First Catilinarian conspiracy

Last updated

The so-called first Catilinarian conspiracy was an almost certainly fictitious conspiracy in the late Roman Republic. According to various ancient tellings, it involved Publius Autronius Paetus, Publius Cornelius Sulla, Lucius Sergius Catilina, and others. Ancient accounts of the alleged conspiracy differ in the participants; in some tellings, Catiline is nowhere mentioned. Autronius and Sulla had been elected consuls for 65 BC but were removed after convictions for bribery. New consuls were then elected. The supposed goal of the conspiracy was to murder the second set of consuls elected for 65 BC and, in their resulting absence, replace them.

Contents

Almost all modern historians believe the conspiracy is fictitious and dismiss claims thereof as merely slanderous political rumours. The core of the legend, a plot by the two consuls-elect for 65 BC to kill and usurp the consuls, is dismissed as inconceivable. The participation of others, such as Catiline, is rejected as inconsistent with their immediately following political actions; most claims of participation are believed to be discrediting retrojections introduced in the aftermath of the real Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC.

Ancient accounts

A 1st century AD bust of Cicero, one of the principal sources alleging Catiline's involvement in this fictitious conspiracy. He later exposed, as consul, the real Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC. Cicero - Musei Capitolini.JPG
A 1st century AD bust of Cicero, one of the principal sources alleging Catiline's involvement in this fictitious conspiracy. He later exposed, as consul, the real Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC.

The inciting incident for the conspiracy was the election of two consuls-designate for 65 BC, Publius Autronius Paetus and Publius Cornelius Sulla, followed by the invalidation of the results. They were accused and convicted of ambitus , electoral corruption, preventing them from entering office and expelling them from the senate. [1] The two other leading candidates, Lucius Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Aurelius Cotta, were elected in a second election and then slated to enter office on the first day of 65 BC in their place. Catiline supposedly became involved when his consular candidacy was rejected by the presiding magistrate for the comitia in 66 BC, Lucius Volcatius Tullus. [2]

Accounts

Cicero's account survives, although scattered over a number of speeches. At various times and contexts, he claimed there was a conspiracy: [3] [4]

Sallust describes a conspiracy developed in December 66 BC involving Autronius, Catiline, and Piso to make Autronius and Catiline consuls by violence on 1 January 65 BC. His description then includes a further conspiracy to murder many senators and assume the consulship on 5 February 65 BC after the discovery of the first plot. [9]

Livy's account survives only in the Periochae. [10] The summary thereof states only that a conspiracy, by those who had stood for the consulship but were convicted of ambitus (Autronius and Sulla), to kill the consuls was suppressed. [11]

Suetonius' account has no mention of Catiline and instead has Autronius conspiring with Julius Caesar (later dictator) and Marcus Licinius Crassus (later Caesar's ally) to butcher the replacement consuls and have Crassus made dictator with Caesar as magister equitum . Caesar would help by cooperating with Piso to raise an insurrection in Hispania and elsewhere. [2] Crassus and Caesar would then restore Autronius and Sulla to their vacated consulships. [12]

Cassius Dio gives no mention of Crassus and Caesar, relating instead that Autronius, Sulla, Catiline, and Piso conspired to make Autronius and Sulla consuls. [13]

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the rumours, the senate voted to provide bodyguards for the consuls and to establish an inquiry; the inquiry, however, was vetoed by one of the tribunes. When Catiline was tried for corruption later in 65 BC, one of the sitting consuls he was alleged to have planned to murder, Lucius Manlius Torquatus, appeared in his defence and indicated his disbelief of the rumours. [14] [15]

Cicero, on his part, however, continued to slander Catiline through following years with the allegations, due both to his personal enmity with Catiline and his desire to embellish his suppression of Catiline's revolt in 63 BC. [16]

Modern views

Modern historians today, almost universally, doubt that the conspiracy ever existed and view it as fictitious. [17] [10] [18] [19] [20] Older scholarship had varied views, positing various theories: The conspirators could have been agents of a shadowy anti-Pompeian faction or a motley group of opportunists. [2] Catiline may have been an ally of Torquatus, Sulla, or have been unrelated, engaging only tangentially because of the trial of Gaius Manilius in December 66 BC. [21] But since the 1960s, basically all historians now reject the conspiracy's historicity. [22]

Robin Seager in a 1964 article proposes means by which the legend was developed: [23] Cicero sought to discredit Catiline prior to his consulship by associating him to a supposed plot that came to nothing; he later excised Publius Sulla from his descriptions when he needed to defend him. Another tradition attempted something similar by putting Caesar's name into the mix. [24] Of the possibility of a core conspiracy by the two consuls-designate unseated for corruption, Seager writes "it is inconceivable that there was such a plot... they could have had no hope of recovering the consulship even for a single day". [25] As to Suetonius' claims, beyond the fact that Crassus and Caesar could have had no part in a non-existent conspiracy, they would have had no reason to join one: the two would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose. As to Piso's involvement, Seager dismisses any such involvement as implausible given that he soon received the honour of an early governorship in Hispania from the senate. [26]

