The conspiracy was formed after Catiline's defeat in the consular elections for 62 (held in early autumn 63). He assembled a coalition of malcontents – aristocrats who had been denied political advancement by the voters, dispossessed farmers, and indebted veterans of Sulla – and planned to seize the consulship from Cicero and Antonius by force. In November 63, Cicero exposed the conspiracy, causing Catiline to flee from Rome and eventually to his army in Etruria. The next month, Cicero uncovered nine more conspirators organising for Catiline in the city and, on advice of the senate, had them executed without trial. In early January 62 BC, Antonius defeated Catiline in battle, putting an end to the plot.
Modern views on the conspiracy vary. Uncovering the truth of the conspiracy is difficult; it is well accepted that the ancient sources were heavily biased against Catiline and demonised him in the aftermath of his defeat. The extent of the exaggeration is unclear and still debated; most classicists agree that the conspiracy occurred as broadly described – rather than being a manipulative invention of Cicero's – but concede that its actual threat to the republic was exaggerated for Cicero's benefit and to heighten later dramatic narratives.
History
Catiline's conspiracy was the only major armed insurrection against Rome between Sulla's civil war (83–81 BC) and Caesar's civil war (49–45 BC).[2] The main sources on it are both hostile: Sallust's monograph Bellum Catilinae and Cicero's Catilinarian orations.[3] Catiline, before the conspiracy, had been complicit in the Sullan regime; while his family had not reached the consulship since the fifth century BC,[4] he had strong connections to the aristocracy and was both a nobilis and a patrician.[5]
He had been prosecuted in 65 and 64 BC, but he was acquitted after several former consuls spoke in his defence. His influence even during his prosecutions was considerable; for example, Cicero had considered a joint candidacy with him in 65 BC. While some of the ancient sources claim Catiline was involved in a First Catilinarian conspiracy to overthrow the consuls of that year, modern scholars believe this first conspiracy is fictitious.[3][6]
Causes and formation
Catiline had stood for the consulship three times by 63 BC and was rejected every time by the voters. Only after his defeat at the consular comitia in 63 – for consular terms starting in 62 BC – did Catiline start planning a coup to seize by force the consulship which had been denied to him.[8][9]
He enlisted into his circle a number of disreputable senators: Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, a former consul ejected from the senate for immorality in 70 BC; Gaius Cornelius Cethegus, a Sertorian sympathiser with few prospects for promotion; Publius Autronius Paetus, a winning consular candidate in the elections of 66 BC who had his victory annulled and senate seat stripped after conviction on bribery charges; and two other senators expelled for immorality and corruption.[10] Other malcontents who had expected but had been denied advancement also joined the conspiracy, such as Lucius Cassius Longinus, who had been praetor in 66 and defeated in consular elections in 63 BC; Lucius Calpurnius Bestia; and two Sullae.[11]
Non-senatorial men also filled the ranks. The classicist
Erich Gruen describes these men as "mixed", adding, "single-minded purpose cannot readily be ascribed" to them.[12] Some were frustrated candidates for municipal elections; some may have been motivated by debts; others sought profit in the chaos; yet others were members of declining aristocratic families like Catiline.[13] What allowed them to raise a meaningful threat to the state was their mobilisation of men displaced by Sulla's civil war.[14] Joining those dispossessed in the Sullan proscriptions were landed Sullan veterans who expected monetary rewards and had fallen into debt after poor harvests.[15][16]
The ancient sources generally credit their involvement in the conspiracy with large debts that Catiline's putsch were supposedly to erase. But scholars reject this as a sole cause and consider the shame of unmet political ambitions indispensable.[17] None of the ancient sources, save Dio, mention any connection between Catiline and land reform; it is likely Dio is wrong, if Catiline had advocated for land reform, Cicero should have alluded to it.[18] Three of the conspirators had been repulsed at the consular elections; another three had been ejected from the senate; others found themselves unable to attain the same offices as their ancestors.[17]
The conspiracy, however, was for Roman citizens only. It was not one for slaves. Although Cicero and others stoked fears of another servile rebellion – the last servile rebellion had been suppressed in 71 BC[19] – the evidence leans against their involvement.[20] Catiline planned not a social revolution, but rather, a coup to place himself and his allies in charge of the republic.[21]
The defeat of the Rullan land reform bill early in 63 BC also must have stoked resentment: the bill would have confirmed Sullan settlers on their land and allowed them to sell it to the state; it would have distributed new lands to poor dispossessed citizens. The failure of the relief bill at Rome contributed to the uprising's support among the poor.[22] This was coupled with a general financial and economic crisis stretching back at least to the First Mithridatic War a quarter-century earlier.[23] With renewed demand for capital in the aftermath of stability secured by Pompey's victory in the Third Mithridatic War, moneylenders would have called in debts and increased interest rates, driving men into bankruptcy.[24]