No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 March 2016
The edition of Statius which Johannes Fredericus Gronovius (1611–1671) published in Amsterdam in 1653 is acknowledged as the most significant stage in the evolution of the printed text of the Thebaid before the late nineteenth century. J.B. Hall rightly stresses that, in spite of some blemishes, it is the first edition of Statius' works which ‘shows the application of much thought to the editorial process’ and ‘deserves to be called critical in the fullest sense’. In accordance with contemporary practice, Gronovius aimed not at establishing Statius' text through a reconstruction of the manuscript tradition but, rather, at selectively correcting a printed textus receptus. The prototype used for producing the text of his edition was the text of the edition of Amsterdam 1630 (a reproduction of that of Amsterdam 1624, itself derived from Gevartius' edition of Leiden 1616). Gronovius' text is not beyond reproach, even when judged from the perspective of the textus receptus. The number of passages corrected remains indeed limited. It is, however, higher than in any other printed text between the first Aldine (Venice, 1502) and the edition of Müller (Leipzig, 1870). More importantly, Gronovius' corrections are usually of great value, and many of them promote readings that are still considered correct today. From the disappointingly short commentary (‘gustus’) in which Gronovius discussed a few problematic passages, it can be clearly seen that his corrections relied on solid information and good skills. Although Gronovius' knowledge of the textual transmission of Statius did not compare with Heinsius' knowledge of that of Ovid, his edition stands out, in the tradition of the Thebaid, for the numerous manuscripts it made use of: eleven (at least), as we learn from his commentary.
I am deeply grateful to the Société Académique de Genève, which provided me with the funds that enabled me to examine the manuscripts of the British Library, and to the Scaliger Institute of Leiden University Library for granting me a Scaliger Fellowship which made it possible for me to carry out an in-depth study of Gronovius's documents. Thanks are also due to Cillian O'Hogan, Curator of Classical and Byzantine Studies at the British Library, for his generous and highly competent assistance with the manuscript Royal 15.C.X in the final stages of this article, and to Michael Dewar and Mark Heerink for inspiring exchanges. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation of the valuable criticism and suggestions received from CQ's anonymous reader.
2 P. Papinii Statii opera ex recensione et cum notis I. Frederici Gronovii (Amsterdam, 1653).
3 See notably J.B. Hall in J.B. Hall, A.L. Ritchie and M.J. Edwards (edd.), P. Papinius Statius: Thebaid and Achilleid (Newcastle, 2007–8), 3.60–1; V. Berlincourt, ‘“In pondere non magno satis ponderosae…”: Gronovius and the printed tradition of the Thebaid’, in J.J.L. Smolenaars, H.-J. van Dam and R.R. Nauta (edd.), The Poetry of Statius (Leiden, 2008), 1–18 and V. Berlincourt, Commenter la Thébaïde (16e–19e s.): Caspar von Barth et la tradition exégétique de Stace (Leiden, 2013), 94 and 98.
4 Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.60.
5 See E.J. Kenney, The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book (Berkeley, 1974), 18–20.
6 On the different kinds of prototypes used for the typographic composition of classical texts, and on the specific use of a corrected copy of a previous edition (the so-called manuscrit belge), see A. Severyns, Texte et apparat: histoire critique d'une tradition imprimée (Brussels, 1962), 19–20.
7 Publii Papinii Statii opera omnia Ianus Casperius Gevartius recensuit et Papinianarum lectionum lib. V illustravit (Leiden, 1616). Pub. Papinius Statius denuo ac serio emendatus (Amsterdam, 1624). Pub. Papinius Statius denuo ac serio emendatus (Amsterdam, 1630). The text of 1653, which is much closer to the texts of 1616, 1624 and 1630 than to any other, agrees with that of 1630 against those of 1616 and 1624 on readings such as 3.257 flumine (corrected to flamine in the errata) and 3.392 animosque et pectora, as observed in Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 98; cf. Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 11.
8 For a detailed and balanced assessment, see Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 11–15.
9 Gronovius's notes are discussed by Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.60–1, Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 9–11 and Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 99–102 and passim.
10 See the systematic studies of Reeve, M.D., ‘Heinsius's manuscripts of Ovid’, RhM 117 (1974), 133–66Google Scholar and Reeve, M.D., ‘Heinsius's manuscripts of Ovid: a supplement’, RhM 119 (1976), 65–78 Google Scholar. As stated by Reeve (this note [1976]), 76–7, Heinsius collated 286 manuscripts, and had at his disposal full collations of 10 other and excerpta from at least 26 more.
11 Ad Theb. 11.191: ‘Neges urnaque reponas] In scriptis undecim reperi: Alitibus fratrique tegas urnamque reportes. […]’ The catalogue by H.J. Anderson, The Manuscripts of Statius (Arlington VA, 20092), 1.1–487 (cf. 1.XXXI and the table at 2.2) lists 254 manuscripts of the Thebaid, the vast majority of which include the whole poem.
12 See Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.61, 3.118, 3.122 and 3.131–2; cf. V. Berlincourt, Textes et commentaires de la Thébaïde de Stace à l’ère de l'imprimerie: transmission et histoire culturelle (1470–1851) (Doctoral Thesis, Neuchâtel, 2008), 486. For a codicological description of the manuscripts of Statius mentioned in the present article, see Anderson (n. 11). The sigla used here and below are those of Hall, Ritchie and Edwards.
13 All the manuscripts listed in this paragraph have been used in some or all editions since Müller 1870, with the exception of U4, first used by Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3). H, O and P are among the primary manuscripts of Hall, Ritchie and Edwards.
