s 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 service
and counsels of such a man. 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 be elected. That the
same cause precluded Titus Manlius, besides that he had refused a
consulship when offered to him, and would refuse it. 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. The only
person in the state who objected to the measure was the man to whom
the honour was offered, who accused his 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. 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,