Didius
Could not find Didium in Logeion dictionaries.
Didium Proper-name adjective: neuter vocative singular, Proper-name adjective: masculine genitive plural, Proper-name adjective: masculine accusative singular, Proper-name adjective: neuter genitive plural, Proper-name adjective: neuter nominative singular, Proper-name adjective: neuter accusative singular of Didius
- the name of a Roman plebeian gens; so T. Didius, consul in the year 656 a. u. c., Cic. Planc. 25, 61; Ov. F. 6, 568 al.; Didius Julianus, emperor of Rome in the year 193 A. D., whose life is written by Spartianus.—
- II Adj.: Lex Didia sumptuaria, of the year 610 a. u. c., Macr. S. 2, 13, 6. Another law: Lex Caecilia Didia, of the year 656, Cic. Sest. 64, 135; id. Att. 2, 9, 1 al.
1. T. Didius, probably the author of the sumptuaria lex Didia, which was passed eighteen years after the lex Fannia, that is, in B. C. 143 (Macr. 2.13), in which year T. Didius seems to have been tribune of the people. The lex Didia differed from the Fannia in as much as the former was made binding upon all Italy, whereas the latter had no power except in the city of Rome. There is a coin belonging to one T. Didius, which shews on the reverse two male figures, the one dressed, holding a shield in the left and a whip or vine in the right hand. The other figure is naked, but likewise armed, and under these figures we read T. Deidi. It is usually supposed that this coin refers to our T. Didius, and Pighius (Annal. ii. p. 492) conjectures with some probability, that T. Didius, some years after his tribuneship, about about B. C. 138, was sent as praetor against the revolted slaves in Sicily. If this be correct, the figures on the coin may perhaps have reference to it. (Morell. Thesaur. p. 151; Eckhel, Doctrin. Num. v. p. 201.)
2. T. Didius, a son of No. 1, repulsed, according to Florus (3.4; comp. Rufus, Brev. 9, and Ammian. Marcell. 27.4, where we read M. Didius instead of T. Didius), the Scordiscans who had invaded the Roman province of Macedonia, and triumphed over them. (Cic. in Pison. 25.) According to the narrative of Florus, this victory was gained soon or immediately after the defeat of the consult C. Cato, in B. C. 114, and was followed bv the victri es of M. Livius Drusus and M. Minncius Rufus. It has, therefore, been supposed that at the time of Cato's defeat, B. C. 114, T. Didius was praetor of Illyricum, and that in this capacity he repelled the Scordiscans, who, after having defeated Cato, ranged over Macedonia. But this supposition is not without its difficulties, for in the first place, we know of no war in Illyricum at that time which might have required the presence of a praetor, and in the second place, it would be rather strange to find that T. Didius, who was praetor B. C. 114, did not obtain the consulship till 15 years later, especially as he had gained a victory and a triumph in his praetorship, whereas the ordinary interval between the praetorship and consulship is only the space of two years. According to Cicero (l.c.), T. Didius triumphed ex Macedonia, and he had therefore had the administration of Macedonia and not of Illyricum ; moreover, Florus's account of the time of the victory of Didius over the Scordiscans is erroneous, for we learn from the Chronicle of Eusebius (170.2), that the victory of Didius over the Scordiscans took place the year after the fifth consulship of C. Marius, that is, in B. C. 100, and consequently 14 years later than the narrative of Florus would lead us to suppose. This also leaves us the usual interval of two years between the praetorship and the consulship, which Didius had in B. C. 98 with Q. Caecilius Metellus. In this year the two consuls carried the lex Caecilia Didia. (Schol. Bob. ad Cic. pro Sext. p. 310; Cic. pro Dom. 16, 20, pro Sext. 64, Philip. 5.3.) Subsequently Didius obtained the proconsulship of Spain, and in B. C. 93 he celebrated a triumph over the Celtiberians. (Fast. Triumph.; Cic. pro Planc. 