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)
-
Eugenija Ulčinaitė,
Humanities in the Jesuit educational system
,
Literatūra: Vol. 49 No. 3 (2007): the Classics
-
Халина Вашкелевич,
Константы хyдожественного стиля Людмилы Петрушевской: повесть “Свой круг”
,
Literatūra: Vol. 49 No. 2 (2007): Russian Literature
-
Eglė Kačkutė,
Old and New Ways of Thinking about Women’s Writing
,
Literatūra: Vol. 47 No. 4 (2005): World Literatures
-
Erika Malažinskaitė,
Daimoniono įvaizdis ir subjekto raiškos formos Czesławo Miłoszo poezijoje
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 1 (2012): Lithuanian Literature
-
Александр Вавжинчак,
Как социалистический реализм превратился в реквием по распавшейся империи. О чернобыльской дилогии Александра Проханова
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 2 (2012): Russian Literature
-
Анжелика Штейнгольд,
Гетеротопии потустороннего в снах о покойниках (на западнопричудском материале)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 57 No. 5 (2015): Special Issue
-
Loreta Mačianskaitė,
Laimutė Tidikytė,
Dainora Pociūtė,
Istorija literatūrologų dabartyje / Jono Aisčio konferencijos įspūdžiai / Protestantiškoji kultūra užsienio konferencijose
,
Literatūra: Vol. 47 No. 1 (2005): Lithuanian Literature
-
Юлия Снежко,
The Semantics of Wild Nature in N. M. Karamzin’s Works: was Karamzin the Russian Henry Thoreau?
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 2 (2017): Russian Literature
-
Viktorija Daujotytė-Pakerienė,
Mąstyti klausiant ir abejojant; mąstyti taip ir antraip
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 1 (2009): Lithuanian Literature
-
Margarita Varlašina,
Teigiamo santykio su Dostojevskio kūryba problema: Vydūnas
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 2 (2009): Russian Literature