‘IN PONDERE NON MAGNO SATIS PONDEROSAE...’ 5
scholars.^14 As early as 1649, however, Daum had written to Reinesius
that Barth was working hard on a commentary on Statius^15 (which also
lends support to the early date proposed above).
2) Do Daum’s and Reinesius’ relationship with, and opinion of,
Barth make it probable that the letter of February 1654 alluded to
some negative judgment on his work? As far as Daum is concerned,
there can be no doubt that the relationship was harmonious and the
opinion positive. On the other hand, Reinesius and Barth were on bad
terms. Since the first letters, dated 1649, the published correspondence
between Reinesius and Daum bears witness to Barth’s hostility to-
wards Reinesius, who often criticized his work,^16 and it is widely con-
ce rned, as a whole, with Daum’s efforts to rehabilitate his friend.
Elsewhere tensions are already evident in 1644,^17 and Reinesius is
found attacking an opinion of Barth’s just one month before Daum
praised Gronovius’ Statius.^18 We cannot therefore exclude the possi-
bility that Daum’s letter reflected some kind of criticism expressed by
Reinesius. More specifically, Reinesius himself had earlier informed
Daum that a friend of his contrasted the monstrous length of Barth’s
second Claudian with the commendable brevity of N. Heinsius’
commentary and described the latter as having been “made by the
hands of the Muses and the Graces”. Now, that friend of Reinesius’
was... Gronovius.^19 The qualities that Daum praised in Gronovius
14 I have consulted on this point Reinesius’ published correspondences with Jo-
hannes Vorstius (1647–66) [= Reinesius 1667], ad Nesteros patrem et filium (1626–
55) [= Reinesius 1669], and with Johannes Andreas Bosius (1653–66) [= Schmidius
1700].
15 Daum to Reinesius, Zwickau, Id. Octobr. 1649 [= Bosius 1670, 7, n° 3]: “Ovid-
ianum locum in nulla Editione vidi emendatum. [...] Nisi Janus Gebhardus fecerit,
cujus Antiquae Lectiones non sunt ad manum. Papiniana si olim incidisset, potuissem
consulere Commentarium Mei Amici, cujus industria in hoc Poëta illustrando magna
est ac prorsus singularis; qui forte, post Claudianum, jam sub praelo sudantem, pub-
lico dabitur: [...].”
16 Reinesius to Daum, Altenburg, Nonis Oct. 1649 [= Bosius 1670, 2–3, n° 2]:
“Non ego eo Te minus amabo, quo me magis odit amicus ille tuus [= Barth] ob liber-
rimam censuram, quam tamen iniquam esse alicubi nondum docuit; etsi, ut audio,
minetur.”
17 Reinesius ad Nesteros, Altenburg, 14. Sept. 1644 [= Reinesius 1669, 47, n° 27].
18 Reinesius to Bosius, Altenburg, 24. Jan. 1654 [= Schmidius 1700, 129, n° 29].
19 Reinesius to Daum, Altenburg, Cal. Febr. 1651 [= Bosius 1670, 55–6, n° 17]:
“Non celabo Te quid de comm°. Tui in Claudianum nuper e Transisulana ad me
scripserit amicus: Vidisti, inquit; interea immanem B. comm. in Clavdianum & pro-
mitti illic jam CLXX. Librum Adversariorum? At sustine & videbis brevi librum per-
pusillum, sed Musarum & Gratiarum manu factum, Clavdianum cum Notis & ex