The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1886-08-17
SUMPTUARY LAWS.
Queer Attempts to Suppress Lux.
ury and the Results To-Day.

Isuppose it is an accepted fact tina,
surestrained luxury has always had s
large share in the moral ruin of com
munities, and contributed more thar
any thing else to the downfall of great
nations. The reader of history will re-
call to mind the luxurious prodigality
which hastened the disastrous decline
and fall of the great empires of Rome
and Persia. He will think of tina
= Sybarite self-indulgence which is bye
word among us TO this day, and of it:
issue in helplessness and ruin; nor art
illustrations wanting in modern time:
where luxury and extravaganza carried
to immOderate extent have been tn,
heralds of national decay.
''Ill fares the land. to hast'ning ills q prey,
Where wealth sccumulates. and men decay.
Ii is not surprising, therefore, thai
wise statesmen and rulers. warned by
the page of history, have, from time tc
time, attempted to regulate private ex.
penditure by laws, called Sumptuary
Laws from the Latin sumptus, ex.
pense. The first of these was issued in
Rome so early as b. c. 2l5, and fol-
lowed by many others of a similar
kind. In the reign of Tiberius, the
Senate passed a law prohibiting the
use of plate of ''massy gold" This
powerful body at the same time exer-
oised its jurisdiction over wearing APP
parel, which was not thought beneath
the consideration of so august an
assembly. Men were forbidden TO de-
base themselves with garments of silk.
eft only for women and it was left
for the effeminate Heliogabalus, two
hundred years after, TO initiate its Use
among luxurious Romans. For in the
early days of the Empire. silk was a
rare novelty, and considered equal in
value TO gold, weight for weight The
Rome which these sumptuary laws en-
deavored to reform was the Rome
where. a few wears. before, Lucullus
had revelled, and caused that famous
feast 10 be spread at a word in his Hall
of Apollo, which, for its sumptuous
profusiOn. is a wonder TO this dav. Ii
was the Rome of a vicious luxury, re-
vealed to us with life-like reality in the
disen;ombed ruins of its sister city OF
/POmpeii. where the eating and drink.
ling, the feasting and the revelry were
stopped in mid-carcer by VeSuvius'
molten breath. Years went on, and ir
spite of the Senate, Oriental luxury
little bv little worked its insidious way
through the links into the very heart OF
the Roman Empire. until the manhood
of its citizens became paralyzed, and
the Mistress of the World fell an easy
prev 20 her barbarian foes.
To this day the sable gondolas which
glide over the waters of the Grand
Canal bear witness TO the Strictness of
the sumptuary laws which once gov
erned the Republic of Venice. And
other European States of modern times
afford similar instances of less success.
full endeayors to suppress personal ex
travagance by law.
Some of the French Soyereigns did
their utmost to combat the natural ten
dency of their subjects to vanity and
display, whether on the table or the
person. Charles VI, a Prince of the
house of Valois, issued a peremptory
edict: 'Let no man presume TO treat
with more than soup and two dishes"
Earlier still, in the beginning of the
Fourteenth century, Philip the Fair
notorious as the prosecutor of the
Knights TemplarS) also attempted to
regulate his subjects expenses even to
the minutest detail. Not only was the
number of dishes restricted, both at
fasts and feastS, but lest the law should
be in any way evaded, each dish was
limited 10 one kind of meat only. The
Kings supervision also extended to the
wardrobes of his subjects. No Duke,
Count or Baron was to have more than
four robes a year, the same number
being permitted to their wives. Pre-
lates, and Knights for the most part,
were limited TO two. while every
woman, whether single or married,
whose annual income did not amount
TO the sum of two thousand livres was
allowed but one! Imagine her Grace
the Duchess or my Lady Countess OF
our own day submitting 10 have the
number of her dresses limited by law!
But not only the number, even the
very cut, color, trimming and price OF
these garments were arranged by
royal decree. Only persons of certain
rank were entitled TO wear cloaks
trimmed with fur, and the breadth OF
these borders, together with the quality
of the fur or ermine, was TO vary &C
cording to the different classes of no.
bility. The use of fur has indeed only
became general within the last few
centuries 1t was not worn by the re.
refined nations of antiquity, but as
LUXURY gained ground in more modern
times, Princes began to make use of ii
for lining their tents. In the days OF
Philip the Fair. the size of cape. the
length Of q ladv'S train was also de.er-