How come English barristers have too-small wigs?

[Cassie_In_The_Attic]

Like the one shown here: Cultural Flashpoints North of the Scalp - The New York Times

I can understand the idea of sticking with tradition.
And I can understand the point of the original wigs - you don’t want to fuss with your hair all the time, so it’s the easy way to keep an elaborate hairstyle.

But why don’t they cover all the natural hair?

[crowmanyclouds]

I think the article you cited answers the question quite well,

… Also gone will be the especially elaborate full-bottomed wigs worn on ceremonial occasions; the smaller, cheaper and much less uncomfortable bob wigs that will still be worn in criminal trials will do. …
… The white, curly horsehair wigs have been in use in court since the 1600’s, when they were fashionable in society as well, and they long ago became the visible emblem of the British legal system. The Times of London reports that they remain popular with the public, and especially with defendants, who are said to favor being represented by “a proper lawyer with a wig.” And some in the legal profession liked the link with history, as well as the measure of disguise they provided, making barristers and judges who are seen wigged in court harder to recognize unwigged on the street.

But many others despise wigs as hot, smelly, and more to the point, elitist - they make all too obvious the caste system in British law, dividing the more numerous solicitors, who do most of the day-to-day work of representing clients, from the more prestigious barristers, who for centuries had a monopoly on the right to speak (and to wear a wig) in court. These days the functional distinction between the two kinds of lawyer is eroding, and the solicitors, at least, want the sartorial distinction to vanish as well.

As for Lord Phillips, he apparently was simply annoyed with all the rigmarole, and wanted to save the government some of the considerable expense (upwards of $3,000 apiece for the full-bottomed wigs, for example) of fancy court dress. …

CMC fnord!

[APB]

Eighteenth-century fashions for men’s wigs came in every conceivable variety and often reflected the common trend for new fashions to react self-consciously against old ones. Too-small wigs were just the flipside of too-big ones.

Any style could have become associated with barristers. It just happened that it was this particular mid-century fashion.

Ede and Ravenscroft - Robe Makers & Tailors since 1689 - Legal [PDF]

[Princhester]

[QUOTE=Cassie In The Attic]
Like the one shown here: Cultural Flashpoints North of the Scalp - The New York Times

I can understand the idea of sticking with tradition.
And I can understand the point of the original wigs - you don’t want to fuss with your hair all the time, so it’s the easy way to keep an elaborate hairstyle.

But why don’t they cover all the natural hair?
[/QUOTE]

They are symbolic and traditional rather than in any way functional. You could as easily ask why they cover any natural hair, as why they don’t cover it all.