A Pearl of a Law

Listen. I don't know if it's true or not, but at one time or another I had heard that there was a law in New England which may well still be on their books which states something to the effect that it is a illegal to walk backward down the sidewalk while eating a pickle. Clearly there never was and there never will be a shortage of inane laws. For those of you who might be thinking...yeah, sure, but nobody would think up dumb laws when it came to pearls...would they? To you I say they most assuredly would...and did...and here some of them are:

In 1299 there was a Venetian decree proclaiming that at a wedding the bride alone, and nary one guest, was allowed to wear pearls. And then only in moderation. One strand around her waist, and that was it.

Now we go forward to slightly later times when sumptuary laws prevailed over the lands of England, France, and Germany. Puritanistic philosophy worried that the hedonistic tendencies toward self-adornment would lead to morals going amuck.

1345. Germany. The city of Ulm. No women, married or single, high birth or low birth...no women at all folks...were allowed to wear pearls on their dresses. Don't say nuthin' about naked bods...but that's my mind at work...so take no heed. By 1411...things had progressed. They were now allowed to wear a single pearl wreath on their heads...and I guess as many pearls as they wanted on their naked bods. Oh lordy lord. I can not stop this train of thought.

1479. A Frankish sumptuary law. (Quick parenthetical here folks...for those who don't know...a sumptuary law is one which governs the current mode of dress.) A Frankish sumptuary law: An ordinary noble serving a knight at a tournament, was not allowed to wear any pearls whatsoever, except for one string around their hats. Now...I have a question that someone out there might be able to answer for me. It's this: What is an "ordinary noble"? Is it an oxymoron? Or perhaps a Duke is an ordinary noble, while a Prince is an extra-ordinary noble. And does then extra-ordinary mean more ordinary than usual, or less ordinary. And if less ordinary, then why the "extra"? I ponder these things folks. That's why I'm aging so rapidly. Mommieee!...

1495. Rules were set forth by a decree entitled the "Diet of Worms". Quaint name...no? Here were the rules. Citizens who were not of noble birth, and nobles who were not knights...could not wear either gold or pearls. The "Diet of Augsburg", circa 1530, said this: If you were the wife of a noble--ordinary or otherwise--you were allowed four silk dresses...but alas...no pearls.

1692. Duke John George of Saxony said: The nobility may not wear dresses of gold, or silver, and no adornments of pearls. Professors and doctors of universities, their wives included, could also not wear anything with gold, or silver, or pearls. As to those who worked in courts of law...same thing. No gold, no silver, and no pearls. Ye gads folks...they were coo-coo in them thar days.

Of course...this all leads to an old belief I've always had. And it goes something like this. The more laws that are made, especially if they're stupid laws, the more outlaws that are created. The proof of the pudding is this: All these laws and decrees had little effect, as many portraits of that age testify. Nary a woman portrayed was without pearls around her neck, or on her ears. Were they all outlaws... criminals? Or were some of the law-makers of that age much the same as some few Starr struck law makers of this age. McCarthy-ists who feel they have the right to infringe on the personal lives of others.

I know I'm going to be in trouble on this one folks. What the heck.

Return to menu

Return to Home Page