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.
Pages:
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330