Quintilian wrote the Institutio oratoria, the fullest treatise on rhetoric extant from Graeco-Roman antiquity, at the end of Domitian’s reign — a time described by our sources as one of terror and cultural repression. Tobias Dänzer’s insightful book starts from the question of how this political situation shaped the Institutio’s conception and aims, as political oratory had lost much of the prominence it had enjoyed in Republican times. Building on the notion of Legitimität (‘legitimacy’), defined in the introduction (3) as the result of a successful attempt at arguing for the rightness of people, institutions or actions (Legitimierung), the book examines how Quintilian adapted his conception of oratory and the orator to the early Imperial context.
The book falls into three parts. Part A outlines the situation of rhetorical theory and practice in Flavian Rome. D. contrasts the widespread perception of a decline of oratory with the reality of a lively judicial system. He effectively sketches a changed social landscape of rhetorical practice in which traditional patronage networks lost significance and forensic activity was no longer confined to senatorial patrons but included successful freedmen performing for pay. He focuses on how the rise of the juridical profession, linked to the increasing bureaucratisation of the imperial state, as well as the growing popularity of philosophical schools, posed distinct yet equally real threats to the traditional role of the orator.
Part B situates the Institutio in the context of Flavian Rome. With 150 pages divided into three parts, it constitutes the bulk of the book. Part B.1 follows seamlessly on from part A, discussing how Quintilian’s concept of the ideal orator reacts to the changed situation of oratory compared to the Republic, and particularly to the increasing prominence of jurists and philosophers. Siding with the strand of scholarship upholding the Institutio as a work implicitly critical of imperial power, D. argues that through ‘legitimation’ of the orator Quintilian aimed for a rehabilitation of the aristocratic Republican social order within the context of the Principate.
Part B.2 is subdivided into three sections. After a brief treatment of Quintilian’s didactic approach (B.2.1), D. analyses some of Quintilian’s most technical chapters (B.2.2): on status theory (B.2.2.1) and on the theory of loci (B.2.2.2). He demonstrates how for both theories Quintilian reformulated and simplified a complex tradition, thus extending their applicability beyond forensic oratory. On status theory, D. helpfully provides schematic overviews juxtaposing Quintilian’s teachings with those of his predecessors. Concerning the theory of loci, he moreover argues that by scaling it back, Quintilian reacted to its overextension in declamatory practice. The analysis in B.2 compellingly demonstrates how in the Institutio, status theory and the theory of loci are recast as methods of reasoning applicable to legal and philosophical inquiry. Thus, it grounds the book’s overarching argument about the orator’s legitimation vis-à-vis philosophers and jurists in a close analysis of his argumentative arsenal.
In Part B.3, D. turns to Quintilian’s chapters on elocution and performance. He begins with figures of thought (B.3.1), focusing on parrhesia, irony, and emphasis as devices that enable strategically indirect speech in politically sensitive contexts. He thereby advances his broader claim about the orator’s potential for political subversiveness. Then, he shows how Quintilian’s concept of appropriateness (B.3.2) integrates Stoic ethics with the realities of imperial forensic practice, balancing moral integrity with pragmatic self-preservation. Coupled with Quintilian’s deliberately vague notion of the common good, this framework leaves readers of the Institutio to negotiate their own ethical positioning. D. thus highlights a model of ethical flexibility, while also suggesting that Quintilian himself may occasionally veil criticism of imperial power through doublespeak. Finally, D. investigates the detailed prescriptions on performance in Inst. 11.3 (B.3.3) as an embodiment of his teachings on style, where appropriateness once again figures prominently and the orator is differentiated from his competitors.
Part C does not introduce new material but forms the conclusion to the book, presenting its results in two sections (C.1 and C.2).
On a conceptual level, D.’s use of the notion of ‘legitimacy’ is fruitful and generative. Nevertheless, a more extensive discussion of this concept and engagement with its theorisations in sociology and political theory might have strengthened the framework. And while the argument that the orator in the Institutio figures as a potentially subversive opponent of imperial power may not equally convince all readers, the analysis of how his legitimacy is asserted is overall persuasive. At the level of translation, the German is generally free and incisive, like the felicitous rendering of legulei at Inst. 12.3.11 as Paragraphenreiter (40). There are only rare exceptions, such as the translation of uera libertas at Inst. 9.2.27 as ‘die Wahrheit’ (128), likely a slip. In terms of presentation, the volume is carefully edited and contains a comprehensive Index of passages and names. Readers accustomed to anglophone presses may find the complex structure, extending to as many as six levels of sub-numbering, unfamiliar. User-friendliness could perhaps have been enhanced by adding a general index of rhetorical terms and by providing full paragraph sub-numberings in the subtitles throughout to aid orientation (e.g. ‘B.2.2.1.2.a. Vermutung’ instead of just ‘a. Vermutung’ on 63).
Notwithstanding these remarks, D.’s book is an excellent contribution to Quintilian studies, furthering our understanding of the Institutio in many respects. In particular the discussions of Quintilian’s reaction to the increased prominence of the juridical profession in Flavian Rome and the detailed analyses of the chapters on status theory and loci will prove invaluable to anyone interested in the Institutio.
