This volume is an excellent contribution to the study of Sidonius Apollinaris, for which its editors and all those involved ought to be congratulated. Each contribution provides advice and guidelines for specific aspects of a planned commentary of Sidonius' œuvre, in line with the stated ambition of the Saxxi working group (Sidonius Apollinaris in the twenty-first century). The decision to publish this volume and resulting commentaries in English will remove an ongoing impediment to the exchange of ideas within Sidonian scholarship. The book is structured into three main parts: ‘Cultural Diversity in Research’, ‘The Carmina: Poetics and Intertextuality’ and ‘The Epistulae: the Collection, Its Aims, and Its Language’. Amherdt, Köhler and Santelia offer summaries of French, German and Italian scholarship respectively. Amherdt's approach is chronological, Köhler's is largely focused on her 1990 commentary of Book 1 of Sidonius' Epistulae and Santelia's is thematic. This difference inhibits the reader from making more insightful comparisons between the research on Sidonius in each of the languages. Amherdt's criticism of nineteenth-century German scholarship (p. 32) devalues its ongoing usefulness. At times Santelia's piece reads like little more than a bibliography.
Gerbrandy offers a deliberately provocative analysis of Carm. 14 and 15. He dismisses Sidonius' claims to originality, but later is unaware of any contradiction when he characterises three innovative passages by Sidonius as ‘disturbingly inept’ (p. 68) and refers to the strangeness [originality!] of Sidonius' poetry (p. 76). Gerbrandy's approach suffers from an absolutist concept of innovation which wholly precludes the use of literary models. His attempt to restore negative (and largely outdated) assessments of the worth of Sidonius' literature stands in direct conflict to v.W.'s remarks (p. 5) that the ‘ambition of this book … to mark a new, confident start in Sidonius scholarship … which entails relegating the case against Sidonius to the archives of the history of scholarship’.
Rijser argues that Servius' textpflege is akin to Sidonius' ‘coarse intertextuality … with his tendency simply to “quote” and hardly to integrate, vary, or enter into dialogue with his hypotexts’ (p. 89). This assertion, based on the limited scope of Rijser's analysis (Sidonius' Carm. 11), disregards important scholarship on Sidonius' intertextuality, including the chapters by Brolli, Stoehr-Monjour and K. in this volume. The six decades or so between Servius and Sidonius prohibit analysis as if they were contemporaries, as is shown by Rijser's attempt to distinguish their respective audiences (though his characterisation of Sidonius' on p. 90 is full of unsubstantiated assumptions).
Brolli provides a very useful guide to commenting on Sidonius' panegyrics by examining verbal echoes, non-literary sources, the intersection of literary genres, thematic structure and coded messaging. Brolli has taken all her Sidonian examples from the panegyric to Majorian (Carm. 5), with which she is clearly very familiar, but some examples from one of the other panegyrics (Carm. 2 and 7) would have demonstrated that her convincing points are applicable to each of Sidonius' panegyrics.
Condorelli offers an insightful analysis of Ep. 9.13 which includes two verse insertions. Her opinion that Sidonius knew Greek and draws directly upon Greek sources requires a fuller treatment than Condorelli provides in this contribution: more could have been made of the direct comparison (pp. 129–30) between Sidonius' anaphora of date in Ep. 9.13 with the use of δότε in Greek Anacreontic verse.
Stoehr-Monjou bases her study of Sidonius' use of Horace on the ‘art of memory’ in an attempt to make her study more objective. Further examination of the structure of allusions to Horace in the epistolary collection would have been helpful, especially regarding the absence of such allusions in Book 3 and their relative abundance in Book 8. The remainder of the chapter presents an engaging analysis of specific allusions. Stoehr-Monjou's preparedness to examine single word allusions and other cases that require careful consideration will certainly be useful to those involved in producing commentaries on Sidonius' corpus.
K. examines Sidonius' allusions to Claudian in his panegyrics. He clearly shows Sidonius' sophistication in his engagement with Claudian's poetry with ‘significant variation and extension’ (p. 183). K.'s analysis of a previously unidentified allusion to Claudian in Sidonius' preface to his panegyric to Avitus should stand as a reminder that commentators cannot rely solely on Geisler's loci similes for the identification of allusions.
Gibson compares the structure of Sidonius' epistolary collection with Pliny the Younger's. His approach clearly shows that Sidonius' claims to follow Pliny as a model are evident not just in specific allusions in certain epistles, but through individual books and the collection as a whole. Gibson's proposals regarding the affect of Arvandus' trial on Sidonius' career and his reaction on becoming the bishop of Clermont are not substantiated by evidence. His commitment to critical pluralism is admirable. Clearly Sidonius' letters can (and should) be read in different ways.
Mathisen outlines numerous strategies that may be employed to date Sidonius' letters. His argument that the letters were circulated, rather than published, corrects the previous literature on this complex process. At times, Mathisen is satisfied to take Sidonius at his word. The description of the haste of his arrangement (Ep. 7.18.1) may equally be read as an expression of authorial humility. Sidonius' use of the ship metaphor and concern about critics are not limited to Books 8 and 9. Gibson's claims of structural parallels between Pliny and Sidonius' epistolary collections need not contradict Mathisen's theory that small groups of letters (dossiers) were used in arranging the collection – both may well have been used.
Mratschek argues that Sidonius reconstructs history in his epistles. Her analysis interprets Sidonius' intertextuality in the context of historical events, predominantly in the mid to late 470s. Sidonius, however, did not stop writing poetry after he became a bishop (see Mathisen's chapter p. 224), he merely asserted that he had done so as a Christian credential. Additional examples may have been cited of the link between the Arverni and the Trojans, such as Sidonius' description of the boat racing in Ep. 2.2.19. Mratschek's study of Sidonius' use of Silius Italicus is well presented.
Risselada insightfully applies text linguistics to Sidonius' epistles. Risselada clearly demonstrates the various ways Sidonius used particles and pronouns. These insights will certainly be of assistance for commentators in their efforts to convey specifics which are often difficult to encapsulate in a translation. Risselada's analysis of Sidonius' Latinity, especially his narrationes, is likely to open up further lines of inquiry.
This book offers direction and impetus to Sidonian scholarship. While some chapters, such as the three summaries of European scholarship on Sidonius, are likely to appeal only to Sidonius experts, others, particularly on Sidonius' allusions to classical authors, will be of interest to a broader audience. Limiting the section on intertextuality to Sidonius' Carmina unnecessarily demarcates the study of intertextuality in his Epistulae from his Carmina. More may have been included on the cultural and intellectual milieu of late fifth-century Gaul. The appendix to Köhler's commentary on Book 1 of the epistles could have been published online, which may have brought down the cost. The bibliography and indexes are comprehensive. The volume clearly shows the benefits of an approach to Sidonius that synthesises historical and literary material.
