Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T12:18:42.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTRA MVNDVM, CONTRA METRVM: PROSPER OF AQUITAINE, A VICTIM OF PHILOLOGY (AD CONIVGEM SVAM 97)?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2026

Jesús Hernández Lobato
Jesús Hernández Lobato*
Affiliation:
University of Salamanca
*
jhlobato@usal.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper examines line 97 of the poem Ad coniugem suam, traditionally attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine. This line has been misedited in the last two critical editions by Hartel (1894) and Santelia (2009), whose unjustified omission of the words mundus and omnibus (respectively) resulted in an unmetrical line and distorted the meaning of the text. This paper, therefore, advocates for a restoration of the original line.

Keywords

Prosper of AquitaineLate AntiquityLatin literaturedactylic metrecritical editionmanuscripts

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press or the rights holder(s) must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

The polymetric poem Ad coniugem suam is a poet’s moving exhortation to his wife to cling to her Christian faith in the face of the dramatic events that shook Roman Gaul during the last decades of the empire (fifth century).Footnote 1 Although some scholars have proposed attributing this opuscule to Paulinus of Nola,Footnote 2 its traditional link with the Gallo-Roman poet Prosper of Aquitaine (c.390–c.463) seems clearly more likely. The poem, in fact, has almost always been transmitted as a sort of appendix to the celebrated Epigrammata of Prosper of Aquitaine, which has given it a very wide manuscript transmission.Footnote 3 Of all these codices, only two, the tenth-century Reginensis Lat. 230 (R) and the eleventh-century Casinensis 226 (C), have served as the basis for the two most recent editions of the poem by Hartel (1894) and by Santelia (2009). In both editions, line 97 has fallen victim to certain editorial decisions that are difficult to justify; they have not only disfigured the poem but also created a huge metrical problem where it did not exist before. Paradoxically, the editors do not seem to have realized the unintended consequences of their actions, since at no point do they mention them.

The poem consists of a short introductory section in anacreontics (lines 1–16) followed by a much longer part, comprising fifty-three elegiac couplets (lines 17–122). Line 97 is one of the dactylic hexameters at the head of one of these couplets. The manuscript tradition has unanimously transmitted the line as follows:

non metuo exilium, mundus domus omnibus una est.

Its meaning is transparent. The poet does not fear exile (non metuo exilium), since the world is like a great house (mundus domus … est), unique and common to the whole human race (omnibus una).Footnote 4 Wherever he is confined, he will still feel at home; wherever he is on the planet, there will be his homeland. The entire manuscript tradition (including MSS R and C) conveys the words that make up this line in this very way. Only one small variant is found in R, which gives the reading mandus instead of mundus. This is obviously a copyist’s error, easily explained by the graphic similarity of the letters u and a in Caroline minuscule.Footnote 5 This was the understanding of all editors of the poem prior to Hartel (1894), including Le Brun des Marettes and Mangeant (1711) in their influential edition,Footnote 6 which was later reproduced in volume 51 of Migne’s Patrologia Latina (1846).

Surprisingly, without giving any reason, Hartel chooses to omit the word mundus, which, judging by what he writes in his critical apparatus, he seems to mistakenly consider as an addition from his two reference manuscripts (R and C).Footnote 7 Naturally, this omission has serious consequences: the resulting hexameter is unmetrical (missing a foot). The line as mutilated by Hartel (non metuo exilium, domus omnibus una est) would not be metrically correct as a pentameter either. Moreover, this would require postulating the existence of two lacunae in the text: a ‘missing’ hexameter before and another after line 97; Hartel does not mention such textual gaps at any point. Hartel, therefore, does not seem to have been aware of the problem generated by his editorial decision: he does not mark the line with a crux philologorum nor does he offer a single comment on the line’s presumed anomaly. The line amended contra metrum by Hartel appears in this form in the influential Brepols Library of Latin Texts (LLT) database.

The most recent edition by Santelia (2009) again intervenes on line 97, but in an equally unfortunate way.Footnote 8 On the one hand, it reintroduces the term omitted by Hartel (mundus) but amends it into a genitive mundi which makes it dependent on exilium. This amendment is completely unnecessary,Footnote 9 but at least it would have the virtue of restoring metrical correctness to the hexameter mutilated by Hartel. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Inexplicably, Santelia chooses to omit the word omnibus unanimously transmitted by the whole manuscript tradition (and maintained by all previous editors, including Hartel); this again leaves the hexameter truncated, that is, lacking one of its metrical feet: non metuo exilium mundi, domus una est. Neither in the critical apparatus nor in the following commentary is any justification given for such an intervention contra metrum. In fact, if we had only Santelia’s edition, we would be totally unaware of the existence of the word omnibus in the manuscript tradition of this line. Nor is the unmetrical character of the mutilated line mentioned in the extensive introductory study on the poem’s metres, in which the author claims to have thoroughly analysed the fifty-three hexameters of which the poem is composed.Footnote 10 The book’s reviewer in Bryn Mawr Classical Review also fails to note the metrical impossibility of Santelia’s proposal, which he praises in a very succinct, if inaccurate, footnote.Footnote 11

The omission of omnibus is not, as might perhaps be expected, a fortuitous typographical error. The translation provided by the author, always very close to the Latin text and praiseworthy, shows no trace of the eliminated term: ‘Non temo l’esilio di questo mondo: una sola è la casa’—we would expect a ‘per tutti’, which never appears. The line amended contra metrum by Santelia appears in the excellent online database Musisque Deoque (MQDQ). Interestingly, this database offers the possibility of a complete metrical scanning of the piece, carried out automatically by the programme Pedecerto. Santelia’s line 97, as expected, is the only verse that resists this metrical analysis, appearing blank.

In short: Hartel’s and Santelia’s unjustifiable editorial decisions have seriously disfigured the poem Ad coniugem suam by proposing a mutilated and unmetrical line. Their respective critical apparatuses rob the reader of the relevant information needed to understand what has happened and do not point out in any way the unmetrical character of the resulting verse. The diffusion they enjoy in the main databases of Latin texts canonizes a version of line 97 entirely alien to the original text and to the metrical and prosodic neatness of its author. Therefore, the only reasonable option is to restore this line to its original state, thus giving back to Prosper what philology in the late nineteenth and early twenty-first centuries has stolen from him.

Footnotes

*

This study forms part of the Research Project PID2021-124503NB-I00. I thank CQ’s referees for their useful suggestions.

References

1 On this short piece, see P. Menna, ‘Illud carmen quod Ad coniugem inscribitur, divi Paulini Nolani sitne an divi Prosperi Aquitani’, Latinitas 10 (1962), 208–14; M. Cutino, ‘Continuità e innovazione nella poesia latina del V sec. in Gallia: il protrettico alla conversione’, Auctores nostri 4 (2006), 311–50; R. Chiappiniello, ‘The Carmen ad uxorem and the genre of the epithalamium’, in W. Otten and K. Pollmann (edd.), Poetry and Exegesis in Premodern Latin Christianity. The Encounter between Classical and Christian Strategies of Interpretation (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 115–38; S. Santelia, ‘Storie di donne nella Gallia di età romanobarbarica’, in P. Brunel and G. Dotoli (edd.), La femme en Méditerranée (Fasano and Paris, 2008), 85–95; S. Santelia, ‘Fida comes o ianua mortis? L’Ad coniugem di Prospero d’Aquitania e il Commonitorium di Orienzio’, BStudLat 39 (2009)(a), 507–32; S. Santelia, ‘Modelli femminili nella tarda antichità’, VetChr 48 (2011), 335–57. The most recent edition, accompanied by an interesting introduction and a useful commentary, is that of S. Santelia (ed.), Prospero d’Aquitania: Ad coniugem suam. In appendice: Liber epigrammatum (Studi latini 68) (Naples, 2009[b]), on which see below.

2 The initiative came from H. Rosweyd (ed.), Divi Paulini episcopi Nolani opera (Antwerp, 1622) and was taken up by W.A. Hartel (ed.), Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani carmina (Vienna, 1894) (CSEL 30), who relegated the poem to the Appendix (344–8). On the uexata quaestio of the poem’s attribution, see Santelia (n. 1 [2009(b)]), 50–1; J. Delmulle, ‘Establishing an authentic list of Prosper’s works’, Studia Patristica 69 (2013), 213–32, at 226–7.

3 We can cite at least six main manuscripts, here listed in chronological order. Ninth century: Parisinus Lat. 2832 (fols. 30v–32v, with the title Prosperi de uitiis morum lapsae rei publicae); tenth century: Reginensis Lat. 230 (fols. 114r–115v, with the title Versus Prosperi Ad coniugem suam); eleventh century: Casinensis 226 (pages 278–81, with the title incipit tetrametron), Cantabrigiensis Univ. Libr. Gg. V 35 (fols. 146r–148r, with the title Tironis Prosperi exortatio ad uxorem), Parisinus Lat. 2399 (fols. 108v–111v, with the title Versus Prosperi militis), Reginensis Lat. 206 (fols. 57r–58v, without title). To these should be added another fifteen or so manuscripts identified and described by Horsting in the introduction to his edition of the Liber epigrammatum of Prosper of Aquitaine: see A.G.A. Horsting (ed.), Prosper Aquitanus. Liber Epigrammatum (Berlin and Boston, 2016) (CSEL 100), 25–41. Santelia (n. 1 [2009(b)]), 11 n. 13 notes, moreover, that the poem ‘è tradito anche come Exhortatio ad uxorem da una ventina di codici parigini’, which further increases the number of testimonies. Cf. Cutino (n. 1), 312–13 n. 7. Moreover, on some occasions it has been transmitted alone, i.e. detached from the corpus of Epigrammata of Prosper of Aquitaine: see Santelia (n. 1 [2009(b)]), 12 n. 16. On the manuscript tradition of Prosper’s works, see F. Sciuto, ‘Nonnulla de codicibus Prosperi Aquitani’, MSLC 9 (1959), 19–24.

