Talk:Sumptuary law

Initial Paragraph

The start of this article makes it sound like, most of the time, these laws are used to prevent poor people from looking rich. Certainly that has been the case. But all the early instances, it was designed as a cap on excess. I wish it was written to express that better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) It could also be taken to mean the repression of pleasurable activities which are popular among the lower classes, because of the difficulties of ensuring their continued productivity. The imposition of taxation is partly a means of enforcing this type of restriction. Another is to create repressive, artificial or deceptive moral values which are selectively applied.But, as always,Q.C.I.C..bruce (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) A further effort to repress popular activities was caused by the general availability of photography in the 1860's. It was then considered to be undesirable that the lower classes should have access to salacious and erotic images which would lower their productivity. The hypocritical reaction was such that a new, greek-based, word was created (pornography) and suitable restrictive legislation was rammed through the British parliament. But, as said above: Quis custodet ipso custodes!Miletus (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bravo?

In the first text, it is stated, "that, bravos excepted, no man was to wear a gold compass ," Does anyone know what a "bravo" is? The only thing I can find that might fit the context is a hired killer, but I don't think that makes sense. Should there be a link to a definition or explanation? GBMorris 15:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that the citation is Seventh Century BC Locrian code, it could only refer to a macaroni (maccaroni) based on a later translation. Didn't find the word in the original Locrian and think it should be removed for now. Bravo in this context makes no sense: If the purpose of the law was to eliminate excess, why permit excess only among the excessive? Dstlascaux (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A bravo is I think a very old-fashioned term for a stylish young (originally Italian) male - most of the younger male roles in Romeo and Juliet would qualify. What on earth it might have meant in or for Ancient Greece I have no idea. Johnbod 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Added text from 1875 document A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. published by John Murray, London, in 1875, which can be found at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Sumtuariae_Leges.html

This excerpt really belongs to Wikisource, not here. We are also missing an article about the encyclopedia you mention, but I created an article William Smith (lexicographer) about its author (based on 1911 Britannica). jni 09:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Almost all of the High Medieval and Renaissance sumptuary laws intended to separate social classes were notorious for being nearly complete dead letters practically from the moment they were decreed. Churchh 07:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Anyone got a source for the claim that vestiges of sumptuary laws still exist? DrHydeous 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That question is what brought me here.--Smallwhitelight 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

School uniforms? To the extent they are supported because they motivated by preventing pupils from wasting their money on expensive and inappropriate clothing. Of course school uniforms have other purposes.DavidBofinger 03:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Leges

The examples of ancient sumptuary laws really adds very little to the article and needs editing. I've placed it here until someone will take the time to do so.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sumptuariae leges

The text below is taken from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875 by William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D. [1]

SUMTUA´RIAE LEGES, the name of various laws passed to prevent inordinate expense (sumtus) in banquets, dress, &c. (Gellius, ii.24, xx.1). In the states of antiquity it was considered the duty of government to put a check upon extravagance in the private expenses of persons, and among the Romans in particular we find traces of this in the laws attributed to the kings and in the Twelve Tables. The censors, to whom was entrusted the disciplina or cura morum, punished by the nota censoria all persons guilty of what was then regarded as a luxurious mode of living: a great many instances of this kind are recorded [CENSOR, p264, a.] But as the love of luxury greatly increased with the foreign conquests of the republic and the growing wealth of the nations, various Leges Sumtuariae were passed at different times with the object of restraining it. These however, as may be supposed, rarely accomplished their object, and in the latter times of the republic they were virtually repealed. The following is a list of the most important of them arranged in chronological order.

OPPIA, proposed by the tribune C. Oppius in the consulship of Q. Fabius and Ti. Sempronius in the middle of the second Punic war B.C. 213, enacted that no woman should have above half an ounce of gold, nor wear a dress of different colours, nor ride in a carriage in the city or in any town, or within a mile of it, unless on account of public sacrifices. This law was repealed twenty years afterwards (Liv. xxiv.1, 8; Val. Max. ix.1 §3), whence we frequently find the Lex Orchia mentioned as the first Lex Sumtuaria. Tacitus (Tac. Ann. iii.33, 34) speaks of Oppiae Leges.

