[218-1]Negatively: the principle of sparing; positively: the principle of making the utmost use of things. (Schäffle, Kapitalismus und Socialismus, 27.)
[218-2]Admirable description of economy inB. Franklin'sPennsylvanian Almanac, How poor Rich. Saunders got rich; also inJ. B. Say, Traité, III, ch. 5.Adam Smith, W. of N., II, ch. 3, endeavors to explain why it is that, on the whole and on a large scale, the principle of economy predominates over the seductions of extravagance. This, however, is true only of progressive nations.
[218-3]The Savior Himself in His miracles, the highest pattern of economy:Matth., 14, 20;Mark, 6, 43; 8, 8;Luke, 9, 17;John, 6, 12. That He did not intend to prohibit thereby all noble luxury is shown by passages such asMatth., 26, 6 ff.;John, 2, 10.
SECTION CCXIX.
EFFECT OF PRODIGALITY.
Prodigality destroys goods which either were capital or might have become capital. But, at the same time, it either directly or indirectly increases the demand for commodities. Hence, for a time, it raises not only the interest of capital, but the prices of many commodities. Consumers naturally suffer in consequence; many producers make a profit greater than that usual in the country until such time as the equilibrium between supply and demand has been restored by an increase of the supply of the coveted products. But the capital of spendthrifts is wont to be suddenly exhausted; demand suddenly decreases, and producers suffer a crisis. As Benjamin Franklin says, he who buys superfluities will at last have to sell necessities. Thus the extravagance of a court may contributeto the rapid prosperity of a place of princely residence.[219-1]But it should not be forgotten that all the food-sap artificially carried there had to be previously withdrawn from the provinces. The clear loss caused by the destruction of wealth should also be borne in mind.[219-2][219-3]
[219-1]A rapid change of hands by money, as it is called in every day life. See,per contra,Tucker, Sermons, 31, 1774.
[219-2]Only the superficial observer is apt to notice this apparent prosperity of the capital much more readily than the decline of the rest of the country, which covers so much more territory. In like manner, many wars have had the appearance of promoting industry, for the reason that some branches grew largely in consequence of the increased demand of the state; but they grew at the expense of all others which had to meet the increased taxes. CompareJacobinLowe, England nach seinem gegenwartigen Zustande, 1823, cap. 2, 3;Nebenius, Oeffentlicher Credit, I, Aufl., 419 ff.;Hermann, department[TN 46]of the Seine, amounted, in 1850, to 497,000,000 francs; in the department of the Bouches du Rhone, to 39,000,000 francs; in 1855, on the other hand, they were, on account of the war, 887,000,000 francs and 141,000,000. (Journal des Econ., Juil., 1857, 32 ff.)
[219-3]The Journal des Economistes for March, 1854, very clearly shows, in opposition to the state-sophists who recommended extravagant balls, etc. as a means of advancing industry, and who even advocated the paying officials higher salaries on this account, and making greater outlays by them compulsory, that such luxury when it comes of itself may be a symptom of national wealth, but that it is a very bad means to produce prosperity artificially.
SECTION CCXX.
WHEN SAVING IS INJURIOUS.
The act of saving, if the consumption omitted was a productive one, is detrimental to the common good; because now a real want of the national economy remains unsatisfied.[220-1]The effecting of savings by curtailing unproductive consumption may embarrass those who had calculated on its continuance. But its utility or damage to the whole national economy willdepend on the application or employment of what is saved. Here two different cases are possible.
A. It is stored up and remains idle. If this happens to a sum of money, the number of instruments of exchange in commerce is diminished. Hence, in consequence, there may be either a general fall in the price of commodities, or some commodities may remain unsold; that is, according to § 217, a commercial crisis of greater or smaller extent.[220-2]If it be objects of immediate consumption that are stored up and lie idle, articles of food or clothing, for instance, the price of such commodities is wont to be raised by the new and unusual demandfor them, precisely as it is lowered afterwards when the stores are suddenly opened and thrown upon the market.[220-3]
B. If the saving effected be used to create fixed capital, there is as much consumption of goods, the same support of employed workmen, the same sale for industrial articles as in the previous unproductive consumption; only, there the stream is usually conducted into other channels. If a rich man now employs in house-building what he formerly paid out to mistresses; masons, carpenters, etc. earn what was formerly claimed by hair-dressers, milliners, etc.: there is less spent for truffles and champagne and more for bread and meat. The last result is a house which adds permanently either to personal enjoyment, or permanently increases the material products of the nation's economy.[220-4]And it is just so when the wealth saved is used as circulating capital. Here, the wealth saved is consumed in a shorter or longer time; and to superficial observers, this saving might seem like destruction; but it is distinguished from the last by this, that it always reproduces its full equivalent and more. However, the whole quantity of goods brought into the market by such new capital cannot be called its product. Only the use (Nützung) of the new capital can be so called; that is the holding together or the development in some other way of other forces which were already in existence until their achievements are perfected and ready for sale.[220-5][220-6]
[220-1]What evil influences such saving can have may be seen from Prussian frugality in its military system before 1806.
[220-2]The custom of burying treasure is produced by a want of security (compareMontanari, Delia Moneta, 1683-87, 97 Cust.), and by an absence of the spirit which leads to production. AsBurkesays, where property is not sacred, gold and silver fly back into the bosom of the earth whence they came. Hence, in the middle ages, this custom was frequent, and is yet, in most oriental despotic countries. (Montesquieu, E. des L., XXII, 2.) And so in Arabia:d'Arvieux,Rosenmüller'stranslation, 61 seq.Fontanier, Voyage dans l'Inde et dans le Golfe persique, 1644, I, 279. A Persian governor on his death bed refused to give any information as to where he had buried his treasure. His father had always murdered the slave who helped him to bury his money or any part of it. (Klemm, Kulturgeschichte, VII, 220.) In lower stages of civilization, it is a very usual luxury to have one's treasures buried with the corpse. In relation to David's grave, seeJoseph., Ant. Jud., VII, 15,3, XIII, 8, 4; XVI, 7, 1. Hence the orientals believe thateveryunknown ruin hides a treasure, that every unintelligible inscription is a talisman to discover it by, and that every scientific traveler is a treasure-digger, (v. Wrede, R. in Hadhramaut, 113, 182 andpassim.) Similarly in Sicily. (Rehfues, Neuester Zustand von S., 1807, I, 99.) In the East Indies every circumstance that weakens confidence in the power of the government increases the frequency of treasure-burial, as was noticed, for instance, after the Afghan defeat. Treasure-burial by the Spanish peasantry (Borrego, translated by Rottenkamp, 81), in Ireland (Wakefield, Account of I. I, 593), in the interior of Russia (Storch, Handbuch, I, 142), and among the Laplanders. The custom was very much strengthened among the latter when, in 1813, they lost 80 per cent. by the bankruptcy of the state through its paper money. (Brooke, Winter in Lapland, 1829, 119; compareBlom, Statistik von Norwegen, II, 205.) As during the Thirty Years' War, so also in 1848, it is said that large amounts of money were burned by the Silesian and Austrian peasantry. Much of it is lost forever, but, on the whole, much treasure is wont to be found where much is buried; governments there make it a regal right to search for it.
[220-3]If the hoarding takes place in a time of superfluity, and the restitution of the stores in a time of want, there is of course no detrimental disturbance, but on the contrary the consequence is a beneficent equilibrium of prices. This is the fundamental idea in the storage of wheat.
[220-4]In the construction of national buildings, etc., we have the following course of things: compulsory contributions made by taxpayers, or an invitation to the national creditors to desist somewhat from their usual amount of consumption, and to employ what is saved in the building of canals, roads etc. In France, for instance, after 1835, 100,000,000 francs per annum. (M. Chevalier, Cours, I, 109.) The higher and middle classes of England saved, not without much trouble, however, between 1844 and 1858, £134,500,000 in behalf of railway construction.Tooke-Newmarch.
[220-5]Such savings have sometimes been prescribed by the state. In ancient Athens many prohibitions of consumption in order to allow the productive capital to first attain a certain height. Thus it was forbidden to slaughter sheep until they had lambed, or before they were shorn. (Athen., IX, 375, I. 9.) Similarly[TN 47]the old prohibition of the exportation of figs. (Ibid., III, 74.) Compare Petit. Leges. Atticae, V, 3.Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung, I, 62 seq.
[220-6]The process of the transformation of savings from a money-income, in a money-economy (Geldwirthschaft), into other products, more closely analyzed inv. Mangoldt, V. W. L., 152 ff.
SECTION CCXXI.
LIMITS TO THE SAVING OF CAPITAL.
It may be seen from the foregoing, that the mere saving of capital, if the nation is to be really enriched thereby, has its limits. Every consumer likes to extend his consumption-supply and his capital in use (Gebrauchskapitalien); but not beyond a certain point.[221-1]Besides, as trade becomes more flourishing, smaller stores answer the same purpose. And no intelligent man can desire his productive capital increased except up to the limit that he expects a larger market for his enlarged production. What merchant or manufacturer is there who would rejoice or consider himself enriched, if the number of his customers and their desire to purchase remaining the same, he saw his stores of unsaleable articles increase every year by several thousands?
