camp; the present being, morever, the first and only occasion on which he is introduced by Livy.(118) He is likewise represented as giving offence, by suggesting the creation of tribunes, and a secession, to his fellow-soldiers, which is more consistent with the preceding circumstances than the account of Dionysius; for as the armies had been defeated because the soldiers would not fight, the blame could not with plausibility be thrown on the generals. In the description of the contrivance by which Siccius is killed, the means by which it is detected, and the evil impression produced on the army, Livy agrees with Dionysius.(119)

§ 51 The outrage which rouses the indignation of the camp at Algidus, is the attempt of Appius upon the chastity of Virginia, and her tragic death by her father's hand. Of this event, we have copious narratives from both our historians, which agree with each other in their general tenor and in many minute details; in some material circumstances they differ. It will be sufficient for our present purpose to recite the leading facts of this celebrated story.

L. Virginius, (120) a plebeian, now serving as a centurion in the camp at Algidus, had a beautiful daughter, fifteen years of age; her mother, Numitoria, was dead, and she was in the habit of attending a school in the forum, under the care of a female attendant. Here Appius, the decemvir, had seen her; and being struck with her beauty, resolved to gain possession of her person. This object he sets about accomplishing in the following indirect and public manner. He employs M. Claudius, one of his clients, to claim her, by legal process, as his slave. M. Claudius lays his hands upon her, and cites her before the

(118) See above, p. 185-191.

(119) Livy, iii. 43. A brief account of the murder of Siccius, agreeing with both historians, is given in Zon. vii. 18. A fragment of Dio Cassius, published by Mai, refers to this portion of the decemviral history. It states that both the camps and the city were disturbed; that the soldiers, desirous that the affairs of their rulers should fail, courted defeat; while the rulers not only rejoiced in the deaths of their own men, but secretly destroyed the most active leaders of the people, and that a formidable division was created, xxiii. 3, ed. Bekker.

(120) Cic. Rep. ii. 37, gives him the prænomen Decimus: but apparently from an error of memory. In our copies of Livy, moreover, he is first called Lucius, and afterwards Aulus. Below, n. 140.

tribunal of Appius. Here he states that the girl was the daughter of one of his slave-women, that she had been stolen from his house, and that the wife of Virginius had passed off the supposititious child as her own. This statement he offers to substantiate by proof. The friends of Virginia represent the hardship of deciding the question without notice, and in the father's absence:(121) and insist that she ought to remain in the possession of her family until the question can be fully heard. Appius, impatient to gratify his lust, decides, against a law of the twelve tables, that the plaintiff, claiming a free person as his slave, is entitled to immediate possession, and that Virginia is to remain in the custody of M. Claudius until the day of the trial. Icilius, however, to whom Virginia had been betrothed, makes a vehement remonstrance against this iniquitous decree :(122) the people are roused by his appeal; and an attempt to beat off the lictors, and to rescue her from the hands of M. Claudius, is threatened, when Appius judges it prudent to yield. He advises M. Claudius to forego his extreme right, and to waive the possession of the girl for the present: he then appoints the further hearing of the cause to take place on the morrow. This interference of Icilius is supported by Numitorius, the maternal uncle of Virginia. (123) Security is given by

(121) Livy and Dionysius differ at this point. Livy says that Virginia is defended, before the utterance of the decree, by certain unnamed 'advocates; and that Numitorius and Icilius did not appear till after the decree had been made, and the preliminary proceeding was virtually closed, iii. 45. According to Dionysius, Numitorius and Icilius are present from the beginning of the proceeding; they hear the statement of M. Claudius, and Numitorius answers it. xi. 28-30.

(122) There is a close agreement, as far as the sentiments are concerned, between the spirited and rhetorical speech of Icilius in Livy, c. 45, Ferro hine tibi summovendus sum, Appi,' and the speech in Dionysius, c. 31, οὐκ ἐμοῦ γε ζῶντος.

