Quintilian

In Institutes of Oratory, much of what Quintilian says can be directly applied to writing and the teaching of writing. His arguments and analogies often illuminate the logic behind concepts I regularly deal with while teaching first-year composition. Sometimes, for instance, students struggle with paraphrasing others’ words: “If the author said it so well, why would I try to use my own words? And how can I put something so perfectly crafted into my own words?” Quintilian’s discussion of paraphrasing is simple but convincing. He shows that it would not be true to say that the author has already chosen “the best words and phrases” (409). This excuse, he says, diminishes the value of language; in reality, language bestows an almost limitless vocabulary and endless ways to combine words (409). There is certainly more than one “good” way, then, to talk about a topic (409). It’s true that one’s paraphrase is unlikely to be as good as or better than the author’s original brilliance, but one certainly has the resources to come close (409). Quintilian’s logic in this section is straightforward, making me wonder why I never thought of justifying paraphrases like that, but now I have a better explanation to offer my students.

Some of Quintilian’s discussion of writing corresponds with current theories of composition. In more than one place, he insists that the teacher should not overcorrect students to the point that they fear to include creativity or ardor in their writing (370). However, teachers today might disagree with the importance he gives to students’ imitating others’ writing in order to sharpen their skills (400-2). They would contend, most likely, that this kind of teaching makes students think that there are certain rules for writing well and thereby discourages development of personal flair. Also, the trend in those writing about composition right now is to suggest that revision should never end, that a work is never really finished. Quintilian also emphasizes revision but suggests that too much reworking could make a piece “scarred and bloodless” (408). He seems to imply that rewriting needs to end at some point, or the author will miss the exigency and kairos of the rhetorical work; it will no longer matter (408).

In Institutes of Oratory, that Quintilian frequently links rhetoric unmistakably with writing certainly distinguishes him from his predecessors .