder of Section 6.1 addresses specific lines, notably the pointed invective against Judas beginning, Tune cruente, ferox, audax, insane, rebellis (5.59). Here D. comments on the nature and sources of the asyndetic apostrophe; he cites Seneca's tragedies as a possible source of inspiration as well as the cataloguing style of Mark's prose, etc., and notes links between the characterisation of Judas and those of Satan in Christian literature (e.g. rebellis). D. then provides several useful cross references to other passages of the Carmen paschale in which similar language appears; these help to unite the passage to the larger purpose of the poem. Each of the eight sections in Part 2 proceeds along the same lines, with an overview of the biblical narrative, the arrangement of the passage in the Carmen paschale, the relationship to Juvencus and a commentary on the lines in question, including cross references to other scenes in the text. The thoroughness here is typical of the whole commentary.

Part 3 offers a lengthy discussion of the literature of the Carmen paschale beyond what D. is able to provide in his commentary, and here he builds towards a definition of the poem as ‘poetic edification’. There are five sections. The first provides a summary of ‘paraphrase theory’ in which D. offers new insight into the relationship of the Carmen to the corresponding Opus paschale, the later prose rendition. D. argues that Sedulius owes much in his translation of the poetry to the rhetorical techniques of Quintilian's Institutio oratoria (p. 321). D. also acknowledges his debt to Michael Roberts throughout this section, whose work on rhetorical paraphrase (Biblical Epic [1985]) affords the notion of ‘literary paraphrase’ (p. 305). In Section 2, ‘Biblical Poetry: between Paraphrase and aedificatio’, D. examines a scene from the work of Juvencus (4.586–625), to establish a general critical modus operandi for his own textual analysis of the Carmen paschale. Juvencus becomes a testing ground for the rhetorical practices D. introduces in Section 1, and this digression is justified by the fact that Juvencus is a likely source of inspiration for Sedulius. D. incorporates the work of Herzog here (Der Bibelepik [1975]), whose concept of aedificatio (‘edification’) he applies to his own definition of the Carmen paschale. Section 3 continues the focus on aedificatio with a view to the Church Fathers and their influence on the poetry of the genre. Section 4 involves Sedulius in the discussion and considers the poetic structure of the Carmen paschale, its nature as ‘epic’ and the potential importance of the Psalms as a model for the author (see p. 373). Section 5 concludes the volume and offers a definition of the Carmen paschale as ‘poetic edification’, based on its rhetorical foundations and response to patristic exegesis.

D.'s commentary presents an impressive array of new evidence to consider. There is already much here to redirect our reading of the poem in light of the biblical narrative, and it remains to be seen how this commentary will reshape current discussions of Biblical Epic. On the one hand, it is clear that Sedulian studies are following the two dominant streams of research on ‘epic’ and ‘paraphrase’, but D. has brought new and needed attention to the Bible as the obvious and ultimate source of inspiration for the poet. As he says, the measure of ‘the presbyter Sedulius’ is as a communicator of the biblical message, and the principal interest among scholars is shifting from the focus on epic and/or paraphrase to the relationship between Sedulius as poet and priest, and how this dichotomy informs the complex, spiritual messages we read in the Carmen paschale.