G.’s book, the result of more than 50 years of research devoted to Prudentius, follows a series of critical, textual and exegetical annotations published by the author in the last few years (Prudentiana I: 2000; II: 2001; III: 2003). The focus here is on Contra orationem Symmachi, which, as part of the querelle caused by the removal of the altar of Victory from the curia Iulia in ad 382, is central to understanding the resoluteness of Christian intellectuals in suffocating the remaining traces of pagan pride with the significant help of the political power between the late fourth and early fifth century. The book's subtitle (Eine kritische Revue) expresses a precise need felt by G., who, despite the availability of editions, translations and commentaries of C. Symm., believes that some key philological and interpretative issues have not been adequately examined so far – often because certain suggestions formulated in Prudentiana have been ignored.
The main polemic target is the 2008 German translation of C. Symm. by H. Tränkle, but G.’s stinging criticisms are from time to time also addressed to J. Bergman, M. Lavarenne, J. Guillén, M.P. Cunningham, G. Garuti and L. Rivero García. In his annotations G. starts from the critique of an imprecise translation of a specific word or a textual pericope by Tränkle or other scholars (see e.g. 1.22 tyrannorum, 1.585 Laterani … ad aedes, 1.634 has … gemmas, 2.31 aptas, 2.187 liquidam, 2.646 inducere, 2.835 foramina, 2.906 simplex, 2.949 gradibus) to then focus on a wide range of issues. This pattern of exposition (whose declared model is that of the four volumes of Aeneidea published by J. Henry between 1873 and 1889) changes and becomes slightly more lively in the pages on Book 2 of C. Symm., where the intense dialogue with other scholars is not always the point of departure of the observations, which can thus be free from G.’s intent to provide methodological lessons.
From a philological perspective G. reproaches his predecessors for questionable solutions and true errors in their critical apparatus (such as the mistaken attribution of seps in praef. 1.74 or the variant dubitaverit of 1.267), dubious conjectures (see, in 1.210, caeca tentatively suggested by Tränkle following Heinsius’ doubts; cf. 2.955), awkward punctuation choices (1.569; 2.587; 2.1005), ineffective selectio among variants offered by the tradition (in 2.868 senăpin is plausibly explained by assuming an influence of the same prosodic treatment of several proparoxytone Graecisms in the sermo vulgaris; less convincing, in 2.45, is the preference for et of the Aldine instead of sic, unanimously transmitted but rejected only for being the source of a far from improbable hetero-prosodic gemination; cf. 1.156 and 300) and, above all, a lack of sensitivity towards lines or groups of lines whose false nature would be indicated by syntactical anomalies, inconsistencies and redundancies. For such interpolations, considered to be the result of an editorial intervention that occurred in Late Antiquity, G. offers an articulate aetiology which, however, cannot always compensate for a disputable unscrupulousness in overlooking the consensus codicum: for instance, while the confutation of the authenticity of 2.302 is persuasive (a clumsy addition inspired by an autoschediastic reuse of Virgilian loci), it is not very plausible that in 1.395–9 an Interpolationshäufung should be recognised from lines 386–7; furthermore, an excessive esprit de système underlies the athetesis of 2.423–7, which, simply for upsetting the accuracy and structural regularity of the passage on the evolution of the Roman institutions, G. treats as a false addition coined on the basis of Livius and Ampelius in order to integrate and dramatise the excursus.
Specifically exegetical contributions appear quite useful, and G. often proposes brilliant and thoroughly argued solutions to thorny issues. G.’s deep knowledge of Prudentius’ usus scribendi emerges from a series of appropriate analyses of several loci supporting certain interpretations. This is the case of the deletion of 1.274–5, justified by an uncommon three-syllabic measurement of Hadriani in line 274, in contrast to the poet's reluctance to make use of synizesis in the case of similar first names (including those of emperors); the same can be said of the exact value of the ambiguous stemmate of 1.485, retraced thanks to a detailed review of Prudentius’ use of this term. A careful study of literary and historical sources contributes to shedding light on significant details: for instance, the comparison with Zosimus, 4.59, supporting the hypothesis of a reference in C. Symm. 1.412–14 to Theodosius’ visit to Rome after the battle of the Frigidus in 394, or the wise reading of Symmachus’ letters to identify a possible implied irony of C. Symm. 2.271. Such skilful use of the sources shows that Virgilian reminiscences (see 2.1–4) merge not only with the adherence to the Christian tradition (excellent analysis of both the rewriting of Matt. 13.3–7 and 19–22 in C. Symm. 2.1024–50, and the reference to Ambrosius, De virginib. 1.4.15 in C. Symm. 2.1066–85), but also with the influence of the didactic genre and of Juvenal's Satires (cf. 1.42–407, 1.629–30 and 2.403), two models which, interestingly enough, seem to affect G.’s writing, as if he were assimilating Prudentius’ sharp and biting attitude towards his antagonists and followers of false faiths and paradoxical idols (see 1.393–4). What is lacking, however, is a genuine interest in a possible debt of C. Symm. to late-antique poetics and aesthetics, although in some cases G. highlights a well-known tendency to a contamination of genres (p. 164) and a large use of virtuosic variatio (p. 340).
G.’s precision is evidenced by the Nachträge (in the first of them, in particular, his disapproval of the conservationist attitude of certain editors of Late Latin texts emerges again), by the overview of the structure of C. Symm. and even by the comments to the colour tables decorating the volume. On a less positive note, a true final bibliography, which would have testified to G.’s huge amount of research, is lacking and replaced instead by a simple explanation of acronyms and initials used in the text. Similarly, the way the index locorum is structured, and thus limited to citations from the Bible and Prudentius, offers only a partial indication of the wide number of analysed sources and parallel texts.
Besides such marginal shortcomings, however, it cannot be denied that G.’s work, despite presenting itself with the reductive auto-definition of kritische Revue, is in all respects a commentary, which appears to be clearly superior to those of Garuti and M.P. Brown. These pages, so learned and passionate as to be sometimes digressive, are destined to offer a precious contribution to the progress of Prudentian studies.
