In the late war, not to go back to remote antiquity, when there was a want of money, did not the funds of the widows supply the treasury?  And when even new gods were invited hither to the relief of our distressed affairs, did not the matrons go out in a body to the sea-shore to receive the Idaean Mother?  The cases, you will say, are dissimilar.  It is not my purpose to produce similar instances; it is sufficient that I clear these women of having done any thing new.  Now, what nobody wondered at their doing in cases which concerned all in common, both men and women, can we wonder at their doing in a case peculiarly affecting themselves?  But what have they done?  We have proud ears, truly, if, though masters disdain not the prayers of slaves, we are offended at being asked a favour by honourable women.

[Footnote 1:  Alluding to a treatise by Cato, upon the antiquities of Italy, entitled “Origines,” which is the word used here by Valerius.]

6.  “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to which the consul’s argument is twofold:  for, first, he is displeased at the thought of any law whatever being repealed; and then, particularly, of that law which was made to restrain female luxury.  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.  There is, therefore, a danger lest, unless I shall show what, on each subject, was inconclusive, you may probably be led away by error.  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instituted, not for any particular time, but for eternity, on account of their perpetual utility, not one ought to be repealed; unless either experience evince it to be useless, or some state of the public affairs render it so; I see, at the same time, that those laws which particular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.  Those made in peace are generally repealed by war; those made in war, by peace; as in the management of a ship, some implements are useful in good weather, others in bad.  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?  Or, what is next to that, was it written in the twelve tables by the decemvirs, appointed to form a code of laws?  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?  And as, without it, our matrons sustained, for such a number of years, the most virtuous characters, what danger