Chapter XCII: Section CCXXXIV: History of Sumptuary Laws

As in Italy, Frederick II., in Aragon, Iago I., in 1234, in England, Edward III., by 37, Edward III., c. 8 ff., so in France Philip IV. was the first who busied himself seriously with sumptuary legislation;[234-1] that is the same king who had introduced in so many things the modern political life into France. (For instance, the ordinance of 1294, regulating apparel and the luxury of the table.) In the 14th century, we find sumptuary laws directed mainly against expense for furs, and in the 16th mainly against that for articles of gold and silver. From the descriptions left us in such laws of the prohibited luxuries, we may learn as much of the history of technology and of fashion, as we may of the history of classes from the gradation of the things permitted. The fines imposed for violations of these laws, under Philip IV. went for the most part to the territorial lord; and in the 16th and 17th centuries to the foundation of charitable institutions. The state, as a rule, took no share of them; doubtless to avoid the odium which might attach to this kind of revenue.

Beginning with the end of the 16th century, the sumptuary laws of France relating to the luxuries permitted to the several classes of the people disappear. The legislator ceases to be guided by moral considerations and begins to be influenced by reasons partaking of a commercial and police character; and here we may very clearly demonstrate the origin of the so-called mercantile or protective system. Thus, in the declaration of Louis XIV. dated December 12, 1644, we find a complaint, that not only does the importation of foreign articles of luxury threaten to rob France of all its gold and silver, but also that the home manufacture of gold cloth, etc., which at Lyons alone ate up 10,000 livres a week, had the same effect. Under Colbert, in 1672, it was specially provided for, in the prohibition of coarser silver ware, that all such ware should be brought to the mint.[234-2] In the edict of 1660, the king even says that he has in view especially the higher classes, officers, courtiers, etc., in whom it was his duty to be most deeply interested. To preserve the latter from impoverishment was the main object of the law.

Under Louis XV. all sumptuary laws were practically a dead letter.[234-3] Their enforcement is, indeed, exceedingly difficult, as it is always harder to superintend consumption than production. The latter is carried on in definite localities, not unfrequently even in the open air. The former is carried on in the secrecy of a thousand homes. Besides, sumptuary laws have very often the effect to make the forbidden fruit all the sweeter. Where they are based on a difference of class, not only the passion for pleasure, but the vanity of the lower classes is an incentive to their violation.[234-4] Spite of the severity of the penalties attached to the violation of these laws, of redoubled measures of control, which are dreadful burdens on the intercourse between man and man,[234-5] the French government has been compelled to admit, after almost every internal commotion, and almost every external war, that its sumptuary laws fell into disuse.

[Footnote 234-1: Ordonnances de France, I, 324, 531. Worms
law of 1220. (_Riehl_, Pfälzer, 246.) Braunschweig law of
1228, that at weddings there should not be over 12 plates
nor more than three musicians. (_Rehtmeyer_, Chron., 466.)
Danish sumptuary law of 1269. First law regulating dress in
Prussia in 1269. (_Voigt_, Gesch. von Preussen, V, 97.) On
Henry II., see _v. Raumer_, Hohenstaufen, VI, 585. Some of
the earlier restrictions on luxury, such as that of 190 in
England and France, against scarlet ermine, etc., may have
been related to the religious fervor of the crusades. _St.
Louis_, during the whole period of his crusades wore no
articles of luxury.]

[Footnote 234-2: The English prohibition against the wearing
of silk on hats, caps, stockings etc. (1 and 2 Phil. and
Mary, ch. 2.) was promulgated with the intention of
promoting the home manufacture of wool. And so _Sully_,
Economics, L, XII, XVI, was in favor of laws regulating
outlay mainly from "mercantilistic" reasons, that the
country might not be impoverished by the purchase of foreign
expensive articles. The police ordinance of the Empire of
1548, tit. 9, desired to guard against both the "excessive"
exportation of money and the obliteration of class
differences; that of 1530, tit. 9, and the Austrian police
ordinance of Ferdinand I. had only the second object in
view. (_Mailath_, Gesch., von Oesterreich, II, 169 ff.) How,
in Denmark, prohibitions of luxury grew very soon into
prohibitions of imports with a protective intention, see in
_Thaarup_, Dänische Statistik, I, 521 seq. On the
mercantilistic object of the greater number of prohibitions
of coffee, in the 18th century, see _Dohm_, über
Kaffeegesetzgebung, in the D. Museum, Bd., II, St. 8, No.
4.]

[Footnote 234-3: _Des Essart_, Dictionnaire universel de
Police, VI, 146. In Great Britain, the Scotch luxury-law of
1621 is the last. (_Anderson_, Origin of Commerce, a. 1621.)
In Germany, there were some such laws until the end of the
18th century; and the laws regulating mourning have lasted
longest. Compare that of Frederick the Great of 1777, the
Bamberg and Wurzberg laws of 1784, in _Schlözer_,
Staatsanzeigen, IX, 460; fol. 141 ff. There are many men who
have no desire to go to any heavy expense in mourning, but
do not dare to give expression thereto in certain cases, and
therefore look with favor on a law to which they may appeal
as an excuse.]

[Footnote 234-4: Compare _N. Montaigne_, 1580, Essais, I,
63. A striking instance in antiquity: _Macrob._, II, 13;
most recently in _Lotz_, Revision, I, 407.]

[Footnote 234-5: Compare especially the French sumptuary law
of 1567. Zaleucos went so far in his severity as to punish
with death the drinking of unmixed wine, without the
prescription of a physician. (_Athen._, IX, 429.) The effort
has sometimes been made to enlist the feeling of honor of
the people in the controlling of luxury. Thus old Zaleucos
forbade the wearing of gold rings or Milesian cloth unless
the wearer desired to commit adultery, or to be guilty of
sins against nature (_Diodor._, XII, 21); but such laws are
scarcely attended with success.]