HISTORY OF SUMPTUARY LAWS

Sumptuary laws are of ancient origin, and numerous instances are to be found in ancient
Greece. The Spartan inhabitants of Laconia, for example, were forbidden to attend drinking
entertainments and were also forbidden to own a house or furniture that was the work of more
elaborate implements than the ax and saw. The possession of gold or silver was also forbidden to
the Spartans, their legislation permitting only the use of iron money. A system of sumptuary laws
was extensively developed in ancient Rome; a series of laws beginning in 215 BC governed the
materials of which garments could be made and the number of guests at entertainments and
forbade the consumption of certain foods.1
In Ancient Greece, 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.2
Roman Sumptuary Laws were imposed by the rulers of Ancient Rome to curb the
expenditure of the people. Sumtuariae Leges was the name of the various Roman Laws which
were passed to prevent inordinate expense (sumtus) in banquets, dress, etc. It was considered the
duty of the Roman Government to put a check upon extravagance in the private expenses of
persons. Traces of these laws date back to the earliest days of the Roman Republic and the laws
of the Twelve Tables. The Greeks first enforced these laws followed by the Romans.3
In France, Under the rule of Philippe IV (le Bel) (1268 – 1314), only members of the
royal household were permitted to wear miniver grey fur or ermine. h Charles IX was
responsible for more sumptuary laws than any other French monarch. Whilst regent only
princesses and duchesses could wear garments of silk. Ladies of high rank were permitted to
wear hand muffs made from fur or fine material. Amount and kind of ornamentation on clothes
was dependent on the social rank of the persons' wearing the garments. These laws continued to
effect until the fall of the Bastille (1789), when one of the first acts of the National Assembly
was to abolish by solemn decree all laws relating to distinction in dress. The feeling in France
against sumptuary laws was so bitter that after the revolution it was unsafe to appear in clothing
which might proclaim the wearer as belonging to the nobility. Many men tore their buckles from
their shoes and donated them to the new government.4
In England during the reign of Edward II a proclamation was issued against the
“outrageous and excessive multitude of meats and dishes which the great men of the Kingdom
had used, and still used, in their castles.” Besides the standing regulations governing dress,
Edward III in 1336 tried to restrict merchants and the servants of gentlemen from eating more

1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sumptuary-law
2
"Diodorus Siculus, Library, Book XII, chapter 21, section 1". Perseus Digital Library (in Latin). Retrieved 2019-08-
11., Demosthenes Against Timocrates 139–43
3
http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-clothing/roman-sumptuary-laws.htm
4
http://sumptuarylaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/sumptuary-laws-in-france.html
than one meal of flesh or fish per day.5 In Elizabethan England, these laws attempted to restrict
the sumptuousness of dress in order to curb extravagance, protect fortunes, and make clear the
necessary and appropriate distinctions between levels of society. The principal concern was that
money spent on frivolous display would be better spent on the state of more important things,
such as horses, critical to a society always in peril of the neighbors. The other concern was that
letting anyone wear just anything must lead inexorably to moral decline. If you couldn't tell a
milkmaid from a countess at a glance, the very fabric of society might unravel. 6 Moreover, A
Statute Concerning Diet and Apparel (37 Edw. III c. 1, 3 - 19) was a sumptuary law introduced
by the Parliament of England in 1363. It was one of a series of laws over a couple of centuries
that form what are known as the Acts of Apparel. The Act detailed the style of dress that people
of each class were allowed to wear. It was created to tackle a burgeoning trend for the lower
classes to wear similar fashion to the elite. This was triggered by the sudden rise in personal
wealth that followed the Black Death, caused by the consolidation of property following the drop
in population and the considerable rises in wages which liberated many previously bonded
labourers.7
In 1433 an act of the Scottish parliament prescribed the lifestyle of all social orders in
Scotland, even going so far as to limit the use of pies and baked meats to those who held the rank
of baron or higher.8
In Italy, The first Italian sumptuary law was contained in the Breve della Campagna of
1157, which banned the use of rich furs. Sumptuary laws appeared in the middle of the thirteenth
century in communes which had admitted the "popolo" or common people to government. By
the time sumptuary laws were being applied at various levels of European Society the Council of
Montpellier had forbidden churchmen in 1195 from slashing at the hems of their robes. In the
thirteenth century the Republic of Venice appointed magistrates to enforce regulations. Italian
sumptuary laws were more designed to restrain the aristocrat then keep down the peasants. The
city state of Siena regulated trains on dresses in 1249; and Bologna made a similar decree, in
1260. A 1430 statute at Venice set stringent limits on the height of heels and platforms of
women's shoes. In Siena only prostitutes were permitted to wear flat shoes or slippers in public
(Newett 1902 (pp 273-274); Bistort 1912; 168-71 Casanova 1901 :61; Verga 1898:25 cited in
Brundage). In Florence when buttons were banned, to prevent prosecution women used studs.9
In Spain, wealthy Amerindians in Lima, Quito and other colonial cities enjoyed wearing
a combination of European and Andean garments, sometimes made of silk and other expensive,
imported fabrics. Their sartorial exuberance annoyed local Spaniards, who issued repeated orders
prohibiting Amerindians from wearing a range of garments containing silk, velvet, Holland

