Early Aurelii, Orestes & Scauri.

L.Aurelius C.f.
born c.320s
|
_________________|_____________________________________________________
| |
C.Aurelius L.f.C.n.Cotta L.Aurelius
cos.252,248 mag.eq.231 b.c.290s
triumph 252 (c.290-220s) |
| |
___|________________________ |
| | | |
C.Aurelius(RE15) L.Cotta M.Aurelius Cotta(RE103) L.Aurelius
aed./pr.220s b.c.250s Xvir s.f.204-200 born c.260
leg.216 (b.c.260) aed.pl.216 (b.c.250) |
| | |_________________________
| |__________________ | |
| | | L.Aurelius (?Scaurus) C.Aurelius Scaurus
C.Aurelius C.f.C.n. L.Aurelius Cotta M.Cotta(RE104) (c.225-c.160s) pr.186 (b.c.220)
Cotta pr.202 cos.200 tr.mil.181 (RE97) legatus 190 q.urb.196 |
(c.230s-190s) (c.210-170s) (b.c.220) | |
| | | | |
? | ? L.Aurelius L.f.L.n.Orestes |
___________________|______ cos.157 (c.200-c.140s) |
| | | (M.)Aurelius Scaurus
M.Aurelius Cotta L.Aurelius Cotta | (b.c.180s)
Epicureus (b.c.180) cos.144 (b.c.188) _____________________| |
IIIvir mint c.139 | | |
C.Orestes orator L.Aurelius L.f.L.n.Orestes |
(Cic.Brutus 94) cos.126 (c.170-c.105) |
ca.135 b.c.160s | |
Q.Mucius Scaevola augur = Laelia maior | _____________|
cos.117 (c.164-86/85) | (c.150s-c.95) Cn.Aufidius historicus | | |
\ | (c.165-c.90) pr.c.124 | C.Scaurus M.Aurelius Scaurus
/ | \ | b.150s cos.suff.108
\ ca.117 | / | (c.155-106)
/ Mn.Glabrio = Mucia maior \ Aufidia(?) = L.Aurelius Orestes |
\ (c.155-100s)| (b.c.133) / | (c.147-103) cos.103 |
/ tr.pl.122 | adopted 90s | |
\ | \ | M.Aurelius Scaurus
ca.86/85 | / | q.c.94 (b.124/21)
/ _____|__________ \ _________|________
\ | | ca.99 / | | ca.70-63
/ Mn.Acilius Glabrio [Acilia] = Cn.Aufidius Orestes Aurelia Orestilla (2) = (2) L.Sergius Catilina
\ (110-c.50s) cos.67 b.c.115 | pr.77, cos.71 (b.c.105) | pr.68 (c.108-63)
/ | (c.118-60s) x
\ |
/ |
\ __________________|
/ | |ca.81-78
Q.Mucius (Scaevola) Orestinus (Aufidia) = M.Plautius Silvanus
tr.pl.64 (Catilinarian) Orestilla | (120s-78) tr.pl.89
(b.c.98) (b.c.96) | pr.79
?
Evidence & discussion.

Scaurus was one of several cognomina derived from abnormal features of the feet (Pliny HN xi.254: namque et
hinc cognomina inventa Planci [...] Scauri). The specific meaning was enlarged or swollen ankles (Porphyrion
on Horace Satur.i.3:47: Scauri sunt qui extantes talos habent). In the nobilitas of Republican times it was unique
to the Aemili Scauri and the Aureli Scauri (and first appears at the same time in both families, in the second
decade after the 2nd Punic War).

L. Aurelius (RE s. v. Aurelius 18) q.urb.196

E. Badian (Studies 63-4) incorporates him into the Cottae, but that is just a guess: there is no evidence for a
cognomen, and he seems to fit better among the ancestors of the Orestes.
Nb. nouns with nom.sing. in -es have the same plural form. The paradigm is nubes (cloud). Also moles, cautes.

