8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
1/6
Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and
Philosophers by A. D. LeemanReview by: George KennedyThe American Journal of Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 237-241Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292711.
Accessed: 02/09/2014 04:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Johns Hopkins University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/292711?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/292711?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
2/6
REVIEWS.EVIEWS.
Phaedra did: Life in
reality
is
quite
different
(p.
81). Euripides'
opposition,
he
adds,
is
directed as well
against
the
sophists
(p.
82).
Now it is true that
frag.
205 offers
pointed
praise
of
ignorance
in
an
age
when
praise
of
knowledge
had achieved
a
new
intensity
and
variety.
But to
characterize the
fragment
as
evidence
of
opposition
to
Socrates
or
others
is
to
turn
an
epigram
into
a
form
of
academic
disputation.
Moreover,
if we delve
beneath the flash
of
paradox,
Euripides'
supposed
argument
falls
flat, simply
because
the
knowledge
which
Antiope
finds irksome
and
useless has
nothing
to
do
with
the Socratic
or
sophistic
knowledge
of how to
achieve
one's ends. The
second scene
discussed is
the
debate between
Am-
phion
and
Zethus,
and
here Snell's
long
and learned discussion
pro-
vides us with a valuable commentary. He does not hesitate to state,
however,
that
it cannot
be
denied
that
Antiope
fell into two
very
different
parts,
one rather
sophisticated
[the
debate],
the
other
an
exciting
action
of
primitive
coups
de
theatre
(p.
98).
This
judg-
ment,
which
far
outruns the
sparse evidence,
betrays
a
fundamental
assumption
about
Euripides
that not all of
us
can
share.
Only
if
we
assume,
as Snell
does,
that
Euripides
was
always
ready
to forsake
drama
for
personal
disquisition
need we
believe
that in
his
plays
he
engages
in
discussions and
disputes
(pp.
63, 67).
In
the
last two
chapters
Snell
turns to
quite
a
different
subject,
the
fragments
of
Python's
Agen, performed
in
the
320's,
of which
eighteen lines survive in Athenaeus. This little satyr-play, as
Athenaeus
describes
it,
concerns
the
relations of
Harpalus,
one
of
the
most
powerful
officials
in
Alexander's
realm,
with
two
courtesans,
each
of whom
Harpalus
visited
with
extravagant
honors. The
Agen
touches
the
lighter
side of
a
serious
issue,
viz. What
were
the
honors
and
prerogatives
proper
to the
divine
humanity
of
Alexander
himself
(p.
135)
?
This
was
to
be a
special
Hellenistic form
of the
old
question
which
earlier
Greeks had
pondered
too,
the
relation-
ship
of
man
to
the
gods
(p.
138),
and
so it
finds a
place
in
this
set
of
lectures.
This is a
varied,
learned,
and
interesting
book
by
a
man
who
in
the past has taught us much about the Greek mind and whose views
still
rightly
command
our
attention,
even when
we
must
disagree.
MICHAEL
J.
O'BRIEN.
YALE
UNIVERSITY.
A.
D.
LEEMAN.
Orationis Ratio:
The
Stylistic
Theories
and
Practice
of
the
Roman
Orators,
Historians,
and
Philosophers.
2
vols.
Amsterdam,
Adolf
M. Hakkert, 1963. Pp. 558. Fl. 58.
In an
impressive
looking
two-volume work
Leeman,
Professor of
Latin
at the
University
of
Amsterdam,
has
undertaken an
historical
study
of
Latin
prose
style,
both
practice
and
theory,
from
the
mid
second
century
B.
C.
to
the mid
second
century
A.
D.
Volume
one
is
divided
into
four main
parts:
The
Archaic
Period;
The
Classical
Period;
The
Early
Empire;
The
Classicist and
Archaist
Periods.
Each
of
these
parts
is
further
divided
into
from
three
to
five
chap-
Phaedra did: Life in
reality
is
quite
different
(p.