Erich S. Gruen in a 1969 article similarly dismisses the ancient descriptions as "hopelessly muddled by propaganda and invective", explaining that after the actual Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC, "it was in any politician's interest to associate his enemies with Catiline" and that later stories embellished this by inventing a role for Caesar and Crassus after Caesar's polarising consulship in 59 BC. [21] Catiline may have engaged in some demonstrations related to a riotous trial – that of Manilius – at the end of 66 BC, but there is little reliable evidence of a connection between those demonstrations and any attempts to overturn the consular elections. [27]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cicero</span> Roman statesman and lawyer (106–43 BC)

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, philosopher, writer and Academic skeptic, who tried to uphold optimate principles during the political crises that led to the establishment of the Roman Empire. His extensive writings include treatises on rhetoric, philosophy and politics. He is considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists and the innovator of what became known as "Ciceronian rhetoric". Cicero was educated in Rome and in Greece. He came from a wealthy municipal family of the Roman equestrian order, and served as consul in 63 BC.

This article concerns the period 69 BC – 60 BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Catiline</span> Roman politician, senator and soldier (c. 108–62 BC)

Lucius Sergius Catilina, known in English as Catiline, was a Roman politician and soldier best known for instigating the Catilinarian conspiracy—a failed attempt to violently seize control of the Roman state in 63 BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Catilinarian orations</span> Set of speeches to the Roman Senate given by Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Catilinarian orations are four speeches given in 63 BC by Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the year's consuls. The speeches all related to the discovery, investigation, and suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy, a plot that year to overthrow the republic. All of the speeches in the form available today were published, probably around 60, as part of Cicero's attempt to justify his actions during the consulship; whether they are accurate reflections of the original speeches in 63 is debated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Triumvirate</span> Alliance between Roman politicians Caesar, Pompey and Crassus

The First Triumvirate was an informal political alliance among three prominent politicians in the late Roman Republic: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gaius Julius Caesar. The republican constitution had many veto points. In order to bypass constitutional obstacles and force through the political goals of the three men, they forged in secret an alliance where they promised to use their respective influence to support each other. The "triumvirate" was not a formal magistracy, nor did it achieve a lasting domination over state affairs.

Publius Clodius Pulcher was a Roman politician and demagogue. A noted opponent of Cicero, he was responsible during his plebeian tribunate in 58 BC for a massive expansion of the Roman grain dole as well as Cicero's exile from the city. Leader of one of the political mobs in the 50s, his political tactics – combining connections throughout the oligarchy with mass support from the poor plebs – made him a central player in the politics of the era.

The gens Gabinia was a plebeian family at ancient Rome. Members of this gens first appear in the second century BC. The nomen derives from the city of Gabii, east of Rome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther</span> Consul of the Roman republic in 57 BC

Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther was a Roman politician and general. Hailing from the patrician family of the Cornelii, he helped suppress the Catilinarian conspiracy during his term as curule aedile in 63 BC and later served as consul in 57 BC. Denied the opportunity to invade Egypt the following year, he nevertheless won some victories in his province of Cilicia and celebrated a triumph over it in 51 BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Licinia gens</span> Ancient Roman family

The gens Licinia was a celebrated plebeian family at ancient Rome, which appears from the earliest days of the Republic until imperial times, and which eventually obtained the imperial dignity. The first of the gens to obtain the consulship was Gaius Licinius Calvus Stolo, who, as tribune of the plebs from 376 to 367 BC, prevented the election of any of the annual magistrates, until the patricians acquiesced to the passage of the lex Licinia Sextia, or Licinian Rogations. This law, named for Licinius and his colleague, Lucius Sextius, opened the consulship for the first time to the plebeians. Licinius himself was subsequently elected consul in 364 and 361 BC, and from this time, the Licinii became one of the most illustrious gentes in the Republic.

Publius Cornelius Sulla was a politician of the late Roman Republic and the nephew of Lucius Cornelius Sulla. He was also a brother-in-law of Pompey, having married his sister Pompeia.

Lucius Aurelius Cotta was a Roman politician from an old noble family who held the offices of praetor, consul and censor. Both his father and grandfather of the same name had been consuls, and his two brothers, Gaius Aurelius Cotta and Marcus Aurelius Cotta, preceded him as consul in 75 and 74 BC respectively. His sister, Aurelia, was married to Gaius Julius Caesar, brother-in-law to Gaius Marius and possibly Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and they were the parents of the famous general and eventual dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar.

Publius Autronius Paetus was a politician of the late Roman Republic who was involved in the conspiracy of Catiline.

The Battle of Pistoria was fought early January 62 BC between the forces of the Roman Republic and Catiline, a senatorial conspirator who had been organising an attempted conspiracy against the consuls the previous year.

