‘Observing the numerousness of copies of synodal texts, and foreseeing that the obscurity of a great many of them will be less useful to the uninitiated, and also anticipating that the inharmonious diversity of the rest would be destructive rather than constructive, I have provided a brief, clear, and harmonious exposition in a single volume out of a great forest of authors, adding many things, reducing many things, excerpting many things word for word, asserting more things following the sense with the order of the words disregarded.’ With these words a scholar working in Ireland on a fascinating eighth-century text described his effort to bring together a mass of material setting norms for a proper Christian way of life. The ‘brief exposition’ consisting of sixty-six books has now been edited and translated in two fat volumes by Roy Flechner as the The Hibernensis.

The Hibernensis, or Collectio Hibernensis as it is generally known, was edited twice in the late nineteenth century by Hermann Wasserschleben, once in 1874 and again in 1885 with an expanded introduction and commentary. It is this edition that Flechner's work aims to supersede and with this publication a long-lasting desideratum is now fulfilled, although the editor concedes that this is not the definitive edition, but rather a ‘starting point for readers who want to pursue independent research on Hib's [the Hibernensis'] textual history’ (p. 51*). It has long been accepted that the text exists in two main recensions, the A- and the B-recension, as they are generally known. Wasserschleben was aware of these two recensions, but he decided to publish only the A-version and relegated some parts of the B-version to the footnotes because he was convinced that the B-recension was younger and probably not composed in Ireland. The relationship between the two recensions has vexed scholars ever since. As Flechner explains, both recensions contain material that is not found in the other, and both sometimes contain a version of the text that is closer to its original source. Matters are even more complicated, as some similarities between manuscripts can be observed which cross the division in two recensions. Because of these findings Flechner posits a proto-version that was made in Ireland, which could be freely adapted according to circumstances. This then led to the two recensions. An argument in favour of this solution is provided by an analysis of a patristic florilegium found in a manuscript probably written in an Anglo-Saxon centre on the Continent, now preserved in Würzburg (Universitätsbibliothek, ms Mp. th. q. 31). This florilegium is clearly based on the Hibernensis, but again it shares characteristics with both recensions, and it contains somewhat more material. A number of other florilegia closely related to the Hibernensis would support this hypothetical proto-version.

Flechner does not try to edit this hypothetical proto-version, but chooses to edit a kind of hybrid version. His edition is based on the A-version with the material from the B-version added in a different font, which makes it easy to distinguish between the two versions – although that book xlvii is only found in the A-version the reader has to pick up from the introduction or from the apparatus. The florilegia and the large number of derivative texts, studied by the late Roger Reynolds, are excluded and the edition is based on nine of the earliest main manuscript witnesses combined with readings from the Würzburg florilegium. It makes perfect sense not to include all the derivative works, although I would have liked to see some discussion of the early Reichenau manuscript now in Kalrsruhe and the Livorno manuscript, unknown to the previous editor, that some scholars see as containing the A-version (Sheehy) while others think it concerns the B-version (Mordek). The decision to leave out an edition of the table of contents that accompanies the work in so many manuscripts is nowhere explained. I think there is every reason to suppose that this was part of both versions and of the proto-version.

The analysis of the nine main manuscripts yields an intriguing stemma, demonstrating no single clear relation of dependency between two manuscripts. According to the stemma printed on p. 147*, all manuscripts are of equal value. This is a surprising conclusion for a text with such a substantial number of textual witnesses. Flechner may certainly be correct in postulating this stemma, but he could have said a bit more about the question of how such an extraordinary stemma could have originated. How should we explain this? The liberty that scribes or their superiors had when copying the Hibernensis is certainly a factor, but does that explain that all surviving manuscripts independently derive from four hypothetical manuscripts, that in their turn were copied independently from the hypothetical prototypes of the A- and the B-version? This is a very remarkable stemma, indeed.

The Hibernensis is an extraordinary text in several ways. It is normally seen as a canon law collection, but it differs substantially from traditional works of this kind and covers in a systematic way a large number of topics not touched upon in those other works. It also stands out from other collections by its ample use of biblical texts and its affinities with Irish secular legislation. Furthermore, the Hibernensis demonstrates a keen awareness of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the ecclesiastical tradition and proposes ways to deal with them. The present edition, with the accompanying excellent translation, provides scholars with the opportunity to delve deeper into this fascinating and still rather enigmatic text. The translation is moreover richly annotated thus providing a running commentary. Flechner's edition does not solve all the textual problems that the complicated transmission of this work generates, but by being very explicit and clear about what it tries to achieve, it lays a sound foundation for further research. Apparently the editor encountered difficulties in gaining access to the manuscripts in Paris, London and Rome. It is a shame that libraries preserving this precious legacy are not as helpful as they should be. We can therefore be even more thankful to the editor for giving us access to both recensions of this intriguing Irish compilation in such a clear way.