The latest volume in the Sources Chrétiennes series provides a new edition of a collection of texts relating to the schism of the Luciferani. It comprises a declaration of faith (confession fidei) and a legal petition (libellus precum) by Faustinus and Marcellinus, two of their presbyters, together with the imperial response (lex augusta). Named after Lucifer, bishop of Calaris (Cagliari, Sardinia), whose uncompromising pro-Nicene stance had led him to refuse staunchly any reconciliation with anti-Arian bishops who had been cajoled or coerced to accept non-Nicene formularies in the past, the schism was still virulent, both in the west and the east, for some time after his death. The petition, which dates from 383/384, provides a rare chance to assess the self-perception and self-presentation of the Luciferani in the face of the religious legislation introduced by Theodosius. It responds directly, it seems, to the establishment of ‘Nicene Orthodoxy’ just before, and complains about the ‘persecution’ faced by ‘catholics’ under the pretext of Theodosian heresy law. Intent on clearing their names of any association with ‘heresy’, the petition provides an illustrative – if partisan – narrative of later years of the anti-Arian controversy. Together with Faustinus' declaration of faith, which underlines a traditionalist reading of the Nicene Creed, the petition balances the hostile account in Jerome's polemical ‘Altercatio Luciferani et Orthodoxi’. The set of documents further provides us with an equally rare opportunity to observe the mechanics of imperial religious jurisdiction in operation. The imperial rescript evidences the close attention paid by the imperial offices to the arguments of the petitioners and confirms – content it seems with their profession of the Nicene Creed – the orthodoxy of those in communion with their leading bishops.

The text established by Canellis differs very little from that of O. Günther, as part of his edition of the Collectio Avellana (CSEL, 1895), or that of M. Simonetti (CCL, 1967). However, it offers for the first time a complete apparatus of all variant readings. The facing French translation is probably the first into any modern language (like the editor, I have not been able to trace a Spanish translation announced in 1997). It is very helpful in illuminating the often rather convoluted Latin of the petition, highly stylised and in keeping with both rhetorical and juridical conventions. Canellis's introduction provides a lucid account of the complex historical background and a fine structural analysis of the petition as an epistolary legal document, as well as a description of the textual history. Careful annotations, supported by indices of names and scriptural passages, open up this valuable collection of documents, which enhances our understanding of a difficult phase in fourth-century church history.