クィンティリアーヌスの審議弁論に関する理論について

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In his Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian bases his concept of the ideal orator on that of Cicero However, there is sometimes a gap between this Ciceronian ideal and Qumtilian's own theory, which was influenced by his own age This gap can be seen most clearly in his theory of deliberative oratory, because genuine deliberative bodies had ceased to function under the empire and Q really wrote about declamatio and other non-practical forms of oratory The following arguments prove this (1) In distinguishing the three 'genera causarum'(3 4 6), Q first divides the whole task of oratory into that which is inside the courts and that which is outside them This strange division reveals the influence of Q's own age over his theory while former rhetoricians had regarded both the courts and the deliberative bodies as the obvious fields for oratory, at Q's time the latter had already become obsolete, so that he could name only the courts as a definitive field for oratory In another passage (3 8 14-5), Q tries to enlarge the field of deliberative oratory, but his enlargement is vague, which again shows his inexperience in this genre (2) Q treats the 'mores' (of the orator and of the audience) differently in different passages In one passage (3 8 13), the term denotes the orator's good character which contributes by itself to his persuasiveness In another (3 8 35-48), he regards it not as an instrument of persuasion in itself, but as an object to which the speech, if it is to be persuasive, must be adapted This latter concept, which seems to derive from the 'aptum', one of the four virtues of style, is adopted here because it is useful in suasona and prosopopoeia, which are what Q really had in mind when writing about deliberative oratory (3) Q says that the 'genus dicendi' appropriate to suasona is similar to that used in real forensic speeches (3 8 58-61) When this statement is compared to his treatment of the style one should use in controversia (2 10), where he emphasizes that controversia must closely imitate the courts, it seems odd, because we naturally expect him to write that suasona should imitate genuine deliberative speeches His silence about the latter again points to their irrelevance in his time What he calls 'uerum consilium' (3 8 62) turns out to be either speeches from the past or speeches inserted into historiography (4) Beginning the chapter about deliberative oratory(3 8 1), Q states that the honorable is more cogent than the useful in this genre This is in accordance with his concept of the ideal orator as a 'vir bonus' In his more technical discussion (3 8 30-32), however, Q treats 'utile' and 'honestum' equally, disregarding his former statement The issue of the orator's morality therefore seems to be integrated only superficially into his theory of deliberative oratory For this question he also refers the reader to the last book, but there (12 1) it is obvious that Q again has the courts in mind Thus, the issue of the orator's morality in deliberative speeches remains unsolved These arguments also show how Q tries to supplement his theory by borrowing from other fields of rhetoric
2006-03-07

クィンティリアーヌスの審議弁論に関する理論について

スポンサーリンク

概要

論文 | ランダム

スポンサーリンク