Could it be the memory of his misdeeds that so
oppressed
him?
Tacitus
From his early
youth Helvidius devoted his great intellectual powers to the higher
studies, not as many people do, with the idea of using a philosopher's
reputation as a cloak for indolence,[248] but rather to fortify
himself against the caprice of fortune when he entered public life. He
became a follower of that school of philosophy[249] which holds that
honesty is the one good thing in life and sin the only evil, while
power and rank and other such external things, not being qualities of
character, are neither good nor bad. He had risen no higher than the
rank of quaestor when Paetus Thrasea chose him for his son-in-law,[250]
and of Thrasea's virtues he absorbed none so much as his independence.
As citizen, senator, husband, son-in-law, friend, in every sphere of
life he was thoroughly consistent, always showing contempt for money,
stubborn persistence in the right, and courage in the face of danger.
Some people thought him too ambitious, for even with philosophers 6
the passion for fame is often their last rag of infirmity. After
Thrasea's fall Helvidius was banished, but he returned to Rome under
Galba and proceeded to prosecute Eprius Marcellus,[251] who had
informed against his father-in-law. This attempt to secure a revenge,
as bold as it was just, divided the senate into two parties, for the
fall of Marcellus would involve the ruin of a whole army of similar
offenders. At first the struggle was full of recrimination, as the
famous speeches on either side testify; but after a while, finding
that Galba's attitude was doubtful and that many of the senators
begged him to desist, Helvidius dropped the prosecution. On his action
in this matter men's comments varied with their character, some
praising his moderation, others asking what had become of his
tenacity.
To return to the senate: at the same meeting at which they voted
powers to Vespasian they also decided to send a deputation to address
him. This gave rise to a sharp dispute between Helvidius Priscus and
Eprius Marcellus. The former thought the members of the deputation
ought to be nominated by magistrates acting under oath; Marcellus
demanded their selection by lot. The consul-designate had already 7
spoken in favour of the latter method, but Marcellus' motive was
personal vanity, for he was afraid that if others were chosen he
would seem slighted. Their exchange of views gradually grew into a
formal and acrimonious debate. Helvidius inquired why it was that
Marcellus was so afraid of the magistrates' judgement, seeing that he
himself had great advantages of wealth and of eloquence over many
others.
Could it be the memory of his misdeeds that so oppressed him?
The fall of the lot could not discern character: but the whole point
of submitting people to the vote and to scrutiny by the senate was to
get at the truth about each man's life and reputation. In the interest
of the country, and out of respect to Vespasian, it was important that
he should be met by men whom the senate considered beyond reproach,
men who would give the emperor a taste for honest language. Vespasian
had been a friend of Thrasea, Soranus, and Sentius,[252] and even
though there might be no need to punish their prosecutors, still it
would be wrong to put them forward. Moreover, the senate's selection
would be a sort of hint to the emperor whom to approve and whom to
avoid. 'Good friends are the most effective instruments of good
government. Marcellus ought to be content with having driven Nero to
destroy so many innocent people. 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.
youth Helvidius devoted his great intellectual powers to the higher
studies, not as many people do, with the idea of using a philosopher's
reputation as a cloak for indolence,[248] but rather to fortify
himself against the caprice of fortune when he entered public life. He
became a follower of that school of philosophy[249] which holds that
honesty is the one good thing in life and sin the only evil, while
power and rank and other such external things, not being qualities of
character, are neither good nor bad. He had risen no higher than the
rank of quaestor when Paetus Thrasea chose him for his son-in-law,[250]
and of Thrasea's virtues he absorbed none so much as his independence.
As citizen, senator, husband, son-in-law, friend, in every sphere of
life he was thoroughly consistent, always showing contempt for money,
stubborn persistence in the right, and courage in the face of danger.
Some people thought him too ambitious, for even with philosophers 6
the passion for fame is often their last rag of infirmity. After
Thrasea's fall Helvidius was banished, but he returned to Rome under
Galba and proceeded to prosecute Eprius Marcellus,[251] who had
informed against his father-in-law. This attempt to secure a revenge,
as bold as it was just, divided the senate into two parties, for the
fall of Marcellus would involve the ruin of a whole army of similar
offenders. At first the struggle was full of recrimination, as the
famous speeches on either side testify; but after a while, finding
that Galba's attitude was doubtful and that many of the senators
begged him to desist, Helvidius dropped the prosecution. On his action
in this matter men's comments varied with their character, some
praising his moderation, others asking what had become of his
tenacity.
To return to the senate: at the same meeting at which they voted
powers to Vespasian they also decided to send a deputation to address
him. This gave rise to a sharp dispute between Helvidius Priscus and
Eprius Marcellus. The former thought the members of the deputation
ought to be nominated by magistrates acting under oath; Marcellus
demanded their selection by lot. The consul-designate had already 7
spoken in favour of the latter method, but Marcellus' motive was
personal vanity, for he was afraid that if others were chosen he
would seem slighted. Their exchange of views gradually grew into a
formal and acrimonious debate. Helvidius inquired why it was that
Marcellus was so afraid of the magistrates' judgement, seeing that he
himself had great advantages of wealth and of eloquence over many
others.
Could it be the memory of his misdeeds that so oppressed him?
The fall of the lot could not discern character: but the whole point
of submitting people to the vote and to scrutiny by the senate was to
get at the truth about each man's life and reputation. In the interest
of the country, and out of respect to Vespasian, it was important that
he should be met by men whom the senate considered beyond reproach,
men who would give the emperor a taste for honest language. Vespasian
had been a friend of Thrasea, Soranus, and Sentius,[252] and even
though there might be no need to punish their prosecutors, still it
would be wrong to put them forward. Moreover, the senate's selection
would be a sort of hint to the emperor whom to approve and whom to
avoid. 'Good friends are the most effective instruments of good
government. Marcellus ought to be content with having driven Nero to
destroy so many innocent people. 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.
