948 DECIUS. into priBon without a judicial verdict. The enemies of Decius asserted that he had been induced by bribes to bring forward this accusation. Four years later, b. c. 115, Decius was praetor urbanus, and in that year he gave great offence to M. Aemilius Scaurus, who was then consul, by keep- ing his seat when the consul passed by him. The haughty Scaurus turned round and ordered him to rise, but when Decius refused, Scaurus tore his gown and broke the chair of Decius to pieces ; at the same time he commanded that no one should receive justice at the hands of the refractory praetor. It is not improbable that the hostile feeling between the two men may have arisen from the fact that Scaurus had induced Opimius to take up arms against C. Gracchus, to whose party Decius evidentl}' belonged. Cicero speaks of Decius as an orator who emulated M. Fulvius Flaccus, the friend of C. Gracchus, and remarks that he was as turbulent in his speeches as he was in life. It is probably this Decius who is alluded to in a fragment of the poet Lucilius, which is preserved by Cicero. (De Oral. ii. 62, corap. ii. 30, 31, Brut. 28, Part. orat. 30.) 5. P. Decius, a colleague of M. Antony in the septemviratus. Cicero says of him, with a fine irony, that he endeavoured to follow the example of his great ancestors (the Decii), by sacrificing himself to his debts, that is, by joining Antony, through whose influence he hoped to get rid of his debts. He accompanied Antony in the war of Mutina, but was taken prisoner there. Afterwards, however, when Octavian wished for a reconcilia- tion with Antony, he allowed Decius to return to his friend. (Cic. Phil. xi. 6, xiii. 13; Appian, B. a iii. 80.) 6. Decius, is mentioned by Appian (2?. C. iv. 27) among those who were proscribed after the formation of the triumvirate of Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus. Decius and Cilo, on hearing that their names were on the list, took to flight, but as they were hurrying out of one of the gates of Rome, they were recognized by the centurions and put to death. [L. S.] DFCIUS JUBE'LLIUS, a Campanian, and commander of the Campanian legion which the Romans stationed at Rhegium in b. c. 281 for the protection of the place. Decius and his troops, envious of the happiness which the inhabitants of Rhegium enjoyed, and remembering the impunity with which the Mamertines had carried out their disgraceful scheme, formed a most diabolical plan. During the celebration of a festival, while all the citizens were feasting in public, Decius and his soldiers attacked them ; the men were massacred and driven into exile, while the soldiers took the women to themselves. Decius put himself at the head of the city, acted as tyrarnus perfectly inde- pendent of Rome, and formed connexions with the Mamertines in Sicily. He at first had endeavoured to palliate his crime by asserting that the Rhegines intended to betray the Roman garrison to Pyrrhus. During the war with Pyrrhus the Romans had no time to look after and punish the miscreants at Rhegium, and Decius for some years enjoyed the fruits of his crime unmolested. During that period he was seized by a disease of the eyes, and not venturing to trust a Rhegine ph3'sician, he sent for one to ^lessana. This physician was himself a nati re of Rhegium, a fact which few persons knew, and he now took the opportunity to avenge on DECIUS. Decius the wrongs he had inflicted upon Rhegium, He gave him something which he was to apply to his eyes, and which, however painful it might be, he was to continue till the physician should return from Messana. The order was obeyed, but the pain became at last quite unbearable, and Decius in the end found that he was quite blind. After the death of Pyrrhus, in b. c. 271, Fabricius was sent out against Rhegium ; he be- sieged the place, and took it. All the survivors of the Campanian legion that fell into his hands, up- wards of three hundred men, were sent to Rome, where they were scourged and beheaded in the forum. The citizens of Rhegium who were yet alive were restored to their native place. Decius put an end to himself in his prison at Rome. (Ap- pian, SanmiU Excerpt, ix. I — 3 ; Diodor. Fragm. lib. xxii.; Liv. EpU. 12, 15; Polyb. i. 7; Val. Max. vii. 7. § 15.) [L. S.] DE'CIUS, Roman emperor, a.d. 249 — 251, whose full name was C. Messius Quintus Trajanus Decil'S, was bom about the close of the second century at Bubalia, a village in Lower Pannonia, being the first of a long series of monarchs who traced their origin to an llly- rian stock. We are altogether unacquainted with his early career, but lie appears to have been entrusted with an important military command upon the Danube in a.d. 245, and four years afterwards was earnestly solicited by Philippus to undertake the task of restoring subordination in the army of Moesia, which had been dis- organized by the revolt of Marinus. [Philippus; Makinus.] Decius accepted this appointment with great reluctance, and many misgivings as to the result. On his appearance, the troops deem- ing their guilt beyond forgiveness, oftered the envoy the choice of death or of the throne. With the sword pointed to his heart he accepted the latter alternative, was proclaimed Augustus, and forced by the rebels to march upon Italy, having previously, according to Zonaras, written to as- sure his sovereign that his faith was still un- broken, and that he would resign the purple, as soon as he could escape from the thraldom of the legions. Philippus, not trasting these professions, hastened to meet his rival in the field, encountered him in the vicinity of Verona, was defeated, and slain. This event took place towards the end of A.D. 249. The short reign of the new prince, extending to about thirty months, was chiefly occupied in warring against the Goths, who now, for the first time, fippeared as a formidable foe on the north- eastern frontier, and having crossed the Danube, under Cniva their chief, were ravaging the Thracian provinces. The details of their inva- sion are to found in Jomandes, Zosimus, and the fragments of Dexippus, but these accounts ap- pear so contradictor}', that it is impossible, in the absence of an impartial historian, to explain or re- concile their statements. It would seem that the barbarians, in the first instance, repulsed Decius near Philippopolis, and were thus enabled to take that important city, but having lost their best troops during these operations, and finding them- selves surrounded by the Romans who were now advancing from different points, they offered to purchase an unmolested retreat by the surrender of their prisoners and plunder. These overtures being rejected, the Goths turned to bay, and gave
