25Vol. 10/2
2021
Decorum. An Ancient Idea
for Everyday Aesthetics?
Elisabetta Di Stefano
Everyday Aesthetics was born in the 21st
Century as a sub-discipline of Anglo-American Aesthetics and
it has spread in the international debate. However, the contribute of historical perspective has not
properly explored yet. Is it possible to trace the history of everyday aesthetics before the official birth of
this discipline? I will try and give an affirmative answer by focusing on an exemplary category: that of
the decorum. Using the history of ideas, I will analyse the Greek concept of prepon and the similar Latin
concepts of decorum which express the idea of ‘convenience’ or ‘fitness to purpose’ in the ethical and
rhetorical sphere. Later I will analyse the evolution of the concept of decorum in the theory of Ancient
and Renaissance architecture (Vitruvius, Leon Battista Alberti). My goal is to demonstrate that in
Ancient and Renaissance culture decorum is a  category that refers to the objects and practices of
everyday life but also a principle that regulates appropriate behaviour in the sphere of good manners.
Consequently, given its pervasiveness in the different areas of everyday life, the concept of decorum can
be a paradigmatic example to trace the history of everyday aesthetics. | Keywords: Decorum, Everyday
Aesthetics, Prepon, Good Manners, History of Ideas
1. Introduction
Originated at the start of the new Millennium as a  sub-discipline of AngloAmerican
aesthetics focusing on art, Everyday Aesthetics has distinguished
itself for its shift towards practices and objects of everyday life. Several fields
and varied aesthetic categories have been included in its inquiries,
nevertheless one line of investigation has received little attention until now,
that is to say, the historical realm. This essay aims to go back to the early
origins of Western culture in the attempt to trace the steps of the history of
everyday aesthetics before its official birth. To this aim I  will rely on the
methodology of the history of ideas in the footsteps of the Polish philosopher
Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1980). His method turns out to be particularly fitting
for my inquiry seeing as Tatarkiewicz developed the history of aesthetics
including all ideas affecting aesthetic issues, even when presented under
different names, and belonging to other disciplines not only philosophical.
26ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
Tatarkiewicz’s  historiographical approach allows us to find a  way out of the
traditional impasse inherited from the early historians of aesthetics, Robert
Zimmerman (1858) and Benedetto Croce (1902). They firmly held onto
a general framework excluding all contributions not produced by philosophers,
and inevitably got bogged down while attempting to legitimize a  history of
aesthetics also predating the eighteenth-century foundation of the discipline.
By separating the history of words from that of concepts, Tatarkiewicz claimed
that aesthetic thinking began in Europe more than two-thousand years before
a name was found for it and an autonomous field of research was established.
Considering that everyday practices and objects had rarely attracted
philosophical interest before, usually being seen as too trivial, this method,
that targets on implicit aesthetics, proves to be suitable above all for everyday
aesthetics. The reason for this is that it aims at including a variety of concepts
touching upon the field of aesthetics by relying not only on philosophical texts
but also on artistic and literary contributions, technical textbooks and private
documents.
Needless to say, a  full outline of the history of everyday aesthetics is an
ambitious goal far beyond the limits of this essay. I will therefore limit myself
by outlining the origins of one single aesthetic idea, that of decorum. This
notion has an exemplary value, inasmuch as it cuts across several cultural
realms. While changing its names in the course of different periods, it
preserves a consistent meaning: ‘aptness’, ‘convenience’, ‘fitness to purpose’.
Tatarkiewicz includes this notion among the varieties of beauty and focuses on
its terminological transformations:
From ancient times regarded as a variety of beauty has been aptness,
specifically the aptness of things to the task the things were meant to
fulfil, to the purpose that they served. The Greeks called this quality
πρέπον; the Romans translated the expression as decorum. […] Later, in
Latin, the name aptum was used more frequently, but in the
Renaissance decorum returned. Frenchmen of the ‘Great [17th
] Century’
most often called this property bienséance, Poles of the age spoke of
przystojność. Today one speaks rather of suitability, appropriateness,
purposefulness and functionalism as a  quality of certain arts and the
cause of the pleasure that we find in them. The terminology has varied,
but the concept itself has persisted.” (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p. 159)
Among the above listed terminological variations, decorum is in my opinion
the most interesting, inasmuch as it qualifies as a norm regulating the beauty
of both behaviour and architecture, two realms in which the Italian language
still uses the same Latin-derived word decoro.
The notion of decorum was first conceptualized by Cicero as a norm of rhetoric
and as a  principle of everyday life (Orat. 21, 70): “In an oration, as in life,
nothing is harder than to determine what is appropriate. The Greeks call it
πρέπον; let us call it decorum or ‘propriety’” Cicero, 1952, p. 357).
