Book 4 — CHAPTER II.

LUXURY.

SECTION CCXXIV.

LUXURY IN GENERAL.

The idea conveyed by the word luxury is an essentially relative one. Every individual calls all consumption with which he can dispense himself, and every class that which seems not indispensable to themselves, luxury. The same is true of every age and nation. Just as young people ridicule every old fashion as pedantry, every new fashion is censured by old people as luxury.[224-1]

But (§ I) a higher civilization always finds expression in an increased number and an increased urgency of satisfied wants. Yet, there is a limit at which new or intensified wants cease to be an element of higher civilization, and become elements of demoralization. Every immoral and every unwise want exceeds this limit.[224-2] Immoral wants are not only those the satisfaction of which wounds the conscience, but also those in which the necessities of the soul are postponed to the affording of superfluities to the body; and where the enjoyment of the few is purchased at the expense of the wretchedness of the many. And not only those are unwise or imprudent for which the voluntary outlay is greater than one's income, but those also where the indispensable is made to suffer for the dispensable.

Thus it was in Athens, in the time of Demosthenes, when the festivities of the year cost more than the maintenance of the fleet; when Euripides' tragedies came dearer to the people than the Persian war in former times. There was even a law passed (Ol. 107,4) prohibiting the application of the dramatic fund to purposes of war under pain of death.[224-3]

In the history of any individual people, it may be shown with approximate certainty at what point luxury exceeded its salutary limits. But in the case of two different nations, it is quite possible that what was criminal prodigality with the one, may have been a salutary enjoyment of life with the other; in case their economic (wirthschaftlichen) powers are different. Precisely as in the case of individuals, where for instance, the daily drinking of table wine may be simplicity in the rich and immoral luxury in the case of a poor father of a family.[224-4] Healthy reason has this peculiarity, that where people will not listen to it, it never hesitates to make itself[TN 50] felt. (Benjamin Franklin.)[224-5]

However, the luxury of a period always throws itself, by way of preference, on those branches of commodities which are cheapest.

SECTION CCXXV.

THE HISTORY OF LUXURY.—IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

During the middle ages, industry and commerce had made as yet but little progress. Hence it was as difficult then for luxury to be ministered to by fine furniture as by the products of foreign countries. Individual ornamental pieces, especially arms and drinking cups,[225-1] were wont to be the only articles of luxury. We have inventories of the domains of Charlemagne from which we find that in one of them, the only articles of linen owned were two bed-sheets, a table-cloth and a pocket handkerchief.[225-2] Fashion is here very constant; because clothing was comparatively dearer than at present. And so now in the East. In the matter of dwellings, too, more regard was had to size and durability, than to elegance and convenience. The palaces of Alfred the Great were so frailly built that the walls had to be covered with curtains as a protection against the wind, and the lights to be inclosed in lanterns.[225-3]

Hence the disposition to use the products of the home soil as articles of luxury was all the greater, but more as to quantity than to quality.[225-4] Since the knight could personally neither eat nor drink a quantity beyond the capacity of his own stomach, he kept a numerous suite to consume his surplus. It is well known what a great part was played among the ancient Germans by their retinues of devoted servants (comitatus), which many modern writers have looked upon as constituting the real kernel of the migration of nations.

In England, it was a maxim of state policy with Henry VII., whose reign there terminated the middle age, to prohibit the great liveried suites of the nobility (19 Henry VII., ch. 14) as Richard II., Henry IV. and Edward IV. had already attempted to do. But even under James I., we find ambassadors accompanied by a suite of 500 persons or 300 noblemen.[225-5]

The rich man welcomed every opportunity which enabled him to make others share in a dazzling manner the magnitude of his superfluous wealth: hence the numberless guests at weddings who were frequently entertained for weeks.[225-6] These festivities are memorable not because of the delicacies or great variety of the dishes, but because of their colossal magnitude. Even William of Orange, 1561, entertained at his wedding guests who had brought with them 5,647 horses; and he appeared himself with a suite of 1,100 men on horseback. There were consumed on the occasion 4,000 bushels of wheat, 8,000 of rye, 11,300 of oats, 3,600 eimers of wine, 1,600 barrels of beer.[225-7] In the ordinance of Münden regulating weddings, promulgated in the year 1610, it is provided, that, at a large wedding there should not be over 24 tables, nor at a small one over 14, with 10 persons at each table.[225-8]

