Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Introduction to the Journal of Luxury and Fashion (1786)

2016; Duke University Press; Volume: 12; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1215/17432197-3436295

1751-7435

Friedrich Justin Bertuch, Georg Kraus,

German Literature and Culture Studies

The Journal des Luxus und der Moden (Journal of Luxury and Fashion) appeared from 1786 to 1827. It lived through the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, almost a decade of French occupation, a dozen years of postrevolutionary reaction, and five different titles.1 Forty-two volumes were published, amounting to roughly forty thousand pages with a total of 1,493 illustrations. In its early heyday the 2,250 monthly copies, sold primarily by subscription at four Reichstaler per year, reached an estimated readership of twenty-five thousand (Greiling 2005: 221; Wurst 2010: 57). Spawning several offshoots and competitors, the journal was one of the most successful publication ventures of its kind; more than any other, it shaped the discourse on fashion and luxury in German-speaking Europe.The journal was located in Weimar, a petty political backwater about to emerge as Germany’s supreme cultural hotspot. Not surprisingly, some of its more illustrious residents, including Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Wolf-gang von Goethe, took a dim view of the way in which the journal mixed learned deliberations on taste and culture with updates on Parisian corsets and British footwear. But as Karin Wurst notes, the reason for the journal’s immense success lay precisely in the fact “that it was able to combine educational and high-cultural aspects with entertaining and economic aspects” (2005: 131). This was very much the intention and the work of its founder and principal editor Friedrich Justin Bertuch (1747–1822). Bertuch belonged to a new breed of cultural entrepreneurs whose contributions to Weimar culture are indisputable, as is their subsequent neglect in favor of Weimar poster boys such as Herder and Goethe. A student of law and theology who broke off his studies to become a private tutor, then a modestly gifted writer more talented at translating, Bertuch most likely would have dawdled along the generic career path followed by countless German literati of his day had he not discovered and exploited a remarkable business acumen. It not only turned him into Weimar’s most successful publisher but also secured his position as one of the duchy’s largest employers and most generous patrons of the arts; he subsequently built himself the largest house in town (Greiling 2005: 224). To quote the subtitle of a recent study, his life took place between “culture and commerce” (Steiner and Kühn-Stillmark 2001), and that is why he was—to quote the subtitle of an earlier biography—so “admired, envied, [and] controversial” (Hohenstein 1989). As a prolific contributor to the journal, he participated in the production of aesthetic discourse; as the owner of a paper mill and pigment-manufacturing facilities, he supervised the journal’s material and economic production; as the journal’s editor, he was involved in every aspect of marketing and circulation. Bertuch and his journal straddled domains others preferred to separate.Committed to spreading the word on the latest achievements in fashion and luxury, Bertuch realized that the success of his endeavor depended on spreading the correct words and concepts about luxury, in order to avoid the usual dismissals these topics were prone to elicit. The following text is one of Bertuch’s many attempts to clarify what the journal—indeed, what fashion and luxury—is really about. It is the first essay of the first issue, and it is safe to attribute principal authorship to Bertuch rather than to his collaborator, the illustrator Georg Melchior Kraus (1737–1806). The basic message is a programmatic distinction designed to move beyond both the mindless exaltation and the wholesale condemnation of luxury. Bertuch proposes a tripartite differentiation of the latter into Wolleben [sic], Hochleben, and Ueppigkeit [sic]. Ueppigkeit, here translated as opulence, denotes or rather denounces all objectionable luxury characterized by ostentatious and irresponsible waste that erodes morals and social boundaries and siphons off national capital by indulging in costly foreign—in other words, primarily French—products. Wolleben, in turn, corresponds to “comfort,” as it appears in eighteenth-century British and American writings (e.g., Thomas Jefferson), and to French commodité (Borchert 2015: 234). It extends beyond the satisfaction of basic needs (or merely creaturely comforts), yet it remains within the orbit of responsible and collectively beneficial consumption. The middle term Hochleben denotes the positive, or at least nondetrimental, form of conspicuous luxury. In contemporary German, hochleben is a verb you use when you celebrate somebody (as in Bertuch lebe hoch!—“Three cheers for Bertuch!”). At the risk of trivializing matters, the most revealing translation is the most literal: Hochleben is high life. It refers to the high standard of living primarily associated with the aristocracy and affluent members of the haute bourgeoisie, which does not deteriorate into Ueppigkeit but remains of benefit both to the domestic economy and the collective refinement of taste.This differentiation, not to mention Bertuch’s calming reassurance that in matters of luxury, too, “the truth resides in the middle,” may come across as rather trite. It is necessary, therefore, to briefly point out the intriguing subtext(s). Like any ambitious journal editor, Bertuch is eager to convince readers of the urgency and respectability of the reading material. It is necessary, crucial, and unavoidable to talk about fashion, yet it is also a worthwhile and edifying topic. In order to make the point that the new discourse on fashion is a beacon of both responsibility and refinement, Bertuch presents a potent mixture of economics and anthropology.The introduction first deploys the old emergent order argument from the pen of Adam Smith. Regardless of the motives behind each individual act of luxurious self-gratification, the accumulation of such acts will result in an overall economic benefit by means of production increase.2 The invisible hand of the market will continue to operate—and, in fact, operate extremely well—even when wearing jewel-studded silk gloves, provided that everything stays within the domestic economy.3 The second argument follows hard on the heels of the first. Bertuch, at this point more idealist than capitalist, is convinced that the manufacture of luxury items will grow by leaps and bounds and thus threaten to overwhelm unprepared German customers. The goal of the Journal des Luxus und der Moden, therefore, is to acquaint readers with new items while providing guidelines on how to evaluate them. Once again, Smith’s emergent order argument kicks in, though now on a cultural level: just as the accumulation of individuals acts of consumption emerges in the shape of increased circulation of wealth, the accumulation of individual acts of discernment emerges in the shape of an overall social refinement of tastes and manners.The third economic argument has less to do with the fear that insufficiently refined Germans will buy too much, or too much of the wrong stuff, than with the equally troubling prospect that they may buy too little. Bertuch, now more capitalist than idealist, is convinced that middle-class readers still unfamiliar with the rituals of conspicuous consumption need to be subjected to an early form of consumer engineering: they have to learn that things they hitherto thought are merely used are, in fact, used up and hence need to be replaced, not because they are defunct but because they are unfashionably behind the times. This involves a discursive (re)construction of novelty immune to charges of superficiality and fickleness. Here, anthropology comes to the rescue. Bertuch’s racist reference to North American “savages,” incapable of building proper huts but nonetheless eager to adorn their bodies with tattoos and all kinds of knickknack, is designed to elevate the sense of fashion and comfort to the status of an anthropological constant. The introduction does not spell it out, but Bertuch is countering one of the most fundamental charges leveled at the proponents of the new middle-class fashion industry. By adopting aesthetic forms and rituals hitherto associated with the aristocracy, the bourgeois individual is not, as often claimed, engaging in an emancipatory self-fashioning that undermines old orders of conduct but merely developing a bourgeois version of self-alienating aristocratic artificiality. Not so, the introduction argues, since “an appreciation of finery, a tendency to indulge in fashion, is common to all peoples.” Ultimately, the real affront against nature is to argue that the appreciation—indeed the need—for luxury and fashion is not natural.4The introduction concludes with a plea to “discerning, refined, and knowledgeable readers” to submit “further news and observations.” This is more than mere pandering. Bertuch, once again switching over to the idealist side, is genuinely interested in a conversation. (In fact, future issues will stage discussions by inviting readers, frequently women, to argue the pros and cons of contested items such as corsets.) It is as if he had received a two-hundred-year advance copy of Jürgen Habermas’s (1991)Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. If buying domestic luxury items benefits the national economy, and if developing faculties of taste and aesthetic refinement in the realm of fashion benefits customs and mores in general, then the discussion of porcelain trinkets, shoe buckles, and garden-house furniture is no less a practice for political deliberations than the discussion of the literary works produced by Bertuch’s better-known Weimar coresidents.5Upon launching our Journal of Fashion,6 we feel compelled to clarify a number of points on which we wish to arrive at a common understanding with our readers and to provide a few pointers about the plan and purpose of our venture.First, then, a few words about luxury! Since our journal seeks to start a chronicle, as it were, of all manners of luxuriousness and enjoyable sensual experiences, encompassing the infinite degrees of pleasure ranging from those associated with basic