Editing Catiline (section)

=== 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}}