Commentariolum Petitionis - Arguments of Content

Arguments of Content

Henderson presents many arguments to say that the content of the Commentariolum is anachronistic or faulty:

1. The faults attributed to Catilina in Commentariolum 10 are actually those given to Clodius in De Haruspicum Responsis 42.
2. The proscription of C. Antonius Hybrida is backdated, and actually occurred in 59.
3. The trial of Q. Gallius, referenced in the Commentariolum, did not occur until 64, but after the Commentariolum
4. The author of the Commentariolum was unaware of the dual meaning of sodalitas, equally 'group of friends' and an illegal electoral group.
5. The humanitas of Cicero is backdated; it cannot be attributed to him until after his philosophical works (55-44 BC)
6. There is no mention of the Catilinarian Conspiracy, which disappears from the historical record after Livy.

Balsdon argues against many of Henderson's claims in favour of authenticity, stating that the similarities between the Commentariolum and De Haruspicum Responsis could be a matter of rhetorical similarities only. He suggests that Q. Gallius may have been tried twice, or may have entered into counsel with Cicero as early as 66 BC, though the trial did not take place for a couple years. He also suggests that the meaning of sodalitas was not changed to mean an illegal electoral group until 59. He is joined by Nisbet (who argues against authenticity) in suggesting that the proscription of Antonius may have had a far more quotidian meaning, such as the selling of property after bankruptcy, than Henderson seems to be reading into it. Richardson finally notes that the First Catilinarian Conspiracy is not mentioned until In Toga Candida, and as such takes its omission as proof of authenticity.

Nisbet adds to the arguments of context the fact that the Commentariolum identifies Cicero as worthy (dignus) of defending consulars, though at the time of his electoral campaign, Cicero had not defended anyone in court who had held the consulship. (This section of the Commentariolum also corresponds to a section of In Toga Candida.) Nisbet rejects that this could simply be an allusion to potentialities on the basis that this would be bad rhetorical form. McDermott counters that Cicero may have already agreed to defend Piso, and this would be the sort of thing known by his brother Quintus.