7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

1/9

College Art Associationhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3046667 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art

Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3046667?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3046667?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

2/9

ORNAMENTBy ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY

AS remarked by Clement of Alexandria, the scriptural style is parabolic, but itis not for the sake of elegance of diction that prophecy makes use of figures ofjspeech. On the other hand, "The sensible forms [of artifacts], in which therewas at first a polar balance of physical and metaphysical, have been more andmore voided of content on their way down to us: so we say, 'This is an ornament' . . . an'art form' ... [Is the symbol] therefore dead, because its living meaning had been lost,because it was denied that it was the image of a spiritual truth? I think not" (Andrae,Die ionische Sdiule,Bauform oder Symbol, 1933, Schlusswort). And as I have so often saidmyself, a divorce of utility and meaning, concepts which are united in the one Sanskritword artha, would have been inconceivable to early man or in any traditional culture.In the present article we are not concerned with beauty, which is traditionally propor-tionate to the perfection of the artifact itself, and is the attractive power of this perfection,and being thus objective is dependent upon truth and not upon opinion: our concern israther with the aesthetic view of art, and the decorative values of art, which depend ontaste and liking rather than on judgment. We should distinguish accordingly between thebeautiful on the one hand and the lovely, i.e., loveable or likeable, on the other,' bearingin mind that "the beautiful is not just what we like, for there are some who like deformities"(St. Augustine, De Musica, VI, 38). What we have in view is to support by the analysis ofcertain familiar terms and categories the proposition that our modern preoccupation withthe "decorative" and "aesthetic" aspects of art represents an aberration that has little ornothing to do with the original purposes of art; to demonstrate from the side of semanticsthe position that has been stated by Maes with special reference to Negro art that "Vouloirseparer l'objet de sa signification sociale, son r8le ethnique, pour n'y voir, n'y admirer etn'y chercher que le c6t6 esthetique, c'est enlever a ces souvenirs de l'art negre leur sens,leur significance et leur raison-d'etre! Ne cherchons point a effacer l'id6e que l'indigenea incrust6e dans l'ensemble comme dans chacun des details d'execution de l'objet sanssignificance, raison-d'etre, ou vie. Efforgonsnous au contraire de comprendrela psychologiede l'art negre et nous finirons par en p6n6trer toute la beaut6 et toute la vie" (IPEK,1926, p. 283), and that, as remarked by Karsten, "the ornaments of savage peoples can onlybe properly studied in connection with a study of their magical and religious beliefs" (ib.,p. 164); emphasizing, however, that the application of these considerations is not merelyto negro, "savage," and folk art but to all traditional arts, those for example of the MiddleAges and of India.2

I. Cf. the distinction of the "honest" from the "pleas-ant," the one desired for its own sake by the rationalappetite and an intelligible good, the other desired for itsown sake by the sensible appetite and a sensible good: thatwhich is honest (admirable) is naturally pleasing, but notall that is pleasing is honest (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum.Theol., II-II, 145, 3, cf. I-II, 30, I); and that of freyas frompreyas, the glorious or beautiful from the merely delectable,in Katha Up., II, 2.2. As remarked by Th. W. Danzel, in a primitive culture

-by "primitive" the anthropologist often means no morethan "not quite up to (our) date"-"sind auch die Kultur-gebiete Kunst, Religion, Wirthschaft usw. noch nicht alsselbstandige, gesonderte, geschlossene Betitungsbereichevorhanden" (Kultur und Religion des primitiven Menschen,1924, P. 7). This is, incidentally a devastating criticism ofsuch societies as are not "primitive" and in which thevarious functions of life and branches of knowledge aretreated as specialities, "gesondert und geschlossen" fromany unifying principle.

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

3/9

376 THE ART BULLETINLet us consider now the history of various words that have been used to express thenotion of an ornamentation or decoration and which in modern usage for the most part

import an aesthetic value added to things of which the said "decoration" is not an essentialor necessary part. It will be found that most of these words which imply for us the notionof something adventitious and luxurious, added to utilities but not essential to their ef-ficacy, originally implied a completion or fulfilment of the artifact or other object in ques-tion; that to "decorate" an object or person originally meant to endow the object or personwith its or his "necessary accidents," with a view to "proper" operation; and that theaesthetic senses of the words are secondary to their practical connotation; whatever wasoriginally necessary to the completion of anything, and thus proper to it, naturally givingpleasure to the user; until still later what had once been essential to the nature of theobject came to be regarded as an "ornament" that could be added to it or omitted at will;until, in other words, the art by which the thing itself had been made whole began to meanonly a sort of millinery or upholstery that covered over a body that had not been madeby "art" but rather by "labor"-a point of view bound up with our peculiar distinction ofa fine or useless from an applied or useful art, and of the artist from the workman, and withour substitution of ceremonies for rites.

