The edition of Corippusʼ epic poem Iohannidos seu De bellis Libycis libri VIII by J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear (1970, henceforth D–G), the first critical edition since J. Partsch (MGH AA 3.2, 1879) and M. Petschenig (1886, henceforth P), has kindled a new interest in the works by the sixth-century African Latin poet and produced a steady flow of editions, commentaries and studies not only on the Iohannis but also on his second preserved poem, the In laudes Iustini Augusti Minoris, editions and commentaries on which were published by Averil Cameron (1976), U.J. Stache (1976), S. Antès (1981) and A. Ramírez de Verger (1985).
After a commentary on Book 1 of the Iohannis by M.A. Vinchesi (1983), it took another fourteen years for the next commentary to appear, that by V. Zarini on Book 2 (1997). Four years later, C.O. Tommasi Moreschiniʼs commentary on Book 3 was published (2001), and nine years later P. Riedlbergerʼs voluminous (503pp.) commentary on Book 8 came out (2010), in which he pleaded for ʻGorippusʼ as the poetʼs correct name, a proposal that did not, however, win much favour among scholars. Now G. continues this series with Book 4 (the Ph.D. thesis of A.M. Ramírez Tirado, La Iohannis de Coripo (libro IV): introducción, edición crítica, traducción y commentario [1992], remains unpublished, only her translation of Corippusʼ poems has been printed [1997]) whereas G. Caramico's commented edition of Book 5 has been announced for 2018, reducing the gap of uncommented books to two (6 and 7).
The lengthy introduction (pp. 9–65) discusses the usual topics: Corippus and his time, the structure and contents of Book 4, political and religious ʻidéologieʼ, historical value, language, metre and style, transmission and ʻTypologie littéraireʼ with a short analysis of the poemʼs literary forms.
Then follow the text and translation, preceded by a few remarks on G.ʼs (welcome) choice for ʻun apparat critique positifʼ (with a complete and careful list of all conjectures and emendations since P. Mazzucchelli's [henceforth M] ed. pr. of 1820), a conspectus siglorum and a list of manuscripts (but there is only the Trivultianus 686 [T]) and the five editions so far extant of the Iohannis. The main part of the book is the commentary (pp. 109–247) with an average of 4.3 lines commented upon per page (138pp. for 596vv.) which is a very reasonable ratio that does not overburden the reader's patience and capacity with too much detail. Finally, there are a ʻBibliographie raisonnéeʼ and two (selective) indexes of proper and ethnic names and of verborum et rerum notabiliorum.
In the introduction it is slightly disappointing that G. repeats the old views on the poet's life and works without at least discussing the new results by H. Hofmann, ʻFl. Cresconius Corippus: Textbestand und Überlieferungʼ, in: Corippe: un poète latin entre deux mondes (pp. 87–122), the papers of a colloquium organised and edited by G. himself (2015). G. rightly states that Book 4 is not ʻun livre de simple transitionʼ (p. 13) as one sometimes reads but rather ʻune étape logiquement et narrativement nécessaire, entre passé et présent, entre analyse psychologique et combat effectifʼ (p. 16) though one does not quite see what the label ʻiliadiqueʼ for Books 5–8 should explain, the more as Books 1–4 are, in G.ʼs view, ʻhistorique et psychologique … plus quʼ«odysséenne»ʼ (p. 15): ʻpsychologiqueʼ seems to be a favourite term of G., but he does not tell us what exactly it should mean in terms of literary hermeneutics whereas the ancient (Servius and Macrobius) bipartition of the Aeneid into ʻOdysseanʼ and ʻIliadicʼ has become obsolete (F. Cairns, Virgil's Augustan Epic [1989], pp. 177ff., and recently E. Dekel, Virgil's Homeric Lense [2012]): Ioh. 5–8 is no Iliad and 1–4 even less an Odyssey. In general, however, G.ʼs observations on the structure of Book 4, its position within the poem, its ʻtypologie littéraireʼ, i.e. the literary and generic techniques employed by Corippus, its ʻidéologie politique et religieuseʼ, its ʻintérêt historiqueʼ and, finally, its language, style (with reference mainly to V. Zariniʼs Rhétorique, poétique, spiritualité: la technique épique de Corippe dans la Johannide [2003], but much material had already been collected by E. Appel, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Corippus [1904], and A. Welzel, De Claudiani et Corippi sermone epico [1908]) and metre are sound and useful for the reader.