L. Aurelius Orestes cos.157

Probably the original Orestes in the clan Aurelia, and the first attested as such. The name implies a lot, especially
because Greek style cognomina were no longer in fashion, as they had been in the late 4th and 3rd centuries.
Perhaps even that his father was murdered in the 170s/160s by his mother and her lover, and that he destroyed
them both in revenge (judicially?).

C. Aurelius (RE s. v. Aurelius 15) pr.220s?

Legate 216 to the vir consularis and triumphalis praetor M. Marcellus when he played an important role in
Marcellus' famous, if minor, success against Hannibal at Nola (together with P. Valerius Flaccus, probably the
cos.227: Livy xxiii.16)
E. Badian comments (Studies 64): "probably of some standing", believing him to be a Cotta. Probably rightly: he
is best placed as the otherwise unattested C. Cotta father of the cos.200 and eldest son of Gaius the twice consul
and triumphalis vir, although it is possible to insert him as father of C. Aurelius Scaurus pr.186. In either case an
aedilitas or praetura in the late 220s is likely.

L. Aurelius Cotta (RE s. v. Aurelius 97)

tr.mil. in the Ligurian war of 181 BC (Liv.xl.27-28)
E. Badian's account of the Cottae (Studies 64) identifies him with L. Cotta consul almost forty years later (144).
This is not just unlikely, it's bizarre: pre-140s military tribunates were held even by consulars. Badian wants it
the other way round, with a military tribunate very young and then consul very late. More likely the military
tribune 181 was born ca.210, grandson of Gaius the triumphalis (son of his youngest son Marcus) and father of
the cos.144, with the latter consul suo anno or only a year or two later.
Should have been praetor ca.170 with a good chance at a consulate, but probably died even before a praetura.

C. Aurelius Scaurus, probably brother of Marcus the cos.suff.108.

Owner of the gladiator school from which the consul Rutilius Rufus borrowed expert swordsmen to train for
close combat fighting the emergency legions he levied in autumn 105 BC after the Arausio catastrophe
(Val.Max.ii.3.2: ex ludo C. Aureli Scauri).

M. Aurelius M. f. Scaurus q.ca.94.

Among the noti who attempted to prosecute the former commanders to whom they had served as quaestor, in his
case L. Valerius Flaccus pater (aed.cur.98, pr.ca.95, cos.suff.86) ex Asia province sometime 93/92 (Cicero Div.
In Caecil.62-63). Also attested in office as quaestor with filiation on a Latin insciption from Delos (CIL i² 816 =
Ins.Délos 1858A): M. Aurelius M. f. Scaurus q.
Cn. Aufidius Orestes' praetura in 77 (Val.Max.vii.7.6, dated by the consul Mamercus), shows a long delay in
holding his consulate (71). One of the main reasons was his failure during his Sardinian command post
praeturam (cf. Sallust Hist.ii.41 ed.Maurenbrecher, wrongly attributed to Asia province by Maurenbrecher on
the basis of an inscription belonging to his adoptive father) to prevent Perperna Veiento and his Marian and
Lepidan followers escaping (per pirate fleets) to join Sertorius in Spain (cf. Plutarch Sertorius 15). He was
earliest eligible for a consulate in 74, and besides his poor showing in Sardinia, the back-log of overdue
candidates in the early restoration period (who had not been able to hold high office during the Marian dominate)
was still a factor in producing abnormally strong competition. But his failure to defeat L. Gellius Poplicola for a
consulate in 72 must have come as a real shock: although a substantial orator, and still vigorous for his age,
Gellius was a novus homo who had held his praetura fully two decades earlier (94). Hence the date of Aufidius
Orestes' belated consulate, and more particularly the colleague he held it with, are more politically significant
than usual. His colleague was the later Catilinarian P. Lentulus Sura, who held the highest office suo anno (born
114, pr.74, cos.71).
But however belated, this was the fourth consulate of the Aurelii Orestes with one in each of four successive
generations, a political feat accomplished only by the most successful and famous stirpes of the highest nobility,
among which this family must rank. The Cottae achieved this too, although not in a single direct line (the
cos.144 was probably not descended from the cos.200, while the three consular brothers of 75, 74 and 65 were
certainly not descended from the cos.119).