(123) This is the statement of Dionysius; and the text of Livy has been altered into conformity with it. But all the MSS. have Avus, not Avunculus in Livy, iii. 45, 57. From this it would seem as if Livy conceived Numitorius as the father, not the brother, of the wife of Virginius: but in c. 54, the manuscripts have 'P. Numitorium, avunculum Virginii,' where the last word has been altered into Virginiæ.' If Numitorius had been the maternal grandfather of Virginia, he would have been the father-in-law, not the uncle, of Virginius.

the friends of Virginia, and by the bystanders, for her appearance on the following day.(124)

The brother of Icilius, and the son of Numitorius, (125) lose no time in riding to the camp at Algidus, and in informing Virginius of the proceedings of Appius. Having been despatched while the discussion was proceeding, they anticipate the letter of Appius, instructing Antonius the decemvir to detain Virginius in the camp. Virginius is on his way to Rome before the letter is delivered, (126) and he appears the next morning with his daughter before the tribunal of Appius.

The accounts given by our historians of the proceedings on this important occasion, differ from one another. According to Livy, there is no further argument, or examination of witnesses; but after a few words from M. Claudius, complaining that judgment had not been given on the preceding day, Appius, without waiting for any statement, either from the plaintiff or the defendant, decides that Virginia is the slave of M. Claudius. Livy mentions only the effect of the decision, adding, that various reports of the reasons for it had been given by ancient authorities, but that all of them seemed to him deficient in probability.(127) According to Dionysius, there was a regular trial

(124) Livy, iii. 44-6: Dion. Hal. xi. 28-32.

(125) Livy, iii. 46, and Dion. Hal. xi. 38, agree as to these two mes

sengers.

(126) The two historians differ here as to time. Livy, c. 46, says that Virginius left the camp at the first watch of the night (about 6 p.m.); whereas the letter of Appius was not delivered till the next morning. Dionysius says that the letter of Appius was delivered at the first watch, but that Virginius was already gone, c. 33. When the statements are so detailed as these, it is worth while to note minute discrepancies. As to the vigilia, see Becker, iii. 2, p. 324.

(127) Quem decreto sermonem prætenderit, forsan aliquem verum auctores antiqui tradiderint. Quia nusquam ullum in tantâ fœditate decreti verisimilem invenio; id, quod constat, nudum videtur proponendum, decresse vindicias secundum libertatem, iii. 47. Under the later Roman jurisprudence, the vindicia of the prætor was a judgment affecting only the mesne possession, or use, or profits, of the thing in litigation; the ownership or dominion being reserved for the subsequent decision of a judex assigned by the prætor. See Facciolati in v. where the technical meaning of the word is clearly explained. Niebuhr construes Livy's words in their strict sense; and supposes Appius to decree to M. Claudius only the intermediate possession of the girl, until a judge should determine the question of ownership. Hist. vol. ii. p. 350-1. The same view had been

VOL. II.

P

of the question. M. Claudius repeated what he had stated on the previous day; after which, the defence of Virginia was fully heard, and was supported by many witnesses, who deposed to the pregnancy of Numitoria, and her delivery of the child. Appius then pronounced his judgment, which he founded on his alleged personal knowledge. He said that he had been appointed by the father, guardian to M. Claudius: that while he was acting as guardian he received information that the child of his ward's slave-woman had been stolen, and been treated by Numitoria as her own; that he had taken no steps at the time for recovering the child, but had left it to M. Claudius, when he came of age, either to claim it, or to compromise his right for

