7.4. 4. Of sumptuary Laws in a Monarchy.
Tacitus says
[6]
that the Suiones, a German nation, has a particular
respect for riches; for which reason they live under the government of
one person. This shows that luxury is extremely proper for monarchies,
and that under this government there must be no sumptuary laws.
As riches, by the very constitution of monarchies, are unequally
divided, there is an absolute necessity for luxury. Were the rich not to
be lavish, the poor would starve. It is even necessary here that the
expenses of the opulent should be in proportion to the inequality of
fortunes, and that luxury, as we have already observed, should increase
in this proportion. The augmentation of private wealth is owing to its
having deprived one part of the citizens of their necessary support;
this must therefore be restored to them.
Hence it is that for the preservation of a monarchical state, luxury
ought continually to increase, and to grow more extensive, as it rises
from the labourer to the artificer, to the merchant, to the magistrate,
to the nobility, to the great officers of state, up to the very prince;
otherwise the nation will be undone.
In the reign of Augustus, a proposal was made in the Roman senate,
which was composed of grave magistrates, learned civilians, and of men
whose heads were filled with the notion of the primitive times, to
reform the manners and luxury of women. It is curious to see in Dio,
[7]
with what art this prince eluded the importunate solicitations of those
senators. This was because he was founding a monarchy, and dissolving a
republic.
Under Tiberius, the diles proposed in the senate the
re-establishment of the ancient sumptuary laws.
[8]
This prince, who did not want sense, opposed it. "The state," said he, "could not possibly
subsist in the present situation of things. How could Rome, how could
the provinces, live? We were frugal, while we were only masters of one
city; now we consume the riches of the whole globe, and employ both the
masters and their slaves in our service." He plainly saw that sumptuary
laws would not suit the present form of government.
When a proposal was made under the same emperor to the senate, to
prohibit the governors from carrying their wives with them into the
provinces, because of the dissoluteness and irregularity which followed
those ladies, the proposal was rejected. It was said that the examples
of ancient austerity had been changed into a more agreeable method of
living.
[9]
They found there was a necessity for different manners.
Luxury is therefore absolutely necessary in monarchies; as it is
also in despotic states. In the former, it is the use of liberty; in the
latter, it is the abuse of servitude. A slave appointed by his master to
tyrannise over other wretches of the same condition, uncertain of
enjoying tomorrow the blessings of to-day, has no other felicity than
that of glutting the pride, the passions, and voluptuousness of the
present moment.
Hence arises a very natural reflection. Republics end with luxury;
monarchies with poverty.
[10]
Footnotes
[6]
"De Moribus Germanorum," 44.
[7]
Dio Cassius, liv. 16.
[8]
Tacitus, "Annals," iii. 34.
[9]
"Multa duritiei veterum melius et læstius mutata" -- Tacitus, "Annals,"
iii. 34.
[10]
"Opulentia paritura mox egestatem." -- Florus, iii. 12.