Q. Scaevola augur's two daughters Muciae married L.Crassus orator (born 140) and Mn.Glabrio (tr.pl.122,
born ca.155), and all the children of Lucius Crassus (two daughters) and their marriages are known, while only
one child of Manius Glabrio the Gracchan tribune is on record (the homonymous cos.67). It is likely enough that
the cos.67 had at least one sister Acilia and that it was her son (by Aufidius Orestes cos.71) whom Scaevola
augur adopted. All such adoptions imply some degree of propinquitas (sharing of bloodlines). On Scaevola
augur's special interest in the education of his grandson Glabrio the cos.67 (after the death of the latter's father,
perhaps at the Arausio disaster in 106), see Cicero Brutus 239: M.' Glabrionem bene institutum avi Scaevolae
diligentia socors ipsius natura neglegensque tardaverat.

Q. Mucius Orestinus tr.pl.64

assisted Catilina's canvass for the consulate (in 64 for 63) - Asconius 93-94G.
This stemma assumes the tribune to be natural great-grandson of the augur cos.117, and adopted son. The
tribune's name assures the adoption (although not whether plenary or testamentaria), but the propinquitas could
alternatively be through a sister of the augur, i. e. a Mucia born about 162 as wife of L. Orestes cos.126 and
mother of the cos.103. Such a woman and marriage would be a perfect fit in both families, although no better
attested than the putative Acilia sister of the cos.67 preferred above.

Sergius Catilina's first wife was a Gratidia, sister of M. Marius Gratidianus. Catilina was born 108 or earlier, so
this marriage dates to about 90 BC. Note that the Gratidii of Arpinum were clients of M. Antonius orator (cos.99,
cens.97), the earliest indication of the old social connections which bound the noble Antonii with many of the
chief Catilinarian conspirators (many of whom were patricians with explicit patrician grievances). Catilina's
second marriage to the beautiful and evil Aurelia Orestilla (cf. Sallust Catil.15: Postremo, captus amore
Aureliae Orestillae cuius praeter formam nihil unquam bonus laudavit) is dated after his debauch of the Vestals
(which went to trial in 73 BC) and when his son by the first marriage was already an adult (Sallust ibid.), which
also applies (just) to 73 if the first wedding took place in 90. Most likely the second belongs to about 71 (the
consulate of Aufidius Orestes and Lentulus Sura) or shortly after when Catilina was preparing to stand for his
praetura (which he did successfully in 69 for the 68 year). She cannot have retained the name Aurelia if she were
a daughter of Aufidius Orestes cos.71, because the latter's adoption in the 90s by the elderly blind historian Cn.
Aufidius was plenary (Cicero de domo sua 35), not testamentaria, hence entailing the renaming of any children
born before the adoption and still under the patria potestas. Therefore she should be a younger sister of the
cos.71, but born no later than 102 because their father died in consulatu (103).
Orestilla M. Plautii, and the noted Tomb of the Two Lovers, at Taras.
All we know about this intense love match and its dramatic end is in Val.Max.iv.6.3 (On Conjugal Love):

As with the name, so too did Marcus Plautius possess the same love. For when by command of the Senate
(imperio senatus) he was taking a fleet of sixty allied ships back to Asia and had put in at Tarentum, his wife
Orestilla, who had followed him there, was oppressed by illness and died. After her funeral rites had been
performed and she had been placed upon the pyre, amid the last respects of anointing and kissing her, he drew
his sword and fell on it. His friends joined him to his wife's body just as he was, wearing his toga and shoes, then
set the fire-brands beneath and cremated both of them together. Theirs was the tomb constructed there -
nowadays it still draws attention at Tarentum - which is called: Of the Two Lovers.
Provided that some sensation abides in the deceased, I also don't doubt that Plautius and Orestilla, thrilled by the
partnership of their fate, carried their delighted expressions into the darkness. And truly where the same deepest
and at once most honourable love endures, it is considerably better to be joined by death than separated by life.

