‘IN PONDERE NON MAGNO SATIS PONDEROSAE...’ 7
edition, Lyons 1665),^21 but also in the edition cum notis variorum
published by Johannes Veenhusen in Leiden in 1671. Largely thanks
to Veenhusen, their essential substance remained alive throughout the
entire printed tradition until the first half of the nineteenth century.^22
However, the extraordinary success of Gronovius’ edition in the
printed tradition of the Thebaid shows up even more clearly if we
consider its text, which, indeed, became the undisputed foundation of
almost every later edition until scholars at last began to base their
work on a comprehensive study of the manuscript tradition—that is,
until the second Teubner of Otto Müller in 1870.
The relationship between the fortune of the text printed in Grono-
vius’ edition and that of the exegetical material that accompanied it
also deserves mention. Its notes defended some variants that were not
inserted into the text, while, inversely, its text contained many innova-
tive readings that were not discussed in the notes. Now, throughout
the printed tradition of the Thebaid the text and the notes followed
almost entirely separate paths: both lived their own lives. In particular,
most editors created their own texts without taking into account earlier
exegetical material. This means, in this specific case, that almost none
of them adopted those variants that were discussed in the notes but
absent from the text of the 1653 edition.^23 However, given the fortune
of both his notes and his text this was no real threat to Gronovius: his
work nevertheless exercised a great influence over later editors of, and
commentators on, this poem.
In contrast, we may affirm without exaggeration that Barth’s edi-
tion had a limited effect upon the notes included in following editions
of the Thebaid, and almost no effect at all upon their texts. This con-
trast, however, is far from coincidental: on closer analysis, the poor
21 These three editions reproduce the size and arrangement of Gronovius’ original
edition, and its engraved title-page as well (though Gronovius’ name is omitted on
that of Lyons 1665).
22 For a brief survey of this exegetical tradition, see Berlincourt 2006a, 130–
(where my claims about the almost entirely derivative character of Paris 1685 need
qualification).
23 It is telling that one of the very few exceptions (i.e. one of the very few cases
where editors adopted a variant discussed in the notes but absent from the text of
Gronovius’ edition) concerns a passage where the text of Gronovius’ edition was
obviously erroneous: 3.71 ominibusque, present in his note, was immediately and
almost universally adopted instead of the unmetrical omnibusque of his printed text. A
few editions (all three re-editions Lyons 1665, Venice 1676 and Venice 1712, along
with Mannheim 1782) even reproduced this error.