Page:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu/100

Rh

In modern times the first important sumptuary legislation was: in Italy that of Frederick II.; in Aragon that of James I., in 1234; in France that of Philip IV.; in England that of Edward II. and Edward III. In 1294 Philip IV. made provisions as to the dress and the table expenditure of the several orders of men in his kingdom. Charles V. of France forbade the use of long-pointed shoes, a fashion against which popes and councils had protested in vain. Under later kings the use of gold and silver embroidery, silk stuffs and fine linen wares was restricted—at first moral and afterwards economic motives being put forward, the latter especially from the rise of the mercantile theory. In England we hear much from the writers of the 14th century of the extravagance of dress at that period. They remark both on the great splendour and expensiveness of the apparel of the higher orders and on the fantastic and deforming fashions adopted by persons of all ranks. The parliament held at Westminster in 1363 made laws (37 Edw. III. c. 8-14) to restrain this undue expenditure and to regulate the dress of the several classes of the people. These statutes were repealed in the following year, but similar ones were passed again in the same reign. They seem, however, to have had little effect, for in the reign of Richard II. the same excesses prevailed, apparently in a still greater degree. Another statute was passed in the year 1463 (3 Edw. IV. c. 5) for the regulation of the dress of persons of all ranks. In this it was stated that “the commons of the realm, as well men as women, wear excessive and inordinate apparel to the great displeasure of God, the enriching of strange realms, and the destruction of this realm.” An act of 1444 had previously regulated the clothing, when it formed part of the wages, of servants employed in husbandry: a bailiff or overseer was to have an allowance of 5s. a year for his clothing, a hind or principal servant 4s., and an ordinary servant 3s. 4d. sums equivalent respectively to 50s., 40s. and 33s. 4d. of our money (Henry). Already in the reign of Edward II. a proclamation had been 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,” as well as “persons of inferior rank imitating their example, beyond what their stations required and their circumstances could afford”; and the rule was laid down that the great men should have but two courses of flesh meat served up to their tables, and on fish days two courses of fish, each course consisting of but two kinds. In 1336 Edward III. attempted also to legislate against luxurious living, and in 1363, at the same time when costumes were regulated, it was enacted that the servants of gentlemen, merchants and artificers should have only one meal of flesh or fish in the day, and that their other food should consist of milk, butter and cheese. Similar acts to those above mentioned were passed in Scotland also. In 1433 (temp. James I.), by an act of a parliament which sat at Perth, the manner of living of all orders in Scotland was prescribed, and in particular the use of pies and baked meats, which had been only lately introduced into the country, was forbidden to all under the rank of baron. In 1457 (temp. James II.) an act was passed against “sumptuous cleithing.” A Scottish sumptuary law of 1621 was the last of the kind in Great Britain.

In Japan sumptuary laws have been passed with a frequency and minuteness of scope such as has no parallel in the history of the western world. At the beginning of the 11th century we find an Imperial edict regulating the size of a house and even imposing restrictions as to the materials of which it is to be built. But it was during the Tokugawa period that sumptuary laws and regulations were passed in the most bewildering profusion; every detail of a man's life was regulated down to the least particular—from the wearing of a beard or the dressing of the hair down to the cost of his wife's hairpins or the price of his child's doll.