RHETORICAL DISPLAY AND PRODUCTIVE DISSONANCE IN QUINTILIAN'S QUOTATIONS OF POETRY

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 0 CLASSICS RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1017/rmu.2022.14
Curtis Dozier
{"title":"RHETORICAL DISPLAY AND PRODUCTIVE DISSONANCE IN QUINTILIAN'S QUOTATIONS OF POETRY","authors":"Curtis Dozier","doi":"10.1017/rmu.2022.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Among Latin rhetorical treatises and imperial writers on technical subjects, the Institutio Oratoria stands out for the sheer number of quotations of poetry that Quintilian incorporates into his discussion. Whereas Cicero's De Inuentione has 13 quotations of poetry and the Rhetorica ad Herennium 16, the index locorum in Russell's Loeb edition of the Institutio records 320 quotations from Greek and Latin poets. Despite the distinctive scale of Quintilian's engagement with poetry, scholars have not taken much interest in it, perhaps under the influence of the persistent belief that in the imperial period ‘the introduction of poetry into orations as an ornament of style’ was ‘often a useless affectation’ or that such quotations constitute mere ‘window dressing’. Early twentieth-century treatments such as that of Cole, who evaluated Quintilian's citations of poets for their ‘textual accuracy’, and Odgers, who used the relative infrequency of Quintilian's quotation of Greek literature to establish the limits of Quintilian's knowledge of Greek, set a tone of dismissiveness in relation to any question of how and why Quintilian quotes poetry as he does: Cole and Odgers attribute any ‘discrepancies’ between Quintilian's quotations and those found in the manuscripts of the poets he quoted to a (presumed) tendency to quote from memory that made him ‘rather liable to errors’. Later critics have extrapolated from their findings to attribute to Quintilian the ‘grave deficiency’ of ‘know[ing] little directly of the major Greek writers’ and to diagnose ‘intellectual stagnation’ in his engagement with Latin literature. These negative judgements are, of course, in line with the traditional assessment of Quintilian as ‘neither a great writer nor a great thinker’, one who is ‘more often belittled than understood’.","PeriodicalId":43863,"journal":{"name":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","volume":"43 1","pages":"241 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RAMUS-CRITICAL STUDIES IN GREEK AND ROMAN LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rmu.2022.14","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among Latin rhetorical treatises and imperial writers on technical subjects, the Institutio Oratoria stands out for the sheer number of quotations of poetry that Quintilian incorporates into his discussion. Whereas Cicero's De Inuentione has 13 quotations of poetry and the Rhetorica ad Herennium 16, the index locorum in Russell's Loeb edition of the Institutio records 320 quotations from Greek and Latin poets. Despite the distinctive scale of Quintilian's engagement with poetry, scholars have not taken much interest in it, perhaps under the influence of the persistent belief that in the imperial period ‘the introduction of poetry into orations as an ornament of style’ was ‘often a useless affectation’ or that such quotations constitute mere ‘window dressing’. Early twentieth-century treatments such as that of Cole, who evaluated Quintilian's citations of poets for their ‘textual accuracy’, and Odgers, who used the relative infrequency of Quintilian's quotation of Greek literature to establish the limits of Quintilian's knowledge of Greek, set a tone of dismissiveness in relation to any question of how and why Quintilian quotes poetry as he does: Cole and Odgers attribute any ‘discrepancies’ between Quintilian's quotations and those found in the manuscripts of the poets he quoted to a (presumed) tendency to quote from memory that made him ‘rather liable to errors’. Later critics have extrapolated from their findings to attribute to Quintilian the ‘grave deficiency’ of ‘know[ing] little directly of the major Greek writers’ and to diagnose ‘intellectual stagnation’ in his engagement with Latin literature. These negative judgements are, of course, in line with the traditional assessment of Quintilian as ‘neither a great writer nor a great thinker’, one who is ‘more often belittled than understood’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
昆提连诗歌引语中的修辞表现与生产性不和谐
在拉丁修辞学论文和关于技术主题的帝国作家中,昆提连在他的讨论中引用了大量的诗歌,因此《唱诗班》脱颖而出。西塞罗的《发明论》中有13条诗歌引文,《修辞学与赫拉尼姆》中有16条,而罗素的《学院》勒布版的索引则记录了希腊和拉丁诗人的320条引文。尽管昆提连与诗歌的接触有着独特的规模,但学者们并没有对此产生太大的兴趣,也许是受到一种持久信念的影响,即在帝国时期,“将诗歌作为一种风格的装饰引入演讲”“往往是无用的矫揉造作”,或者这种引用仅仅是“装饰橱窗”。20世纪早期,科尔评价了昆提连引用诗人的“文本准确性”,奥杰斯利用昆提连引用希腊文学的相对较少的频率来确定昆提连对希腊文学的了解的局限性,对于昆提连如何以及为什么引用诗歌的任何问题,他都设置了一种轻蔑的语气:Cole和Odgers将昆提连的语录与他引用的诗人手稿中的语录之间的任何“差异”归因于(假定的)凭记忆引用的倾向,这使得他“相当容易出错”。后来的批评家从他们的发现中推断出昆提连“对主要的希腊作家知之甚少”的“严重缺陷”,并诊断出他在与拉丁文学的接触中“智力停滞”。当然,这些消极的判断与传统对昆提连的评价是一致的,他“既不是一个伟大的作家,也不是一个伟大的思想家”,一个“经常被贬低而不是被理解”的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
CONFLICT, TRAGEDY, AND INTERRACIALITY: BOB THOMPSON PAINTS VERGIL'S CAMILLA THE THIRD LIFECYCLE OF PHILOKLEON IN ARISTOPHANES’ WASPS METAGENRE AND THE COMPETENT AUDIENCE OF PLAUTUS’ CAPTIVI ERASING THE AETHIOPIAN IN CICERO'S POST REDITUM IN SENATU RMU volume 51 issue 2 Cover and Back matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1