LUXURY, voluptuousness, or an extravagant indulgence in diet, in dress, and in equipage.

Luxury, amongst the Romans, prevailed to such a degree that several laws were made to suppress, or at least restrict it. The extravagance of the table commenced about [7:13:603]the time of the battle of Actium, and continued in great excess until the reign of Galba. Peacocks, cranes of Malta, nightingales, venison, wild and tame fowl, were considered as delicacies. A profusion of provisions was the reigning taste. Whole wild boars were often served up, and sometimes they were filled with various small animals, and birds of different kinds; a dish which they called the Trojan fun∙se, in allusion to the wooden horse filled with soldiers. Fowls and game of all sorts were served up in pyramids, piled up in dishes as broad as moderate tables. Lucullus had a particular name for each apartment; and in whatever room he ordered his servants to prepare the entertainment, they knew by the direction the expense to which they were to go. When he supped in the Apollo, the expense was fixed at 50,000 drachmae, that is L.1250. Marc Antony provided eight boars for twelve guests. Vitellius had a large silver platter, called Minervas Buckler, which is said to have cost a million of sesterces. In this he blended together the livers of gilt-heads, the brains of pheasants and peacocks, the tongues of phenicoters, and the milts of lampreys. Caligula served up to his guests I pearls of great value dissolved in vinegar; and the same was also done by Clodius the son of Aesop the tragedian. Apicius laid aside ninety millions of sesterces, besides a mighty revenue, for no other purpose but to be sacrificed to luxury; but finding himself involved in debt, he looked over his accounts, and though he had the sum of ten millions of sesterces still left, he poisoned himself from fear of being starved to death.

The Roman laws to restrain luxury were the Leges Orchia, Fannia, Didia, Licinia, Cornelia, and many others. But all these were unavailing; for as riches increased I amongst them, so did sensuality.

What were the ideas of luxury entertained in England about two centuries ago, may be gathered from the following passage, contained in a discourse prefixed to Holinshed’s Chronicles. “Neither do I,” says the writer of this discourse, “speak this in reproach of any man, God is my judge; but to show, that I do rejoice, rather to see how God has blessed us with his good gifts, and to behold how that in a time wherein all things are grown to the most excessive prices, we yet do find means to obtain and atchieve such furniture as heretofore was impossible. There are old men yet dwelling in the village where I remain, which have noted three things to be marvellously altered in England within their sound remembrance. One is the multitude of chimneys lately erected; whereas in their young days there were not above two or three, if so many, in most uplandish towns of the realm (the religious houses, and manor places of their lords, always excepted, and peradventure some great personages), but each made his fire against a reredoss [screen] in the hall, where he dressed liis meat and dined. The second is the great amendment of lodging; for, said they, our fathers and we ourselves have lain full oft upon straw pallets covered only with a sheet, under coverlits made of a dogswaine or horharriots (to use their own terms), and a good log under their head instead of a bolster. If it were so that the father or good- i man of the house had a mattrass, or flock bed and sheets, with a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town. So well were they contented, that pillows (said they) were thought meet only for women in childbed; as for servants, if they had

I any sheet above them, it was well; for seldom had they any under their bodies to keep them from pricking straws, that ran oft through the canvas and their hardened hides. The third thing they tell of, is the exchange of treene [wooden] platters into pewter, and wooden spoons into silver or tin; for so common were all sorts of treene vessels in old times, that a man should hardly find four pieces pewter (of which one was peradventure a salt) in a good farmer’s house. Again, in times past, men were contented to dwell in houses builded of sallow, willow, &c. so that the use of oak was in a manner dedicated wholly unto churches, religious houses, princes palaces, navigation, &c. But now willow, &care rejected, and nothing but oak anywhere regarded; and yet see the change, for when our houses were builded of willow, then had we oaken men; but now that our houses are come to be made of oak, our men are not only become willow, but a great many altogether of straw, which is a sore alteration. In these the courage of the owner was a sufficient defence to keep the house in safety; but now the assurance of the timber must defend the men from robbing. Now have we many chimneys, and yet our tenderlins complain of rheums, catarrhs, and poses; then had we none but reredoses, and our heads did never ache. For as the smoke in those days were supposed to be sufficient hardening for the timber of the house; so it was reputed a far better medicine to keep the goodman and his family from the quacks or pose; wherewith, as then, very few were acquainted. Again, our pewterers in time past employed the use of pewter only upon dishes and pots, and a few other trifles for service; whereas now they are grown into such exquisite cunning, that they can in a manner imitate by infusion any form or fashion of cup, dish, salt, bowl, or goblet, which is made by the goldsmith’s craft, though they be ever so curious and very artificially forged. In some places beyond the sea, a garnish of good flat English pewter (I say flat, because dishes and platters in my time began to be made deep, and like basons, and are indeed more convenient both for sauce and keeping the meat warm) is esteemed so precious as the like number of vessels that are made of fine silver.”

