§ 1. I call those laws sumptuary laws by which moderation in expenditure is prescribed. I reduce them to three heads: for some command modesty in banquets, which Cato called alimentary laws; others regulate the prices of clothing; others regulate building and the household. I judge that not only the most useful part of thrift but also the safety of the state is contained in these laws. For if the prince fixes laws for himself and his own people, and his subjects follow them, abundance and riches must arise publicly from the thrift and frugality of all, and there must be fewer disputes and crimes, very many of which arise from prodigality, while that which is poured away through wantonness is sought through injustice. By these laws, moreover, peace and tranquility, the distinction of orders, and propriety are preserved, and poverty, the counselor of evil, is averted. For in truth most men go beyond their means in expenditure and cast themselves into extreme necessity. There was great foresight in former times, when expenditures were defined.
Numa, otherwise exceedingly superstitious, enacted a law: “Do not sprinkle wine upon a funeral pyre,” lest the gods be worshiped by expense rather than by disposition. For since luxury always increased and found no limit, there was need of the barriers of laws, by which men might be contained within bounds and a fixed course.
§ 2. We should with the best right marvel at the most malicious complaints of the human race, if they were not by now customary. Whatever adversity befalls a man according to his deserts, each accuses the times, the magistrate, sometimes God—in short, everything rather than his own vices. If blight has burned the crop, if the meadows have withered, if frost has struck the vine-shoots, if a soldier has driven away the cattle, if the prince has imposed taxes, everything resounds with querulous, bitter, mournful, and sometimes seditious voices: the times are hard; everything is falling; life is scarcely supportable; no citizen can rise; farmers are oppressed and drained on every side; the nobility is near destruction.
Yet in the lands where such frequent complaints are repeated, who are they that cry that they are oppressed and drained? The very men who themselves bring about the cause of their losses. The fact itself speaks; at this very hour I shall show a hundred examples. The farmer whose grandfather furnished his private table, banquets, and weddings with provisions that were not bought is no longer content with beef, lamb, veal, goose, and chicken: he heaps together foreign fish, exotic wines, Italian and Spanish fruits, preparations and adulterations made from every spice, and he teaches rustic hearts, unaccustomed to delicacies, to consume the plow together with the very clod of earth.
Citizens who seek their livelihood by their hands indulge in banquets; they omit none of the costly things which they have seen upon the tables of the rich and noble; at a wedding banquet they contract a debt upon which their children, when already grown, are compelled to pay the interest. What shall I say about clothing? The sons of villagers and craftsmen, who carry all their goods upon themselves, imitate and surpass the attire of the rich and noble.
They do these things in large part through perverse rivalry, so that they may appear rich. I do not yet dare to accuse that madness as it deserves and ask why, by feigning opulence, they hasten toward want, when by frugality they could acquire an estate. I am not yet treating that point, but I rebuff the impudence of those who disparage their own times when they themselves are a great stain upon the times. The rustic, the citizen, the tailor, and the smith complain that they cannot rise because of the difficulty of the times. Yet the same man is clothed like a nobleman, feasts like a rich man, builds like a prince, maintains a household like a magistrate, and does not perceive that the cause of his poverty has been derived from his habits.
You praise past years, despise the present, indeed curse them, and enumerate the causes of poverty; but, rustic though you are, arrayed in silk and rings, in a painted house, amid pheasants, thrushes, partridges, costly wines, tortoise shell, and courtly music, and perhaps drunk as well, you lay down your complaints. I do not listen unless your habits are changed. No times are so happy that they can make such a man prosperous; not even prosperity itself could preserve you.
My most reverend prince, Johann Schweikhard, Archbishop of the Holy See of Mainz, published sumptuary laws in the year 1615 and stated their causes in the preface: that he had already learned by the experience of several years that his subjects in the upper and lower diocese, in towns and villages, especially at baptismal banquets, feasts of godparents, and wedding banquets, were burdening themselves with great expenses in this matter; that no one wished to hold the last place; that those of slender means emulated the wealthier; and that many were consequently sometimes so oppressed and burdened by debt that they could not rise, nor render the services owed to the magistrate.
It is plainly so: they contend with one another in expense; all are defeated; whoever has surpassed the others is most gravely harmed. Then, when their own affairs have become desperate, they are neither faithful to their country nor obedient to the magistrates. Those vices are ancient, and unless the ruler’s severe hand resists, they break loose. Sammonicus Serenus, speaking of the Fannian law, relates nearly the same things:
The Fannian law came before the people with the great agreement of all the orders; and it was not the praetors or tribunes, as with most other laws, but the consuls themselves who proposed it upon the counsel and opinion of all good men, since the state was suffering greater losses from the luxury of banquets than can be believed. For matters had come to such a pass that very many freeborn boys, enticed by gluttony, sold their chastity and their liberty, and very many of the Roman plebs came to the Assembly soaked in wine and, while drunk, deliberated upon the safety of the state.
Thus Sammonicus. The law of our prince also was enacted to the applause of all. Frugal heads of households rejoiced that they could be sober and frugal without disgrace and the objections of gourmands, and that not only had the danger of profusion been shaken off by law, but the necessity of thrift had also been imposed. Yet there are not lacking those who strive against it: rich only in luxury, poor in assisting the state.
§ 3. The laws of Mainz defining expenditure consist in prescribing the number of guests and dishes, the time, and gifts; certain banquets, however, they abolish altogether.
Concerning these things the edict reads as follows.