Starting from Cicero’s early definition and in reference to the history of ideas,
I  will first explore the Greek notion of πρέπον from which the Latin concept
stems; then I will focus on decorum as conveying the idea of ‘convenience’ and
27ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
‘fitness to purpose’ in the rhetorical and ethical sphere. Finally, I will analyse
the evolution of decorum in the Ancient and Renaissance architectural theory
(Vitruvius, Leon Battista Alberti) and in the field of good manners.
My goal is to demonstrate that decorum – and its analogous terms – is
a category that not only refers to the objects and practices of everyday life but
is also a principle that regulates appropriate behaviour. Consequently, given its
pervasiveness in the different areas of everyday life, the concept of decorum can
be a paradigmatic example to trace the history of everyday aesthetical ideas.
2. The concept of πρέπον in Greek culture
As emphasised by Pohlenz (1933, p. 53), the substantivized adjective to prepon
has many meanings. In archaic Greek it designates a  shining quality,
a conspicuousness which, like the virtues of Homeric heroes, stands out before
the eyes of the beholders (Homer, Iliad, XII, 104). However, the timelessness of
the myth fades away when the term to prepon is coupled with the noun kairos,
‘occasion’. The temporal determination provides a new meaning to to prepon
and connects it to what Mario Perniola defines as ‘actual beauty’, that is to say,
a type of beauty waiving off its absolute and universal value to adapt to given
circumstances (Perniola, 1982, p. 45).
The connection between ‘convenience’ (prepon) and ‘occasion’ (kairos) is
abundantly documented in Greek literature and it is particularly powerful in
technical writings about medicine, politics and rhetoric. This bond describes
words and actions being effective, since they are placed in a given space-time
configuration (i.e. the decisive place, the crucial moment) and therefore they
are well adapted to the situation (Trédé, 1992).
In the field of rhetoric, the link between prepon and kairos was first established
by Gorgias and then reinforced by Isocrates, according to whom discourses
cannot be beautiful if they are not attuned to the circumstances and befitting
the topic (Soph. 13). Furthermore, Isocrates was the first to confer an
educational and political value to the notion of prepon connecting it to the
issue of paideia, that is to say, the education of youth in relation to which the
rhetor is the life mentor.
In the realm of philosophy, Socrates plays a key role in the understanding of
the idea of prepon. Since he left no autographic writtings, his legacy can be
evinced from the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon, which often feature
Socrates in the main role.
In the Platonic dialogue, Hippias Major (289d-290e), talking about utensils,
Socrates claims that not all materials are well adapted to all shapes, but only to
those for which they are ‘appropriate’. For stirring a bean soup, a fig wooden
spoon is more appropriate than a golden one because “it makes the soup smell
better, and at the same time, […] it won’t break our pot, spill out the soup, put
out the fire, and make us do without a truly noble meal, when we were going to
have a banquet” (Plato, 1982, p. 13).
However, while Plato’s  Socrates is mainly concerned with metaphysical
28ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
questions and the quest for beauty in itself (i.e. the idea of beauty),
Xenophon’s  Socrates launches the notion of functional beauty. This latter,
which is to be found again in the Latin concept of aptus (appropriateness to
purpose), will survive through Medieval theoretical contributions – as testified
by Agustine’s surviving treatise, De pulchro et apto (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p. 160)
– until modern functionalism many centuries later.
Socrates’s key role in the elaboration of an aesthetic category pertaining to
everyday life is made clear by his many references to domestic environments
and objects of daily use. In a passage from Xenophon’s Memorabilia (III, 8, 4),
Socrates claims that a golden shield, although beautiful to look at, is not suited
to a battle since gold is too fragile to guarantee safety. The careful choice of
materials then translates into care for the people who are going to use them
and for their needs. This is clearly stated in a later section of the Memorabilia
(III, 10, 9-13). Talking to the armorer Pistias, who is bragging about his
breastplates and how they are well-made because they are well-proportioned,
Socrates claims that an armour should not be perfectly well-proportioned, but
in relation to the wearer. As a matter of fact, unfitting armours, as they hang
from one’s  shoulders or burden some other part of the body, are oppressing
and difficult to wear, while those which are fitting should look like “an
accessory rather than an encumbrance” (Xenophon, 1979, pp. 237-239).
Furthermore, the notion of convenience is abundantly discussed by Aristotle in
his contributions both to rhetoric and to philosophy. He defines convenience as
the right correspondence between the language and the character of the rhetor
(Reth. III, 7,1408 a-b) and in the Poetics (13, 1454a) he emphasises how each
character is supposed to use words and perform actions that are consistent
with their character. This line of thought has then been further developed in
Theophrastus’ Characters.
Finally, among the most important Greek theoretical contributions on the
notion of prepon, one should mention Panetius, a member of the middle Stoa.
While breaking with the early Stoa and its idea of the wise life as isolated from
the world, Panetius addresses all people, who while dealing with everyday
affairs have to make choices and perform actions. According to Panetious,
people should use their abilities and gifts to the benefit of society by following
the prepon which guides everybody to do the right thing at the right time (Cicu,
2000, pp. 136-137).
3. Cicero and decorum
The close correspondence between the Greek word prepon and the Latin
decorum is clearly stated by Cicero in the texts Orator (21,70) and De Officiis (I,
93). Although the two expressions are similar, the notion of decorum undergoes
some evolution in meaning in the transition between the text on rhetoric
written in 46 BC to the one on ethics written two years later.
It would actually be wrong to believe that the notion of decorum as presented
in the Orator is simply a tool of rhetoric. This latter is not only an operational
field connected to politics, but also one in which decorum is presented as
29ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
a guiding principle, whose validity extends beyond the rhetoric to the arts and
life in general (Guérin, 2009, p. 125). Nevertheless, an even stronger connection
between ethics and aesthetics can be found in the De Officiis, inasmuch as
decorum is introduced as the fourth part of the honestum dealing with the
appropriateness of discourses and daily actions performed within
one’s community.
In the rhetorical field, decorum is a virtue of style, harmoniously regulating the
relations between speaker, message, audience, and register of communication
(Orat. 21, 71). Latin rhetoric distinguishes three styles, genus tenue or plain,
genus medium and genus grande or grand. Decorum should see that each genre is
matched with the appropriate arguments, styles and audiences.
Despite appearing at first as a normative principle with codified rules, decorum
is introduced by Cicero when dealing with the difficulties connected to
understanding what is appropriate both in discourses and in life in general
(Orat. 21, 70: “ut […] in vita sic in oratione nihil est difficilius quam quid deceat
videre”; “In an oration, as in life, nothing is harder than to determine what is
appropriate” Cicero, 1952, p. 357).
It should be added that, in the realm of ethics, grasping the appropriateness of
words and actions with respect to circumstances is the result not of rational
intelligence but of a  form of sensibility which is able to perceive nuances,
atmospheres and moods. Jumping ahead to a  notion engendered within the
milieu of Romanticism, one might say, with André Demouliez (1976, p. 286),
that convenience belongs to the realm of taste, provided it is not taste itself.
This remark is confirmed by Quintilian (Inst. Or. 11, 1, 91); while connecting
decorum to measure and temperance, he states that convenient behaviour
cannot be guided by pre-established rules but only by sensitivity. We might
refer to it as a certain taste, as suggested by Quintilian’s  analogy with food,
where, rules are of little value. Inspired by the philosopher Panetius, in De
officiis Cicero emphasises the bond between decorum and moral integrity,
which is applied to interpersonal relations within the community, in the
following terms:
We have next to discuss the one remaining division of moral rectitude.
That is the one in which we find considerateness and self-control,
which give, as it were, a  sort of polish to life; it embraces also
temperance, complete subjection of all the passions, and moderation in
all things. Under this head is further included what, in Latin, may be
called decorum (propriety); for in Greek it is called πρέπον. Such is its
essential nature, that it is inseparable from moral goodness; for what is
proper is morally right, and what is morally right is proper. The nature
of the difference between morality and propriety can be more easily felt
than expressed. (Cicero, De off., I, 27, 93; 1928, pp. 95-97)
Self-control, temperance and moderation make up the essence of decorum and
provide aesthetic value to everyday life (quidam ornatus vitae, ‘a sort of polish
to life’), making one’s  manners gentle and one’s  behaviour refined, while
respecting not only those who belong to the high society but to all citizen.
As it was in Greek culture, also in Latin culture decorum is a form of beauty.
30ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
This is confirmed by Cicero’s analogy between the harmony of the body and the
appropriateness of one’s conduct. However, whereas physical beauty is visible
to the eye, decorum is a ‘relational’ aesthetic category. In other words, it is
a behavioural beauty which shines through words and daily actions and sparks
approval in the community.
For, as physical beauty with harmonious symmetry of the limbs
engages the attention and delights the eye, for the very reason that all
the parts combine in harmony and grace, so  this propriety, which
shines out in our conduct, engages the approbation of our fellow-men
by the order, consistency, and self-control it imposes upon every word
and deed. We should, therefore, in our dealings with people show what
I may almost call reverence toward all men – not only toward the men
who are the best, but toward others as well. […] It is the function of
justice not to do wrong to one's fellow-men; of considerateness, not to
wound their feelings; and in this the essence of propriety is best seen.
(Cicero, De off., I, 28, 98-99; 1928, pp. 101-103)
This form of beauty that glows in a correct behaviour is the distinctive feature
of the vir bonus (honest man), whose ideal portrait is painted by Cicero in De
officiis. This would be someone who is active in public and political life, and
who spends their free time (otium) engaging in the arts and philosophical
studies. By nurturing a  sense for aesthetics and abiding to the principles of
honesty and convenience, this person achieves elegance in their being and
acting.
