A Comprehensive Handbook of Rhetoric Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik by Heinrich Lausberg Review by: A. E.

Douglas The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Dec., 1962), pp. 246-247 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/709391 . Accessed: 17/02/2014 12:57
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.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:57:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

246

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

judgements of this kind are much more important than the names of Callimachus' minor works on grammar. Hindel has added a bibliography, which is of some value, but mentions too many specialized treatises of small general interest; yet such important works as the Headlam-Knox Herodas, Martin's Aratus, and W. Biihler's excellent edition of Moschus' Europa are omitted. There are not many inaccuracies; but on p. 252 Hindel seems to imply that Eurypylus was a place; on p. 262 he seems to have forgotten that Pfeiffer has shown that we possess quite a considerable fragment of a poem by Parthenius; and his discussion of the date of Lycophron seems to take no account of Momigliano's two important articles. The book is attractively produced and accurately printed (but on p. 131 read 'Pelias'). I do not wish to give the impression that this painstaking piece of work is of no value. It gives a good deal of information, much ofwhich is useful; and I suppose a certain class of reader will actually prefer it to K6rte's book. But I wish another publisher would now buy up the rights of the original edition, and would arrange for the comparatively few changes that are really necessary to be made by a scholar with the sense to appreciate the book's excellence and the modesty to leave well alone. Christ HUGH LLOYD-JONES Church, Oxford

A COMPREHENSIVE HANDBOOK OF RHETORIC

HEINRICH LAUSBERG: Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. 2 vols.

Munich: Max Hueber, I960.

Cloth, DM. 54-

Pp. 957-

IN his introduction, Lausberg propounds the view that a knowledge of Rhetoric, seen as the systematization of public or general forms of utterance, is as important for the understanding of literature as the study of the individuality of writers. Recognizing the extensive influence of ancient Rhetoric on European literatures he has produced this handbook, primarily for students of modern literatures. In it he sets out a full systematic Ars Rhetorica,broadly following ancient models, with copious citations of ancient sources, parallels from more modern treatises on Rhetoric, and illustrative passages from ancient rhetoricians, ancient literature generally, and modern, especially French, literature. But despite its excellent intentions, the book is disappointing. Lausberg informs his reader that to deal with the subject fully would take many volumes, and it soon becomes clear that he is a great believer in exhaustive compilation of material, in part perhaps for its own sake, but more especially as a basis for the construction of patterns and generalizations. 'Collect all the available evidence, then form your conclusions' seems an innocuous and necessary precept, yet Lausberg has fallen heavily into the two traps which await the incautious user of the method. First, unless the subject is carefully and even artificially defined, as sometimes in the experimental sciences, the available material may be so bulky as literally to be incomprehensible. Secondly, it is a grave temptation to 'discover' patterns which are either forced upon the evidence or in themselves of no significance. Both dangers are illustrated in Lausberg's presentation, selection, and handling of the material. As regards presentation, let it suffice to say that to a text of 6oo pages, itself

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:57:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

247

dreadfully encumbered with parentheses and cross-references, Lausberg has added an index of over 300 pages. This fact in itself reveals a methodological weakness resulting from Lausberg's particular kind of fussiness, which in turn seems to be the result of his persistent attempts to get and 'get across' a synthetic or synoptic view ('cosmic' would hardly be too large a word) of the whole subject. The attempts are vain. To speak of selection is perhaps to misuse the word. Lausberg leaves nothing out. The excess of detail is intolerable and self-defeating. In any event, the student of modern literatures for whom Lausberg writes will be more than ordinarily competent in Greek and Latin if he is to benefit from the vast array of citations. Much of the material is anyway footling. Such things as lists showing the different orders in which our authorities cite the three genera causarumsimply waste space. In handling the material, Lausberg owes most to Quintilian, the fullest of ancient sources. But the fact, of which the reader is inadequately warned, is that this work is Lausberg's 'Art of Rhetoric', and very odd, to the classical reader, much of it appears. First, Lausberg's exposition, though often mentioning variations of doctrine, is clearly designed to suggest that there was a single uniform system of Rhetoric (as displayed with alarming elaboration of division and subdivision in the Inhaltsverzeichnis), deviations from which were only of minor importance. This belief in a grand unified scheme is very characteristic of the author. But astonishingly fossilized as ancient Rhetoric became, there were controversies and changes, and Aristotle, Cicero, and to a less extent Quintilian, speak with an individual voice. But Lausberg ignores all such distinctions. To give but a few examples, he begins with a general definition of 'art' which cites Aesch. P. V. 506 as evidence, Cicero's original and interesting doctrine of ornatus in De Oratore iii is treated as standard, as is Aquila's unusual definition of oratio perpetua. Secondly, ancient and modern ideas are intermingled with the same indifference, in complete disregard of the danger of misleading the innocent public for whom the book is intended. The modern theories about literary and stylistic phenomena with which the book abounds may, for all I know, be somewhere current among students of modern literature; they are sometimes interesting, and may sometimes even be true. But what place in an exposition of ancient Rhetoric has, for example, the belief that metaphor is a form of magical utterance ? As for the patternmaking, throughout the work resemblances are detected and morals drawn that are either not in the material, as when the different rhetorical status are alleged to have close parallels in literary criticism, or, if there, are platitudinous, as in the elaborate parallel drawn, with diagrammatic illustrations-a favourite the judge in court and the judge of art. technique of the author-between The book is attractively produced, and, to judge from a sample check of its countless references, printed with conspicuous accuracy. It is the product of much industry and learning and of great enthusiasm and a passionate desire to be helpful. What it lacks is a sense of proportion. Lausberg has so overloaded his work that it must surely mislead or bewilder the seeker after information. Its approach in general provokes, at the least, recollection of T. B. L. Webster's advice recently proffered to the English classic confronted by a vast array of 'books about books', that he may 'reasonably neglect interpretations which show a method of thought too alien to his own'.
University of Southampton

A. E. DOUGLAS

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:57:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions