12 VALÉRY BERLINCOURT
may nevertheless be deemed significant, at least as an approximation).
Gronovius’ text is much nearer to Hill’s (1996a) than was the text of
Amsterdam 1630, and the comparison with any other modern edition
would lead to the same conclusion. We should therefore fully ac-
knowledge the generally positive effect of his interventions on the
printed textual tradition, which is still partly visible in modern schol-
arship, most notably in the texts and critical apparatuses of modern
editions,^37 and also in recent commentaries. On the other hand, it
should be observed that in a number of cases he dismissed what is
clearly considered the correct reading today.^38 In such cases we should
acknowledge that his action constituted a regression.
In order to appraise Gronovius’ printed text, however, this first
approach is hardly sufficient. It is equally important to take into ac-
count those passages where he chose not to alter the textus receptus,
and in particular those where we know that he was, or might have
been, aware of the existence of variant readings through the manu-
scripts he demonstrably consulted.^39 In many cases these variant read-
ings are undeniably inferior to the readings that he retained in his text;
however, sometimes they are clearly better—and a significant number
of them are preferred by modern editors.^40 We thus reach a conclusion
similar to that already made with reference to the notes: though
Gronovius’ active interventions on the text were often of great value,
37 Several readings conjectured by Gronovius’, though accepted in our texts, are of
course not attributed to him in the apparatuses since they were later confirmed by
manuscripts. In contrast, modern apparatuses sometimes ascribe to Gronovius (or to
other scholars) readings that are in fact present in earlier editions or in manuscripts
other than those used by modern editors: see Berlincourt 2006b.
38 Among the forty-three divergences in my sample of two hundred and seventy-
one passages, more than thirty had the effect of introducing the reading adopted by
Hill, fewer than ten that of suppressing it (in a few cases neither Amsterdam 1653 nor
Amsterdam 1630 has Hill’s reading). Amsterdam 1653 readings such as 3.533 sunt
and 3.574 bisseno ... die may be considered clearly inferior to Amsterdam 1630 sint
and bissenos ... dies (also in Hill).
39 I consider here only those variants which were neither inserted into the text nor
discussed in the notes. As we have seen above, some variants were defended in
Gronovius’ notes but not inserted into his text.
40 Better readings that Gronovius failed to insert into his text include e.g. the fol-
lowing, found in some or all of the manuscripts listed in n. 4: 3.89 nisu, 3.205 dura,
3.240 pugnare, 3.367 o ego, 3.392 animosaque pectora, 3.647 semel. It is particularly
remarkable that in most cases Gronovius maintained readings that are weakly attested,
not only in the manuscripts used by Hill, but also in the sixty other manuscripts I have
consulted (3.89 nixu, 3.205 dira, 3.240 pugnate, 3.392 animosque et pectora, 3.647
simul).