Review

Reviewed Work(s): Luxuriance and Economy. Cicero and the Alien Style by W. R.
Johnson
Review by: F. Ahlheid
Source: Mnemosyne , 1975, Fourth Series, Vol. 28, Fasc. 4 (1975), pp. 437-439
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/4430544

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne

This content downloaded from

79.103.68.111 on Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:24:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DE NOVIS LIBRIS IUDICIA 437

sehe jetzt: V. Bers, Enallage and Greek Style

S. 144: Tempuswechsel wird S. 48 (nicht 84
Vs. 17 ?sa zu lesen statt des ?berlieferten ??? sch
Parallelstellen fraglich. Wie soll man z.B. den
schriften erkl?ren? Jedoch hat Kost Recht, wenn
versuche von Gelzer und Giangrande zur?ckwe
Parallele in Opp. H. 2, go ist wenig ?berzeugen
dort 'emporstrecken' bedeutet. Jedenfalls mu
bedeuten; ??? kann hier vielleicht verst?rkend verwendet sein;
vgl. Schwyzer II, 440. ? In Vs. 18 bedeutet e?a 'ein und derselbe',
wie in Vs. 14; ????se? wird bevorzugt vor ??????e?, obwohl die
richtige Interpretation m.E. schon von Giangrande (JHS 83, 1969,
140-1) gegeben worden ist. ? Zum modalen Futurum in Vs. 23
sehe W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek
Verb (London 1889), t?^~7* ?ber die Mitempfindung der Natur in
Vs. 27 sehe auch G. Soutar, Nature and the Greeks, London 1939. ?
In Vs. 32 wird p????? ?p? p??????? ?bersetzt durch "einen Turm
ihrer Ahnen"; aber f?r ?p? + Gen. = Gen. poss., wie Heinrich
(erw?hnt von Kost) erkl?rt, gen?gen die Verweisungen auf K?hner-
Gerth usw. nicht, da man dort nur Beispiele von ?p? statt des
separati ven Genitivs findet; also genauer w?re: "einen Turm von
ihren Ahnen geerbt". ? Zu Vs. 288 wird nur beil?ufig die Lesart
?e?e????e? erw?hnt; ?berzeugend hat jetzt Giangrande sie als die
richtige erwiesen; vgl. QUCC 9 (1970), 145-6. ? Zu Vs. 336: f?r
d??a t?ta??e? werden einige Parallelen bei Nonnos erw?hnt, wird
aber keine Erkl?rung des Ausdrucks, welcher der medizinischen
Terminologie zu entstammen scheint, gegeben.
Der bleibende Wert des Werkes liegt in der Einleitung und im
Kommentar mehr als in der Textgestaltung und ?bersetzung.
De Bilt, Kometenlaan 6 ?. ?. M. Kessels

W. R. Johnson, Luxuriance and Econom

the Alien Style. Berkeley-Los Angeles
California Press, 1971. 72 p. Pr. D. 3.00.
This book offers a description of Cicero's or
on a conception of style which differs from th
nated studies on Cicero for a long time. In this
art of phrasing, but the art of structuring s
stylistic criteria are criteria of sentence structu
figurae, which are only accidents of style. Sente
of words per sentence), habits of subordinat
subordinate clauses to main clauses, and proport
subjunctive subordination) and sentence typ

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXVI 11, Fa

This content downloaded from

79.103.68.111 on Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:24:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
438 DE NOVIS LIBRIS IUDICIA

