Both of my parents are teachers; as far back as I can remember they had a plaque on the wall in our house. It was titled, 'Rules for Teachers-1871'. There were some different expectations in 1871 than now. Of the 14 rules, my favorites were the rule that specified teachers must haul wood every day to heat the schoolhouse, whittle feathers for quills to suit students' preferences, and allowed single teachers 1 evening a week for 'courting purposes'.
The entire time I was reading Quintilian, I was thinking of this plaque. I think it is mostly because Quintilian is laying out his own set of rules for rhetoric teachers. And I have to say on a purely theoretical level, I think he's got some really great points. Who doesn't want a teacher that is an expert, virtuous, and instructs in a way that stimulates the pupil to individual creative thought? Where I get I hung up is at trying to start defining some of these things. What is virtue? Could we have a good rhetorician or teacher who didn't follow Quintilian's precepts? And is Quintilian's definition of virtue the 'right' definition (is there a 'right' definition, or simply a definition that is right for the person)?
On the subject of virtue Quintilian has a firm opinion, one that I'm not completely on the bandwagon with:
'First of all, then, we have to consider what rhetoric is.......The first and chief difference of opinion on the subject is, that some think it possible even for bad men to have the name of orators; while others (to whose opinion I attach myself ) maintain that the name, and the art of which we are speaking, can be concede only to good men'.
I have trouble attaching moral stipulations to rhetoric. If it is the art of speaking well (my current working definition), both good and bad men can use rhetoric, for good and bad purposes. The moral lies not with the subject, but with the human that it is produced through.
I like your point, that "the moral lies not with the subject, but with the human that it is produced through." It really opens up the idea that concepts and ideas are not necessarily immoral or bad - but its society that values them and puts stigmas on them to claim whether or not it is a virtuous thing or a vicious thing.
ReplyDeleteI also like that you question Quintilian's idea of virtue, because that is exactly the sort of thing that enables orators to persuade people - they create definitions of things which must correspond with the public's idea, or else his argument wouldn't work.
How can we know that Quintilian is a good person? By what he tells you about himself and how he conducts himself - which when you think about it, seems unreliable.
"The moral lies not with the subject, but with the human that it is produced through." I completely agree with you - morality (or goodness?) seems relative to each individual person. So...based on Quintillian's writing, are we to believe that he is a moral man because of what he has written? I'd like to believe that, but I have trouble simply listening to words without maybe - deeds? Maybe I need to research this man a little bit more.
ReplyDeleteBut people do good deeds with false intentions as well, so that may not be something to go on either. Someone told me last year that if we truly knew what good was, we wouldn't have to ask that question - we wouldn't have to lay out rules and stipulations for it. We'd simply know.
I'm leaning towards that right now. So - does that make the classical definition of it unattainable?