The titulus on the tomb was in the local Greek, and Valerius gives it in Greek: ΤΩΝ ΔΥΟ ΦΙΛΟΥΝΤΩΝ.
Since Orestilla M. Plautii is not given any gentilic name she could equally be an Aurelia daughter of the cos.103
or Aufidia daughter of the cos.71. Noble women began to be named in this fashion only towards the end of the
2nd century BC and Senatorial rule ceased in 49. Though the military record is sparse and fragmentary after
Livy's extant text ends (167), it is tempting to connect Plautius' mission with the return of the allied ships to the
east in summer 78 BC after the end of the first civil war (RDGE 22, recording an S. C. dated a. d. XI Kal.Iun.
78R = Julian 14 May 78 BC, after Chris Bennett's intercalation model; also, for the two decked triremes from
Herakleia Pontike which spent 11 continuous years in Roman service from the time of the bellum Italicum, see
the Photian epitome of Memnon, ed. Jacoby FGrH 434 F1.21).
The temptation is doubled, or more, by the curiously parallel illness (both in place and time) of Appius Claudius
Pulcher (cos.79), who should have succeeded Cn. Dolabella in the Macedonian command in 78(R) ex consulatu,
just as his colleague P. Servilius departed Rome for his long Cilician command in 78. In fact Appius set out in
his colleague's company to do just that, as we learn from a brief fragment from Sallust's history, but was left
behind ill at Tarentum, so that Servilius made the crossing from Brundisium first (Hist.i.127*M: Itaque
Servilius aegrotum Tarenti collegam, prior transgressus. . . .). While Appius did not die at Tarentum like
Orestilla, he remained so ill that he could not complete his journey to Macedonia. After returning to Rome for
the remainder of the year and even serving as interrex at the opening of 77(R) amid the tumultus Lepidanus, he
eventually took up his Macedonian command in the spring or summer of 77 BC, but died there the following
year during some taxing offensive warfare in the Rhodope mountains (aged about 53).

