Tacitus, Annals, 15.20­-23, 33­-45. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary, 2013a

mentioned, composed a number of scandalous verses on the princeps, and
made them public at a well-attended banquet of Ostorius Scapula, with whom
he was dining. He was thereupon accused of treason by Cossutianus Capito,
who, by the intervention of his father-in-law Tigellinus, had lately recovered
his senatorial rank. This was the first revival of the statute; and it was believed
that what was sought was not so much death for Antistius as glory for the
emperor, whose tribunician veto was to snatch him from death after he had
been condemned by the senate. Although Ostorius had stated in evidence that
he had heard nothing, the witnesses for the prosecution were believed; and
the consul designate, Junius Marullus, moved for the accused to be stripped
of his praetorship and put to death according to ancient custom. The other
senators were approving the motion, when Thrasea Paetus, with a great show
of respect for Caesar and a most vigorous attack on Antistius, argued that it
did not follow that the penalty a guilty defendant deserved to suffer was the
one that ought to be decided upon, under an outstanding princeps and by a
senate not fettered by any sort of compulsion. The executioner and the noose
had long since been abolished; and there were punishments established by
laws under which punitive measures could be decreed without implicating
the judges in brutality or the age in infamy. In fact, on an island, with his
property confiscated, the longer he dragged out his criminal existence, the
deeper would be his personal misery, and he would also furnish an excellent
example of public clemency.’
(49) The autonomy of Thrasea broke the servility of others, and, after the
consul had authorized a vote, everyone supported his opinion, except a
few dissenters, among whom Aulus Vitellius [sc. the future emperor] was
the most active sycophant, who levelled his abuse at the very best, and, as
is the wont of cowardly natures, lapsed into silence if anyone replied. The
consuls, however, not daring to put the senatorial decree into practice, wrote
to Caesar about the general consensus of opinion. He, after some vacillation
between shame and anger, finally wrote back that ‘Antistius, unprovoked by
any injury, had uttered to the most intolerable insults against the princeps. For
those insults retribution had been demanded from the senators; and it would
have been appropriate to fix a penalty matching the gravity of the offence.
Still, as he had in mind to check undue severity in their verdict, he would
not interfere with their moderation; they must decide as they wished – they
had been given liberty even to acquit.’ These words, and others like it, were
read out, and his resentment was plain to see. The consuls, however, did not
change the motion on that account; Thrasea did not withdraw his proposal;
nor did the remaining members withdraw their support for what they had
approved; one part, lest they should seem to have placed the emperor in an
invidious position; a majority, because there was safety in their numbers;
Thrasea, through his usual firmness of spirit, and a desire not to lose any of
his glory.]