A related example of a degeneration of meaning can be cited in our words "artifice,"meaning "trick," but originally artificium, "thing made by art," "work of art," and our"artificial," meaning "false," but originally artificialis, "of or for work."The Sanskrit word alatkadra3s usually rendered by "ornament," with reference eitherto the rhetorical use of "ornaments" (figures of speech, assonances, kennings, etc.), or tojewelry or trappings. The Indian category of alatkarra-~astra, the "Science of PoeticOrnament," corresponds, however, to the medieval category of Rhetoric or Art of Oratory,in which eloquence is thought of not as an end in itself or art for art's sake, or to display theartist's skill, but as the art of effective communication. There exists, indeed, a mass ofmedieval Indian poetry that is "sophistic" in Augustine's sense ("A speech seeking verbalornament beyond the bounds of responsibility to its burden (gravitas) is called 'sophistic',"De doc. christ., II, 31). At a time when "poetry" (kavya)4had to some extent become anend in itself, a discussion arose as to whether or not "ornaments" (alatkara) represent theessence of poetry; the consensus being that, so far from this, poetry is distinguishable fromprose (i.e., the poetic from the prosaic, not verse from prose) by its "sapidity" or "flavor"(rasa, vyafjana, correspondingto the sap- in Lat. sapientia, wisdom, "scientia cumsapore").Sound and meaning are thought of as indissolubly wedded; just as in all the other arts ofwhatever kind there was originally a radical and natural connection between form and sig-nificance, without divorce of function and meaning.If we analyse now the word alatikara and consider the many other than merely aestheticsenses in which the verb alat-kr is employed, we shall find that the word is composed ofalam, "sufficient," or "enough," and kr to "make." It must be mentioned for the sake ofwhat follows that Sanskrit I and r are often interchangeable, and that alam is represented

3. The present article was suggested by, and makes con-siderable use of, J. Gonda, The meaningof the word"alarh-kara"in the Volume of Eastern and Indian studiespresentedto F. W. Thomas, Bombay, 1939, PP. 97-114; the sameauthor's The meaning of Vedic bhifsati,Wageningen, 1939;and "Abharana"in the New Indian Antiquary, May, 1939.4. Derivative of kavi, "poet." The reference of thesewords to "poetry" and "poet" in the modern sense is late:in Vedic contexts, kavi is primarily an epithet of the highest

Gods with reference to their utterance of words of creativepower, kavya and kavitva the corresponding quality of wis-dom-Vedic kavi being therefore rather an "enchanter"than a "charmer" in the later sense of one who merelypleases us by his sweet words.In much the same way Greek 2rotios originally meant a"making," so that as Plato says "The productions of allarts are kinds of poetry and their craftsmen are all poets"(Symposium, 205, C).

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

4/9

ORNAMENT 377by aram in the older literature. Analogous to the transitive arath-krare the intransitivearambha, to become able, fit for and ara*t-gam,to serve or suffice for. The root of arammay be the same as that of Greek apapto, to fit together, equip or furnish. Aram withkror bhaoccurs in Vedic texts in phrases meaning preparedness, ability, suitability, fitness,hence also that of "satisfying" (a word that renders ala t-kr very literally, satis corre-sponding to aram and facere to kr), as in RV, VII, 29, 3 "What satisfaction (aradtkrti)isthere for thee, Indra, by means of our hymns?" A/la*-kr in the Atharva Veda (XVIII, 2)and in the Satapatha Brahmaita is employed with reference to the due ordering of the sacri-fice, rather than to its adornment, the sacrifice indeed being much less a ceremony than arite; but already in the Ramayana, a "poetical" work, the word has usually the meaning to"adorn."

