At one of the most important points in his whole career, just before taking on the prosecution of Verres, Cicero had to address a Roman court in a preliminary process (divinatio), in order to prove that he was a more suitable person to conduct the case than his opponent, the Sicilian freedman's son, Caecilius. One of the arguments which he then used in his own favour was that he had received an education far superior to that of his rival. He was, he claimed, equipped with all the oratorical skill necessary for dealing with a matter of such widespread public concern, and that skill was based on studies ardently pursued since boyhood, most particularly in the literatures of Greece and Rome.[l] Beyond doubt, the linguistic and literary teaching of the grammaticus would have won Cicero's warm approval; but, within this field, he made certain interesting distinctions, both between language and literature and between Latin literature and Greek. His literary criticism in the Brutus shows that he regarded the correct use of the Latin language as a fundamental requirement for the orator, [2] and he frequently praised those who spoke properly (recte), even flawlessly (emendate), and who showed taste and discrimination (elegantia) in their diction. This quality, however, was not always necessarily derived from study, for it might be the result of good home environment and family tradition, and some spoke well without much acquaintance with literature. [3] But literary culture did show up in a man's style, and there were degrees of literary culture. [4] The study of Latin literature alone would only take a man a certain way; [5] it was Greek which made all the difference, though one should not despise Latin in enthusiasm for Greek. [6] An orator's training in Greek was often worthy of special comment, [7] but to be 'learned in literature, both Greek and Latin' was to earn particular praise. [8]
The love of literature in mature years often owed its origin to the reading of the poets in early life, whether in private tuition or at school.
One who inspired Cicero in his boyhood had been the poet Archias, who had come to Rome from Antioch as a young man, and, in 102 B.C., had been welcomed into the home of the Luculli. In the ensuing years,
Archias, who had already made a reputation in the cities of Magna Graecia not only as a poet but as a gifted improviser, became persona grata to several leading families in Rome. [9] When, many years later, in 62 B.C., Archias was charged with having illegally assumed the Roman citizenship, Cicero came to his defence with a charming and eloquent little speech, in which he combined praise of Archias, and acknowledge-ment of his personal indebtedness to him, with a glowing panegyric on literature in general and poetry in particular. Even though Archias' services to him may perhaps be somewhat exaggerated, it is evident that poetry was Cicero's first love, and he was already composing in boyhood. [10] Posterity never found in Cicero the poet anything like the inspiration of Cicero the orator, [11] but Roman audiences appreciated his many apt quotations from the early Latin poets, [12] and he himself, throughout his life, found in Greek and Latin literature a solace in times of trouble and a source of perennial refreshment and delight.
Hand in hand with poetry and music in the educational curriculum of classical Greece went the four 'mathematical disciplines' of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and musical theory. Throughout Hellenistic and Roman times these four subjects held together,[13] and they were included in Varro's encyclopaedia of the liberal arts, entitled Disciplinae.
But at Rome, although they could be started at the secondary stage, they took only a subordinate position in the standard curriculum, which concentrated on grammar and literature. The grammaticus, apart from explaining astronomical references in the poets, did not teach them himself. [14] Boys who needed, or who were interested in, mathematics and music would have to attend specialist teachers, usually Greeks, and, even though one such teacher might offer more than one subject,[15] this would involve an additional fee. But this does not mean that these subjects were neglected. Cicero, indeed, regarded them as forming an integral part of boyhood training (puerilis doctrina), [16] and had certainly acquired a knowledge of them himself.