ORCHIA, proposed by the tribune C. Orchius in the third year after the censorship of Cato B.C. 181, limited the number of guests to be present at entertainments. When attempts were afterwards made to repeal the law, Cato offered the strongest opposition, and delivered a speech in defence of the law, which is referred to by the grammarians (Macrob. Sat. iii.17.3; Festus, s.vv. Obsonitavere, Percunctatum; Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sest. p310, ed. Johann Caspar Orelli; Meyer, Orat. Roman. Fragm. p91, &c., 2d ed.).

FANNIA, proposed by the consul C. Fannius B.C. 161, limited the sums which were to be spent on entertainments, and enacted that not more than 100 asses should be spent on certain festivals named in the lex, whence it is called Centussis by Lucilius, that on ten other days in each month not more than 30 asses, and that on all other days not more than 10 asses should be expended: also that no other fowl but one hen should be served up, and that not fattened for the purpose (Gell. ii.24; Macrob. Sat. iii.17.5; Plin. H.N. x.50 s.71).

DIDIA, passed B.C. 143, extended the Lex Fannia to the whole of Italy, and enacted that not only those who gave entertainments which exceeded in expense what the law had prescribed, but also all who were present at such entertainments, should be liable to the penalties of the law. We are not however told in what these consisted (Macrob. Sat. iii.17.6).

LICINIA agreed in its chief provisions with the Lex Fannia, and was brought forward, we are told, that there might be the authority of a new law upon the subject, inasmuch as the Lex Fannia was beginning to be neglected. It allowed 200 asses to be spent on entertainments upon marriage days and on other days the same as the Lex Fannia: also, that on ordinary days there should not be served up more than three pounds of fresh and one pound of salt meat (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.). Gellius (l.c.) states, that this law was brought forward by P. Licinius Crassus, but we do not know at what time, probably however in his praetorship B.C. 103. Gellius relates elsewhere (xv.8) that a Latin orator of the name of Favorinus spoke in support of this law (see Dict. of Biog. art. Favorinus).

CORNELIA, a law of the dictator Sulla B.C. 81, was enacted on account of the neglect of the Fannian and Licinian Laws. Like these it regulated the expenses of entertainments (Gell. ii.24; Macrob. l.c.). Extravagance in funerals, which had been forbidden even in the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Leg. ii.23-25), was also restrained by a law of Sulla (Plut. Sull. 35). It was probably the same law which determined how much might be spent upon monuments (Cic. ad Att. xii.35, 36).

AEMILIA, proposed by the consul Aemilius Lepidus B.C. 78, did not limit the expenses of entertainments, but the kind and quantity of food that was to be used (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.). Pliny (H.N. viii.57 s.82) and Aurelius Victor (de Vir. Ill. 72) ascribe the law to the consulship of M. Aemilius Scaurus B.C. 115. It is not impossible that there may have been two Aemilian Leges on the subject.

ANTIA, of uncertain date, proposed by Antius Restio, besides limiting the expenses of entertainments, enacted that no actual magistrate, or magistrate elect, should dine abroad anywhere except at the houses of certain persons. This law however was little observed; and we are told that Antius never dined out afterwards, that he might not see his own law violated (Gell. Macrob. ll.cc.).

JULIA, proposed by the dictator C. Julius Caesar, enforced the former sumptuary laws respecting entertainments, which had fallen into disuse (Dion Cass. xliii.25). Julius Caesar adopted strong measures to carry this law into execution, but it was violated when he was absent from Rome (Cic. ad Att. xiii.7). He stationed officers in the provision market to seize all eatables forbidden by the law, and sometimes sent lictors and soldiers to banquets to take away every thing which was not allowed by the law (Suet. Jul. 43). Cicero seems to refer to this law in two of his epistles (ad Fam. vii.26, ix.15).

JULIA, a lex of Augustus, allowed 200 sesterces to be expended upon festivals on dies profesti, 300 upon those on the Calends, Ides, Nones, and some other festive days, and 1000 upon marriage feasts. There was also an edict of Augustus or Tiberius by which as much as from 300 to 2000 sesterces were allowed to be expended upon entertainments, the increase being made with the hope of securing thereby the observance of the law (Gell. l.c.; Sueton. Octav. 34).