This is another difference between national resources or world resources and private resources. The resources of a private person, which are only a link in the whole chain of trade, and which are, therefore, estimated at the value in exchange of their component parts should, indeed, always be increased by savings made. (§ 8.) For even the most excessiveincrease of supply in general, which largely lowers the price of a whole class of commodities, will never reduce the price of individual quantities of that commodity below zero, and scarcely to zero. It is quite otherwise in the case of national or world resources which must be estimated according to the value in use of their component parts. Every utility supposes a want. Where, therefore, the want of a commodity has not increased, and notwithstanding there is a continuing increase in the supply, the only result must be a corresponding decrease in the utility of each individual part.[221-2]
If a people were to save all that remained to them over and above their most urgent necessities, they would soon be obliged to seek a wider market in foreign countries, or loan their capital there; but they would make no advance whateverin higher culture nor add anything to the gladness of life.[221-3]On the other hand, if they would not save at all, they would be able to extend their enjoyments only at the expense of their capital and of their future. Yet these two extremes find their correctives in themselves. In the former case, a glut of the market would soon produce an increased consumption and a diminished production; in the latter the reverse. The ideal of progress demands that the increased outlay with increased production should be made only for worthy objects, and chiefly by the rich, while the middle and lower classes should continue to make savings and thus contribute to wipe out differences of fortune.[221-4]
[221-1]Up to this point, indeed, wants increase with the means of their satisfaction. The man who has two shirts always strives to get a dozen, while the person who has none at all, very frequently does not care for even one. And so the person who has silver spoons generally desires also to possess silver candle-sticks and silver plates. On Lucullus' 5,000 chlamydes, seeHorat., Epist., I, 6, 40 ff.
[221-2]That consumption and saving are not two opposites which exclude each other is one ofAdam Smith'smost beautiful discoveries. See Wealth of Nat., II, ch. 3. But comparePinto, Du Crédit et de la Circulation, 1771, 335. Before his time most writers who were convinced of the necessity of consumption were apologists of extravagance. Thusv. Schröder, F. Schatz- und Rentkammer, 23 seq. 47, 172. Louis XIV.'s saying: "A King gives alms when he makes great outlays." According toMontesquieu, Esprit des Louis[TN 48]VII., 4, the poor die of hunger when the rich curtail their expenses. This view, which must have found great favor among the imitators of Louis XIV. and Louis XV. was entertained to some extent by the Physiocrates; for instance,Quesnay, Maximes générales, 21 seq. CompareTurgot, Œuvres, éd,Dare, 424 ff. On the other hand,Adam Smith, loc. cit. says that the spendthrift is a public enemy, and the person who saves a public benefactor.Lauderdale, Inquiry, 219, reacts so forcibly against the one-sidedness which this involves that he believes no circumstance possible "which could so far change the nature of things as to turn parsimony into a means of increasing wealth." In his polemic against Pitts' sinking fund as inopportune and excessive, he assumes that all sums saved in that way are completely withdrawn from the national demand. See per contraHufelandn. Grundlegung I, 32, 238.Sismondi, N. P. II, ch. 6, with his distinction betweenproductionandrevenu, is more moderate; the former is converted into the latter only in as much as it is "realized," that is, finds a consumer who desires it, and pays for it. Now only can the producer rely on anything; can he restore his productive capital, estimate his profit, and use it in consumption, and lastly begin the whole business over again.... A stationary country must remain stationary in everything. It cannot increase its capital and widen its market while its aggregate want remains unaltered. (IV, ch. 1.)
[221-3]ThusJohn Stuart Millthinks that the American people derive from all their progress and all their favorable circumstances only this advantage: "that the life of the whole of one sex is devoted to dollar-hunting, and of the other to breeding dollar-hunters." (IV, ch. 6, 2.) In the popular edition of 1865, after the experience of the American civil war, he materially modified this judgment.
[221-4]Storch, Nationaleinkommen, 125 ff. That there is at least not too much to be feared from the making of too great savings is shown byHermann, St. Untersuch., 371 seq. On the other hand, there is less wealth destroyed by spendthrifts than is generally supposed, for spendthrifts are most frequently cheated by men who make savings themselves. (J. S. Mill, Principles, I, ch. 5, 5.)
SECTION CCXXII.
SPENDTHRIFT NATIONS.
