It will make a difference to our understanding of a tirocinium fori whether we suppose that attachments which would-be orators formed with their seniors were or were not exclusive, for two reasons. If a young man puts himself under the supervision of a chosen role model for a year, we may expect that the guidance he receives will be definite and comprehensive. But if he is taking advice from various parties independently of one another, not much of a program may be involved at all. The second reason is partly related to the first. If tirocinium fori is used to mean a purposive two-party relationship lasting for a set time, it is possible to think of it as a distinctive social institution. But if in fact it turns out to cover diverse relationships among several parties that last for an indefinite period, it loses explanatory potential. In that case, it is only a variation on the ubiquitous phenomenon of amicitia, whereby Romans of the upper class work assiduously to bolster themselves with networks of overlapping ties.
White, P. (2023). Cicero and the Mirage of the Tirocinium Fori. American Journal of Philology 144(2), 221-25
What I'm reading into this is that caelius and cicero had no pre-ordained cultural format or socially acceptable reason to be like that, they simply invented that dynamic from their own beautiful minds and then used it to get caelius off i mean out of criminal charges




















