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, why should they thus trust him with a second consulate after having improperly committed to him the first ?" 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." All exerting themselves to the utmost, they succeeded in uniting Marcus Livius in the consulate with Caius Claudius.
35.