‘IN PONDERE NON MAGNO SATIS PONDEROSAE...’ 13
many more would have been necessary to produce a truly good text of
the Thebaid; more significantly, he missed a considerable number of
opportunities to improve the textus receptus with the material to
which he had access.
On the whole, Gronovius’ edition appears less satisfactory than has
often been claimed. This is clearly the result not of any lack of critical
skill, but rather of the small amount of time he was able to dedicate to
the task. He undoubtedly did important preparatory work on the The-
baid, notably during his ‘Grand Tour’, but also earlier.^41 However, he
made very little use of it in the edition published in 1653. This is sug-
gested, for example, by the fact that he usually does not discuss in his
notes the better readings demonstrably attested in his sources but not
inserted into his text:^42 in many cases he very probably did not con-
sciously reject them, but simply reproduced the inferior reading of the
textus receptus without taking pains to check whether his manuscripts
contained a better variant. As a matter of fact, a letter he addressed to
N. Heinsius shortly before its publication describes the preparations
for this edition as having been hasty and superficial:^43
Ego rogatus a Ludovico Elzevirio perpaucos dies impendi P. Papinio
Statio; correxi nonnulla in contextu: et reliqua in Silvis, gustumque no-41 On Gronovius’ ‘Grand Tour’, Dibon and Waquet 1984, 1–36. Most of his earlier
work on Statius concerns the Silvae, to which he dedicated his Diatribe published in
1637 (see e.g. the conjectures sent him by Grotius, Paris, 28 Octobris 1636 [= Grotius
Correspondence VII 468–73, n° 2815], and van Dam in this volume 62–4), but work
on the Thebaid (and the Achilleid) is attested e.g. by the correspondence with Grotius
(see n. 36) and by a letter to N. Heinsius, The Hague, Prid. Id. Mart. 1637
[= Burmann 1727, III 14, n° 11], in which Gronovius expressed his desire to be in-
formed of others scholars’ work: “Cupio omnino ab omnibus, qui ad Statium notare
aliquid volent, aut poterunt, vel potuerunt, quae comminicare [sic] mecum voluerint,
accipere. Qualia enim cunque multorum erunt, servient mihi ad cogitandum. Sed
praestantiss. Scriverius, non dubito, quin multa egregia jam olim observarit ad majora
illa opera Poëtae mei, Thebaida dico & Achilleida. Constitutum autem mihi est, pro-
ferre & ostendere scriptorem illum, in quo semel non infeliciter rudimenta meorum ad
litteras juvandas conatuum posuisse videor. At etsi minime id mihi nunc ocium:
tamen suffurabor, quantum potero, subsicivarum horarum aliis studiis, ut eandem
operam expendam toti Statio. Nec profecto paucorum dierum ea res, & nosti, nihil
unquam nos properaturos, nec cruda, sed quantum quidem nostri ingenii (quod quam
exiguum sit, agnosco sane) calore fieri potest, percocta daturos.”
42 An exception can be found at 3.538. There he retains horrentesque in the text
and does indeed offer a detailed note in which he discusses the better variant
haerentesque—not to reject it, but to declare without hesitation his preference for it.
43 Cf. ad 8.515 (cited in n. 33), where Gronovius raises the possibility of returning
on another occasion to the point under discussion.