Without going into further detail, it can easily be seen what was once the meaning ofan "adornment," viz., the furnishing of anything essential to the validity of whatever is"adorned," or enhances its effect, empowering it.In just the same way bhaisa.a and

bhas.,words that mean in Classical Sanskrit "orna-

ment," respectively as noun and as verb, do not have this value in Vedic Sanskrit, where(like alatzkara etc.) they refer to the provision of whatever properties or means increasethe efficacy of the thing or person with reference to which or whom they are employed:5the hymns, for example, with which the deity is said to be "adorned," are an affirmationof and therefore a confirmation and magnification of the divine power to act on the singers'behalf. Whatever is in this sense "ornamented" is thereby made the more in act, and morein being. That this should be so corresponds to the root meaning of the verb, which is anextension of bha, to "become," but with a causative nuance, so that, as pointed out byGonda, bhMsatidyan in RV, X, I i, 7 does not mean "ornaments his days," but "lengthenshis life," "makes more his life," cf. Skr. bhiayas, "becoming in a greater degree" (Pdnini),"abundantly furnished with," and "more." Bhiashas thus the value of vrdh,to increase(trans.), Macdonell rendering the gerundives abhasenya and vavrdhenyaboth alike by "tobe glorified" (Vedic Grammar, 580): an identical connection of ideas survives in Eng-lish, where to "glorify" is also to "magnify" the Lord, and certain chants are "Magnificats."Vedic bhas in the sense "increase" or "strengthen," and synonymous with vrdh, corre-sponds to the later causative bhav(from bha), as can be clearly seen if we compare RV, IX,Io4, I, where Soma is to be "adorned," or rather "magnified" (pari bhasata) by sacrifices,"as it were a child" (Sisuu na) with Ait. Ar., II, 5, where the mother "nourishes"(bhavayati)the unborn child, and the father is said to "support" (bhavayati)it both beforeand after birth; bearing also in mind that in RV, IX, 103, I the hymns addressed to Somaare actually compared to "food" (bhrti) from bhr,to "bear," "bring," "support," and thatin the Ait. Ar. context the mother "nourishes... and bears the child" (bhavayati...garbhambibharti). And insofar as abharanaand bhaisaa in other contexts are often "jew-elry" or other decoration of the person or thing referred to, it may be observed that thevalues of jewelry were not originally those of "vain adornment" in any culture, but rathermetaphysical or "magical."6 To some extent this can be recognized even at the presentday: if, for example, the judge is only a judge in act when wearing his robes, if the mayor

5. The two values of bhasana are found side by side inVisnudharmottara,III, 41, 10 where outline, shading (therepresentation of) jewelry (bhsya.sam), and color are col-lectively "the ornaments (bhasanam) of painting," and itis clear that these "ornaments" are not a needless elabora-

tion of the art, but much rather the essentials or character-istics of painting, by which it is recognized as such.6. As in AV, VI, 133, where the girdle is worn "for lengthof life" and invoked to endow the wearer with insight,understanding, fervor, and virility.

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

5/9

378 THE ART BULLETINis empowered by his chain, and the king by his crown, if the pope is only infallible andverily pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra,"from the throne," none of these things are mereornaments; but much rather an equipment by which the man himself is "mored" (bhfyas-krta),just as in AV, X, 6, 6 Brhaspati wears a jewel, or let us say a talisman, "in order topower" (ojase). Even today the conferringof an order is a "decoration" in the same sense:and it is only to the extent that we have learned to think of knighthood, for example, asan "empty honor" that the "decoration" takes on the purely aesthetic values that we nowa-days asociate with the word.The mention of bhr,above, leads us to consider also the word abharanta,n which theroot is combined with a self-referent a, "towards." Abharatta s generally rendered by "or-nament," but is more literally "assumption" or "attribute." In this sense the characteristicweapons or other objects held by a deity, or worn, are his proper attributes, abharaeam,by which his mode of operation is denoted iconographically. In what sense a bracelet ofconch (Saiikha),7worn for long life, etc., is an "abharatam" can be seen in AV, IV, Io,where the "sea-born" shell is "fetched (abhrtab) from the waters." In the same waydharya,from hr, to "bring," with a as before, means in the first place that which is "to beeaten," i.e., "nourishment," and secondly the costume and jewels of an actor, regardedas one of the four factors of dramatic expression; in the latter sense the sun and moon arecalled the aharyaof Siva when he manifests himself on the world stage (Abhinaya Darpanta,invocatory introduction).

Returning now to alakadra as "rhetorical ornament," Gonda very properly asks, "Havethey always been nothing but embellishments?," pointing out that very many of these so-called embellishments appear already in the Vedic texts, which, for all that, are not in-cluded in the category of poetry (kavya), i.e., are not regarded as belonging to "belleslettres." Ydska, for example, discusses upama, "simile" or "parable" in Vedic contexts,and we may remark that such similes or parables are repeatedly employed in the PaliBuddhist canon, which is by no means sympathetic to any kind of artistry that can bethought of as an ornamentation for the sake of ornamentation. Gonda goes on to point out,and it is incontrovertibly true, that what we should now call ornaments (when we study"the Bible as literature") are stylistic phenomena in the sense that "the scriptural style isparabolic" by an inherent necessity, the burden of scripture being one that can be expressedonly by analogies: so this style had another function in the Vedic contexts "than to be noth-ing but ornaments. Here, as in the literature of several other peoples, we have a sacred orritual 'Sondersprache' . . . different from the colloquial speech." At the same time, "Thesepeculiarities of the sacral language may also have an aesthetic side ... Then they becomefigures of speech and when applied in excess they become 'Spielerei'." Alaskrta, in otherwords, having meant originally "made adequate," came finally to mean "embellished."

In the case of another Sanskrit word subha, of which the later meaning is "lovely,"there may be cited the expression subha, silpin from the Ramayava, where the reference iscertainly not to a craftsman personally "handsome," but to a "fine craftsman," and like-wise the well-known benediction subham astu, "May it be well," where subham is ratherthe "good" then the beautiful as such. In RV we have such expressions as "I furnish(sumbhami) Agni with prayers" (VIII, 24, 26), where for sumbhamimight just as well havebeen said alatkaromi (not "I adorn him," but "I fit him out"); and sumbhanto(I, I30, 6),

7. The commentators here, and on RV, I, 35, 4; I, 126,4; and X, 68, 11 (where krgana=suvarta, golden, orsuvaram Jbharaiam, golden ornament) offer no supportwhatever for the rendering of krtana by "pearl-." It is,moreover, amulets of conch, and not of pearl oyster shellthat have been worn in India from time immemorial.

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

6/9

ORNAMENT 379not "adorning"but "harnessing"a horse; in J.V, 129 alamhkatais "fully equipped"(incoat of mail and turban,and with bow and arrowsand sword). In I, 130, 6, it is Indrathat is "harnessed" ike a steed that is to race and win a prize, and it is obvious that insuch a case the aptituderatherthan the beauty of the gearmust have been the primaryconsideration,and that althoughthe charioteermust have enjoyed at the same time the"pleasurethat perfects the operation,"this pleasuremust have been ratherin the thingwell made for its purpose,than in its mere appearance; t wouldbe only under the more-unrealconditionsof a parade hat the mereappearancemight becomean end in itself, andit is thus, in fact, that over-ornamentedhings aremadeonly for show. This is a develop-ment that we are very familiarwith in the history of armor(anothersort of "harness"),of which the original ife-savingpurposewas pre-eminentlypractical,howeverelegant theresultant formsmay have been in fact, but whichin the end servedno otherpurposethanthat of display.To avoidconfusion, t mustbepointedout that whatwehavereferredo as the "utility"of a harness,or any otherartifact,had neverbeen, traditionally,a matter of merelyfunc-tional adaptation;8 on the contrary, in every work of traditional art we can recognizeAndrae's "polar balance of physical and metaphysical,"the simultaneous satis-faction(alati-karata) of practical and spiritualrequirements. So the harness is originallypro-vided (ratherthan "decorated")with solarsymbols, as if to say that the racingsteed isthe Sun(-horse) n alikeness,andthe race tselfanimitationof "whatwasdoneby the Godsin the beginning."A good exampleof the use of an "ornament"not as "millinery"but for its significancecan be cited in SB. III. 5. 1. I9-20 where,because n the primordial acrifice he Ailgiraseshad acceptedfromthe Adityasthe Sun as their sacrificial ee, so now a white horse is thefee for the performance f the corresponding adyahkriSoma-sacrifice.This white horseis made to wear "a gold-ornament ruikma),wherebyit is made to be of the formof, orsymbol (rapam)of the Sun." This ornamentmust have been like the golden disk withtwenty-onepoints or rays which is also wornby the sacrificerhimselfand afterwards aiddownon the altar to represent he Sun (SB. VI. 7. 1.1-2, VII. 1.2. 10, VII. 4. 1.10). It isfamiliar that horses are even now sometimes"decorated"with ornamentsof brass(a sub-stitute forgold, the regular ymbolof Truth, Sun,Light, Immortality,SB.VI. 7. 1.2, etc.)of which, the significance s manifestly solar; it is precisely such forms as these solarsymbols that, when the contexts of life have been secularised,and meaninghas been for-gotten, surviveas "superstitions"'and are regardedonly as "art forms"or "ornaments,"to be judged as good or bad in accordance,not with their truth, but with our likes ordislikes. If children have always been apt to play with useful things or miniature copiesof useful things for example carts, as toys, we ought perhaps to regard our own aestheti-cism as symptomatic of a second childhood; we do not grow up.

