Hannibal Barca never imagined that his brilliant victory at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC) would not only be studied in future military academies but would also allow him to leave the Italian peninsula at his mercy, attract the southern half of the territory to his side, and sow panic among the Romans to the point of prompting them to make significant changes to the army, as well as to enact new legislation to face the impending financial crisis. Among these, one of the most unique was the Lex Oppia, which aimed to limit female luxury.

Hannibal’s campaign during that Second Punic War is well-known: starting from Hispania at the head of a powerful force that included dozens of elephants, he crossed the Alps, entered Italy, and defeated the hated Romans in two battles, Trebia and Lake Trasimene, before repeating a third time at Cannae, where his tactical genius compensated for the numerical inferiority against the legions of Consuls Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. In Rome, they found themselves helpless against the enemy—according to Livy, one of his officers predicted a banquet for Hannibal on the Capitol in five days—with such a degree of desperation that it reminded them of the times when northern barbarians threatened the Republic.

Consequently, a national mourning was declared, human sacrifices were resumed (burials alive in the Forum and drowning of a deformed baby, the last recorded case), and even rumors spread that a tribune was deserting to work as a mercenary, which led to a prohibition on citizens of military age leaving the city. To better understand the situation, it should be noted that the Republic had lost a fifth of young men over seventeen years old (twelve percent of the active population) in those three battles, while half of Italy and part of Sicily joined the enemy, and Philip V did the same, starting the First Macedonian War.

Hannibal's victories in Italy
Hannibal’s victories in Italy. Credit: Rowanwindwhistler / Wikimedia Commons

In other words, the perception of any Roman at that time was that their world was collapsing, despite which the Senate refused any negotiation, ended the mourning in a month, banned the word peace, undertook the organization of new legions with plebeians—and even slaves—and decreed that only women could publicly express grief for the fallen. But an extra sacrifice awaited them, embodied in a sumptuary law considered necessary for both economic and social reasons.

In reality, more the latter than the former; legislators believed that excessive personal spending could fall into extravagance and set a bad example, in a context where it was vital to maintain high morale and uphold the traditional values that supported the Republic in such critical times. It should be noted that in antiquity, and not just in Rome, permissiveness towards luxury equated to undermining military virtues, and a later author like Juvenal (1st century AD) wrote that the excess wealth brought by imperial expansion caused a relaxation of customs and an increase in corruption.

In this case, the squandering of family money was also a problem due to the uncertainty about what might happen between Carthaginians and Romans, so it was not appropriate to allow the waste of funds that might be needed to ensure Rome’s survival. This was the argument made in 215 BC by Gaius Oppius, tribune of the plebs during the consulship of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and Quintus Fabius Maximus, to propose a new law to the Senate that taxed the excessive luxury of patrician women. It was assumed that men would assume their virtus and did not need monitoring in that regard.

Neighbors. A scene from life in Ancient Rome</em>, work by Stefan Bakalovich
Neighbors. A scene from life in Ancient Rome, work by Stefan Bakalovich. Credit: Public domain / Wikimedia Commons

The Lex Oppia Sumptuaria, as it was called in honor of its proponent, targeted colorful garments, especially those in purple—the most expensive—that were worn in stolae and vittae, equivalents of the latus clauss and the toga virilis for men. It also prohibited wearing more than half an ounce of gold, using a chariot drawn by more than two horses in urban travel, or approaching the urbs within a thousand paces unless it was for religious reasons. In this way, the old demand for modesty and austerity in women’s dress was revived, which Julius Caesar would later take up again in 46 BC with the Lex Julia Municipalis.

The benefits of the new legislation were multiple; on one hand, it equalized all Roman society by preventing any social status from standing out over others, thus avoiding discontent among the less privileged; on the other, it fostered a sense of unity to face the danger of a common enemy; and, likewise, there was the possibility of replenishing the depleted state coffers with the collection of monetary penalties imposed on those who disobeyed. Therefore, in general, the measure was well received by the Roman people, and some wealthy patricians went further by making donations.

However, not a few matrons, not only from urban areas but also many from the countryside, felt discriminated against and sought intercession to relax the norm from the magistrates and even from their wives. But these women could do nothing because these were considered emergency, exceptional provisions. Thus, they had to wait for the situation to improve, although in practice this meant waiting until well after 201 B.C., the year the war ended with Rome’s final victory; specifically, until 195 B.C.