As there are extravagant and frugal individuals, so also are there extravagant and frugal nations. Thus, for instance, we must ascribe great national frugality to the Swiss. In many well-to-do families in that country, it is a principle acted upon to require the daughters to look to the results of their white sewing, instead of giving them pin-money; to gather up the crumbs after coffee parties in the presence of the guests, and to make soup of them afterwards, etc. Sons are generally neither supported nor helped to any great extent by theirparents in their lifetime, and are required to found their own homes. They, therefore, grow rich from inheritance only late in years, when they are accustomed to a retired and modest mode of life, and have little desire, from mere convenience sake, to change it for another. And so Temple informs us that it never occurs to the Dutch that their outlay should equal their income; and when this is the case they consider that they have spent the year in vain. Such a mode of life would cost a man his reputation there as much as vicious excess does in other countries. The greatest order and the most accurate calculation of all outlay in advance is found in union with this; so that Temple assures us he never heard of a public or private building which was not finished at the time stipulated for in advance.[222-1]
On the other hand, the Englishman lives rather luxuriantly. He is so used to enjoying comparative abundance, that when English travelers see the peasantry of the continent living in great frugality, they generally attribute it to poverty and not to their disposition to make savings. If England has grown rich, it is because of the colossal magnitude of its production, which is still more luxuriant and abundant than its consumption.[222-2]This contrast may be the effect in part of nationality and climate;[222-3]but it is certainly the effect in part also of a difference in the stage of civilization which these countries have respectively reached. The elder Cato had a maxim that a widow might, indeed, allow her fortune to diminish, but that it was a man's duty to leave more behind him than he had inherited.[222-4]And how prodigally did not the lords of the universe live in later times!
[222-1]Temple, Observations on the U. Provinces, Works, I, 136, 138 seq., 179.Roscher, Geschichte der engl. Volkswirthschaftsl., 129. Thus, for instance, the Richesse de Hollande, I, 305, describes a rich town near Amsterdam in which a man with an income of 120,000 florins a year expended probably only 1,000 florins per annum on himself.
[222-2]As early a writer asD. Defoe, Giving Alms no Charity! 1704, says: the English get estates; the Dutch save them. An Englishman at that time with weekly wages of 20 shillings just made ends meet; while a Dutchman with the same grew rich, and left his children behind him in very prosperous circumstances, etc.L. Faucherdraws a similar contrast between his fellow countrymen and the English.Goethe'singenuous observations (Werke, Bd., 23, 246, ed. of 1840) in his Italian journey, show that the Italians, too, know how to save.Molti pochi fanno un assai!And so in Bohemia, the Czechs have a good reputation for frugality, sobriety, etc. as workmen. They are more frugal than the Germans, although all the larger businesses belong to Germans, because when the Czech has saved something, he prefers to return to his village to putting his savings in jeopardy by speculation.
[222-3]Drunkenness a common vice of northern people: thus in antiquity the Thracians (Athen., X, 42;Xenoph., Exp. Cyri, VII, 3, 32), the Macedonians, for instance, Philips (Demosth., Olynth., II, 23) and Alexander's (Plutarch, Alex., 70; De Adulat, 13). To drink like a Scythian, meant, among the Greeks, to drink like a beast. (Athen., X, 427;Herod., VI, 84.) On North German drunkenness in the 16th century, seeSeb. Münster, Cosmogr., 326, 730.Kantzow, Pomerania, II, 128.
[222-4]Plutarch, Cato, I, 21.
SECTION CCXXIII.
THE MOST DETRIMENTAL KIND OF EXTRAVAGANCE.
The kind of extravagance which it is most natural we should desire to see put an end to, is that which procures enjoyment to no one. I need call attention only to the excessive durability and solidity of certain buildings. It is more economical to build a house that will last 60 years for $10,000, than one which will last 400 years for $20,000; for in 60 years the interest saved on the $10,000 would be enough to build three such houses.[223-1]This is, of course, not applicable to houses built as works of art, or only to produce an imposing effect. The object the ancient Egyptians had in view in building theirobelisks and pyramids continues to be realized even in our day.
I might also call attention to the premature casting away of things used. Our national economy has saved incredible sums since rags have been manufactured into paper. In Paris 4,000 persons make a living from what they pick up in the streets.[223-2]
[223-1]CompareMinard, Notions élémentaires d'Economie politique appliquée aux Travaux publics, 1850, 71 ff. He calls to mind the many strong castles of the age of chivalry, the Roman aqueducts, theaters, etc., which are still in a good state of preservation, but which can be used by no one; so many bridges too narrow for our purposes, and so many roads too steep. The sluices at Dunkirk, made 12.60 metres in width by Vauban, were made 16 meters wider in 1822, and still are too narrow for Atlantic steamships. In England, private individuals have well learned to take all this into account. CompareJ. B. Say, Cours pratique, translated by Morstadt, I, 454 ff.
