The so-called Sabini epistulae are three letters written in response to three of Ovid's fifteen single Epistulae Heroidum: Ulixes writes back to Penelope, Demophoon to Phyllis, Paris to Oenone. Scholarship on these letters focuses on two points: the moot question whether they are the product of an ancient poet, possibly Ovid's friend Sabinus (cf. Ov. Am. 2.18.27–34; Pont. 4.16.13–16), or the Renaissance Humanist Angelo Sani di Cure, also known as Angelus Sabinus (fl. 1460s–70s), or an unknown humanist; and, connected with this, the problem of a notoriously difficult text in terms of textual criticism as well as linguistic and literary interpretation. Recent research on these questions includes: B.W. Häuptli (Publius Ovidius Naso. Ibis, Fragmente, Ovidiana [1996]), who was the first to edit these letters after V. Loers (P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides et A. Sabini Epistulae [1829–30]); he assumed that the author was an anonymous ancient poet, whom he sketched in positive terms; T.-C. Spieß, who found that an unknown post-Senecan poet is to be credited with the authorship; with his commentary, Spieß has done much for the elucidation of the text on all levels, but although he shows some awareness of the need for a history of the text (Die Sabinus-Briefe. Humanistische Fälschung oder antike Literatur? [2012], pp. 23 and 73), his discussion of textual problems remains incomplete; and L. Braun, who returned to Angelus Sabinus as author of these letters on the grounds of a self-testimony newly discovered in his Paradoxa in Iuvenali (1474) (‘Sabinus-Briefe und Responsio Ulixis – Neue und alte Zeugnisse zur Verfasserfrage. Mit einem Exkurs zur Überlieferung von Ovids Paris-Brief’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 38 [2014], 101–26).

Now, L., known for his authenticity criticism (Das erste Buch der Heroidenbriefe. Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen [2003]) and his work on early prints of what he considers to be pseudo-Ovidian Heroides (‘Der Heroidestext in den frühesten Drucken’, Hermes 144 [2016], 69–96), has produced a critical edition of the Sabinus letters. The book comprises a rather short introduction on the work and the author as well as on the history of the text; this is followed by a section on the sources (two witnesses to the text; a list of all editions; a bibliography of text-critical contributions and of half a dozen translations into German); the text of the letters and of an introductory note (a medieval accessus) accompanied by a facing-page translation; an exhaustive list of conjectures usefully permuted according to their authors; and a substantial text-critical commentary. The volume is rounded off by an index of names, subjects, words, one of mythical names and one of passages. L. deals fully with the transmission, the dating and the authorship in a separate article (‘Überlieferung, Datierung und Autorschaft der Sabinusbriefe’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 161 [2018], 29–56). As L. keeps argumentations in his edition, perhaps unnecessarily, to the point, he – and his reader – often have to refer to this additional material throughout the book.

The picture L. convincingly draws up of the transmission is that of a medieval archetype based on the manuscript codex Vaticanus Urbinas latinus 353 (= U, written by Federicus De Veteranis, the part attributed to Sabinus dated between 1475 and 1477), and on the editio Parmensis (= π, edited by Stephanus Corallus, 1477). While U had been mentioned by Häuptli, it is used for the first time in the constitution of the text by L. (who provides a collation of U in his RhM article, pp. 51–6). A ‘saut du même au même’ in U (Sab. 2, from line 18 moras to line 26 moras) proves that π cannot have been copied from U. Thus, L. relegates all other versions of the text from the editio Vicentina (1480) onwards to the status of a textus receptus. Both witnesses suffer from frequent corruption, U somewhat less than π. Therefore, L. has regular recourse to a large variety of palaeographical explanations. A peculiar strategy is the hypothetical use L. makes of the medieval Beneventana script, although there is no factual evidence for its use in the transmission. Even so, L. has to resort to conjectural criticism quite often. There is just one passage where L. is not quite sure what was written in the archetype (Sab. 3.65–6, p. 90). But the editorial decisions L. takes are usually reasonable. Nevertheless, there are a few quibbles: Sab. 1.96 fati iam melioris agor: the qualitative genitive, even if one refers to the same problem in 2.24 functae sortis, remains difficult to construe; 2.46 ratem Uπ: tamen L., but ratem renders clearer what is meant by the relative clause; 2.94 L. prints Burman's dum modo currat, although he does not find it a satisfying solution; so why not use daggers?; 3.28 victuri: this use of the future participle is difficult to explain, as L. himself admits; 3.63 illa in: although Spieß (p. 280) rightly finds fault with the metre, there is no comment in L.; 3.65 thalamos is suggested as a diagnostic conjecture by L. instead of terras, although here an abbreviation like ‘e.g.’ could have been used; 3.73 rapta Uπ: Sparta Heinsius: again, L. allows a metrical licence in the text (cogit mihi Sparta). L.’s facing-page translation, different from Häuptli's metrical rendering and Spieß’s prose version, is meant to help the reader specifically with L.’s critical text. To that end, L. follows Latin word order word by word, which more often than not goes against German style and even syntax. Another peculiarity is that names of Greek mythology are regularly given the Greek form rather than the Roman one (e.g. 1.105 ‘Teucer’ as ‘Teukros’; even in anachronisms such as 1.78 Reduci … Iovi ‘Zeus’ and 3.65 Mavors … Vltor ‘Ares’).

Finally, L. proposes an authorship/dating hypothesis based on Häuptli's and Spieß’s hypothesis of an ancient poet. Against L. Braun's proposal (2014), but without discussing it, L. tentatively identifies Sabinus with A. Masurius Sabinus, a Roman jurist of the first half of the first century ad, and prints the titles on p. 21 and pp. 24–5 as ‘A. Masurii Sabini Epistulae’. L. adduces three clues: the Sabinus of the accessus is an eques, just as Masurius Sabinus was; there is a Ma(n)surios in Athenaios, Deipn. 1.2 = 1c and 14.18 = 623e, who was both a jurist and a poet; both the Sabinus in Pont. 4.16.15–16 and Masurius Sabinus are supposed to have written Fasti. All the same, the identification of Sabinus may be based on mere coincidence or misinterpretation of names or facts (e.g. the Masurius Sabinus of Athenaios 1.2 is a poet of iambi; the dierum … opus of Ovid, Pont. 4.16.15–16 was perhaps not a work like the Fasti). Furthermore, L. connects this identification with his attribution of the Heroides and of a complete edition of Ovid's poems to a Pseudo-Ovidian ‘Heroides poet’, but foregoes a discussion of this question in his edition. In any case, one may cautiously accept allusions to the Sabinus letters in first-century authors as cases of reception (ps.-Cato 3.17 to Ov. Epist. 5.7 and to Sab. 3.5; Stat. Silv. 3.5.6 to Sab. 1.8[?]).

To sum up: this is the first edition of the Sabini epistulae reliably constructed on a painstaking examination and emendation of the transmission. The text now is easier to work with. The authorship hypothesis, however, may not convince everyone, even if one sides with the ancient poet hypothesis. The layout is neat, the text virtually free from typographical errors.