Gaius Calpurnius Piso was a politician and general from the Roman Republic. He became praetor urbanus in 72/71 BC. After being elected consul in 67 BC, Piso opposed Pompeius' friends, the tribunes Gaius Cornelius and Aulus Gabinius. Assigned both Gallia Narbonensis and Gallia Cisalpina, he remained as proconsul until 65, or perhaps later in Cisalpina. Piso defeated an Allobrogian rebellion and repressed troubles in Transpadana, for which he was unsuccessfully prosecuted by Caesar. He supported Cicero during the Catiline conspiracy.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer was a Roman politician who was consul in 60 BC and in the next year opposed Pompey, Caesar, and the so-called First Triumvirate's political programme. He was a member of the powerful and influential plebeian noble family, the Caecilii Metelli. Prior to 62 BC, he was an ally of Pompey and had served as urban praetor in 63, augur by 63 BC, possibly aedile in 67 BC, and plebeian tribune in either 72 or 68 BC.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos was an ancient Roman politician during the Late Republic. He was a son of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos and served as tribune of the plebs in 62 BC, consul in 57 BC, and the governor of Hispania Citerior from 56–55 BC.

Marcus Marius Gratidianus was a Roman praetor and supporter of Gaius Marius during the civil war between the followers of Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla. As praetor, Gratidianus is known for his policy of currency reform during the economic crisis of the 80s BC.

Lucius Manlius Torquatus was a consul of the Roman Republic in 65 BC, elected after the condemnation of Publius Cornelius Sulla and Publius Autronius Paetus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Catilinarian conspiracy</span> Attempted coup in the Roman republic in 63 BC

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.

Lucius Vettius was a Roman equestrian informer who informed on the Second Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC and later, in 59 BC, denounced a supposed plot of many conservative-leaning senators to murder Pompey. He was jailed and then found dead.

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Wilson 2021, p. 304.
  2. 1 2 3 Gruen 1969, p. 20.
  3. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Mur. 81.
  4. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Sull. 10 et seq.
  5. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Mur. 81.
  6. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Sull. 10 et seq.
  7. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Cat. 1.15.
  8. ↑ McGushin 1977 , p. 298, citing Cic. Sull. 51.
  9. ↑ Seager 1964 , p. 342, citing Sall. Cat. , 18.7.
  10. 1 2 Wilson 2021, p. 303 n. 1.
  11. ↑ Livy Per. , 101.3 (coniuratio eorum qui in petitione consulatus ambitus damnati erant facta de interficiendis consulibus obpressa est).
  12. ↑ Wilson 2021 , p. 304, citing Suet. Iul. 9.1.
  13. ↑ Seager 1964 , p. 342, citing Dio 36.44.3 et seq.
  14. ↑ Wiseman, TP (1992). "The senate and the populares". In Crook, JA; et al. (eds.). Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 9 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p.  342. ISBN   0-521-25603-8.
  15. ↑ Syme 2002, p. 90.
  16. ↑ Phillips 1976, p. 441.
  17. ↑ Woodman, Anthony J (2021). "Sallust and Catiline: conspiracy theories". Historia. 70 (1): 55–68. doi:10.25162/historia-2021-0003. ISSN   0018-2311. S2CID   230569776. The first Catilinarian conspiracy is dismissed by almost every modern historian.
  18. ↑ Phillips 1976 , p. 441. "It is clear that so-called First Catilinarian conspiracy... is fictitious".
  19. ↑ Waters, K. H. (1970). "Cicero, Sallust and Catiline". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 19 (2): 195–215. ISSN   0018-2311. JSTOR   4435130. I shall not discuss the once believed-in "First Catilinarian conspiracy", a phantom now, it is to be hoped, exorcised for ever.
  20. ↑ Seager 1964 , p. 338 n. 1. "It is now widely held that the conspiracy is wholly fictitious".
  21. 1 2 Gruen 1969, p. 21.
  22. ↑ Berry, DH (2020). Cicero's Catilinarians. New York. p. 17. ISBN   978-0-19-751081-0. OCLC   1126348418. The "first Catilinarian conspiracy" was accepted at face value by ancient and modern historians alike until the myth was exploded by Robin Seager and Ronald Syme (independently) in 1964.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  23. ↑ Seager 1964, p. 342.
  24. ↑ Seager 1964, pp. 342–43.
  25. ↑ Seager 1964, p. 344.
  26. ↑ Seager 1964, p. 346.
  27. ↑ Gruen 1969, p. 24.

Modern sources

Ancient sources

  • Cicero (1856). "For Sulla". Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Bohn's Classical Library. Vol. 2. Translated by Yonge, CD. London: George Bell & Sons – via Perseus.
  • Livy (2003). Periochae. Translated by Lendering, Jona – via Livius.org.
  • Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C. Cambridge: Harvard University Press – via LacusCurtius.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.