TRANSCENDENTAL BEAUTY

Paul Gerard Horrigan, Ph.D., 2012.

Beauty (Pulchrum) as a Transcendental

One of the most notable defenders of beauty1 as a transcendental property of being is
Jacques Maritain, who writes in Art and Scholasticism that the beautiful belongs to the order of
1

Studies on, or giving attention to, transcendental beauty (pulchrum): A. ROTHER, Beauty, B. Herder, St. Louis,
1917 ; J. MARITAIN, Art and Scholasticism, Sheed and Ward, London, 1939 ; J. W. NAUGHTON, Philosophy of
Beauty in St. Augustine, The Modern Schoolman, 17 (1940), pp. 43-46 ; G. F. VAN ACKEREN, On the
Contemplation of Beauty, The Modern Schoolman, 18 (1941), pp. 53-56 ; E. CHAPMAN, The Perennial Theme
of Beauty and Art, in Essays in Thomism, edited by R. E. Brennan, Sheed and Ward, New York, 1942 ; H.
POUILLON, La beaut, proprit transcendantale chez les Scolastiques (1220-1270), Archives dHistoire
Doctrinale et Littraire du Moyen Age, 21 (1946), pp. 263-329 ; J. M. SNCHEZ DE MUNIAIN, Introduccin al
estudio de la forma esttica, Revista de Filosofia (Madrid), 18 (1946), pp. 337-374 ; J. ROIG GIRONELLA,
Esbozo para una metafsica de la Belleza, Pensamiento, 5 (1949), pp. 35-51 ; J. ROIG GIRONELLA, Metafsica
de la belleza, Pensamiento, 7 (1951), pp. 29-53 ; F. D. WILHELMSEN, The Aesthetic Act and the Act of Being,
The Modern Schoolman, 29.4 (1952), pp. 277-291 ; J. AUMANN, La belleza y la respuesta esttica, Revista de
Filosofa, X/36 (1951), pp. 83-118, XI/44 (1953), pp. 77-100 ; R. SPIAZZI, Towards a Theology of Beauty, The
Thomist, 17 (1954), pp. 350-366 ; R. E. McCALL and J. P. REILLY, The Metaphysical Analysis of the Beautiful
and the Ugly, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 30 (1956), pp. 137-154 ; E. DE
BRUYNE, Estudios de esttica medieval, Gredos, Madrid, 1959 ; U. ECO, Il problema estetico in San Tommaso,
Milan, 1970 (English translation: The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1988) ; . GILSON, The Forgotten Transcendental: Pulchrum, in . Gilson, Elements of Christian Philosophy,
Mentor-Omega, New York, 1963, pp. 174-178 ; A. LOBATO, Ser y belleza, Herder, Barcelona, 1965 ; G. B.
PHELAN, The Concept of Beauty in St. Thomas Aquinas, in Selected Papers, Toronto, 1967, pp. 155-180 ; F.
KOVACH, Philosophy of Beauty, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, 1974 ; J. R. SANABRIA,
Trascendentalidad de la Belleza en la filosofia de Santo Toms de Aquino, in Tommaso d Aquino nel suo settimo
centenario (8) : Atti del Congresso Internazionale: Luomo, Edizioni Domenicane Italiane, Naples, 1978, pp. 521529 ; G. POLTNER, Schnheit, Herder, Wein, 1978 ; A. MAURER, About Beauty, A Thomistic Interpretation,
Center for Thomistic Studies, Houston, 1983 ; L. CLAVELL, La belleza en el comentario tomista al De Divinis
Nominibus, Anuario Filosfico, 17 (1984), pp. 93-99 ; T. MELENDO, La expansin perfectiva del ente en el
trascendental pulchrum, Estudio Filosficos (Valladolid), 1986, pp. 103-128 ; L. R. ALTUNA,
Fundamentacion ontologica de la belleza, Anuario Filosfico, 19 (1986), pp. 105-134 ; P. JAROSZYNSKI, On
the Nature of Beauty, Angelicum, 65 (1988), pp. 77-98 ; M. D. JORDAN, The Evidence of the Transcendentals
and the Place of Beauty in Thomas Aquinas, International Philosophical Quarterly, 29 (1989), pp. 393-407 ; E.
FORMENT, La trascendentalidad de la belleza, Thmata (Revista de Filosofia), 9 (1992), pp. 165-182 ; P.
DASSELEER, Ltre et la beaut selon Saint Thomas dAquin, in Actualit de la pense mdivale, edited by J.
Follon and J McEvoy, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1994, pp. 268-286 ; J. AERTSEN, Beauty: A Forgotten Transcendental?,
in J. Aertsen, Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: The Case of Thomas Aquinas, Brill, Leiden, 1996, pp.
335-359 ; A. RUIZ RETEGUI, Pulchrum. Reflexiones sobre la Belleza desde la Antropologa cristiana, Rialp,
Madrid, 1998 ; T. MELENDO, Esbozo de una metafsica de la belleza, Cuadernos de Anuario Filosfico,
Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, 2000 ; A. RAMOS (ed.), Beauty, Art, and the Polis, American Maritain
Association (AMA), Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 2000 ; B. MONDIN, Bellezza, in B.
Mondin, La metafisica di S. Tommaso dAquino e i suoi interpreti, ESD, Bologna, 2002, pp. 485-503 ; I. YARZA,
Unintroduzione allestetica, Ares, Milan, 2004, pp. 79-94, 180-224 ; M. MANTOVANI, Il pulchrum nellorizzonte
dei transcendentali dellessere in S. Tommaso dAquino, Path, 4 (2005), pp. 377-394 ; H. SEIDL, Sulla questione
se il bello sia un trascendentale, Aquinas, 53 (2010), pp. 255-260 ; A. MONACHESE, Trascendentalit della
bellezza. Uno sguardo sulla vita dalla prospettiva di San Tommaso, Euntes docete, 63 (2010), pp. 173-183 ; P.
JAROSZYNSKI, Beauty and Being: Thomistic Perspectives (tienne Gilson Series 33), Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, 2011 ; J. VILLAGRASA, Il trascendentale pulchrum in Tommaso dAquino, secondo

