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)
-
Дагне Бержайте,
Международная конференция «Классика и канон в русской литературе. Юбилей» (София, 6–8 ноября 2014 г.)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 57 No. 2 (2015): Russian Literature
-
Александр Федута,
Pоссия без опоры (исторические рассказы М. А. Осоргина)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 52 No. 2 (2010): Russian Literature
-
Natalija Arlauskaitė,
Экранизация как провокация истории литературы (II)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 50 No. 2 (2008)
-
Vytautas Ališauskas,
Book as the point of the conflict of cultures: the mission of St. Adalbert in Prussia
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 3 (2006): the Classics
-
Ирина Куликова,
THE TYPE OF THE REASONER IN THE 18TH CENTURY RUSSIAN COMEDY
,
Literatūra: Vol. 55 No. 2 (2013): Russian Literature
-
Римантас Сидеравичюс,
Копия лермонтовского ” Демона” в альбоме Б.А. фон Роткирха
,
Literatūra: Vol. 49 No. 2 (2007): Russian Literature
-
Ольга Кульбакина,
Филологи с историей и без: VI Международная летняя школа на перешейке «русская литература: история и историография»
,
Literatūra: Vol. 51 No. 2 (2009): Russian Literature
-
Mārtiņš Laizāns,
Ojārs Lāms,
Animal Imagery Expressing Nobility: Salomon Frenzel’s Propempticon
,
Literatūra: Vol. 59 No. 3 (2017): the Classics
-
Борис Балясный,
Анализ потерь при переводе верлибра на русский язык (по материалам Литературно-переводческой школы-студии)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 48 No. 2 (2006): Russian Literature
-
Валентина Брио,
Илья Cерман (1913–2010)
,
Literatūra: Vol. 52 No. 2 (2010): Russian Literature