Abstract
In the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian we find a presentation of a theory of the virtues of eloquence: purity of language (latinitas), clarity (perspicuitas), appropriateness (aptum) and ornament (ornatus). All of them were originated by earlier Greek philosophers Aristotle and Theophrastus. Later this theory was taken on and elaborated by Roman rhetoricians – Cicero and Quintilian. Aristotle in his Rhetoric explicitly identified three of the four virtues (clarity, appropriateness and correctness). Theophrastus created a theory of four virtues of eloquence (correctness, clarity, appropriateness and ornament). His system was adopted by most of others. Dionysius, however, developed the most complex system of virtues. He presented a theory of virtues, which were divided into necessary (purity of language, appropriateness, lucidity and brevity) and accessory ones. The accessory virtues were further subdivided into another three groups. Rhetorica ad Herennium offered a three fold system: elegantia (including both correctness and clarity), compositio (similar to appropriateness) and diginitas (similar to ornament). Basically, in almost all aspects being closer to Cicero (who continues the tradition of Theophrastus), Quintilian is more focused on his theory of eloquence. He discusses the virtues of eloquence very widely and deeply, step by step, drawing a number of examples and including the educational process of an orator. Above all, although the theory of four virtues of Quintilian has been influenced by Ciceron, to some extent in general it does not claim originality and plays a paramount role in modern rhetorics, stylistic and pedagogy.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Simonas Baliukonis,
The Athenian against Atheists: Theological Persuasion in Plato’s Laws
,
Literatūra: Vol. 62 No. 3 (2020): Studies of Ancient Culture and Its Reception
-
Александра Шалкине,
"Hanuman’s Journey to Lolland" By Andrey Ivanov as a Provocation of the Modern Reader (Based on the Postulates of Reception Aesthetics)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 2 (2017): Russian Literature
-
Ramūnas Šilis,
Kūnas ir erdvė Ivano Gončarovo romane Oblomovas“
,
Literatūra: Vol. 52 No. 2 (2010): Russian Literature
-
Audronė Kudulytė-Kairienė,
A transformation of the bucolic genre in the poetry of Bion
,
Literatūra: Vol. 47 No. 3 (2005): the Classics
-
Nijolė Juchnevičienė,
Historians on History and Tragedy
,
Literatūra: Vol. 46 No. 3 (2004): the Classics
-
Irina Kulikova,
Тип петиметра в русской комедии XVIII века
,
Literatūra: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2004): Russian Literature
-
Dalia Čiočytė,
Literatūra ir žmogaus pasaulis
,
Literatūra: Vol. 57 No. 1 (2015): Lithuanian Literature
-
Jurga Jonutytė,
Attention to an oral tradition as a creative identification. Reflection of an ethnographic activity of Antanas Juška and Jonas Basanavičius
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 6 (2006): Special Issue
-
Eugenija Ulčinaitė,
NON OMNIS MORIAR: ARVYDAS BARONAS (1960–1992)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 47 No. 3 (2005): the Classics
-
Юлия Снежко,
Гетеротопии Вильнюса в современном литовском романе: панорама как пространство неповседневности
,
Literatūra: Vol. 57 No. 5 (2015): Special Issue