Catilinarian conspiracy
The Catilinarian conspiracy, sometimes Second Catilinarian conspiracy, was an attempted coup d'état by Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline) to overthrow the Roman consuls of 63 BC – Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida – and forcibly assume control of the state in their stead.
For the fictitious conspiracy in 65 BC, see First Catilinarian conspiracy.
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. In December, 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.
Historiography[edit]
Bias in ancient accounts[edit]
The main sources for us on the conspiracy are Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, a monograph on the conspiracy, and Cicero's Catilinarian orations. As a whole, the sources – in ancient times – almost always took anti-Catilinarian perspectives.[68] The negative view of Catiline in the sources found its way into Roman imperial culture.[69]
Cicero's narrative is obviously one-sided and it is well established that he exaggerated the danger of Catiline's threat in his orations for political advantage.[70] He also recounted his side of the story – also an act of self-promotion – in a memoir and a three-book poem De consulatu suo.[68] Cicero's narrative casts Catiline in terms of immorality while eliding the economic hardships of the time.[71] The narratives also extend beyond attacks on Catiline but also into exaggerating and justifying Cicero's role and actions during the conspiracy. The orations were published, c. 60 BC, to defend Cicero from political backlash for his executions without trial.[72]
Sallust, who was active politically before and after the conspiracy, was not present in Rome in 63 BC, likely abroad on military service.[73][74] His history lies somewhat parallel to Cicero's Catilinarians, relying on extra-Ciceronean evidence, especially contemporary oral sources,[75] but Cicero's orations and a now-lost memoir are core sources for Sallust's monograph.[74][76][77]
Sallust's overarching focus on moral decline as a cause of the republic's collapse has him paint an ahistorical portrait of Catiline that elides details in favour of his larger narrative. J. T. Ramsey, in a commentary on the monograph, writes:[78]