As he outlines this ethical and aesthetic model of the ideal person, Cicero
includes in De officiis (I, 126-134) some sort of ‘manual of good manners’,
suggesting hygiene and behavioural norms inspired by the right measure and
avoiding all excess. He recommends bodily hygiene without affectation but also
without negligence; a way of walking neither too fast, nor too slowly; a clear
and fluent way of conversing, which avoids excluding others from the
conversation or falling into tittle-tattle (Cicu, 2000, pp. 150-154).
As a result, Cicero’s ideal person, in close resemblance to Roman models such
as Scipio Aemilianus, is well-read, balanced, never out of place or out of
measure, with a  strong sense of attachment to their homeland and
community.
As Guérin (2009, p. 126) points out “the decorum described in Cicero’s De officiis
is […] a  principle of coherence between the ethical agent and his actions,
a means to reach a state of general appropriateness, the rational convenientia
by the virtue of which one can make the choices and accomplish the actions
which correspond to his own nature”. As a result, Cicero applies to his vir bonus
model the same criterion of convenience, based on which the poets choose
only those words and actions that are befitting of a character – according to the
previously mentioned Aristotelian principle consolidated by Theophrastus.
Along the same line one can place Quintilian’s  contribution on the topic of
convenience in the XI book of his treatise, Institutio oratoria. According to
Quintilian as well, decorum is a  norm regulating the choice of content, the
distribution of words, the style and even the performance of the rhetor.
31ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
However, as it shares its lexical root with the impersonal verb decet (it is
convenient, it is befitting), decorum qualifies also as a moral principle, guiding
choices and behaviours even to the detriment of personal interest. Quintilian
mentions the example of Socrates, who refrained from simple personal defence
in court, which would have saved him from being sentenced to death, since it
was contrary to his moral values. Hence, the rhetor has to refrain from
persuasion if this latter clashes against a higher value (Inst. Or. 11, 1, 11). As
a  result, also for Quintilian, decorum is a  rhetorical norm regulating the
rhetorical performance as much a moral principle, guiding one’s lifestyle and
the consistency of thinking and acting. Indeed, in the footsteps of Cicero (De
or. 3, 212), he claims that the main virtue of the orator is prudentia (practical
sagacity). This is a moral virtue that can be acquired with experience and its
effects derive from the ability to grasp what is appropriate in each occasion.
In this regard, Latin culture establishes decorum as an ethical and aesthetic
category which describes the ideal of an honest person (Cicero) and of a rhetor
engaged in the rightful and appropriate administration of public affairs
(Quintilian) for the good of the community.
4. The Architectural Theory: Vitruvius and Leon Battista Alberti
The migration of the notion of decorum into the area of art – already
inaugurated by the numerous architectural metaphors employed by Cicero (De
or. III, 152 and Or. 50.) – was further legitimized by Vitruvius, who imported
into architecture many terms and concepts from rhetoric. According to
Vitruvius, architects have to design a  building taking into account beauty
(venustas), utility (usus) and appropriateness (decor) (De arch.  VI, 10). In De
architectura (IV, I, 7-8) decor is the principle that connects the use of the
various orders of architecture to the character of the divinity to whom a temple
is dedicated: the Doric style, simple and sober, is appropriate to gods who
manifest strength and military valor; the Ionian style is appropriate to female
deities; the Corinthian style with its delicate ornaments and floral motifs to
the youngest and most graceful gods.
Whereas Vitruvius is mainly receptive to the normative aspect of the principle
of convenience, Leon Battista Alberti also picks up on its moral value. In line
with Cicero’s and Quintilian’s teachings, he claims that a good architect must
be able to evaluate ‘what is fitting’ to each building since each of them has its
own specific ‘character’ (Alberti 1988, IX, 10, p. 315: “The greatest glory in the
art of building is to have a good sense of what is appropriate”). Paradigmatic
remarks are then provided concerning the differences between the palace of
a prince and the fortress of a tyrant:
A  royal palace should be sited in the city center, should be of easy
access, and should be gracefully decorated, elegant, and refined, rather
than ostentatious. But that of a  tyrant, being a  fortress rather than
a house, should be positioned where it is neither inside nor outside the
city. Further, whereas a  royal dwelling might be sited next to
a  showground, a  temple, or the houses of noblemen, that of a  tyrant
should be set well back on all sides from any buildings. In either case
an appropriate and useful guideline, which will lend the building
32ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
1
The connection between the concept of ‘dignity’ (dignitas) and that of ‘convenience’ (decor /
decorum) is found in the treatise De pictura II, 38, (Alberti 1980, p. 67: “Dignity must be
observed in everything. It would not be suitable to dress Venus or Minerva in a servant's hood
nor to dress Mars or Jupiter in female clothes” (my transl.).
2
Alberti (1988 VIII, 3, p. 250) claims: “In these matters I do feel, however, that even when the
dignity of the individual is considered, a sense of measure must be maintained, and that even
kings may be criticized for overexpenditure.”
dignity, will be to construct it in such a  way that, if a  royal palace, it
should not be so  large that it is impossible to throw out any
troublemaker, or, if a  fortress, not so  constricted that it resembles
a prison more than the apartment of a fine prince.” (Alberti 1988, V, 3,
pp. 121-122, emphasis mine)
Decorum is therefore connected to the idea of dignitas (dignity)1
, which
conveys the ethical and aesthetic distinctive features of individuals with
respect to their character and social status. While developing this line in book
VIII of his treatise on architecture, Alberti claims that decorum establishes the
amount and type of ornaments for different buildings taking into account
hosted functions and the social prestige of their inhabitants.2
Alberti then
outlines an ascending scale of aesthetic values from private dwellings to public
and religious buildings. These latter are said to require greater decorative
richness as no house can be more beautiful than the house of God. As a result,
the ornament is no longer just an additional and decorative element, and is
perfectly integrated to the structure, characterizing each building according to
the principle of decorum, understood as both an ethical and aesthetic measure.
Besides the decorum of the rhetorical tradition, Alberti also retrieves –
although just in a  quick implicit remark – the Socratic notion of prepon as
functional beauty. Socrates’ criticism of the golden shield, which despite being
aesthetically pleasing is of little use in battle, seems to find an echo in
Alberti’s words, as they criticize the “doors like those about which we read in
historians and poets, so heavily weighed down with gold, ivory, and reliefs that
they could be opened only by a team of men, and would give off a terrifying
creak” (Alberti 1988, VII, 12, p. 226). On the contrary, those less elaborate and
light, “that are easy to open and close”, should be appreciated more because
they are more functional.
The idea of beauty as aptness or fitness to purpose, already launched by the
Socratic prepon, is reborn along the centuries under many other names. As
emphasised by Tatarkiewicz:
During the Enlightenment, the concept of beauty became still more
strongly bound up with the concept of aptness; in that period, aptness
had advocates especially among the philosophers, essayists and
aestheticians of Britain: no longer now in the sense of social aptness,
but once again in the sense of utility, as formerly in Greece. David
Hume wrote (Treatise, 1739, vol. II) that the beauty of many human
works derives from their utility and fitness for the purpose which they
serve. Likewise Adam Smith (Of the Beauty which the Appearance of
Utility Bestows upon all Productions of Art, 1759, part IV, chap. I): The
effectiveness of any system or machine in producing the purpose for
which they were designed, lends beauty to the entire object. And in the
same vein, Archibald Alison (Essays on the Nature and Principles of
33ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
3
As Tatarkiewicz (1980, p. 161) points out: “According to Dictionnaire de l'Academie Française
(1787 edition), ‘bienséance’ signifies ‘convenance de ce qui se dit, de ce qui se fait par rapport
a l’age, au sexe, au temps, au lieu etc.”
Taste, 1790) said that there is no shape that does not become beautiful
when it is perfectly suited to its purpose. For these writers the field of
beauty continued to be split: some objects possess their own beauty,
others acquire it thanks to their utility. (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p. 161)
While the Socratic prepon will launch a  line of thinking on architecture and
objects of use which will reach modern functionalism, the ethical and aesthetic
notion of decorum will sustain the debate on good manners and what is
befitting of those who wish to be part of ‘high society’.
5. The Good Manners
The ethical notion of dignity (in Italian decoro) recurs in a lot of books on good
manners. Already in The Book of the Courtier written by Baldassare Castiglione
in 1528, one reads that the perfect courtier must display courtesy and most of
all ‘discretion’ – that is to say, the ability to act appropriately according to the
circumstances (Castiglione 1901, par. 7-8, pp. 82-83).
The Courtier enjoyed great literary success in sixteenth-century Europe, and it
would be misleading to take it as just a handbook of good manners, like those
popping up in the following centuries starting with Giovanni Della Casa’s
Galateo. Already bucking the trend of his time and the decline of court values,
Castiglione aims to outline the ideal figure of the courtier, who is able to
bestow beauty on everyday life through an elegant and graceful behaviour. The
distinctive sprezzatura which shapes all of the courtier’s behaviours is a refined
art which avoids all artificiality. Virtue is indeed achieved, according to
Castiglione, when that affectation is kept at bay, that is to say, when each
activity is distinctively natural, simple and modest. However,
Castiglione’s ideal courtier belongs to the already faded Renaissance world. In
the sixteenth century, the courts of the great Italian lords resemble more
a theatre stage, where a role needs to be played, that is to say, one’s behaviour
needs to be adapted to what ensures the prince’s or leader’s benevolence; as
a result, courtesy turns into sterile formalism and etiquette.
