Editing Catiline (section)

== Attempts at the consulship ==
Catiline served as praetor some time before 68&nbsp;BC; [[T. R. S. Broughton]] in ''Magistrates of the Roman Republic'' dates the praetorship exactly to 68&nbsp;BC.{{sfn|Broughton|1952|pp=138, 141 (footnote noting that it must have been in or before 68&nbsp;BC).}} He then served as propraetorian governor of Africa for two years (67–66&nbsp;BC).<ref>{{harvnb|Broughton|1952|p=617|ps=. Entry in index of offices: "Leg., Lieut. 82, Pr. 68, Propr. Africa 67–66."}}</ref>

Some time in the mid-60s&nbsp;BC, Catiline married the wealthy and beautiful [[Aurelia Orestilla]], daughter of the consul of 71&nbsp;BC, [[Gnaeus Aufidius Orestes]]; this was his second marriage.{{sfnm|Berry|2020|p=18}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Evans |first=Richard J |date=1987 |title=Catiline's wife  |journal=Acta Classica |volume=30 |pages=69–72 |issn=0065-1141 |jstor=24591812 }}</ref> Sallust relates that he did so not out of money, but only due to her good looks, something which Romans believed to be discreditable.<ref>{{harvnb|Berry|2020|p=18}}, citing {{harvnb|Sall. ''Cat.''|loc=15.2}}.</ref> Cicero later claimed in his ''Catilinarians'' that Catiline murdered his first wife and Orestilla's son to make way for the match; he also claimed in ''In toga candida'' that Orestilla was Catiline's own illegitimate daughter. Cicero's allegations "cannot be taken at face value and reveal more about typical themes and slanders found in Roman invective than they do about Catiline's domestic history".{{sfn|Berry|2020|pp=18–19}}

=== Elections of 66&nbsp;BC and trial ===
Upon his return to Rome in 66&nbsp;BC, embassies from Africa protested his maladministration.{{sfn|Broughton|1952|p=147}} Catiline also attempted to stand for the consulship, but his candidacy was rejected by the presiding magistrate. Sallust and Cicero attribute the rejection to an imminent extortion trial,{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=340}}<ref>{{harnvb|Broughton|1952|p=147|ps=, citing {{harvnb|Sall. ''Cat.''|loc=18.3}} and Cic. ''Cael.'' 10.}}</ref> but this decision may have been made in terms of the contested elections for the consulship of 65&nbsp;BC: before Catiline's return to Rome, the first consular elections were held but both men elected{{efn|The first consular ''comitia'' of 66&nbsp;BC returned [[Publius Autronius Paetus]] and [[Publius Cornelius Sulla]]. The second ''comitia'', from which Catiline was excluded, returned [[Lucius Manlius Torquatus (consul 65 BC)|Lucius Manlius Torquatus]] and [[Lucius Aurelius Cotta (consul 65 BC)|Lucius Aurelius Cotta]].{{sfnm|Seager|1964|1p=338|Broughton|1952|2p=157}} }} were deposed after they were both convicted of bribery; the second elections, after Catiline's return, were held with the same candidates – the two convicts excepted – returning two different consuls. Catiline's candidacy could have been rejected not due to expectations of an extortion trial, but rather for the mere fact that he was not a candidate in the first election.{{sfn|Seager|1964|pp=338–39}}

Following the elections, early in 65&nbsp;BC, the ancient sources give contradictory descriptions of what is called a "[[First Catilinarian conspiracy]]" in which Catiline (except in [[Suetonius]]' narrative) conspired with the deposed consular candidates from the first election to recover the consulship by force. In some tellings, Catiline himself was to assume the consulship. Regardless, the supposed date of this alleged conspiracy, 5 February, came and went without incident.{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=342}} Modern scholars overwhelmingly believe that this "First Catilinarian conspiracy" is fictitious.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wilson |first=Mark |title=Dictator: the evolution of the Roman dictatorship |date=2021 |publisher=[[University of Michigan Press]] |location=Ann Arbor |isbn=978-0-472-12920-1 |page=303 n. 1 |oclc=1243162549}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Phillips|1976|p=441 |ps=. "It is clear that so-called First Catilinarian conspiracy... is fictitious".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Waters|1970|p=|ps=, "I shall not discuss the once believed-in "First Catilinarian conspiracy", a phantom now, it is to be hoped, exorcised for ever".}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Seager|1964|p=338 n. 1|ps=. "It is now widely held that the conspiracy is wholly fictitious".}}</ref>

Later that year, in the second half of 65&nbsp;BC (some time after 17 July), Catiline was brought to trial for corruption during his governorship. The prosecution was led by [[Publius Clodius Pulcher]], but Catiline was defended by many influential former consuls, including one of the consuls of 65&nbsp;BC (who had won in the second election; that consul also disavowed Catiline's rumoured involvement in the alleged putsch).{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=3yUkzNLiY4oC&pg=PA342 342] }} Clodius, prosecuting, may have helped Catiline out by selecting a favourable jury that would be impressed by the ''consulares'' coming to Catiline's aid.{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=345}} But scholarly opinion on whether Clodius purposefully manipulated the proceedings for acquittal is divided.<ref>{{harvnb|Alexander|1990|pp=106–07|ps=, n. 3, "Cicero's statement (''Att.'' 1.2.1) ... has been taken to suggest that the prosecutor was working with the defence to secure an acquittal. Gruen (''Athenaeum'' 1971) 59–62, however, argues that Clodius [the prosecutor] did not commit ''praevaricatio''".}}</ref> In the end, the jury – composed of senators, equites, and the ''tribuni aerarii'' – divided: the senators voted for conviction, the latter two panels for acquittal. Cicero, not yet having broken with Catiline, considered defending Catiline at this trial,<ref>Cic. ''Att.'' 1.2.</ref> but eventually decided not to; Catiline's advocate is unknown.{{sfn|Alexander|1990|pp=106–07}}

=== Consular elections of 64&nbsp;BC ===
Catiline's candidacy at the consular elections in 64&nbsp;BC was accepted. Also standing for the consulship that year were [[Cicero]] and [[Gaius Antonius Hybrida]]; the three were the only candidates with a realistic chance of winning.{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=348}} Catiline, bankrolled by Caesar and Crassus, distributed large bribes; after a bill against electoral bribery was defeated, Cicero gave ''In toga candida'', a speech full of invective attacking Catiline and Antonius.{{sfn|Berry|2020|p=19}} Antonius and Catiline were allies during the election and attempted to beat Cicero. Their strategy, however, was unsuccessful. Cicero was carried unanimously and Antonius narrowly defeated Catiline.{{sfn|Berry|2020|p=20}} 

This was also the year that [[Julius Caesar|Gaius Julius Caesar]] was president of the standing court on assassinations. His willingness – along with [[Cato the Younger]] in the treasury demanding repayment of loans from the civil wars – to pursue the beneficiaries of the Sullan civil war may have swayed voters away from supporting Catiline.{{sfn|Wiseman|1992|p=348}} This may also have been reinforced by timely conviction of Catiline's maternal uncle on charges of murder during the proscriptions.{{sfn|Berry|2020|p=20}} After the consular elections, Catiline was brought up on charges of murdering people during the proscriptions, perhaps of Gratidianus. Prosecuted by Lucius Lucceius or possibly Caesar, Catiline was again acquitted when a number of former consuls spoke in his defence.{{sfn|Alexander|1990|pp=108–09}} There is no evidence that Caesar affected Catiline's acquittal.{{sfn|Gruen|1995|pp=76–77 n. 124 }}