The Generosity of Roman Women, by Louis Gauffier
The Generosity of Roman Women, by Louis Gauffier. Credit: Public domain / Wikimedia Commons

It was then that, with Carthage defeated, Rome’s main commercial competitor in the Western Mediterranean, Rome began to recover economically and expand its borders, taking over, for example, Punic Hispania and setting its sights on Greece and the East. Products, raw materials, tributes, indemnities started flowing in… and wealth returned, leaving the Lex Oppia as an unnecessary remnant of the past. At least, this was the opinion of the patricians, opening a public debate between those in favor of maintaining the law and those advocating for its repeal; opinions were divided even at the top levels of power.

Thus, the champions of repeal were the tribune of the plebs Marcus Fundanius and the consul Lucius Valerius, who raised the issue in the Senate. Opposing them were two other tribunes, Marcus Junius Brutus and Publius Junius Brutus, supported by the other consul, Marcus Porcius Cato—Cato the Elder—defenders of traditional Roman austerity, which allowed the shame of poverty to be eliminated. Cato added that women had an unhealthy compulsion to spend, something that could not be cured but could be controlled, comparing them to a bloodthirsty animal, and assuring that if they owned nothing, there would be no rivalry among them.

In a division of relentless severity that the consul applied to his own private life, he did not spare criticism for the men who allowed their wives, sisters, and daughters to display such opulence instead of curbing it, as befitted the authority inherent to their status as pater familias. In contrast, Lucius Valerius Flaccus recalled that Roman matrons felt humiliated by not being able to wear their jewelry while those of other Latin cities did, and added that the Lex Oppia was only conceived as a temporary measure, making no sense to continue limiting their rights, especially when some had even made financial contributions.

The Clivus Capitolinus (Climb to the Capitol) with the Roman Forum in the background
The Clivus Capitolinus (Climb to the Capitol) with the Roman Forum in the background. Credit: Ursus / Wikimedia Commons

According to Livy, Valerius Flaccus went as far as to call that position miserly. “The greater your power, the greater the restraint with which you should exercise it,” he said, addressing Cato and the Brutus brothers before the senators prepared to vote. Then something unprecedented happened: dozens of Roman matrons who had gathered before the Capitol filled the streets, demanding their husbands move the process to the Forum, where they could attend. This was done, and the next day, on the day of the vote, they blocked the doors of the Brutus’ homes and did not relent until the tribunes renounced their right of veto.

Livy recounts that “neither dignity nor modesty nor their husbands’ orders could keep the matrons at home,” something that Cato harshly criticized:

I blushed when, a short while ago, I managed to reach the forum amidst groups of women. And if I had not restrained myself out of respect for the dignity and modesty of each of them, rather than in confrontation with them collectively, so that it would not later be said that they were harshly reproached by the consul, I would have told them: What custom is this of rushing to the public street and blocking it?

It was an example of what Livy himself called agmen mulierum to refer to those actions led by women, organized to transgress the domestic space to which they were destined, with the aim of demanding actions they considered unjust. Thus, the Lex Oppia was abolished—though it echoed in later laws such as the Lex Fannia (161 B.C.) and the Lex Didia (143 B.C.)—and the consul Lucius Valerius Flaccus left one of those phrases that pass into posterity: Rome governs the entire world, but it is governed by women.

This article was first published on our Spanish Edition on October 12, 2023: Lex Oppia, la ley que prohibía los vestidos coloridos y el exceso de joyas, que las romanas consiguieron abolir movilizándose

SOURCES

Tito Livio, Historia de Roma desde su fundación

Pedro David Conesa Navarro, La palabra concedida. Discursos y actitudes “transgresoras” femeninas enla antigua Roma monárquica y republicana

Alejandra Sentís Vicent, Movimientos reivindicativos de las mujeres en Roma durante el s. II a.C.: el caso de la derogación de la Ley Opia

Francisco Cuena Boy, Leges in aeternum latae y leges mortales: El debate sobre la derogación de la Lex Oppia según Tito Livio 34.1-8

Carlos Crespo Pérez, Las leyes suntuarias y la regulación del lujo en el Derecho Romano

Wikipedia, Ley Opia

  • Share on:

Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Follow LBV Magazine on Google News