Scanned text contains errors.
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, viii. 14, 16 ; Oros. iv. 9 ; Cic. Acad. ii. 26 ; Frontin. Strateg. iv. 1. § 31 ; Val. Max. ii. 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 Gla-brio. (Liv. xxiii. 30, xxv. 22, xxix. 38, xxx. 26, 42, xxxi. 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. xxx. 26, 27, xxxi. 5, 6, 10, 11, 21, 22, 47, 49 ; Zonar. ix, 15 ; Oros. iv. 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. xxxvii, 52.)
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 F-ibius Maximus Aemilianus. 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. Metel-lus Macedonicus. Cicero states that Cotta was considered a veterator, that is, a man cunning in managing his own affairs. (Val. Max. vi. 4. § 2,
5. § 4, viii. 1. § 11 ; Cic.proMuren. 28,pro Font. 13, Brut. 21, Divin in Caecil. 21 ; Tacit. Ann. iii. 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 opti-. mates. 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. iii. 17.) From Appian (Illyr. 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 forward 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. ii. 47, iii. 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. Octa-vius. 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 thrown 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. Corn. p. 44 8,) 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. Cottji
3 k 2