Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory.” Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory. Trans. John S. Watson. Iowa State University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <http://eserver.org/rhetoric/quintilian/index.html>.
This site is the most modern and intuitive and, while easily searchable though a Google widget embedded on the site, it seemed to take a try or two to find what I needed. This digital text uses the translation by Watson, the most widely used and cited, and often regarded as the best translation of Quintilian’s work.
Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria.” LacusCurtius Quintilian. Ed. William Thayer. Trans. Harold E. Butler. University of Chicago, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/home.html>.
John Thayer, a simultaneous translator of French and English, typed all of Quintilian’s work into the site as “an opportunity for me to become intimately familiar with the work.” For his digital text, Thayer used the H. E. Butler translation from the Loeb Classical Library Editions first published in 1920‑1922. This site is his labor of love and is easily searchable thought a Google widget embedded on the site.
Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria.” Perseus. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Trans. Harold E. Butler. Tufts University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=Quintilian>.
More of a database style site, it is the most complicated to navigate out of the three. The search options of this text are limited to three book sections, so it is not as comprehensive a search tool as the other two.
Works Cited – Secondary Sources with Précis
Katula, Richard A. “Quintilian on the Art of Emotional Appeal.” Rhetoric Review 22.1 (2003): 5-15. Print.
Richard Katula, a Professor of Communications Studies and Education at Northeastern University, in his scholarly essay “Quintilian and the Art of Emotional Appeal” (2003), explores Quintilian’s theory of emotional appeal, divided into ethos and pathos, and how emotional appeal has regained legitimacy with contemporary society as a form of persuasion. Katula explores the resurgence of pathos using psychological studies to establish how people influence and persuade each other through emotional interaction; showing how mastering the emotional appeal is an art form; pointing out that while logos can win people’s minds, pathos is needed to win their hearts; detailing Quintilian’s “rules” on emotional appeal and contrasting their value between Roman times and today; and finally, showing the finer points around delivering the emotional appeal effectively. The purpose of his essay is to examine the power of the emotional appeal through a Quintilian lens in order to illustrate its use and abuse as a strategy in today’s courtroom and mass media communications. While Katula’s audience is fellow scholars of classical rhetoric, he establishes a relationship with anybody wanting to understand how humans can deliberately use emotions to influence each other.
Logie, John. “I Have No Predecessor to Guide My Steps: Quintilian and Roman Authorship.” Rhetoric Review 22.4 (2003): 353-73. Print.
John Logie, in his article “I Have No Predecessor to guide My Steps: Quintilian and Roman Authorship” (2004), argues that while use of the term “author” when referring to Quintilian involves retrospective application of our contemporary definition, Quintilian could be considered anachronistic because in Institutio Oratoria he defines himself by the modern definition of author. Logie supports this thesis by defining “author” in contemporary terms and showing when it shifted definition; defining authorship in Greek and Roman times as inspiration emanating from external forces; showing how other scholars have interpreted a lack of originality in Quintilian’s work; referencing specific passages in the Institutio Oratoria to show Quintilian’s view that once a person has mastery over knowledge and technique they can be original instead of an imitator; and finally showing how Quintilian’s understanding of his own mastery of rhetoric, of exploring new terrain in the discipline of rhetoric, allowed him to consider himself as owner and author of his work. By exploring the definition of authorship in classical and contemporary times, Logie shows Quintilian’s view of his role in the study of rhetoric in order challenge the standard contemporary narrative of Qunitilian’s view of himself and his rhetorical legacy. Logie’s intended audience is the classical rhetorical scholars studying Quintilian philosophy, pedagogy, and history, and his relationship is one of conversation and debate with this field’s leaders as they push the scholarly conversation forward.
Monfasani, John. “Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance: Quarrels on the Orator as a Vir Bonus and Rhetoric as the Scientia Bene Dicendi.” Rhetorica 10.2 (1992): 119-38. Print.
John Monfasani, in his article “Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance: Quarrels on the Orator as a Vir Bonus and Rhetoric as the Scientia Bene Dicendi” (1992), claims that the anti-Quintilianism of the Renaissance humanists deserves a closer look because it hasn’t been examined thoroughly yet, and he chooses to look at Quintilian’s definitions of rhetoric and orator to narrow his examination. Monfasani explores his thesis by establishing the two camps of Renaissance scholarly conversation on Quintilian, looking at how Quintilian defines and moralizes rhetoric as vir bonus, examining how Quintilian arrived at his definition of bene dicere, and detailing the debate amongst the Renaissance scholars about the purpose of rhetoric and whether rhetoric is intrinsic or extrinsic. The purpose of Monfasani’s article was to explore Renaissance debate about Quintilian in order to challenge Quintilian’s contemporary reputation as morally earnest and illuminate an important part of the historical scholarly debate surrounding Qunitilian’s rhetorical philosophy that had not been closely examined by contemporary scholars. Monfasani establishes a relationship with the historical scholars and students of classical and Renaissance rhetoric.
Works Cited – Secondary Sources
Kennedy, George. “An Estimate of Quintilian.” The American Journal of Philology 83.2 (1962): 130-46. Print.
Leigh, Matthew. “Quintilian on the Emotions (Institutio Oratoria 6 Preface and 1-2).” The Journal of Roman Studies 94 (2004): 122-40. Print.
Mendelson, Michael. “Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument.” Argumentation 15.3 (2001): 277-294. Print.