wealth to the descendants of distinguished ancestors, by which they might support and do honour to their nobility of birth, which otherwise would form a burden rather than honour to them. Besides, since with the now growing power of the empire, the riches of private persons also were increasing, fear was felt, lest the minds of women, being rather inclined by nature to luxury, and the pursuit of a more elegant routine of life, and deriving from unbounded wealth incentives to desire, should fall into immoderate expenses and luxury, and should subsequently chance to depart from the ancient sanctity of manners, so that there would be a change of morals no less than of the manner of living. To obviate these evils, Quintus Voconius Saxa, plebeian tribune, proposed to the people, that “no person who should be rated after the censorship of Aulus Postumius and Quintius Fulvius should make any woman, whether married or unmarried his heir; also, that no woman, whether married or unmarried, should be capable of receiving, by inheritance, goods exceeding the value of one hundred thousand sesterces.”[80] Voconius, also, thought it proper to provide that estates should not be exhausted by the number of legacies, which sometimes happened. Accordingly he added a clause to his law, that “no person should bequeath to any person or persons property exceeding in value what was to go to the immediate heirs.” This latter clause readily met the general approbation; it appeared reasonable, and calculated to press severely on nobody. Concerning the former clause, by which women were utterly disqualified from receiving inheritances, there were many doubts. Marcus Cato put an end to all hesitation, having been already, on a former occasion, a most determined adversary and reprover of women, in the defence of the Oppian law, who, although sixty-five years of age, with loud voice and good lungs advocated this law of still greater importance, against them, inveighing, with his usual asperity, against the tyranny of women, and their unsufferable insolence token opulent: on the present occasion, too, he declaimed against the pride and arrogance of the rich matrons, “because they oftentimes, after bringing a great dowry to their husband, kept back and retained for themselves a great sum of money, and lent that money on such terms afterwards to their husbands, on their asking it, that as often as they were angry they immediately pressed importunately on their husbands, as if they were strange debtors, by a reserved slave who followed them and daily importuned payment.” Moved by indignation at this, they voted for passing the law as Voconius proposed it._ Book XLII.