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

[unreviewed revision][unreviewed revision]
Content deleted Content added
Line 2:
*Quintilian, ''Institutes of Oratory'', Books One, Two, Ten, and Twelve
 
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).
 
Quintilian famously echoes Cato's description of the ideal orator as ''vir bonus dicendi peritus.'' While commonly translated as the "good man speaking well," it might also be read as the "good man expressing expertly."
 
<u>Relevant Secondary Sources</u>