the transcendentals, that is to say, objects of thought which transcend every limit of genus or
analogy, and which do not allow themselves to be enclosed in any class, because they imbue
everything and are to be found everywhere. Like the one, the true, and the good, the beautiful is
being itself considered from a certain aspect; it is a property of being. It is not an accident
superadded to being, it adds to being only a relation of reason: it is being considered as
delighting, by the mere intuition of it, an intellectual nature. Thus everything is beautiful, just as
everything is good, at least in a certain relation. And as being is everywhere present and
everywhere varied the beautiful likewise is diffused everywhere and is everywhere varied. Like
being and the other transcendentals, it is essentially analogous, that is to say, it is predicated for
diverse reasons, sub diversa ratione, of the diverse subjects of which it is predicated: each kind
of being is in its own way, is good in its own way, is beautiful in its own way.2 Maritain regards
beauty as the splendour of all the transcendentals together.3
Umberto Eco believes that, for the Angelic Doctor, beauty is indeed a transcendental:
He (Thomas) did believe that beauty was a transcendental, a constant property of beingHe
believed that all being contains the constant conditions of beauty.4 Hans Urs von Balthasar
upholds beauty as a transcendental and notes that it received general attention during the
thirteenth century.5 Francis J. Kovach not only sustains that beauty is a transcendental, but also
states that it is the richest, the most noble, and the most comprehensive of all transcendentals,
it being the only transcendental that includes all the other transcendentals.6 Gunther Pltner
notes that the beautiful is the unity of the transcendental determinations of being.7 Aside from
explaining the transcendental character of beauty, Winfried Czapiewski writes that
transcendental beauty is the original unity of the true and the good.8
For Daniel Sullivan ontological beauty is the radiance of being in all of its transcendental
aspects together: unity, goodness, and truth as reflected in the three components of beauty:
integrity, proportion, and clarity: The integrity or wholeness of a thing refers to its
completeness, its perfection (and by implication its unity). In other words, a thing is not fully
beautiful until it is all its nature calls for until it fully realizes its kind of being. Proportion
refers to the harmonious arrangement of parts within a being in relation to its end. This due order
of parts within a being disposing it towards its end is its ontological good. The brilliance of form
radiating from a being is its clarity; this is the splendor of its form as knowable, its inner
intelligible radiance, its ontological truth. 9

Hans Urs von Balthasar, Alpha Omega, 15.1 (2012), pp. 107-143 ; A. RAMOS, chapters on Beauty, in A. Ramos,
Dynamic Trascendentals, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 2012.
2
J. MARITAIN, Art and Scholasticism and The Frontiers of Poetry, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1962, p.
30.
3
J. MARITAIN, Art and Scholasticism, Sheed and Ward, London, 1930, p. 172, n. 63b.
4
U. ECO, op. cit., p. 46.
5
H. U. VON BALTHASAR, Herrlichkeit. Eine theologische Aesthetik, III/1, Einsiedeln, 1965, p. 335.
6
F. J. KOVACH, Die sthetik des Thomas von Aquin, Berlin and New York, 1961, p. 214; id., The
Transcendentality of Beauty in Thomas Aquinas, in Die Metaphysik im Mittelelter, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, vol. 2,
(ed. P. Wilpert), Berlin, 1963, p. 392.
7
Cf. G. PLTNER, Schnheit. Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung des Denkens bei Thomas von Aquin, Vienna,
1978, p. 76.
8
Cf. W. CZAPIEWSKI, Das Schne bei Thomas von Aquin, Freiburg, 1964.
9
D. J. SULLIVAN, op. cit., pp. 215-216.

Pulchrum Est Id Quod Visum Placet

What is beauty in general? The Angelic Doctor writes that the beautiful is that whose
apprehension pleases.10 Beauty is that which is pleasing when seen (Pulchrum est id quod visum
placet). This general definition of beauty formulated by St. Thomas is expressed in terms of the
proper effect of beauty. One finds an emphasis on the effect of beauty on the apprehending
subject, and the objective reality is mentioned only by implication. The first effect of beauty is
pleasure. Thomas further elucidations on beauty widen the original general definition beyond
the realm of the senses into the domain of the intellect, where the experience of beauty finds its
cause and produces its main effects: ...beauty adds to goodness a certain ordination to the
cognitive faculty, so that whatever gratifies the appetite simpliciter is said to be good, only that
which causes pleasure in being apprehended is called beautiful.11 Such emphasis on the
intellectual character of the experience of beauty does not exclude the concomitant and less
specific sensory pleasure, but rather indicates that the principal effect of the perception of beauty
is to be sought in the intellectual sphere. The cognitive nature of aesthetic perception admits of
varying degrees of knowledge, contributing to the experience of beauty. Aquinas general
definition of beauty, pulchrum est id quod visum placet, includes the Latin word videre, which
properly refers to the function of the sense of sight, but because of the dignity and certainty of
this form of sense knowing, the meaning of the term has been extended to include reference to
knowledge by means of the other senses, as well as to intellectual cognition: It is fitting to speak
of any name in two ways: first, according to the primary signification; secondly, according to the
use of the name. For example the name of sight which was first employed to signify an act of the
sense of sight, but because of the dignity and certainty of this sense, its name was extended...to
include all the knowledge of the other senses. We say See how it tastes, or smells, or how hot it
is. The name was further applied to intellectual knowledge, Blessed are the clean of heart for
they shall see God (Matthew, 5:8).12
As regards the general definition of beauty, we see that the word videre refers to both the
sensory and intellectual cognitive faculties of man. The human senses are not all equally
cognitive and they do not all render equal service towards the formation of the concept of beauty.
In the perception of beauty there is a fundamental hierarchy of importance among the human
senses. Those senses which are most cognitive are principally concerned with beauty. This is
especially the case with the sense of sight and the sense of hearing which chiefly render service
to reason. We are able to speak of beautiful paintings, scenery, people, gardens, as well as
beautiful symphonies, oratorios, and sonatas. However, in reference to the other senses, such as
the sense of taste and smell, we do not use the term beautiful. For example, it is not proper to
speak of the beautiful smell of coffee or beautiful Chinese food. We can speak of the good aroma
of Colombian coffee and the good taste of Cantonese rice dishes and hot and sour soup, but not
of the beautiful aroma or the beautiful taste.13 This explanation emphasizes the role of reason in
appreciating beauty. Sight and hearing are the principal senses in aesthetic experience, but their
priority over the other senses is due to their proximity to reason. St. Thomas also emphasizes the
intellectual nature of the aesthetic experience in his treatise on the moral virtues in the Summa
10

Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 27, a. 1, ad 3.

Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 27, a. 1, ad 3.
12
Summa Theologiae, I, q. 67, a. 1.
13
Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 27, a. 1, ad 3.
11

Theologiae, though it is expressed in a different manner: Beauty consists in a certain clarity and
in due proportion. Now both of these are found radically in the reason to which pertains both the
light manifesting beauty and the establishing of due proportion in other (things). So beauty is
found per se and essentially in the contemplative life, which consists in an act of reason; whence
the Book of Wisdom14 says of the contemplation of wisdom: I became a lover of her beauty.
Now among the moral virtues, beauty exists by participation inasmuch as they share in the order
of reason; and especially in temperance which represses those desires which chiefly becloud the
reason. So it is that the virtue of chastity best prepares the man for contemplation, because
venereal pleasure draws the mind most strongly to sensible things.15
Beauty is essentially and per se discovered in contemplation, which consists in an act of
reason. It pertains essentially to contemplation, where the chief act is a simple intellectual view
of truth, which is superior to reasoning and is accompanied by admiration.
The Role of Delight in the Aesthetic Act
Though the aesthetic experience pertains primarily to the spiritual faculty of the intellect,
there is nevertheless an important element of delight in the knowledge of the beautiful. Pleasure
is the proper effect of beauty in the psychological order, as is seen in the simple definition of
beauty: Pulchrum est id quod visum placet. Beauty is that which pleases when seen. Beauty must
be known as a good of the intellect if it is to be desired, and this desire must find fulfillment in
the very knowledge of the beautiful object. Aesthetic delight is a particular type of pleasure
which is primarily intellectual because its cause is in the intellect and its end is in knowledge.
There is an intellectual delight in the perception of beauty which is accompanied by a
corresponding reaction in the sense appetite, for both faculties are delighted in the attainment of
their proper objects. The type of pleasure which is presented as the effect of the aesthetic
perception must be primarily that of delight or joy (gaudium) which is consequent upon
intellectual knowledge. But, we must not forget that the aesthetic experience also entails the
presence of a certain sense pleasure or delectatio, concomitant with the superior intellectual
delight or joy (gaudium).
The two causes for delight in the apprehension of beauty are love and the activity of the
faculties which apprehend beauty. The first cause is love, which is here taken in its broader
meaning, signifying the inclination of a faculty towards its proper object.16 Such a love or
inclination causes both the senses and the intellectual faculties to unite with their proper
objects.17 This union between faculty and object causes delight or joy (gaudium), which is
pleasure in the possession of some good. A proportion or similarity between the faculties which
perceive beauty and their proper objects gives rise to the inclination of these faculties towards
their objects.18 Such proportion or similarity which inclines the faculty towards its object in the
end produces delight.19 For man to be delighted by the beauty of things, there has to be a certain
14

Wisdom, 8:2.
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 180, a. 2, ad 3.
16
Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 26, a. 1.
17
Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 27, a. 1.
18
Ibid.
19
Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 37, a. 7, sed contra.
15

proportion between his knowing powers and the beauty which he apprehends. Beautiful objects
are proportioned to the faculties which they delight; such objects of beauty are easily
apprehended for they are suitable to the powers of the cognitive faculties.20
The second cause for delight in the apprehension of beauty concerns the activities of the
faculties which apprehend beauty. Operation or activity is at the foundation of all delight, and the
most delightful operations of both the senses and the intellect are those which are most perfect,
i.e., those rational and sensory operations which are perfectly suited for the reception of their
most perfect objects.21 Thus, the delight of the experience of beauty is the perfection of those
faculties which apprehend beauty.22
Objective Criteria for the Beautiful
As we have seen, the psychological explanation of the experience of beauty has its roots
in the operation of mans sensory and intellectual faculties. We have been concentrating so far
upon the subjective conditions required for the perception of beauty. But this explanation is not
the complete picture, for there are certain objective conditions required for the perception of
beauty. An explanation of aesthetic delight is properly completed with an analysis of the
beautiful object itself which man contemplates. There are three elements to be found in every
beautiful object: 1. Integrity or perfection; 2. Proportion or harmony; and 3. Clarity or
resplendence. St. Thomas writes that beauty includes three conditions, integrity or perfection,
since those things which are impaired are by the very fact ugly; due proportion or harmony; and
lastly brightness or clarity.23
1. Integrity or Perfection
Perfection and integrity are really the same thing, differing only conceptually: the former
signifies positively what the latter signifies negatively. A thing is perfect in so far as it has
attained its full essential and functional stature, while, still with reference to this same thing, the
term integrity signifies that no parts are lacking.
St. Thomas explains that integrity is twofold. One considers the primary perfection
which consists in the act of being (esse) of a thing; the other considers the secondary perfection
which consists in operation.24 In the first type of integrity, integrity based on esse, the entire
perfection of the essence of a thing stems of the act of being (esse). Esse is the ultimate act and
the act of all acts of a being (ens). The essence of a thing exists only through the act of being
(esse). Alvira, Clavell and Melendo explain that the act of being (esse) is the root of the unity of
the composite: Since esse is the ultimate act of a being, which gives actuality to each of its
elements (which are no more than potency with respect to esse), these parts are united to the
extent that they are made actual by this constituent act, and referred to it.

20

Cf. Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad 1.

Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 32, a. 1.
22
Cf. Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 3, a. 2.
23
Summa Theologiae, I, q. 39, a. 7.
24
In IV Sent., d. 26, q. 2, a. 4.
21

It is quite correct, therefore, to claim that the act of being is the basis of the unity of the
suppositum.25 No part of the whole, taken separately, has esse of its own; it is, by virtue of the
esse of the composite. To the very extent that the parts of the whole have esse, they must be a
unity, since there is only a single act of being that actualizes them. Matter, for instance, does not
subsist independently of the form; rather, both matter and form subsist by virtue of the act of
being received in them. Operations are no more than an expression of the actuality which a being
has because of its esse, and the same can be said of the other accidental modifications as well. In
spite of the variety of accidents, the unity of the suppositum can easily be seen if we consider
that no accident has an act of being of its own. All accidents share in the single act of being of
the substance.26
Regarding the second type of integrity which considers the secondary perfection which
consists in operation, one can say that a mans virtue and acts of virtue add operational
perfection to him giving him a positive fullness typical of authentic and truly human beauty.
The first objective element of a beautiful object is integrity or perfection. A thing is said
to be perfect when it lacks nothing according to the mode of its perfection.27 The hallmarks of
ugliness are mutilation, privation, diminution. The created things that we see around us are
composed of parts. The parts essential to the completeness of a thing are called its integral parts.
Integrity is a species of perfection, and perfection is the form of a whole thing resulting from the
integrity of its parts. This aspect of completeness, integrity, or perfection, must exist in the
beautiful thing, though one should not conclude that the mere presence of integral parts in a thing
automatically makes it beautiful, for the perfection characteristic of beauty is, according to J. L.
Callahan, a positive fullness, completeness, a richness of perfection such as can call forth the
attention of the cognitive faculties and provoke a lively pleasure.28 For example, a baby horse,
although having the integral perfection befitting a horse, does not so much attract our attention as
does an adult one with its overpowering form and gracious stride. The same with orchid buds
and fully blossomed orchids. The added life and vigor of the adult stallion and mature orchids
constitute the integrity or perfection required for something to be truly beautiful.
We observe that any noticable defect or mutilation in something leaves the beholder with
an unpleasant impression. Our minds are dissatisfied with this aspect of incompleteness in the
object and attempts to conceptually restore the missing parts. Such a necessary process entails a
certain amount of mental movement and that stable state of contemplation needed in the aesthetic
experience is lost. Aesthetic delight is marred by a certain amount of annoyance and irritation.
Such is the case when we see a bombed out historical monument or building, a damaged
classical painting or statue, or when we listen to an out of tune orchestra playing some familar
classical symphony. Sometimes a work may contain a certain number of defects. For example,
small parts are missing in a number of the painted figures in classical religious art works by
master painters in many churches in Italy due to the ravages of time. Nevertheless, the defects
are so overshadowed by the overpowering resplendence of these beautiful masterpieces that
these small mutilations and blemishes almost escape our notice altogether. In such a case we are
25

Quodlibetum IX, a. 3, ad 2.
T. ALVIRA, L. CLAVELL, T. MELENDO, op. cit., p. 122.
27
Summa Theologiae, I, q. 4, a. 1.
28
J. L. CALLAHAN, A Theory of Esthetic, Washington, D.C., 1927, p. 58.
26

able to experience beauty to the utmost by a simple concentration of our attention on the object
as a whole, the object in its integrity or completeness. But as was mentioned, blemishes and
mutilations detract from the beauty of an object, and if such defects crop up constantly upon our
sphere of attention, then the object in question cannot be said to be truly beautiful.
2. Proportion or Harmony
This objective element of beauty is a quality noted more by St. Thomas than the rest.29
Just as the mind experiences pleasure in working out order from chaos, it also experiences
aesthetic delight in discovering an orderly arrangement in what at first seems to be a chaotic
mass. Chaos or confusion is not something delightful. A bunch of marble blocks heaped up in
one place is certainly not a beautiful sight. But if they are symmetrically and proportionally so
arranged in orderly fashion in the construction, for example, of a classical building or monument,
then they form a veritable object of beauty. The tuning of instruments by various musicians of a
symphony orchestra is quite irritating, the sounds emitted being annoying noise. But when, under
the leadership of a talented conductor, these musicians begin to play a Mozart or Haydn
symphony, we experience a very high order of beauty. The many dabs of oil colors in a painters
palette is not a beautiful sight, but when these colors are employed by a Raphael, a Perugino, or a
Leonardo, the resulting painting is a beautiful masterpiece.
The underlying secret of such beautiful objects is harmony, which is unity in diversity. It
is order and arrangement in relation to an end. Harmony or proportion is a unity amid variety. A
unity without variety cannot be called beautiful, for in such a case the powers of our perceptive
faculties would be exercised in a constant, unrelieved strain, which would cause fatigue and
tension, not the delight required in the aesthetic experience. Likewise, variety without unity
cannot really pertain to the beautiful, for the powers of the perceptive faculties of the human
mind would be scattered and spent without being able to rest at a certain point, thus disturbing
and hindering the normal, healthy and vigorous function of the faculties, again, essential in the
authentic aesthetic experience. Therefore, harmony, which is unity amid variety, functions like a
focus, concentrating attention along set lines, bringing a certain order into the manifold elements,
making them into a simplified whole. This essential constitutive element of the beautiful object
facilitates the human minds perceptive activity, endowing it with a feeling of peaceful and
restful completeness, thereby producing in it the delight or gaudium essential in the aesthetic
experience.
Hart observes that proportion is given a twofold application: (1) as a particularly
harmonious conformity of the being to the intellect and (2) as a unity or harmony of the parts
within the being taken by itself. This gives rise to that unity in variety, which is so constantly
mentioned in all attempts at analyzing the beauty of things. Unity without variety would be
boring for human minds dependent on the senses, whereas diversity or variety without unity
would be a confusing and therefore irritating to the unitary mind. Such difficulties would make
the joy of contemplation, mans highest prerogative, more difficult, to say the least. This
orderliness is itself the perfection of the object, its goodness or desirability. It is both a dynamic
order of subordination (or right arrangement of means to end as showing the influence of final
29

Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad 1 ; I, q. 39, a. 8; I-II, q. 145, a. 2; II-II, q. 180, a. 2, ad 3; In De Divinis

Nominibus, ch. 4, lect. 5.

causes) and a static order of coordination (or right arrangement of parts to make a systematic
whole). It thus expresses that formal causality with which beauty is primarily identified. This
demand for unity in variety requires the rhythm in music, poetry, and oratory, the composition
and perspective in painting, and the design in architecture in the fine arts, wherein man attempts
to communicate his experience of the beautiful.30
Proportion is the due disposition of the parts of an action or object among themselves,
and of the individual parts to the whole. It signifies the perfection of order. The concept of order
includes other qualities of beauty: the variety of diverse things is the material cause, while unity
is the formal cause, and proportion the efficient cause of order. Proportion unifies and
coordinates the diverse elements in a beautiful object in a way which is most perfectly suited to
manifest the perfection of the whole. There is in beauty a two-fold proportion, namely,
proportion in the components of the beautiful object and proportion between the object and the
faculties which apprehend it. Now, we are able to appreciate a beautiful object because it is
proportioned to our cognitive powers. Beauty is related to our cognitive powers and that which
pleases when seen is said to be beautiful. Beauty consists in due proportion, for the senses are
delighted in duly proportioned objects as in things like unto themselves, for our senses and each
cognitive power regard a certain kind of proportion.
3. Clarity or Resplendence
Clarity or resplendence31 is the third element of something that is beautiful. In order to be
beautiful an object must possess a vivid presentation, it must be impressive, having a certain
compelling force upon the beholder. It should attract by its very appearance. With this the
cognitive faculties are caught up and concentrated upon the compelling object in a stable way
which produces delight. The elements of a beautiful object cannot be obscure or hidden, for that
would give rise to an undue amount of strain and labour on the part of the mind, producing
tension and weariness, not joy and delight, essential to the aesthetic experience. Delight and
gaudium experienced by man must be spontaneous, which is the case when the clarity of beauty
exercises the perceptive powers of man in such a manner that they function with ease and vigor.
This is the reason why the arts utilize contrast as a technique to place the splendor of beauty in a
sharper light (e.g., the paintings of Caravaggio). In doing so, the elements of artistic beauty are
posited in a central position of attention, thereby giving the mind a proper perspective, enabling
it to view the parts and the whole in one comprehensive glance.
For Thomists like Maritain the clarity of beauty is the resplendence of form, the
effulgence of the form of the object.32 The form is the prime constituent of the essence of a
being. It is that by which a thing is and by which a thing is known. The resplendence or
effulgence of the form is the splendor of the essence and this splendor manifests the object to the
cognitive faculties. In Art and Scholasticism, he explains that a certain splendor is, in fact,
30

C. HART, op. cit., p. 392.

For a detailed examination of claritas in the Angelic Doctor, see: M. JORDAN, The Evidence of the
Transcendentals and the Place of Beauty in Thomas Aquinas, International Philosophical Quarterly, 29 (1989),
pp. 393-407. For the history of claritas as a constitutive element of the beautiful object, as well as St. Thomas
doctrine on the matter, see: U. ECO, op. cit., pp. 102-120.
32
See: J. MARITAIN, op. cit., chapter five.
31

according to all the ancients, the essential characteristic of beauty claritas est de ratione
pulchritudinis,33 lux pulchrificat, quia sine luce omnia sunt turpia34 but it is a splendor of
intelligibility: splendor veri, said the Platonists; splendor ordinis, said Saint Augustine, adding
that unity is the form of all beauty35 ; splendor formae, said Saint Thomas in his precise
metaphysicians language: for the form, that is to say, the principle which constitutes the proper
perfection of all that is, which constitutes and achieves things in their essences and qualities,
which is, finally, if one may so put it, the ontological secret that they bear within them, their
spiritual being, their operating mystery the form, indeed, is above all the proper principle of
intelligibility, the proper clarity of every thing. Besides, every form is a vestige or a ray of the
creative Intelligence imprinted at the heart of created being. On the other hand, every order and
every proportion is the work of intelligence. And so, to say with the Schoolmen that beauty is the
splendor of the form on the proportional parts of matter,36 is to say that it is flashing of
intelligence on a matter intelligibly arranged. The intelligence delights in the beautiful because in
the beautiful it finds itself again and recognizes itself, and makes contact with its own light.37
Beauty and Unity
Having treated of the objective elements of beauty, namely, integrity, proportion, and
clarity, let us now proceed to the relationship between beauty and unity, beauty and the good,
and beauty and the true. What is the relationship between beauty and unity? There is indeed a
close relationship between the two. Unity, amid complexity, is a perfection and comes to the aid
of the intellect in grasping the underlying meaning of things without distracting its attention and
weakening its powers. The grace of line throughout a Madonna and Child painting by Giovanni
Bellini or the Delivery of the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro Perugino, the sublimity of St. Peters
Basilica in the Vatican, the intricateness of a Telemann sonata is not their perennial beauty due
to their proportion, harmony, rhythm, and symmetry? To admit that this is so is to admit that
beauty is indeed closely connected with unity.
Beauty and Truth
What is the relationship between beauty and truth? As was shown the appeal of beauty
regards mainly the perceptive powers, especially the intellect. Every beautiful object possesses
an intelligible quality which transcends the level of sense perception. It is not enough just to
perceive beauty; it must also be understood in order for it to be appreciated. This reveals that
there is an element of truth in every beautiful object.
There is, however, a difference between beauty and truth. Truth as such merely
commands our assent, but does not necessarily give us aesthetic delight. The truth, for example,
of an accurate list of wartime casualties (numbers of combatant and civilian dead and wounded)
is a sobering fact that leaves us unhappy and can even cause us physical and mental pain when
33

In De Div. Nom., lect. 6.

