Santrauka
In the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian we find a presentation of a theory of the virtues of eloquence: purity of language (latinitas), clarity (perspicuitas), appropriateness (aptum) and ornament (ornatus). All of them were originated by earlier Greek philosophers Aristotle and Theophrastus. Later this theory was taken on and elaborated by Roman rhetoricians – Cicero and Quintilian. Aristotle in his Rhetoric explicitly identified three of the four virtues (clarity, appropriateness and correctness). Theophrastus created a theory of four virtues of eloquence (correctness, clarity, appropriateness and ornament). His system was adopted by most of others. Dionysius, however, developed the most complex system of virtues. He presented a theory of virtues, which were divided into necessary (purity of language, appropriateness, lucidity and brevity) and accessory ones. The accessory virtues were further subdivided into another three groups. Rhetorica ad Herennium offered a three fold system: elegantia (including both correctness and clarity), compositio (similar to appropriateness) and diginitas (similar to ornament). Basically, in almost all aspects being closer to Cicero (who continues the tradition of Theophrastus), Quintilian is more focused on his theory of eloquence. He discusses the virtues of eloquence very widely and deeply, step by step, drawing a number of examples and including the educational process of an orator. Above all, although the theory of four virtues of Quintilian has been influenced by Ciceron, to some extent in general it does not claim originality and plays a paramount role in modern rhetorics, stylistic and pedagogy.
Skaitomiausi šio autoriaus(ų) straipsniai
-
Сергей Скорвид,
Гетеротопия «детства не здесь». К лингвистической характеристике локального сообщества жителей польско-белорусско-литовского языкового пограничья в конце XIX в. (на материале мемуаров В. Л. Скорвида)
,
Literatūra: T 57 Nr. 5 (2015): Special Issue
-
Александр Федута,
Rusija be atramos (M. A. Osorgino istoriniai apsakymai)
,
Literatūra: T 52 Nr. 2 (2010): Russian Literature
-
Natalija Arlauskaitė,
Ekranizacija kaip literatūros istorijos provokacija (II)
,
Literatūra: T 50 Nr. 2 (2008): Russian Literature
-
Vytautas Ališauskas,
Knyga kaip kultūrų konflikto taškas: šv. Adalberto misija Prūsuose
,
Literatūra: T 48 Nr. 3 (2006): the Classics
-
Ольга Кульбакина,
Филологи с историей и без: VI Международная летняя школа на перешейке «русская литература: история и историография»
,
Literatūra: T 51 Nr. 2 (2009): Russian Literature
-
Ирина Куликова,
ТИП РЕЗОНЁРА В РУССКОЙ КОМЕДИИ ХVIII ВЕКА
,
Literatūra: T 55 Nr. 2 (2013): Russian Literature
-
Римантас Сидеравичюс,
M. Lermontovo “Demono” kopija V. fon Rotkircho albume
,
Literatūra: T 49 Nr. 2 (2007): Russian Literature
-
Mārtiņš Laizāns,
Ojārs Lāms,
Salomono Frenzelio Propemptikonas: gyvūnų įvaizdžiai kaip kilmingumo išraiška
,
Literatūra: T 59 Nr. 3 (2017): the Classics
-
Валентина Брио,
Илья Cерман (1913–2010)
,
Literatūra: T 52 Nr. 2 (2010): Russian Literature
-
Борис Балясный,
Verlibro vertimo į rusų kalbą praradimų analizė (Literatūros vertimo mokyklos-studijos duomenimis)
,
Literatūra: T 48 Nr. 2 (2006): Russian Literature