Quintilian & Augustine

Quintilian
a) . introduction to Quintilian
According to an introduction to Classical Rhetoric edited by Williams, Quintilian was born in Spain, in the town of Calagurris, and both his father and grandfather may have been rhetoricians. He probably received his elementary education at home, but as a young adolescent, he traveled to Rome for his rhetorical training, studying with Domitius Afer, an outstanding rhetorician of dubious character whose activities as a professional informer, seem to have led to his downfall.

We also know that sometime in the early 70s Emperor Vespasian selected Quintilian to hold the first chair of rhetoric in Rome, providing him with generous compensation. This appointment probably was related to Vespasian’s efforts to rebuild Rome after the neglect of the previous emperors and the depredations of the civil wars that preceded his reign. Quintilian indicated in Institutio Oratoria that he held this position for two decades. He did not marry until his forties, wedding a young girl of 12 or 13 with whom he had two children, both boys. The youngest died at age 5, and his mother followed soon after. The oldest boy died several years later, at age 10. He wrote about the death of his wife and children in the preface to Book VI. Their deaths struck him hard. Of his wife, he stated: “Her death was such an awful blow that thereafter no amount of good fortune could bring me happiness. She possessed every virtue that a woman could possess, and my grief upon her death left me inconsolable.”

Except for Quintilian’s pathetic family life, he lived in turbulent times. The Roman Empire was extremely troubled during his lifetime. Emperors Caligula (c.12-41AD) and Claudius (c.10 BC-54AD) had steadily eroded the already minuscule authority of the Senate and were infamous for their extravagance and cruelty.

(My perspective of reasons why it is crucial:
The socio-historical factors may have led to his emphasis on morality and civic virtue. He mentioned an orator should not only be a moral man but one displaying significant civic virtue. It might be because he experienced so many different emperors’ tyrannical behavior. Thus, he wanted to use teaching others oratory combined with civic virtue to help build a moral and virtuous ruling class and let the people in the Roman Empire suffer less. )


b). Institutio Oratoria (The Orator’s Education)
Institutio Oratoria is a massive work of 12 books – arguably the most comprehensive treatment on how to educate an orator ever produced. In many respects, Quintilian followed the educational model Cicero described in Brutus, De Oratore, and Orator, so there are necessarily several similarities. Both asserted, for example, that education could only enhance what a student already possessed by nature and that the ideal orator had to be a good man. The scope of Quintilian’s vision, however, is somewhat broader than Cicero’s as the brief outline below suggests.
Book I: the elementary education of the child
Book II: the rhetorical education of the young man
Book III: History of rhetoric; invention and the types of oratory
Book IV: Arrangement
Book V: Arrangement and Proofs
Book VI: Epilogues and emotions
Book VII: Disposition and the Law
Book VIII? Elocution, sententiae, figures and tropes
Book IX: Figures of thought, figures of speech
Book X: Reading, writing, imitation, and oratory
Book XI: Kairos, memory and delivery
Book XII: Oratory and moral philosophy

c) Quintilian’s rhetorical theory
Institutio Oratoria is primarily a guide to education, and as a result, it lacks some of the characteristics of a traditional technique such as Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric or Cicero’s De Inventione. Even so, the amount of information related to rhetoric is considerable, especially in Books III through IX, which often are viewed as comprising the core of Quintilian’s rhetorical theory. A broader perspective, however, recognizes that his theory is woven into the entire work. Essentially Aristotelian, the influences of Isocrates and Cicero are nevertheless strong, but Quintilian was not reluctant to “correct” the ideas of these lofty figures. He misquoted Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric seemingly to dismiss Cicero’s view that rhetoric is simply the power of persuasion, noting in this regard that “money also persuades, as do influence, the speaker’s authority and dignity, and even the mere look of a man” (II. 15.6).

