Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and

Philosophers by A. D. Leeman
Review by: George Kennedy
The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 237-241
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is 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 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS.

237

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 Amphion and Zethus, and here Snell's long and learned discussion provides 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 judgment, 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 relationship 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.
YALE UNIVERSITY.

MICHAEL J. O'BRIEN.

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-

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

238

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, Quintilian, 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 available 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 nominum, 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 compared 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 simplification. 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 contents 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 application 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. Norden was aware of it and pleaded lack of secondary materials on

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS.

239

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 orations 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 announced 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. Leeman 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 Atticists (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 singularly annoying way with phrases like " it has even been argued
that" (p. 11) cropping up from time to time without any further
identification.

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

240

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 sympathy 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 discussion 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), following 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 Leemnanquotes (p. 250) as an example of " abominable 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 influences 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" history. 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 individual 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.

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS.

241

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 authoritative 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.
GEORGEKENNEDY.
UNIVERSITYOF PITTSBURGH.

FRANCESCO
PAOLORizzo, 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 question 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 offensive to the optimate party, and eventually helped to inspire the
favorable picture of Pompey painted by Livy and others who idealized 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. Turning 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 restoration of the Seleucid dynasty. As Lucullus had his Archias, so Pompey 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 tradition," and VIII with Appian's Syriake.

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:14:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions