Gowing’s Thinkpad (2015)

These are various thoughts or issues that come to my mind as I read -- I find it useful to keep track of these things. You may regard these as fodder for paper topics, if you wish; I'll also add some of your thoughts as well as they arise in seminar.

Quintilian

• The place of poets and poetry in Quintilian's educational theory. What poets take pride of place in that theory? Who is excluded?
• Who are the authorities on which Q. most frequently draws? Cicero and Plato, of course...but who else?
• The contemporary world in Q.: Q. very rarely makes explicit reference to contemporary events or people. Why should this be the case? There are, to be sure, many occasions on which he refers generally to contemporary practices or habits. What does one deduce from these references about the society in which Q. lives?
• The role of history in Q. -- or exemplarity. Does Q. seem to value historical knowledge? Are there particular periods or individuals to which he turns consistently? Is 'exemplarity' -- such a crucial and common aspect of Roman ethical thinking generally -- a signficant component of the IO?
• Emperors in Q.: whom does he name and/or discuss (and why)? whom does he exclude?
• Q. frequently deploys metaphor and simile as well as (and perhaps more obviously) analogy in making his points. Is there any pattern to his practice? particular favorites? What inspires Q. to use these devices? Is it to ensure the IO isn't 'dry' (cf. 1.pr.24.1, 2.4.8-9, 3.1.3 and passim)? A few things we've noticed: medical, food, sailing, agriculture, art (see below), the 'body', buildings/architecture, war/battle imagery, athletics.
• Cicero in Q. Q. is often cited a proponent of 'neo-ciceronianism'. What is meant by this? Is Q.'s view of C. simple or complex?
• Memoria in Q. A large topic. Where does Q.'s thinking about memoria fit in with what we know about Roman memory generally? How clearly does he differentiate between 'practical' and 'cultural' memory?
• 'Critical theory' in Q. Q. has a good deal to say about the interpretation of texts. Is it possible to formulate a coherent critical theory from Q.?
• Q. and the Greeks. What is more palpable in Q: how different Romans are from Greeks...or how similar they are?
• Q. and Plato. Although Q. does not seem to be a big fan of 'philosophy' generally, he is a big fan of Plato. But in what ways? Is Q.'s use of Plato sophisticated and nuanced...or facile?
• Luo suggested the other day the possibility that Q.'s remark at 1.3.17 might be 'subversive' -- a subtle suggestion for the sort of behavior a 'good' emperor (like a good teacher) would avoid. By extension, is Q.'s view of what constitutes a good (or bad) teacher applicable to a good (or bad) emperor? While I do think we tend to be overly eager to identify 'subversive' remarks in Roman writers, is there something to Luo's suggestion?
• Art in Q. Q. often adduces painting/sculpture and painters or sculptors to explain points he is making. Discuss! Is this unique to Q.? (e.g., 2.1.12, 2.3.6, 2.4.7, 2.17.21, 2.20.3)
• Q. as orator himself. What qualities or characteristics does the IO share with an oration? To what degree, that is, and how, is the IO an example of the very skill it purports to teach?
• Books 5 examines various kinds of probationes or 'proofs'. Where do we see Q. deploying some of these devices -- e.g., exempla (cf. 5.11)? How, that is, does Q., 'prove' his claims?
• The reception of Q....in any period. Esp. interesting, however, to consider impact of Q. on early American education. One place to start looking is Meyer Reinhold, Classica Americana: the Greek and Roman heritage in the United States (Wayne State 1984). Reinhold was one of the early pioneers of 'reception studies', esp. in American literature and culture.
• Q.'s proemia: what is the relationship of the proemia to the books to which they are attached? Does Q. often use these as a place to 'show off' what he is about to discuss? E.g., proem. to Book 6: sincere expression of sentiment -- or shameless play on the emotions of the reader as he prepares to discuss the role of emotions in a speech?

Tacitus Dialogus

• The language of this text -- or rather, the words the speakers use to describe the issues and concerns raised in their respective speeches -- often mirrors that found in Quintilian. What's to be learned by a comparative study of some of these words? E.g., utiltas, voluptas, eloquentia, potentia, 'laughing' words, libertas, etc.
• It is fairly easy to construct from Q. a list of 'standards' to which an orator -- the vir bonus dicendi peritus -- should adhere. Who in the Dial. succeeds in adhering to some of those standards? and who does not? Is there anyone in the Dial., that is, whom Q. would regard as if not fulfilling his ideal then at least headed in the right direction?
• One issue we drew attention to quite a bit as we began reading Quintilian was his widespread use of metaphor and simile to convey his ideas. In the Dial., too, we occasionally find metaphor and simile. For example, Tac. often uses military imagery or language in the Dial. Are there significant points of contact between the IO and the Dial. in this respect?
• Messala, as we have seen, is the character scholars most often cite as having views quite similar to those of Quintilian (to the point where, e.g., Barwick calls him 'Messala-Quintiian'). Pick one or more points of contact between Messala's remarks in the Dial. and the IO. This has been discussed quite a bit in the scholarship...but that shouldn't stop one from trying oneself.
• Is the Dialogus an 'amoral' text -- i.e., not interested at all in the moral and ethical makeup of the orator?

Pliny's Panegyricus

• If we think of P. as Trajan's 'teacher', what is he trying to teach the emperor that we also find in Q.?
• In various places, as we have seen, Q. references the emperor -- sometimes specifically (Domitian, that is), sometimes merely in general terms. In the Pan. Pliny describes various imperial ideals toward which he either urges Trajan or which, he claims, Trajan already embodies.
• Because he was Quintilian's student, it is reasonable to ask to what degree the Pan. exhibits Quintilianic ideals (as delineated in the IO)...and how he perhaps expands on those ideals. Is the 'education of an emperor', that is, wholly or significantly distinct from that of the orator? or is it the case that in the IO Quint. really is 'schooling the emperor' in the guise of the 'orator'?