The several treatises on good manners of the following centuries bear
testimony to the need to establish a code of norms defining the behaviour of
high society. Social aesthetics is hence developed on the basis of a  shared
ceremonial, which is often more a matter of appearance than a real expression
of virtue.
As Tatarkiewicz points out, over time the notion of aptness appears under
other names, particularly in seventeenth-century French classicist theory:
‘convenance’, ‘justesse’, and especially ‘bienséance’.3
The change was not only one of terminology. A fairly significant shift in
thinking had taken place: the concern now was less with qualities of
things fitting them to their use, and more with qualities of a  man
fitting him for his social station: a man is pleasing when his appearance
and behaviour match his estate and dignity. (Tatarkiewicz, 1980, p. 161)
34ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
4
According to Aristotles, (Met. IX, 6, 1048b e) the act (enérgheia) is the existence itself of the
object.
The issue of behavioural appropriateness finds ample development in French
and English debates in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, leading to the
origins of the person ‘of good taste’, a refined, elegant person, who is tactful
and able to select appropriate words and perform appropriate actions in each
moment of everyday life.
6. Decorum as a Category for Everyday Aesthetics
This short historiographical journey has shown that the notion of convenience
has crossed several cultural fields (philosophy, rhetoric, art, good manners) and
has received many names (prepon, decorum, decor, biénseance). What remains to
be investigated is whether this notion can be rightfully credited with
exemplary value with regard to everyday aesthetics.
Although Cicero presents prepon/decorum as operating within every aspect of
life, the propounders of Everyday Aesthetics do not seem to be familiar with
the Greek-Latin notion, despite often speaking of fitness for purpose and
convenience in relation to circumstances.
Within the Anglo-American contemporary debate, only Glenn Parson and
Allen Carlson (2008, pp. 2-4) directly refer to the Socratic prepon in order to
provide their theory of functional beauty with a  historical foundation.
However, their inquiry focuses on the question of whether beauty results from
‘being fit’ or ‘looking fit’ for function. They thus forget that, according to the
rhetorical theory of prepon/decorum, there is no dyscrasia between the two
options. Both Aristotle and Cicero (De or. III, 45, 179) conceive the perfection of
the discourse on the model of the human body, that is beautiful because each
organ fits its specific function. Following the rhetorical tradition, the architect
Leon Battista Alberti compares buildings to living organisms (“a  building is
very like an animal”; Alberti 1988, IX, 5, p. 301), and on this ground points to
the unity of ‘being’ fitting to purpose and ‘looking’ fitting to purpose:
Take the case of a  horse: they realized that where the shape of each
member looked suitable for a particular use, so the whole animal itself
would work well in that use. Thus, they found that grace of form could
never be separated or divorced from suitability for use. (Alberti 1988,
VI, 3, p. 158)
Without mentioning rhetoric but staying in the same line, Jane Forsey (2013,
p. 238) connects the idea of function with those of ‘character’ and ‘active use’
that are reminiscent of the Aristotelian ideas of ‘character’ and ‘enèrgheia’4
:
“The functional beauty […] marks out its everyday character, which can be
experienced only through active use as demanding singular and specific
attention”.
Closer to Everyday Aesthetics, the contributions of Japanese-American scholar
Yuriko Saito and Finnish philosopher Ossi Naukkarinen deserve particular
attention here.
In her famous book Everyday Aesthetics (2007, p. 7), focusing on “the care and
35ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
5
See Tatarkiewicz (1980), pp. 159-161, in particular on Alison, p. 161.
6
Alison (1821, p. 256) claims: “The Tuscan is distinguished by its severity; the Doric by its
simplicity; the Ionic by its elegance; the Corinthian and Composite by their lightness and
gaiety. To these characters, their several ornaments are suited with consummate taste.”
7
Greenough (1947, p. 71) points out: “I define Beauty as the promise of Function; Action as the
presence of Function; Character as the record of Function […] but so long as there is yet a
promise of function there is beauty, proportioned to its relation with action or with
character.”
8
See Hopkins (1951, pp. 78-80).
respect for the materials, users, and dwellers”, Saito echoes, unawarely, the
notion of appropriateness or adaptedness to purpose already developed in the
classical era through the Greek word prepon and the Latin decorum.