25.) Respecting his proconsulship of Spain, we learn from Appian (App. Hisp. 99, &c.), that he cut to pieces nearly 20,000 Vaccaeans, transplanted the inhabitants of Termesus, conquered Colenda after a siege of nine months, and destroyed a colony of robbers by enticing them into his camp and then ordering them to be cut down. (Comp. Frontin. Strat. 1.8.5, 2.10.1.) According to Sallust (ap. Gel. 2.27; comp. Plut. Sert. 3) Sertorius served in Spain as military tribune under Didius. Didius also took part in the Marsic war, which soon after broke out, and he fell in a battle which was fought in the spring of B. C. 89. (Appian, App. BC 1.40 ; Vell. 2.16; Ov. Fast. 6.567, &c.) According to a passage in Plutarch (Plut. Sert. 12), Didius was beaten and slain, ten years later, by Sertorius in Spain, but the reading in that passage is wrong, and instead of Δίδιον, or as some read it Φίδιον, we ought to read Φουφίδιον. (Ruhnken, ad Vell. Pat. 2.16.) There is a coin figured on p. 602b., which refers to our T. Didius : the reverse shews a portico with a double row of pillars, and bears the inscription T. Didi. Imp. Vil. Pub. From this we see, that T. Didius received the title of imperator in Spain (Sallust. l.c.), and that after his return to Rome he restored or embellished the villa publica in the Campus Martius. The obverse shews the head of Concordia, her name, and that of P. Fonteius Capito, who struck the coin, and on it commemorated an act of the life of Didius, with whose family, as we may infer from the image of Concordia, Fonteius Capito was connected by marriage. (Eekhel, Doctr. Num. v. p. 130.)
3. T. Didius, perhaps a son of No. 2, was tribune of the people, in B. C. 95, with L. Aurelius Cotta. In the disputes arising from the accusation which one of their colleagues brought against Q. Caepio, Didius and Cotta were driven by force from the tribunal. (Cic. de Orat. 2.47; comp. [Cotta, No. 8].)
4. C. Didius, a legate of C. Julius Caesar, who sent him, in B. C. 46, to Spain against Cn. Pompeius. In the neighbourhood of Carteia he gained a naval victory over Q. Attius Varus, and in the year following he set out from Gades with a fleet in pursuit of Cn. Pompeius, who had taken to flight. Pompeius was compelled to land, and Didius took or burnt his ships. Didius himself likewise landed, and after Pompeius had been killed by Caesennius Lento, Didius was attacked by the Lusitanian soldiers of Pompeius, and fell under their strokes. (D. C. 43.14, 31, 40 ; Bell. Hisp. 37, 40.)
5. Q. Didius, was governor of Syria in B. C. 31, a post to which he had probably been appointed by M. Antony; but, after the battle of Actium, he deserted Antony, and prevailed upon the Arabs to burn the fleet which Antony had built in the Arabian gulf. (D. C. 51.7.) [L.S]
afterwards named M. Didius Commodus Severus Julianus, the successor of Pertinax, was the son of Petronius Didius Severus and Clara Aemilia, the grandson or great-grandson of Salvius Julianus, so celebrated as a jurisconsult under Hadrian. Educated by Domitia Lucilla, the mother of M. Aurelius, by her interest he was appointed at a very early age to the vigintivirate, the first step towards public distinction. He then held in succession the offices of quaestor, aedile, and praetor, was nominated first to the command of a legion in Germany, afterwards to the government of Belgica, and in recompense for his skill and gallantry in repressing an insurrection among the Chauci, a tribe dwelling on the Elbe, was raised to the consulship. He further distinguished himself in a campaign against the Catti, ruled Dalmatia and Lower Germany, and was placed at the head of the commissariat in Italy. About this period he was charged with having conspired against the life of Commodus, but had the good fortune to be acquitted, and to witness the punishment of his accuser. Bithynia was next consigned to his charge; he was consul for the second time in A. D. 179, along with Pertinax, whom he succeeded in the proconsulate of Africa, from whence he was recalled to Rome and chosen praefectus vigilum.