81). Euripides'
opposition,
he
adds,
is
directed as well
against
the
sophists
(p.
82).
Now it is true that
frag.
205 offers
pointed
praise
of
ignorance
in
an
age
when
praise
of
knowledge
had achieved
a
new
intensity
and
variety.
But to
characterize the
fragment
as
evidence
of
opposition
to
Socrates
or
others
is
to
turn
an
epigram
into
a
form
of
academic
disputation.
Moreover,
if we delve
beneath the flash
of
paradox,
Euripides'
supposed
argument
falls
flat, simply
because
the
knowledge
which
Antiope
finds irksome
and
useless has
nothing
to
do
with
the Socratic
or
sophistic
knowledge
of how to
achieve
one's ends. The
second scene
discussed is
the
debate between
Am-
phion
and
Zethus,
and
here Snell's
long
and learned discussion
pro-
vides us with a valuable commentary. He does not hesitate to state,
however,
that
it cannot
be
denied
that
Antiope
fell into two
very
different
parts,
one rather
sophisticated
[the
debate],
the
other
an
exciting
action
of
primitive
coups
de
theatre
(p.
98).
This
judg-
ment,
which
far
outruns the
sparse evidence,
betrays
a
fundamental
assumption
about
Euripides
that not all of
us
can
share.
Only
if
we
assume,
as Snell
does,
that
Euripides
was
always
ready
to forsake
drama
for
personal
disquisition
need we
believe
that in
his
plays
he
engages
in
discussions and
disputes
(pp.
63, 67).
In
the
last two
chapters
Snell
turns to
quite
a
different
subject,
the
fragments
of
Python's
Agen, performed
in
the
320's,
of which
eighteen lines survive in Athenaeus. This little satyr-play, as
Athenaeus
describes
it,
concerns
the
relations of
Harpalus,
one
of
the
most
powerful
officials
in
Alexander's
realm,
with
two
courtesans,
each
of whom
Harpalus
visited
with
extravagant
honors. The
Agen
touches
the
lighter
side of
a
serious
issue,
viz. What
were
the
honors
and
prerogatives
proper
to the
divine
humanity
of
Alexander
himself
(p.
135)
?
This
was
to
be a
special
Hellenistic form
of the
old
question
which
earlier
Greeks had
pondered
too,
the
relation-
ship
of
man
to
the
gods
(p.
138),
and
so it
finds a
place
in
this
set
of
lectures.
This is a
varied,
learned,
and
interesting
book
by
a
man
who
in
the past has taught us much about the Greek mind and whose views
still
rightly
command
our
attention,
even when
we
must
disagree.
MICHAEL
J.
O'BRIEN.
YALE
UNIVERSITY.
A.
D.
LEEMAN.
Orationis Ratio:
The
Stylistic
Theories
and
Practice
of
the
Roman
Orators,
Historians,
and
Philosophers.
2
vols.
Amsterdam,
Adolf
M. Hakkert, 1963. Pp. 558. Fl. 58.
In an
impressive
looking
two-volume work
Leeman,
Professor of
Latin
at the
University
of
Amsterdam,
has
undertaken an
historical
study
of
Latin
prose
style,
both
practice
and
theory,
from
the
mid
second
century
B.
C.
to
the mid
second
century
A.
D.
Volume
one
is
divided
into
four main
parts:
The
Archaic
Period;
The
Classical
Period;
The
Early
Empire;
The
Classicist and
Archaist
Periods.
Each
of
these
parts
is
further
divided
into
from
three
to
five
chap-
23737
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
3/6
AMERICAN
JOURNAL
OF PHILOLOGY.
ters.
Ordinarily
in
each
part
there
is attention to
the
theory
and
criticism of
style,
to
oratory,
to
historiography,
and to
philosophy.
The principal authors discussed are
Cato,
Auctor ad
Herennium,
Cicero,
Caesar,
Sallust,
Livy,
Seneca
the
elder
and
younger,
Quin-
tilian,
Tacitus,
Pliny,
Fronto, Gellius,
and
Apuleius,
but
there
is
considerable
attention
to
the
style
of
fragmentary orators,
historians,
and
philosophers.
The novel and
technical
treatises
(except
Cato's)
are
passed
over
as
sub-literary by
Roman
standards;
there
is
no
discussion of the
relationship
between
prose
and
poetry:
Atticism as
it
applies
to
poetry,
for
example,
or
the
discussions
of
style
in
Horace
as
they
apply
to
prose,
or
the
relation of
Ovid
or
Lucan to
contemporary
rhetoric
are
ignored;
nor
is
there
very
much
on the
relation
between
style
and
the work
of Roman
grammarians.
Both
fragments
and
portions
of extant
works
are
extensively
quoted
in
Latin
in
the
text,
while an
English
translation,
often from
the
Loeb
Classical
Library,
is
supplied
in
notes which are
conveniently
avail-
able
in
the
smaller
second volume. The
notes
consist
solely
of these
translations
and
of
references to ancient
authorities.
The
second
volume
also
includes
a
brief selective
bibliography,
an index
nomi-
num,
an
index
rerum et
verborum ad
litteras
pertinentium
(Latin,
English,
and
Greek with a
number
of omissions and
mistakes)
and
an
index
locorum
potiorum.
The
obvious
standard
against
which
Leeman's
work
might
be com-
pared is that of Eduard Norden's Die Antike Kunstprosa, as he
acknowledges
himself in
the
introduction. Leeman
criticizes
Norden
for
over-estimation
of
the
role of
rhetoric
and for
too
ready
sim-
plification.
In
contrast
his
own
aims,
he
says,
are a more
limited
historical
coverage,
fuller
interpretation
of relevant
passages,
and
a
more
didactic
exposition
of the
material
by
means
of
extensive
quotation.
All
of
this
he
certainly
attains.
The
great
virtue of
the
book
is
its
impressive
collection
of
significant
Latin
texts on
prose
style,
quoted
in
full,
often
compared
and
contrasted
with
other
texts,
and often
accompanied
by
perceptive
comments.
Leeman
is
apologetic
on
two
scores,
for
his
English
and
for his
selectivity. His English he describes as a lingua franca. We may
be
grateful
for it: it
is
generally quite
idiomatic and
adequate,
though
there
are
small
misprints
which
an
English
proof-reader
might
have
noticed.
Leeman's second
doubt,
however,
leads to a real
problem
in
the
work. It
is not
the
selectivity
which
is
at
fault;
naturally
Leeman
had
to
be
selective.
It is the
lack of
balance in
the
selection
between
theory
and
practice
and
to
some
extent the
tendency
to
treat
either
very
broad
questions
of
the
philosophy
of
rhetoric or
very
specific
details
of
stylistic
practice
and
nothing
in
between.
The
book
furnishes a
good
historical account within the
limits
it
defines
of
the
theory
of
Latin
prose
style.
The
sub-title,
however,
claims to
furnish a history of Latin prose in practice, and the table of con-
tents raises
hopes
of a
comprehensive
account.
These
hopes
are
disappointed.
There
is
a
good
deal
on
the
practice
of
writers known
only
from
fragments;
there is not an
adequate
account
of
the
stylistic practice
of
major
extant
Roman
authors
or
of
the
applica-
tion
of
theory
to
practice.
This is
especially
true
in the
case
of
Cicero. In
a
sense
a
similar
objection
could
be
made
against
Norden's
discussion of
Cicero.
Nor-
den was aware
of
it and
pleaded
lack of
secondary
materials
on
238
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
4/6
REVIEWS.
which to
draw. He outlined
five different
areas
in which
Cicero's
stylistic theory, practice,
and
development
should
be
studied.