Comment. In Psalm., Ps. XXV, 5.
35
ST. AUGUSTINE, De Vera Religione, ch. 41.
36
Opsc. de Pulchro et Bono, attributed to Albert the Great and sometimes to Saint Thomas.
37
J. MARITAIN, Art and Scholasticism and the Frontiers of Poetry, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1962, pp.
24-25.
34

dwelt upon. The truth of the undeniable collapse of morality in contemporary industrialized
societies is not beautiful, and can often cause upright and virtuous persons many sleepless nights.
The truth of a chemical analysis of a gallon of house paint leaves us cold. The truth of an
ingredients breakdown of a 1.5 liter bottle of a popular soft drink fails to give us the emotional
response associated with the contemplation of something beautiful.
Although the truths, for example, of geometry and algebra leave a great number of
students cold and even annoyed constantly staring at their watches there is, in fact, beauty in
the world of science that modern scientists admit is objective, with objective characteristics.
There are indeed scientific systems and theories based on the extra-mental universe and the
entities in it that give scientists or intelligent laity elevated degrees of aesthetic delight.38 Famous
scientists have acknowledged that the beings they study (e.g., stars, planets, quasars, comets) are
beautiful, as well as the physical laws that govern the universe.39
38
For the relationship between beauty and science, see: A. LAMOUCHE, La Thorie Harmonique. Le principe de
simplicit dans les mathmatiques et dans les sciences physiques, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1955 ; H. E. HUNTLEY,
The Divine Proportion. A Study in Mathematical Beauty, Dover, New York, 1970 ; E. SOBER, Simplicity,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975 ; S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Beauty and the Quest for Beauty in Science, Physics
Today, July (1979), pp. 25-30 ; A. PAIS, Subtle is the Lord The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982 ; H. O. PEITGEN and P. H. RICHTER, The Beauty of Fractals. Images of
Complex Dynamical Systems, Springer, Berlin, 1986 ; S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and
Motivations in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987 ; J. W. MACALLISTER, Truth and Beauty in
Scientific Reason, Sinthese, 78 (1989), pp. 25-51 ; J. W. MACALLISTER, Dirac and Aesthetical Evaluation of
Theories, Methodology and Science, 23 (1990), pp. 87-100 ; I. STEWART and M. GOLUBITSKY, Fearful
Symmetry. Is God a Geometer?, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992 ; H. WEYL, Symmetry, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 1992 ; W. DERKSE, On Simplicity and Elegance. An Essay in Intellectual History, Eburon, Delft,
1993 ; J. D. BARROW, The Artful Universe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995 ; F. BERTOLA (ed.), La
bellezza nelluniverso, Il Poligrafo, Padua, 1996 ; S. HILDEBRANDT and A. TROMBA, The Parsimonious
Universe. Shape and Form in the Natural World, Copernicus, New York, 1997, E. TIEZZI, La bellezza e la scienza.
Il valore dellestetica nella conoscenza scientifica, R. Cortina, Milan, 1998.
39
Writing about the famous physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and his discovery of role of beauty in physics,
Wil Derkse observes the following based on the research of Einstein scholar A. Pais: One of Einsteins best known
biographers, Abraham Pais, claims that, both the special and general theories of Relativity, as well as his constant
search for a unified field theory, originated from a well defined aesthetic concern: Einstein was driven to the
special theory of relativity mostly by aesthetic reasons, that is, arguments of simplicity. This same magnificent
obsession would stay with him for the rest of his life. It was to lead him to his greatest achievement, and to his noble
failure, unified field theory(A. PAIS, Subtle is the Lord The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1982, p. 140). Contemplating Einsteins remarks on beauty and simplicity, scattered over
a period of 45 years of scientific activity, one can discern a number of aspects which are however closely related and
are all based on a common ontological assumption. For Einstein simplicity was perhaps foremost a heuristic guide,
both in terms of method and principles. According to him, good theories have simple origins.
He was particularly attracted by the high aesthetic value of Niels Bohrs atomic theory, used in physics from
1910 to 1920. He thought that the fact that Bohr skillfully and instinctively succeeded in discovering the principal
laws of the special lines and of electronic orbitals, relying on the meaning and the explicative power his theory had
for chemistry, was like a miracle and it represented the highest form of musicality in that sphere of thought(A.
PAIS, op. cit., p. 416). Einstein had an analogous appreciation towards Plancks theory of thermal radiation, justified
on the basis of its simplicity and its analogy to the classical theory. Looking for a complete unification between the
electromagnetic and the gravitational fields, he was supported by the total confidence that the link must have been
present in nature, because the experience carried out until then justified the intuition that the ideal of simplicity
applied in nature. This assumption was basically of an ontological kind, one which would have certainly pleased
both Plato and Aristotle. Simplicity seemed to guarantee a threefold function: as a signal of validity, as a heuristic
and methodical tool, and as a road towards the unification of the laws. This was nothing but a new proposal in
modern terms of the ancient rule simplex ratio veritatis, simplicity has the value of truth.

10

In his book, The Evidential Power of Beauty, Thomas Dubay notes that when the best of
modern physicists come to explain what they mean by beauty, their views are remarkably like
those we have discussed in the perennial philosophical traditionFirst of all, for science beauty
is objective, out there The awareness that the universe is stunningly beautiful wherever we
turn our eye is now so much a conviction of our most productive scientists that objective
grandeur is considered a warrant of truthPhysicists today are much taken with the conviction
that objective beauty is a powerful aid to them in their work of discovering and explaining
For contemporary science the first trait of beauty is an elegant simplicity. In this context
simplicity refers to an essential purity, a freedom from superfluities, useless accretions, and
needless complications. Einsteins theory of gravitation possesses this grace and propriety,
whereas competing theories do not, and thus none of them are taken seriously.40 Astrophysicist
Roger Penrose commented that no rival theory comes close to general relativity in elegance or
simplicity of assumption.41 For the scientist simplicity implies both completeness and economy:
It must take into account all the facts and must include only what is necessary. Nothing lacking,
nothing superfluous.42 Notable in the field of mathematical physics, Henri Poincar commented
that it is because simplicity and vastness are both beautiful that we seek by preference simple
and vast facts.43 We notice in this requirement for valid scientific discoveries, namely, that they
be elegantly simple and yet vast, the classical philosophical traits of the beautiful: unity and
wholeness.44 This corresponds to the first objective characteristic of beauty, namely, integrity.
Dubay then goes on to describe the second and third objective characteristics of beauty
acknowledged by modern scientists, namely, proportion or harmony and clarity or resplendence:
The second scientific element is harmony. Albert Einstein went so far as to assert that without
belief in the inner harmony of the world there could be no science.45 This harmony is a
satisfying accordance and combination of differing elements making up a whole or found in a
whole. There will likewise be symmetry, as a solid scientific theory will harmonize many

