style
carriers of not only the idea of service,
but also modesty, including clothing.
What clothes did they wear? In mass
it is the simplest of coarse homespun
cloths, which symbolized the refusal of
pleasures in the name of service, the
acceptance of one's path and one's
duties, the readiness to become a small
part of the large mass, and most often
it was gray.
That is the reason why in the depths
of the collective unconscious, the gray
suit is a symbol of 'service', worthy of
respect . So, putting on a habitual gray
suit, which we often complain about for
its ‘boredom’, just remember that its
story goes back to our ancestors.
which logically led to the fact that it
was used to color the most expensive
fabrics, making purple clothes the
prerogative of the very top of the social
ladder, a symbol of wealth and power.
Just imagine: to get one gram of dye
required to catch about one ton or 330
thousand mollusks.
Rich Egyptians from the time of Ramses
wore clothes of the colour of clotted
blood, and in ancient Rome and Greece
only emperors, commanders and judges
had the right to wear purple togas.
Alexander of Macedon not only wore
garments of purple, but also ordered
to cover his throne with a purple cloth,
and even the ink of his personal inkwell
traveling with him during his famous
campaigns was a purple colour – the
colour of power and wealth.
How did the colour of the state's
administrative apparatus clothing
change over the centuries? The general
trend – the movement from wealth
(according to the splendid outfits
of officials at the court of French
Ludoviks people judged the scale of
embezzlement of one or another person,
the same situation was at the court
of Russian empresses) to modesty
(remember Novoseltsev from the ‘Office
Romance’). In addition, the growth of
the states’ territories, the complication
of the administrative apparatus,
the fragmentation of it into various
departments and administrations have
dictated their dress code requirements.
The basic functions of any uniform
that still governed were clearly formed:
unifying – to show belonging to a
certain professional environment,
and signal-distinctive – to highlight,
show the level of hierarchy within
this environment. Do not forget that
alongside the authorities there has
always been a religion, one of the
most powerful institutions of influence
on the minds and behavior of people
(albeit spiritual). The idea of any
religion is the transfer of wisdom, laws
of spiritual development, postulates
and commandments of behavioral
manifestations ("do not steal," "respect
the elders," "honor the parents," "help
the weak," etc.). And of course, in the
mass of its ministers of religion were
The second powerful force of any state
apparatus, apart from religion, has
always been the military: the squad,
troops and army. Often the presence
of an excellent army was much more
important for strengthening the
authority of the leader than religion.
As a rule, a state leader was – and this
tradition is still preserved – also the
supreme military commander-in-chief.
That's why, although the design of state
officials’ costumes was diverse, there
were constant elements originating in
key sources of uniforms – a clergymen's
dress, a military uniform: a strict
costume cut from a military uniform
as a symbol of willingness to make
decisions often in difficult situations,
and restrained costume colors.
Undoubtedly, everyone is free to draw
their conclusions from the above, but
such a rich history of uniforms is first
and foremost a reason to be proud of
one’s profession: for millennia it is in
demand with its ability to influence
decision-making and responsibility,
show off intellect and will. And of
course, it needs to reflect style:
discreet and balanced, emphasizing the
strengths of everyone.
supported by EUROBAK
51