Catiline's conspiracy was a major armed insurrection against Rome, like
Sulla's civil war that preceded it (83–81 BC) and
Caesar's civil war (49–45 BC) that followed it. The main sources on it are both hostile:
Sallust's monograph and Cicero's
Catilinarian orations. Catiline, before the conspiracy, had been complicit in the Sullan regime. While no member of his family had held the consulship since the fifth century BC, he had strong connections to the aristocracy and was both a and a
patrician. Catiline was prosecuted in 65 and 64 BC for various crimes but 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 say Catiline was involved in a
First Catilinarian conspiracy to overthrow the consuls of that year, modern scholars believe this first conspiracy is fictitious.
Causes and formation and distributed in support of Catiline's consular candidacy in 63 BC. The bowl on the left was distributed by
Marcus Porcius Cato in a coeval campaign for the plebeian tribunate. 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. 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. Other malcontents who had expected but had been denied advancement 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. Non-senatorial men filled the ranks. The classicist
Erich Gruen describes these men as "mixed", adding that "single-minded purpose cannot readily be ascribed" to them. Some were frustrated candidates for municipal elections, some may have been motivated by debts, some sought profit in the chaos, and others were members of declining aristocratic families like Catiline. What allowed them to raise a meaningful threat to the state was their mobilisation of men displaced by Sulla's civil war. Joining those dispossessed in the
Sullan proscriptions were landed Sullan veterans who expected monetary rewards and had fallen into debt after poor harvests. The ancient sources generally credit their involvement in the conspiracy with large debts that Catiline's putsch supposedly would have erased. But scholars reject this as a sole cause and consider the shame of unmet political ambitions indispensable. None of the ancient sources, except Dio, mention any connection between Catiline and land reform. It is likely Dio is wrong; if Catiline had advocated for land reform, Cicero would likely have alluded to it. 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. The conspiracy was for the benefit of Roman citizens only, not slaves. Although Cicero and others stoked fears of another servile rebellion – the
last servile rebellion had been suppressed in 71 BC – the evidence leans against their involvement. Catiline planned not a social revolution, but a coup to place himself and his allies in charge of the republic. 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. This was coupled with a general financial and economic crisis stretching back at least to the
First Mithridatic War, a quarter-century earlier. 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.
Discovery , one of the consuls in 63 BC and one of the leaders of the response against Catiline, today in the Capitoline Museum.The consul
Cicero heard rumours of a plot from a woman named
Fulvia in the autumn in 63 BC. The first concrete evidence was provided by
Marcus Licinius Crassus, who handed over letters on 18 or 19 October which described plans to massacre prominent citizens. Crassus' letters were corroborated by reports of armed men gathering in support of the conspiracy. In response, the senate passed a decree declaring a (a state of emergency) and, after receipt of the reports of armed men gathering in
Etruria, carried the instructing the consuls to do whatever it took to respond to the crisis. By 27 October, the senate had received reports that Gaius Manlius, a former centurion and leader of an army there, had taken up arms near
Faesulae. Some modern scholars have argued that Manlius' revolt was initially independent of Catiline's plans; however, , rejects this. In response, Cicero dispatched two nearby proconsuls and two praetors to respond to the possibility of armed insurrection with permission to levy troops and orders to maintain night watches. Catiline remained in the city. While named in the anonymous letters sent to Crassus, this was insufficient evidence for incrimination. But after messages from Etruria connected him directly to the uprising, he was indicted under the (public violence) in early November. The conspirators met, probably on 6 November, and found two volunteers to make an attempt on Cicero's life. Cicero alleged that the conspirators plotted to engulf Rome in flames and destroy the city. Sallust reports this allegation allowed Cicero to turn the urban plebs against Catiline, but modern scholars do not believe that Catiline credibly wanted to destroy the city. After the attempts on Cicero's life failed on 7 November 63 BC, he assembled the senate and delivered his first oration against Catiline, publicly denouncing the conspiracy. Catiline attempted to speak in his defence – attacking Cicero's ancestry – but was shouted down and promptly left the city to join Manlius' men in Etruria. Writing a letter, likely preserved in Sallust, he committed his wife to the protection of a friend and left the city, justifying his actions in terms of honours unjustly denied to him and denying any alleged indebtedness.
Manoeuvres When Catiline arrived in Manlius' camp, he assumed consular regalia. The senate responded immediately by declaring both Catiline and Manlius (public enemies).
Cassius Dio's history adds that Catiline was promptly convicted on the pending charges of (public violence). The senate dispatched Cicero's co-consul,
Gaius Antonius Hybrida, to lead troops against Catiline and put Cicero in charge of defending the city.
Execution of the conspirators At this time, Cicero discovered a plot led by Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, one of the sitting praetors, to bring in the
Allobroges, a Gallic tribe, to support the Catilinarians but the Allobroges revealed Lentulus' plans. Cicero, using the Allobroges' envoys as double agents, sought their cooperation in identifying as many members of the conspiracy in the city as possible. With evidence provided by their help, on 2 or 3 December, five men were arrested: Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius, Gabinius, and
Caeparius. After the Gallic envoys divulged all they knew with promises of immunity before the senate, the prisoners confessed their guilt; Lentulus was forced to resign his magistracy and the others were committed to house arrest. An informer on 4 December attempted to incriminate Crassus in the Catilinarian plot but the informer was not believed and imprisoned. The same day, an attempt was also made to free the prisoners; the senate responded by scheduling a debate on their fate – along with the fates of four other conspirators who had escaped – for the following day. The debate on the fate of the prisoners occurred in the
Temple of Concord. Cicero, as consul, had been empowered by the previously passed to take whatever steps he thought necessary to safeguard the state, but such decrees, while lending moral support for consular action, did not grant any kind of formal immunity. Cicero's goal in requesting senatorial advice was probably to transfer responsibility for any executions to the senate as a whole. When later charged with killing citizens without trial, he justified his actions in terms of following the senate's non-binding advice. Calling the senate in order of seniority, the consuls-elect and ex-consuls all spoke in favour of the death penalty. But when
Julius Caesar, who then was praetor-elect, was called, he proposed either life imprisonment or custody pending trial. Caesar's lenient position won many senators over to his side, although it too was illegal – life sentences not being permitted without trial – and impractical. Cicero purports he then interrupted proceedings to deliver a speech urging immediate action, but the tide did not turn towards execution until
Cato the Younger spoke. Plutarch's summary indicates that Cato gave a passionate and forceful speech inveighing against Caesar personally and implying that Caesar was in league with the conspirators. Sallust's version has Cato rail against moral decline in the state and has him criticising the senators for failing to be strict and harsh like their ancestors. With the appeal that swift execution would cause defections among the Catilinarians and exaggerated claims that Catiline was to be upon them imminently, Cato's speech carried the day. With the senate ratifying Cicero's proposal to execute the conspirators without trial, Cicero had the sentences carried out, proclaiming at their conclusion, (). He was then hailed by his fellow senators as ("father of the fatherland").
Final defeat After the five prisoners were killed, support fell away from Catiline and his army. Some in Rome, such as the then-tribune
Metellus Nepos, proposed transferring command from Antonius to Pompey, calling upon Pompey to save the state. Early the next year, near
Pistoria, Catiline's remaining men, numbering at least three thousand, met Antonius's forces in the
battle of Pistoria. The now-proconsul claimed illness; with
Marcus Petreius in actual command, the Catilinarian army was defeated, ending the crisis. Catiline was himself killed in the battle. Antonius was hailed as for the victory.
Conclusion in 62 BC. The portrayal of
Bonus Eventus on the obverse likely commemorates the repression of Catiline's conspiracy. in 62 BC commemorating Catiline's defeat. It depicts the goddess
Concordia, on the left. argues that Paullus attempted to connect Catiline's defeat to peace. While Cicero was initially hailed for his role in saving the state, he did not accrue all the credit, to his dismay. Cato was also hailed as having roused the senate to act against the conspirators. There were some turns against Cicero's actions in the immediate aftermath of the summary executions. At the close of the consular year, Cicero's valedictory speech was vetoed by two
tribunes of the plebs. One of the tribunes, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos, sought to bring Cicero up on charges for executing citizens without trial. The senate prevented him from doing so, by threatening to declare anyone who brought a prosecution a public enemy. In the coming years, Cicero's enemies reorganised.
Publius Clodius Pulcher, tribune in 58 BC, enacted a law banishing anyone who had executed a citizen without trial. Cicero promptly fled the city for Greece. His exile was eventually lifted and he was recalled to Rome the next year at Pompey's behest. Views on Cicero's success in defending the republic are mixed: while Cicero argued that he had saved the commonwealth and many scholars have accepted his defence of necessary exigency, Harriet Flower, a classicist, writes he did so "by circumventing due process and the civil rights of citizens" while also revealing "the consul's complete lack of confidence in the court system on which the
New Republic of Sulla was supposed to be based". == Historiography ==