clause and subordinate clauses in a sentence) are used by

as criteria. In English studies these criteria have been us
(see bibliographical references on p. 8). In ancient styl
hardly finds this method, except in Demetrius on styl
indeed the advantage that it allows more exact observat
earlier methods.
Johnson applies this method to the first thirty sentences of
thirty two speeches. The results are compared with a 'norm' for
Latin prose found by analysing the first thirty sentences of eight
speeches from Sallust, Livy and Tacitus in the same way. Finally
J. presents to us the following picture of Cicero's oratorical career:
81-66, a period of experimentation; amplitude and luxuriance
without discipline.? 66-59, th? period in which C. has found his
style; disciplined exuberance, much more elaboration than in
'normal' Latin prose.? 57-52, C. has lost control over his luxuriance ;
in many respects the style of period 1.?46-43, a dramatic change to
a style alien to C, more 'Latin' than anything he did before ; compres-
sion (shorter sentences, considerably less dependent on subordina-
tion). The violent defence of C.'s style in Brutus par. 320-322 offers
a reason for this change. C. knew that the criticism of the 'Atticists'
was just. His luxuriance had run riot; his style was worn out.
It is obvious that J. has written an interesting book, not only
because of its method but also because of its conclusions which
differ from the communis opinio on Cicero's style. Brutus and
Orator led E. Castorina (L'Atticismo nelV evoluzione del pensiero di
Cicerone, Catania 1952) to the conclusion that a major stylistic
change had taken place in Cicero's last years. To see, however, that
some highly admired speeches belong to a period of bad luxuriance
is very surprising indeed. Admirers of the pro Milone will be shocked
to learn that this speech was written when Cicero's style was totally
worn out, when C. had failed as a statesman and as a stylist.
I would gladly accept J.'s conclusions were it not for some points
on which I find it difficult to agree with him.
(1) The reliability of studies like this greatly depends on the
material selected for investigation. The material used by J. is a far
too narrow base for conclusions on the style of one speech, let alone
of a whole period. For instance, what would be the outcome for
period 3, if the long series of main clauses in pro Milone 87 ff. had
been taken into account ?
(2) Is the norm with which Cicero is compared really represent-
ative of 'normal' Latin prose? To use Sallust and Tacitus with
Livy makes the element of compression too high. What would have
been this norm, if Pliny or some of the declamationes minores had
been used instead of Tacitus ?

This content downloaded from

79.103.68.111 on Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:24:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DE NOVIS LIBRIS IUDICIA 439

(3) Period 3 shows speeches that are swollen

speeches from 57 provide J. with the best e
control and bad luxuriance. But other speeche
and the symptoms of bad style pointed out i
not always very convincing. Let us look at three
pro Milone, because this speech is supposed to
portant stage in C.'s oratorical career.
In pro Milone 3 reliqua vero .. . decertari putat
de liberis suis de patria de fortunis hodierno die
not give a misplaced emphasis merely distractin
tial thought multitudo virtuti Milonis favet. Fo
ment of this exordium these words are just as e
. .. favet.
In spite of the formal perfection of pro Milone 8 nisi vero existi-
matis ... respondent iure caesum vider i J. thinks respondent iure
caesum videri too abrupt for the previous elaborated interlocking.
But this abruptness emphasizes these words and makes this
sentence very effective in its context, the refutatio praeiudicii
intueri lucem nefas esse ei qui a se hominem occisum esse fateaiur.
Only when one isolates pro Milone 5 equidem ... infringendam is
it possible to call the antithesis non modo salutem exstinguendam sed
etiam gloriam ... infringendam extravagant, the distinction between
solus and gloria unnecessary, and gloria pathetic padding. However,
viewed in connection with the final portrait of Milo, the man who
won gloria by sacrificing personal salus to the salus of the res
publica, as it ought to be, as part of the exordium, this sentence is
not so bad after all.
These three cases may show that an investigation based on
Johnson's criteria alone leads to improbable conclusions. Davies
(C.Q. 1968, 310-1) arrives at a much more favourable judgment of
the pro Milone based on phrasal and clausal parallelisms. One may
ask whether Johnson's criteria ought to have priority over these
more conventional criteria. If pro Quinctio 8 ita fit ... non erit is a
bad sentence written by an orator who aimed at plasticity but
failed, it is bad not only because of cumbersome subordinate clauses,
but also because of improper and redundant use of metaphora.
Johnson's book deserves our attention, because it proposes a
method which, when used in combination with more conventional
methods, not isolating sentences but considering them in their
context as parts of a process of persuasion, starting from more and
better chosen material, will certainly lead to interesting conclusions
on Cicero's oratorical style.
Amsterdam, Seminarium voor Klassieke Filologie, Singel 425
F. Ahlheid

This content downloaded from

79.103.68.111 on Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:24:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms