Cotta

1. C. Aurelius Cotta, was consul in B. C. 252, with P. Servilius Geminus, and both consuls carried on the war in Sicily against the Carthaginians with great success. Among several other places they also took Himera, but its inhabitants had been secretly removed by the Carthaginians. Afterwards Cotta borrowed ships from Hiero, and having united them with the remnants of the Roman fleet, he sailed to Lipara, the blockade of which he left to his tribune, Q. Cassius, with the express order not to engage in a battle; but, during the absence of the consul, Cassius notwithstanding allowed himself to be drawn into an engagement, in which many Romans were killed. On being informed of this Cotta returned to Lipara, besieged and took the town, put its inhabitants to the sword, and deprived Cassius of his office of tribune. Cotta was celebrated for the strict discipline which he maintained among his troops, and of which several instances are on record. During the siege of Lipara one of his own kinsmen, P. Aurelius Pecuniola, was scourged and degraded to the rank of a common soldier, because through his fault a part of the camp was set on fire, in consequence of which almost the whole camp fell into the hands of the enemy. It was probably during the same campaign, that he acted with great rigour towards the equites who refused to obey his commands. (Frontin. Stratey. 4.1.22.) At the close of his consulship Cotta triumphed over the Carthaginians and Sicilians. In 248 he obtained the consulship a second time, together with his former colleague, P. Servilius Geminus, and again fought in Sicily against the Carthaginians. Carthalo in vain endeavoured to make a diversion by attacking the coasts of Italy; but further particulars are not known about him. (Zonar. 8.14, 16; Oros. 4.9; Cic. Ac. 2.26; Frontin. Strateg. 4.1.31; V. Max. 2.7.4; Fast. Capit.)

2. M. Aurelius Cotta, was plebian aedile in B. C. 216, and had in 212 the command of a detachment at Puteoli under the consul App. Claudius Pulcher. Nine years later, B. C. 203, he was appointed decemvir sacrorum, in the place of M. Pomponius Matho. The year after this he was sent as ambassador to Philip of Macedonia, and protected the Roman allies who had to suffer from the inroads of the Macedonians. After the conclusion of the war against Carthage, he urged the necessity of proceeding with energy against Philip. He died, in B. C. 201, as decemvir sacrorum, in which office he was succeeded by M'. Acilius Glabrio. (Liv. 23.30, 25.22, 29.38, 30.26, 42, 31.3, 5, 50.)

3. C. Aurelius Cotta, was praetor urbanus, in B. C. 202, and consul in 200, with P. Sulpicius Galba. He obtained Italy as his province, and with it the command in the war against the Boians, Insubrians and Cenomanians, who, under the command of Hamilcar, a Carthaginian, had invaded the Roman dominion. The praetor, L. Furius Purpureo, however, had the merit of conquering the enemies; and Cotta, who was indignant at the laurels being snatched from him, occupied himself chiefly with plundering and ravaging the country of the enemy, and gained more booty than glory, while the praetor Furius was honoured with a triumph. (Liv. 30.26, 27, 31.5, 6, 10, 11, 21, 22, 47, 49; Zonar. 9.15; Oros. 4.20.)

4. M. Aurelius Cotta, was legate of L. Cornelius Scipio, in B. C. 189, during the war against Antiochus. He returned to Rome with the ambassadors of Antiochus, with Eumenes and the Rhodians, to report to the senate the state of affairs in the East. (Liv. 37.52.)

5. L. Aurelius Cotta, was tribune of the soldiers, in B. C. 181, and commanded, together with Sex. Julius Caesar, the third legion in the war against the Ligurians. (Liv. 40.27.)

6. L. Aurelius Cotta, was tribune of the people in B. C. 154, and in reliance on the inviolable character of his office he refused paying his creditors whereupon however his colleagues declared, that unless he satisfied the creditors they would support them in their claims. In B. C. 144, he was consul together with Ser. Sulpicius Galba, and disputed in the senate which of them was to obtain the command against Viriathus in Spain; but Scipio Aemilianus carried a decree that neither of them should be sent to Spain, and the command in that country was accordingly prolonged to the proconsul Fabius Maximus Ameilianus. Subsequently Cotta was accused by Scipio Aemilianus, and although he was guilty of glaring acts of injustice he was acquitted, merely because the judges wished to avoid the appearance of Cotta having been crushed by the overwhelming influence of his accuser. Cotta was defended on that occasion by Q. Metellus Macedonicus. Cicero states that Cotta was considered a veterator, that is, a man cunning in managing his own affairs. (V. Max. 6.4.2, 5.4, 8.1.11; Cic. pro Muren. 28, pro Font. 13, Brut. 21, Divin in Caecil. 21; Tac. Ann. 3.66.)

7. L. Aurelius Cotta, was consul in B. C. 119. and proposed in the senate that C. Marius, who was then tribune of the people, should be called to account for a law (lex Maria) which he had brought forward relative to the voting in the comitia, and which was levelled at the influence of the optimaes. Marius, who was summoned accordingly, appeared in the senate, but, instead of defending himself, threatened Cotta with imprisonment unless he withdrew his motion. L. Caecilius Metellus, the other consul, who supported Cotta, was really thrown into prison by the command of Marius, none of whose colleagues would listen to the appeal of the consul, so that the senate was compelled to yield. (Plut. Mar. 4; Cic. de Leg. 3.17.) From Appian (App. Ill. 10) it might seem as if Cotta had taken part with his colleague Metellus in the war against the Illyrians, but it may also be that Appian mentions his name only as the consul of that year, without wishing to suggest anything further.

8. L. Aurelius Cotta, was tribune of the people in B. C. 95, together with T. Didius and C. Norbanus. When the last of them brought for ward an accusation against Q. Caepio, Cotta and Didius attempted to interfere, but Cotta was pulled down by force from the tribunal (templum). He must afterwards have held the office of praetor, since Cicero calls him a praetorius. Cicero speaks of him several times, and mentions him as a friend of Q. Lutatius Catulus; he places him among the orators of mediocrity, and states that in his speeches he purposely abstained from all refinement, and gloried in a certain coarseness and rusticity which more resembled the style of an uneducated peasant, than that of the earlier Roman orators. (Cic. de Orat. 2.47, 3.11, 12, Brut. 36, 74).

9. C. Aurelius Cotta, brother of No. 8, was born in B. C. 124, and was the son of Rutilia,. He was a friend of the tribune M. Livius Drusus, who was murdered in B. C. 91; and in the same year he sued for the tribuneship, but was rejected, and a few months afterwards went into voluntary exile to avoid being condemned by the lex Varia, which ordained that an inquiry should be made as to who had either publicly or privately supported the claims of the Italian allies in their demand of the franchise. Cotta did not return to Rome till the year B. C. 82, when Sulla was dictator, and in 75 he obtained the consulship, together with L. Octavius. In that year he excited the hostility of the optimates by a law by which he endeavoured to raise the tribuneship from the condition into which it had been thiown by Sulla. The exact nature of this law, however, is not certain. (Cic. Fragm. Cornel. p. 80 ed. Orelli, with the note of Ascon. ; Sallust, Hist. Fragm. p. 210, ed. Gerlach.) A lex de judiciis privatis of Cotta is likewise mentioned by Cicero,(Fragm. Com. p.448,) which, however, was abolished the year after by his brother. In his consulship Cotta also concluded a treaty with Hiempsal of Mauretania. On the expiration of his office he obtained Gaul for his province, and although he did not carry on any real war in it, he yet demanded a triumph on his return. His request was granted, but on the day before the solemnity was to take place, a wound which he had received many years before burst open, in consequence of which he died the same day. Cotta was one of the most distinguished orators of his time; he is placed by the side of P. Sulpicius and C. Caesar, and Cicero entertained a very high opinion of him. Cicero, who at an early period of his life, and when Sulla still had the power in his hands, pleaded the case of a woman of Arretium against Cotta, characterises him as a most acute and subtile orator; his arguments were always sound, but calm and dry, and his oratory was never sublime or animated. We still possess a specimen of it among the fragments of Sallust's Historiue. He appears to have occupied himself also with the study of philosophy, for Cicero introduces him as one of the interlocutors in the " De Oratore," and in the third book of the " De Natura Deorum," as maintaining the cause of the Academics. (Cic. de Orat. 1.7, 2.23, 3.3, 8, Brut. 49, 55, 86, 88, 90, Orat. 30, 38, ad Att. 12.20, in Verr. 1.50, 3.7, de Leg. Agr. 2.22, in Pison. 26; Sallust, Hist. Fragm. ii. p. 206, ed. Gerl.; Appian, de B. C. 1.37. Compare Meyer, Fragm. Orat. Rom. p. 338, &c., 2nd ed.)

10. M. Aurelius Cotta, a brother of No. 9, was consul in B. C. 74, together with L. Licinius Lucullus. In this year the war against Mithridates broke out again, and while the conduct of it was entrusted to Metellus, Cotta obtained Bithynia for his province, and a fleet to protect the Propontis. When Mithridates marched into Bithynia with his army, Cotta retreated to Chalcedon, in the port of which his fleet was stationed. In the neighbourhood of Chalcedon a battle was fought, in which Cotta was not only defeated and obliged to take refuge within the walls of Chalcedon, but lost his whole fleet of sixty-four sail. Mithridates, who had to direct his attention towards another quarter, left Cotta at Chalcedon. During this campaign Cotta dismissed his quaestor, P. Oppius, whom he suspected of being bribed by the enemy and plotting against him. On his return to Rome, therefore, Cotta brought an accusation against Oppius, who was defended by Cicero. Afterwards Cotta himself was charged by C. Carbo with having been guilty of extortion in his province of Bithynia, and was condemned. His son, M. Aurelius Cotta, took revenge for this hostility of Carbo towards his father, by accusing Carbo of the same crime, on the very same day that he (M. Cotta) assumed the manly gown. (Liv. Epit. 93; Eutrop. 6.6 ; Sall. Fragm. Hist. lib. iv.; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 67 ; Plut. Luc. 5, 6, 8; Cic. in Verr. 5.13, pro Muren. 15, pro Opp. Fragm. p. 444 ed. Orelli ; Dion. Cass 36.23; Appian, App. Mith. 71; V. Max. 5.4.4.)

11. L. Aurelius Cotta, a brother of Nos. 9 and 10, was praetor in B. C. 70, in which year he carried the celebrated law (lex Aurelia judiciaria,) which entrusted the judicia to courts consisting of senators, equites, and the tribuni aerarii. The main object of this law was to deprive the senators of their exclusive right to act as judices, and to allow other parts of the Roman state a share in the judicial functions, for which reason the law is sometimes vaguely described as having transferred he judicia from the senate to the equites. P. Cornelius Sulla and P. Autronius Paetus were the consuls elect for the year B. C. 65, but both were accused by L. Aurelius Cotta and L. Manlius Torquatus of ambitus : they were convicted and their accusers were elected consuls in their stead. No sooner had they entered upon their consulship, than P. Autronius Paetus formed a plan with Catiline for murdering the consuls and most of the senators. This conspiracy however was discovered and frustrated. The year after his consulship, B. C. 64, Cotta was censor, but he and his colleague abdicated on account of the machinations of the tribunes. In 63, when Cicero had suppressed the Catilinarian conspiracy, in the debates upon which in the senate Cotta had taken a part, he proposed a supplicatio for Cicero; and he afterwards skewed the same friendship for the unfortunate orator, as he was the first to bring forward in the senate a motion for the recall of Cicero from his exile. During the civil war Cotta belonged to the party of Caesar, whose mother Aurelia was his kinswoman, and when Caesar was alone at the head of the republic, it was rumoured that Cotta, who then held the office of quindecimvir, would propose in the senate to confer upon Caesar the title of king, since it was written in the libri fatales that the Parthians, against whom Caesar was preparing war, could be conquered only by a king. After the murder of Caesar, Cotta rarely attended the meetings of the senate from a feeling of despair. He is praised by Cicero as a man of great talent and of the highest prudence. (Ascon. in Cornel. pp. 64, 67, 78, &c.; Cic. in Pison. 16, in Verr. 2.71, in P. Clod. 7, de Leg. Agr. 2.17, in Catil. 3.8, Philip. 2.6, pro Dom. 26, 32, pro Sext. 34, ad Att. 12.21, de Leg. 3.19, ad Fam. 12.2; Suet. Jul. 79; Liv. Epit. 97; Vell. 2.32; Corn. Nep. Attic. 4; Plut. Cic. 27. Comp. Orelli, Onom. Tull. ii. p. 90.)

12. Aurelius Cotta Messallinus, a son of the orator Messalla, who was adopted into the Aurelia gens. In the reign of Tiberius, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, he made himself notorious for the gratuitous harshness and animosity with which he acted on several occasions. This drew upon him an accusation of the most illustrious senators in A. D. 32, for having spoken disrespectfully of Tiberius; but the emperor himself sent a written defence to the senate, which of course procured his acquittal. Tacitus characterises him as nobilis quidem, sed egens ob luxum et per flagitia infamis. (Plin. Nat. 10.27; Tac. Ann. 2.32, 4.20, 5.3, 6.5, &c.)

On coins of the Aurelia gens we find the names of M. Cotta and L. Cotta, but there are no means of identifying them with any of the preceding persons. Of the two coins annexed the obverse of the former represents the head of Pallas, the reverse Hercules in a biga drawn by two centaurs ; the obverse of the latter represents the head of Vulcan with forcipes behind him, the reverse an eagle standing on a thunderbolt. [L.S]

served as legate in the army of C. Julius Caesar in Gaul, and distinguished himself no less by his valour than by his foresight and prudence. In B. C. 54, when Caesar, on account of the scarcity of provisions in Gaul, distributed his troops over a great part of the country for their winter-quarters, Cotta and Q. Titurius Sabinus obtained the command of one legion and five cohorts, with which they took up their position in the territory of the Eburones, between the Meuse and the Rhine. Soon after, Ambiorix and Cativolcus, the chiefs of the Eburones, caused a revolt against the Romans, and attacked the camp of Cotta and Sabinus only fifteen days after they had been stationed in the country. Cotta, who apprehended more from the cunning than from the open attacks of the Gauls, strongly recommended his colleague not to abandon the camp and trust to the faith of the Gauls; but Sabinus, who feared that they should be overpowered in their winter-quarters, was anxious to avail himself of the safe-conduct which Ambiorix promised, and to proceed to the winter-quarters of the legions nearest to them. After some debates, Cotta gave way for the sake of concord among his forces. The Romans were drawn into an ambuscade by the Gauls, and Cotta, who neglected none of the duties of a general in his perilous position, received a wound in his face while addressing the soldiers; but he still continued to fight bravely, and refused entering into negotiations with the enemy, until shortly after he and the greater part of his soldiers were cut down by the Gauls. (Caesar, Caes. Gal. 2.11, 5.24_37; D. C. 40.5, 6 ; Sueton. Caes. 25; Appian, App. BC 2.150; Florus, 3.10; Eutrop. 6.14.) [L.S]

Aurelius. (1) Gaius, consul B.C. 75 with L. Octavius, was one of the most distinguished orators of his time, and is introduced by Cicero as one of the speakers in the treatises De Oratore and De Natura Deorum.

(2) Lucius, praetor in B.C. 70, when he carried the celebrated law (lex Aurelia iudiciaria), which intrusted the iudicia to the senators, equites, and tribuni aerarii.

(3) L. Aurunculēius. One of Caesar's legates in Gaul, who perished with Sabinus in the attack made upon them by Ambiorix, B.C. 54. See Ambiorix.