Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. A. (1966)
Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. A. (1966)
Orationis Ratio. Leeman, A. D. (Amstrerdam, 1963) - KENNEDY, G. A. (1966)
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
REVIEWS.
237
MICHAEL J. O'BRIEN.
238
REVIEWS.
239
240
REVIEWS.
241
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
...
Romani
nomen.
Rizzo finds it