Furthermore, while repeatedly mentioning Archibald Alison, Saito mainly
references his association theory and the emotions evoked by natural
environments. She therefore does not seem to grasp the sense of
Alison’s  contribution to the development of an idea of beauty as aptness or
fitness to purpose.5
As already discussed elsewhere (Di Stefano 2020), Alison
retrieves, without particular theoretical rigor, the topos of the expressive
qualities of architectural orders6
, which is first to be found in Vitruvius’s  De
architectura, but then focuses in particular on everyday objects. Concerning
furniture, machines and tools, he claims, “nor is there any form which does not
become beautiful, where it is found to be perfectly adapted to its end.” (Alison
1821, p. 281)
Although Saito (2017, p. 125) discusses the issue of the appropriateness of
clothing to different circumstances and cultures, she fails to acknowledge that
Alison had already developed a wide investigation on this topic. According to
the Scottish philosopher, no garment is beautiful in absolute terms: the colours
of clothes should fit the situation and the person wearing them (Alison 1821,
pp. 176-178). Bright colours suit young people, sober ones the elderly, and the
colours of a prince’s garments are different from those of a farmer: “the dresses
in every particular performance had some relation to the character of that
performance, and to the emotion it is destined to excite in our mind.” (Alison,
1821, p. 247)
Alison’s remarks influenced the American cultural debate of the late nineteenth
century and had an impact on the theoreticians of modern functionalism. One
can indeed hear the echo of Alison’s  words in American sculptor Horatio
Greenough, one of the greatest propounders of American functionalism (Ringe,
1960, pp. 314-321), as he says that: “The most beautiful chairs invite you by
a promise of ease.” (Greenough, 1947, p. 122) According to Greenough, beauty is
the ‘promise of function’ and it expresses a proportion in relation to action and
character.7
Alison also influenced Ralph Waldo Emerson, who established an
insoluble connection between beauty and convenience.8
Along the line traced
by Greenough and Emerson, also Louis H. Sullivan developed contributions
which have earned him the title of father of modern functionalism (Di Stefano
2012).
Over the centuries the category of decorum has undergone several
36ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
transformations in relation to its different philosophical backgrounds. In
Saito’s contributions, for instance, the care for the materials, the users, and the
inhabitants is enriched with perceptual and sensorial nuances previously
unheard of, especially in the aesthetic debate predating the eighteenth century.
As a  result, Saito’s  concept of convenience acquires connotations which are
closer to sensibility than to normativity. The importance given to sensibility is
clearly expressed when Saito attempts to reconcile aesthetic and functional
criteria in the design of objects and buildings, by emphasizing the need to take
into account the physical and psychological effects that objects and
environments will produce in their users: “a  design process also engages the
moral capacity of care and respect for other people”, overall people with special
needs, for instance, children, elderly people, patients, people with disabilities
and refugees (Saito 2017, p. 227).
Along the same line Saito polemicizes against the narcissistic and selfreferential
trends in contemporary architecture, which make it arrogant if not
alienating, and hopes instead for “an architecture of courtesy and
attention.” (Saito 2007, p. 221)
Connecting the field of architecture and good manners, Saito is unconsciously
in line with Tristan Edward’s teaching (Edward 1944), who wrote a book titled
Good and Bad Manners in Architecture, thus reconciling the two evolutionary
lines of decorum: the architectural theory and the behavioural precepts.
According to the Welsh architectural critic and town planner, there are selfish
and presumptuous buildings, like skyscrapers, or even rude buildings. To
contrast these, he suggested polite and sociable buildings.
As we have seen, courtesy would in origin stand for the respect of given rules of
conduct and the being endowed with certain virtues (kindness, generosity)
which used to be a prerequisite for the members of the court. In a leap from the
Renaissance to the present time, within the line of the notion of
appropriateness and convenience applied to everyday behaviour, the remarks
on tact presented by another supporter of Everyday Aesthetics, the Finnish
scholar Ossi Naukkarinen, find an appropriate collocation. He claims that tact
is to be understood as a  behavioural mode which is appropriate to given
circumstances and respectful of others (Naukkarinen 2014). To behave tactfully
is really important in all those sectors where a given behavioural etiquette is in
place (e.g. at work; in politics; in social relations).
In the globalized and multiethnic world of today, it is easy to crash against
customs stemming from different cultural values and behavioural norms. In
this context, to use tact means to follow a  form of sensibility related to the
situation, selecting actions based on circumstances.
7. Conclusion
Following Władisław Tatarkiewicz’s  example and traced path, I  tried to show
that, since Antiquity and through the Renaissance, decorum has been
a category encompassing both objects and practices of everyday life as well as
the principle that regulated appropriate behaviour.
37ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
Although it might at first seem a normative principle, since Antiquity decorum
has had an ancipital meaning: it has both a  normative aspect and an aspect
connected to natural instinct. The former appears to be prominent in rhetoric
and architecture, where the fitting ornaments for each discourse (rhetorical
figures) and for each building are established. The notion of aptness regulates
also the design of objects and affects also the realm of behaviour, whenever
strict rules of conduct need to be followed (e.g. etiquette, diplomacy). However,
rules do  not always provide the fitting solution in relation to changing
circumstances, and a natural instinct need to take over. In the realm of social
relations, this kind of sensibility is called tact.
