Elegance (elegantia) of Elocution in the Coverage of Russian 18th Century Rhetorical Books in Latin

Kurilova Anna Dmitrievna ORCID: 0000-0001-9311-1380 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University) 123242, Russia, Moscow, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya str., 3, building 1 akurilova@mail.ru

 Rhetorical education in Russia has been Latin-speaking for a long time in accordance with the traditions of ancient and Western European scholarship. In the XVIII century, despite the appearance of rhetoric in Russian ^[1], the practice of teaching rhetoric in Latin remained in spiritual and secular educational institutions. Handwritten manuals were compiled for students, including both the theoretical foundations of eloquence and practical exercises. An extensive layer of educational rhetorical books in Latin deserves attention, since its study will complement the idea of the early stage of the formation of the Russian rhetorical school. Texts of Russian handwritten rhetoric of the XVIII century in Latin are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, which determines the novelty of the study.

The rhetorical manuals compiled for didactic purposes were distinguished by compilability and a weak manifestation of the author's principle, therefore, authorship was not indicated in most of the educational rhetoric. A notable exception is the manual of Manuel Basilevich, compiled for the Smolensk Collegium in 1756. At the same time, it should be noted that the remaining unknown authors of the Russian rhetoric of the XVIII century, relying on authoritative sources, still find a certain amount of independence in the methodological principles of drawing up manuals, in the selection and adaptation of theoretical and practical material.

The composition of the manuals was based on the rhetorical canon dating back to ancient eloquence and included sections devoted to the invention, arrangement, verbal expression, memorization and delivery of oratory. Verbal expression (elocutio) was considered as the most important part of the art of eloquence. Obviously, therefore, in some manuals ^{[2, 3]}, the order of presentation of the rhetorical theory dictated by the ancient canon was violated, and the section on verbal expression preceded the rest.

At the center of the doctrine of verbal expression was the theory of style, offering branched classifications of styles and recommendations for their use. The purpose of the article is to consider the interpretation by the compilers of Russian textbooks of the concept of grace of verbal expression as one of the most important requirements for style.

The authors of handwritten rhetoric cite numerous classifications of styles compiled in accordance with different criteria. Thus, in terms of quality, high, medium (moderate) and low styles were distinguished ^{[2, l. 43; 4, l. 105 (ob)]}; in terms of quantity — compressed, medium and lush ^{[2, l. 45]}; in terms of subject matter — philosophical, historical, epistolary, oratorical, poetic and dialogical ^{[2, l. 45-47; 5, l. 48]}. There were also classifications regarding the person, place and method of pronouncing ^[6].

With all the variety of styles, the basic requirements for speech were the same. Speech had to possess such qualities as purity (puritas), clarity (perspicuitas), appropriateness (dignitas), elegance (elegantia, venustas). The concept of purity meant literate Latin speech (latinitas), although some authors emphasized the importance of purity of speech in any language. The requirement of clarity meant the need for precise usage of words, avoiding barbarisms. Relevance was interpreted as the correspondence of the speech to its purpose and the circumstances of its utterance. The concept of grace included many particular requirements and therefore, to a greater extent than other qualities, needs to be explained.

According to the definition of Feofan Prokopovich, whose rhetoric was one of the most important sources for educational manuals of the XVIII century, the verbal expression had to be elegant and refined: "Elocutio culta et elegans oratori ita necessaria est, ut nemo sine ea, tametsi omnigena eruditione instructus sit, orator audire mereatur. Haec sola si abest, frustra est inventio et dispositio: languent affectus, frigent argumenta, sicca est amplificatio, hebescunt acumina ..." ("Refined and elegant verbal expression is so necessary for an orator that without it no one is worthy to be considered an orator, even if he is trained in all kinds of knowledge. If there is no one, invention and arrangement are useless: affects become numb, arguments cool down, amplification is dry, witticisms are blunted") ^{[7, p. 204]}.  The words of Feofan Prokopovich are quoted with minor changes by many compilers of Russian rhetoric ^{[2, L. 14 (ob); 3, L. 92 (ob)]}, explaining in detail the meaning of the concept of grace of speech.

The compiler of the rhetoric of 1759 from the Ryazan Seminary attributes to the elegance of speech the careful choice of words and expressions, the embellishment of thoughts, the moderate use of tropes and figures, the proper connection of periods and arguments ^{[8, l. 101 (ob)]}.

Manuel Basilevich, the author of the Smolensk manual of 1756, interprets the concept of elegance more broadly, including such qualities of speech as purity (latinitas) and clarity (explatio) ^{[5, l. 107 (ob)]}.

The correct use of tropes and figures was one of the most important manifestations of the grace of speech. The compiler of the Ryazan rhetoric gives several recommendations for their skillful application. Thus, according to his advice, not without grace ("non invenuste"), metaphor and allegory can be used in speeches whose purpose is to teach (docere) and, to an even greater extent, to delight (delectare) ^{[8, l. 102]}. Hyperbole and catachresis can be used only in sublime, passionate and poetic speech ("in sublimi aut vehemente aut poetica dictione") ^{[8, l. 102]}. Of the figures, antithesis, paradiastole, antimetabol, oxymoron, periphrase, sermocination contribute most to the charm and brilliance of speech ^{[8, l. 102 (ob)]}.