It
would
have
been valuable if
Leeman
had taken
up
these
five
points
and
in
an
orderly
way
shown what
progress
has
been
made
by
classical
philology
in
the last
sixty-five
years.
This is
not
what he
chooses
to
do,
however.
He
comments on
a
number
of relevant
matters
in
the
course of
his
own
discussion,
but his account
of
Cicero's
style
treats
only
one
period
of
its
development.
There
is
a
chapter
entitled
Cicero and
Asianism which
contains
a rather detailed
discussion
of
Cicero's
oratorical
style
in
his
early
years
with
some mention
of
the
speeches
down
to 63
B.
C.,
though
the
great
set
of
Verrine
ora-
tions
is
shabbily
treated.
The next
chapter,
however,
turns to
a
survey of Cicero's oratorical theory, quite an adequate survey, and
Leeman
never
returns to
discuss
the
subsequent
stages
of
Cicero's
development.
The
account
is
thus
frustrating
in
terms of the
an-
nounced
objective
of
the
book
or the
picture
of
the
history
of
Latin
style
which
one
would
like
students
to
get.
There
is no
analysis
of
the
greatest
speeches
of the
greatest
Latin
stylist.
What
is needed
is
not
thorough
coverage
but
balanced
selectivity,
here for
example
stylistic
analysis
of at
least
one
middle
and one
later
oration
to
match
what
is done for
Cicero's earlier
oratory.
Furthermore,
these
analyses
should if
possible
bring
out
the
variations
in
style
within
a
speech.
There
is
throughout
the
discussion
of
Cicero what
seems
to be a lack of imagination, a failure to recognize the excitement
of
oratory
to
Cicero,
a
rather
Romantic
suspicion
of
artificiality,
and
a
tendency
to
look
at
Cicero's
works
in
a
narrow
way
without
considering
the
relation
of
their
style
to
their
structure,
subject,
or
specific
occasion.
Cicero
is after
all the
overwhelming
central
figure
in
the
history
of
Latin
style,
both
as
theorist
and
practitioner.
Lee-
man
verbally
acknowledges
his
importance,
but
seems to
resent
him:
he
offers
(p.
219)
to
trade ten
of his
orations for
one
of
Hortensius
and
ten
more for
one
of
Pollio.
He
claims
(pp.
123
and
206)-
falsely
I
think-that
Cicero
did
not
understand
the
quarrel
between
rhetoric and
philosophy,
more
justly
perhaps
that he
misrepresents
the influences upon himself (p. 110) and the attitudes of the Atti-
cists
(p.
165),
though
earlier
(p.
44)
Leeman
admired
Cicero's
insight
into
the
nature
of the
Atticist
movement.
Even
Cicero's
contribution
to
philosophical
Latin
is
grudgingly
treated
(p.
211).
These
criticisms
bring
out
a
central
feature
of the
work,
that
it
is
not,
despite
some
appearances,
a
systematic
or
comprehensive
history.
It
is a
series
of
texts
with
observations
thereon,
very
much
as
might
be
delivered
in
the
lecture
room.
The
tone
is
that
of
the
lecturer
rather
than
that of
the
essayist
or
historian.
Problems
are
rarely
stated
and
defined,
but are
elicited
from
discussion.
Thus
Atticism
and
Asianism
are
repeatedly
referred
to
before
they
are
explained.
The decision to omit secondary sources except for the short
selective
bibliography
is
part
of
the
same
tendency.
No
doubt it
made
writing
the
book
easier;
it
equally
makes the
book
less
useful. Given
the
nature
of
the
subject,
which
involves a
great
deal
of
attention
to
small
details
and
thus
needs
the
support
of
specialized
studies,
the
decision
was
regrettable.
It
is
furthermore
carried
out
in
a
singu-
larly
annoying
way
with
phrases
like
it
has even
been
argued
that
(p.
11)
cropping
up
from
time
to
time
without
any
further
identification.
239
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
5/6
AMERICAN JOURNAL
OF
PHILOLOGY.