[223-2]Fregier, Die gefährlichen Klassen, translated 1840, I, 2, 38. In Yorkshire it is said that woolen rags to the amount of £52,000,000 a year are manufactured into useful articles. (Tooke, Wool-Production, 196.) Compare The Use of Refuse: Quart. Rev., April, 1868. On the ancient Greek ragpickers the so-called σπερμολόγοις,[TN 49]seeSt. John, The Hellenes, III, 91; on the RomanCentonariis:Cato, R. R., 135;Columella, R. R., I, 8, 9;Marquardt, II, 476, V, 2, 187.
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 wantexceeds 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.
[224-1]Stuart, Principles, II, ch. 30,Ferguson, History of Civil Society, VI, 2. ThusDandolus, Chron. Venet., 247, tells of the wife of a doge at Constantinople who was so given to luxury that she ate with a golden fork instead of her fingers. But she was punished for this outrage upon nature: her body began to stink even while she was alive. In the introduction toHollinshed'sChronicon, 1557, there is a bitter complaint that, a short time previous, so many chimneys had been erected in England, that so many earthen and tin dishes had been introduced in the place of wooden ones. Another author finds fault that oak was then used in building instead of willow, and adds that formerly the men were of oak but now of willow.Slaney, On rural Expenditure, 41. CompareXenoph., Cyrop., VIII, 8, 17.
[224-2]Biblically determined:Romans, 13, 14.
[224-3]Plutarch, De Gloria Athen., 348.Athen., XIV, 623. Petit. Legg. Att., 385.
[224-4]Livy, XXXIV, 6 ff.
[224-5]Most writers who have treated of luxury at all have generally confined themselves to inquiring whether it was salutary or reprehensible. Aristippus and Antisthenes, Diogenes, etc.; Epicureans and Stoics. The latter were reproached with being bad citizens, because their moderation in all things was a hindrance to trade. (Athen., IV, 163.) The AristotelianHerakleidesdeclared luxury to be the principal means to inspire men with noble-mindedness; inspired by luxury, the Athenians conquered at Marathon. (Athen., XII, 512.)Plinywas one of the most violent opponents of luxury. SeePliny, N. N., XXXIII, 1, 4, 13, and other places. The controversy has been renewed by the moderns, especially since the beginning of the 18th century, after luxury of every kind had previously (for the most part on theological grounds, but also by Hutten, for instance) been one-sidedly condemned. Among its defenders wereMandeville, The Fable of the Bees, 1706, who, however, calls everything a luxury which exceeds the baldest necessities of life;Voltairein Le Mondain, the Apologie du Luxe, and Sur L'Usage de la Vie;Mélon, Essai politique sur le Commerce, ch. 9;Hume, Discourses, No. 2, On Refinement in the Arts;Dumont, Théorie du Luxe, 1771;Filangieri, Delle Leggi politiche ed economiche, II, 37; and the majority of the Mercantile school and of the Physiocrates. Among the opponents of luxury,J. J. Rousseautowers over almost all others. Further,Fénélon, Télémaque, 1699, L. XXII;Pinto, Essai sur le Luxe, 1762.
The reasons and counter-reasons advanced by those writers apply not only to luxury but to the lights and shades of high civilization in general. When a political economist declares for or against luxury in general, he resembles a doctor who should declare for or against the nerves in general. There has been luxury in every country and in every age. Among a healthy people, luxury is also healthy, an essential element in the general health of the nation. Among an unhealthy people luxury is a disease, and disease-engendering.
For an impartial examination of the question, seeFerguson, History of Civil Society, towards the end; see alsoBeckmann, inJustis'Grundsätzen der Polizei, 1782, § 308;Rau, Ueber den Luxus, 1817;Roscher, Ueber den Luxus, in the Archiv der Politischen Oekonomie, 1843, and in his Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft, 1861, 399 ff.
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 ofluxury. 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 thegreat 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, 3,600eimersof wine, 1,600 barrels of beer.[225-7]In the ordinance of Münden regulatingweddings, 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]
[225-1]Here, as a rule, the value of the metal was greater than the form-value; and hence the medieval monasteries frequently made loans of silver vessels, where of course, the form could not be taken into consideration. On the other hand, in the case of the table service, presented by the king of Portugal to Lord Wellington, the metal cost £85,000 and the workmanship £86,000. (Jacob, Gesch. der edlen Metalle, translated by Kleinschrod, II, 5.) CompareHume, History of England, ch. 44, App. 3. Similarly under Louis XIV. (Sismondi, Hist. des Français, XXVII, 45.) When Rome was highly civilized, C. Gracchus paid for very good silver ware, 15 times the value of the metal, and L. Crassus, (consul 95 before Christ) 18 times its value.Mommsen, R. Gesch. II, 383.
[225-2]Specimen breviarii fiscalium Caroli Magni; compareAnton, Gesch. der deutschen Landwirthsch. 244 ff.
[225-3]Turner, History of the Anglo Saxons, VII, ch. 6.
[225-4]InHomer, the kings live on nothing but meat, bread and wine: compareAthen., I, 8. In the saga-poetry of Iceland,H. Leodoes not remember to have heard any other food mentioned except oat-pap, milk, butter and cheese, fish, the flesh of domestic animals, and beer. (Raumer'sTaschenbuch, 1835, 491)
[225-5]Hume, History of England, ch. 49, Append. Similarly among all nations which have still preserved much of the medieval. Thus the duke of Alba, about the end of the last century, had not a single commodious hall in his immense palace, but 400 rooms for his servants, since at least all his old servants, and even their widows and families, continued to live with him. In Madrid alone, he paid £1,000 a month wages to his servants; and the son of the duke, Medina-Celi, £4,000 per annum. (Townsend, II, 155, 158.) In many palaces in Moscow, previous to 1812, there were 1,000 and more servants, unskillful, clad for the most part as peasants, badly fed, and with so little to do that perhaps one had no service to perform but to fetch drinking water at noon, and another in the evening. Even poor noblemen kept 20 and 30 servants, (v. Haxthausen, Studien, I, 59.)Forster, Werke, VII, 347, explains Polish luxury in servants, by the poorness of the servants there: a good German maid could do more than three Polish servants. Thus, in Jamaica, it was customary to exempt from the slave-tax persons who kept fewer than 7 negroes. (B. Edwards, History of the W. Indies, I, 229.) CompareLivy, XXXIX, 11. The luxury of using torch-bearers instead of candelabra lasted until Louis XIV.'s time. (Rocquefort, Hist. de la Vie privée des Français, III, 171.) CompareW. Scott, Legend of Montrose, ch. 4.
[225-6]A Hungarian magnate, under king Sigismund, celebrated his son's wedding for a whole year. (Fessler, Gesch. von Ungarn, IV, 1267.)
[225-7]Müller, Annal. Saxon, 68. Several examples inSckweinichen'sLeben von Büsching, I, 320 seq.Krünitz, Enclycopædie, Bd. 82, 84 ff. The wedding of the niece of Ottakar II. in 1264, has long been considered a most brilliant event in the history of medieval luxury. (Palacky, Gesch. von Böhmen, II, 191 ff.) Even yet, in Abyssinia, on the occasion of royal feasts, only meat and bread are eaten and mead drunk; but not only the great, but even common soldiers are entertained one after the other. (Ausland, 1846, No. 79.) Magnificent as was the table of a West Indian planter, it was in some respects very simple. A large ox was slaughtered for the feast, and everything had to be prepared from that: roast beef, beef steaks, beef pies, stews, etc. (Pinckard, Notes on the W. Indies, II. 100 ff.)
[225-8]Spittler, Geschichte Hanovers, I, 381.
[225-9]Tacitus, Germ., 21 Leg., says of the Germans:Convictibus et hospitiis non alia gens effusius indulget. Quemcunque mortalium arcere tecto, nefas habetur. Diem noctemque continuare potando, nulli probrum.
[225-10]Entirely the same among the ancient Romans:Valer. Max., II, 5. Compare percontra,Euripid., Herc. fur., 304 seq.
[225-11]Think of nomadic races especially, where the rich can employ their wealth only to increase the number of their partisans, for war purposes, etc.
[225-12]Ferguson, Hist. of Civil Society, VI, 3;Adam Smith, Wealth of Nat., IV, ch. 4. CompareContzen, Politicorum, 1629, 662. As to how in the lower stages of civilization, guests are used to supply the place of the post-office service, seeHumboldt, Relation hist., II, 61.
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 theirkirmessesand 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. Theirsimplicity 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]
[226-1]Möser, Patr. Ph. IV, 7. On the feast of fools and the feast of asses of the middle ages, compareDutillet, Mémoire pour sevir à l'Histoire de la Fête des Fous;D. Sacchi, Delle Feste popolari del medio Evo. During the latter half of the 16th century, the first Hannoverian minister received only 200 thalers salary and pieces of clothing, while the wedding of a certain von Saldern cost 5,600 thalers. (Spittler, Gesch. Hannovers, I, 333.)
[226-2]v. Haxthausen, Studien, II, 450, 513. Thus, in 1631, of those who had died suddenly, there were 957 who died of drunkenness. (Bernouilli, Populationistik, 303.) According tov. Lengefeldt, Russland im 19. Jahrh., 42, the number is now 1,474 to 1,911 per annum. On Poland, seeKlebs, Landeskulturgesetzgebung in Posen, 78. When the South American Indians begin to drink, they do not stop until they fall down senseless. (Ulloa, Noticias Americanas, ch. 17.) The old Romans considered all barbarians to be drunkards. (Plato, De Legg., I, 638.) In eating, also, uncivilized people are extremely irregular. A Jackute or Tunguse consumes 40 pounds of meat; three men devour a whole reindeer at a meal. (Cochrane, Fussreise, 156.) One ate in 24 hours the back quarter of a large ox, or ½ apudof fat, and drank an equal quantity of melted butter. (Klemm, Kulturgeschichte, III, 18.) Similarly among hunting races. SeeKlemm, I, 243, 339; II, 13, 255. On the South Sea Islanders, seeHawkesworth, III, 505;Forster, I, 255.
[226-3]Rapid degeneration of almost all barbaric dynasties as soon as they have subjugated civilized countries.
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. Insteadof 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 Spanishromancerosof 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. Thecotton-printers who work for the African market prefer to employ false but cheap and dazzling colors.[227-6]
[227-1]The use of window-glass in churches in England dates from 674, in private houses from 1180. (Anderson, Origin of Commerce, s. a.) Even in 1567, it was so rare that during the absence of the lords from their country seats, the panes were taken out and stored for safe keeping. (Eden, State of the Poor, I, 77.) As to how Scotland developed in this respect still later, seeBuckle, History of Civilization in England, II, 172.
[227-2]In our day, at the breakfast of a German of the middle class, may be found East Indian coffee, Chinese tea, West Indian sugar, English cheese, Spanish wine, and Russian caviar, without any surprising degree of luxury. CompareGellius, N. A., VII, 16.
[227-3]In England, the transition is noticeable, especially under Elizabeth:HumeHistory, ch. 44, app. 3. In France, under Louis XIV.;Voltaire, Siècle de Louis, XIV., ch. 29.
[227-4]Poesias Castellanas anteriores al Siglo XV; Tom. I, 347, 327.Roscher, loc. cit.J. Voight, inRaumer'shistorischem Taschenbuche, 1831, 290; 1835, 324, seq. Thus, one of Henry VIII's wives, in order to get salad, had first to send for a gardener from Flanders; while at the time, a single ship imported into England from 3,000 to 4,000 pieces of clothing in gold brocade, satin or silk. (Anderson, a. 1509, 1524, 4; Henry VIII, c. 6.)
[227-5]Irish linen, worth from 30 to 35 shillings, is often provided with a label which cost 5 shillings. (Kotelmann, Statistische Uebersicht der landwirthschaftl. und industriellen Verhältnisse von Oestereich und dem Zollverein, 215.)
[227-6]CompareKohl, Reise in Deutschland, II, 18, 250.Roscher, in the Göttinger Studien, 1845, II, 403, ff. About 1777,Büschdescribed the difference of goods manufactured in England "for the continent and home consumption," as being just the same as the difference now between goods for Africa and goods for Europe. (Darstellung der Handlung, Zusatz, 89.)
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 wordcomfort, 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, butmuch 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-dishesthan 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]
[228-1]The reformation of the sixteenth century had a remarkable tendency towards natural and manful fashions, as contradistinguished from the immediately preceding and the immediately following periods. CompareJ. Falke, Deutsche Trachten und Modenwelt, II, 1858.
[228-2]J. J. Rousseau, N. Héloise, II, L. 11. CompareKeysler, Reise, I, 695.
[228-3]That a similar transition marked an epoch in the history of Grecian morals was recognized even byThucydides, I, 6; compareAsios, inAthen., XII, 528.
[228-4]It will always remain a want to own clothes for every day wear and festal occasions. The frock coat satisfies this want in the cheapest way. As soon as people cease to distinguish clothing for festal occasions by the cut, gold-embroidery, fur-facing, etc. will appear again, which would necessarily prove a great hardship to the propertyless classes of the educated, and even to the higher classes.
[228-5]On the striking contrast presented in this respect by the English and French, and even Russian customs, seeStorch, Handbuch, II, 179 ff.J. B. Say, Cours pratique, translated into German byMorstadt, I, 435 ff.; Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift, 1853, I, 182.
[228-6]Paper-hangings, instead of costly gobelins and leather hangings, were not known in France until after 1760, nor in the rest of Europe until much later. Busts of plaster were (Martial, IX, 17, andJuvenal, II, 4) usual among those who were less well off.
