Product Code Database
Sumptuary laws (from Latin language sūmptuāriae lēgēs) are laws that regulate consumption. Black's Law Dictionary defines them as "Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc." Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person's social rank.
Societies have employed sumptuary laws for various purposes. They were used to try to regulate the balance of trade by limiting the market for expensive imported goods. They made it easy to identify social status and social privilege, and as such could be used for social discrimination and to stabilize social hierarchies. They could also be used to prevent, or at least reduce, opportunities for political bribery and corruption.
The laws often prevented from imitating the appearance of , and could be used to social stigma. In cities of the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie. Bourgeois subjects as wealthy as or wealthier than the nobility could undermine the latter's presentation as powerful and legitimate rulers. This could call into question their ability to control and defend their , thus inspiring traitors and rebels. Such laws continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.
According to historian Lorraine Daston, sumptuary laws "furnish the historian of rules with an extreme case of rule failure," as such laws frequently failed to reduce excess and may even have exacerbated excess. Sumptuary laws were often revisable regulations rather than stable laws, as governing authorities sought to prohibit the latest rebellious or extravagant fashions.
It also banned the drinking of undiluted wine except for medical purposes.
The had a duty to put a check upon morals and extravagance in personal and political expenditure. The censors published details of offences in the nota censoria, which listed the names of everyone found guilty of a luxurious mode of living; a great many instances of this kind are recorded. Towards the end of the Roman Republic, laws were passed against political corruption of Roman magistrates, forbidding their attendance at banquets given by candidates or their agents.Lintott, Andrew, "Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80 (1990), pp. 1-7 During the period of transition from Republic to Empire, such antisumptuary laws, which may have still existed were virtually ignored by most. In the period of profligate that characterized the height of the Roman Empire, the laws regarding the wearing of Tyrian purple were rigorously enforced. Infringement of this prohibition was treasonous, so punishable by death.Codex Theodosianus 14.10.2–3, tr. C. Pharr, "The Theodosian Code", p. 415
Roman sumptuary laws applied to both the living and the dead. Rome's most ancient laws, the laws of the Twelve Tables, forbade extravagant expenses at funerals. This included the pouring of wine over the ashes at cremations (which seems nevertheless to have been an invariable practise), the use of smoothed timbers in funeral pyres, and "excessive" mourning.Erker, Darja Šterbenc, "Gender and Roman funeral ritual", pp. 40–60 in Hope, V., Huskinson, J,. (Editors), Memory and Mourning in Ancient Rome, Oxbow, 2010, pp. 41,42
Some laws concerned the size and decoration of graves and mausoleums. The Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming dynasty, issued such regulations in the first year of his rule (1368) and tightened them in 1396, allowing only the highest nobility and officials of the top three ranks a memorial stele installed on top of a stone tortoise; the steles of lower-level mandarins were perched on rectangular pedestals, while commoners had to be satisfied with a simple gravestone. The location of graves and the number of attendant statues depended on rank.
After , sumptuary law in China was reformed. It had long been ineffective. The consumption of luxuries had risen over the previous several centuries, and at the time of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, Chinese consumption of luxuries such as tea, sugar, fine silk, tobacco, and eating utensils was on a par with the core regions of Europe.
Prohibition of depictions of human and animal figures in general are similar to those of the Quranic prohibition on Cult image. Hadiths do allow the depiction of animals on clothing items.
In England, which in this respect was typical of Europe, from the reign of Edward III in the Middle Ages until well into the 17th century, sumptuary laws dictated what colour and type of clothing, furs, fabrics, and trims were allowed to persons of various ranks or incomes. In the case of clothing, this was intended, amongst other reasons, to reduce spending on foreign textiles and to ensure that people did not dress "above their station":
The first major sumptuary act was passed in April 1463 during the reign of Edward IV. Earlier statutes1 Ric. 2 (1377), 13 Ric. 2. c. 7 (1389), 16 Ric. 2. c. 4 (1392), 20 Ric. 2. c. 2 (1396–70), 1 Hen. 4 (1399), 2 Hen. 4. c. 21 (1400), 7 Hen. 4. c. 14 (1405), 8 Hen. 6. c. 4 (1429), 8 Edw. 4. c. 2 (1468), 12 Edw. 4. c. 4 (1472), 3 Hen. 7 (1487), 19 Hen. 7 (1503) had sought to control the expense of household liveries, but the April 1463 statute marked the first attempt at a comprehensive sumptuary legislation. Scholars have interpreted the act as part of a set of protectionist economic measures that included regulations of the textile industry and trade in cloths. This statute is the first known English legislation restricting the use of "royal purple" – a term which, during the Middle Ages, referred not only to the Tyrian purple of Antiquity, but also to crimson, dark reds and royal blue. The language of the act uses technical terminology to restrict certain features of garments that are decorative in function, intended to enhance the silhouette. (2025). 9781843839323, The Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843839323
A second "Act of Apparel" followed in January 1483 restricting cloth-of-gold, sable, Stoat, velvet on velvet and satin brocade to knights and lords. Damask and satin were allowed for yeoman of the Crown and and other members of the gentry, only if they had a yearly income of £40. Bustian, fustian, scarlet-dyed cloths and any leathers or animal hides other than lambskins were also restricted. (2025). 9781843839323, The Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843839323
An act of Parliament, the Caps Act 1571 (13 Eliz. 1. c. 19) to stimulate domestic wool consumption and general trade decreed that on Sundays and holidays, all males over six years of age, except for the nobility and persons of degree, were to wear woolen caps on pain of a fine of three farthings ( penny) per day. This law instituted the flat cap as part of English wear. The 1571 act was repealed in 1597 by the Continuance, etc. of Laws Act 1597 (39 Eliz. 1. c. 18).
