was only the opposition of a moral ideal, not the deliberate propaganda of a political creed.(227) This may be true of some of the philosophers: it is certainly not true of all. Thrasea was a genial man of the world, whose severest censure expressed itself in silence and absence from the Senate,(228) who could even, on occasion, speak with deference of Nero. But his son-in-law, Helvidius Priscus, seemed to exult in flouting and insulting a great and worthy emperor such as Vespasian.(229) And the life of Apollonius by Philostratus leaves the distinct impression that philosophy, in the reign of Nero and Domitian, was a revolutionary force. Apollonius, it is true, is represented by Philostratus as supporting the cause of monarchy in a debate in the presence of Vespasian.(230) But he boasted of having been privy to conspiracies against Nero,(231) and he was deeply involved with Nerva and Orfitus in a plot against Domitian.(232) He was summoned before the secret tribunal to answer for speeches against the emperor delivered to crowds at Ephesus.(233) It may be admitted that the invective or scorn of philosophy was aimed at unworthy princes, rather than at the foundations of their power. Yet Dion Cassius evidently regards Helvidius Priscus as a turbulent agitator with dangerous democratic ideals,(234) and he contrasts his violence with the studied moderation, combined with dignified reserve, displayed by Thrasea in the reign of Nero. The tolerant Vespasian, who bore so long the wanton insults of the philosophers, must have come at length to think them not only an offence but a real danger when he banished them. In the first century there can be little doubt that there were members of the philosophic class who condemned monarchy, not only as a moral danger, but as a lamentable aberration from the traditions of republican freedom. There were probably some, who, if the chance had offered itself, might even have ventured on a republican reaction.