Vecellinus or Spurius Maelius, ought their friends to have assisted
them in their attempt to establish a tyranny? Take two instances of
either line of conduct. When Tiberius Gracchus attempted his
revolutionary measures he was deserted, as we saw, by Quintus
Tubero and the friends of his own standing. On the other hand, a
friend of your own family, Scaevola, Gains Blossius of Cumae,
took a different course. I was acting as assessor to the consuls
Laenas and Rupilius to try the conspirators, and Blossius pleaded
for my pardon on the ground that his regard for Tiberius Gracchus
had been so high that he looked upon his wishes as law. "Even if
he had wished you to set fire to the Capitol?" said I. "That is a
thing," he replied, "that he never would have wished." "Ah, but if
he had wished it?" said I. "I would have obeyed." The wickedness
of such a speech needs no comment. And in point of fact he was
as good and better than his word for he did not wait for orders in
the audacious proceedings of Tiberius Gracchus, but was the head
and front of them, and was a leader rather than an abettor of his
madness. The result of his infatuation was that he fled to Asia,
terrified by the special commission appointed to try him, joined
the enemies of his country, and paid a penalty to the republic as
heavy as it was deserved. I conclude, then, that the plea of having
acted in the interests of a friend is not a valid excuse for a wrong
action. For, seeing that a belief in a man's virtue is the original
cause of friendship, friendship can hardly remain if virtue he
abandoned. But if we decide it to be right to grant our friends
whatever they wish, and to ask them for whatever we wish, perfect
wisdom must be assumed on both sides if no mischief is to
happen. But we cannot assume this perfect wisdom; for we are
speaking only of such friends as are ordinarily to be met with,
whether we have actually seen them or have been told about