Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita, Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor), 34.6

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

View: By Section

← Previous Next →

[1] "I come now to the matter which is under discussion. On this point the consul's argument was two fold: for he protested against the repeal of any law at all, and particularly of that law which was designed to limit feminine luxury.

[2] The former argument, a general appeal on behalf of the laws, was becoming to a consul; the latter, against luxury, was consistent with his strict moral code;

[3] accordingly, unless I reveal the fallacy in both, there is a danger that some misconception may blind your eyes.

[4] For while I acknowledge that, of these laws which have been passed, not for a particular occasion, but as permanent institutions because of their enduring benefit, none should be repealed, unless experience shows it to be useless or some emergency in the state renders it valueless, yet I see that certain laws which crises in the

[5] state have demanded are, so to speak, mortal, and subject to change as conditions themselves change.

[6] Laws passed in time of peace, war frequently annuls, and peace those passed in times of war, just as in handling a ship some means are useful in fair weather and others in a storm.

[7] Since they are so distinguished by nature, to which class, I ask, does the law which we are trying to repeal seem to belong? Well?

[8] Is it an ancient regal law, born with the City itself, or, what is next to that, one inscribed on the twelve tables by the decemvirs¹ appointed to codify the law? Is it a law without which our ancestors held that a matron's virtue could not be preserved, and which we too must fear to repeal lest along with it we repeal the modesty and purity of our women?

[9] Who is there, then, who does not know that this is a new law, passed twenty years ago, in the consulship of Quintus Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius? Since for so many years our matrons lived virtuous lives without it, what danger is there that when it is repealed they will rush into riotous luxury?

[10] For if it were an ancient law, or passed for the purpose of holding feminine caprice under restraint, there would be danger that its abrogation would rouse their passion; but the occasion itself will tell you why the law was passed.

[11] Hannibal was in Italy, victorious at Cannae; he already held Tarentum,² Arpi, Capua; he seemed ready to march on our city of Rome;

[12] our allies had deserted us; we had no troops in reserve, no naval allies to maintain the fleet, no money in the treasury; slaves were being purchased for employment as soldiers, on condition that the price should be paid their owners after the war;

[13] the contractors agreed to furnish grain and other things demanded by the war on the same settlement-day;³ we furnished slaves for rowers in proportion to our census-ratings, and ourselves bore the costs;⁴ we all, following the example set by the senators, gave our gold and silver for the public use;

[14] widows and minors deposited their money in the treasury; we were forbidden to have at home more than a certain quantity of gold or silver plate or coined silver or bronze;⁵

[15] at such a time were the⁶ matrons so absorbed in luxury and adornment that the Oppian law was needed to restrain them, when, since the rites of Ceres had to be omitted because all the women were in mourning, the senate limited the period of mourning to thirty days?⁷

[16] Who fails to see that the poverty and distress of the state wrote that law, since all private property had to be diverted to public use, and that the law was to remain in force so long as the cause of its enactment lasted?⁸ For, if whatever emergency measure was passed by senatorial decree or popular vote should be for ever observed, why do we repay the loans advanced by private citizens?

[17] Why do we let contracts calling for cash payment? Why are slaves not bought to serve in the armies?

[18] Why do not private citizens furnish rowers as we did then?

Ab urbe condita. Titus Livius (Livy). Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor). Medford, MA. .

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

History of Rome (English) (Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Sage, Evan T.; Schlesinger, Alfred C., translators. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959. (Loeb Classical Library))

Editions (3)

Ab urbe condita Perseus (Pars I-IV, Libri I-XL. Editio Stereotypica. Weissenborn, Wilhelm; Mueller, Moritz, editors. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-1911.) — 34.6 focus

[1] venio nunc ad id, de quo agitur. in quo duplex consulis oratio fuit; nam et legem ullam omnino abrogari est indignatus, et ear eam praecipue legend, legem,

[2] quae luxuriae muliebris coercendae causa lata essetf esset. et illa communis pro legibus visa consularis oratio est, et haec adversus luxuriam severissimis moribus conveniebat;

[3] itaque periculum est, nisi, quid in utraque re vani sit, docuerimus, ne quis error vobis offundatur.

[4] ego enim quem ad modum ex its iis legibus, quae non in tempus aliquod, sed perpetuae utilitatis causa in aeternum latae sunt, nullam abrogari debere fateor, nisi quam aut usus coarguit aut status aliquis rei publicae inutilem fecit,

[5] sic, quas tempora aliqua desiderarunt leges, mortales, ut ita dicam, et temporibus ipsis mutabiles esse video.

[6] quae in pace lata sunt, plerumque bellum abrogat, quae in bello, pax, ut in navis administratione alia in secunda, alia in adversa tempestate usui sunt.

[7] haec cum ita natura distincta sint, ex utro tandem genere ea lex esse videtur, quam abrogamus? quid? vetus regia lex,

[8] simul cum ipsa urbe nata aut, quod secundum est, ab decemviris ad condenda iura creatis in duodecim tabulis scripta, sine qua cum maiores nostri non existimarint decus matronale servari posse, nobis quoque verendum sit, ne cum ea pudorem sanctitatemque feminarum abrogemus?

[9] quis igitur nescit novam istam legem esse, Q. Fabio et Ti. Sempronio consulibus viginti ante annis latam? sine qua cum per tot annos matronae optimis moribus vixerint, quod tandem, ne abrogata ea effundantur ad luxuriam, periculum est?

[10] nam si ista lex vetus aut ideo lata esset, ut finiret libidinem muliebrem, verendum foret, ne abrogata incitaret; cur sit autem lata, ipsum indicabit tempus.

[11] Hannibal in Italia erat, victor ad Cannas; iam Tarentum, iam Arpos, iam Capuam habebat;

[12] ad urbem Romam admoturus exercitum videbatur; defecerant socii; non milites in supplementum, non socios navalis ad classem tuendam, non pecuniam in aerario habebamus; servi, quibus arma darentur, ita ut pretium pro iis bello perfecto dominis solveretur, emebantur;

[13] in eandem diem pecuniae frumentum et cetera, quae belli usus postulabant, praebenda publicani se conducturos professi erant; servos ad remum numero ex censu constituto cum stipendio nostro dabamus;

[14] aurun aurum et argentum omne ab senatoribus eius rei initio orto in publicum conferebamus; viduae et pupilli pecunias suas in aerarium deferebant; cautum erat, quo ne plus auri et argenti facti, quo ne plus signati argenti et aeris domi haberemus —

[15] : tali tempore in luxuria et ornatu matronae occupatae erant, ut ad ear eam coercendam Oppia lex desiderata sit, cum, quia Cereris sacrificium lugentibus omnibus matronis intermissum erat, senatus fiiri finiri luctum triginta diebus iussit?

[16] cui non apparet inopiam et miseriam civitatis, et quia omnium privatorum pecuniae in usum publicum vertendae erant, istam legem scripsisse, tam diu mansuram, quam diu causa scribendae legis mansisset?

[17] nam si, quae tunc temporis causa aut decrevit senatus aut populus iussit, in perpetuum servari oportet, cur pecunias reddimus privatis? cur publica praesenti pecunia locamus?

[18] cur servi, qui militent, non emuntur? cur privati non damus remiges, sicut tunc dedimus?

Ab urbe condita Perseus (Livy in Fourteen Volumes. Foster, Benjamin Oliver; Moore, Frank Gardener; Schlesinger, Alfred C., editors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1919-1959 (printing).) — 30.6 focus

[1]

relucentem flammam primo vigiles Carthaginiensium, deinde excitati alii. nocturno tumultu cum conspexissent, ab eodem errore credere et ipsi sua sponte incendium ortum;

[2] et clamor inter caedem et volnera sublatus an ex trepidatione nocturna esset confusis ¹ sensum veri adimebat.

[3] igitur pro se quisque inermes, ut quibus nihil hostile suspectum esset, omnibus. portis, qua cuique proximum erat, ea modo quae restinguendo igni forent portantes, in agmen Romanum ruebant.

[4] quibus caesis omnibus praeterquam hostili odio, etiam ne quis nuntius refugeret, ² extemplo Scipio neglectas ut in tali tumultuportas invadit;

[5] ignibusque in proxima tecta coniectis, effusa flamma primo velut sparsa pluribus locis reluxit, dein per continua serpens uno repente omnia ³ incendio hausit.

[6] ambusti homines ⁴ iumentaque foeda primum fuga, dein strage obruebant ⁵ itinera portarum. quos non oppresserat ignis ferro absumpti, binaque castra clade ⁶ una deleta.