4 The end of this line evokes Sil. Pun. 13.525 innumeri quondam populi. domus omnibus una. I owe this reference to one of the referees.

5 Moreover, the reading of mandus in the manuscript (available online) is not obvious: it could even be that the letter <a> was scraped to be transformed into <u>.

6 J.B. Le Brun des Marettes and L.U. Mangeant (edd.), S. Prosperi Aquitani, S. Augustini discipuli, S. Leonis papae primi notarii, Opera omnia ad manuscriptos codices, necnon ad editiones antiquiores et castigatiores emendata, nunc primum secundum ordinem temporum disposita, et Chronico integro eiusdem, ab ortu rerum usque ad obitum Valentiniani tertii et Romam a Vandalis captam pertinente, locupletata. Quibus praefigitur eiusdem S. Prosperi Aquitani Vita, ex operibus ipsius et Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum libris concinnata (Paris, 1711).

7 As far as I have been able to verify personally, the term mundus appears in other manuscripts (probably in all of them). This is the case, for example, in Reginensis Lat. 206 (fol. 58v), available online. As one of the referees kindly informs me, mundus also figures in the following manuscripts, consulted by Michele Cutino for his forthcoming new edition of the poem: Ambrosianus C 74 sup., saec. IX in.; Antverpiensis 84, saec. XI; Cantabrigiensis Corpus Christi Coll. 448, saec. X; Cantabrigiensis Trin. Coll. 1135, saec. X; Cantabrigiensis Univ. Libr. Gg. V 35, saec. XI; Casinensis 226, saec. XI; Erfuntensis 32, saec. XI; Gandavensis 615, saec. XII; Guelferbytanus 1646, saec. XII; Matritensis 141, saec. XIV; Monacensis 815, saec. XIV; Monacensis 3215, saec. XIII; Oxoniensis Burney 344, saec. XII; Parisinus Lat. 544, saec. X; Parisinus Lat. 2399, saec. XI; Parisinus Lat. 2774, saec. XII; Sangallensis 187, saec. IX; Trecensis 1722, saec. XI ex.; Vaticanus Reg. 230, saec. XI in.

8 Perhaps for this reason M. Cutino, ‘Réflexion éthique et historique des poètes chrétiens en Gaule au Ve s. face aux invasions barbares’, in N. Catellani-Dufrêne and J.L. Perrin (edd.), La lyre et la pourpre (Rennes, 2012), 151–64, at 152 n. 6 considers this annotated edition, though valuable in many other respects, ‘une occasion manquée car elle ne règle pas la question de la paternité du poème avec des arguments décisifs et, surtout, elle ne fournit pas un texte plus fiable que celui publié par W. von Hartel’.

9 Santelia (n. 1 [2009(b)]), 96 on line 97 cites Tert. Resurr. 8.9 and Jer. Adu. Rufin. 2.12 as parallels for the expression exilium mundi, which she interprets metaphorically as the ‘esilio rappresentato dalla vita nel mondo’. In fact, in lines 91–7 the poet is simply enumerating the different penalties with which a convicted person can be punished, aiming to show that faith is capable of overcoming them all: torture (lines 91–2), prison (lines 93–4), death penalty (lines 95–6) and exile (lines 97–8). He is speaking, therefore, of a literal exile, not of a symbolic one.

10 Santelia (n. 1 [2009(b)]), 21–9, who paradoxically lists (at 24 n. 55) line 97 among those whose fifth metrical place is occupied by a dactylic word; this can only be true if the word omnibus of the manuscripts is maintained in the text.

11 R. Chiappiniello, ‘Review of Stefania Santelia, Prospero d’Aquitania: Ad coniugem suam. In appendice: Liber epigrammatum. Studi latini 68. Napoli: Loffredo editore, 2009’, BMCR 2010.12.71 (https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.71/), n. 2: ‘Finally, at line 97 Santelia corrects the lectio of the MSS and prints mundi (mandus in the Reginensis, mundus in the Casinensis): non metuo exsilium mundi, domus una est. Hartel’s edition reads non metuo exsilium, domus omnibus una est where omnibus is Hartel’s conjecture.’ In reality, as we know, omnibus was not Hartel’s conjecture but the unanimous lectio tradita of the manuscripts, taken up by all previous editors.