14 On these points, see Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 10 and Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 246–7.
15 While Gronovius's edition (contrary to previous editions) includes lines 10.100–5, the line count in his commentary ignores these lines. Further, the commentary erroneously refers to his line 165 as 166.
16 Quoted by Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.61.
17 Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.639 (secondary apparatus ad loc.) states that he has been unable to determine the source from which Gronovius quoted the reading furor. Compare furorque reported in the edition of D.E. Hill, P. Papini Stati Thebaidos libri XII (Leiden, 1983), not from a British manuscript but from Leipzig Universitätsbibliothek Rep. I 12 (L).
18 On Gronovius's travels, see P. Dibon and F. Waquet, Johannes Fredericus Gronovius, pèlerin de la République des Lettres: recherches sur le voyage savant au XVIIe siècle (Geneva, 1984).
19 Codicological description in Anderson (n. 11), 1.165–6 No. 249.
20 The relationship is particularly clear in part f, fol. [23r], which contains a note on Theb. 1.10 very similar to that printed in the edition.
21 The development that follows improves on Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 96–7, who proposes to identify R as the manuscript collated by Young with reference to four passages only, and neither establishes the relationship with the edition nor discusses the case of 10.171, which is crucial in this regard. Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 2 tentatively identifies R as a source of the edition, but does not discuss Young's collation.
22 On the relationship between R, T and W (2.70–469 and 10.753–11.100), see Williams, R.D., ‘The Worcester fragments of Statius' Thebaid ’, CR 61 (1947), 88–90 Google Scholar; Williams, R.D., ‘Two manuscripts of Statius' Thebaid ’, CQ 42 (1948), 105–12Google Scholar; and Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.152–6.
23 2.90 illapsus, 2.250 expulsa, 3.211 rubetis are reported by Müller 1870 but not by later editors; 2.118 federe is reported by Müller 1870 and Kohlmann 1884 but not by later editors; 3.158 dolorem is reported by Müller 1870 and later editors, but not by Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3).
24 R also has (like T W) quierant v.l., not reported by Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3).
25 Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek Gronovianus 62, fol. 131v, ad 10.171 [166]: ‘consumtaque brachia furor. sed hoc inducto marg. ferro.’
26 See Reeve (n. 10 [1976]), 77.
27 Quoted by Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.61.
28 Cf. introduction and n. 12.
29 Young's collation of R discussed above does not quote the reading pectore, and this reading cannot be deduced from the edition against which the collation was made (Lyon, 1598), since tempore, not pectore, is printed in that edition.
30 Cf. n. 7.
31 The manuscripts described in the first note are also mentioned in Gronovius's letter to Isaac Vossius, s.l. [London], 16 June (VIII Eid. Jun. Jul.) 1639, edited in Dibon and Waquet (n. 18), 57 No. 13: ‘Duos tamen mss. Thebaidis statianae, arundellianum alterum, alterum Pat. Junii contuli.’
32 The manuscript of Arundel is quoted in the notes on lines 6.718, 9.551 and 10.142 [136], and that of Magdalen College in the note on line 4.528.
33 U4: notably 1.214 exatiabile, 1.478 mulcente and rege, 1.518 alteque, 1.656 figunt. O: notably 1.49 indignantem, 1.255 saeptisque, 1.379 magna.
34 ‘Patritii Iunii’ in the quotation above. Cf. ‘Pat. Junii’ in the letter quoted in n. 31.
35 The identification of R as the manuscript ‘of Young’ mentioned in the letter quoted in n. 31, proposed in Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 97, must therefore be discarded.
36 These missing folios are not reported in Anderson (n. 11), 1.212 No. 319.
37 This list results from my own inspection of the manuscript. The edition of Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3) does not report its readings at 1.85, 2.658, 3.415, 4.712, 7.712, 10.305, 11.434, a silence to be explained by the fact that U3 features among the secondary manuscripts, which are cited only selectively.
38 The shape and dimensions of U3 are very similar to those of U4: 214 × 126 mm and 210 × 120 mm respectively: Anderson (n. 11), 1.212 No. 319 and 1.194 No. 295.
39 One may compare the case of the manuscripts of Ovid collated by Heinsius, at least 85% of which have been identified: see Reeve (n. 10 [1976]), 76–7.
40 R has been used in almost all editions since Müller 1870 and is among the primary manuscripts of Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3); cf. introduction and n. 13. Boussard, J., ‘Le classement des manuscrits de la Thébaïde de Stace’, REL 30 (1952), 220–51Google Scholar puts it in the broad group ψ of his class ω, like W and T (cf. n. 22), as well as, among others, b, F2, F3, g, L, K, M3, M4, S, S4, U5, U13, U20 and Z12 (Hall's sigla). U3 has first been used, as a secondary manuscript, by Hall, Ritchie and Edwards. Boussard (this note) puts it in the group χ of his class ω, like, among others, U8 and U9 (Hall's sigla).
41 O has been used by Garrod 1906 and Hill (n. 17), and is among the primary manuscripts of Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3).
42 Gronovius's handwritten commentary is preserved in the volume Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek Gronovianus 62 (cf. n. 19), part g, fols 1r–10v, covering Theb. 1.1–102. Cf. Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 97.
43 On the hasty preparation of the edition, see Hall in Hall, Ritchie and Edwards (n. 3), 3.61, Berlincourt (n. 3 [2008]), 13–14 and Berlincourt (n. 3 [2013]), 97.