Quintilian is often accused of being a “compiler,” a wholly unoriginal thinker who simply put all the advice in the classical manuals (among them Cicero’s and Aristotle’s works) into one big collection. Having read a substantial selection of his work, do you find this charge to be fair? Is he offering something new here? Can we say that explaining the pedagogical application of the theories discussed so far will sufficiently warrant him a place in the _Rhetorical Tradition_?
Submitted by longaker on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 11:14am.
login or register to post commentsprinter friendly version
Longaker, Mark - RHE 321
Q may have compiled the works of the other rhetorical theorists, but how is that any different than what we do when writing papers? Q is not entirely without his own perspectives and has many opinions based on his own experience, esp. concerning the good orator as already discussed by Saba et al. If you are going to make a class syllabus, you will cite certain authors and have the class read specific texts in order to encourage thought and build from those foundations. Q doesn't have to extrapolate new meaning, he's providing the tools for the students to do that themselves.
If one does a good job compiling, I think there is just as much virtue to it as having novel ideas. It makes the most relevant info. easily accessible. Cicero was a compiler. Aristotle's intro in the BH refers to him as "the reader" - he did a lot of compiling too.
I am in total agreeance with Saba in saying that there is rarely ever such a thing as total & complete originality, especially in thought when there are so many great philosophers that have come before Quintilian and set high standards. When such proficient foundations have been laid I think it is quite difficult to start from scratch without at least mimicking the others in some way - it makes it easier to be able to build upon those foundations as opposed to trying to re-do it and that's what a lot of people do. So I totally don't think the allegations are fair.
Just to play devil's advocate, I tried looking for ways to support the critic's view of Quintilian as nothing more than a compiler, but I just can't see it. First of all, there is rarely such a thing as entirely original thought--every philosopher and thinker is, in some way, reacting to those which came before him (or her...), either negatively or positively--it's just that when it is positive, as it is with Quintilian, it's much more evident.
But more importantly is the fact that a good portion of Quintilian's prose is dedicated to the method, rather than the content, that a good orator must learn. His scope is much larger than Cicero's: while Cicero, as far as I can remember, insists that a good orator must be learned in all subjects, Quintilian details how these subjects are to be taught, and to what end. The fact that he describes Cicero as the "perfect orator" in and of itself reveals that his ideas are not merely repetitions of those of Cicero, but that they encompass his ideas into his much larger vision of the whole process.
Finally, Q expresses his belief that the last chapter is the most important, and it is the chapter in which he expresses his belief that the making of a good orator is all directed to a very specific end: the good orator must above all be virtuous (and only a virtuous person can be a good orator). This is admittedly quite Ciceronian, but there are differences: he emphasizes its importance much more than Cicero does. Cicero believes that the virtue of a good orator is necessary for the state, whereas Q seems to believe that the orator should be virtuous because it is the purpose and end of language to direct others to virtue, and that one cannot be a good orator without being virtuous.
Quintilian is not just a compiler, although his work does compile the work of previous rhetoricians. But throughout he puts forth his opinion of what should be the method to educate the orator and what constitutes the virtuous orator - both of which are his ideas.
I agree, I find it hard to regard Quintilian as nothing more than a compiler. He certainly warrants a place in "The Rhetorical Tradition." Firstly, while Quintilian may have relied on the ideas of others in his work, his focus was not necessarily to put forth a new way at interpreting or studying rhetoric. No, his focus was on pedagogy, on how rhetoric or what about rhetoric should be taught to students.
Secondly, Quintilian's ideas are valuable and translate well into current situations. For example, I could immediately draw a parallel between Quintilian’s suggestion of distinguishing between grammar and rhetoric and my experience with the different English major and Rhetoric and Writing major offered in the College of Liberal Arts here at the University of Texas. Just as Quintilian found it necessary to “let grammar [literature]…know its own boundaries…and let not rhetoric, to which the power of eloquence has given its name, decline its own duties” (365), so the curriculum department at UT finds it necessary to divide the teaching of English (grammar/literature) and Rhetoric (writing).
Finally, not everybody in "The Rhetorical Tradition" offers completely original thoughts. Regarding Hugh Blair, Bizzel and Herzberg comment: "As Blair modestly acknowledges, there is little in the lectures that is original--but everything is thoroughly assimilated and elegantly presented" (949).
First of all I'm sorry about the late post. I seem to be having technical difficulties...
I think a better term for Quintiilian would be interpreter rather than "compiler" of unoriginal ideas. I do have to agree that not a lot of new ideas are presented in Q, but the way that Q lays them out and interprets them is useful and merits a place in this class. Granted, reading them sometimes feels like a reiteration of something I've already learned, but there are definitely some new views.
For example, Q seems to have a much more optimistic way of describing how an orator is educated and trained. He says that even style and delivery, a crucial aspect in the evaluation of the efficacy of an orator, can be imitated and improved. Most of the text I've read seems to link this with natural ability, implying it cannot necessarily be taught. The only absolute requirement Q stipulates is that the orator be a "good man" and adheres to a moral code in the application of rhetorical skill. It's funny that Saba mentioned the fact that Q takes a stricter stance on the link between goodness and rhetoric, because that also stood out to me as a distinguishing quality between Q and his predecessors. He even went to far as to say that oratory that is not intended to benefit the public cannot be termed "rhetoric" because goodness is inherent to the nature of rhetoric.
I can see how this might be viewed
This makes me wonder what Quintillian would think of rhetoric today and those who use it for whatever political purposes they're wishing to achieve. Hell, I wonder what Cicero would say.
