Earlier, rich noble families, or families with an illustrious reputation, had been collapsing because of their fondness for splendour. For it was even at that time permissible to cultivate the friendship of the plebs, the allies, and the tributary kingdoms, and to be cultivated by them—and a man was the more distinguished in terms of reputation and clients according to the magnificence of his wealth, his home, and his personal effects. After the savage butchery,* and when a great renown came to mean death, those who remained turned to a more sensible course. Along with this there were the ‘new men’ who were frequently enlisted in the Senate from the municipal towns and colonies,* and even the provinces. They brought with them the frugality of their own background, and although a number of them reached an affluent old age through good fortune or hard work, their earlier attitudes remained with them. But the outstanding proponent of thrifty behaviour was Vespasian,* who was himself old-fashioned in his style of life. After that, deference to the emperor and the fervent wish to emulate him were more effective than any legal penalty or deterrent. Or perhaps there is a sort of cycle in all things, with changes of morality coming around again like seasonal changes. (And not everything was better in our ancestors’ days, either—our own age, too, has produced many instances of excellence and artistic merit deserving to be imitated by posterity. At all events, let us continue to promote such honourable competitiveness with our ancestors!)
— Tacitus, The Annals, new translation by J.C. Yardey