Tiberius attempted to check extravagance in banquets (Suet. Tib. 34); and a senatusconsultum was passed in his reign for the purpose of restraining luxury, which forbade gold vases to be employed, except for sacred purposes, and which also prohibited the use of silk garments to men (Tac. Ann. ii.33; Dion Cass. lvii.15). This sumptuary law, however, was but little observed (Tac. Ann. iii.52, 53). Some regulations on the subject were also made by Nero (Suet. Ner. 16), and by succeeding emperors, but they appear to have been of little or no avail in checking the increasing love of luxury in dress and food (Platner, Exercit. II. de Legibus Sumtuariis Rom. Lips. 1752; Boxmann, Dissert. antiquario-juridica de Leg. Rom. Sumtuariis, Lugd. Batav. 1816).

Structure

As this article gets longer, should we make two separate 2nd level heads for (1) general restrictions on luxurious dress by status, age or profession, and (2) restrictions based on ethnicity intended to identify "others" (Jews and Muslims in medieval Europe), or to prevent ethnic identification (Ireland in the 16th century and the Highland Dress Act of 1746)? - PKM 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sort of done - in the medieval period the way the one flows into the other is maybe worth preserving. Johnbod 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Falconry

This stuff about falcons is I think just a literary conceit - I doubt any such laws were ever enacted (nor do Emperors seem to have taken advantage of their unique priviledge of hawking with eagles). I think I will leave it here until referenced as actually enforced by law:".... as well as what types and breeds of dogs or hunting birds an individual was allowed to own (An Eagle for an Emperor, a Gyrfalcon for a King, a Peregrine for a Prince, a Saker for a Knight, a Merlin for a Lady, a Goshawk for a Yeoman, a Sparrow Hawk for a Priest, a Musket for a Holy Water Clerk and a Kestrel for a Knave)." Johnbod 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Smoking bans

References to bans on smoking in public should not be in this article. As far as I can determine, no reliable source has ever linked the two. Adding general criticism and trying to link it to sumptuary laws is WP:SYNJQ 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Those references absolutely were reliable sources. Your insistence otherwise violates WP:NPOV. The section is discussing use of the term "sumptuary law" today. Maclean's is "Canada's leading weekly news magazine", and the article in question did discuss smoking bans as sumptuary laws, also discussing what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. The article from Harper's Magazine also discussed smoking bans as sumptuary laws, and discussed in detail what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Lastly, despite the title, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, by David Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, discusses smoking bans as sumptuary laws in detail, as well as what "sumptuary law" means and how it is applied today. Clearly, all of these use the term "sumptuary law" and do so in the context of smoking bans. There is nothing wrong with that section or that reference. It is properly cited, and it isn't original research or synthesis. Read Brooks's book. Moreover, you deleted any reference to the book Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a very comprehensive resource which contains a plethora of information about alcohol prohibition, including the debates, discussions, and resolutions of each state to ratify the amendment, with considerable discussion of alcohol prohibition as a sumptuary law. These reliable sources and references to describe use of the term "sumptuary law" have been restored. 65.28.9.8 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sumptuary laws are about conSUMPtion. There's nothing inherent in smoking that makes it a class issue. It's a health issue. The FDA regulations barring certain drugs from being available, for health reasons, are the closest parallel. Hey, when did public health and safety come into the picture? It sure had nothing to do with it originally. JoshNarins (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Baggy pants removed

I've removed the material about the baggy pants law in Georgia. Sumptuary laws traditionally restricted the use of high status apparel, not low status apparel, and a restriction on low-slung pants may be classed as public decency legislation, which is unrelated. The source does not call this a sumptuary law so its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH. Durova^Charge! 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

religious bias in section on "sumptuary laws in Islam"

Forgive me if there is anything amiss in this note; I am in my first minutes of joining Wikipedia as a potential contributor. And this article was the inspiration.

The section on sumptuary laws in Islam seems designed to resonate with Islamophobic themes so prevalent in contemporary media and discourse. It gathers together a scattering of examples of sumptuary regulations in different times and places across a range of Islamic societies (a fatal critical and theoretical flaw in and of itself), all emphasising what appear to modern eyes as Islamic barbarity directed against Christians and Jews. It even goes so far as to insinuate a sympathetic Nazi-Islam connection by reference to yellow badges.

Examining the references confirms the suspicion of the author's potentially tendentious purposes - the academically notorious neo-conservative scholar Bernard Lewis and jewishencyclopaedia.com.

