10 VALÉRY BERLINCOURT
weighing their evidence.^28 He takes great account of their respective
merits and, in particular, makes reference very often to the optimi or
meliores as a support for the preferred reading.^29 He tries to analyze
the origin of errors and to discover the true reading that lies behind
them.^30 He sometimes rejects all witnesses to put forward a conjecture
of his own, or one proposed by another scholar, but he does so cau-
tiously.^31 He also exploits the indirect tradition in a thorough and bal-
anced way.^32 He makes limited but precise use of parallel passages:
his intention is to avoid giving his reader huge masses of exegetical
material, a strategy that also obviously met the expectations of the
Elzeviers.^33
There is little to find fault with in Gronovius’ critical method, as
illustrated by his notes, though it is of course still conceived of as
being mere emendation of the textus receptus: usually his discussions
are well informed, his arguments sound, and his judgement balanced.
28 The situation is very different in Gronovius’ Tacitus, which makes extremely
little direct use of manuscript material: see Bugter 1980, 94–107.
29 Gronovius follows the “best manuscript(s)” (and sometimes, as well, the most
numerous) e.g. ad 1.112, 2.141, 2.327, 2.382, 2.484, 2.551, 2.573, 2.583, 3.71, 3.170,
3.368, 3.443, 3.583, 3.692, 3.696, 4.183, 4.227, 4.319, 4.528, 4.697, 4.843. Though he
considers g (see n. 4) his best manuscript (e.g. ad 2.551), for him antiquity (men-
tioned e.g. ad 2.538, 3.564) is not a criterion for excellence in itself. On his concep-
tion of the interrelations of manuscripts and on his notions of paleography with spe-
cial reference to Tacitus, see Bugter 1980, 107–23.
30 E.g. ad 3.71, where he explains the cunctisque of the textus receptus as an unfor-
tunate emendation of the unmetrical omnibusque (printed in the text of Amsterdam
1653, see n. 23), instead of the correct ominibusque; ad 3.564, where he notes that
corruptions frequently have their origin in the failure of editors to recognize Statius’
fondness for the ellipsis of esse in compound verbal forms.
31 E.g. ad 1.10, where he conjectures Tyriis (accepted by Hill 1996a) but also gives
arguments in favour of the rejected reading Tyrios. Other conjectures defended in the
notes include 6.313 [numbered 310] illi (accepted by Hill), 6.511 accursu (confirmed
by manuscripts, accepted by Hill). Cf. Bugter 1980, 111–23 on the prevalence of
emendatio ope codicum over emendatio ope ingenii in Gronovius’ work on Tacitus (in
spite of very limited direct access to the manuscripts, see n. 28).
32 The evidence of ‘Lactantius Placidus’ serves as a confirmation e.g. for 1.64
[numbered 65] arcto, 2.108 [numbered 89] scit, 2.551 deire, and 7.792 scit; that of
Priscian, for 2.573 confisus. The reading of the indirect tradition is rejected e.g. ad
4.697 (illis preferred to ‘Lactantius Placidus’’ illi), 4.714 (fluctibus preferred to ‘Lac-
tantius Placidus’’ fructibus), and 11.429 (alternos preferred to Priscian’s exter honos).
Gronovius’ choice is identical with Hill’s (1996a) in all cases except the last.
33 Restrictions imposed by the book-format are mentioned e.g. ad 1.33 “Nunc
tendo chelyn] [...] Pluribus haec possem: sed modus opusculi non capit.” and 8.515
“Habe totas, si mens exscindere, Thebas] [...] Vbi asteriscum posuimus, vox corrupta
est, de qua quid sentiamus, dicemus, ubi licebit latius exspatiari. [...]”