4 VALÉRY BERLINCOURT
contrast Gronovius’ work with Barth’s, and in particular with his
forthcoming Statius? The answer largely depends on those we shall
give to two other questions. 1) Was its progress then so far advanced
that it might already look like a magnum pondus (and as non pondero-
sum)? 2) What were then Daum’s, and Reinesius’, personal relation-
ship with Barth and opinion of his work?
- How far had Barth progressed with his commentary on the
Flavian poet in 1654? Much remains to be done in order to clarify the
chronology, one of the main questions being in what measure his in-
creasingly bad health allowed Barth to work during his last years.^10
However, the exegetical material posthumously published in 1664–
is clearly the result of a very complex stratification ranging over vari-
ous decades. Though some notes mention Barth’s second commentary
on Claudian,^11 the overall impression is that most of it was written
well before 1650, and later updated only in a superficial way. This
early date can be demonstrated for some notes which refer to contem-
porary events,^12 and its general validity is suggested ex silentio by the
fact that, while quoting countless other scholars, Barth’s Statius ap-
parently never mentions Gronovius (not even his Diatribe, published
in 1637).^13 Daum was of course perfectly aware of this progress given
his close friendship with Barth. Reinesius himself cannot have been
unaware of it. His published epistolary exchange with Daum gives us
no precise information in this respect, nor, indeed, do those with other
tion. Vous n’avez pas mal employé la lecture que vous avez faite du Commentaire de
Barthius puisque vous y avez trouvé que vous ne vous rencontriez guère avec lui et
qu’il vous laissait vos richesses tout entières.”). Cf. n. 20.
10 The elaboration of Barth’s Statius will be discussed elsewhere. For Barth’s
biography, Hoffmeister 1931, 1–10. Barth’s sight was badly damaged in 1637 (for the
date, Clemen 1921, 274) during a siege at Leipzig, and from then on it progressively
deteriorated; contemporary epistolary exchanges suggest that the condition of his
health from 1650 onwards was often critical.
11 E.g. ad 7.114: “Svadeat.] Narret, recenseat. Vide qvae de usu hujus verbi multis
docemus ad Claudiani Panegyricum Manlianum, secundae Recensionis. [...]”
12 Reference is made to the wars in Germany e.g. ad 3.234 (“Incendere.] Revera
bona mente incendio bellum comparatur, qvod per nostras has regiones jam qvintum-
decimum annum experimur. Adeo talibus flammis sopiendis lenti sunt omnes latices.
[...]”) and 11.579 (“Soli memorent haec praelia Reges.] [...] Nostro sane misero
aevo, unius hominis Ambitione viginti jam annis bello ardet, & pene conflagrat, Ger-
mania.”).
13 Gronovius’ name does not appear in the copious indexes compiled by Daum,
and I have searched for it in vain in the commentaries not only on the Thebaid but
also on the Silvae.