The ontological assumption of simplicity is accompanied, and somewhat caused, by an aesthetical impulse.
Commenting on his work towards a unified field theory, Einstein stated that its purpose was neither to incorporate
the unexplained nor to resolve any paradox. It was purely a quest for harmony(A. PAIS, op. cit., p. 23). Motivations
of aesthetic and emotional nature have undoubtedly played an important role in the origin and development of
Einsteinian theories. In his letters and speeches he repeatedly underlined the influence of these aspects, and he
assumed that this motivation was overtly and secretly recognized by his colleagues. Addressing Max Planck on the
occasion of his 60th birthday, Einstein said: The longing to beholdpre-established harmony is the source of the
inexhaustible persistence and patience with which we see Planck devoting himself to the most general problems of
our science, without letting himself be deflected by goals which are more profitable and easier to achieve. I have
often heard that colleagues would like to attribute this attitude to exceptional will-power and discipline; I believe
entirely wrongly so. The emotional state which enables such achievements is similar to that of the religious person
or the person in love; the daily pursuit does not originate from a design or program but from a direct need(A. PAIS,
op. cit., pp. 26-27)(W. DERKSE, Beauty, in Dizionario Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede, Milan, 2001,
paragraphs 17-19).
40
R. AUGROS and G. STANCIU, The New Story of Science, Regnery Gateway, Lake Bluff, IL, 1984, p. 42.
41
R. PENROSE, Black Holes, in The State of the Universe, edited by Geoffrey Bush, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1980, p. 128.
42
R. AUGROS and G. STANCIU, op. cit., p. 43.
43
H. POINCAR, Science et Mthode, Flammarion, Paris, 1949, p. 167.
44
T. DUBAY, The Evidential Power of Beauty, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, pp. 39-40.
45
A. EINSTEIN and L. INFELD, The Evolution of Physics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1938, p. 313.

11

previously unrelated facts.46 Werner Heisenberg adds that the symmetry properties always
constitute the most essential features of a theory.47 We obviously have here what philosophers
have through the centuries called proportion: in actuality the two ways of speaking are identical.
Science, like metaphysics, sees the universe saturated with beauty.
Brilliance is the third element in sciences view of the beautiful. Augros and Stanciu
explain that a theory with this quality has great clarity in itself and sheds light on many other
things, suggesting new experiments. Newton, for example, astounded the world by explaining
falling bodies, the tides and the motions of the planets and the comets with three simple laws.48
George Thomason adds that in physics, as in mathematics, it is a great beauty if a theory can
bring together apparently different phenomena and show that they are closely connected; or even
different aspects of the same thing.49 This is exactly what Einstein did with his theory of general
relativity50
Beauty and the Good
What is the relationship between beauty and the good? The element of good is present in
the beautiful. Beauty pleases, satisfies, delights us, and pleasure, satisfaction, and delight have a
natural reference to an appetency, because an object which has these characteristics is a
delectable good. Such emotions like pleasure and satisfaction are naturally a subjective element
in aesthetic enjoyment, but they are elicited by the thing itself when contemplated by the
knowing subject. Thus, as was stated, the element of goodness is present in the beautiful.
But there is a marked difference between beauty and goodness. While the good satisfies
the appetites in a direct manner, as something to be acquired, possessed and retained, not because
it is known and perceived, beauty, on the other hand, is the good insofar as it delights the
beholder through its perception and contemplation. The good is always something suitable to a
striving power, and for that reason it is desired by an appetency. Thus, appetency is something
rather self-interested in its striving. In contrast, a beautiful object gives the beholder satisfaction
and pleasure through the simple contemplation of it, without the presence of any acquisitive
tendency. One can enjoy listening to impressive renditions of Bach or Mozart by a Glenn Gould
or an Anne Sophie Mutter at the Royal Festival Hall in London without either desiring their
musical talents or their musical instruments.
Kenneth Dougherty writes that beauty is more closely related to the good than to the
true. The beautiful is the good that affords contemplative delight apart from the desire of
appropriation. Whereas the good is sought to be possessed, the beautiful is sought to be
contemplated with complacency. We can perfectly enjoy the beautiful without wanting to
possess it. The visitor at an art museum can stand in awe before Rodins Thinker and admire the
splendor of form of this artistic work without ever thinking of having it as his own property. The
46

R. AUGROS and G. STANCIU, op. cit., p. 43.

W. HEISENBERG, The Meaning of Beauty in the Exact Sciences, in Across the Frontier, Harper and Row, New
York, 1974, p. 167.
48
R. AUGROS and G. STANCIU, op. cit., p. 44.
49
G. THOMASON, The Inspiration of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1961, p. 18.
50
T. DUBAY, op. cit., pp. 40-41.
47

