What to wear – check the sumptuary laws!  A couple of definitions to start: SUMPTUOUS– costly, lavish

SUMPTUARY – seeking to regulate extravagance on religious or moral (and, we might add, profitability and ‘class’) grounds

It was a few paragraphs in Sally Armstrong’s book, “The Nine Lives of Charlotte Taylor” that got me curious about vanity or sumptuary laws. Said the 18th century colonial heroine while story-telling to her offspring, “Women were so painted and hidden behind all manner of costume for every occasion, Parliament (in England) finally passed a law against vanity. Nanny made me write out the law into my schoolbook.” Retrieving the old book she read, “All women … that … impose upon, seduce, betray into matrimony by … stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes …shall incur the penalty …”

Hard to imagine such regulations in the North America of today, but sumptuary laws, for any number of reasons, existed as far back as 221 BC when the Confucian virtue of restraint became embedded in the laws of China. Down through the centuries, sumptuary laws were enacted throughout Asia and Europe, and while such laws are perhaps most often depicted as restricting the type or style of permissible clothing, they also established a person’s rank in the social hierarchy and protected a country’s industry from off-shore competition.

An interesting twist that fell under sumptuary law in 7th century BC Greece even regulated “the help”. To wit: “…that no free woman should be allowed any more than one maid to follow her, unless she was drunk.” In medieval and renaissance Europe, sumptuary laws were aimed particularly at women and the middle classes and laid down in religious or moralizing prose, with attached fines for flaunting said laws.

Queen Elizabeth I and her father before her, King Henry VIII, kept the scribes scribbling with the nitpicking details of their verbose sumptuary laws. Many of these were aimed at young gentlemen of the period to prohibit them from blowing the family fortunes on the fripperies and accoutrements of dress which was considered “… the wasting and undoing of a great number of young gentlemen …” even leading to criminal activity to cover their debts. Too, such funds as were wasted on their sartorial elegance, it was believed, could be better spent in the betterment of the country. Women’s dress was equally legislated, and while skirts must fall to the ground, low necklines were acceptable and fashionable.

Much of historical sumptuary law was a method of keeping one in one’s place; that is, do not attempt to dress above the level of one’s class or station in life. Both style, materials, and even colour were strictly allocated so that one could tell at a glance where a person belonged in the social hierarchy. In women’s clothing, the rich and the nobility could choose from the richest of purple silks, furs, velvet, satin and damask, gold and silver embroidery, and enameled buttons and chains. Their garments were usually stiff and heavy and permitted little strenuous movement.

Labourers and lower classes in contrast, dressed in lighter, cooler materials including linen and wool or sheepskin. Interestingly, the manufacture or import of cotton, though long in production abroad, was forbidden in England to protect their own wool industry. This protectionism prevailed until Whitney’s cotton gin (1793) came into use and cotton became an available and favoured fabric. The lighter and looser clothing of peasants was imperative too, to give freedom to the bodily movements and exertions so much a part of their daily lives.

Overall, the sumptuary laws helped to maintain social conformity and etiquette, while curbing the upward mobility of the emerging middle class of merchants.

While our current legislation is unlikely to contain anything under the category of sumptuary laws, such laws or customs are or have been casually enacted in numerous situations in modern North American life.

I well remember a definite rule in our high school where girls were forbidden to wear pants (slacks, we called them) to school … except on afternoons only when a football game was scheduled right after school. Then we could dash home at lunchtime and change into something in which we wouldn’t freeze, while cheering on our heroes as they battled for a touchdown on the local (recently cleaned up) cow pasture!

And think of the distinction, (and maybe the dullness of conformity) announced by school uniforms. And “mother and daughter outfits”, now blessedly, a thing of the past.

When it comes to the estimate of a person’s worth or wealth, I think of a comment of my son’s. He was looking at boats in an upscale marina, and dealing with a rather haughty salesman. “He looked studiously at my shoes, I think to judge whether my footwear indicate I could afford the vessel in question.”

Certain types of clothing, as in police and military gear, definitely may not be worn by anyone not a part of those groups.

But when it comes to a classy item of apparel worn by the more elegant in our world (think of Kate’s “engagement” dress or her sister’s bridesmaid’s gown), within hours it’s been copied by the fashion industry and put within reach of the masses. And in an age where anything goes, we consider (or should!) our lifestyles and activities when we enact our own and personal sumptuary laws. There are some garments never intended for bending over!

Nancy Whelan
Email Nancy Whelan

See all articles by Nancy Whelan