The Poems of Tibullus and the Elegies of Sulpicia

servations, if it seemed appropriate to subscribe the name of a friend, I would add nothing that he himself would not seem to have approved. I changed the reading cautiously, and only in those places where it was clear to me what Wunderlich would have liked. Wunderlich had received a collation of two Zwickau codices manuscripts from the fifteenth century, kindly offered by the very famous Goerenz, and a highly accurate collation of the Gotha codex manuscript by the same man, which here and there differed from the one used by Johann Heinrich Voss. Gurlitt, a most learned and generous man, had also sent a copy of Tibullus, in which he had noted the readings of the Hamburg manuscript more diligently than had been done elsewhere. I indicated the readings of these codices manuscripts in the Observations, as Wunderlich had done, adding also, with Wunderlich leading the way, the variant readings of the other codices manuscripts, the collations of which Johann Heinrich Voss made public in the notes to his own edition of Tibullus. Finally, I must speak of a matter about which I would prefer to be silent. The most learned Bardili, out of his distinguished generosity, had of his own accord offered Wunderlich a collation he had made in Paris, and in letters sent to Wunderlich, he had offered some excellently argued advice regarding the primary editions of Tibullus. Wunderlich had accepted this gift when the first pages of Tibullus were already printed, but afterwards, as soon as he could, he made use of it, as is clear from the Observations to the first book. These things pleased Huschke. What, therefore, did he do? He wrote to that most honest man, asking that he grant for his own use what he had received from us, so that he might insert it into this edition. The most famous Bardili granted it, believing Huschke’s words that they could be of no use in this edition. I certainly wondered what this was about, saying that Wunderlich had already used them,