G. is the first editor of the Iohannis to adopt the new division between Books 4 and 5, convincingly demonstrated through a careful scrutiny of the practice of Giovanni De Bonis, the scribe of T, by G. Caramico and P. Riedlberger in MD 63 (2009), 203–8, so that Book 4 now has only 596 verses whereas 4.597–644 have to be counted as 5.*1–*48. The other 34 instances where his edition deviates from that of D–G are mainly minor matters of orthography or punctuation: more conservative than those and the previous editors and refraining from new conjectures (but in 326 he corrects T’s tesiphone in Tesiphonem against the editors’ Tisi-, and in 294 he recovers T’s true reading letique), G. often (and not without good reason) returns to the readings of T, for instance, in 284 (nostrisque favens against Pʼs and D–Gʼs nostrosque favens fac gaudia luctus), 286 (mentesque benignas as poetic plural), 539 (auratas against Mommsen's aeratas) or 565 (componit against Dʼs disponit), or to conjectures by previous editors not admitted into the text by D–G, for instance, in 1 (dum placet M), 172 (sua gravitate, keeping T’s gravitate with Mʼs sua against Pʼs and D-Gʼs gravi virtute), 444 (iaceant Bekker and editors against Dʼs nutant or nutent [in the app.]) or 471 (laetatur M against Bekkerʼs luctatur adopted by the editors). Less fortunate seem to me his decisions to leave 35–7 between 34 and 38 instead of transposing them between 201a and 201b, as D–G have done, to print in 121 Mʼs quid, instat instead of Dʼs quod instat (the enclitic quid is ʻobscurʼ, not temptare quod instat, as G. holds, and one gets rid of the genitive virtutis opus ‹sc. est› if one understands nunc est temptare, quod instat, / nunc ‹sc. est temptare› virtutis opus), or to leave in 216 Tʼs hoc, even if it has the (doubtful) quality of lectio difficilior, instead of printing Pʼs haec adopted by D–G, in 280 Tʼs tanta instead of Mʼs sancte, adopted by all editors, or in 420 Tʼs tenuit, adopted by most editors, instead of rescuing Pʼs tendit from the apparatus criticus (G.’s standard argument in refuting conjectures is that ‘la correction … ne s'impose pas’). But the text transmitted in T is notoriously bad, and there will always be much dissension among editors where to leave what De Bonis aut videt aut vidisse putat and where to intervene more or less rigorously.
The facing prose translation succeeds in rendering Corippus’ often somewhat difficult Latin in an extremely readable narrative that, even without the Latin text, can give a fair impression of the poet's literary qualities and rhetorical skills.
The commentary provides a wealth of linguistic, literary and historical information and exegesis that help both the beginner and the more advanced student to better understand the poem, in particular the fourth book, the epic tradition in which it is placed, its composition and its various contexts, but also the important historical information it contains additionally to the works of historiography by Procopius and the late chroniclers. This is not always easy in view of the book's bipartite structure (‘ce livre mixte’, p. 25) with the second part of Liberatus’ narrative of the preceding events (‘l’«archéologie»’, 1–246) and the preparations for military action under John Troglita (256–596): this ‘délicate question de l'unité du livre 4’ leads G. to the conclusion that this unity ‘n'existe pas ou qu'elle est, paradoxalement, à chercher dans la diversité’ (p. 25).
G.’s careful and thorough commentary makes his book a useful instrument for consultation and inspiration for further research. Its publication was a good day for both Corippus and the Iohannis, a true ʻJohannistagʼ.