Particular instances of luxury, in eating, however, might be produced from an earlier period, and would be found to surpass even the extravagance of the Romans. Thus, in the tenth year of the reign of Edward IV., 1470, George Nevill, brother to the Earl of Warwick, at his instalment into the archiepiscopal see of York, entertained most of the nobility and principal clergy, when his bill of fare was 300 quarters of wheat, 350 tuns of ale, 104 tuns of wine, a pipe of spiced wine, eighty fat oxen, six wild bulls, 1004 weathers, 300 hogs, 300 calves, 3000 geese, 3000 capons, 300 pigs, 100 peacocks, 200 cranes, 200 kids, 2000 chickens, 4000 pigeons, 4000 rabbits, 204 bitterns, 4000 ducks, 200 pheasants, 500 partridges, 200 woodcocks, 400 plovers, 100 curlews, 100 quails, 1000 egrets, 200 rees, 400 bucks, does, and roebucks, 1506 hot venison pastics, 4000 cold ditto, 1000 dishes of jelly parted, 4000 dishes of jelly plain, 4000 cold custards, 2000 hot custards, 300 pikes, 300 breams, eight seals, four porpuses, 400 tarts. At this feast the Earl of Warwick was steward, the Earl of Bedford treasurer, and Lord Hastings comptroller, with many more noble officers; and there were 1000 servitors, 62 cooks, 515 menial apparitors in the kitchen. But such was the fortune of the man, that after his extreme prodigality, he died in the most abject but unpitied poverty, vinctus jacuit in summa inopia.

And as to dress, luxury in that article seems to have attained a great height long before Holinshed’s time. For in the reign of Edward III. we find no fewer than seven sumptuary laws passed in one session of parliament to restrain it. It was enacted, that men-servants of lords, as also of tradesmen and artisans, shall be content with one meal of fish or flesh every day; and the other meals, daily, shall be of milk, cheese, butter, and the like. Neither shall they use any ornaments of gold, silk, or embroidery; nor their wives and daughters any veils above the price of twelvepence. Artisans and yeomen; shall not wear cloth above 40s. the whole piece (the finest then being about L.6 per piece), nor the ornaments before named; [7:13:604]nor the women any veils of silk, but only those of thread made in England. Gentlemen under the degree of knights, not having L.100 yearly in land, shall not wear any cloth above 4½ marks the whole piece. Neither shall they or their females use cloth of gold, silver, or embroidery. But esquires having L.200 per annum or upwards of rent may wear cloths of five marks the whole piece of cloth; and they and their females may also wear stuff of silk, silver, ribbons, girdles, or furs. Merchants, citizens, burghers, and artificers or tradesmen, as well of London as elsewhere, who have goods and chattels of the clear value of L,500, and their females, may wear as is allowed to gentlemen and esquires of L.100 per annum. And merchants, citizens, and burgesses, worth above L.1000 in goods and chattels, and their females, may wear the same as gentlemen of L.200 per annum. Knights of 200 marks yearly may wear cloth of six marks the cloth, but no higher; but no cloth of gold, nor furred with ermine: but all knights and ladies having above 400 marks yearly, up to L.1000 per annum, may wear as they please,ermine excepted; and they may wear ornaments of pearl and precious stones for their heads only. Clerks having degrees in cathedrals, colleges, may wear as knights and esquires of the same income. Ploughmen, carters, shepherds, and such like, not having 40s. value in goods or chattels, shall wear no sort of cloth but blanket and russet lawn at 12d. and shall wear girdles and belts; and they shall only eat and drink suitable to their stations. And whosoever uses other apparel than is prescribed by the above laws shall forfeit the same.

Concerning the general utility of luxury to a state, there is much difference of opinion amongst political writers. Montesquieu asserts, that luxury is necessary to monarchies, as in France, but that it is ruinous to democracies, as in Holland. With regard, therefore, to Britain, whose government is compounded of both species, it is held to be a dubious question, how far private luxury is a public evil, and, as such, cognizable by public laws; and indeed our legislators have several times changed their sentiments as to this point; for formerly there were a number of penal laws existing to restrain excess in apparel, chiefly made in the reigns of Edward III. IV. and Henry VΠI. a specimen of which we have inserted above. But all of them it appeared expedient to repeal at an after period. In fact, although luxury will of necessity increase according to the influx of wealth,- it may not be for the general benefit of commerce to impose, as in the above-cited laws, an absolute prohibition of every degree of it; yet, for the good of the public, it may be necessary that such as go beyond proper bounds in eating, drinking, and wearing what by no means is suitable to their station, should be taxed accordingly, could it be done without including those who have a better title to such indulgence. This is certainly, however, a point which should be maturely weighed before it be executed; and, in mercantile countries at least, such restraints may be found prejudicial, most likely impracticable, especially where true liberty is established. Sir William Temple observes, speaking of the trade and riches, and at the same time of the frugality, of the Hollanders,“That some of our maxims are not so certain as current in politics; as that encouragement of excess and luxury, if employed in the consumption of native commodities, is of advantage to trade. It may be so to that which impoverishes, but not to that which enriches, a country. It is indeed less prejudicial if it lies in native than in foreign wares; but the humour of luxury and expense cannot stop at certain bounds; what begins in native will proceed to foreign commodities; and though the example arise among idle persons, yet the imitation will run into all degrees, even of those men by whose industry the nation subsists. And besides, the more of our own we spend, the less shall we have to send abroad; and so it will come to pass, that while we drive a vast trade, yet, by buying much more than we sell, we shall come to be poor at last.”