8. "Honesty"having been identifiedwith "spiritual orintelligible)beauty," St. ThomasAquinas remarks hat"Nothing ncompatiblewith honesty can be simply andtruly useful,since it follows that it is contraryto man'slast end"(Sum.Theol., I-II, 145,3 ad 3). It is the intel-ligible aspectof the workof art that has to do with man'slast end,its unintelligible spectthat serveshis immediateneeds; the "merelyfunctional"artifactcorrespondingo"bread alone." In other words,an object devoid of allsymbolicornament, rof whichthe form tselfis meaning-less and thereforeunintelligible,s not "simplyand trulyuseful,"butonly physically erviceable, s is the trough othepig. Perhapswe mean thiswhenwe thinkof mereutili-

ties as "uninteresting," nd fly for refugeto the fine ormateriallyuselessarts; t is nevertheless he measure f ourunawarenesshat we consent o anenvironment onsistingchieflyof in-significant rtifacts.9. "Superstition... a symbol which has continued nuse after ts originalmeaninghas been forgotten... Thebest cure for that, is not misapplied nvection againstidolatry,but an expositionof the meaningof the symbol,so that menmay againuse it intelligently" MarcoPallis,Peaksand Lamas, 1939,P. 379). Ourcontemporary ul-ture, from the pointof viewof this definition, s preimi-nently "superstitious" nd "unintelligent."

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

7/9

380 THE ART BULLETINEnoughof Sanskrit. The Greekword K&.LgOSs primarily"order"(Skr. rta), whetherwith reference o the dueorderor arrangement f things,or to the world-order"themostbeautifulordergiven to thingsby God,"St. ThomasAquinas,Sum. Theol.,I, 25, 6 ad 3)-;andsecondarily"ornament,"whetherofhorses,women,men,orspeech. The corresponding

verb KO1EW is toorderor arrange,and secondarily o equip,adorn,ordress,or finallywithreference o the embellishmentof oratory. K6awrtas an ornamentor decoration,usuallyof dress. Koaorr7LK6sis skilled in ordering, OQO1qTEKi'he art of dressand ornament,KO00r/lTt6v"cosmetic,"10KoaoUr.lTjpLovdressing-room. Koaouoroin71ss architecturalornament;henceour designationof the Doric etc. "orders." Againwe see the connectionbetween an original"order"and a later "ornament." In connection with "cosmetic" tmay be remarked hat we cannot understandthe originalintention of bodily ornaments(unguents, tattooing,jewelry, etc.) from our modernand aesthetic point of view. TheHindu woman feels herself undressedand disorderlywithout her jewels which, howevermuchshemay be fondof them fromotherand"aesthetic"pointsof view, she regardsas anecessaryequipment,withoutwhich she cannot functionas a woman(fromManu, III, 55"it appearsthat there existed a connectionbetweenthe properadornmentof womenandtheprosperityof theirmalerelatives,"Gonda,Bhasati,p. 7).11To be seenwithout hergearwould be more than a mere absenceof decoration, t would be inauspicious, ndecorous,and disrespectful,as if one shouldbe present at some function in "undress,"or have for-gottenone'stie: it isonly asawidow,andas such"inauspicious,"hat thewomanabandonsher ornaments. In ancient India or Egypt, in the same way, the use of cosmeticswasassuredlynot a matterof merevanity, but muchratherone of propriety. We can see thismoreeasily, perhaps, n connectionwith hair-dressing Koo~ut6,.Atsndalsoone of the sensesof ornare); he putting of one'shair in order s primarilya matter of decorum,and there-fore pleasing, not primarilyor merely for the sake of pleasing Kooa-ew."clean" andKa4ur7povbroom"recall the semanticsof Chineseshih (9907) primarily o wipe or cleanorbesuitablydressed the ideograms composedof signsfor"man"+ "clothes"),and moregenerallyto be decorated;cf. hsiu (4661),a combinationof shihwith san= "paint-brush,"and meaningto put in order,prepare,regulateand cultivate.The words"decoration" nd"ornament,"whetherwith reference o the embellishmentof personsor of things,can be considered imultaneously n Latin andin English. Ornareis primarilyto "fit out, furnish,providewith necessaries" Harper)and only secondarilyto "embellish,"etc. Ornamentums primary"apparatus,accoutrement, quipment,trap-pings"12ndsecondarily mbellishment,ewel, trinket,'3 tc., as well as rhetoricalornament(Skr. alakara); the word is used by Pliny to render KAbtOs."Ornament" is primarily "anyadjunct or accessory (primarily for use... )" (Webster): so Cooper (sixteenth century)speaks of the "tackling or ornaments of a ship," and Malory of the "ornementys of an

o0. Cf. Skr. an-j, to anoint, to shine, to be beautiful;aijana, ointment, cosmetic, embellishment.i1. Cf. such terms as rakjgbhj2an.a,"apotropaic amu-let," Sugruta, I, 54, 13; manigaldlarhkrta, Wearing auspi-cious ornaments," Kalidasa, Malavikdgnimitra,I, 14; andsimilarly matngalamdtrabh1astaa,Vikramorvagi, III, 12,cited by Gonda. The bow and the sword which areRMma'sequipment, and in this sense "ornaments" in the originalsense of the word "are not for the sake of mere ornamenta-tion or only to be worn" (na ... bhisanya... na...Jbandhandrthdya,Rdmdyan.a,II, 23, 30).12. "Trappings," from the same root as "drape," anddrapeau,"flag,"was originally a cloth spread over the backor saddle of a horse or other beast of burden, but has ac-

quiredthe inferiormeaningof superficial r unnecessaryornament.13. "Trinket," by which we always understand omeinsignificant rnament,was originallya little knife, latercarriedas a mere ornamentandso disparaged. We oftenrefer o a trinketas a "charm," orgetting he connectionsof this word with carmen nd "chant." The "charm" m-plied originallyan enchantment:our words "charming"and "enchanting" ave acquired heir trivial and purelyaesthetic values by a developmentparallelto that whichhas been discussed hroughouthe presentarticle. It maybe addedthat an "insignificant"rnament s literallyonewithouta meaning; t is precisely n this sensethat orna-ments werenotoriginally nsignificant.

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

8/9

ORNAMENT 381aulter."14 Even now "The term 'ornaments' in Ecclesiastical law is not confined, as bymodern usage, to articles of decoration or embellishment, but it is used in the larger senseof the word 'ornamentum' " (Privy Council Decision, 1857). Adornment is used by Burkewith reference to the furnishing of the mind. Decor, "what is seemly . . . ornament . . . per-sonal comeliness" (Harper) is already "ornament" (i.e. embellishment) as well as "adapta-tion" in the Middle Ages. But observe that "decor" as "that which serves to decorate;ornamental disposition of accessories" (Webster) is the near relative of "decorous" or"decent," meaning "suitable to a character or time, place and occasion" and to "decorum,"i.e. "what is befitting . . propriety" (Webster), just as Kb6aola is of KOb~trL6rs.The law of art in the matter of decoration could hardly have been better stated than bySt. Augustine, who says that an ornamentation exceeding the bounds of responsibility tothe content of the work is sophistry, i.e. an extravagance or superfluity. If this is an artisticsin, it is also a moral sin: "Even the shoemakers' and clothiers' arts stand in need of re-straint, for they have lent their art to luxury, corrupting its necessity and artfully debasingart" (St. Chrysostom, Super Matth. hom. So, a med.). Accordingly, "Since women maylawfully adorn themselves, whether to manifest what becomes (decentiam)their estate, oreven by adding something thereto, in order to please their husbands, it follows that thosewho make such ornaments do not sin in the practice of their art, except in so far as theymay perhaps contrive what is superfluousand fantastic" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol.,II-II, 169, 2 ad 4). It need hardly be said that whatever applies to the ornamentation ofpersons also applies to the ornamentation of things, all of which aredecorations, in the origi-nal sense of an equipment, of the person to whom they pertain. The condemnation is of anexcess, and not of a richness of ornament. That "nothing can be useful unless it be honest"(Tully and Ambrose, endorsed by St. Thomas) rules out all pretentious art. The concur-rence here of the laws of art with those of morals, despite their logical distinction, is re-markable.

We have said enough to suggest that it may be universally true that terms which nowimply an ornamentation of persons or things for aesthetic reasons alone originally impliedtheir proper equipment in the sense of a completion, without which satis-faction (alai-karana) neither persons nor things could have been thought of as efficient or "simply andtruly useful," just as, apart from his at-tributes (a-bharan.a),Deity could not be thoughtof as functioning.15To have thought of art as an essentially aesthetic value is a very moderndevelopment, and a provincial view of art, born of a confusion between the (objective)

14. "Whatever makes a thing befitting (decentem) iscalled 'decoration' (decor), whether it be in the thing or ex-ternally adapted to it, as ornaments of clothing and jewelsand the like. Hence 'decoration' is common to the beautifuland to the apt" (Ulrich of Strassburg, De Pulchro, seeTHE ART BULLETIN, XVII, p. 44): as in the caseof "theiron style that is made by the smith on the one hand thatwe may write with it, and on the other that we may takepleasure in it; and in its kind is at the same time beautifuland adapted to our use" (St. Augustine, Lib. de ver. rel.,39), between which ends there is no conflict; cf. the style il-lustrated in my MediaevalSinhalese Art, fig. I29.I5. The analogy is far reaching. Whatever is unorna-mented is said to be "naked." God, "taken naked of allornament" is "unconditioned" or "unqualified" (nirguna):one, but inconceivable. Ornamented, He is endowed withqualities (saguna), which are manifold in their relationsand intelligible. And however insignificant this qualifica-tion and this adaptation to finite effects may be when con-

trasted with His unity and infinity, the latter would be in-complete without them. In the same way a person or thingapart from its appropriate ornaments ("in the subject orexternally adapted to it") is valid as an idea, but not asspecies. Ornament is related to its subject as individualnature to essence: to abstract is to denature. Ornament isadjectival; and in the absence of any adjective, nothing re-ferred to by any noun could have an individual existence,however it might be in principle. If, on the other hand, thesubject is inappropriately or over-ornamented, so far fromcompleting it, this restricts its efficiency, and thereforeitsbeauty, sinoe the extent to which it is in act is the extent ofits existence and the measure of its perfection as such andsuch a specified subject. Appropriate ornament is, then,essential to utility and beauty: in saying this, however, itmust be remembered that ornament may be "in the sub-ject" itself, or if not, must be something added to thesubject in order that it may fulfil a given function.

7/28/2019 Ornament [Ananda Co].pdf

9/9

382 THE ART BULLETINbeauty of order and the (subjectively) pleasant, and fathered by a preoccupation withpleasure. We certainly do not mean to say that man may not always have taken a sensitivepleasure in work and the products of work; so far from this, "pleasure perfects the opera-tion." We do mean to say that in asserting that "beauty has to do with cognition," Scho-lastic philosophy is affirmingwhat has always and everywhere been true, however we mayhave ignored or may wish to ignore the truth-we, who like other animals know what welike, rather than like what we know. We do say that to explain the nature of primitive orfolk art, or, to speak more accurately, of any traditional art, by an assumption of "decora-tive instincts" or "aesthetic purposes" is a pathetic fallacy, a deceptive projection of ourown mentality upon another ground; that the traditional artist no more regarded his workwith our romantic eyes than he was "fond of nature" in our sentimental way. We say thatwe have divorced the "satis-faction" of the artifact from the artifact itself, and made itseem to be the whole of art; that we no longer respect or feel our responsibility towards theburden (gravitas)of the work, but prostitute its thesis to an aisthesis; and that this is thesin of luxury.' We appeal to the historian of art, and especially to the historian of orna-ment and the teacher of the "appreciation of art," to approach their material more objec-tively; and suggest to the "designer" that if all good ornament had in its beginning a neces-sary sense, it may be rather from a sense to be communicated than from an intention toplease that he should proceed.

i6. It may be remarked that in the animal world an ex-cessive development of ornament usually preludes extinc-tion ("The wages of sin is death"; sin, as always, beingdefined as "any departure from the order to the end").

In the preceding text, the following abbreviations havebeen employed: RV., Rgveda Saiihit,; TS., TaittiriyaSaihiti; AV., Atharva Veda Safahit&: SB., gitapathaBrAhmaina;Ait.Ar., Aitareya Araiyaka; J., J.taka.