Quintilian followed Aristotle and Cicero regarding rhetoric’s five offices: invention, arrangement, style and presentation, memory, and delivery. He accepted Aristotle’s division of rhetoric into 3 types- forensic, deliberative, and epideictic -which allowed him to view the subject matter of rhetoric as being essentially limitless, “for there is nothing that does not come under these heads” (II,21.24). Because opportunities for deliberative rhetoric in the Empire were essentially nil, Quintilian’s comments on deliberative oratory may seem out of touch with contemporary realities but his predominant focus on forensic oratory offsets this perspective.

Moreover, he was writing about the education of the ideal orator, and perhaps we should assume that were it possible for such a person to exist, he or she would live in an equally ideal world that allowed and even encouraged these three types of speech. Quintilian also strove to ameliorate the problem by suggesting in Book III that the traditional view of deliberative rhetoric was too narrow, connected historically as it was to politics, and that anyone who gives advice (such as a friend) may be understood to be practicing deliberative oratory.

Quintilian valued philosophy and identified it as an important element in the education of the ideal orator, even though he did not have much regard for contemporary philosophers. His strong argument in Books I, II, and XII that students should read extensively to gain knowledge seems congruent with the Stoic view that rhetoric and wisdom are interrelated. He stated in Book XII, for example, that
“And yet the person whose character I would mold should be a wise man in the Roman sense, that is, not displaying his skills in private disputations and debates but in the real experience and practice of civic life.”

The emphasis here on civic life is congruent with Roman patriotic sensibilities, but it also reminds us of Aristotle and Isocrates, both of whom saw rhetoric as a crucial factor in the concept of arete as civic virtue. The parallels appear early: In the book I he declared that his ideal orator is the man “who can really play his part as a citizen, who is fit for the management of public and private business, and who can guide cities by his counsel, give them a firm basis by his laws, and put them right by his judgments”(I, 10). In other words, Quintilian’s vir bonus closely aligns oratory and rhetorical education with civic ethics and morality, not simply wisdom or knowledge. This alignment was evident in Cicero, but for Quintilian it was fundamental.

From the modern perspective, the emphasis Quintilian placed on ethics and morality creates several difficulties. One of the more obvious is the suggestion that morality is absolute; like Plato, Quintilian does not allow for any gradations – people are either good or bad, and the ideal orator must be good. Although speculative, the similarity here to Plato may be related to the fact that both men lived in turbulent times characterized by civil war and social disruptions. The desire to find moral absolutes in a chaotic, immoral world is understandable. Moral dilemmas, however, are an inevitable consequence of absolutism, and Plato’s efforts to resolve them frequently led to paradoxical assertions, such as his arguments in Gorgias that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit an unjust act.

d). book 1
One of the more distinctive features of Institutio Oraotria is Quintilian’s attention to elementary education, which is the focus of Book I. Education must begin in the nursery and parents must ensure that “ the nurses speak properly” (I.1.4). Molding the ideal orator requires that the child have certain natural advantages to begin with – specifically the great advantage of highly educated parents. To his credit, Quintilian noted that mothers must be included in this assessment, and by way of example he recalled the mother of the Gracchi brothers, who owed much of their eloquence to the influence she exerted on them owing to her superior education.

Quintilian’s recommendation that education should begin in infancy appears to be related to his foal of combining rhetoric and morals. In his view, “language” is based on Reason, Antiquity, Authority and Usage” (I.6.1). The initial suggestion is that authority is derived from correct usage, following the models of history and master orators, but it becomes clear as the Institutio progresses that reliance on such authority is superficial, for true authority comes from the orator’s ethos, his moral character. That is, the moral education of the orator begins in infancy: First comes habit, then nature (I.2.8). If the child is not raised in a moral home, there can be no hope of shaping the good man who speaks well, leading Quintilian to complain, “If only we did not ourselves damage our children’s characters!” (I.2.6). Book I therefore can be said to lay the foundation for Book XII, which examines moral issues with regard to the ideal orator. It also advances the Ciceronian agenda of creating philosophical rhetoric, and there are clear parallels with sophistic notions of arete. But Quintilian’s approach differed from the Sophists’ and from Cicero’s. His view was that rhetoric preceded philosophy and that art should retake what it had lost to presumptuous “students of wisdom.” To support this view, Quintilian pointed out that philosophers do not own the topics and discourses of nature and justice. Even county folk ask questions about natural phenomena and matters of right and wrong: “Who- if not an utter villain- doe not speak about justice and equity and goodness” (I. prf.).

