WANDERING WOODS AGAIN 63
that he could resend his notes; but that it was too late now as Grono-
vius and others had already forestalled most of his remarks. Gronovius
replied, of course, that he was so glad that all his worrying over
Grotius’ not answering had been for nothing, and that, of course, there
was nothing he would like more than having Grotius’ notes. Appar-
ently undaunted by these mishaps, he requested Grotius’ notes on the
epics only a few days later. A month later he repeated the request.
Grotius remained in doubt about Gronovius’ loyalty until 10 Decem-
ber, when, at last, he sent Gronovius his marginal notes on the
Achilleid and Thebaid. His brother read them together with Gronovius
and found them moving (!).^56
This is not quite the end of Grotius’ work on Statius as it is re-
flected in his letters; in 1639 he corresponded on the text of the Silvae
with the French scholar Peyrarède from Bordeaux, and the men ex-
changed notes and conjectures. Grotius even decided to leave his
notes on Statius to Peyrarède; but this is for another time.^57
56 Grotius Correspondence no 3 212, 19.VIII.1637 (p. 500), to Gronovius “(Com-
pliments for the Diatribe) Epistolae quam dudum est quod ad me miseras respon-
deram epistola satis longa, in qua annotaveram quaecumque a me olim, Silvas Pap-
inianas cum legerem, margini erant allita; miror eam ad te non pervenisse. Habeo ejus
exemplum, sed non mitto; foret enim inutilis is labor cum pleraque partim abs te
partim ab aliis, quos ego non videram, sunt occupata, quaedam autem mea cogitata,
ita probabilia ut alia non minus probabilia tibi aut aliis in mentem venerint”. Grono-
vius replied “require epistolam tuam ab eo cui curandam mandasti, aut, siquidem
amicorum vel latorum neglegentia periit, quae me iactura maxime ferit, recollige tuas
meditationes et vel sero mecum communica” (no 3228, 29.VIII.1637( p. 524)). In no
326 7, 25.IX.1637 (p. 594), Gronovius asked for Grotius’ help with the epics, and
included some corrected pages of the Diatribe. Grotius communicated his doubts to
his brother in no 3209, 15.VIII.1637 (p. 496) “... Forte fuere qui ei suaderent id [that
he had received my notes] ut dissimularet, ne cogeretur saepe mei facere mentionem
...”, 3321, 31.X.1637 (p. 682) “... quae ad Silvas annotaveram. Puto ei per te missa. ...
arbitror Lugdunenses magistros, quorum amicitia utitur, obstitisse quominus mei
meminisset et consilium dedisse dissimulandi accepta. Willem’s reaction was, under-
standably, somewhat piqued, no 3348, 16.XI.1637 (p. 730) “Scio me aliquas domi
ipsius detulisse epistolas; an notae Statianae iis inclusae fuerint nescio. Rogo ut ea
quae ipsi tradi velis non occlusa mihi mittas et sponsorem me offero ex animi tui
sententia actum iri. In 3393, 21.XII.1637 (p. 808) Willem writes “legi cum Gronovio
Statiana errata ... lustravi et notas, quae me valde affecerunt ...”.
57 Grotius Correspondence no 4167, 16.VI.1639 (p. 407), from Claude Sarrau, no
417 5, 18.VI.1639 (p. 407), to Claude Sarrau, no 4226, 27.VII.1639 (p. 487), to Claude
Sarrau. I conclude with a complete list of letters in which Grotius refers to Statius and
his own conjectures or those of others (by number only, easily identified in Grotius
Correspondence): 452, 499, 691, 1504, 2134, 2775, 2815, 2992, 3209, 3212, 3228,
3233, 3267, 3321, 3325, 3348, 3363, 3371, 3377, 3383, 3393, 3405, 3418, 3442A (in