This volume represents a re-issuing of Bévenot's critical edition of the text (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 3), with a French translation by Michel Poirier and an introduction by Paolo Siniscalo and Paul Mattei, the latter also being responsible for the notes, apparatus and appendices. Appendix 3 is a particularly useful contribution in that it sets out comprehensively the Testimonia relevant to the text of the De unitate. His citations and allusions add considerably to those that Bévenot listed in The tradition of manuscripts (Oxford 1961).

At pp. 9–24 Siniscalo's provides a sound introduction to the work, which is followed by a useful discussion of aspects of Cyprian's theology (chapter iv), and the ‘double redaction’ of De unitate 4–5 (chapter v). Siniscalo's discussion of the literature is valuable, although he reaches Bévenot's solution to the problem mainly on Bévenot's grounds: there was an earlier and later edition of the text both emanating from Cyprian's hands. The shorter, Petrine, text (PT) is in support of Cornelius against Novatian, but the later, longer received text (TR) defends the principle of episcopal collegiality against Stephen on the issue of the rebaptism of heretics. No mention is made of Stuart Hall's recent though, in my opinion, misconceived study (JTS lv [2004], 138–46) arguing that PT is to be dated to ad 251 against Felicissimus and TR to ad 252 against Novatian.

Particularly insightful is Siniscalo's treatment of ‘ratio’ in Cyprian, ep. lxxi.3.1, where he points out that ‘reason’ is opposed to custom in Cyprian, not because he is a rationalist, but because ‘ratio’ is associated with the discussions of episcopal concilium: the way out of the impasse with Stephen is not simply to appeal to custom but to what the ‘dilectio communis et ratio exposcit’ (pp. 82ff.). Poirier as translator grasps clearly the significance of ‘in solidum’ (p. 185: ‘chaque évêque en tient une partie en indivision’), though he seems to take issue, against Bévenot, with a thoroughgoing juridical analogy implied by the term (pp. 273–4): ‘in solidum’ refers to property inherited as a whole, which cannot be subdivided by the beneficiaries.

I would take issue, accordingly, with Poirier's omission of the juridical nuance from his rendering of ‘perfida praeuaricatione’ as ‘par une perfide trahison’ in De unitate (TR) 5.9–10. Thus he locates the linguistic register in political rhetoric that attacks ‘treachery (trahison)’ and ‘betrayal (perfide)’. But the real location is in legal discourse according to which ‘perfida praeuaricatio’ refers to a ‘plea bargain made in bad faith’ (Cicero, Cael. 10.24). This is precisely what Stephen was doing, from Cyprian's standpoint, when he ‘let off’ the schismatics from being baptised with simply an act of reconciliation through the imposition of episcopal hands.

The passage under consideration begins (TR 5.1) with the claim that ‘uindicare debemus’, which is translated ‘défendre avec fermeté’ as though the ‘firmiter’ came after and not before the ‘et’ in ‘unitatem tenere firmiter et uindicare’. ‘Uindicare’ has far more precisely the forensic meaning here of ‘établir une défense’ (Cicero, De oratione 21.69) The object of the bishops in thus defending the Church's unity is ‘to present proof (probare/probemus)’, as Poirier correctly understands in this case as ‘d'apporter la preuve’ without appearing to be clear as to how forensically close this analogy is to Cyprian's meaning. ‘Praesidemus’ is translated as ‘exerçons la présidence’ but should be understood specifically as exercising the power of the presiding judge who as such clearly should not enter into a ‘perfida praeuaricatio’. I believe, however, that it has been the general fault of translators not to explore consistently the forensic register of many of Cyprian's terms.

This volume is a useful contribution and should be welcomed by English and French scholars alike as the deserved confirmation of Bévenot's legacy.