A question that offers more opportunity for debate is what should be the course of a captive if the price of his ransom is offered to him by a man who prostitutes his body and dishonors his mouth. Shall I permit a filthy wretch to save me? Then, if I have been saved, how shall I return my gratitude? Shall I live with a lewd fellow? Shall I not live with my deliverer? I shall tell you what in that case would be my course. Even from such a man I shall receive the money that will buy my freedom. I shall, however, receive it, not as a benefit, but as a loan; then I shall repay the money to him, and, if I ever have an opportunity to save him from a perilous situation, I shall save him as for friendship, which is a bond between equals, I shall not condescend to that, and I shall regard him, not as a preserver, but as a banker, to whom I am well aware that I must return the amount that I have received.
It is possible that, while a man may be a worthy person for me to receive a benefit from, it will injure him to give it; this I shall not accept for the very reason that he is ready to do me a service with inconvenience, or even with risk, to himself. Suppose that he is willing to defend me in a trial, but by his defense of me will make an enemy of the king; I am his enemy if, since he is willing to run a risk for my sake, I do not do the easier thing — run my risk without him.
A foolish and silly example of this is a case that Hecaton cites. Arcesilaus, he says, refused to accept a sum of money that was offered to him by a man who was not yet his own master8 for fear that the giver might offend his miserly father. But what was praiseworthy in his act of refusing to come into possession of stolen property, of preferring not to receive it than to restore it? For what self-restraint is there in refusing to accept the gift of another man’s property?
If there is need of an example of a noble spirit, let us take the case of Julius Graccinus’ a rare soul, whom Gaius Caesar killed simply because he was a better man than a tyrant found it profitable for anyone to be. This man, when he was receiving contributions from his friends to meet the expense of the public games, refused to accept a large sum of money that Fabius Persicus had sent; and, when those who were thinking, not of the senders, but of what was sent, reproached him because he had rejected the contribution, he replied: “Am I to accept a benefit from a man from whom I would not accept a toast to my health?” And, when a consular named Rebilus, a man of an equally bad reputation, had sent an even larger sum and insisted that he should order it to be accepted, he replied: “I beg your pardon; but I have already refused to accept money from Persicus.” Is this accepting a present or is it picking a senate?