In Book 7 of the Natural History, when Pliny embarks on praising Cicero, he informs his readers that he will confine his encomium strictly to the deeds of Cicero's consulship (e tota uita tua consulatus tantum operibus electis, 7.116). Yet, towards the end of his enumeration of what Cicero accomplished as consul, Pliny momentarily veers far off course. He does so by crediting Cicero with proscribing Mark Antony (tu M. Antonium proscripsisti), an apparent reference to the Philippics of 43.Footnote 2 But then, in the very next sentence, the reader is abruptly transported back to Cicero's consulship by the reference to Cicero's dual honours of being hailed in 63 ‘father of his country’ (parens patriae) and voted a supplication in recognition of his suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy.
To restore a sound chronological sequence of events in 63, the article proposed the simple emendation tu [M.] Antonium circumscripsisti (‘you curbed Antonius’). This removes the anomalous reference to 43 b.c. by crediting Cicero with taking action in 63 to counter a genuine threat posed by his consular colleague C. Antonius, an erstwhile political ally of Catiline. In a review of his consular accomplishments (Pis. 5), Cicero recounts how he detached Antonius from Catiline as part of his successful strategy to defeat Catiline and the conspirators. The additional pieces of evidence from Seneca's Suasoriae reveal how natural it would have been for a scribe looking at tu Antonium circumscripsisti to write instead tu M. Antonium proscripsisti.
Two quotations from the seventh suasoria of Seneca the Elder attest that rhetoricians were fond of indulging in the conceit that Cicero's bitter invectives against Mark Antony in the Philippics had metaphorically proscribed Antony by damning his memory for all ages to come. The notion was especially piquant and suited to illustrate poetic justice, because Antony was the triumvir who was held chiefly responsible for ordering Cicero's death in revenge for the Philippics (Plut. Vit. Cic. 46.2–3; Vit. Ant. 19.2). In the seventh suasoria, which treats the theme ‘Should Cicero burn his writings in exchange for a promise from the Triumvir Mark Antony to spare his life’, Cicero is counselled to decline the odious proposition and take pride in the lasting fame of his writings. In urging Cicero to defy Antony, the declaimer Argentarius speaks of Cicero ‘proscribing’ Antony with these words (Suas. 7.8):
sine durare post te ingenium tuum, perpetuam Antonii proscriptionem.
Permit that genius of yours to live after you as an eternal proscription of Antonius.
An even more explicit formulation of the paradox is to be found in the words of the declaimer Arellius Fuscus (Suas. 7.8):
uno proscriptus saeculo proscribes Antonium omnibus
you, who have been proscribed in a single age, will proscribe Antonius for all ages to come
In the light of this trope,Footnote 3 it is easy to understand how a copyist of Pliny could have been influenced to modify the text after mistaking Antonium, unaccompanied by a praenomen, for the Triumvir Mark Antony. The scribe would have been predisposed to think of the triumvir and the proscriptions as a result of having copied out the words proscriptorum liberos just a few lines earlier. Pliny used that expression to allude to Cicero's speech justifying his refusal to permit the children of those proscribed by Sulla to stand for public office. Once thoughts of Mark Antony and the proscriptions had been planted in the scribe's head, familiarity with the trope of Cicero proscribing Antony exerted its irresistible nudge. The intrusion of that paradox into Pliny's text is perfectly comprehensible, and the altered text does result in the passage preserving at least a semblance of logic, since all of the other deeds were done by Cicero, not to him. They added up to achievements contributing to his lasting fame, as did unquestionably his ‘proscription’ of Mark Antony by means of his Philippics. But, of course, the Philippics of 43 b.c. fall far outside the territory Pliny demarcated, Cicero's consulship of 63 b.c., from which exclusively he promised to select deeds to praise.
Finally, one other piece of evidence from the seventh suasoria is also relevant. In §2, the rhetor Cestius Pius held up as one of Cicero's memorable accomplishments ‘the detachment of Antonius from Catiline and his restoration to the cause of the Republic’ (Antonium auulsum Catilinae, rei publicae redditum). Here we have evidence that Cicero's success in neutralizing the danger posed by his colleague Antonius was celebrated in the schools of rhetoric. It is the deed that Pliny logically included in his roster of Cicero's consular acts, later corrupted to ‘you proscribed Marcus Antonius’. In both Cestius Pius and Pliny, ‘Antonius’ was perfectly capable of standing on its own; it required no praenomen to designate Cicero's colleague C. Antonius, uncle of the triumvir. ‘M.’ of the paradosis of Pliny is a later scribal insertion, when circumscripsisti (‘curbed’) was corrupted to proscripsisti (‘proscribed’). The context in Cestius and Pliny makes the identity of Antonium unmistakable: auulsum Catilinae in Cestius; in Pliny, the immediately preceding clause tuum Catilina fugit ingenium. The ‘Antonius’ linked with Catiline at Suas. 7.2 and HN 7.117 can be none other than C. Antonius (cos. 63).