An extremely long list of items, specifying colour, materials, and sometimes place of manufacture (imported goods being much more tightly restricted) followed for each sex, with equally specific exceptions by rank of nobility or position held. For the most part, these laws seem to have had little effect, though the Parliament of England made repeated amendments to the laws, and several monarchs, most notably the Tudor dynasty, continually called for stricter enforcement, especially at Court "to the intent there may be a difference of estates known by their apparel after the commendable custom in times past."
The laws were justified by the reasoning that the price of certain goods increased to levels where "the treasure of the land is destroyed, to the great damage of the lords and the commonality" when "various people or various conditions wear various apparel not appropriate to their estate".
Adam Smith was against the necessity or convenience of sumptuary laws, he wrote: "of It is the highest impertinence and presumption... in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter III, p. 346, para. 36.
He also cites Plato and Zaleucus.
John Knox criticised the appearance of the gentlewomen of Mary, Queen of Scots during Parliament in 1563 as a "stinking pride of women" and wrote that preachers denounced the "taregetting of their taillies" (apparently the embellishment of their costumes). There were calls for reform by sumptuary law "for order to be taken for apparel".David Laing, Works of John Knox, 2 (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1848), p. 381.
The Dress Act 1746, which formed part of the Act of Proscription issued under George II following the Jacobite rising of 1745, made the wearing of Highland dress, including tartan and , illegal in Scotland (an exemption was made for soldiers and veterans). The act, which was poorly enforced, was eventually repealed in 1782, and during the Regency era and Highland dress gained widespread popularity in part thanks to the visit of George IV to Scotland in 1822, which was organised by Scottish writer Walter Scott.
In some jurisdictions, clothing or other visible signs of religious or political opinion (e.g. Nazi imagery in Germany) are forbidden in certain public places. Hasan Aydin, University of Nevada, Reno: Headscarf (Hijab) Ban in Turkey: importance of veiling. "Turkey has implemented a ban on the use of the Hijab, or the headscarf, in state controlled areas like universities, government offices, and other public places."The German Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) in §86a outlaws "use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations".
Many American states in the 20th century prohibited the wearing of Ku Klux Klan hoods, masks, masquerade, or drag; gay men in New York City seized on the exemption for in the 1920s to 1930s to go in drag.
In Bhutan, the wearing of traditional dress (which also has an ethnic connotation) in certain places, such as when visiting government offices, was made compulsory in 1989 under the driglam namzha laws.(two passages) Part of the traditional dress includes the kabney, a long scarf whose coloring is regulated. Only the King of Bhutan and Je Khenpo may don the saffron scarf, with various other colors reserved for government and religious officers, and white available for common people.
In 1971, a United States federal study stated that federal laws on alcohol include "sumptuary laws which are directed at the purchaser", including, "Sales are not permitted to minors or intoxicated persons. Credit is often prohibited on liquor sales, as well. Criminal penalties may be imposed for driving under the influence of alcohol, as well as for drunken behavior." Jane Lang McGrew, History of Alcohol Prohibition, published for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1971.