taken by Bauer ad l., and is approved by Ruperti. It is not easy to accede to this explanation. Livy appears rather to use the term vindicia in a loose and popular sense, as expressing a decision of the entire right. It seems very improbable that Appius should, in such a case, contemplate any ulterior proceeding, similar to the final decision of a judex, after the intermediate decree of the prætor. Such an interpretation is indeed negatived by the subsequent words of Appius, who, when Virginius threatens armed resistance, thus addresses the lictor, I, lictor, submove turbam, et da viam domino ad prehendendum mancipium,' Here he treats M. Claudius as the dominus, and Virginia as his mancipium; which would not have been the case if the judgment had merely affected the mesne possession. After the fall of the decemvirs, when Appius is accused by Virginius, the latter thus describes his offence: Carnificibus, non lictoribus, stipatus, jam ab rapinis et cædibus animo ad libidinem verso, virginem ingenuam in oculis populi Romani, velut bello captam, ab complexu patris abreptam, ministro cubiculi sui clienti dono dederit,' c. 57. Although the words of this rhetorical passage must not be construed strictly, they imply an absolute, not an intermediate, decree. The word vindicia seems to be used by Livy (nefandæ vindiciæ, c. 57, injustæ vindiciæ, c. 58) in the general sense of a decree. Dionysius distinctly makes the judgment of Appius decide the question of ownership: κρίνω εἶναι τοῦτον τῆς παιδίσκης κύριον, xi. 36. Το Diod. xii. 24, τοῦ δὲ διακούσαντος τῆς κατηγορίας, καὶ τὴν κόρην ἐγχειρίσαντος, ἐπιλαβόμενος ὁ συκοφάντης ἀπήγαγεν ὡς ἰδίαν δούλην. Zonaras, vii. 18, uses the word dovλaywyeiv, which dentes property, as well as possession. The language of Victor, likewise implies that Virginia is made a slave by the decree: Pater, re cognitâ, quum ipso die judicii supervenisset, et filiam jam addictam videret, ultimo ejus alloquio impetrato,' &c. De Vir. Ill. 21. Niebuhr remarks that Livy takes a very clear view of the whole case,' upon the supposition that he represents the decree of Appius as limited to the possession of Virginia; but the view of the case taken by Dionysius, who expressly states that the ownership was adjudged to M. Claudius, is at least equally clear, ib. vol. ii. n. 773. The remark in n. 772, that according to Livy, Appius pronounced nothing' in the first decree is not correct. The remonstrance of Icilius shows that what he pronounced was most important; and he is forced, by the fear of popular resentment, to recede from his judgment. Dr. Arnold follows Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 306.

money; but that as the right was now put in suit, he had no option, knowing the true state of the facts, but to declare the plaintiff to be the owner of the girl.(128)

When the decree has been pronounced, and M. Claudius is about to carry Virginia away as his lawful slave, Virginius, according to Livy, obtains permission of Appius to question the female servant of Virginia in her presence, as to the alleged paternity, in order that he may satisfy his doubts. He leads the two aside close to some shops (the place of which was known in Livy's time), (129) and seizing a knife from a butcher, he exclaims to his daughter, 'In this way alone can I assert your freedom.' He then stabbed her in the heart, and cried out to Appius that he devoted him and his head to the infernal gods by the blood which was shed. (130) Dionysius says that, being permitted to embrace his daughter, and speak to her alone, he led her near a butcher's shop, where he seized a knife from the table, and pierced her through the heart, saying, 'I send you, my child, free and pure to your ancestors under the earth, before the tyrant could deprive you of your liberty and your chastity.'(131)

§ 52 At the sight of this terrible deed, Appius orders Virginius to be seized; but he makes his way through the people, with the bloody knife in his hand, calling them to liberty. He is accompanied from the gate of the city by a body of about 400 persons, (132) and bends his course to the camp. Here he shows himself to his fellow-soldiers, and describes to them the judgment of Appius, and its consequences; holding up the instrument with which the sacrifice of his daughter had been accomplished, and pointing to her blood with which he was still

(128) Dion. Hal. xi. 33-7.

(129) Seducit filiam ac nutricem prope Cloacinæ ad tabernas, quibus nunc Novis est nomen; Livy, iii. 48. Concerning the situation of the temple of Cloacina, see Becker, vol. i. p. 320. Nutrix, like popòs, was the female slave, who had the care of an unmarried woman.

(130) Livy, iii. 48.

(131) Dion. Hal. xi. 37.

(132) This number is mentioned both by Dionysius, c. 37, and Livy,

c. 50.