‘IN PONDERE NON MAGNO SATIS PONDEROSAE...’ 11
This mixture of qualities brought good results. On the other hand,
clever as they were, Gronovius’ notes remained sporadic: they greatly
improved the text and interpretation of some passages, but neglected
many others that were just as much in need of attention.
Assessing the quality of Gronovius’ text is no easy task. It is diffi-
cult, in particular, to avoid adopting an excessively teleological per-
spective. The comparison with modern editions is only partly relevant,
since the latter have a totally different basis and benefit from a much
better understanding of the manuscript tradition, at least in qualitative
terms;^34 moreover, the readings accepted nowadays are not always
clearly better than alternative readings. In order to judge his achieve-
ment fairly, it would be necessary to compare it with all the critical
material that was actually known to him—which is clearly impossible.
In these conditions, a mixed approach seems advisable.
Let us consider first Gronovius’ active intervention on the textus
receptus, that is, on the text of the Amsterdam edition of 1630 that he
used as the basis of his own.^35 It is often difficult or even impossible
to trace back precisely the origin of the discrepancies;^36 what matters
more for the present purpose, however, is their high overall number.
Gronovius’ text is indeed remarkably original—at least in comparison
with the other printed editions of the Thebaid, which are usually much
closer to their respective models. But what is the value of these emen-
dations? A general indication is given by the proportion of those
which had the effect of introducing into the text, or on the contrary of
suppressing from it, readings we today consider correct (though the
teleological bias I mentioned above is clearly present, this information
34 In quantitative terms, by contrast, the diversity of readings found in the manu-
scripts, and in particular in the recentiores potentially used by early editors, vastly
exceeds that shown in modern apparatuses.
35 The text of Amsterdam 1630 is nearly identical to that of Amsterdam 1624,
which itself reproduces with slight alterations that of Gevartius (Leiden 1616). On
Gevartius’ role in fostering the interest in Statius in the Northern Netherlands, see van
Dam 1996a, 320–2; on his edition, see further Hoc 1922, 88–98.
36 Cf. n. 1. In the 1630s Gronovius received from Grotius suggestions on the Silvae
(see van Dam in this volume, 62–3), but also on the Thebaid and the Achilleid: see in
particular Grotius Correspondence vol. VIII 532–6, n° 3233 (with 536 n. 1); VIII
754–5, n° 3363; VIII 779–80, n° 3377; VIII 788–9, n° 3383; VIII 808, n° 3393; IX
28–31, n° 3418; IX 95, n° 3460. Cf. Billerbeck 1997, 367–9 and passim, who shows
that in his edition of Seneca’s tragedies Gronovius tacitly made use of N. Heinsius’
collations, notes and conjectures. On the use and appropriation of Grotius’ material by
Gevartius, see van Dam 1996a, 322.