Sumptuary law

In Late Medieval cities, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to limit the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie.

[1] The seventh-century BC law-text of Locrians by Zaleucus, the first written 'law code' in ancient Greece, stipulated: A free-born woman may not be accompanied by more than one female slave, unless she is drunk; she may not leave the city during the night, unless she is planning to commit adultery; she may not wear gold jewelry or a garment with a purple border, unless she is a courtesan; and a husband may not wear a gold-studded ring or a cloak of Milesian fashion unless he is bent upon prostitution or adultery.It also banned the drinking of undiluted wine except for medical purposes.

[9] During the height of the Empire, expenditure on silk imported from China was so high that imperial advisers warned that Roman silver reserves were becoming exhausted.

[11] 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.

In the period of profligate luxury goods that characterized the height of the Roman Empire, the laws regarding the wearing of Tyrian purple were rigorously enforced.

[17] According to Britannica Online, "In feudal Japan, sumptuary laws were passed with a frequency and minuteness of scope that had no parallel in the history of the Western world.

"[18] During the Edo period (1603–1868), people of every class were subject to strict sumptuary laws, including regulation of the types of clothing that could be worn.

Their curbing of display was ordinarily couched in religious and moralizing vocabulary, yet was affected by social and economic considerations aimed at preventing ruinous expense among the wealthy classes and the drain of capital reserves to foreign suppliers.

[24] As early as the 12th century, certain articles of clothing were prohibited to crusaders and pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land under the Saladin Tithe of 1188, but scant evidence exists in the historical record of legal regulations on dress in Britain until the reign of Edward III, during which prohibitions were enacted on the import of textiles from lands outside Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales and the exportation of domestically produced wool was likewise banned.

[25] 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,[3] 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 excess of apparel and the superfluity of unnecessary foreign wares thereto belonging now of late years is grown by sufferance to such an extremity that the manifest decay of the whole realm generally is like to follow (by bringing into the realm such superfluities of silks, cloths of gold, silver, and other most vain devices of so great cost for the quantity thereof as of necessity the moneys and treasure of the realm is and must be yearly conveyed out of the same to answer the said excess) but also particularly the wasting and undoing of a great number of young gentlemen, otherwise serviceable, and others seeking by show of apparel to be esteemed as gentlemen, who, allured by the vain show of those things, do not only consume themselves, their goods, and lands which their parents left unto them, but also run into such debts and shifts as they cannot live out of danger of laws without attempting unlawful acts, whereby they are not any ways serviceable to their country as otherwise they might beThe first major sumptuary act was passed in April 1463 during the reign of Edward IV.

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.

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 (3⁄4 penny) per day.

[33] 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.

"[35] 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".

[36] 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...[18] They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.

"[37] During the Medieval and Renaissance eras in Italy, various towns passed sumptuary laws (leggi suntuarie) often in response to particular events or movements.

The act, which was poorly enforced, was eventually repealed in 1782, and during the Regency and Victorian eras 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.

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.

[45] 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,[46] and puffs, slashes, and bunches of ribbon were severely restricted.

[47] In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a 1634 prohibition[48] deemed that only people with a personal fortune of at least two hundred pounds could wear lace, silver or gold thread or buttons, cutwork, embroidery, hatbands, belts, ruffles, capes, and other articles.

[57] 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.

Only the King of Bhutan and Chief Abbot may don the saffron scarf, with various other colors reserved for government and religious officers, and white available for common people.

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.