A necessary sign of elegant speech was considered its coherence, a smooth connection of periods ("connexio periodorum"). Particles played a big role in the coherence of speech. To study Latin particles , the compiler of rhetoric from the Ryazan Seminary advises turning to the Italian grammar of the XVI century . Orazio Tursellino (Horatius Tursellinus): "Legatur Tursellini libellus de particulis linguae Latinae" ^{[8, l. 103]}. Particles, according to the rhetorician, are especially important for the connection of periods. They are likened to lime containing loose sand (instar calcis sunt arenas passim fluentes continentis) ^{[8, l. 103]}.

Formulas of transitions between periods are also mentioned, which indicates a certain standardization of verbal expression, but the rhetorician advises using formulas "cum grano tamen salis maximaque varietate usurpandae" (with a twist, with the greatest variety) ^{[8, l. 103]}. Formula schemes are proposed to vary, achieving maximum diversity.

The connection of individual words ("junctura verborum") also required attention. To achieve the sonority of speech, it was necessary to avoid gaping vowels and excessive roughness at the junction of words due to the accumulation of consonants. Not only the sound, but also the meaning of the words should be taken into account when arranging them. Thus, the rhetorician advises to take care that "that which is first in nature is not placed after that which is less worthy or later in nature" ("nec vel natura prius postponatur illi, quod indignius vel natura posterius est") ^{[8, l. 101 (ob)]}.

Elegantia, according to the author of Ryazan rhetoric, forms the kind of speech that is called flowery (floridum genus dicendi). Replete with ornaments and sequins (floribus ac luminibus), it shows more grace than dignity (dignitas) ^{[8, l. 103]}. At the same time, one should beware of excessive elegance, which generates a sophistic or curly kind of speech (sophisticum sive calamistratum dicendi genus) ^{[8, L. 103]}. The pomposity of this style is manifested in numerous epithets, tropes, descriptions, sonorous figures. So it is permissible sometimes to speak to young men, the rhetorician believes, and men should be more serious and courageous eloquence (gravior et virilis eloquentia) ^{[8, l. 103]}. The author illustrates the difference between flowery and sophistic styles by comparing: "Facillime autem differentiam horum dicendi generum intelliges, si dixeris, sophisticum, illud fuco meretritio, floridum venustati femineae, pulchritudini virili masculaeque id genus dicendi simile esse quod cum elegantia conjunctam habet dignitatem" (" The easiest way you will understand the difference between these types of speech is if you will say that sophistic is like the blush of harlots, and flowery is like feminine charm and masculine beauty, since dignity is combined with grace in it") ^{[8, l. 103 (about)]}.

Some authors of rhetoric consider the moderate use of jokes and witticisms as a manifestation of the elegance of speech. So, jokes and witticisms, according to the compiler of the Nizhny Novgorod rhetoric of 1766, are appropriate in the so—called dialogical style, which the author characterizes as jocosum et urbanum ("playful and elegant"), reminding that witticisms are not accidentally called sales (from the word sal - salt), because they also improve the taste speech is like salt — the taste of cooked dishes ^{[5, l. 48 (vol.)]}. The author of the rhetoric of 1744-1745 from the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy claims that witticisms (acumina) and elegant judgments (propositiones elegantes) come from the same sources ^{[9, l. 16]}.

In matters of style, the most authoritative for the authors of Russian educational rhetoric was the treatise of the German philosopher and theologian Johann Gottlieb Heinecke "Fundamenta stili cultioris" ("Fundamentals of elegant Style", 1719). Thus, the sections on style in Vologda and Ryazan rhetoric are almost entirely borrowed from Gainektius. In particular, definitions of different styles are taken from his work, as well as the idea of decorated, ornamental style as the ideal of eloquence.  Gainection's concern for the sophistication of the style was excessive, reaching the grotesque, nevertheless, it was his style that was considered exemplary for a long time ^{[10, p. 49]}. As A.I. Solopov notes, "Gainectius preached the elegance of the syllable, which he understood as beauty, so his guide is based on such topics as uoces et phrases elegantiores ("refined words and expressions"), constructiones rariores ("rare constructions"), phrases selectiores ("refined expressions") and ingeniosa iudicia et acumina" ^{[10, pp. 49-50]}. It was the requirements of Gainection to the style that formed the basis of stylistic theories in the Russian rhetoric of the XVIII century.

Thus, the elegance of style (elegantia, venustas, urbanitas) in the considered educational rhetoric was perceived as an indispensable feature of true eloquence. Grace was understood as the skillful use of stylistic ornaments, refined wit, coherence and proportionality of verbal expression. The compilers of Russian educational rhetoric in Latin in their prescriptions reflected the stylistic tastes of their time, far from the strict purity of classical Latin.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.