physical needs all the way up to the most refined sybaritic concupiscence, we no doubt would invite many a fully justified rebuke were we not to survey the whole expanse of that huge tree that spreads its roots, its fertile branches and lush offshoots, throughout the entire inhabited world.So much has been written and said for and against luxury, so interminable and absolute have been its condemnations and vindications, that it would indeed be strange if here, too, the truth were not to reside in the middle.Luxury, claims the disciple of the physiocratic system, is the scourge of nations! It wastes revenues on fruitless expenditures; stymies reproduction; saps the nation’s physical strengths; erodes sentiments of morality and honor; destroys the affluence of families; and burdens the state with droves of beggars.Luxury, claims the financier, is the state’s richest source; the omnipotent lever of industry; and the most forceful stimulus for circulation. It erases from our customs all traces of barbarism; creates arts, sciences, trade, and manufacture; increases the population and strengthens the state; and ensures the enjoyment and happiness of life!Who is in the wrong? Both, we believe, when they reflect on these important matters in absolute terms. The entire dispute is based on an incorrect, or at least insufficiently defined, concept of luxury, caused by the attempt to cover so much with one single word. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we may clarify matters by introducing distinctions such as “comfort” [Wolleben], “high life” [Hochleben], and “opulence” [Ueppigkeit]. Across our entire globe, people are desirous and capable of living well once they have accumulated just a bit more than what they need to take care of life’s basic necessities; and the ardent desire to achieve such a state is, no doubt, the most potent stimulus for the growth of industry and the arts, as well as for the increase of inventions and taste—in short, for the greatest portion of human activities. The noble and the affluent, in turn, aspire to live on a higher footing, in part because they want to be elevated in the eyes of others, in part because they are driven by a thirst for all the pleasant sensations that are so easily available to them. They are thereby fulfilling, as it were, a duty toward the state in which they reside. To quote a highly competent judge:On these two levels, luxury is not only harmless but also one of the great arteries in the living body of the state that is deeply woven into the fabric of our modern societies. It is an axiom, as true as any in mathematics, that where many have to live, some have to live well and a few have to live on a very high footing, and furthermore, that where nobody wants to live well or further raise their standard of living, many will not be able to live at all. But once these groups transgress their boundaries, once those who live moderately well spend what they need to subsist on trying to live on a higher footing, and once the affluent want to elevate their standard of living in excess of their income, luxury turns into opulence. And who can deny that this is detrimental to the fortunes of families and nations? But is this not true of any abuse of something that is, in and of itself, good? Luxury, if we may resort to this image, is like a staircase. Wise men ascend and descend without haste; children and madmen recklessly rush down and break their necks. Luxury, then, is as relative a concept as good and evil.Three social classes, above all, are most threatened by luxury: merchants, artisans, and servants. The boundaries between proper use and abuse are so imperceptible, the crossover from a reasonable good life to opulence so easy, and the effects of abuse so far-reaching and horrific, that states must strive to curtail any abuse as much as possible. Experience shows that dress codes and laws against excessive splendor are insufficient. A wise regent has other means at his disposal.If luxury is indispensable to nations, then its abuse will pose a greater threat to smaller than to larger ones. The reason is self-evident. The noble and affluent who wish to live on a high footing require for the satisfaction of their needs a multitude of skilled people. In smaller states lacking the latter, prospective clients will search elsewhere for satisfaction; and their money, which no longer flows to their fellow citizens in payment of their goods and services, will be spent abroad. Yet in larger nations that are in possession of all these goods and resources, it does not matter whether a hundred rich spendthrifts bankrupt themselves in the pursuit of foolish luxuries. Their money remains within the state and further increases its circulation.Furthermore, it is equally true that the more the faculties of taste and the arts are developed in a state, the less it is threatened by excessive luxury. On the contrary, it may even gain a certain ascendancy over other states. France is a prime example. Henry IV already envisaged the plan to render the rest of Europe indebted to France by increasing the production of luxury items. He therefore promoted the fine arts and issued explicit orders to French manufacturers to constantly revise their