For very many years there lived in the house of Cicero a blind scholar named Diodotus, a philosopher of the Stoic school. Cicero tells us that he began to learn from Diodotus in boyhood; [17] and so, too, later, did P. Crassus, the triumvir's son. [18] Diodotus, despite his disability, was a skilled musician, and continued to play stringed instruments, but, what was more remarkable, he also gave lessons in geometry, instructing his pupils verbally on the points from and to which they should draw their lines.[19] They would have used the sand-table form of abacus, and we may well imagine that Diodotus would not only explain but also test his pupils by the favourite method of question and answer. The philosopher was also a keen teacher of dialectic, but what is significant is that Cicero was still studying not only this but 'other subjects' too with him in 84 B.C., when he was twenty-two years of age.[20] Then again, Cicero's
interest in astronomy also showed itself in his production, when quite a young man, of the first Latin verse translation (the greater part of which is extant) of the astronomical poem of Aratus.[21]
Cicero may not have been altogether exceptional. It is true that only rarely do we hear of Romans who acquired high expertise in mathematical subjects, as did Sextus Pompeius, uncle of Pompey the Great, in geometry,[22] and Sulpicius Gallus (cos. 166), the first Roman to predict an eclipse of the moon, in astronomy. [23] But it is quite possible that interest among young Romans was wider than the rather limited evidence suggests. Pompey's young wife had, as we have seen, studied geometry. [24] One would hardly have suspected, moreover, had it not been for a chance remark of his biographer, that Virgil had studied not only medicine but 'especially mathematics'.[25] Similarly, the architect Vitruvius was familiar with all the mathematical disciplines, and mentions his teachers in astronomy. [26] Under the Empire, there were established schools of geometry, [27] which would pretty certainly be run by Greeks, with Euclid as their text. The term 'geometry' might also include arithmetic, but practical arithmetic, at the level of everyday usage, was the special province of the calculator.
Most Romans, whilst aware of the high attainments of the Greeks in the mathematical disciplines, took a distinctly utilitarian view of them.
Geometry and arithmetic seem to have been most in favour, closely followed by astronomy; musical theory probably least. Geometry was considered mainly useful for the correct determination of the areas of estates, and the works of the Roman land-surveyors show how they applied it to this purpose. [28] Cicero regretted this limitation, though Seneca was content to accept it. [29] The Romans would also have agreed with Polybius on the need for geometry in certain military calculations, and especially in camp-measurement. Practical astronomical observation was an obvious necessity for understanding the calendar, for navigation, and for farming, and, as Polybius said, it had a military application in forecasting the hours of light and darkness, which affected the planning of an army's movements. [30] But the fundamental question was — how far could mathematical studies be justified as part of the training of the orator? [31] Here, it is doubtful whether Cicero would have laid much stress on Quintilian's claim that arithmetic and geometry were necessary because the orator might have to deal with law-suits involving numerical calculations or boundary-disputes.[32] Such cases did undoubtedly occur, but they must have formed only a minority. Rather, he would more readily have accepted the argument put forward by Quintilian, and by Isocrates long before, that the mathematical disciplines were a valuable form of mental training, from which the student derived the habit of clear and orderly thinking, and of concentration, and that they could have a beneficial effect in quite different fields.[33] But Cicero's
own view was not restricted to practical values. For him, all such studies were liberal arts, and he saw in them part of that general culture (humanitas), towards which boys should be guided; they were conducive to the good life and he would have regarded them as worthy of further study beyond boyhood. Herein Cicero was taking a quite Platonic view, which he likewise attributes to Crassus.[34] But the Roman schools of 'grammar' and rhetoric, which held the field, had no such exalted concept. Consequently, it was eventually left, in the main, to the philosophers (though not all philosophers were agreed) to foster them as preparatory studies, for with philosophy they had more in common. It was chiefly through philosophical interest that the four mathematical disciplines ultimately became standardized as the mediaeval quadrivium.
