'
This heated interchange of arguments found supporters for both views.
This heated interchange of arguments found supporters for both views.
Tacitus
Let him enjoy the impunity and the
profit he has won from that, and leave Vespasian to more honest
advisers. '
Marcellus replied that the opinion which was being impugned was not 8
his own. The consul-designate had already advised them to follow the
established precedent, which was that deputations should be chosen by
lot, so that there should be no room for intrigue or personal
animosity. Nothing had happened to justify them in setting aside such
an ancient system. Why turn a compliment to the emperor into a slight
upon some one else? Anybody could do homage. What they had to avoid
was the possibility that some people's obstinacy might irritate the
emperor at the outset of his reign, while his intentions were
undecided and he was still busy watching faces and listening to what
was said. 'I have not forgotten,' he went on, 'the days of my youth or
the constitution which our fathers and grandfathers established. [253]
But while admiring a distant past, I support the existing state of
things. I pray for good emperors, but I take them as they come. As for
Thrasea, it was not my speech but the senate's verdict which did for
him. Nero took a savage delight in farces like that trial, and,
really, the friendship of such an emperor cost me as much anxiety as
banishment did to others. In fine, Helvidius may be as brave and as
firm as any Brutus or Cato; I am but a senator and we are all slaves
together. Besides, I advise my friend not to try and get an upper hand
with our emperor or to force his tuition on a man of ripe years,[254]
who wears the insignia of a triumph and is the father of two grown
sons. Bad rulers like absolute sovereignty, and even the best of them
must set some limit to their subjects' independence.
'
This heated interchange of arguments found supporters for both views.
The party which wanted the deputies chosen by lot eventually
prevailed, since even the moderates were anxious to observe the
precedent, and all the most prominent members tended to vote with
them, for fear of encountering ill-feeling if they were selected.
This dispute was followed by another. The Praetors, who in those 9
days administered the Treasury,[255] complained of the spread of
poverty in the country and demanded some restriction of expenditure.
The consul-designate said that, as the undertaking would be so vast
and the remedy so difficult, he was in favour of leaving it for the
emperor. Helvidius maintained that it ought to be settled by the
senate's decision. When the consuls began to take each senator's
opinion, Vulcacius Tertullinus, one of the tribunes, interposed his
veto, on the ground that they could not decide such an important
question in the emperor's absence. Helvidius had previously moved that
the Capitol should be restored at the public cost, and with the
assistance of Vespasian. The moderates all passed over this suggestion
in silence and soon forgot it, but there were others who took care to
remember it. [256]
It was at this time that Musonius Rufus[257] brought an action 10
against Publius Celer on the ground that it was only by perjury that
he had secured the conviction of Soranus Barea. [258] It was felt that
this trial restarted the hue and cry against professional accusers.
But the defendant was a rascal of no importance who could not be
sheltered, and, moreover, Barea's memory was sacred. Celer had set up
as a teacher of philosophy and then committed perjury against his
pupil Barea, thus treacherously violating the very principles of
friendship which he professed to teach. The case was put down for the
next day's meeting. [259] But now that a taste for revenge was aroused,
people were all agog to see not so much Musonius and Publius as
Priscus and Marcellus and the rest in court.
Thus the senate quarrelled; the defeated party nursed their 11
grievances; the winners had no power to enforce their will; law was in
abeyance and the emperor absent.
profit he has won from that, and leave Vespasian to more honest
advisers. '
Marcellus replied that the opinion which was being impugned was not 8
his own. The consul-designate had already advised them to follow the
established precedent, which was that deputations should be chosen by
lot, so that there should be no room for intrigue or personal
animosity. Nothing had happened to justify them in setting aside such
an ancient system. Why turn a compliment to the emperor into a slight
upon some one else? Anybody could do homage. What they had to avoid
was the possibility that some people's obstinacy might irritate the
emperor at the outset of his reign, while his intentions were
undecided and he was still busy watching faces and listening to what
was said. 'I have not forgotten,' he went on, 'the days of my youth or
the constitution which our fathers and grandfathers established. [253]
But while admiring a distant past, I support the existing state of
things. I pray for good emperors, but I take them as they come. As for
Thrasea, it was not my speech but the senate's verdict which did for
him. Nero took a savage delight in farces like that trial, and,
really, the friendship of such an emperor cost me as much anxiety as
banishment did to others. In fine, Helvidius may be as brave and as
firm as any Brutus or Cato; I am but a senator and we are all slaves
together. Besides, I advise my friend not to try and get an upper hand
with our emperor or to force his tuition on a man of ripe years,[254]
who wears the insignia of a triumph and is the father of two grown
sons. Bad rulers like absolute sovereignty, and even the best of them
must set some limit to their subjects' independence.
'
This heated interchange of arguments found supporters for both views.
The party which wanted the deputies chosen by lot eventually
prevailed, since even the moderates were anxious to observe the
precedent, and all the most prominent members tended to vote with
them, for fear of encountering ill-feeling if they were selected.
This dispute was followed by another. The Praetors, who in those 9
days administered the Treasury,[255] complained of the spread of
poverty in the country and demanded some restriction of expenditure.
The consul-designate said that, as the undertaking would be so vast
and the remedy so difficult, he was in favour of leaving it for the
emperor. Helvidius maintained that it ought to be settled by the
senate's decision. When the consuls began to take each senator's
opinion, Vulcacius Tertullinus, one of the tribunes, interposed his
veto, on the ground that they could not decide such an important
question in the emperor's absence. Helvidius had previously moved that
the Capitol should be restored at the public cost, and with the
assistance of Vespasian. The moderates all passed over this suggestion
in silence and soon forgot it, but there were others who took care to
remember it. [256]
It was at this time that Musonius Rufus[257] brought an action 10
against Publius Celer on the ground that it was only by perjury that
he had secured the conviction of Soranus Barea. [258] It was felt that
this trial restarted the hue and cry against professional accusers.
But the defendant was a rascal of no importance who could not be
sheltered, and, moreover, Barea's memory was sacred. Celer had set up
as a teacher of philosophy and then committed perjury against his
pupil Barea, thus treacherously violating the very principles of
friendship which he professed to teach. The case was put down for the
next day's meeting. [259] But now that a taste for revenge was aroused,
people were all agog to see not so much Musonius and Publius as
Priscus and Marcellus and the rest in court.
Thus the senate quarrelled; the defeated party nursed their 11
grievances; the winners had no power to enforce their will; law was in
abeyance and the emperor absent.
