Curls are illegal: why long hair was forbidden in Ancient Rome
In 416, the authorities of the Roman Empire banned the wearing of long hair and clothing made of hides in Rome and its surroundings. Historian Javier Arce suggested that the decree was primarily directed against the Romans themselves, who adopted the appearance of German soldiers and nobility. According to the researcher, the authorities were trying to preserve the usual social differences and stop the spread of fashion, which was associated with recent opponents of the empire. This is stated in a study published in the journal Pyrenae. Why the state regulated hairstyles, why long hair was associated with power, and how baldness became a symbol of wisdom — in the Izvestia article.
Hairstyle is illegal
The decree was issued on December 12, 416 in Ravenna, the residence of the Western Imperial Court. The document, issued on behalf of Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, was addressed to Probian, the city prefect of Rome. The law used the expression maiores crines — "longer hair" or "long curls". At the same time, the authorities banned indumenta pellium, clothing made from hides. The restrictions even applied to slaves, which was emphasized separately in the text.
Free-born violators faced punishment under the law, the nature of which was not specified in the decree. Slaves could be sent to forced community service. The ban applied not only inside Rome, which was named in the document as the "holiest city", but also in neighboring areas. The Latin text of the decree is preserved in the XIV book of the Theodosian Codex, a collection of imperial decrees published in 438.
At the same time, the document did not establish the permissible length of hair, did not describe prohibited hairstyles and did not divide residents by origin. It also did not say whether the authorities should forcibly cut the hair of violators. Arce's research does not provide known cases of the decree's application, so it is impossible to establish how consistently it was implemented.
The popular claim that the law forced all Romans, including women, to cut their hair short is also not entirely correct. Formally, the text speaks about people of different social categories, but the cultural image Arce is considering is primarily associated with long—haired men - German soldiers, commanders, courtiers and representatives of the nobility. Therefore, it was most likely not about any length of hair, but about a recognizable appearance that the authorities considered foreign.
From toga to pants: How Rome regulated appearance
The Law of 416 was not an unexpected intrusion of the state into private life. For centuries, the Roman authorities have used clothing and appearance as a way to denote a person's position and make the social hierarchy visible.
According to Suetonius, even Emperor Augustus sought to return traditional clothes and ordered that people who appeared there without togas should not be allowed to enter the forum. Later, certain types of clothing were assigned to officials, senators, military, free citizens and slaves. The authorities feared that the mixing of external signs would lead to confusion between social groups and cause conflicts.
In 382, senators were ordered to appear at meetings and official events in a toga, and not in a chlamydia, a cloak associated with military service. Other types of capes and hoods were provided for people who did not hold government positions.
In 397, the inhabitants of Rome were forbidden to wear trousers and a certain type of high boots associated with oriental and foreign fashion. The violator was threatened with confiscation of property and exile. In 399, the ban had to be repeated, this time providing for expulsion from the city. These regulations were preserved immediately before the decree on long hair in the same section of the Theodosian Code.
Clothing in such a system served not so much as an expression of individual taste, but rather as a kind of identity card. By the appearance of a person, it was supposed to immediately determine his profession, rank and place in the social hierarchy. An unusual hairstyle or borrowed wardrobe item could be perceived as an attempt to impersonate a member of another group.
Arce classifies the decree of 416 as lex vestiaria, the laws governing clothing and public appearance. Their execution could be monitored by city officials. Control was linked, among other things, to ensuring order: the late Antique prefects were afraid of riots, during which residential buildings, markets and shops suffered.
Why did the Romans adopt the "barbaric" fashion?
At first glance, long hair and clothing made of hides indicate that the law was intended for Goths, Franks or other immigrants from outside the empire. However, Arce considers this explanation insufficient. If the decree had been directed exclusively against foreigners, it would have to be assumed that they formed such a prominent part of the urban population that their appearance required a separate imperial decree. The historian suggests another version: the Romans themselves began to adopt foreign fashion.
In the article, Arce uses the term "Germanization," but it's not about the mass migration or disappearance of the Roman population. It refers to the borrowing of clothes, hairstyles and other external features associated with the German military elite.
Later, the author of Anonymous Valesius formulated this cultural interpenetration as follows: "A poor Roman imitates a Goth, and a rich Goth imitates a Roman." Some borrowed the appearance of strong warriors, while others sought to reproduce the lifestyle of the wealthy Roman elite. At the same time, the very fact of the ban does not prove that German hairstyles were widespread. The law primarily shows the concern of the authorities. It is impossible to determine the real number of long-haired residents of Rome from it.
Six years after the sack of Rome
The date of the decree's publication is of particular importance. In 410, the Visigoths, led by Alaric, captured and plundered Rome. Although the city was no longer the permanent residence of the Western emperors, its fall had great symbolic significance.
In just six years, a man with long hair and dressed in skins could remind the residents of the capital of those who had recently entered the city as a conqueror. Therefore, the borrowed fashion acquired not only aesthetic, but also political content.
A similar concern about the penetration of an "alien" appearance into the Roman political environment can be seen in a poem by Claudius Rutilius Namatian, who accused the military commander Stilicho of opening Rome to people in skins and actually becoming a prisoner even before his capture. Stilicho himself came from a family of vandals and Roman women, held senior positions under Honorius and was executed in 408. His career shows how closely the Roman and Germanic elites interacted by this time.
Against this background, imitation of the Goths could be perceived as admiration for their military successes and growing influence. The law allowed the authorities to re-draw the visible boundary between a Roman and an outsider — even if this boundary already did not correspond well to the real structure of the empire.
Why did long hair mean power?
Long hair in the Late Antique world was not always a common ethnic feature. They could indicate a high rank, belonging to the royal family, or a special position at court. The sixth-century historian Agathius of Mirine wrote that the Frankish kings had not had their hair cut since childhood. Their hair fell to their shoulders, and they were carefully tended and carefully combed. Representatives of the lower classes, on the contrary, were supposed to have their hair cut short. However, this evidence dates back to a later time and does not prove that all Germans in Rome at the beginning of the fifth century wore their hair long.
Images from late Antiquity also show long-haired palace guards and military men. Such figures can be seen on the base of the obelisk of Theodosius I in Constantinople and on the missoria of Theodosius, a ceremonial silver platter. The hairstyle could emphasize belonging to the prestigious military environment of the ruler.
In the following centuries, forced hair removal, known as decalvatio, became one of the methods of public humiliation. Such a punishment could deprive a person not only of dignity, but also of the opportunity to claim political power. His hair was perceived as part of his status and legitimacy.
Therefore, the Romans might have been attracted not by abstract "barbaric exoticism", but by the image of a strong warrior or a representative of a new military aristocracy. By prohibiting this fashion, the imperial administration tried to return the appearance of the population to the usual system of designations.
Did the Romans always have their hair cut short
The Romans themselves also attached great importance to hair. The hairstyles of the emperors were reproduced on coins, statues and portraits, and then became a model for their subjects. Thanks to these changes, researchers today can roughly date works of Roman art.
Augustus was depicted with carefully arranged locks on his forehead, Hadrian introduced a beard and thick curls into imperial fashion, and Caracalla preferred a short military haircut. As noted, the change in the ruler's appearance was part of the political image.: it could emphasize a connection with predecessors, military strength, philosophical interests, or unity of power.
Women's hairstyles also conveyed their background, wealth, and proximity to the imperial court. Representatives of the nobility used complex styling, false strands, dyes and jewelry. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that for Roman culture, long or thick hair was considered unacceptable in itself. The person's gender, styling method, social status, and cultural associations of a particular hairstyle mattered.
Therefore, the law of 416 should not be understood as an attempt to establish the only acceptable Roman haircut. It is more likely that the authorities were fighting a specific combination of long hair and fur clothing, which was attributed a foreign and military-political significance. This interpretation is based on the interpretation of the Arce, and not on the direct explanation of the legislators.
How baldness became a sign of wisdom
Arce devoted a separate part of his research to the treatise "Praise to Baldness" by Synesius of Cyrenia. He was a neoplatonist philosopher, rhetorician, and disciple of Hypatia of Alexandria, and later became Bishop of Ptolemais. The exact dating of the work remains approximate: it is attributed to the turn of the IV–V centuries. Synesius wrote the text in response to Dion Chrysostom's "Praise of Hair." It was a literary and rhetorical experiment in which the author deliberately defended an unpopular position.
Synesius argued that animals covered with fur were inferior to humans in intelligence, and philosophers were especially wise among humans, many of whom were bald. He associated the spherical shape of the head with perfection, celestial bodies and the sun. The author attributed health, a strong skull, wisdom and priestly dignity to bald men. Owners of long hair, on the contrary, he imagined narcissistic, prone to seduction and not trustworthy.
These arguments should not be mistaken for the medical ideas of the era or the official ideology of the empire. The treatise was an intellectual joke, full of references to Homer, mythology and ancient philosophers. He does not prove that the Roman authorities really considered bald people healthier and more reliable.
However, Synesius' political views allow Arce to place the work in a broader context. In a speech "On tsarist Power" addressed to Emperor Arkady, the philosopher demanded that the Goths, whom he called Scythians, be removed from government posts and the army be purged of them. He condemned the foreign military, who put on a Roman toga in the palace, and then returned to clothes made of skins and mocked the traditional vestments.
Thus, Synesius' serious political speech reflects the distrust of a part of the Roman elite towards the growing influence of the German military much more clearly than "Praise for Baldness." Arce does not claim that the treatise on baldness directly led to the appearance of the law. He suggests viewing both texts as manifestations of the same cultural atmosphere, in which long hair was associated with foreign power, moral suspicion, and political threat.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