[7] duces tamen ambo et ex tot milibus armatorum duo milia peditum et quingenti equites semermes, magna pars saucii adflatique incendio effugerunt.

[8] caesa aut hausta flammis ad ⁷ quadraginta milia hominum sunt, capta supra quinque milia, multi Carthaginiensium nobiles, undecim senatores;

[9] signa militaria centum septuaginta quattuor, equi Numidici supra duo milia septingentos ⁸ ; elephanti sex capti, octo ferro flammaque absumpti. Magna vis armorum capta; ea omnia imperator Volcano sacrata incendit.

Ab urbe condita libri, erklärt von M. Weissenborn Perseus (Weissenborn, W.; Müller, H. J., editors. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1873-1883.) — 34.6 focus

[1]

venio nunc ad id, de quo agitur. in quo duplex consulis oratio fuit; nam et legem ullam omnino abrogari est indignatus, et eam praecipue legem, quae luxuriae muliebris coercendae causa lata esset.

[2] et illa communis pro legibus visa consularis oratio ¹ est, et haec adversus luxuriam severissimis moribus conveniebat;

[3] itaque periculum est, nisi, quid in utraque re vani sit, docuerimus, ne quis error vobis offundatur.

[4] ego enim quem ad modum ex iis legibus, quae non in tempus aliquod, sed perpetuae utilitatis causa in aeternum latae sunt, nullam abrogari debere fateor, nisi quam aut usus coarguit aut status aliquis rei publicae inutilem fecit,

[5] sic, quas tempora aliqua desiderarunt leges, mortales, ut ita dicam, et temporibus ipsis mutabiles esse video.

[6] quae in pace lata sunt, plerumque bellum abrogat, quae in bello, pax, ut in navis administratione alia in secunda, alia in adversa tempestate usui sunt.

[7] haec cum ita natura distincta sint, ex utro tandem genere ea lex esse videtur, quam abrogamus? quid? vetus regia lex,

[10] nam si ista lex vetus aut ideo lata esset, ² ut finiret libidinem muliebrem, verendum foret, ne abrogata incitaret;

[11] cur sit autem lata, ipsum indicabit tempus. Hannibal in Italia erat, victor ad Cannas; iam Tarentum, iam Arpos, iam Capuam habebat;

[14] aurum et argentum omne ab senatoribus eius rei initio orto in publicum conferebamus; viduae et pupilli pecunias suas in aerarium deferebant; cautum erat, quo ne plus auri et argenti facti, quo ne plus signati argenti et aeris domi haberemus —

[15] : tali tempore in luxuria et ornatu matronae occupatae erant, ut ad eam coercendam Oppia lex desiderata sit, cum, quia Cereris sacrificium lugentibus ³ omnibus matronis intermissum erat, senatus finiri luctum triginta

[16] diebus iussit ? cui non apparet inopiam et miseriam civitatis [et] quia omnium privatorum pecuniae in usum publicum vertendae erant, istam legem scripsisse, tam diu mansuram, quam diu causa scribendae legis mansisset?

[17] nam si, quae tunc temporis causa aut decrevit senatus aut populus iussit, in perpetuum servari oportet, cur pecunias reddimus privatis? cur publica praesenti pecunia locamus?

[18] cur servi, qui militent, non emuntur? cur privati non damus remiges, sicut tunc dedimus?

Translations (2)

History of Rome Perseus (Spillan, D.; Edmonds, Cyrus; McDevitte, William A., translators. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849-1868. (Bohn's Classical Library)) — 34.6 focus

[1]

"I come now to the question in debate, with respect to which the consul's argument is twofold: for, first, he is displeased at the thought of any law whatever being repealed; and then, particularly, of that law which was made to restrain female luxury.

[2] His former argument, in support of the laws in general, appeared highly becoming of a consul; and that on the latter, against luxury, was quite conformable to the rigid strictness of his morals.

[3] There is, therefore, a danger lest, unless I shall show what, on each subject, was inconclusive, you may probably be led away by error.

[4] For while I acknowledge, that of those laws which are instituted, not for any particular time, but for eternity, on account of their perpetual utility, not one ought to be repealed; unless either experience evince it to be useless, or some state of the public affairs render it so; I see, at the same time, that those laws which particular seasons have required, are mortal, (if I may use the term,) and changeable with the times.

