orationis ratio. leeman, a. d. (amstrerdam, 1963) - kennedy, g. a. (1966)

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=jhup


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

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.jsp


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



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



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



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


orationis ratio. leeman, a. d. (amstrerdam, 1963) - kennedy, g. a. (1966)

Documents