The Days When Fashion Was Only for the Rich

In today’s world, the only thing that limits what you wear is the size of your wallet and the depth of your closet.

Yet the freedom to dress how you please wasn’t always something you could take for granted. In the past, sumptuary laws were a means of limiting extravagance and luxury items. In terms of getting dressed, this meant a whole list of dos and don’ts for medieval and Renaissance men and women.

Sumptuary laws actually go back all the way to ancient times. In Sparta, elaborate homes and furniture were a no-no. The Ancient Romans were more concerned with over indulgent dinners, excess adornment, and lavish clothing.

Over the years laws came and went in different countries, but the late medieval period and Renaissance were really the heydays of sumptuary legislation. Governments had no doubt their country’s manner of dress could lead to moral, economic, and social decay. France and England had their share of laws, but Italy was probably the most prolific.

Hey — you can’t wear that!

To the medieval mind, clothes weren’t merely an expression of your personality, they were a commentary on social hierarchy, equality (or inequality), and even one’s purity.

Clergy and pious secular rulers believed excess luxury was bad for the soul. Normally, people of lower classes didn’t have to wonder if they were being too frivolous, they were too busy just getting by.

However, during certain periods, like after the black death, economics changed, a middle class emerged, and fashion became more accessible. Now it was possible for lower classes to have a style competition with their neighbors–and the upper classes didn’t like it.

Lines between the classes had always been very clear, and regulating one’s dress was an easy visual way to make one’s rank easily identifiable. When walking down the street there should be no question of who was who. Servants, squires, men-at-arms, sergeants: all should be distinguishable by the fabric, color, and cost of their clothing. The idea of blurring those lines was reprehensible.

In the 1500s areas like Florence had an explosion of Sumptuary laws. In fact, Florence passed new regulations 14 times between 1550 and 1650. Thanks to the country’s prosperity, more people could spend money on the fancy new styles that were emerging.

People became so preoccupied with dressing well the topic was covered in books such as Baldassare Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528, and Giovanni Della Casa’s treatise on good manners, Il Galateo, published in 1559. At the end of the century, there was even a book visually classifying the different social groups by their apparel.

Women, the bane of society

Most sumptuary laws at this time, however, were directed at women. They dictated things like how much fabric a garment was allowed, the type of material, how much jewelry a woman could wear, what her sleeves could be made with, and how much embroidery could be used.

Laws could be very specific, dictating the maximum length of a woman’s train, or how many pearls she could be in her hair. A 1453 sumptuary law in Bologna detailed how many expensive dresses a woman could own, the type of fabric, and even the color.

The laws targeting women weren’t because women loved finery more than men. The men were out spending on clothing too. Instead, it seems they felt the need to marginalize women because of their sinful nature. A 1433 commentary of sumptuary legislation talked of restraining the reprobate and diabolical nature of women, charging them with “barbarous and irrepressible bestiality.”

Laws in both Bologna and Florence blamed women for being an expensive burden to their husbands. Women used “honeyed poison to trick their husbands into buying them more finery, ” they said. It was even suggested men should consider avoiding getting married all together just for this reason.

They also accused women of being the impetus behind men turning to homosexuality. The thought of having to pay for all those feminine luxuries a wife would require was just too much to bear.

The ironic thing is, when the men weren’t complaining about the frivolity of women, they were busy encouraging it by dressing their wives and daughters in luxurious gowns. Their family’s extravagant dress was a great way of displaying their wealth and success to the world. Great job guys.

Tattling highly encouraged

As they enacted new laws, owners of the now forbidden clothing were asked to bring the offending garment for inspection within 30 days.

In Sienna, they recorded the owner’s name along with the type of garment, it’s color, and fabric in a special book. For a small fee, they would mark the item with a lead marker in the hemline. The owner then had three more years to wear the dress or alter it to the new standard.

In places like Florence, Venice, and Sienna, people were encouraged to tattle on anyone they knew who dressed inappropriately. All you had to do was slip the name of the lawbreaker into a wooden box ( known as the tamburi) outside the town hall.

Along with the offender’s name they needed to provide details about the forbidden item, it’s quality, and the time and place it was worn. There were also state officials, or fashion police, who searched taverns, marketplaces, town squares, and church entrances for lawbreakers. They weren’t shy about ripping unacceptable jewelry and other accessories from people’s necks and arms either.

Women get the last laugh

Obviously, the laws were a bother but there were a few things you could do to beat the system.

If you had the money you could just pay for an exemption from the law. However, maybe you might just choose to pay the fine every time you wanted to flaunt your stuff.

The women of Florence were especially known for their devotion to fashion. So much so that men from other towns had to be hired as fashion police since the local men were too chicken to take the ladies on themselves. Florentine women kept themselves educated on the local laws and adjusted their outfits — and defenses — accordingly. Eventually, they made outwitting the fashion police into a game. Women were known to come up with all kinds of stories to weasel out of fines. She might lie about the type of fur she was wearing, or even make up an entirely new name for it. One woman insisted the fur she was wearing wasn’t ermine, but “lattizi,” which translates to milky.

Another woman declared her buttons didn’t count because there were no buttonholes. Yet another tactic was to duck into a church when an officer was in sight. Although they could get you at the door, they weren’t allowed to apprehend anyone inside.

By the mid-16th-century, most places were giving up on sumptuary laws. They had become too complex, for one thing. On top of that, people just weren’t behaving well, and trying to enforce the laws was just too darn exhausting.

Notes and sources:

They didn’t always aim Sumptuary laws at women. Legislation in northern countries tended to concentrate more on men. However, in Italy between 1200 and 1500, they passed 135 laws for women and only 25 for men.

Jews were another group singled out. In the 15th century, officials in Bologna passed a law forcing Jewish men over 12 to wear yellow cloth, while women were forced to wear hoops in their ears. Florence required a yellow “O” at least one foot in circumference. Finally, weddings, funerals, and baptisms were also targets of sumptuary laws.

And yes, non-European countries, such as Japan and China, had sumptuary laws as well.

Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law, Alan Hunt

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/sumptuary-laws

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-sumptuary-laws-1788617

https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=summer_research

https://theshoeman647325124.wordpress.com/category/sumptuary-law/page/3/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94521/6-times-sumptuary-laws-told-people-what-wear

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~cfinlay/sumptuary.html

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/777/3/womens-fashion-and-the-renaissance-considering-fashion-womens-expression-and-sumptuary-law-in-florence-and-venice

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/ghcc/research/luxury/activities/workshop1/readings/dangers_of_dress_martha_c_howell.pdf