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)
-
Tomas Veteikis,
Meλetai versificatoriae generosorum iuvenum Andrea et Alexandri Chodcievitiorum – exemplum scholasticae poeseos christianae Europeae
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 3 (2009): the Classics
-
Paulius Garbačiauskas,
Few notes on the structure of Aratus’ Phaenomena
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 3 (2009): the Classics
-
Justinas Ambrazas,
Tertullian’s Ad Martyras – a Manifest of a Rebel
,
Literatūra: Vol. 63 No. 3 (2021): Literature
-
Rūta Eidukevičienė,
Tarp literatūros ir politikos – paskutiniųjų dviejų XX a. dešimtmečių Hanso Magnuso Enzensbergerio eseistika
,
Literatūra: Vol. 50 No. 4 (2008): World Literatures
-
KU Literatūros Literatūros katedros informacija,
Klaipėdos universiteto Literatūros katedra
,
Literatūra: Vol. 54 No. 1 (2012): Lithuanian Literature
-
Зинаида Пахолок,
The Cultural Aspects of Antanas Krishchukajtis-Aishbe’s Translation of Yu. Fedkovych’s Story "Who is to Blame"?
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 2 (2017): Russian Literature
-
Audronė Kudulytė-Kairienė,
Aleksandras Zaicevas (1926–2000)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 3 (2006): the Classics
-
Vytautas Ališauskas,
Reconstruction of Tradition and Religious Imagination in Early Apocryphal Writing
,
Literatūra: Vol. 63 No. 3 (2021): Literature
-
Raimonda Brunevičiūtė,
The effect of teaching Latin on the education system in Lithuania during the Soviet period
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 3 (2009): the Classics
-
Audinga Peluritytė,
The Topic of Erosion in the Works of Czesław Miłosz from the perspective of Lithuanian Literature
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 1 (2009): Lithuanian Literature