5
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sumptuary-law
6
http://elizabethan.org/sumptuary/
7
Frances Cronin (27 June 2011). "What will be a luxury in the future?". BBC News and Emberley, Julia V. (1998).
Venus and furs: the cultural politics of fur. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-86064-227-2.
8
Ibid.
9
Brundage JA 1987 Sumptuary laws and prostitution in late Medieval Italy Journal of Medieval History 13:4 343-
355.; Hughes D O 1983 4: sumptuary law and social relations in Renaissance Italy; and In Bossy J (ed) Disputes and
Settlements NY: Cambridge University Press.
cloth, lace and other embellishments. The indigenous elite did not accept these prohibitions
without protest. In 1593, members of the Amerindian community in Quito wrote to Emperor
Philip II to complain that “as conquered people it sometimes happens that officials and other
people undress them and take their clothing, saying that they can wear only cotton, which causes
them much trouble and vexation”.10
In Japan, numerous sumptuary regulations were issued throughout the Edo period (1615-
1868) to control the expression of ideas that were deemed a threat to public decorum, safety, or
morality, or that were subversive to the ruling Tokugawa shogunate. Ostentatious and
inappropriate behavior and display for all the classes was proscribed. The earliest sumptuary
laws were based on similar practices from China, where consumption was correlated positively
with status. In Japan these regulations were called ken'yakurei ("laws regulating expenditures":
儉約令) for all classes of society. They did not constitute a distinct body of laws, but rather were
part of the occasional regulatory proclamations (ofuregaki: 御觸書) issued by the rôjû ("council
of elders": 牢 中 ) and disseminated through various intermediaries to the intended group or
class.11
Sumptuary Legislation was brought to the American Colonies in the 17th century but was
generally not strictly enforced there. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 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. After a few decades, the
law was being widely defied.12
In the 20th century, democratization, industrial mass production, and the rise of
consumer-oriented societies all combined to render sumptuary laws obsolete in most countries.13
Sumptuary laws did not so much "die" as undergo a process of metamorphosis such that
the original is barely recognizable in the result: luxury taxes and import restrictions are the
legacy of sumptuary laws. Such laws can perhaps best be regarded as inhabiting the threshold of
modernity, without themselves being an active feature of modernity.14

10
In: Riello, Giorgio and Rublack, Ulinka, (eds.) The Right to Dress : Sumptuary Laws in a Global Perspective,
c.1200–1800.
11
Shively, D.: "Sumptuary regulation and status in early Tokugawa Japan," in: Harvard Journal of Asiatic studies,
Vol. 25, 1965, pp. 123-134.
12
"Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, 1651". Constitution.org. Retrieved 2019-08-11.
13
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sumptuary-law
14
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/sumptuary-laws