Stephanie and I discussed how much easier it was to read the Quintilian section. We both brought up the fact that the translation issue and language difference (Latin to English versus Ancient Greek to English) could have made the difference. Is Latin closer to English and therefore make it easier to translate? Does anyone have any ideas about that? I also wondered if the fact that On Rhetoric is widely accepted to be Aristotle's lecture notes had much to do with the texts lack of readability. Contrasted with Aristotle's work, Quintilian's piece seems to be written for others to read and grasp the examples, if not for publication. I wonder t oo, if the reason Quintilian's reading was easier because we have read many other writers and are becoming proficient in reading such works. And he appears to write like Plato a little bit- by asking many questions and trying to answer them. This style seems a bit easier to grasp then long sentences with many asides.
I think it is interesting that both men struggle with the issue of 'good' and 'bad' rhetoric as well as 'good' and 'bad' orators or rhetors. In Book 12, Quintilian seems to be struggling with it. He does not answer the question directly but obviously finds the answers unsatisfactory because he keeps returning to the point.
My final point- which has been bugging me for sometime is 'is there a test or a way of knowing if someone is being sincere or simply faking it?' I ask because Quintilian makes the assumption that only a 'good man' can be a true orator, yet how can we really tell? Albert Einstein (recalling physics) said there is no experiment that can differentiate between the force of gravity and a body moving at 9.8 meters/(second)^2. Similarly, if someone 'acts' or behaves 'good' how can we differentiate that from someone who is genuinely 'good'? OK, that is my 2 cents worth!
No comments:
Post a Comment