products. He achieved his goal; and France remained the sole arbiter of taste in matters of luxury and fashion until Britain, by availing itself of the same means, emerged as a formidable competitor. Because the arts only came to be established very slowly in our domains, the entire North, and we Germans in particular, were for a long time France’s most enduring and willing customers, and in many respects we remain so to this day. But for some time now we have been nurturing these arts ourselves; as a result, our homegrown luxury has taken on a very different appearance and has become one of the principal drivers of the beneficial circulation of money.This, we feel, constitutes an adequate response to the imprecise and awkwardly phrased question: Is luxury harmful or beneficial? Hopefully, it will also ward off the unwarranted objection raised by zealots (regardless of creed or color) that we seek to promote and disseminate harmful luxury. Far from advocating and paving a way for the spirit of concupiscence, weakness, and waste, we hope that our journal and related contributions will not only succeed in providing readers with pleasant entertainment by means of periodically updated tableaus but also aid them in evaluating and making more careful use of the immense ebbs and tides of merchandise, with the result that large sums of money, which otherwise would be been spent on luxury items abroad, will remain in Germany. It is, however, impossible for us—as it would be for the wisest of lawmakers—to familiarize people characterized by an infinite variation of talents and characters of head and heart, with all the advantages of good taste and fashion that render life more pleasant, without risking the inevitable detrimental effects that arise from their misuse.In studying the history of man, we cannot fail to notice that an appreciation of finery, a tendency to indulge in fashion, is common to all peoples. The American savages dwelling in the darkest of forests, scarcely living in huts and frequently neglecting their basic needs, are as concerned about their beauty as the leading European coquettes. Their sense of fashion does not involve clothes; instead, it focuses on the body. In order to appear beautiful or to stand out among their peers, they inflict terrible tortures on their children to flatten their heads, or render them square, or pointed like a sugar cone; they cut and burn wondrous squiggles into their skin; and pierce their lips and noses to attach mussel shells, fish bones, and bird feathers. The desire to please and excel is a fundamental part of the spiritual makeup of all peoples; it is only the materials and signs that differ. The more affluent and refined an enlightened nation, the more comfortable, beautiful, tasteful, and varied their fashion. Genius, caprice, and chance are the creators; thirst for novelty and change, a widespread proclivity for distinction, and, most often, the speculations of manufacturers, render them malleable and ever-changing.Fashion is a fickle goddess that changes her appearance almost as frequently as the moon; and it is with this in mind that we have designed our journal in such a way as to deliver timely updates and exact descriptions, colors and illustrations of every new fashion and invention, regardless of what branch of luxury they belong to, as they appear in France, Britain, Germany, and Italy. Items of interest therefore are (1) female and male dress; (2) accessories; (3) jewelry; (4) porcelain trinkets; (5) furniture; (6) all manners of table- and drinkware, such as: silver, porcelain, and glass; (7) carriages, including the carriage as well as horse trappings and uniforms; (8) the design and decoration of houses and rooms; (9) garden and country houses. . ..All fashion-related made-up words, be they French, English, or Italian, will be retained in their original language; no timorous Puritanism will compel us to concoct ridiculous translations or circumlocutions, as we have seen others do. In fact, we refuse to tolerate any criticism of this linguistic mix, since we hope that this journal is not being read by those who wish to learn something about proper German style. And if there are indeed some who do so, it most certainly wasn’t our intention.We have one more favor to ask of sympathetic readers. Since we are dealing with an almost immeasurable field, we are bound to miss out on a number of fashions and attires, as well as on comfortable and beautiful new pieces of furniture and other tasteful artifacts, which are being produced either in Germany or abroad. Hence we encourage our discerning, refined, and knowledgeable readers to help us perfect our journal by submitting further news and observations. We will be sure to acknowledge such gallant assistance with the warmest and most heartfelt gratitude. We take pride in the fact that the very notion of contributing to the perfection of a subject matter that hitherto has never been subjected to any scientific scrutiny will be pleasing to women of taste and, indeed, to all connoisseurs of refined and beneficial luxury.Weimar, January 4, 1786.This material was first published as “Einleitung” (“Introduction”), Journal der Moden (Journal of Fashion) (January 1786): 3–16.