Latin 520 ('Schooling the Emperor'):
Assignment for Week 2 (4-10 April)
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria Books 2 and 3 (we'll devote Monday to Book 2 and Wednesday to Book 3)
One section I'd liked to focus on on Monday is 2.5.18-26 (we'll probably translate this section) where Q. discusses what a student should read. Come prepared to share your thoughts about this. Are there omissions here that surprise you? On what principles does Q. base his selections?
In Book 2 (and passim) Q. is very concerned with and attentive to the physical demands of oratory and, by extension, the orator's appearance and comportment. As you read, keep track of his observations on this point -- to the extent that you are able to summarize his essential points and advice (which is to say, it might be wise to write these down).
Of the various views Q. puts forward about the definition -- and about the nature and purpose -- of rhetoric, which do you find the most plausible, and why?
3.7.9 contains one of the few direct references to Domitian; the more substantial is at 4.proem.2-5. What is your initial reaction to this (brief) mention of the emperor?
Look at the end of 3.1.21: why do you think Q. says this?
Following an admittedly difficult and (some might say) dry stretch of technical discussion, Q. turns in 3.7 to laus and vituperatio -- speeches of praise and blame. Read this chapter carefully; it will bear to some degree on our reading of the Panegyricus (note how I keep referring to those pleasures yet to come). Is there anything about this chapter that strikes you as odd?
Please look up the terms controversiae and suasoriae -- especially if this is the first time you have run across these terms -- and come prepared to explain what they are. You'll find short but good articles on both in Der Neue Pauly (in seminar room). Where might we go to read some exx. of these?
And finally: one entirely optional ponderandum -- at 2.2.10 Q. makes a derogatory remark about humanitas, at least as it is currently exhibited. This is an important concept in Roman culture generally (Cicero's Pro Archia is an especially important text in this regard), and Q. himself elsewhere in the IO clearly values humanitas. It's worth exploring the meaning of this word, in the OLD and TLL, and pondering what may have happened to cause Q. to reference it in this disparaging way.
For Wednesday please have read J.F. López, 'Quintilian as Rhetorician and Teacher' in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, W. Dominik and J. Hall, edd., pp. 307-22 (Blackwell 2010). A pdf of this has been posted on the website. Pick out one or two points that you found especially helpful or interesting.
Optional stuff:
FYI: You should be aware that Reinhardt and Winterbottom published in 2006 a massive commentary on Book 2. While I'm not asking you to consult the commentary per se, you might find the BMCR review of it informative (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-03-28.html)