195 BC. Rome. A motion was brought by the pleb tribunes to repeal the Lex Oppia.
The Lex Oppia, brought by Gaius Oppius during the Punic war (215 BC), was a law that no woman should possess more than half an ounce of gold, wear parti-coloured clothing, or ride in a horse-drawn carriage in a city or town unless taking part in a public religious act.
The motion to repeal this law caused an uproar in the city. Livy says the matrons could not be confined within doors by the advice of their husbands…. they beset all the streets of the city and all the approaches to the Forum… at a time when the personal fortunes of men were daily increasing, to allow the women the restoration of their former luxuries. The number of women involved increased daily, and they were boldly importuning the magistrates.
Pro Lex Oppia
In defense of maintaining the law, Marcus Porcius Cato gave a speech. There are two main points to it, which I won’t quote at length, but just give the gist.
The first is that allowing women to influence the law like this is a travesty. If they are allowed to directly influence law like this, it will lead to a general breakdown in society. Giving women equality with men will actually end up making them your superiors.
There’s a weird logic in this. In saying women would become superiors if allowed equality sounds like he thinks women are really superior, or at least through some mechanism, would wrest control from the men. He could think women really superior to men, or else he may just be recognizing that men are willing to capitulate to women in certain instances… not sure what his reason is, but it’s a bit strange. It also echoes the speech of King Ahasuerus’ advisors in the book of Esther.
If that was all he had to say in support of maintaining the law, I’d rank it as a completely irrelevant argument; a non-sequitur. But he does follow this up with an actual argument.
The Lex Oppia, he says, was not passed originally to restrain female extravagance, because there was no extravagance to be restrained. At the time, it was passed to provide for the welfare of the state, and in fact, the women themselves were in support of it as a collective good will in defense of the state. But he offers up this rationale: It may occasion some natural resentment if what is permitted to another is refused to you, but provided the dress is made uniform for everyone, how can anyone be afraid of being conspicuous? The worst shame would be meanness or poverty, but the law prevents this. The rich woman complains that “it is precisely such uniformity I am not able to stand! Why am I not distinguished by my purple and gold? Why does the poverty of other women lie hidden under the cover of this law, so that may seem that they would have possessed, if the law allowed it, what in fact they have not the means to possess?”
Is it your wish to start such a competition between your wives, so that the rich will desire to possess what no other woman can possess, while the poor strive beyond their means to avoid being looked down on for their poverty?
This second argument is more rational. It’s a more collective thought process, essentially restricting the rich (women) to avoid their flaunting their wealth and in the process, causing distress to the poorer among them. I don’t agree with it, but at least it’s a valid reason for such a law.
Contra Lex Oppia
From the pleb tribune, Lucius Valerius offered this argument in response.
He first addressed Cato’s argument that the women’s actions would upset society, by noting that women had played instrumental parts in several key moments of Rome’s distinguished history, literally saving Rome from destruction on two occasions: intervening between Rome and the Sabines, and later with Gaul. On these grounds, he rejects Cato’s argument that the women’s actions would upend society when the women had historically intervened and no such upending had happened those times.
He then points out the distinction between 1) laws passed in peacetime based on history, where changes to them should be carefully considered, and 2) laws passed in wartime that are based on temporary exigencies. He notes that the women lived for centuries prior to the Lex Oppia without ever devolving into the kind of problems Cato warns of.
The second major point of argument is that in days of prosperity, such as they are experiencing now, it is only the wives that are being required to adhere to such sanctions. The men are allowed to wear purple and gold, and are profiting from Rome’s prosperity, so why are the women alone being denied the opportunity?
Annoyance and resentment would be felt by all alike if the women of Rome’s allies were seen to wear finery denied to the women of Rome. The men would certainly feel the wound if it were them, so why would they imagine the feelings of women would be any different?
The day after these speeches were made, the women poured into the streets and besieged the doors of those that would be vetoing the proposed repeal of the Lex Oppia. They wouldn’t leave until the tribunes abandoned the threatened veto.
So, after all the consideration of the debates, they hit the streets and physically kept the vote from going against them. So much for verbal persuasion, right?
I found the whole instance interesting for an example of the legal process in action 2200 years ago. Things aren’t a whole lot different now.