A related, contemporary, side issue is that the common modern assumption that Dolabella remained in place until
Appius came out in 77, and so returned to Rome and triumphed that year is probably incorrect. While Suetonius
provides the evidence that Caesar's prosecution of Dolabella took place in 77, only after the defeat of Lepidus
and his flight from Italy (DIulius 4.1: composita seditione civili Cornelium Dolabellam consularem et
triumphalem repetundarum postulavit), there is no particular reason to date Dolabella's return and triumph in the
same year. Caesar himself accompanied P. Servilius' army beyond Tarentum to Pamphylia in summer 78, and
seems to have briefly participated in some early campaigning, but hurried home after hearing of the troubles
being stirred up by the consul M. Lepidus, and did not return to the post he had deserted even though he
ultimately decided not to join Lepidus' insurrection (Suetonius DIulius 3). Sallust' phrase prior transgressus
indicates that Appius made the crossing to Dyrrachium or Apollonia, even though he could not proceed to
Macedonia proper. But there is no reason that he could not have sent his quaestor or a legatus with the five
lictors and delegated imperium pro praetore to take over the province in his name, and there are grounds to argue
that this is indeed what happened. Namely the evident propinquitas of the Fonteii of Tusculum with Appius'
family (it was a young Fonteius who provided the requisite plebeian status for P. Clodius' bogus adoption out of
the patriciate in 59), and the mysterious Macedonian command of Marcus Fonteius (q.85/84, pr.75) mentioned in
the extant summarizing conclusion of Cicero's speech pro M. Fonteio (s.44). Although the details of this posting
are lost with the early missing portions of the speech (between the so-called fragmenta Niebuhriana dealing with
his service under the Marian government, and the inception of the codex Vaticanus already discussing Gallia
Transalpina and his command there post praeturam), it is evident from what remains even in the concluding
summary that he found himself in a difficult situation which he handled with sufficient competence and success
to gain significant reputation and admiration among the Macedonian population (Cic.Font.44: Primum obicitur
contra istorum impetus Macedonia, fidelis et amica populo Romano provincia, quae cum se ac suas urbis non
solum consilio sed etiam manu M. Fontei conservatam esse dicit ut ipsa per hunc a Thraecum adventu ac
depopulatione defensa <est>).
There is a good argument that Fonteius went out with Appius in 77 and succeeded to the command following his
commander's death the following year (see Renzo Lucherini's comments in email, Dec 2004). However there
seems little time for such an independent command owing to Fonteius' praetura in 75, for which he had to be
back in Rome to attend the elections in Quintilis 76(R), and should have arrived several weeks or months earlier
to undertake a reasonably effective canvass of the voters. It could well be that Fonteius left Macedonia even
before Appius' death, and the likely absence of a suitable stop-gap commander to handle the pressure of the
severe fighting in the Balkans where Appius died (the usual response to a commander's premature death), is also
the most likely explanation for C. Curio's early departure from Rome and arrival in Macedonia while he was still
consul (something very unusual in the post-Sullan period of senatorial rule). Furthermore, although such
arrangements were by no means irreversible, Appius' departure for Macedonia as pro cos. in 78 must mean that
the Senate had arranged and formally voted for Dolabella's supercession.
The sources on Appius' command in person (especially Orosius v.23.17) stress how Macedonia was beset when
he first came out (i. e. in 77) and that the worry of defeating and deflecting all these raiders undermined his
health. But defeat them he did, and when he died it was well north of the province tackling Maedi (Julius
Obsequens 59) and other Thracians of the Rhodopa (Eutropius vi.2.1, etc.). Ignore the Scordisci mentioned by
Orosius. They surely had the worst/most fearsome reputation of the actively hostile Balkans nations, but L.
Scipio had massacred them in 91 BC, driving the survivors back beyond the Danube (Appian Illyr.5) and they
were not historically a serious presence for several generations. Note also the incursions which beset Dolabella's
command, attested by contemporary epigraphy (RDGE 21), whereas by the time Curio took over the Romans
were on the offensive, and eventually reached the Danube under that commander (76-73).
So the attested defensive warfare conducted by Fonteius locks in with Appius' first operational season in
command, and it would appear practically certain that Appius sent M. Fonteius as his senior and most
experienced legatus to replace Cn. Dolabella, that the latter returned to Rome in about the late summer or early
autumn of 78, and that Fonteius governed Macedonia as Appius' legatus pro pr. for an entire command year
(summer 78 to summer 77 BC) prior to Appius' belated arrival. In the course of this ad hoc command he seems
to have conducted significant defensive operations around the major cities in the north against invading raider
nations which gained him not only reputation but a local clientelae large and devoted enough to put in an
enthusiastic appearance in Rome in 71 BC when he was being prosecuted for extortion from his Gallic command
(Cic.Font.44).

In such a context it also seems likely that Orestilla's M. Plautius is the M. Plautius Silvanus noted for his lex
iudiciaria and joint authorship of the lex Plautiua Papiria (de civitate danda) during his tribunate of 89. He was
evidently born in the late 120s and held a delayed praetura during the early Sullan restoration, in the consulate of
Appius and P. Servilius, and was subsequently allotted Asia province and the additional duty of escorting home
the remaining 60 warships of the contribution to the bellum Italicum war effort by the allied communities of Asia
and still in Roman ports more than a decade later after the conclusion of the civil wars.
After Plautius' suicide, in Italy still, the Asian command of C. Claudius Nero (pr.80) was probably extended for
a second year.

Mark K.P. Sept 2008