- <i>"“It’s interesting that the majority of the offences relate to an outfit of black silk – taffeta, satin or velvet – ornamented with some sort of precious metal stitching or with lace. Just such an outfit appears in a portrait of an anonymous Genoese nobleman by the artist van Dyck which, to modern eyes, looks relatively sober. But black was a clear status symbol in Renaissance culture. Black dye was one of the most difficult to fix effectively, so we should be careful how we interpret these apparently ‘plain’ portraits,” said Galastro."</i><p>Here's a related explanation from /r/AskHistorians,<p>- <i>"Black fabric was indeed more costly in the Middle Ages than many other colors, but it's not a straightforward question of dye expense. In terms of dyestuff, cost depended on two things: source of pigment and duration of dyeing process. The most popular option for dying fabric black in the Middle Ages was not, of course, "black pigment." It was to use woad, the bog-common blue pigment, to dye fabric to the darkest possible midnight tint. Then a second dye, typically a red (madder) or yellow (weld), would be added over the top to eliminate the blue tinge."</i><p>- <i>"Woad, weld, and madder were standard dyes, not prohbitively expensive for a decently-endowed monastic order. Benedictine monks could adhere to their Rule not to spend too much money on individual habits..."</i><p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4b7lke/black_dye_and_the_hospitaller_knights_medieval_era/" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4b7lke/black...</a>
That wasn't Italy, was the Republic of Genoa.<p>Trying to frame historical states into modern territories (today's Italy began to unify almost 300 years later, in the mid XIX century) makes no sense, and doesn't help understanding the historical context.<p>For those interested, this is what that area looked like in 1559:<p><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/It%C3%A0lia_-_Fin_dei_Gu%C3%A8rras_d%27It%C3%A0lia_%281559%29.png" rel="nofollow">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/It%C3%A0...</a><p>(the article is about the green part).<p>Update: typo
(2014)<p>Syndicated from <a href="https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/fancy-pants-skirmishes-with-the-fashion-police-in-16th-century-italy" rel="nofollow">https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/fancy-pants-skirmish...</a>
It's a quibble maybe, but seems to me the term "fashion" police refers to attempts to uphold fashion, rather than requiring humbleness, etc. Fashion is frothy, it's not basic. Clothing police, ok, antifa(shion) police, ok.
I hate it when someone takes scientific research and willingly distort its meaning for whatever reason.<p>The job of these magistrates were not to police “fashion”, or what people wore, but to police ostentation — two very different things.<p>To reduce this to fashion significantly changes the interpretation of social rules of the period.
I thought that it was well understood that the purpose of sumptuary laws was to prop up social hierarchies.<p>With this in mind the "startling discovery" is not startling at all.