The hospitality of the lower stages of civilization[225-9] must be ascribed as well to this peculiar kind of luxury as to mere good nature. Arabian chiefs have their noon-day table set in the street and welcome every passer-by to it.[225-10] (Pococke.) And so, distinguished Indians keep an open cauldron on the fire cooking all the time, from which every person who comes in may help himself. (Catlin.)

Compared with this luxury of the rich, the poverty found side by side with it appears less oppressive. There is no great gap between the modes of life of the different classes.[225-11] This is the golden age of aristocracy, when no one questions its legitimateness. When, later, the nobleman, instead of keeping so many servants, begins to buy costly garments for himself, he, indeed, supports indirectly just as many and even more men; but these owe him nothing. Besides, in this last kind of luxury, it is very easily possible for him to go beyond his means, which is scarcely ever the case in the former.[225-12]

SECTION CCXXVI.

LUXURY IN BARBAROUS TIMES.

The luxury of that uncivilized age shows itself for the most part on particular occasions, and then all the more ostentatious, while in the periods following it, it rather permeates the whole of life. Even J. Möser excuses our forefathers for their mad celebration of their kirmesses and carnivals: dulce est desipere in loco, as Horace says, and that they sometimes carried it to the extent of drowning reason.[226-1] Among ourselves, the common man drinks brandy every day; in Russia, seldom, but then, to the greatest excess.[226-2] The well known peculiarity of feudal castles, that, besides one enormous hall, they were wont to have very small and inconvenient rooms for every day life, is accounted for in part by the great importance to them of festal occasions, and in part by the cordiality of the life led in them, in which lord and servants constituted one family. Nothing can be more erroneous than to ascribe great temperance in general to people in a low stage of civilization. Their simplicity is a consequence of their ignorance rather than of their self-control. When nomadic races have once tasted the cup of more delicate enjoyment, it is wont to hurry them to destruction.[226-3]

SECTION CCXXVII.

INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE CITY.

The change in this situation takes place first of all in the churches and in the cities. The Church has passed through almost every stage of development in advance of the State; and civilization, both in the good and bad sense of the term, has become general, and gradually acclimated in the rural districts, through the influence of the cities. In the Church, the earliest art endeavored to reach the beautiful. There, we first find music, painting, sculpture, foreign perfumes, incense and variegated garments.[227-1] In the cities, growing industry introduces a more attractive style of clothing and a more ornamental style of household furniture. Commerce, beginning to thrive, raises foreign commodities into wants,[227-2] and thus the old luxury of feudal times is modified.[227-3] The large number of idle servants is diminished. All the more refined pleasures are extended downward to wider circles of the people. Instead of individual bards, rhapsodists, skalds and minnesingers, we have the beginnings of the theater, and instead of tournaments, the shooting matches. (Freischiessen.)

But it is remarkable how much earlier here pomp and splendor are considered than convenience. The Spanish romanceros of the 12th century display wonderful splendor in their descriptions of the Cid, and the trousseau of his daughters. But, on the other hand, the wife of Charles VII. seems to have been the only French woman in the 15th century who had more than two linen chemises. Even in the 16th century, it frequently happened that a princess made a present to a prince of a single shirt. At this time the German middle class were wont to sleep naked.[227-4]

Even now, half-civilized nations look more to the outward appearance of commodities than to their intrinsic value. Thus, for instance, in Russia, we find large numbers of porcelain services extravagantly painted and gilded, awkward, the material of which is full of blisters; damaskeened knives, gilt sad-irons and candle-snuffers with landscapes engraved on them: but nothing fits into anything else; the angles are vicious, the hinges lame, and the whole soon goes to pieces. And so, among export merchants in Bremen, for instance, it is a rule, on all their wares intended for America, to put a label made of very beautiful paper, with their coat-of-arms or firm-name in real silver, and to do the packing in as elegant a manner as possible.[227-5] Cloths intended for America are usually exceedingly light, destitute of solidity, but very well dressed. The cotton-printers who work for the African market prefer to employ false but cheap and dazzling colors.[227-6]

SECTION CCXXVIII.

HISTORY OF LUXURY IN HIGHLY CIVILIZED TIMES.

The direction which luxury takes in times when civilization is advanced, is towards the real, healthy and tasteful enjoyment of life, rather than an inconvenient display. This tendency is exceedingly well expressed by the English word comfort, and it is in modern England that the luxury of the second period has found it happiest development. It is found side by side with frugality; and it frequently even looks like a return to the unaffected love of nature.[228-1]

Thus, since Rousseau's time,[228-2] the so-called English gardens have dropped the former Versailles-Harlem style. Thus, too, modern fashion despises the awkward long wig, powdering etc.[228-3] Instead of garments embroidered, or faced with fur or lace, and instead of the galloon hat worn under Louis XIV. and Louis XV., the French revolution has introduced the simple citizen frock-coat and the round silk hat. The "exquisite" may even with these outshine others by the form he selects, the material he wears, or by frequent change, but much less strikingly than before.[228-4] Since every one, in the purchase of household furniture, etc., looks more to its use than to the honor of being sole possessor of an article or having something in advance of everybody else, it becomes possible for industry to manufacture its products in much larger quantities, and after the same model, and thus to furnish a much better article for the same price.[228-5] Besides, more recent industry has produced a multitude of cheap substitutes for costly objects of luxury: plated silver-leafing, cotton-velvet goods, etc.;[228-6] besides the many steel engravings, lithographs etc., which have exerted so beneficent an influence on æsthetic education.

In the England of our days, the houses are comparatively small, but convenient and attractive, and the salutary luxury of spending the pleasant season in the country very general.[228-7] The country-roads are narrow but kept in excellent order and provided with good inns.[228-8] More value is here attached to fine linen cloth than to lace;[228-9] to a few but nourishing meat-dishes than to any number of sauces and confections of continental kitchens.[228-10] Especially is the luxury of cleanliness, with its morally and intellectually beneficial results found only in well-to-do and highly cultured nations. As formerly in Holland, so now in England, it is carried to the highest point of development. In the latter country, the tax on soap is considered a tax on an indispensable article.[228-11] The reverse is the case in North America, if we can believe the most unprejudiced and friendly observers.[228-12] The person who lives in a log-house must, to feel at ease within his four walls, first satisfy a number of necessary wants.[228-13]

SECTION CCXXIX.

EXTENT OF LUXURY IN HIGHLY CIVILIZED TIMES.

The luxury of this second period fills the whole of life and permeates every class of people. Hence we may most easily determine the degree of development a people have attained by the quantity of commodities of a finer quality which are, indeed, not indispensable to life, but which it is desirable should be consumed on as extensive a scale as possible by the nation, for the sake of the fullness of life and the freshness[229-1] of life to which they minister.

Thus, for instance, as civilization has advanced, there has been almost everywhere a transition to a finer quality of the material of which bread is made. The number of consumers of white bread in France in 1700, was 33 per cent. of the population; in 1760, 40; in 1764, 39; in 1791, 37; in 1811, 42; in 1818, 45; in 1839, 60 per cent.[229-2] About 1758, in England and Wales, 3,750,000 of people lived on wheat bread; on barley bread, 739,000; on rye bread, 888,000; on oat bread, 623,000. The cultured southeastern population had almost nothing but wheat bread, while in the north and northwest, oat bread continued to be used a long time; and in Wales only 10 per cent. of the population ate wheat bread. This condition of things in England has since been much improved. But, at the extremities of the Hebrides, nine-tenths of the population still live on barley bread; and in Ireland it was estimated, in 1838, that with 8,000,000 inhabitants, potatoes were the chief article of food of 5,000,000, and oat bread of 2,500,000.[229-3]

And so, the consumption of meat in cities is uniformly much larger than in the country. In the cities of the Prussian monarchy and subject to the slaughter-house tax, it amounted in 1846, per capita: in East Prussia, to 61 lbs.; in Pommerania, to 66; in Posen, to 70; in West Prussia, to 71; in Saxony, to 75; in the Rhine Province, to 83; in Silesia, to 86; in Brandenburg, to nearly 104; in Berlin alone, to 114: an average in the whole country, however, of scarcely 40 lbs. per capita. (Dietrici.) In the kingdom of Saxony, the average consumption of beef and pork was, shortly before 1866, about 50 lbs.; in Dresden alone, 86.7; in Leipzig, 136.9 lbs.[229-4] The consumption of meat in England is exceedingly great, so that, for instance, in several orphan asylums in London, the daily meat ration amounts to an average of from 0.23 to 0.438 lbs. The meat-consumption of a well-to-do family, children and servants included, Porter estimates at 370 lbs. per capita per annum. The meat ration of soldiers in the field amounts in England to 676 grammes a day; in France, to 350.[229-5]

The consumption of sugar in 1734, in England, was about 10 lbs. per capita; in 1845, in the whole of the British Empire, 20-1/3 lbs.; in 1849, almost 25 lbs.; in 1865, over 34 lbs.; but it must not be overlooked here, that in Ireland the consumption of sugar per capita was scarcely over 8 lbs.[229-6] In the German Zollverein, the consumption of sugar, in 1834, amounted to an average of 2½ lbs. per capita; in 1865, to more than 9 lbs. In France, the consumption of the same article rose from 1.33 kilogrammes, the average from 1817 to 1821, to 7.35 lbs. in 1865.[229-7] The population of the Zollverein rose 25.8 per cent. between 1834 and 1847, while the importation of coffee increased 117.5 per cent.; of spices, 58.2; southern fruits, 34.5, and cocoa, 246.2 per cent.[229-8]

A great many of vegetables and fruits, which seem to us to be almost indispensable articles of subsistence, have been cultivated only a short time. Thus the English have been acquainted with artichokes, asparagus, several kinds of beans, salad, etc. only since 1660.[229-9] Even in France, the finer kinds of fruits have appeared on the tables of the middle class only since the beginning of the last century.

The per capita consumption of wool in England, about a generation ago, amounted to about 4 lbs. a year; in Prussia to 1.67; of cloth, to 5.76 and 2.17 ells; of leather, to 3.03 and 2.22 lbs. respectively.[229-10] Of silk goods, England consumes half as much as the rest of all Europe, and an Englishman from 5 to 6 times as much as a Frenchman, although England does not produce a single pound of raw silk.[229-11]

SECTION CCXXX.

EQUALIZING TENDENCY OF LATER LUXURY.

The whole social character of this luxury has something equalizing[230-1] in it; but it supposes particularly that there is not too marked a difference in the resources of the people.

A proper gradation of national wants is best guarantied by a good distribution of the national resources.[230-2] The more unequal the latter is, the more is there spent on vain wants instead of on real ones; and the more numerous are the instances of rapid and even immoral consumption. Where there are only a few over-rich men, more foreign products and products of capital are wont to be called for than home products and productions of labor; and luxury especially despises all those commodities manufactured in large institutions.[230-3] Every change in the consumption-customs of a people, in this respect, should be most carefully observed; thus, for instance, whether brandy is exchanged for beer, tobacco for meat, cotton for cloth, or the reverse.[230-4]

One of the characteristics of this period is the endeavor to possess the best quality of whatever is possessed at all, and to be satisfied with less of it rather than purchase more of an inferior quality. This is, essentially, to practice frugality, inasmuch as certain production-services remain the same whether the commodity is of the best or the worst quality, and that commodities of the best quality are more superior to the worst in intrinsic goodness than they are in price. But this course supposes a certain well-being already existing.

In this period, also, the luxury of the state is wont to take the direction of those enjoyments which are accessible to all.[230-5]

SECTION CCXXXI.

THE ADVANTAGES OF LUXURY.

The favorable results which many writers ascribe to luxury in general are true evidently only of this period. And thus luxury, inasmuch as it is a spur to emulation, promotes production in general; just as the awarding of prizes in a school, although they can be carried away only by a few, excites the activity of all its attendants. A nation which begins to consume sugar will, as a rule, unless it surrenders some previous enjoyment, increase its production.[231-1] In countries where there is little or no legal security, in which, therefore, people must keep shy of making public the good condition they are in, this praise-worthy side of luxury is for the most part wanting.[231-2]

All rational luxury constitutes a species of reserve fund for a future day of need. This is especially true of these luxuries which take the form of capital in use (Nutzkapitalien.) Where it is customary for every peasant girl to wear a gold head-dress,[231-3] and every apprentice a medal, a penny for a rainy day is always laid by among the lower classes. The luxury which is rapidly consumed has a tendency in the same direction. Where the majority of the population live on potatoes, as in Ireland, where, therefore, they are reduced to the smallest allowance of the means of subsistence, there is no refuge in case of a bad harvest. A people on the other hand, who live on wheat bread may go over to rye bread, and a people who live on rye bread to potatoes. The corn that in good years is consumed in the making of brandy may, in bad years, be baked into bread.[231-4] And the oats consumed by horses kept as luxuries may serve as food for man. Pleasure-gardens (Lustgärten) may be considered as a kind of last resort for a whole people in case of want of land.[231-5] [231-6]

SECTION CCXXXII.

LUXURY IN DECLINING NATIONS.

In declining nations, luxury assumes an imprudent and immoral character. Enormous sums are expended for insignificant enjoyments. It may even be said that costly consumption is carried on there for its own sake. The beautiful and the true enjoyment of life makes place for the monstrous and the effeminate.

Rome, in the earlier part of the empire, affords us an example of such luxury on the most extensive scale.[232-1] Nero paid three hundred talents for a murrhine vase. The two acres (Morgen) of land which sufficed to the ancient citizens for a farm (Acker) were not now enough to make a fish-pond for imperial slaves. The sums carried by the exiles with them, to cover their traveling expenses and to live on for a time, were now greater than the fortunes of the most distinguished citizens had been in former times.[232-2] There was such a struggle among the people to surpass one another in procuring the freshest sea-fish that, at last, they would taste only such as they had seen alive on the table. We have the most exalted descriptions of the beautiful changes of color undergone by the dying fish; and a special infusion was invented to enable the epicure better to enjoy the spectacle.[232-3] Of the transparent garments of his time, Seneca says that they neither protected the body nor covered the nakedness of nature. People kept herds of sheep dyed in purple, although their natural white must have been much more agreeable to any one with an eye for the tasteful.[232-4] Not only on the roofs of houses were fish-ponds to be seen, but gardens even hanging on towers, and which must have been as small, ugly and inconvenient as they were costly.[232-5] Especially characteristic of the time was the custom of dissolving pearls in wine, not to make it more palatable,[TN 54] but more expensive.[232-6] The emperor Caligula, from simple caprice, caused mountains to be built up and cut away: nihil tam efficere concupiscebat, quam, quod posse effici negaretur.[232-7] This is the real maxim of the third period of luxury! People changed their dress at table, inconvenient as it was to do so, occasionally as often as eleven times. Perfumes were mixed with the wine that was drunk, much as it spoiled its taste, only that the drinkers might emit sweet odors from every pore. There were many so used to being waited on by slaves that they required to be reminded by them at what times they should eat and when they should sleep. It is related of one who affected superiority over others in this respect, that he was carried from his bath and placed on a cushion, when he asked his attendant: "Am I sitting down now?"[232-8] It is no wonder, indeed, that an Apicius should reach out for the poisoned cup when his fortune had dwindled to only centies sestertium, i. e., to more than half a million thalers.[232-9]

In this last period, the coarse debauchery of the earlier periods is added to the refined. Swarms of servants, retinues of gladiators who might be even politically dangerous,[232-10] monster banquets, at which Cæsar, for instance, entertained the whole Roman people, colossal palaces such as Nero's aurea domus, which constituted a real city; annoying ostentation in dress[232-11] again becomes the order of the day. The more despotic a state becomes, the more is the craving for momentary enjoyment wont to grow; and for the same reason that great plagues diminish frugality and morality.[232-12]

SECTION CCXXXIII.

LUXURY-POLICY.

Sumptuary laws (die Luxusgesetzgebung) have been aimed, at all times, principally at the outlay for clothing, for the table and for funerals.[233-1] In most nations the policy of luxury has its beginning in the transition from the first to the second period of luxury above described.[233-2] The extravagant feasts, which remain of the first period, seem vulgar to the new public opinion which is created. On the other hand, the conveniences of life, the universality, the refinement and variety of enjoyments characteristic of the second period are not acceptable to the austerity of old men, and are put down as effeminacy. In this period the bourgeoisie generally begin to rise in importance, and the feudal aristocracy to decay. The higher classes see the lower approximate to them in display, with jealous eyes. And, hence, dress is wont to be graded in strict accordance with the differences of class.[233-3] But these laws must be regarded as emanating from the tendency, which prevails in these times, of the state to act as the guardian of its wards, its subjects. The authority of the state waxes strong in such periods; and with the first consciousness of its power, it seeks to draw many things into its sphere, which it afterwards surrenders.

SECTION CCXXXIV.

HISTORY OF SUMPTUARY LAWS.

As in Italy, Frederick II., in Aragon, Iago I., in 1234, in England, Edward III., by 37, Edward III., c. 8 ff., so in France Philip IV. was the first who busied himself seriously with sumptuary legislation;[234-1] that is the same king who had introduced in so many things the modern political life into France. (For instance, the ordinance of 1294, regulating apparel and the luxury of the table.) In the 14th century, we find sumptuary laws directed mainly against expense for furs, and in the 16th mainly against that for articles of gold and silver. From the descriptions left us in such laws of the prohibited luxuries, we may learn as much of the history of technology and of fashion, as we may of the history of classes from the gradation of the things permitted. The fines imposed for violations of these laws, under Philip IV. went for the most part to the territorial lord; and in the 16th and 17th centuries to the foundation of charitable institutions. The state, as a rule, took no share of them; doubtless to avoid the odium which might attach to this kind of revenue.

Beginning with the end of the 16th century, the sumptuary laws of France relating to the luxuries permitted to the several classes of the people disappear. The legislator ceases to be guided by moral considerations and begins to be influenced by reasons partaking of a commercial and police character; and here we may very clearly demonstrate the origin of the so-called mercantile or protective system. Thus, in the declaration of Louis XIV. dated December 12, 1644, we find a complaint, that not only does the importation of foreign articles of luxury threaten to rob France of all its gold and silver, but also that the home manufacture of gold cloth, etc., which at Lyons alone ate up 10,000 livres a week, had the same effect. Under Colbert, in 1672, it was specially provided for, in the prohibition of coarser silver ware, that all such ware should be brought to the mint.[234-2] In the edict of 1660, the king even says that he has in view especially the higher classes, officers, courtiers, etc., in whom it was his duty to be most deeply interested. To preserve the latter from impoverishment was the main object of the law.

Under Louis XV. all sumptuary laws were practically a dead letter.[234-3] Their enforcement is, indeed, exceedingly difficult, as it is always harder to superintend consumption than production. The latter is carried on in definite localities, not unfrequently even in the open air. The former is carried on in the secrecy of a thousand homes. Besides, sumptuary laws have very often the effect to make the forbidden fruit all the sweeter. Where they are based on a difference of class, not only the passion for pleasure, but the vanity of the lower classes is an incentive to their violation.[234-4] Spite of the severity of the penalties attached to the violation of these laws, of redoubled measures of control, which are dreadful burdens on the intercourse between man and man,[234-5] the French government has been compelled to admit, after almost every internal commotion, and almost every external war, that its sumptuary laws fell into disuse.

SECTION CCXXXV.

DIFFICULTY OF ENFORCING SUMPTUARY LAWS.

The impossibility of enforcing sumptuary laws has been most strikingly observed, where it has been attempted to suppress the consumption of popular delicacies in the first stages of their spread among the people. Thus, an effort was made in this direction in the sixteenth century, as regards brandy; in the seventeenth, as regards tobacco; in the eighteenth, as regards coffee; all which three articles were first allowed to be used only as medicines.[235-1] When governments discovered after some time the fruitlessness of the efforts, they gave up the prohibition of these luxuries and substituted taxes on them instead.[TN 56] [235-2] Thus an effort was made to combine a moral and a fiscal end. But it should not be lost sight of that the lower these taxes are, the greater the revenue they bring in; that is, the less the moral end is attained, the more is the fiscal end. Even Cato took this course. His office of censor, which united the highest moral superintendence with the highest financial guidance, must of itself have led him in this direction.[235-3] In modern times the most important excises and financial duties of entry have been evolved out of sumptuary laws. Even the Turks, after having long tried to prohibit tobacco-smoking in vain, afterwards found in the duties they imposed on that plant a rich source of income. That such taxes are among the best imposed, where they do not lead to frauds on the government, become excessive, or diminish consumption to too great an extent, is universally conceded.

Beyond this there is, on the whole, little left of the old police regulations relating to luxury. Thus, governmental consent is, in most countries, required for the establishment of places where liquors are sold at retail, for the maintenance of public places of amusement, for shooting festivals, fairs, etc.; and this consent should not be too freely granted. The police power prescribes certain hours at which drinking places shall be closed. Games of chance are wont to be either entirely prohibited or restricted to certain places and times (bathing places), or are reserved as the exclusive right of certain institutions, especially state institutions. The object of this is, on the one hand, to facilitate their supervision, and on the other, to diminish the number of seductive occasions. Here, too, belongs the appointment of guardians to spendthrifts, which is generally done on the motion of the family by the courts; but which, indeed, occurs too seldom to have any great influence on the national resources, or on national morals.[235-4]

SECTION CCXXXVI.

EXPEDIENCY OF SUMPTUARY LAWS.

To judge of the salutariness of sumptuary laws, we must keep the above three social periods in view throughout. At the close of the first period, every law which restricts the excesses of the immediately succeeding age (the middle age) is useful because it promotes the noble luxury of the second period.[236-1] And so, in the third period, legislation may at least operate to drive the most immoral and most odious forms of vice under cover, and thus to diminish their contagious seduction. It is a matter of significance that, in Rome, the most estimable of the emperors always endeavored to restrict luxury.[236-2] But too much should not be expected of such laws. Intra animum medendum est; nos pudor in melius mutet.[236-3] It is at least necessary, that the example given in high places should lend its positive aid, as did that of Vespasian, for instance, who thus really opposed a certain barrier to the disastrous flood of Roman luxury.[236-4]

But a strong and flourishing nation has no need of such leading strings.[236-5] Where an excrescence has to be extirpated, the people can use the knife themselves. I need call attention only to the temperance societies of modern times (Boston, 1803), which spite of all their exaggeration[236-6] may have a very beneficial effect on the morally weak by the solemn nature of the pledge, and the control their members mutually exercise over one another. It is estimated that, of all who enter them, in the British Empire, at least 50 per cent. remain true to the pledge. In Ireland the government had endeavored for a long time to preserve the country from the ravages of alcohol by the imposition of the highest taxes and the severest penalties for smuggling. Every workman in an illegal distillery was transported for seven years, and every town in which such a one was found was subjected to a heavy fine. But all in vain. Only numberless acts of violence were now added to beastly drunkenness. On the other hand, the temperance societies of the country decreased the consumption of brandy between 1838 and 1842, from 12,296,000 gallons to 5,290,000 gallons. The excise on brandy decreased £750,000; but many other taxable articles yielded so much larger a revenue, that the aggregate government income there increased about £91,000.[236-7] [236-8] The Puritanical laws which some of the United States of North America have passed prohibiting all sales of spirituous liquors except for ecclesiastical, medical or chemical purposes, have been found impossible of enforcement.[236-9] [236-10]