16 VALÉRY BERLINCOURT
test his dominant position in the exegetical tradition of this poem. This
is even truer of the editors: whatever the reasons, no one ever tried to
offer a new text of the poem for the next two centuries. This probably
had to do, at least in part, with Statius’ own declining reputation. Be
that as it may, in many respects Gronovius’ edition imposed itself ‘by
default’.^50
‘In pondere non magno satis ponderosae...’ At the end of this
study, Daum’s words appear in a new and rather unexpected light.
Though no one will cast doubt upon their cleverness, Gronovius’
notes, published in 1653 in a minute in-24° edition that was infinitely
easier to handle than the heavy volumes of Barth, discussed infinitely
fewer critical and exegetical issues than those of the German scholar.
With all its flaws, Barth’s commentary offered plenty of material that
could foster the reflection of commentators and editors; given their
relative thinness and their focus on emendation, Gronovius’ observa-
tions were of course unable to play a similar role themselves. We
know how the story ended. For the reasons given above, and probably
for many others as well, Gronovius’ edition had a lasting impact,
whereas that including Barth’s commentary was widely ignored or
even forgotten. In these conditions, I would suggest a different, and
deliberately polemical reading of Daum’s words. It is not only its little
physical weight, but also its rather modest achievement, that allows us
to label Gronovius’ edition a pondus non magnum. And if his notes, as
translations such as those of Michel de Marolles (Paris 1658, including material by
François Guyet and Jean de Peyrarède), Cornelio Bentivoglio d’Aragona (Milan
1731–2, with notes by Filippo Argelati) and William Lillington Lewis (Oxford 1767),
and of the Ad usum Delphini of Claudius Beraldus (Paris 1685).
50 We may compare the opposite situation of Gronovius’ works on Tacitus, whose
importance was underestimated by the later tradition because of different factors,
notably the confusion with the inferior works of his son Jacob and his grand-son
Abraham, which in some sense undermined his own authority: see Bugter 1980, 145–
- A similar confusion is found in an early criticism of Gronovius’ notes on the The-
baid, expressed by Walter Harte, author of a translation of Thebaid book 6 (London
1727; on the translation, see Vessey 1996, 22; Gillespie 1999, 167–70): ad 6.79–81
“[...] Gronovius (without any authority) thinks we should read spes avidi, instead of
avidae, still preserving the context, and referring credula to spes. I cannot approve of
this emendation for many reasons; we at once lose half the beauty. Besides, the repeti-
tion of in nomen would be tautology, if it did not refer to another person: nor can
urgere vestes be so properly applied to the father. Whoever reads this positive Dutch-
man’s preface to Ammianus Marcellinus, will never think him to be a man of sense, or
candor.” The work on Ammianus Marcellinus (Leiden 1693) was actually edited by
Jacob, not Johann Friedrich, Gronovius!