And yet ten years later, on May 5, 1609, another law enacted in the Senate stated:
Although in the year 1599 this council decided with great wisdom that married women should be permitted to wear pearls for only fifteen years after their first marriage, nevertheless it is very evident that the desired end has not been attained, and the extravagance has continued up to the present time and still continues with the gravest injury to private persons. Therefore, as it is necessary to remedy, by a new provision, not only this considerable incommodity, but also to prevent in the future the introduction into the city of a greater quantity of pearls than are found here at present, it is enacted, that married women as well as those who shall marry in the future (except the Serene Dogaressa and her daughters and her daughters-in-law living in the palace) of whatever grade and condition they may be, who have resided in this city for one year, cannot wear pearls of any kind except for ten years immediately following the day of their first marriage; and after that period they must lay aside these pearls which they are forbidden to wear on any part of their persons, at home or abroad, and as well in this as in the other cities, lands, and other places of our dominion, under the penalty of two hundred ducats. And if the husband of the offending wife is a noble, he shall be proclaimed in the greater council and declared a debtor to the office of the governors of the revenue in the sum of twenty-five ducats for each fine; and if he is a citizen or of any other condition, besides the penalty of two hundred ducats and the fine of twenty-five ducats above mentioned, he shall be banished for three years from Venice and the Duchy, and the same for each offence. And pearls or anything which imitates pearls, shall be forbidden to all other women, men and boys or girls of every age and condition at all times and in all places, under the same penalty of two hundred ducats. In the future no one shall in any manner bring pearls to this city as merchandise, under the penalty of their seizure and forfeiture. And the merchant shall be imprisoned for five consecutive years; and if he flees, he shall be banished from the city and district of Venice and from all other cities, lands, and places of our dominion for eight consecutive years.... And all who at present have pearls to sell are required to deposit a list of them with the sumptuary office, so as to avoid all fraud which could be practiced in this matter.
A copy of the title-page of this enactment is presented above.
The decrees and edicts were not confined to Venice, or to Italy, France, or Germany; they made their appearance quite generally throughout western and northern Europe and the interdictions of the civil authorities were strengthened by the voice of the bishops and other clergy, especially in the imperial cities of southern Germany. Yet the united authority of church and state was ineffectual in stemming the tide of fashion and personal fancy, and whether or not pearls should be worn became one of the much discussed questions of that period.
To the question, “Whether the statute and regulation of Bishop Tudertinus, who had excommunicated all women who wore pearls, was binding,” Joannes Guidius replied that many denied that this was so, and made the subtle defense that “the women had not accepted it and all had worn pearls, and it was considered that such a law was binding only when it was accepted by those for whom it was intended.”[[36]]
And as to the validity of the statutes requiring that women should not wear more than a definite number of pearls, he decided that “such a statute is valid and in itself good. And if the question is put whether every woman who infringes incurs the penalty, an answer may be gathered from the sayings of the doctors, who distinguish between married and unmarried women. They consider that an unmarried woman is obliged to obey the statute and regulation or to incur the penalty. But as to a married woman, if her husband approves, she should obey the statute; if, however, the husband objects, then the wife ought to wish to obey the statute, but in effect she should rather obey her husband, for she is most immediately and strongly bound to do this.”[[37]] Aided by such ingenious opinions as these, the women continued to follow their own inclinations notwithstanding the opposition of church and state.
Other fine distinctions were drawn by the lawyers of that day regarding ownership of gems under certain conditions. For instance, it was decided that pearls given by a father to his unmarried daughter remained her property after marriage because “they are given for a reason, namely to induce a marriage”; yet “pearls handed to a wife by her husband are not considered as her property, but must be given to his heirs, since it is supposed that they were given only for her adornment. The same holds good as respects pearls handed to a daughter-in-law by her father-in-law.”[[38]]
However, the greed of fashion, which law-makers and bishops could not arrest, was gradually satiated; and, influenced probably by the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, more simple taste prevailed in the latter part of the seventeenth century.
In the meantime, improvements in cutting and polishing had greatly increased the beauty and popularity of diamonds and other crystal gems, and this adversely affected the demand for pearls. Furthermore, cleverly fashioned imitations manufactured at a low cost also served to decrease the relative rank and fashion of the sea-born gems. In the eighteenth century, pearls were relatively scarce; the resources of the American seas were largely exhausted, likewise the Ceylon and Red Sea fisheries were not to be depended on, and practically the entire supply came from the Persian Gulf, with a few from European rivers and the waters of China. As a result, although they continued to be prized by connoisseurs, pearls were not so extensively sought after by the rank and file of jewel purchasers.