[5] Those made in peace are generally repealed by war; those made in war, by peace; as in the management of a ship, some implements are useful in good weather, others in bad.

[6] As these two kinds are thus distinct in their nature, of which kind does that law appear to be which we now propose to repeal? Is it an ancient law of the kings, coeval with the city itself?

[7] Or, what is next to that, was it written in the twelve tables by the decemvirs, appointed to form a code of laws?

[8] Is it one, without which our ancestors thought that the honour of the female sex could not be preserved? and, therefore, have we also reason to fear, that, together with it, we should repeal the modesty and chastity of our females? Now, is there a man among you who does not know that this is a new law, passed not more than twenty years ago, in the consulate of Quintus Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius?

[9] And as, without it, our matrons sustained, for such a number of years, the most virtuous characters, what danger is there of their abandoning themselves to luxury on its being repealed? For, if that law had been passed for the purpose of setting a limit to the passions of the sex, there would be reason to fear lest the repeal of it might operate as an incitement to them.

[10] But the real reason of its being passed, the time itself will show. Hannibal was then in Italy, victorious at Cannae: he already held possession of Tarentum, of Arpi, of Capua, and seemed ready to bring up his army to the city of Rome.

[11] Our allies had deserted us. We had neither soldiers to fill up the legions, nor seamen to man the fleet, nor money in the treasury.

[12] Slaves, who were to be employed as soldiers, were purchased on condition of their price being paid to the owners at the end of the war. The farmers of the revenues had declared, that they would contract to supply corn and other matters, which the exigencies of the war required, to be paid for at the same time.

[13] We gave up our slaves to the oar, in numbers proportioned to our properties, and paid them out of our own incomes. All our gold and silver, in imitation of the example given by the senators, we dedicated to the use of the public.

[14] Widows and minors lodged their money in the treasury. It was provided by law that we should not keep in our houses more than a certain quantity of wrought gold or silver, or more than a certain sum of coined silver or brass.

[15] At such a time as this, were the matrons so eagerly engaged in luxury and dress, that the Oppian law was requisite to repress such practices; when the senate, because the sacrifice of Ceres had been omitted, in consequence of all the matrons being in mourning, ordered the mourning to end in thirty days? Who does not clearly see, that the poverty and distress of the state, requiring that every private person's money should be converted to the use of the public, enacted that law, with intent that it should remain in force so long only as the cause of enacting the law should remain?

[16] For if all the decrees of the senate and orders of the people, which were then made to answer the necessities of the times, are to be of perpetual obligation, why do we refund their money to private persons?

[17] Why do we contract for public works for ready money? Why are not slaves brought to serve in the army?

[18] Why do not we, private subjects, supply rowers as we did then?

History of Rome Perseus (Volumes 1-2. Roberts, Canon, Rev, translator. London, New York: J. M. Dent and Sons; E. P. Dutton and Co., 1912.) — 34.6 focus

[1]

"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.

[2] 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.

[3] Unless, therefore, we show the weakness of both lines of argument there is some risk of your being led into error.

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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?

[7] 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

[8] 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?

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

[13] 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.

[14] 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?

[15] 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?

[16] 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?

[17] 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

[18] as rowers as we did then?

Notes on the current edition

Ab Urbe Condita With An English Translation, books 1-10, 21-45, with periochae 11-20

1. B.C. 195

2. Tarentum did not surrender to him until 213 or 212 B.C. (XXV. xi. 20).

3. I.e., after the war; cf. XXIII. xlix. 1-3.

4. In 214 B.C. (XXIV. xi. 7-9), the senate took the action here described; cf. also XXVI. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 12.

5. This statement is not quite consistent with the proposal of M. Valerius Laevinus in 210 B.C. (XXVI. xxxvi. 5-8). The speaker for rhetorical effect ignores the fact that the sumptuary laws he mentions were passed at different times.

6. B.C. 195

7. This happened in 216 B.C. (XXII. lvi. 4).

8. Valerius argues that the Oppian law was merely one of a series of emergency measures by which all elements in the state were affected. To leave this one law in force would mean continued discrimination against one element, the women, after the other methods had been abandoned.

Titus Livius (Livy) Ab urbe condita 34.6

Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D. (Editor), Frank Gardener Moore (Editor), Evan T. Sage, Ph.D. (Editor), Alfred C. Schlesinger, Ph.D. (Editor)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers