lutcrtcxts, Vol. 4, No. I, 2000 Outlandish Fears: Defining Decorum in Renaissance Rhetoric Wayne A. Rebhorn U n i v e r s i t y o f T e x a s a t A u s t i n caput esse artis, deccre: quod tamcn unum id esse, quod tradi arte non possit (the chief thing in this art is to be decorous, yet this is the one thing that cannot be taught by art) Cicero, Dc orato7-e, 1.29.132 In the chapter on decorum from his De ratione dicendi{On Rhetoric)^ published in 1532, the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives makes two claims about the subject that directly echo those expressed by Cicero in the epi¬ graph to this essay. First, Vives opens with the bald assertion that decorum is the central concern of rhetoric, going on to define it in traditional terms as the business of suiting one’s words to the circumstances in which one speaks, and of paying attention to the audience, the time and place, the na¬ ture of the subject, and one’s own character. Vives then makes his second claim: decorum cannot really be taught; essentially amatter of discretion {prudmtia) that involves all of life, it simply cannot be contained within the general rules or precepts of rhetoric (174). This assertion does not pre¬ vent Vives from tiffing to teach decorum, however, and he winds up writ¬ ing the longest chapter in his rhetoric book as he reviews ahost of specific verbal behaviors in specific situations, commenting as he does so on what he feels makes each example decorous or indecorous. His examples may seem ahodgepodge initially, but upon analysis they reveal at least one reg¬ ularity in their consistent concern that, whatever the subject may be and whatever the circumstances the speaker encounters, his words must always reveal that he is afigure of decorum himself Thus, Vives says one’s style should reflect one’s place in the social hierarchy, one’s “gradus dignitatis (176), that of aprince, for instance, being especially magnificent (177). He recommends the use of classical allusions because they are signs ot eru¬ dition and fit for talking with people from the city (175), and although he concedes that aclear and simple speech is appropriate when talking with the uneducated, he still prefers language that is (178).Revealingly,atonepointVivessaysthatalthoughthespeakerisper¬ mitted to use rustic words occasionally, he should avoid doing so “msticane” (183: in arustic manner), and although he may denounce vice with “spurcis verbis” (186: filthy language), he should takes pains to en.sure that such low words do not make his style seem base (186: “sordent sententiae”). Vives concludes his lengthy discussion by saying that if the speaker chooses 1 flowing and ornate 3 4 I N T E R T E X T S the right words, he will show that he himself is decorous, in other words, that he has the character of a“good and ... prudent man” (191). Thus, the o n e c o n s t a n t i n V i v e s ’ s d i s c u s s i o n o f d e c o r u m i s h i s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t t h e speaker must always strive to make his ethos or character seem decorous; he must constantly engage in what the social psychologist Er\'ing Goffman has called “face-work,” the careful management of his social image and posi¬ tion (5-45). Vives’s examples clearly reveal what many scholars have long said about classical and Renaissance notions of decorum, namely that they al¬ most always have an important social, not just arhetorical or aesthetic dimension.2 Scholars have not analyzed in any detail the specific social meaning the term has in specific texts, however, nor have they noted the way that decorum is frequently seen as the essential feature of the speaker’s ethos or character, as it is for Vives in the examples given above.3 In this perspective, the maintenance of decorum is really the maintenance of one’s...