While the trappings of power have changed, the desire to display one's influence is not a new one. As they say, clothes make the man. In Ancient Rome, laws were enacted to limit the use of the Tyrian purple dye which was employed by the Emperor and to a lesser extent the Senators, as a badge of office. During the Tokugawa period in Japan the most widely known example of this practice was limiting the wearing of swords in public to the samurai. In Europe, during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the implementation of sumptuary laws saw varied application and justification.
One of the key developments of the Medieval period is the return of the middle class with the resumption of trade. This burgeoning middle class saw a steady rise in influence as they amassed greater and greater wealth. Even the poor saw a fair amount of opportunity following the Plague years. Naturally, the entrenched nobility viewed this as impertinence and used their legislative powers to codify the trappings of power, limiting access to various materials as well as colors for clothing.
The aristocracy also had a vested interest in protecting itself from its own wastrels. As clothing is the most visible symbol of wealth, it was not uncommon for the sons of nobility (or their fathers) to go into debt to create or maintain their ostentatious display. Noble rank does not always equate with riches, but what lord wants to play second fiddle when all he needs is a finer bow? It was relatively easy for a noble young man to get a loan against his name (with or without parental knowledge). This served the dual function of enriching the money-lender while impoverishing the nobility. By limiting the legal level of permissible display, it was hoped that a rein might be put on these excesses.
It isn't just the modern world who loves French and Italian style.
Imported fabrics and goods have long been the hallmark of extravagance.
What better for those wasteful young lordlings and presumptuous
peasants to spend their fortunes on? However, in most countries, the
aristocracy had a vested interest in local cloth production (they owned
the land where the sheep grazed after all) and this cut into the taxes
that would otherwise be flowing into their pockets. Sumptuary laws were
then employed as protective tariffs.
The aristocracy was not alone in its desire to place limits on the excessive spending of the people. The clergy had a hand in promoting the limitations on conspicuous consumption. The Church was very active at this time in promoting spiritual health through legislation. Sumptuary laws could be very detailed regarding lengths of hemline, decolletage, and even the amount of hair permissible to be shown. Their influence included laws which limited loan rates as well (though the Jews were outside this law, which is a whole other topic). In theory, if one did not display wealth, others would not be jealous and try to achieve it as well. Remember, wealth is bad because, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven."
Throughout the history of sumptuary laws, the focus shifts from men
to women, and back again, but there is no reason to expect one group to
be more ostentatious than the other. Throughout history, men have been into fancy shoes just like women, and do we even need to mention the codpiece? It is difficult to determine what is
the root and what is the symptom at this point as laws and history were written almost exclusively by men. As in many other areas,
women were often blamed for the shortcomings of their male
counterparts, either as objects of affection or browbeating harridans.
They did instigate original sin after all.
When discussing these laws, it's important to note that they were not simply used to stratify society, but also to identify the outsiders. Jews were sometimes made to prominently display a large yellow patch, or to wear a conical hat (as they are often shown in period artwork). Muslims were made to wear a yellow crescent on their clothing. Attempts were also made to force lepers to wear long white robes, but good luck getting the constable to enforce that (they often carried rattles and the like to warn others of their coming). It seems that once you start putting people in boxes that you want a box for everyone.
As fascinating as these laws sound, they were difficult to enforce and could be circumvented. The Jews could often get around the law by paying enough money (laws often seemed to target them for this purpose). Sometimes the sellers of goods simply changed the label on the products ("No, no, that isn't civet. See here on the label? Vair."). To catch these perpetrators, the individuals would have to be spotted in public, then I suppose someone called the fashion police. In certain Italian cities, "denunciation boxes" were put out to inform on your neighbors. I can pretty clearly imagine the repercussions of that little innovation.
Humorous as all of this might seem to the modern reader, identity was a significant issue in this period. There were no ID cards or passports. We couldn't watch the nobles being silly on the television. The only ways to evaluate a person were by manner and mode of dress (unless you trust what his/her friends say). If a man walks up to you wearing a purple robe and carrying a scepter, you're probably going to treat him like a king, since there are serious ramifications to being wrong.
Articles Longer Than Mine (a.k.a. For Further Reading)
International Overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
European Overview - http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/a/sumptuary_law.htm
Good Details - http://camelotcollection.weebly.com/another-look-sumptuary-laws-in-medieval-europe.html
Fantastic clothing overview - http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20011022/medieval_clothing.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment