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of years, the most virtuous characters, what danger is there of their abandoning themselves to luxury on its being repealed?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.

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.

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.

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.