Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 10
Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D., Ed.

7. there is said, however, to have been a vigorous discussion as to the passage or rejection of the bill, in which Appius Claudius and Publius Decius Mus were the principal speakers. [2] after they had brought up nearly the same arguments concerning the rights of patricians and plebeians as had formerly been employed in behalf of and against the Licinian Law,¹ when the plebeians sought access to the consulship, it [3??] is related that Decius evoked the image of his father as he had been seen by many who were then present in the assembly, wearing his toga with the Gabine cincture,² and standing over his weapon, as he had done when offering himself a sacrifice for the Roman People and the legions. [4] Publius Decius the consul had [p. 383]on that occasion seemed to the immortal gods an³ oblation no less pure and holy than if his colleague Titus Manlius had been offered up; could not then this same Publius Decius —he asked —have been duly chosen to solemnize the public sacrifices of the Roman People? [5] or was it to be feared that the gods would hearken less readily to the speaker's prayers than to those of Appius Claudius? did Appius perform with more devotion the rites of domestic religion, and worship the gods more scrupulously than he did himself? [6] who was there that repented him of the vows that had been uttered in the state's behalf by so many plebeian consuls and so many dictators, either on going to their armies or in the midst of their campaigns? [7] let them enumerate the generals of those years that had elapsed since campaigns were first conducted under the leadership and auspices of plebeians; let them enumerate the triumphs; even on the score of their nobility, the plebeians had now nothing to regret. [8] he felt quite sure that if suddenly some war should arise, the senate and the Roman People would rest their hopes no more on patrician than on plebeian generals.

[9] “since this is so,” he proceeded, "what god or man can deem it inappropriate that those heroes whom you have honoured with curule chairs, with the purple —bordered robe, with the tunic adorned with palms, and with the embroidered toga, the triumphal crown and the laurel wreath,⁴ whose houses you have made conspicuous amongst the rest with the spoils of your enemies which you have fastened to their walls, —who, I say, can object if such men add thereto the insignia of the pontiffs [p. 385]and the [10] augurs? may the man who, decked with⁵ the robes of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, has been borne through the City in a gilded chariot and has mounted the Capitol —may that man not be seen with chalice and crook,⁶ when, covering his head, he offers up the victim, or receives an augury from the [11] Citadel? if men shall read with equanimity, in the inscription that accompanies his portrait, of consulship, censorship, and triumph, will their eyes be unable to endure the brightness, if you add to these the augurate or [12] pontificate? for my own part —under Heaven's favour be it spoken —I trust that we are now, thanks to the Roman People, in a position to reflect upon the priesthoods —in consequence of our recognized fitness for office —no less credit than we shall receive from them, and to seek, more for the service of the gods than for ourselves, that those whom we worship privately we may also worship in the name of the state.