[35]
We come now to Cicero's views on the teaching of rhetoric, the most important subject in Roman education. As regards the construction of speeches, Cicero had been brought up on the traditional text-book classifications of the types of issue, the treatment section by section of the speech-divisions, and the standard arguments and commonplaces, which were associated particularly, though by no means exclusively, with the name of Hermagoras. In later life, although he was inclined to dismiss his youthful De Inventione, and replaced it with a far more broad and liberal treatment of the whole subject of oratory, this did not mean that he had condemned the substance of a long-established system, merely that he found it inadequate. Even in the De Oratore, he admitted that he 'did not despise' the doctrines of the Greeks, [36] and his criticism of Hermagoras in the Brutus, written in 46 B.C., shows what his verdict really was. Although Hermagoras was arid in exposition, he found him useful and effective, for he showed the student the lines on which he must proceed in the various types of case, and he put into his hands the necessary arguments, all ready to be hurled, like spears equipped with their thongs. [37] Cicero must have felt the stock divisions and precepts to be useful, at least as a beginning, for he utilized them himself in the text-book entitled Partitiones Oratoriae, which he composed for his son Marcus. His own speeches, which have often been rhetorically analysed, show much correspondence with theory, but also considerable divergen-cies, which resulted from experience and the practical conditions of pleading. [38] In maturity, Cicero, like any good orator, refused to be bound by a rigid system, and he would have agreed with most of the modifications which Antonius had found to be necessary. But it was, in the first instance, in the province of style, where his own supreme mastery lay, that he took a much more comprehensive view than the average rhetorician, and here he had much to say that was both stimulating and instructive.
The authors of rhetorical textbooks had long been familiar with the
standard threefold classification of style into Plain, Middle and Grand, which has widely (though not universally) been considered to derive from Aristotle's pupil, Theophrastus.[39] Greek rhetoricians would draw illustrations of each type from passages of standard prose authors, most particularly the orators. In Latin, the author of the treatise Ad Herennium claimed originality in composing his own examples, instead of merely selecting them from previous writers.[40] Cicero himself brought the three styles into relation with the three functions of the orator, recommending use of the easy, conversational Plain Style to instruct, the pleasant, smoothly-flowing Middle Style to charm, and the striking, impressive Grand Style to stir. [41] But in his later years, as may be seen in the Orator, the doctrine of the three styles, and the choice of a suitable model, or models, had become part and parcel of a controversy between Cicero and the so-called 'Atticists'.[42] This school, in which Cicero's rival, Calvus, was prominent, was dedicated to a straight-forward, correct, and unadorned style, for which its supporters selected Lysias as their model, and eschewed all artificiality, affectation, and high-flown expression, such as characterized their opponents, the 'Asianists'.[43] It was against Asianism that they had reacted — and not without good reason — but in the opinion of Cicero (who had himself not escaped adverse criticism), they had reacted too far. He fully acknowledged the merits of Lysias, a consummate artist in his own field, who achieved an enviable grace and simplicity, and a naturalness of style which was hard to emulate; but he had only a limited range. To claim him as the only true representative of classical Attic oratory was to take far too narrow a view. For Cicero, the orator must be master of all three styles, [44] and herein, Demosthenes was unsurpassed. [45] This view was later wholeheartedly endorsed by the Greek critic, Dionysius, whose essay on the style of Demosthenes admirably illustrates it by examples and comparisons. There is one difference of approach, however, which should not be overlooked. Cicero calls up the panoply of styles in order to combat the narrow 'Atticists', and only incidentally does he censure Asianism, mainly on the grounds of sing-song delivery and faulty rhythm. [46] In the Brutus, he is far from uncomplimentary to Asiatic orators;[47] after all, he had studied in Asia himself. But for Dionysius it is the Asianist style which is the real menace, and he is implacably opposed to it from the outset. [48] Cicero's involvement in the controversy tends to put the essential issue out of focus, for whereas the Atticists never had more than a very limited following, the Asianist style was lasting and pervasive, and found a new channel in the declamations of the Empire. Next to Demosthenes, Cicero also admired Aeschines, his rival, particularly the speech against Ctesiphon, which he translated into Latin along with Demosthenes' masterpiece, De Corona.[49] In Latin, likewise, Cicero selected the best wherever he found it. He recommended
the speeches of Caius Cracchus as particularly instructive and inspiring. [50] Important political speeches, he thought, should be closely studied, and passages of them even learnt by heart; in his own boyhood, the peroration of a speech of C. Galba was regularly memorized, [51] and he himself took the speech of Crassus on the law of Caepio as his model masterpiece in Latin. [52] Finally, Cicero was able to point to his own speeches as illustrating command of all three types of style, and modern studies have fully justified his claim.
