Logie,John. “‘I Have No Predecessor to Guide My Steps’: Quintilian and Roman Authorship.” Rhetoric Review, 22.4(2003): 353-73.

John Logie’s “I Have No Predecessor to Guide Me” (2003) asserts that Quintilian, contrary to scholarly opinion, was indeed an author of original material and not just a compiler of previous scholarship. Reviewing the current scholarship regarding the question of whether Quintilian was merely a compiler of previous rhetorical material or an author in the Romantic definition, Logie then takes an in-depth look into the material contained in the first eleven books of the Institutio. Logie provides the reader with ample background to the debate before beginning his own analysis of Quintilian’s work and examining how Quintilian mimics the structure of Roman education as he lays out the structure in the first eleven books. Logie concludes the article by delving into book twelve where Quintilian adds his own contribution to the field, calling it a “composition made possible by the program of dutiful scholarship duly detailed and duly followed in the first eleven books” (372), thus allowing him to be considered an author, not a mere compiler. With his in-depth look at the debate in scholarship, that surrounds Quintilian’s and the inclusion of the quotations he studies, Logie addresses an audience comprised of anybody with interest in classical rhetoric or Quintilian himself. Logie’s purpose is apparent in his article; he wants scholars to look at Quintilian in a new light—an authorial light.

Logie’s article is intriguing and thought provoking. During my first reading of Quintilian, I too was thinking that his material seemed rather repetitive and did find myself wondering if there was any new material in his writing. However, reading Logie’s text provided me with insight into the method behind the arrangement. His assertion that Quintilian’s invention lies largely in the arrangement and that this hidden invention leads commentators to see Quintilian’s work as largely compilation helped me to see the work in a similar way. After reading this essay, I have come to appreciate the work of Quintilian; it’s now easier to see the synthesis of classical rhetoric and to read Quintilian as a compiler and author instead of as a repetitive oratory scholar.