By means of this short historical journey, I have tried to demonstrate to what
extent the concept of decorum has pervaded all spheres of everyday life and to
what extent it not only belongs to the categories of everyday aesthetics, but it
also allows us to trace the history of Everyday Aesthetics before its official
birth.
References
Alberti, L.B. (1980) De pictura. ed. by C. Grayson, Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Alberti, L.B. (1988) On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Translated by J. Rykwert, N. Leach,
R. Tavernor. Cambridge Massachusetts - London England: The MIT Press.
Alison, A. (1821) Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste. Artfor: George
Goodwin & Sons. Anastatic reprint Hildescheim: G. Olms, 1968.
Castiglione, B. (1901) The Book of the Courtier. Translated by L. Eckstein Opdycke, New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Cicero (1928) De Officiis. Translated by W. Miller. London: William Heinemann Ltd- New
York: G.P. Putnam’s Son.
Cicero (1952) Orator. Translated by H.M. Hubbell. London: William Heinemann Ltd/
Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Cicu, L. (2000) ‘Cicerone e il prepon’, Paideia, LV, pp. 123-162.
Croce, B. (1994) Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic. London:
Routledge.
Demouliez, A. (1976) Cicéron et son goût. Essai sur une définition d'une esthétique romaine
de la fin de la République. Bruxelles: Latomus.
Di Stefano, E. (2012) ‘The Aesthetic of Louis H. Sullivan: Between Ornament and
Functionality’, in J. Gleiter (ed.) Ornament Today. Bolzano: Bozen University Press, pp.
64-75.
Di Stefano, E. (2020) ‘Archibald Alison e  l’estetica del quotidiano? Una prospettiva
neoestetica’, Aesthetica Edizioni Preprint n. 113, pp. 123-132. DOI: 10.7413/0393-
8522018.
Dowling, Ch. (2010) ‘The Aesthetics of Daily Life’, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 50:3,
pp. 225-242.
Edwards, A. T. (1944) Good and Bad Manners in Architecture: An Essay on the Social
Aspects of Civic Design. London: John Tiranti.
Forsey, J. (2013) The Aesthetics of Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenough, H. (1947) Form and Function. Remarks on Art, Design and Architecture. Ed. by
H. A. Small Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.
Guérin, Ch. (2009) ‘Philosophical Decorum and the Literarization of Rhetoric’, in F.
Woerther (ed.) Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac and
Arabic World. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, pp. 119-139.
Hopkins, V.C. (1951) Spires of Form: A  Study of Emerson's Aesthetic Theory. Cambridge
(Mass.): Harvard University Press.
38ELISABETTA DI STEFANO Decorum. An Ancient Idea for Everyday Aesthetics?
Naukkarinen, O. (2014) ‘Everyday Aesthetic Practices. Ethics and Tact’, Aisthesis, 1,
pp. 23-44.
Parsons, G.- Allen, C. (2008) Functional beauty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Perniola, M. (1982) Dal πρεπόν al decorum. Note sulla bellezza effettiva, Rivista di estetica,
12, XXII, pp. 44-52.
Plato (1982) Hippias Major. Translated by P. Wooddruff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Pohlenz, M. (1933) ‘To πρεπόν. Ein BeitragzurGeschichte des griechischenGeistes’,
Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Philolog.-histor. Kl., 16, pp. 53-92.
Quintilian (2002) The Orator's  Education. Edited and translated by D.A. Russell.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ringe, D.A. (1960) ‘Horatio Greenough, Archibald Alison: And the Functionalist Theory
of Art’, College Art Journal, 19(4), pp. 314-321.
Saito, Y. (2007) Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saito, Y. (2017) Aesthetics of the Familiar. Everyday Life and World-Making. Oxford:
University Press.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1980) A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. The Hague; Boston;
London: MartinusNijhoff. Warszawa: PWN/Polish Scientific Publishers.
Trédé, M. (1992) Kairos. L’à-propos et l’occasion. (Le mot et la notion, d'Homère à la fin du
IVe
siècle avant J.-C.). Paris: Klincksieck.
Vitruvius, (1999) Ten Books on Architecture. Translated by I. D. Rowland and Th. Noble
Howe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wusten H. van der (2016) ‘Decor and decorum in diplomacy’, in V. Mamadouh and
A. van Wageningen (eds.) Urban Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Xenophon (1979) Memorabilia, Oeconomicus. Translated by E.C. Marchant. Cambridge
(Massachusetts): Harvard University Press-London: William Heinemann.
Zimmerman, R. (1858) Geschichte der Aesthetik als Philosophischer Wissenschaft. Wien:
Braumüller.
Elisabetta Di Stefano
University of Palermo, Department of Humanities
viale delle Scienze, build. 12
90128 Palermo - Italy
elisabetta.distefano@unipa.it