Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory is a welcomed deviation from what we have discussed thus far in the course. Though it can be tied in at a number of points, Quintilian's assertions seemed to cover the more fundamental aspects of oratory whereas those authors before him stressed oratory in their then-present societies. The fact most of the other authors were so politically motivated made me skeptical of their declarations. That is one shady lens I often distrust. Quintilian brings his readers back to basics and describes how a "good orator" can properly mature from the ground up.
Aside from his ideas of child rearing and early education based on oratory, I came away from this reading with a couple of interesting concepts. Quintilian writes a lot about imitation and the arts and, presumably, its difference from a mere plagiarism of ideas. He states, "[f]rom these authors, and others worthy to be read, a stock of words, a variety of figures, and the art of composition, must be acquired; and our minds must be directed to the imitation of all their excellences[...]" (X.II 400). The idea of intellectual property has permeated my studies for the last couple of years, and this quote only fuels the debate in my mind. Though Quintilian isn't exactly tackling the subject head on, he suggests that our predecessors in any given subject already hold the knowledge we too must utilize. He argues we look to the past to establish its relevance in the present as well as how it can be changed and, thus, improved in the future. I have trouble with the term imitation because it is so broad and inclusive. Technological advancement seems to be the signature of our time and so much of what is produced is an imitation of something that already exists. I think about the constant battle between Apple and everyone else and wonder where their shared ideas truly began. More closely related to Quintilian, I remember the giant lawsuit between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins over their all too similar social networking websites. Both parties claimed to be the originators of the idea, that is, facilitating a public discourse over the internet. Obviously I didn't have an inside look at the court proceedings, but it could be argued one was only imitating the other and not flat out stealing an idea. This may be a stretch from Quintilian philosophy, but the application of his ideas of what constitutes a good orator to these men might prove them to be equal as just that, or at least facilitators of modern oratory. Where do we draw the line between imitation and plagiarism?
I liked Quintilian's balance between being a good orator as well as being a good man, an interchangeable relationship. What interested me was his suggestion an orator be free from vice before pursuing noble studies (XII.I 413). I immediately thought of the priesthood in reading this passage. I know that Quintilian did not share the political aspirations of those before him and was interested to see how his philosophies of oratory could be applied elsewhere in the public eye. True, vices are troublesome for any person, let alone one who claims to be a good orator. I've always had a problem with people saying they have let go go their vices or that they have none. Never have I met a person free of vices. Such a requirement seems impossible to ask of almost anyone. In that case, can a person with vices ever truly be a good orator? Having vices is unavoidable. I think this allows people to relate with one another, because we are all equally condemned. I suppose the sinner always wants to live in sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment