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