I. At the making of a betrothal contract, no banquet shall be held in villages; but those who were present to settle the contract shall be given a slight refreshment of bread and wine. In cities, however, if the bridegroom and bride are wealthier, ten or twelve guests may be invited at the expense of both families, provided that the banquet is not prolonged beyond three hours. The penalty for transgressors is ten pounds of denarii, article four, §3.
II. Fifty wedding guests are permitted to citizens and craftsmen; seventy-four to academics, those who belong to a council or serve in courts, and also wealthy merchants; ninety-four to court counselors and assessors of the court tribunal, article 4, §§4 and 5. A fine of four pounds of denarii is prescribed for each person exceeding the number. In villages, however, only forty are permitted even to the wealthier and thirty to the rest.
III. The power of dispensing anyone from this law is removed from all; it must therefore be sought from the prince alone, or, in his absence, from the one holding his place, §7, article 4.
IV. The measure of dishes at a baptismal banquet is defined in the following manner. First, those who are of the first or middle station may send the woman in childbed, upon the first day of the baptism, a breakfast—that is, one measure of wine and two white loaves, or as much bread of fine flour—where breakfasts are customary. Where it is not customary to take them, it is lawful to send two measures of wine and two white loaves; this, however, is not permitted to craftsmen and hired laborers. A fine of ten pounds of denarii is imposed upon the transgressor, article 3, §7.
V. If anyone after the baptism wishes to invite the midwife or other women who attended the childbirth, he shall set before them nothing except broth with meat, roast meat, and cheese, not cakes or anything else. The fine is six pounds of denarii. Nor shall the women spend more than two Batzen upon the refreshment.
VI. These are the wedding dishes. Citizens and craftsmen shall set out only four dishes: first, broth with boiled meat or a hen; second, vegetables with boiled meat, or ham, or sausages, according to the season; third, fish; fourth, roast meat, to which may be added either gudgeons, or crabs, or curds—one of these, not several. A second roast is permitted to persons of the middle station, such as academics and rich merchants; but two other dishes to court counselors and assessors of the court tribunal. The fine is ten pounds of denarii. But if someone of great dignity is present, somewhat more may be set upon his table alone by way of honor, provided, nevertheless, that molded representations of foods are altogether abolished, article 4, §19.
VII. When the baptism is finished, there is no banquet for men, article 3, §10.
VIII. The time also is defined. In villages they must rise from the table about the second hour; in cities, at the fourth or fifth—not because more license is granted to townsmen, but because they are accustomed to sit down later. All, however, are ordered to return home honorably and decorously.
IX. On the following day they may assemble again, but at the eleventh hour; in villages, however, at the fourth hour after noon, provided that everything is ended at the eighth hour. Meanwhile neither children nor other uninvited members of the household shall be brought, nor shall anything be sent outside.
X. The measure of gifts is as follows. Citizens and craftsmen may give godparents only half a Philippicus; academics and the richer, a whole Philippicus or a gold florin; court counselors, a ducat. Other little gifts shall be omitted altogether, under a penalty of ten pounds of denarii. If anyone gives gilded or silver cups, he shall be fined four hundred pounds of denarii.
They shall offer the midwife two white coins as her honorarium, and the same amount to the sacristan. The rich may give four and one-half.
XI. Presents or New Year’s gifts among godparents shall not exceed an eighth of a florin. Cakes and all other sweets are abolished altogether, under a penalty of five pounds of denarii.
XII. At confirmation also, a gift shall not exceed three Batzen. If they prefer to give a prayer book, its price shall not exceed five or six Batzen, and this shall be granted only to persons of the first rank.
XIII. At weddings, shirts shall be given only to parents, and handkerchiefs only to the best man and the nearest agnates. The penalty is five pounds.
XIV. Guests shall not exceed the appointed value, nor shall young men and maidens exceed half a Philippicus.
A pair of spouses of the middle station: an imperial thaler.
Persons of higher rank: a gold florin.
Prelates of the second rank of the clergy, and secular persons in honorable offices: a ducat. Whoever gives more shall be fined ten pounds of denarii.
XV. It is permitted to the very wealthy to give a silver cup as a memorial, but only to parents, brothers, and sisters, and to no one else, under a penalty of fifty pounds of denarii.
XVI. Free weddings, at which nothing is paid, are abolished altogether. If, however, one of the principal counselors wishes to hold one, he shall invite only fifty or sixty guests; he shall furnish the meal not in a public house but in a private one; and he shall receive gifts only from parents, brothers, and nearest agnates. Whoever acts otherwise shall be fined one hundred pounds.
XVII. To the inviter, where there are six tables, two florins shall be given; where there are more tables, three florins. No other little gifts shall be given.
To the musicians, two florins; if they demand more, a fine of ten florins is prescribed. Badges shall not be given to the young men, under a penalty of eight florins. To the cook, where there are six tables, five florins; where ten, seven florins; to the dishwashers, three white coins; to the one turning the spit, two white coins. For one demanding more, a fine of four pounds is established. If an orator, musician, or cook is unwilling to serve at that price, he shall not be employed at weddings for an entire year; if obstinacy appears in them in these matters, they may even be deprived of civic rights and banished from the city. The sacristan shall be given broth with a portion of meat and two measures of wine. The same food, with one measure of wine, shall be given to the trumpeter who keeps watch in the tower. Those who carry the wedding wine into the cellar shall receive nothing beyond their ordinary wages; only one measure may be given to them. To the watchmen also they shall give only two measures of wine and two loaves.
Finally, costly gifts, handkerchiefs, and other things between the bridegroom and bride are prohibited. Accordingly, citizens and craftsmen shall not exceed five florins; persons of the middle station, eight; persons of greater dignity, ten. A fine of forty pounds of denarii is prescribed for offenders.
§ 4. And those are laws concerning weddings, which it would be worthwhile to extend also to other banquets. Our ancestors acted in this way.
For first they prescribed thrift in common foods and condemned costly and exotic ones. “There survive censorial laws,” says Pliny in Book Thirty-six, chapter 1, “forbidding sweetbreads, dormice, and other things too insignificant to mention from being set upon dinners.” And in Book Eight, chapter 57, he says that mice were removed from dinners, which the censorial laws—the princeps Marcus Scaurus being consul—removed from dinners no otherwise than shellfish and birds conveyed from another world.
What then? They forbade as delicacies things which now are despised as rustic food. Pliny, treating of swine in Book Eight, chapter 51, says:
Nor does any other animal supply more numerous material for the eating-house: nearly fifty flavors, whereas the others have one apiece. Hence the pages of censorial laws and the prohibition from dinners of belly, sweetbreads, testicles, wombs, cheeks, and boar-meat; nevertheless, after Publilius, the poet of mimes, had cast off slavery, no dinner of his is recorded without belly, and even the name “udder” was imposed by him. Late-farrowing sows also found favor. Already the speeches of Cato the Censor reproach people for the calloused flesh of boar. Nevertheless, when it had been divided into three parts, the middle part, called the boar’s loin, was set out. Publius Servilius Rullus was the first of the Romans to set out a whole boar at banquets; he was the father of that Rullus who promulgated the agrarian law in Cicero’s consulship. So recent is the origin of a thing now daily. And the Annals noted this, evidently for the correction of the morals of those for whom, though the dinner was indeed noted at its beginning, two and three boars together are now commanded.
He relates the same concerning hens in Book Ten, chapter 50:
The Delians began to fatten hens; thence arose the plague of devouring plump birds and birds made fat with their own bodies. I find this first excepted in ancient prohibitions of dinners, already by the law of the consul Gaius Fannius, eleven years before the Third Punic War: that nothing belonging to birds should be set out except one hen, and one that was not fattened. This provision was afterward transferred and passed through all the laws; and an evasion of them was devised by also feeding cockerels with food soaked in milk, by which they are approved as much more pleasing.
Will you persuade our age that after the Punic War, when Italy, Sicily, Spain, Greece, and a great part of Asia served the Romans, there was such thrift that they enacted by law that nothing belonging to birds should be set out except one hen, and one that was not fattened? O men worthy to be masters of the world, who, though ruling most widely, did not even taste the delicacies of our rustics! The same author shows that the law was observed, because this provision passed through all the laws and because cockerels were substituted in place of their mothers.
As for Pliny’s mention of the Fannian law, it was added to the Orchian law, which prescribed the number of guests; for the Fannian law regulates expense. At the Roman and Plebeian Games, the Saturnalia, and certain other days it permitted one hundred asses to be spent on each single day; on ten other days in every month, thirty; but on all other days, ten. Because it permitted one hundred asses, the law, which was received with the enormous favor of all the orders, was called the “hundred-as law” by Lucilius.
But how much did the law permit when it permitted ten or one hundred asses? An as is the smallest thing: “I do not value you at an as” occurs in the proverb of those expressing contempt. Thus the as is the smallest coin when the matter concerns counted money. Epicurus boasted that he was fed for less than an entire as; Metrodorus, who had not yet made so much progress, for an entire one. Seneca, Epistle 18. But he ate, as he himself boasts, only bread, ὕδατι καὶ ἄρτῳ χρώμενος, using water and bread. Seneca indicates that the bread was barley bread; for water and porridge, or a piece of barley bread, is not a pleasant thing. Epicurus calls it μᾶζαν, which Pliny calls polenta. The same Seneca shows that this was great thrift: “The provisions of a prison are more liberal; a man who is going to kill those set apart for capital punishment does not feed them so narrowly.” The provision of a prison was a pound of meal for each day.
It was scanty, however, as Sallust says: it prevented death, but nevertheless strength grew feeble upon it. Seneca says: “You will exult when filled for two asses.” They therefore spent two asses to fill the belly with bread. From this appears the severity of the Fannian law, which upon a feast day permits only one hundred asses to be set out at banquets—a sum that appears incredible, for one hundred asses make an imperial thaler less its fifth part; they make approximately nineteen Batzen.
At this price, for the whole day—two parts upon food and drink, three upon seasoning—not only citizens but the leading men of the Senate were ordered to be content on the greatest festivals. We cannot restrict banquets in that fashion, but it is nevertheless useful to know what was done. I am not ignorant that there was at that time great cheapness of commodities; but by any valuation the thrift is great and the law severe. Let us grant a head of household five guests, so that he is the sixth and his wife the seventh. I reckon fourteen asses for bread, so that each may be filled for two asses; for wine—which was rare at that time, since vine-dressers had been driven away by wars—twenty-eight asses: now you have forty-two asses. Nor can it be less. For those who were most frugally filled with barley bread spent an as, and Seneca requires two asses, that is, a dupondius, at a banquet, where bread matching the festival in whiteness and bright with fine flour was required. Wine also easily exceeded twice the price of bread; nor were the sons of Romulus ignorant of drunkenness, for the Quirites came drunk to the Assembly and cast their votes. From this fact I also conclude that drunkenness at that time was not exceedingly disgraceful, since it was public and thrust itself into the assembly. For the remaining provision there are fifty-eight asses, of which twenty-nine must be spent upon the remainder of the midday meal and as many upon dinner.
But what were ten asses for one day? They are not two of our Batzen. If some similar law were now in use, how many thousands of annual revenue would it bring? Yet I do not approve one so severe and stringent, because it is not easily observed.
Didius enlarged the Fannian law so that all Italians were bound by it; then he enacted that not only those who had made lunches or dinners at greater expense, but also those who had been invited to them, should be subject to the penalties of the law.
Licinius Crassus, who was called Rich, himself also enacted a sumptuary law not very different from the Fannian. It differed from it in this: on the Kalends, Nones, and Roman market days, each man was permitted to consume only thirty asses on each day for the sake of eating; but on other days, which were not excepted, no more was to be set out than three pounds of dried meat and a pound of salted fish. Those things, however, which were born from the earth, vine, or tree it granted without restriction. This was received with the greatest zeal and agreement; but soon it was relaxed by the dictator Sulla, who permitted thirty sesterces for dinner on the Kalends, Ides, Nones, games, and festivals, and on other days no more than three. Antius followed, but the obstinacy of luxury resisted his law.
Augustus attempted somehow to restrain luxury after morals had been corrupted. For two hundred sesterces were permitted on ordinary days, three hundred on festivals such as the Kalends, Nones, and Ides, and one thousand at weddings and the feast on the following day. See Macrobius, Saturnalia 3.17, and Aulus Gellius 2.24 concerning these matters.
After these things luxury grew powerful; poverty and the destruction of all followed, until the scepter was taken away and necessity taught sobriety. The same will happen to us also unless the license of ruining oneself is restrained by laws. For if we consider the things set upon the tables of private persons, they will easily equal the dinner of Metellus the pontiff, which Macrobius treats as sumptuous in Saturnalia 3.13.
§ 5. The second part of sumptuary laws is that luxury of dress be removed. It is now so great that it removes the distinction of all orders and confounds everything. Lest we suppose it a slight madness or a slight injury to the state, I have seen hired laborers and craftsmen diligent for an entire year, defrauding their own bodily comfort, so that they might be clothed like nobles. Now a village dresses at greater expense than a great city formerly did. I said something about this matter in Book Six; but now I require a courageous prince who will provide paternally for his subjects, lest they exceed their means in expense. For many millions are spent upon accessories and the adornment of clothing which can be applied to useful things.
The prince can attain this in two ways. First, if he himself is dressed modestly and shows that the prices, variety of colors, and other such things displease him. For since all courtiers wish to please the prince, and many also flatter him, without any command he will see the court decorous and grave, without extravagance of clothing. Once it is thus ordered, if nobles and others come there for business, at first they will feel shame when they perceive that they are more ornate than everyone else; afterward they will incur the jests and mockery of the courtiers.
For pride in clothing is the vilest pride, because it is womanish and shows a mind occupied with little things. Hence, if you unexpectedly catch a youth or a man arranging himself elaborately and studiously, he blushes, as though he had committed something shameful and had unbecomingly cast aside a manly spirit, no less than if he were found playing with nuts or riding upon a long reed. Satraps and praetors will imitate the prince, and those among the subjects whom they observe to exceed the limit they will punish with contempt. Who, indeed, will not blush to be more ornate than his lord? Who, his fingers burdened with costly gems and rings, will dare to shine at a banquet when he perceives the governor’s hands to be bare? No one can be ignorant of how important this is, for so much gold is now worn away upon the fingers of craftsmen, hired laborers, and rustics as is sufficient to maintain great armies. And in this matter rivalry is most destructive, and the evil flies over to everyone with the greatest speed.
The second method is easy and profitable: the prince should prescribe to each order the material and manner of clothing and sanction the law with a heavy penalty. First, those who violate the law should be subject to a monetary penalty. Then, if the right of wearing a ring or a linen garment is granted to anyone, let him purchase that privilege with a definite sum of money.
Both are equitable, for no one will violate the law except a boaster of his riches; for that very reason the adornment will be despised and shunned by prudent men. From this the prince will have one or the other of two advantages: either pride will assist the treasury, or obedience will enrich the city. Let there be, to be sure, a city containing one hundred thousand souls. All are clothed more expensively than accords with their station, and indeed ostentation exults in the cradle and amid infant cries. I reckon ten florins for each person, which they spend beyond what respectability requires; nor does that luxury cost less, although some do not offend, for most lose greater sums and some squander hundreds and thousands. Behold: if that city were governed by laws, it would now be richer by a whole million. Let the prince therefore sanction discipline by sumptuary laws.
§ 6. The Roman emperors displayed great severity in forbidding costly clothing. For first Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian did not wish such garments to be woven for private uses, Code, title 8, chapter 11:
We prohibit the weaving and making, for private uses, of men’s gold-embroidered garments or silken borders interwoven with gold, and we command that they be made only in our imperial weaving establishments.
He specifies only men’s garments here, for the Theodosian Code also forbade women’s garments, which Justinian permitted. But afterward Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius mitigated this same law—or rather made it harsher—when they granted those garments to the prince’s ministers; for the concession invited others. The law reads:
Let no one have golden borders either upon tunics or upon linen garments except only those to whom this has been conceded because of imperial service. For whoever has not divested himself of a forbidden and undue garment will be punished by no light chastisement.
Theodosius forbade purple, as owed to the prince alone, and all silken garments:
Let all persons, of whatever sex, dignity, craft, profession, and family, refrain from possession of a material of this kind, which is dedicated to the prince alone and his household; nor let anyone weave or make silken cloaks and tunics at home. Let those garments which have been dyed with the purple shellfish and which have been woven without any admixture of another material be brought forth from houses; and let tunics or cloaks whose texture has been infected throughout with the blood of the shellfish be handed over. Let no threads dyed with the shellfish be woven beneath, nor let fibers of the same dye run down to be compacted by the sounding comb. Whole-purple garments must be returned to the treasury; men’s garments must immediately be offered. Nor is there cause for anyone to complain about the forfeited price, because impunity for the violated law is sufficient. But lest anyone now incur the snares of the new constitution by concealing a thing of this sort, otherwise he will sustain danger after the likeness of injured majesty.
Here purple is forbidden to private persons, and there is a grave penalty, namely danger after the likeness of injured majesty. Then it must be returned to the sacred treasuries without receipt of a price. Under the same title the markets in purple also are prohibited, and Theodosius and Valentinian command that the workshops of the Tyrians or Phoenicians be inspected.
It is equitable, however, that the law forbids counterfeiting purple, for purchasers are defrauded at great prices. Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius forbade “dipping fleeces painted with a counterfeit color into an imitation of the sacred murex.” If, therefore, to wear clothing similar to the prince’s was the crime of majesty, punished by laws and death, why should the prince not prescribe modesty to his subjects, so that he may cut away a cause of debt, poverty, disturbances, and rivalries?
§ 7. Nor is there need of new laws. Laws which ought to have been observed were decreed long ago, provided that soul and vigor against vices be imparted to the laws by the magistrate.
The matter of clothing has been treated in many diets of emperors and princes, already for one hundred and fifty years; but luxury has always increased in opposition to all the edicts. The very senate of the princes is witness. In the year 1500 it was decreed under the emperor Maximilian as follows:
Since in past diets the superfluous luxury and prices of clothing have been treated in many ways, especially in the assembly at Freiburg, and laws and constitutions have been made but not yet published, we have now again renewed and accepted these through ourselves and the orders of our empire, while we have also more fully explained, enlarged, and corrected them, as the things following indicate.
We ordain, command, establish, and will, earnestly commanding all and singular princes, electors, dukes, and other magistrates, of whatever dignity, family, and estate they may be, under penalty of our indignation and punishment, that they themselves, and each of them, command their subjects and those belonging to them to observe this constitution of our empire and the law written below concerning the superfluous prices of clothing after mid-Lent, upon the next Sunday Laetare, and to bring it into constant use. But if any of the electors, princes, or magistrates shall be slow and negligent in the business or penalty of this matter, then, after the royal fiscal officer has admonished the electors, princes, and magistrates concerning that cause, he shall have power to summon and punish the violators; nor shall the magistrates to whom the transgressors of the law are subject have a right to interpose or obstruct. We also, as authors of the law, shall be the first to institute this constitution in our court and hereditary provinces, and shall take care that it is firmly observed.
The laws themselves are these:
First, therefore, we judge, ordain, institute, and will that which was also decreed and sanctioned in the Diet of Freiburg: that the common sort of rustics and laborers, both in towns and elsewhere in villages, shall not put on cloth whose ell exceeds half a florin. Furthermore, we forbid every kind of gold, silver, gems, velvet, silk, and embroidered clothing to all of them, their wives, and their children. By this decree, however, we will that princes, prelates, counts, lords, and nobles, together with their satraps or officials, be exempt; indeed, let it be lawful and right for them to clothe these annually according to custom, as also their other servants.
Likewise, craftsmen, together with servants and all other hired laborers, shall use for hose or bands cloth whose ell does not exceed three quarters of a florin. For gowns and cloaks they shall be content with native cloth whose ell does not exceed half a florin. Nor shall they wear gold, silver, pearls, silk, velvet, watered, or embroidered clothing. Let the same rule concerning clothing apply to the wives and children of craftsmen.
Likewise, knights shall have neither gold, silver, nor silk, indeed neither a breastpiece nor anything interwoven with gold and silver, nor shall they distinguish their garments with silk.
Likewise, we prohibit to all and singular persons pleated shirts, breastpieces ornamented with gold and silver, and both silver and golden bands, excepting princes, magnates, counts, lords, and nobles, whom we will to be free from this decree. But let each cherish moderation or modesty according to his station, and avoid superfluous luxury. And especially let nobles who have not obtained the name of knight bachelor or doctor not cover their shirt-fronts with pearls or gold. We grant, however, to nobles distinguished by the title of knight bachelor or doctor that they may display upon their caps two ounces of silver and no more.
Likewise, to citizens in towns who are not nobles, knights, or doctors, we prohibit the use of gold, pearls, velvet, purple, and linings of costly furs; we permit, however, silken and velvet doublets or damask cloth as clothing. Similarly, let it be lawful to ornament the clothing of their wives and children with velvet and silk, but not with golden and silver borders. Furthermore, let their unmarried daughters not be forbidden circlets, gems, and various pearls, yet under this law: that they not transgress the laws of modesty and moderation.
Likewise, nobles not yet made knights bachelor or inaugurated with the title of doctor shall wear neither gold nor pearls openly, nor clothing of diverse colors, nor clothing excessively worked with the needle; yet if they have a mind to procure such work, let there be nothing excessive.
Likewise, nobles, knights bachelor, and doctors shall abstain from Attalic cloth; nevertheless, we give even them the opportunity to use doublets of this kind.
In the year 1530, during the reign of Charles V, it was established as follows:
CONCERNING THE IMMODERATE SPLENDOR OF CLOTHING
Since it is honorable, becoming, and equitable that everyone, of whatever order and family he may be, use clothing and attire suitable to his station, dignity, fortune, and wealth, so that each man’s station may be discerned more easily and certainly, it has pleased us to confer, agree, and conclude with the electors, princes, and estates concerning the following ordinance of clothing, which we will to be observed in every respect under the chastisement and penalty annexed.
CONCERNING RUSTICS DWELLING IN THE COUNTRY OR IN VILLAGES
And first we sanction, ordain, and decree that the common sort of rustics, laborers, and hired workers dwelling in villages or the countryside shall employ for clothing not foreign cloth, but cloth woven within Germany and customarily used of this kind—excepting London, Mechlin, and Lierre cloth. Let their tunics not reach the ankles and not be gathered, but extend only as far as the calves and have no more than six pleats. Hose of London, Mechlin, or Lierre cloth shall, however, be suitable; indeed, it shall be lawful to procure a cotton doublet without looser sleeves, provided that slashed and cut garments are always avoided.
Furthermore, we decree that they shall not wear gold, silver, gems, silk, embroidered collars sewn to their undergarments and worked either with gold or silken thread, nor breastpieces, plumes, silken bands, slashed shoes, or doctoral caps, but hats and bands.
Likewise, nothing more or further is granted to their wives and children; and we forbid them all collars, breast-coverings, caps bordered with golden fringes, gold, silver, or linen girdles, corals, all gold, silver, gems, and linen. Only to daughters and unmarried women let a silken hairband be conceded.
Likewise, wives may make and wear an outer garment at most from London cloth and no other, but mantles from linings of lambskin, goatskin, and skins of this sort of a cheaper quality and price, without coverings and fringes.
CONCERNING CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS OF CITIES
Likewise, since in cities and towns there are principally three classes of citizens and inhabitants—namely common citizens and craftsmen; merchants and traders; and others of the senatorial and patrician order, or of more honorable family and descent, living from their own property, revenues, and substance—we establish, ordain, and decree that the common people, craftsmen, and merchants shall not use gold, silver, gems, velvet, silken, eyeleted, slashed, cut, or bordered garments, nor a doctoral cap; nor shall they line their attire with marten or shrew furs, or the costly furs of animals of that kind, but shall be content with the cheaper furs of ferrets, foxes, lambs, and that sort, in moderate and becoming apparel.
The same rule applies to their wives and children. Nevertheless, there is permitted to them a gold ring worth only six florins without a gem; a collar bordered with linen; a cap with a small golden fringe two fingers wide; a damask or silken outer garment; and a girdle worth not more than ten florins, ornamented only with silver bosses, not gilded. It shall be lawful for unmarried women to display a velvet hairband ornamented with silver, not gold.
Likewise, we forbid apprentices of craftsmen and servants already discharged from apprenticeship the use of gold, silver, linen, a plume, a cushion, or a slashed garment; nor shall they carry themselves in any other attire than was most recently stated concerning craftsmen and mechanics in cities.
But if anyone from the tribe and number of craftsmen should be chosen into the senate, it shall be lawful for him to use no other apparel than that of the merchants which will next be described.
CONCERNING MERCHANTS AND TRADERS
Urban merchants and traders shall not put on gowns of velvet, damask, silk, or linen. Let them avoid gold, silver, gems, and golden and silver ornaments for the hair. Watered gowns, silken doublets—not of velvet and not dyed with murex, and not bordered—and likewise gold rings, are permitted.
Let them not use cloth exceeding two florins in price. Let them, together with their wives, abstain from marten, shrew, or other furs of that kind that are more noble and rare.
Likewise, let their wives have equal ornament in clothing, and let them spend no more than two ells of velvet, linen, silk, or damask upon any garment; it is not forbidden to sew fringes upon its upper part.
Likewise, there is forbidden to them a girdle exceeding twenty florins in price.
Likewise, a fringe or fold in a veil or cap more than five fingers wide.
Likewise, a velvet or linen outer garment with a golden clasp or brooch exceeding twenty florins.
URBAN CITIZENS WHO ARE OF THE SENATORIAL OR PATRICIAN ORDER, OR OF A PRINCIPAL FAMILY, AND LIVE FROM THEIR OWN REVENUES AND PROPERTY
Let all these be in precisely that clothing and apparel which was indicated above for merchants and traders, except that they may use watered gowns bordered with three ells of silk, and likewise marten furs—but not the choicer kinds—as well as doublets of velvet and linen, not dyed with murex, and linen hairbands.
We likewise permit them gold rings, but not exceeding thirty or forty florins in price.
Let their wives be in attire not unlike that of merchants’ wives, except that it is lawful to spend four ells of velvet or linen not dyed with purple in distinguishing and varying their garments. We likewise grant a gold necklace worth thirty, forty, forty, or fifty florins, and a girdle worth thirty florins.
NOBLES
Furthermore, we forbid nobles velvet or silk dyed with murex; at most damask cloth or linen of this sort is conceded, which they may variegate with no more than six ells. Similarly, it shall be lawful for them to display gold rings, ornaments for parting the hair, and a necklace not greater than two hundred florins in price, but let them wrap or distinguish the latter with a band, according to ancient custom and usage.
One who is prefect of the court, chancellor, marshal, or counselor of some prince, yet not noble, may use attire not different from that of nobles.
Knights bachelor, however, are excepted. Let it be lawful and right for them to wear necklaces publicly without a band, but let no necklace exceed four hundred florins in price.
We do not prohibit them the furs of shrews and of that kind.
Wives of nobles may procure for themselves four linen tunics and use them openly: namely, one of velvet and the other three of damask cloth or linen of that kind, and no more than four apiece. Yet let them be without gems, silver, and gold. But if it pleases them to ornament these with borders and fringes, this indeed shall be lawful with gems or silver upon the upper part, and not beyond the width of a quarter of an ell.
The wife of a knight bachelor may sew this fringe with gold upon the upper part, but with the same width. And if any have a greater number of garments than we have just mentioned, let them keep them with their daughters and children; it shall not be forbidden.
It shall be lawful for them to use golden bands or caps whose circlets and ornaments do not exceed forty florins.
Likewise, a noblewoman may wear necklaces, brooches, clasps, pendants, and female ornaments of that kind, all of which—rings excepted—shall not exceed two hundred florins.
Likewise, golden borders and girdles shall not be greater than forty florins.
CONCERNING DOCTORS
Doctors and their wives may display ornate clothing, gold rings, and other insignia according to their station.
CONCERNING COUNTS AND BARONS
Counts and barons shall not use Attalic clothing, but only velvet, purple, and other linen and silk, not interwoven with gold, unless they are knights bachelor.
It shall be lawful to wear necklaces worth five hundred florins.
§ 8. The last subject of a sumptuary law is the construction of houses and the household; for to build houses and maintain many persons, εἰς πενίαν ἄτροπος ἐστὶν ὁδός. It is a straight road to poverty. The prince must take great care that citizens do not so contend in the splendor and magnificence of houses that they are reduced to want. For since the expenses of building are uncertain, accounts are never drawn so exactly that greater expenditures than those intended need not be made. And this is the customary error of those who build ostentatiously: that they are compelled to abandon their houses and move away. It is therefore expedient that a fixed rule for public buildings exist, lest, while men dwell spaciously and magnificently, they restrict their patrimonies and their means of subsistence.
§ 9. If laws of health can be prescribed for this error or disease also, the following must be observed.
1. Let the prince and the state restrain themselves. Let the council-house, palace, and all things be beneath their majesty, lest they kindle rivalry among the citizens.
2. Let them omit harmful, temporary, and useless works. Such are theaters, circuses, pyramids, colossi, hanging gardens, triumphal arches, and whatever of that kind barbarous ostentation has devised. In this matter the Romans certainly offended. What benefit was the theater of Scaurus, concerning which Pliny writes in Book Thirty-six, chapter 15?
We shall not suffer the two Gaiuses or the two Neros to enjoy even this glory of fame; and we shall teach that even their madness was surpassed by the private works of Marcus Scaurus, whose aedileship, I know not whether, most of all overthrew civic morals, and whether Sulla’s evil was greater in the power of so mighty a stepson than in the proscription of so many thousands. In his aedileship this man made the greatest work of all that were ever made by human hand, not for a temporary stay but even with a view to permanence. This was a theater. Its stage had three stories in height and 360 columns, in that city which had not endured six Hymettian columns without reproach to a most eminent citizen. The lowest part of the stage was of marble, the middle of glass—a kind of luxury unheard of even afterward—and the highest of gilded panels, as we have said. The lowest columns were thirty-eight feet high. The bronze statues between the columns, as we have indicated, were three thousand in number. The seating area itself held eighty thousand persons, although Pompey’s theater, after the city had been multiplied so many times and its population had become so much greater, amply sufficed for forty thousand. But the remaining equipment also, of Attalic fabric, painted panels, and the rest of the theatrical apparatus, was so great that, when those things which remained for the luxury of daily use had been carried back to his villa at Tusculum, the villa was burned by angry slaves and property worth one hundred million sesterces was consumed.
What benefit was Curio’s theater, except to make citizens suspended in the air? What benefit was Heliogabalus’ bridge? All those things were made for the destruction of resources. If that money had been spent upon fortification, could Rome not have been made invincible?
3. Useful works—such as fortifications, mills, aqueducts, harbors, and navigable channels of rivers—he shall make with judgment and in proportion to expenditure. Such are the works which Quintus Marcius Rex made, which Pliny recounts in the same place:
Ordered by the Senate to repair the conduits of the Appian, Anio, and Tepula waters, he introduced a new aqueduct, called from his own name, by driving tunnels through mountains within the term of his praetorship. Agrippa, however, in his aedileship, after adding the Aqua Virgo and bringing together and repairing the others, made seven hundred basins; in addition, 105 fountains and one hundred and thirty distribution reservoirs, very many also magnificent in ornament. Upon those works he placed three hundred statues of bronze or marble and four hundred marble columns, all of them within the space of one year. He himself adds in his commemoration of his aedileship that games were held for fifty-nine days and one hundred and seventy baths were supplied free, which have now increased at Rome to an infinite number. The most recent costly work, begun by Gaius Caesar and completed by Claudius, surpassed the preceding aqueducts. For from the fortieth milestone the Curtian and Caerulean springs flowed in at such an elevation that they might be raised to all the hills of the city. Three hundred million sesterces were expended upon that work. But if anyone should estimate more carefully the abundance of water in public places, baths, pools, houses, canals, gardens, suburban properties, and villas, together with the length of its approach, the arches constructed, mountains pierced, and valleys leveled, he will confess that nothing in the whole world was more marvelous. I should indeed reckon among the most memorable works of the same Claudius—although abandoned through the hatred of his successor—the mountain pierced in order to discharge the Fucine Lake, certainly at an indescribable expense and with a multitude of laborers through so many years: since either the collecting of the waters, while a four-mile mountain was being excavated from its summit by machines, or the cutting of flint, and all things within being done in darkness, are things which can neither be conceived in the mind except by those who saw them nor recounted in human speech. For I pass over the work of the harbor at Ostia; likewise roads cut between mountains; the Tyrrhenian Sea shut off from Lake Lucrinus by breakwaters; and so many bridges made at such expense. And among the many other marvels of Italy, Papirius Fabianus, most experienced in nature, is authority that the very marble grows in the quarries; the contractors also affirm that those wounds of the mountains are filled spontaneously. If these things are true, there is hope that luxury will never be wanting.
4. Let there be a fixed measure for private houses. Augustus restrained ambition in building; for since men raised them too high, so that they constructed the danger of collapse, intercepted the air, and excluded the light, he defined the limit as seventy feet, according to Strabo. Nero also did the same; Trajan permitted sixty.
5. Let him altogether prohibit expenditure upon useless features of buildings, which contribute neither to stability nor convenience. For the madness of building has no end. The house of Marcus Lepidus was the most beautiful; but within thirty-five years it was not among the first hundred. Thus Pliny in Book Thirty-six, chapter 15:
Let whoever wishes reckon in this valuation the mass of marbles, the works of painters, the royal expenditures, and the hundred houses contending with the most beautiful and most celebrated, and afterward those houses surpassed by innumerable others down to this day. Fires certainly punish luxury; yet it cannot be brought about that morals understand anything to be more mortal than man himself. But two houses surpassed all those.
By this law three things especially are restrained: foreign marbles, sculptures, and paintings.
Pliny’s complaint concerning marble in Book Thirty-six, chapter 1, is hardly empty:
We cut mountains and drag them away for no cause other than delights—mountains which it was also a marvel merely to have crossed. Our ancestors considered it almost a prodigy that the Alps were surmounted by Hannibal and afterward by the Cimbri; now they themselves are cut into a thousand kinds of marble. Promontories are opened to the sea, and the nature of things is reduced to a level. We carry away the things which had been established as boundaries for separating nations; ships are made for the sake of marbles, and across the waves, the most savage part of the nature of things, mountain ridges are carried this way and that, with even greater madness than when a vessel is sought from the clouds for cold drinks and rocks closest to heaven are hollowed out so that one may drink with ice. Let each consider within himself what prices he hears for these things and what masses he sees carried and dragged.
Scaurus brought 360 marble columns together for a theater lasting one month, but from his father’s plunder of the provinces and Sulla’s proscription lists. Lucullus gave his name to a marble as a memorial of vanity, and some of those columns were thirty-eight feet high. We see the swift triumph of vices. Lucius Crassus the orator was the first to possess columns of foreign marble, but they were Hymettian, only six in number, and no longer than twelve feet—and not without reproach, for Brutus therefore called him the Palatine Venus.
Much greater care must be taken that the workmanship not exceed the material. Sculptures, paintings, incrustations, and gildings must be forbidden. For to what purpose are such expenses and care? Why is clay polished with gold? Or what more can be bestowed upon royal palaces than that they be adorned with marble, bronze, ivory, electrum, silver, and gold? Deservedly will the prince make such great ostentation by private persons liable to servitude, so that they may be compelled to receive ambassadors or foreigners and, just as elsewhere tax is paid from hearth and tiles, so here it may be paid from gold.
The ancients had households that were armies, and retinues reduced many to solitude. Even now provision must be made lest those whose station is middling maintain a useless household at home. Gaius Caecilius Claudius Isidorus had 4,116 slaves, but most of them useful; others had more without cause. At Rome there was so great a passion in this matter that both private persons and the state suffered extreme things from it. The Servile War arose from herds of slaves; Rome was in perpetual danger.
“An opinion was once delivered in the Senate,” says Seneca in On Clemency 1.23, “that slaves should be distinguished from free men by their dress; then it appeared how great the danger would be if our slaves began to count us.” Demetrius, Pompey’s freedman, who was not ashamed to be richer than Pompey, had a great household, as Seneca says in On Tranquility of Mind, chapter 9: “The number of his slaves was reported to him daily as that of an army to a commander; yet two deputy slaves and a somewhat more spacious cellar ought long since to have been riches for him.”
Plutarch relates the following about the parade for Demetrius in his Cato the Younger:
Cato was going to Antioch and saw outside the gate, standing in orderly ranks along both sides of the road, men, youths, and boys, divided according to age, all in festive attire and clothing; in addition there were magistrates in white robes and even priests themselves wearing crowns. Cato was vexed and thought that this had been done for the sake of honoring him; he was angry with those whom he had sent ahead, as though they had given notice. And so, when he drew nearer, he descended from his vehicle and ordered his men to do the same and go on foot, as though he were to be greeted and led in by that procession. But behold, a certain old man, distinguished by a crown and staff—for he was the master of ceremonies—without even offering a greeting, asked where they had left Demetrius and when he would come. This Demetrius was Pompey’s freedman and had great influence with him, upon whom all mortals then had their eyes fixed. Therefore Cato’s companions were both indignant and dying with laughter; Cato said nothing other than, “O wretched city!” and entered it.
A multitude of slaves, clients, and attendants is the rock of destruction for nobles and princes. Yet foreign nations generally desire that petty glory more eagerly, such as the Turks; for the more barbarous any nation is, the more it delights to command many persons at home. And these things suffice concerning sumptuary laws.