Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 27
Cyrus Evans, Ed.

34. On the fathers' looking round to see whom they should appoint as consuls, Caius Claudius Nero appeared preeminently. [2] They then looked out for a colleague for him, and although they considered him a man of the highest talents, they also were of opinion that he was of a more forward and vehement disposition than the circumstances of the war, or the enemy, Hannibal, [3??] required, they resolved that it would be right to qualify the impetuosity of his temper by uniting with him a cool and prudent colleague. [4] The person fixed upon was Marcus Livius, who, many years ago, was, on the expiration of his consulship, condemned in a trial before the people; a disgrace which he took so much to heart, that he retired into the country, and for many years absented himself from the city, and avoided all public assemblies. [5] Much about the eighth year after his condemnation, Marcus Claudius Marcellus and Marcus Valerius Laevinus, the consuls, had brought him back into the city; but he appeared in a squalid dress, his hair and beard allowed to grow, and exhibiting in his countenance and attire the deep impression of the disgrace he had sustained. [6] Lucius Veturius and Publius Licinius, the censors, compelled him to have his beard and hair trimmed, to lay aside his squalid garb, to come into the senate, and discharge other public duties. [7] But even then he either gave his assent by a single word, or signified his vote by walking to one side of the house, till the trial of Marcus Livius Macatus, a kinsman of his, whose character was at stake, obliged him to deliver his sentiments in the senate upon his legs. [8] On being heard in the senate on this occasion, after so long an interval, he drew the eyes of all upon him, and gave occasion to conversations to the following effect: “That the people had injuriously disgraced a man who was undeserving of it, and that it had been greatly detrimental to the state that, in so important a war, it had not had the benefit of the services and counsels of such a man. [9] That neither Quintus Fabius nor Marcus Valerius Laevinus could be given to Caius Nero as colleagues, because it was not allowed for two patricians to [p. 1139]be elected. That the same cause precluded Titus Manlius, besides that he had refused a consulship when offered to him, and would refuse it. [10] That they would have two most distinguished consuls if they should add Marcus Livius as a colleague to Caius Claudius.” Nor did the people despise a proposal, the mention of which originated with the fathers. [11] The only person in the state who objected to the measure was the man to whom the honour was offered, who accused his [12??] countrymen of inconstancy, saying, “that, having withheld their pity from him when arrayed in a mourning garment and a criminal, they now forced upon him the white gown against his will; that honours and punishments were heaped upon the same person. [13] If they esteemed him a good man, why had they thus passed a sentence of condemnation upon him as a wicked and guilty one? If they had proved him a guilty man, why should they thus trust him with a second consulate after having improperly committed to him the first?” [14] While thus remonstrating and complaining, the fathers rebuked him, putting him in mind, that “Marcus Furius too, being recalled from exile, had reinstated his country when shaken from her very base. That we ought to soothe the anger of our country as we would that of parents, by patience and resignation.” [15] All exerting themselves to the utmost, they succeeded in uniting Marcus Livius in the consulate with Caius Claudius.