But the subtle anti-Islamic agenda isn't the only egregious fault here. Islamic states and civilisations met and intermingled with the adherents and institutions of nearly every old-world religion, from the tribal religions of East Africa and Southeast Asia to the multifarious Buddhist, Daoist and Confucian sects of China. An article that cherry-picks ONLY examples relating to one edge of Islamic civilisation and ONLY examples that are worded and presented in a way that feeds and enflames ignorant prejudices -- whether intentional or not -- should be unacceptable to Wikipedia.

Until this section can be balanced and its tendentious undertones removed, I think it should be flagged for its clear bias and flawed methodology. Timbehrend (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you objecting to any of the facts in this section? Or do you just think it not tactful to mention them? You don't mention the much longer section on Christian discriminatory practices, I notice. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object to the use of the facts. A section on sumptuary laws in the Islamic world that consists of one general section of two sentences and then a couple of paragraphs cherry-picking four or five exotic points about Christians or Jews is in its structure and contents inherently misleading. Let's say this were an article about "family organisation" that began with a vapid and general statement meant to cover all of Christendom, then brought in Mormonism and Hutterites in America and Canada as significant clarifiers of the general statement. That's what you have here. Timbehrend (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A month ago you opened a similar thread. You have a point about balance. The section you object to is well-referenced and informative. Wikipedia operates on an assume good faith policy, which means that in ambiguous situations we attribute bias as the last resort rather than the first. So if you think the Islamic world gets too much relative space then you're welcome to balance the article with referenced expansions about sumptuary laws in other places (East Asia, Africa, etc). Durova^Charge! 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is not so much that the Islamic world gets too much space. Rather, it is that the enormous diversity of a billion people, spread across much of the planet, is encapsulated away by sweeping generalisations. If a practice existed in early Syria and Iraq, then that's what ought to be mentioned, instead of lumping together people of the Far East, Western Africa, Central Asia, etc. Such generalisations are the stock-in-trade of Bernard Lewis, and of those who need to create a history of endemic Judeophobia for Islam. The editors of the article may not have intended it as such, but the contemporary context does call for an extra effort at making any merited distinctions.--P00r (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just now, I edited this section in order to take out, or ask for supporting quotations for, the generalisations. According to WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof lies with the original editor who provided the info. The cited journal was the only on-line source I've found of such a practice, and it is only an abstract -- one which does not support the generalisation about the "Islamic world." As there is a $25 charge for the article, then I have to insist on the aforementioned policy of a source that is "cited clearly and precisely."
Furthermore, and for the record, I have to note my objection to any consideration of Bernard Lewis as a reliable source.
Note also that this section is a duplicate of the material in Yellow badge. It ought to be replaced by a corresponding link.
Note also that the original edit (on 01:34, 11 November 2007 by 129.22.165.250) included the aforementioned article's contrast between the "Tattooing and branding" sentence and its following "Lead or" sentence. I added a "whereas" in order to reflect this, and to clear up the semantic confusion which which arose from its pervious version.--P00r (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I am asking for a quotation which demonstrates that neck-sealing was widespread throughout the Islamic world, and not tied to one or two geographical areas. In the least, the citation has to demonstrate, by precisely mentioning page numbers as well as by quoting, that the source was not merely the abstract of the journal article. Failing this, the lines have to be removed from both this article and its duplicate in Yellow badge, or narrowed in scope to whichever countries and periods which verifiably engaged in such a practice. --P00r (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Better sourcing would certainly be highly desirable throughout the article, but I don't think it gives the impression that any of these laws were universal. Most material relates to early periods when the central Islamic lands were in theory all ruled by the Caliph(s) and most of the wider areas had not yet been penetrated by Islam. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic world" is about as universal as it gets! No distinctions were made in geography or time. Also, AFAIK, that empire spread very fast; Islamic empire, too, suggests this for Robinson's period.

I can point out aspects of your own claim: "central", "early" and "theory". The latter is telling, in itself, and the formers, if verified, ought to have been reflected in the article.

