ABSTRACT
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. [1] 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]