Could any public figure today be considered a "good orator" by these standards that we're working with?
First of all I'm sorry about the late post. I seem to be having technical difficulties...
I think a better term for Quintiilian would be interpreter rather than "compiler" of unoriginal ideas. I do have to agree that not a lot of new ideas are presented in Q, but the way that Q lays them out and interprets them is useful and merits a place in this class. Granted, reading them sometimes feels like a reiteration of something I've already learned, but there are definitely some new views.
For example, Q seems to have a much more optimistic way of describing how an orator is educated and trained. He says that even style and delivery, a crucial aspect in the evaluation of the efficacy of an orator, can be imitated and improved. Most of the text I've read seems to link this with natural ability, implying it cannot necessarily be taught. The only absolute requirement Q stipulates is that the orator be a "good man" and adheres to a moral code in the application of rhetorical skill. It's funny that Saba mentioned the fact that Q takes a stricter stance on the link between goodness and rhetoric, because that also stood out to me as a distinguishing quality between Q and his predecessors. He even went to far as to say that oratory that is not intended to benefit the public cannot be termed "rhetoric" because goodness is inherent to the nature of rhetoric.
I can see how this might be viewed as an anthology of the texts of his predecessors, but I believe pulling from the works of prior thinkers is monumentally important to progress and to a better understanding of those thinkers. I found this to be helpful not only for an understanding of pedagogy, but for a better understanding of his predecessors.
I would agree with Saba that, firstly, Quintilian does create some of his own ideas from those of his predecessors, and that putting it in terms of pedagogy is in and of itself somewhat original and also highly worthwhile.
Additionally, I would also argue that in a tradition as long (winded? haha) as rhetoric, were he to ignore the ideas of his predecessors when trying to teach students about rhetoric, he would end up an incredibly subpar teacher. Can you imagine this class without having studied and applied the ideas of Aristotle? Can you imagine Dr. Longaker attempting to teach the class rhetorical ideas which are entirely original, and ignoring all the works of those before? That would be something of a ridiculous attempt at teaching rhetoric. It seems incredibly unfair to judge a pedagogical text "unoriginal" because he bases his ideas in those of others; indeed, I would argue that this makes for a very good, well-read, well-rounded, and well-equipped teaching method.
This is a good question to ask especially concerning Book XII where Quintilian introduces the good man as a good orator ideal. He begins the passage by introducing the definition of Cato of a good orator as a “good man skilled in speaking.” (413) But Quintilian takes this a step further and says that goodness is a necessary prerequisite to being a good orator. Without virtue, one cannot become a good orator. According to Q, rhetoric is a gift from Nature to separate us from common animals. If that is the case, then we would be better suited to be without speech or language if we are going to use this gift for evil purposes. Although some rhetoricians have previously mentioned the importance of good character for an orator, none that I can remember have said it as forcefully as Q or emphasized it as much.
Not only does Q introduce his own ideas, I believe he goes beyond the role of a simple “compiler.” He analyzes the material in the text like when he evaluated the moral character of Cicero to see if he was worthy of being a good orator. In general, Q takes a unique approach compared to the rest of the orators we have read. Most of the writings that we have focused on before this unit, focused on oratory in politics, philosophy or forensic, but Q goes even farther than Cicero and emphasizes the education of rhetoricians. His step by step procedure proceeds from basic functions like grammar to higher level functions to a strong moral code when speaking. Granted, he may have developed many of these ideas from other sources, but he also introduced the importance of education as a means for its survival.
Just because Q may not have had completely original and unique ideas in his text does not mean that he does not have a role in the book or in our class. His ability to compile, analyze, synthesize and produce his own opinions is useful to the class. His lack of original ideas may also be explained by the tumultuous political period when he lived. He may have just made a very smart move to steer clear of innovative ideas and politics into the more stable world of teaching.
If we want to evaluate the usefulness of Quintilian at least for our class, then we may have to start looking at how he influenced the dialogue within rhetoric. Since rhetoric is a discipline that covers so many fields, we would have to divide the fields of rhetoric like they are done in this class. As a result, if we look at the field of pedagogy in rhetoric, from all the readings Quintilian seems to come out on top. If that is the case, then isn’t it the nature of teaching and pedagogy to use the readings and works from those who proceeded you? Pedagogy is wholly unique unit that requires one to build on already stated works because out of all the fields it tends to be the one that relies most on tradition. As to whether or not relying on tradition is the best way to teach, I think that could be up to debate. In my opinion, it would be faulty to mistake Quintilian’s use of various philosophers as an example of his “unoriginality.” Instead, I would look at it as his attempt to serve a pedagogical purpose.
If we are going to disregard Quintilian because he is a compiler, are we going to disregard all works that draw upon ideas established earlier to further advance the understanding of a topic? Compiling is a natural, necessary action if humanity is to be at all interested in the notion of progress. All works require some sort of reference point, if for nothing else than to provide the learner with an idea of some sort of intellectual chronology. All human understanding is achieved "from a position inside of time and history." Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory is a wide-ranging exploration of rhetoric's role within time and history, and is therefore invaluable to the progress of this topic.
Quintillian is a “compiler,” who puts all the advice in the classical manuals (among them Cicero’s and Aristotle’s works) into one big collection. However, I agree that this is not unlike authors today, which is why it is so important to cite sources now. I think that the virtue however is in the way in which the information is compiled, and what new ideas the old facts prompt.