Italy
During the medieval and Renaissance eras in Italy, various towns passed sumptuary laws (leggi suntuarie) often in response to particular events or movements. For example, Bernardino of Siena, in his public sermons in Siena, thundered against the vanity of luxurious dress; this, however, was counterbalanced by the economic benefit Siena derived as a manufacturer of items, including clothes, of luxury. One source describes these types of laws as constantly published, and generally ignored. These laws, mostly aimed at female apparel, sometimes became a source of revenue for the state: the Florentine laws of 1415 restricted the luxury that could be worn by women, but exempted those willing to pay 50 florins a year. The laws were often quite specific. Low necklines were prohibited in Genoa, Milan, and Rome in the early 16th century,Payne, History of Costume, p. 222. and laws restricting zibellini (sable furs carried as fashion accessories) with heads and feet of precious metals and jewels were
issued in Bologna in 1545 and Milan in 1565. (2025). 9781843832034, Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843832034
France
Montaigne's brief essay "On sumptuary laws" criticized 16th-century French laws, beginning:
Scotland
One of the earliest known Scottish sumptuary regulations was passed in 1429 during the reign of James I of Scotland. The text, written in Old Scots, preserves some medieval legal terminology related to textiles, limiting silk, some types of furs (pine martens, beech martens) and other items to men of certain social ranks like knight, lord, burgess, and their families. As with the laws of Henry V of England in 1420, silver plating was reserved for the spurs of knights and the apparel of barons or higher ranking persons. Metalsmiths caught violating these laws would be punished by death and all their lands and goods forfeit. Embroidery and pearls were also restricted. Yeomen and commoners could not wear colored clothes longer than the knee. The poke sleeve that narrowed at the wrist were allowed for sentinel yeomen who lived in their lord's house and rode with the gentlemen. Commoners' wives could not wear Liripipe or side-necked hoods, poked sleeves, or caps made from rich textiles like Lawn cloth or Rheims (fine linen). (2025). 9781843839323, The Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843839323
Early modern era
Sumptuary laws were repealed in the early 17th century, but new protectionist laws were passed prohibiting the purchase of foreign silks and laces. Prohibitions were tied to rank and income and continued to be widely ignored.
Ireland
During the late 16th century, John Perrot, the Lord Deputy of Ireland under Elizabeth I, banned the wearing of traditional woollen mantles, "open smocks" with "great sleeves", and native headdresses, requiring the people to dress in "civil garments" in the English style.
France
In 1629 and 1633, Louis XIII of France issued edicts regulating "Superfluity of Dress" that prohibited anyone but princes and the nobility from wearing gold embroidery or caps, shirts, collars, and cuffs embroidered with metallic threads or lace,Kõhler, Carl: A History of Costume, Dover Publications reprint, 1963, from 1928 Harrap translation from the German, , p. 289 and puffs, slashes, and bunches of ribbon were severely restricted. As with other such laws, these were widely disregarded and enforced in a lax manner. A series of popular engravings by Abraham Bosse depicts the supposed effects of this law.
Colonial America
In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a 1634 prohibition deemed that only people with a personal fortune of at least two hundred pounds could wear lace, silver or gold thread or , cutwork, embroidery, hatbands, belts, ruffles, capes, and other articles. After a few decades, the law was being widely defied.Linda M. Scott, Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism p. 24 Rawson, Edward, ed. " The general laws and liberties of the Massachusets colony: revised & re-printed, by order of the General Court holden at Boston. May 15th. 1672," U. Michigan Library, 2024. The section notes this law was from 1651. Retrieved Jun 27, 2024. By 1651, flouting of the rules caused leadership to issue a new strongly worded regulation to the populace again. In the Province of South Carolina, the 1712 slave code forbade slaves in the colony to wear clothes finer than "Negro cloth".
Modern era
While rarely do restrictions exist on the type or quality of clothing, beyond maintenance of public decency, wearing certain types of clothing is restricted to specific occupations, specifically the of organisations like the police and military.
Pejorative uses of term
The term sumptuary law has been used as a pejorative term to describe any governmental control of consumption based on moral, religious, health, or public safety, or other concerns. American Judge Thomas M. Cooley generally described their modern form as laws that "substitute the legislative judgment for that of the proprietor, regarding the manner in which he should use and employ his property." Policies to which the term has been critically applied include prohibition, drug prohibition, , Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. International Ass'n of Machinists, Local Lodge 1609, 621 F.2d 756, 760 (5th Cir. 1980) People v. King, 102 A.D.2d 710, 712 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st. Dept. 1984) (Carro, J., dissenting)John C. Fox, "An assessment of the current legal climate concerning smoking in the workplace", 13 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 591, 623–624 (1994) and restrictions on dog fighting.
Alcohol prohibition
As early as 1860, Anthony Trollope, writing about his experiences in Maine under Maine law, stated, "This law (prohibition), like all sumptuary laws, must fail." In 1918, William Howard Taft decried prohibition in the United States as a bad sumptuary law, stating that one of his reasons for opposing prohibition was his belief that "sumptuary laws are matters for parochial adjustment." Taft later repeated this concern. The Indiana Supreme Court also discussed alcohol prohibition as a sumptuary law in its 1855 decision Herman v. State. Herman v. State, 8 Ind. 545 (1855). During state conventions on the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1933, numerous delegates throughout the United States decried prohibition as having been an improper sumptuary law that never should have been included in the Constitution of the United States.
Drug prohibition
When the U.S. state of Washington considered cannabis decriminalization in two initiatives, 229 and 248, the initiatives' language stated, "Cannabis prohibition is a sumptuary law of a nature repugnant to our Constitution's framers."
See also
Notes
Citations
Bibliography
Further reading
|
|
