Historical Rhetorics/Should We Read Quintilian?: Difference between revisions

[unreviewed revision][unreviewed revision]
Content deleted Content added
Created page with '==Chapter Seven: Is Quintilian Worth Reading? (Or, Should We Just Read More Cicero?)== *Quintilian, ''Institutes of Oratory'', Books One, Two, and Ten <u>Relevant Secondary Sour...'
 
Line 1:
==Chapter Seven: Is Quintilian Worth Reading? (Or, Should We Just Read More Cicero?)==
*Quintilian, ''Institutes of Oratory'', Books One, Two, Ten, and TenTwelve
 
Notes to build on: Kennedy (representing a dominant historical tradition in Rhetoric and Composition historiography) sees Quintilian as simply regurgitating the Greek tradition. Similarly, Ong preferences the Greek tradition and treats the Romans as little more than editors annotating "rhetoric's greatest hits" (Logie 358). However, others read in Quintilian robust intellectual work that, while borrowing from Greek philosophy and rhetoric, differs significantly (especially in its goals) from Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates and the rest of the Greek tradition(s).
 
<u>Relevant Secondary Sources</u>