[228-7]Similarly even inGiov. Villani, XI, 93, the villas of the highly cultured Florentines appear finer than their city houses, while in Germany, at that time, even the richest citizens lived only in the city.
[228-8]Sidewalks in the cities, recommended byJ. J. Rousseau, as a popular convenience and as a safeguard against the carriage-aristocracy.
[228-9]In France, the luxury of lace was conquered by Marie Antoinette, but still more effectually by the Revolution. Previous to that time, many Parisians wore four manchettes to each shirt. (Palliser, History of Lace, 1865.)
[228-10]During the middle ages, strongly seasoned food, ragouts, etc., were more in favor than in even France to-day; compareLegrand d'Aussy et Roquefort, Histoire de la Vie priveé des Français, passim. The wine even, at that time, used to be mixed with roots:vin de romarin,clairet,hippocras, (W. Wackernagel, Kl. Schriften I, 86, 7.) The French kitchen became simpler and more natural, only after the middle of the 18th century. (Roquefort, III, 343.)
[228-11]The taxed consumption of soap amounted in England in 1801 to 4.84 and in 1845, 9.65 pounds per capita. (Porter, Progress of the Nation, V, 5, 579.) Soap-boiling in London dates from 1520 only. Before that time, all white soap was obtained from the continent. (Howell, Londinopolis, 208.)Erasmuscharged that England, in his time, was an exceedingly dirty country. The Italians, on the other hand, were at that time greatly distinguished above northern people, especially the Germans, by their cleanliness. (Buckhardt, Kultur der Renaissance, 295.) The Vienna river-baths after 1870,Nicolai, Reise, III, 17, mentions as something deserving special note. The Leipzig river-baths date from 1774.
[228-12]Birkbeck, Notes on America, 39. Even in New York, it is not very long since there were no common sewers. Just as characteristic is the uncleanliness of the South Africanboers(Mauch, inPetermann'sMittheilungen, Ergänz-Heft, XXVII, 23), when compared with the celebrated cleanliness of the old Dutch.
Americans will certainly not agree with the "friendly and unprejudiced" observers mentioned in the text; for no one acquainted with genuine American home-life can deny that cleanliness is an American characteristic. It is only justice to the author to say that the above note (12), so far as it relates to America, appeared in the second edition of his work, and probably in the first; and that he is not so much to be blamed for it as the unfriendly and prejudiced, if not ignorant observers. It may be said, however, that, from the use of the word "log-house," in the context, the author does not intend to apply this remark to the older settlements.—Translator.
[228-13]The most frightful uncleanliness prevails among the inhabitants of polar countries, who never bathe, because of the climate, avoid all ventilation, and because of the leathern clothing which they smear with grease, etc. The Tunguses consider the after-birth cooked or roasted as a great delicacy. "Fathers and mothers wipe their children's[TN 51]noses with their mouth, and gulp the secretion down." (Georgi, Beschreib. aller Nationen des russ. Reiches, I, 287.) Among the Koruks, the suitor rinses his mouth with his sweetheart's water. (loc. cit., I, 349, 353.) CompareKlemm, Kulturgeschichte, III, 24, 57. In warmer climates, even less civilized nations are clean, for instance in the East and South-Sea Islands, etc. All the more surprising is the uncleanliness of the Hottentots and Bushmen, where the natural color is observable only under the eyes, where the tears produced by too much smoke has washed away the crust of dirt which, with this exception, covers the whole body. (Klemm, Kulturgeschichte, 333.) How long it takes for cleanliness to become a national trait, may be inferred from the history of water-closets, when, for instance, their introduction into every house during the 16th and even the 17th century, had to be provided for by law in Paris. (Beckmann, Beiträge, II, 358 ff.) The Göttingen statutes of 1342 had to expressly prohibit persons tomerdarein public wine-cellars where persons ate and drank together. (Spittler, Gesch. Hannovers, I, 57.) Similarly in the courts of the German princes. On the other hand, universality of water-closets in England to-day.
In ancient times, too, the uncleanliness of the Spartans in body and clothing was very surprising to the Athenians:Xenoph., Resp. Laced., II, 4;Plutarch, Lycurg, 16.Just., Lac., 5. Still more that of many barbarians, for instance of the Illyrians:Stobaeus, V, 51, 132;Gaisf. Aelian., V, H. IV, 1. The ancient Romans bathed only once a week (Seneca, Epist., 86), while under the Empire, "the baths embraced and filled up the whole life of man and all his wishes." (Gerlach.) CompareBecker, Gallus, II, 10 ff.;Lamprid, V, Comm., 11.
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.