But it really comes down to homogenisation of the Other! (For contrast, note the Christian and European sections of the article.) This is a crux of ethnocentrism. --P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the Chase Robinson article on neck-sealing in early Islam. It is a good scholarly article based on original archive research. It is specifically about early Islam and relates neck-sealing to pre-Islamic practices in the Byzantine empire and throughout the ancient world. These were of course slave societies. This article does count as an impeccable source for a WP article even though not everyone can have access to it. Bernard Lewis is also considered to be a highly reliable historian. Where his work has been countered by that of other scholars then we cite both points of view. People might like to consider whether their views of Lewis's historical research might be unduly coloured by his later more polemical output. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have access to the article, then do please add a direct quote to the article. I am neither questioning nor confirming such practices; merely that their geographical/cultural and temporal scopes have to be specified. (N.B. As I have not examined Robinson's, I am not implying agreement with its conclusions.)

As an aside, I consider Bernard Lewis to be malevolently incompetent. Blurbs and accolades don't sway me; analysis does!--P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very anxious though about whether most scholars consider branding of slaves and captives to come within the category of sumptuary laws. It would be very useful if someone could comment on whether these practices were regulated by Greek and Roman sumptuary laws, so that Islam is not singled out. As I said, the article cited makes it clear that there were many continuities. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It always comes back down to geography, doesn't it? Hence, in part, my insistence.--P00r (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a copy of Reliance of the Traveller to hand? Can't recall if it discusses dhimmi and the regualtions concerning them or not, but if it does, it would most certainly be a notable source. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Title (Cavil)

The title should be plural. Being un-wiki-sophisticated, I don't know how to do this. Please someone do.

I confess that there is no rational defense for this prescription, other than, opposite Latin neuter plural, singular doesn't sound or seem right when describing this phenomenon, even if it may be technically correct. The fact that the entry begins with the plural suggests that the author agreed. Dstlascaux (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong preference for singular article titles - no doubt there is a policy somewhere. The plural should be a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sumptuary laws

I'd just like to point out that many of the laws described in this article are not sumptuary laws, at least as defined in the lead paragraph:

Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc.

For example, laws about branding slaves don't match this definition at all. So either many of the laws here should be moved to some other page or the lead of the article should state why a broader view is appropriate here. But right now the article is self-contradictory.

-Fenevad (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Toga virilis

Is the toga virilis related to sumptuary laws? It seems to me that the connection is wrong. Bazuz (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Landsknecht

i read somewhere that Landsknechts were excused from suptuary law and therefore allowed to wear their elaborate outfits because they had such a short life expectancy. Maybe can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.229.125 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors

There is no reliable evidence of any Roman law that compelled prostitutes to wear togas; and none that those togas should be yellow (iirc, the last is found in Smith's venerable encyclopedia, and it's plain wrong - he may have been thinking of the Galli, perhaps?) At any rate, there is no evidence in Roman sources that this supposed connection between prostitutes, adulteresses and the toga was anything more than one made in the service of poetical and literary invective. If there were evidence to the contrary, that would still not make it a sumptuary law. Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Article scope - what is, and what is not a sumptuary law?

The article intro seems to sum up the difficulty. There's a distinction between laws made to limit expenditure on luxuries, and laws made to compel the wearing of certain garments by particular social groups, on discriminatory religious grounds. Or is there? The article seems confused in its attempts to cover both the former and the latter; it seems to have generated several sections devoted to laws on who could (and who couldn't) wear x, y, or z; and who must wear a, b, or c; the most notorious example of which would be the Yellow badge and its antecedents. We also have articles (not very good ones) on Clothing laws and Dress code. Sheesh. I'm getting just as confused about what this article should (or shouldn't) cover; but would really like to clean it up and link to it. Any thoughts, suggestions or advice on all this? Haploidavey (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

On the whole I think you have to cover the whole lot. I rather doubt whether a difference between "you must not" and "you must" laws cab be sustained. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reckon that's right. Ta very much. Haploidavey (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sumptuary protocols

Any possible mention of 'strong advisories' by various kinds of ethical and health groups on what should be avoided (e.g. wine and strong drink) and what should be prioritized (e.g. comfortable, appropriate clothing)? MaynardClark (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for the type of material you're referring to?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia: Peter the Great reforms

His strict sumptuary laws need to be mentioned:

https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Walsh-Devan.pdf

During the Reign of Peter the Great he challenged Russian culture with his reforms, the traditionalists in particular, opposedhis reforms that morphed fashion becauseit challenged their Orthodox religious beliefs and practices. The aggressive manner withwhich Peter the Great implemented his oppressive social reforms across Russian Society resulted in resistance which was not only justified,but also expected.

etc.

Zezen (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)