34.6
"I come
now to the matter of debate. Here the consul adopted a twofold line of
argument, for he protested against any law being repealed and in particular
against the repeal of this law which had been passed to restrain female
extravagance. His defence of the laws as a whole seemed to me such as a
consul ought to make and his strictures on luxury were quite in keeping with
his strict and severe moral code. Unless, therefore, we show the weakness of
both lines of argument there is some risk of your being led into error. As to
laws which have been made not for a temporary emergency, but for all time
as being of permanent utility, I admit that none of them ought to be repealed
except where experience has shown it to be hurtful or political changes have
rendered it useless. But I see that the laws which have been necessitated by
particular crises are, if I may say so, mortal and subject to change with the
changing times. Laws made in times of peace war generally repeals, those
made during war peace rescinds, just as in the management of a ship some
things are useful in fair weather and others in foul. As these two classes of
laws are distinct in their nature, to which class would the law which we are
repealing appear to belong? Is it an ancient law of the kings, coeval with the
City, or, which is the next thing to it, did the decemviri who were appointed
to codify the laws inscribe it on the Twelve Tables as an enactment without
which our forefathers thought that the honour and dignity of our matrons
could not be preserved, and if we repeal it shall we have reason to fear that
we shall destroy with it the self-respect and purity of our women? Who does
not know that this is quite a recent law passed twenty years ago in the
consulship of Q. Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius? If the matrons led
exemplary lives without it, what danger can there possibly be of their
plunging into luxury if it is repealed? If that law had been passed with the
sole motive of limiting female excesses there might be some ground for
apprehension that the repeal might encourage them, but the circumstances
under which it was passed will reveal its object.
Hannibal was in Italy; he had won the victory of Cannae; he was
now master of Tarentum, Arpi and Capua; there was every likelihood that he
would bring his army up to Rome. Our allies had fallen away from us, we
had no reserves from which to make good our losses, no seamen to render
our navy effective, and no money in the treasury. We had to arm the slaves
and they were bought from their owners on condition that the purchase
money should be paid at the end of the war; the contractors undertook to
supply corn and everything else required for the war, to be paid for at the
same date. We gave up our slaves to act as rowers in numbers proportionate
to our assessment and placed all our gold and silver at the service of the
State, the senators setting the example. Widows and minors invested their
money in the public funds and a law was passed fixing the maximum of gold
and silver coinage which we were to keep in our houses. Was it at such a
crisis as this that the matrons were so given to luxury that the Oppian Law
was needed to restrain them, when, owing to their being in mourning, the
sacrificial rites of Ceres had been intermitted and the senate in consequence
ordered the mourning to be terminated in thirty days? Who does not see that
the poverty and wretched condition of the citizens, every one of whom had
to devote his money to the needs of the commonwealth, were the real
enactors of that law which was to remain in force as long as the reason for
its enactment remained in force? If every decree made by the senate and
every order made by the people to meet the emergency is to remain in force
for all time, why are we repaying to private citizens the sums they advanced?
Why are we making public contracts on the basis of immediate payment?
Why are slaves not being purchased to serve as soldiers, and each of us
giving up our slaves to serve as rowers as we did then?