As regards the essential virtues of a good style, Cicero accepted the judgment of Theophrastus that they were purity, lucidity, appropriate-ness and ornament;[53] to these four the Stoics had added brevity. [54]
He was also familiar with the Theophrastean criticism of style according to diction, composition and figures, [55] but here there was a marked difference of emphasis between his own treatment and that of the rhetorical textbooks of his day. If we may take the fourth book of the treatise Ad Herennium as typical, the rhetoricians devoted by far the greatest part of their exposition to an exhaustive list of the figures, each of them equipped with its definition and illustration. But the treatment of composition was very meagre. All that the author of the Ad Herennium has to offer here is a few comments on such rather obvious faults as excessive hiatus and repetition of similar-sounding words and endings.[56] On periodic structure and prose rhythm he is silent, and Cicero says that this subject was not included in the regular curriculum. [57] Cicero himself, whilst by no means neglecting the figures, [58] which, indeed, abound in his speeches, paid detailed attention to composition, which takes a prominent place in his treatise on the perfect orator.
It is quite clear, both from chapters in Aristotle's Rhetoric and from Cicero's references to Aristotle, Theophrastus and Theodectes,[59] that it was mainly the Peripatetic school which had provided the starting-point for his own researches, though he was fully aware of, and gave full credit for, the great contribution of Isocrates in the development of rhythmical and artistic prose. [60] The most characteristic feature of Isocrates, which, though overdone, had much influence on his pupils and on subsequent orators, was his avoidance of hiatus; [61] but he also achieved — thanks largely to his predecessor, Gorgias — a skilful symmetry, a careful balance of parallel or contrasting clauses which, though it could quickly become tedious, gave a certain formal beauty to his style. [62] In the earlier speeches of Cicero, particularly, there is much evidence of this kind of neatness (concinnitas).[63] But Aristotle and Theophrastus, whilst agreeing with Isocrates that prose should be rhythmical without becoming metrical, [64] had analysed more closely the types of rhythm which were desirable, or less acceptable, in prose.
Aristotle had pointed out the importance of the opening and closing
cadences in the sentence, and it was particularly to the latter, the clausula, that Cicero devoted meticulous attention; though this is not to say that he advocated consistent patterns and then followed them religiously in practice. [65] But he also discussed the pervasive rhythm of the period, the extent to which rhythm was desirable in different kinds of prose, and the achievement of variety, particularly in the interweaving of shorter, or very short, sections.[66] Naturally, he would not have expected schoolboys to grasp all the detail of so complex a study, but he was setting up an ideal for all who aspired to become orators, and he would have wished them to be at least aware of the subject at an early stage, as did Quintilian, and later to take it into fuller account.
A further important difference between the outlook of Cicero and that of the professional rhetoricians was that the latter concentrated on the use of reasoned argument; they tended to confine the subject of emotional appeal to the peroration, and they paid little attention to the giving of pleasure and the adroit resort to wit. Cicero would have acknowledged that emotional appeal and command of wit were qualities difficult to achieve, and still more difficult to instil by teaching; their successful use depended so much on personality and natural gift. But he had a high regard for Aristotle's treatment of the psychological approaches by which the emotions of an audience might be aroused, [67]
and he would have thought that wit and humour, a field in which, from the broad jest to the many subtle grades of irony, he was himself a master, could at least be illustrated by examples. The many types of humour, whether derived from the immediate subject or from verbal play, had been studied and classified in detail, again notably by the
and he would have thought that wit and humour, a field in which, from the broad jest to the many subtle grades of irony, he was himself a master, could at least be illustrated by examples. The many types of humour, whether derived from the immediate subject or from verbal play, had been studied and classified in detail, again notably by the