Upon the death of Pertinax, the Praetorian assassins publicly announced that they would bestow the purple on the man who would pay the highest price. Flavius Sulpicianus, praefect of the city, father-in-law of the murdered emperor, being at that moment in the camp, to which he had been despatched for the purpose of soothing the troops, proceeded at once to make liberal proposals, when Julianus, having been roused from a banquet by his wife and daughter, arrived in all haste, and being unable to gain admission, stood before the gate, and with a loud voice contended for the prize. The bidding went on briskly for a while, the soldiers reporting by turns to each of the two competitors, the one within the fortifications, the other outside the rampart, the sum tendered by his rival. At length, Sulpicianus having promised a donative of twenty thousand sesterces a head, the throne was about to be knocked down to him, when Julianus, no longer adding a small amount, shouted that he would give twenty-five thousand. The guards thereupon closed with the offers of Julianus, threw open their gates, saluted him by the name of Commodus, and proclaimed him emperor. The senate was compelled to ratify the election. But the populace, after the first confusion had subsided, did not tamely submit to the dishonour brought upon the state. Whenever the prince appeared in public he was saluted with groans, imprecations, and shouts of "robber and parricide." The mob endeavoured to obstruct his progress to the Capitol, and even ventured to assail him with stones. This state of public feeling having become known, Pescennius Niger in Syria, Septimius Severus in Illyria, and Clodius Albinus in Britain, each having three legions under his command, refused to acknowledge the authority of Julianus, who for a time made vigorous efforts to maintain his power. Severus, the nearest and therefore most dangerous foe, was declared a public enemy; deputies were sent from the senate to persuade the soldiers to abandon him; a new general was nominated to supersede him, and a centurion despatched to take his life. The praetorians, long strangers to active military operations, were marched into the Campus Martius, regularly drilled, and exercised in the construction of fortifications and field works. Severus, however, having secured Albinus by declaring him Caesar, advanced steadily towards the city, made himself master of the fleet at Ravenna, defeated Tullius Crispinus, the praetorian praefect, who had been sent forward to arrest his progress, and gained over to his party the ambassadors commissioned to seduce his troops. On the other hand, the praetorians, destitute of discipline, and sunk in debauchery and sloth, were alike incapable of offering any effectual resistance to an invader, and indisposed to submit to restraint. Matters being in this desperate state, Julianus now attempted negotiation, and offered to share the empire with his rival. But Severus turned a deaf ear to these overtures, and still pressed forwards, all Italy declaring for him as he advanced. At last the praetorians, having received assurances that they should suffer no punishment, provided they would give up the actual murderers of Pertinax and offer no resistance, suddenly seized upon the ringleaders of the late conspiracy, and reported what they had done to Silius Messala, the consul, by whom the senate was hastily summoned and informed of these proceedings. Forthwith a formal decree was passed proclaiming Severus emperor, awarding divine honours to Pertinax, and denouncing death to Julianus, who, deserted by all except one of his praefects and his son-in-law, Repentinus, was slain in the palace by a common soldier in the 61st year of his age and the third month of his reign.
Niebuhr, in his lectures on Roman history published by Dr. Schmitz, treats the common account that, after the death of Pertinax, the praetorians offered the imperial dignity for sale to the highest bidder, as a sad exaggeration or misrepresentation, and declares, that he is unable to believe that Sulpicianus and Julianus bid against one another, as at an auction. With all respect for his opinion, no event in ancient history rests upon surer evidence. Setting aside the testimony of Herodian, Capitolinus, and Spartianus, we have given the narrative of that strange exhibition almost in the words of Dio Cassius, who was not only in Rome at the period in question, but actually attended the meeting of the senate held on the very night when the bargain was concluded. We cannot suppose that he was ignorant of the real facts of the case. We cannot imagine any motive which could induce him to fabricate a circumstantial and improbable falsehood. Further Information
D. C. 73.11_17; Spartian. Did. Julian.; Capitolin. Pertin., sub fin., 2.6.9, 7.4; Eutrop. 8.9; Victor, Caes. xix.; Zosim. 1.7. [W.R]
[Gallus.]
[Scaeva.]