Book I had a significant influence on elementary education in the West. The range of subjects that Quintilian recommended in Book I for a child’s education became institutionalized, and with some variations over the centuries formed the basis for the elementary curriculum: reading, writing, grammar, language, mathematics and geometry, music and art. Ironically, Quintilian’s treatise may, therefore, be said to have had a greater influence on education than on rhetoric and oratory.

e). My perspective of reasons why it is crucial:

1). Quintilian examined the role of elementary education in developing the ideal orator in Book I. He emphasized that education should begin in infancy and focus on rhetoric and morals. This influenced nowadays early child education. As a mother of a two-year-old toddler, I think education is very crucial to young kids as they cannot tell the right and the wrong. What they do is to imitate and follow the caregivers. If the parents or other caregivers only teach them some knowledge except some moral standards like respecting the old and the weak, the babies will have evil nature and cannot speak well.

2). Quintilian had similar ideas to Chinese ancient educator Confucius about using different methods to teach different students to fall in love with study. He said, “For one of the first things to take care of is that the child, who is not yet able to love study, should not come to hate it and retain his fear of the bitter taste he has experienced even beyond his first years. Let it be a game; let him be questioned and praised and always feel glad that he has done something; sometimes, when he refuses a lesson, it should be given to another child, of whom he can be jealous; sometimes he should compete, and more often than not think he is the winner; and finally, he should be encouraged by rewards suitable to his age.” The teacher should take full advantage of young kids’ eagerness to win in learning and combine learning with pleasure.

This method is similar to Confucius’ aptitude-based teaching methods. Confucius, the Chinese thinker and social philosopher, was born in 551 B.C. in the country of Lu.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=116115
Confucius raised aptitude-based teaching methods meaning esteeming the differences of individuals and teaching students according to their aptitudes. Confucius always paid attention to individual differences in teaching their disciples. He once pointed out that Zilu was brave and Zigong was understanding. He also recognized some of his disciples may have higher intelligence while others have better skills. So, he uses different teaching methods according to the different characters of his disciples.

3). In addition, Quitilian also had similar ideas to Confucius about enlightening students, asking them questions, and helping them find answers by themselves. The elicitation method of teaching is an important part of Confucius’ educational thought. Confucius once said, “Don’t enlighten the student until he tries to understand but still can’t figure it out; don’t enlighten him until he understands but can’t improve his expression. If he can’t draw inferences from one instance, don’t go on.” Confucius believed that learning was a process of active exploration and understanding. This elicitation method embodies the student-centered teaching methods and lets students be subjective and initiative in learning. It also cultivates students’ ability of independent thinking. Confucius is also good at using questions to inspire the students to think. He guided students step by step in finding problems, analyzing problems, and solving problems in the process of active thinking. This coincides with Quintilian’s thought.

4). Quintilian’s emphasis on giving students time to have a break to improve their efficiency also coincided with the thoughts in “Xueji”. Written over two and a half millennia ago, the Xueji (On Teaching and Learning)s was one of the oldest and most comprehensive works on educational philosophy and teaching methods, as well as a consideration of the appropriate roles of teachers and students. Ancient Chinese also believed that students should have enough time to have a break between classes to get refreshed. And Quintilian said that rest was necessary but too much rest would lead to student’s laziness. These great thoughts both contributed a lot to contemporary educational practices and guided teachers in the East and the West to teach students with correct methods.