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)
-
Kerstin Julius,
Amicus in Spiritu Christi – Cicerono Lelijaus recepcija XII a. vienuolijoje: Aelredas iš Rievaulx
,
Literatūra: Vol. 52 No. 3 (2010): the Classics
-
Marina Romanenkova,
Европейское и национальное в эмигрантском романе: „Жизнь Арсеньева“ И. Бунина и „Ушедшие не возвращаются“ М. Катилишкиса
,
Literatūra: Vol. 46 No. 2 (2004): Russian Literature
-
Бируте Мержвинскайте,
Heterotopias of History in the Modern Lithuanian Novel
,
Literatūra: Vol. 57 No. 2 (2015): Russian Literature
-
Галина Михайлова,
Ахматова и античная культура: о некоторых смысловых компонентах мифа о поэте в «Поэме без героя»
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 2 (2006): Russian Literature
-
Tatjana Bicjutko,
Unravelling family truths: narrative polyglossia of The Speckled People by Hugo Hamilton
,
Literatūra: Vol. 50 No. 5 (2008): Special Issue
-
Neringa Klišienė,
Episodes didascaliques dans l’oeuvre dramatique de Juozas Erlickas et Herkus Kunčius
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 1 (2017): Literature
-
Genovaitė Dručkutė,
Studija apie Lietuvos ir lietuvių kultūros bičiulį
,
Literatūra: Vol. 55 No. 4 (2013): World Literatures
-
Dalia Čiočytė,
The Polemic with the Metaphysical Addressee in Contemporary Lithuanian Essays
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 1 (2017): Literature
-
Augustė Žičkytė,
LITERATŪROS SALOS 2013: MAIŠTAS AKADEMIKŲ AKIMIS
,
Literatūra: Vol. 55 No. 1 (2013): Lithuanian Literature
-
Маргарита Варлашина,
Литовский Достоевский ретроспективным взглядом: к проблеме восприятия историко-литературных текстов
,
Literatūra: Vol. 47 No. 2 (2005): Russian Literature