Leeman's
lack of
sympathy
for Cicero is counterbalanced
by
a
greater
feeling
for
some other writers. There is
a
good
discussion
of
Thucydidean
Atticism at
Rome,
centering
around Pollio and
Sallust.
The
latter's
prologues
are
approached
(p.
185)
with
sym-
pathy
as
attempts
to
define
historiography
within
the
categories
of
Roman
virtus. His
style,
it is claimed
(p.
184),
sounded much more
poetic
to the Romans
than it
does
to
us,
chiefly
because
of
its
archaism,
which links it with Roman
epic
and
tragedy.
The
chapter
on
the
orators
and
rhetoricians
in
the
early
empire
contains some
small confusions.
The
first
note
(p.
219)
is
lacking;
there is no
evidence
that Seneca
the
elder
spent sixty
years
in Rome
(p.
224),
though
his
visits there
spanned
sixty
years;
Seneca
does not
claim
to have
heard 170
declaimers
(p. 227)
:
I
count
108,
but it
is difficult
to be
exact
and
110
(misread
as
170?)
is
a
good
round number.
Somehow
the
200
orators
referred to on
page
43
seem
to have
been
reduced
to
170 on
page
227
to match
the
non-existent
170
declaimers.
The
account of Theodoreanism
(p.
238)
is not accurate
(cf.
G.
M.
A.
Grube
in
this
Journal,
LXXX
[1959], pp.
337
ff.).
The
main dis-
cussion of
Livy
in
chapter
seven is rather
brief, though
something
had
already
been said about his
style
in
chapter
three in
comparison
with
earlier
historiography.
Leeman
plausibly argues (p.
195),
fol-
lowing Lundstr6m,
that
Livy
is
rather a
loyal
admirer than a
part
and
product
of Roman
history. Except
in
speeches
he never
uses
nostri to mean the Romans and in fact may have spent very little
time
in
Rome.
Personally
I
rather
like the
passage
from
Velleius
Paterculus
which Leemnan
quotes (p.
250)
as
an
example
of
abomi-
nable Asianistic
deviation,
but
which
he
says
he will
leave to
the
reader to
analyze.
A
student
of
Roman
rhetoric should
not be
offended
at
an
apostrophe
to Mark
Antony
on the
death
of
Cicero,
he
ought
to
relax
and
enjoy
the
game.
The
treatment
of
Seneca
deals
principally
with
his theories of
philosophical
style
and with the
in-
fluences
upon
his
style,
which
Leeman
thinks
(p. 283)
are
principally
those
of
rhetoricians.
Quintilian's
criticisms
of
Seneca
are
quoted
and
carefully
explained,
and
Quintilian
himself is
praised
as
the
first person fully to realize the differences between Latin and Greek
(p.
296)
and as a
Ciceronian who had at the
same time
a wide
ranging appreciation
of
what had
been
achieved
up
to his own
day
(p.
320).
There is
very
little
discussion
of
the
style
in which
these
writers
write;
Tacitus'
style
is however
given
some attention
as are
his
literary
attitudes.
Leeman's
general position
on Tacitus
is
not
unlike
that
of
Syme
and other modern
critics.
He
claims
(pp.
321
and
346)
that
Maternus
in
the
Dialogus
is
Tacitus
himself;
just
as
Maternus
has
given
up oratory
for
tragedy,
so in
the
period
between
100
and
105
A.
D.
when
Leeman thinks
the
Dialogus
was written
Tacitus
is
giving up oratory
for
what
Leeman
calls
tragic
his-
tory. The revival of classical ideals by Quintilian and others in the
late first
century
made
men
painfully
aware that
they lived
and
worked
in
a
different
sphere
of
life
in
which
the
role
of
the indi-
vidual
was confined to
a
narrow
range
of
possibilities
(p.
323).
That
this
is an
overstatement
is
clear from
Leeman's
admission that
Quintilian
and
Pliny
did
not see
it
this
way,
and also
from
the
fact
that the
locus
communis on
the
decline of
oratory
had
been
developed
earlier. Leeman thinks
that
Tacitus
always
hated
to be
specific,
that
he
found in
obscura
brevitas a mask for
his
real
personality (p.
240
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. a. (1966)
6/6
REVIEWS.EVIEWS.
337),
and
finally
that
this use of a character
as
a
spokesman
for
the
author,
seen also
in
Cicero's
De
oratore,
though
derived
from
the Greek
dialogue,
is a characteristic feature of Roman literature.
He
calls
it allusionism
(p. 346).
Despite
the
title
of
the work
Leeman has
not
produced
an
authori-
tative
history
of
the
theory
and
practice
of
Latin
prose
style.
He
has assembled
an
impressive
collection
of texts
and
published
a
series
of
interesting
and
informative
observations
on
them.
GEORGE
KENNEDY.
UNIVERSITYOF
PITTSBURGH.
FRANCESCO
AOLO
izzo,
S. J.
Le
fonti
per
la
storia
della
conquista
pompeiana
della
Siria.
Palermo,
Fond.
Mormino,
1963.
Pp.
101.
(Supplementi
a
'Kokalos,
II.)
The
history
of
Pompey's conquest
of
Syria
consists of
scraps
of
information
drawn
from
writers
of
the
Imperial
period.
From
what
primary
sources
did
this scattered
information come?
To
that
ques-
tion Father
Rizzo
addresses himself
in
the
present monograph.
Ancient
references
to
the
conquest
itself
are so
meager
that
any
analysis of them must widen its focus to include the general history
of
Lucullus'
and
Pompey's
campaigns
against
Mithridates
and
Tigranes.
Rizzo
begins
his
study
by
summarizing
Cicero's
De
imperio
Cn.
Pompei.
He
remarks
that the
oration
was
not
especially
offen-
sive to the
optimate
party,
and
eventually
helped
to
inspire
the
favorable
picture
of
Pompey
painted by
Livy
and
others
who ideal-
ized
the
Republic.
Chapter
II
lists
the
Latin
historians
(Sallust
excepted)
of
the
Late
Republic
who
dealt,
or
may
have
dealt,
with
Pompey's
Syrian
campaign.
A
score
of
names,
but
few
solid
facts
emerge: if,
for
example,
Saufeius the
historian
is the
same
as
L.
Saufeius, eques,
his
history,
if
it
touched on
these
matters,
must
have
presented Pompey's eastern achievements in a favorable light. Turn-
ing
to
Sallust,
we
are
reminded
that
his
Histories,
which
did
not
come
down
beyond
67 or
66 B.
C.,
praised
Lucullus at
the
expense
of
Pompey,
and
were
used
by
Plutarch
in
his
biography
of
Lucullus.
Two
Greek
writers
of
the
same
period
receive
attention
in
Chapter
IV. The
epic poem
of
Archias
of
Antioch
glorified
non
modum
L.
Lucullum
...
verum
etiam
populi
Romani
nomen.
Rizzo
finds
it
significant
that,
so
far
as we
know, Archias made
no
mention
of
Lucullus'
arrangements
for
Syrian
independence
and
a
restora-
tion
of
the
Seleucid
dynasty.
As
Lucullus had
his
Archias,
so Pom-
pey
had
his
Theophanes
of
Mytilene,
whose
biography
of
Pompey
scholars have detected behind the accounts of several later historians.
A
survey
of
proven
and
possible
primary
sources
is
useful,
but
little
in
these
chapters
is
new.
The
worth
of
this
monograph
must
be
established
on
the basis
of
what
follows.
And
here,
in an
attempt
to
find
links between
the
primary
sources
and
the later
authors,
Rizzo
offers
little
more than a
number of
questionable,
if
imaginative,
hypotheses.
Chapter
V
deals
with
the
Livian
tradition,
VI
with
Justin's fortieth
book,
VII
with
Plutarch
and the
Strabonian
tra-
dition,
and
VIII with
Appian's
Syriake.
337),
and
finally
that
this use of a character
as
a
spokesman
for
the
author,
seen also
in
Cicero's
De
oratore,
though
derived
from
the Greek
dialogue,
is a characteristic feature of Roman literature.
He
calls
it allusionism
(p. 346).
Despite
the
title
of
the work
Leeman has
not
produced
an
authori-
tative
history
of
the
theory
and
practice
of
Latin
prose
style.
He
has assembled
an
impressive
collection
of texts
and
published
a
series
of
interesting
and
informative
observations
on
them.
GEORGE
KENNEDY.
UNIVERSITYOF
PITTSBURGH.
FRANCESCO
AOLO
izzo,
S. J.
Le
fonti
per
la
storia
della
conquista
pompeiana
della
Siria.
Palermo,
Fond.
Mormino,
1963.
Pp.
101.
(Supplementi
a
'Kokalos,
II.)
The
history
of
Pompey's conquest
of
Syria
consists of
scraps
of
information
drawn
from
writers
of
the
Imperial
period.
From
what
primary
sources
did
this scattered
information come?
To
that
ques-
tion Father
Rizzo
addresses himself
in
the
present monograph.
Ancient
references
to
the
conquest
itself
are so
meager
that
any
analysis of them must widen its focus to include the general history
of
Lucullus'
and
Pompey's
campaigns
against
Mithridates
and
Tigranes.
Rizzo
begins
his
study
by
summarizing
Cicero's
De
imperio
Cn.
Pompei.
He
remarks
that the
oration
was
not
especially
offen-
sive to the
optimate
party,
and
eventually
helped
to
inspire
the
favorable
picture
of
Pompey
painted by
Livy
and
others
who ideal-
ized
the
Republic.
Chapter
II
lists
the
Latin
historians
(Sallust
excepted)
of
the
Late
Republic
who
dealt,
or
may
have
dealt,
with
Pompey's
Syrian
campaign.
A
score
of
names,
but
few
solid
facts
emerge: if,
for
example,
Saufeius the
historian
is the
same
as
L.
Saufeius, eques,
his
history,
if
it
touched on
these
matters,
must
have
presented Pompey's eastern achievements in a favorable light. Turn-
ing
to
Sallust,
we
are
reminded
that
his
Histories,
which
did
not
come
down
beyond
67 or
66 B.
C.,
praised
Lucullus at
the
expense
of
Pompey,
and
were
used
by
Plutarch
in
his
biography
of
Lucullus.
Two
Greek
writers
of
the
same
period
receive
attention
in
Chapter
IV. The
epic poem
of
Archias
of
Antioch
glorified
non
modum
L.
Lucullum
...
verum
etiam
populi
Romani
nomen.
Rizzo
finds
it
significant
that,
so
far
as we
know, Archias made
no
mention
of
Lucullus'
arrangements
for
Syrian
independence
and
a
restora-
tion
of
the
Seleucid
dynasty.
As
Lucullus had
his
Archias,
so Pom-
pey
had
his
Theophanes
of
Mytilene,
whose
biography
of
Pompey
scholars have detected behind the accounts of several later historians.
A
survey
of
proven
and
possible
primary
sources
is
useful,
but
little
in
these
chapters
is
new.
The
worth
of
this
monograph
must
be
established
on
the basis
of
what
follows.
And
here,
in an
attempt
to
find
links between
the
primary
sources
and
the later
authors,
Rizzo
offers
little
more than a
number of
questionable,
if
imaginative,
hypotheses.
Chapter
V
deals
with
the
Livian
tradition,
VI
with
Justin's fortieth
book,
VII
with
Plutarch
and the
Strabonian
tra-
dition,
and
VIII with
Appian's
Syriake.
24141
This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspTop Related