No More Learning

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. 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.