12

good, however, precisely as the good is sought to be possessed. Once an art work is considered
as an object for sale, it is viewed as a useful good rather than in the esthetic experience of the
beautiful. Once the actor fixes his attention on the applause to his art, he is viewing it as a good
for himself rather than as a work of beauty.51
Thomas C. Donlan explains that the good and the beautiful are materially identical and
formally diverse. The good is the end of the appetite; it pertains to the final cause. The beautiful
is a special good of the cognitive faculties, and because cognition is by way of assimilation
which regards the formal cause, beauty properly pertains to the nature of a formal cause.52 In the
possession of good there is complacence but not contemplation; in the apprehension of beauty
there is both complacence and contemplation. The good pleases when possessed; the beautiful
pleases when seen. Beauty does not beget the desire for dominion. To consider (or,
contemplate) pulchritude is delightful in itself.53 The love of beauty is of its very nature
disinterested.54
Ontological Beauty
All things are beautiful in themselves. There is nothing that does not participate of the
beautiful and the good, since every one is beautiful and good according to its own form.55
Every being therefore, explains Renard, is beautiful because of its form that is appropriate
(conveniens) to itself, since that form is a faint participation of the one (God) who is beauty
itself.56
Beauty consists in an effulgence of actuated form in beings. It is the splendor that
emerges from actuated form, present whenever form is actual, that is, whenever something is.
This is ontological or transcendental beauty, which is convertible with being. The ultimate
metaphysical foundation of beauty lies in the act of being (esse), the act of acts and perfection of
perfections. All things, in so much as they are, are beautiful. St. Thomas, commenting on
Pseudo-Dionysius On the Divine Names, writes: every form, through which a thing has
being, is a participation of the divine splendor; and this is what he adds, that all things are
beautiful according to their proper notion, that is, according to their proper form(In De Div.
Nom., IV, lecture 5, ed. C. Pera, no. 349). Commenting on this passage, Gerald Phelan observes:
The relational character of beauty is thus rooted in existence, in being. It belongs to all things
which are, in any manner whatsoever.57
In Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4, St. Thomas explains how transcendental beauty and
transcendental good are really convertible but nevertheless differ conceptually: Beauty and
good in a subject are the same, for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and
consequently good is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for good properly relates to the
51

K. DOUGHERTY, Metaphysics, Graymoor Press, Peekskill, NY, 1965, p. 81.

Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad 1.
53
In I Polit., lect. 8.
54
T. C. DONLAN, The Beauty of God, Thomist, 10 (1947), p. 201.
55
In Dion. De Nomin. Divin., 4, lect. 5.
56
H. RENARD, op. cit., p. 190.
57
G. B. PHELAN, The Concept of Beauty in St. Thomas Aquinas, in Aspects of the New Scholastic Philosophy,
edited by C. Hart, New York, 1932, p. 131.
52

13

appetite (good being what all things desire), and therefore it has the aspect of an end (for the
appetite is a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to the
knowing power, for beautiful things are those which please when seen. Hence beauty consists in
due proportion, for the senses delight in things duly proportioned, as in what is after their own
kind because even sense is a sort of reason, just as is every knowing power. Now since
knowledge is by assimilation, and likeness relates to form, beauty belongs to the nature of a
formal cause.58
The above passage shows that St. Thomas considered beauty to be a transcendental:
Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentallybut they differ logically59 With
respect to transcendental being and transcendental good, the Angelic Doctor states in an earlier
article of the same fifth question of the Prima Pars: The good and being are identical according
to the thing,60 while also saying that they differ only logically.
The objective formal condition of beauty is found in the perfection of the form: verum is
found in the form as intelligible, while bonum is found in the form as appetible; pulchrum is also
founded in the form of a thing, the contemplation of which pleases. Every being God created
possesses the perfection of its substantial form. Now such beings are completely beautiful when
they possess not only the perfection of their substantial form but also the perfection of all
accidents due to it. They are relatively beautiful if they possess only some of the perfections
owed to it. A person, for example, may have great spiritual beauty because of a life of heroic
virtue yet lack physical beauty due to some physical deformity. Another person, for example,
may be relatively beautiful physically, yet ugly due to many vices.
As a transcendental perfection of being, beauty embraces every being as being. Yet the
fact that every being is beautiful does not contradict the common sense truth that certain beings
around us are ugly. One may also affirm that every being is good and at the same time without
contradiction affirm that evil exists in the world. Certain beings are deficient in integrity,
proportion and splendor of form in some way and are therefore deprived of a certain beauty.
They are ugly in a certain way. But no being is ugly without qualification for that being will still
be participating in the act of being, will still be, and therefore be still endowed with a beauty
secundum quid. Being and beauty are convertible, and inasmuch as a being has esse there is
beauty in that thing. Beauty is participated in varying degrees by all finite beings that are
actuated by varying degrees of esse.
Degrees of Beauty
Beauty simpliciter is to be distinguished from beauty secundum quid: Something is
beautiful in the fullest sense (simpliciter) if it possesses all the perfections that correspond to its
own nature. For example, we say that the gazelle is a beautiful animal to the extent that it has the
harmony and perfection proper to its nature (we can call this pulchrum simpliciter) and not only
because it has the act of being (pulchrum secundum quid).61 Pulchrum simpliciter is the
58

Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad 1.
Ibid.
60
Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 1.
61
T. ALVIRA, L. CLAVELL, T. MELENDO, op. cit., p. 168.
59

14

principal meaning of beauty and is manifested by means of objective criteria (integrity or

perfection, harmony or proportion, and clarity or resplendence) which produce aesthetic pleasure
in the one contemplating the beautiful thing.
There are various degrees of beauty simpliciter and beauty secundum quid. The beauty
secundum quid, for example, of a dog is less than the beauty secundum quid of a man, because a
man has a much more intensive participation in the act of being (esse) than a dog. But the beauty
simpliciter of an apple tree can be higher than the beauty simpliciter of a lion because of some
physical deformity in the latter. Alvira, Clavell, and Melendo explain for us the various degrees
of beauty, writing: Divine beauty, which is unique and supremely simple, is reflected in
creatures in varying degrees. Because they only participate in the act of being, creatures possess
a limited beauty. No one of them possesses beauty in its entirety; rather, each one is endowed
only with that beauty in accordance with its own particular mode of being, which is determined
by its form. We shall now consider separately the two main divisions of the created universe, that
is, the spiritual world and the world of material beings, in order to analyze how beauty is found
in each of them.
a) Spiritual substances, whose forms are not limited by matter, have the full beauty
which pertains to their degree and mode of being. To the very extent that an angel has esse, it is
good and beautiful. Consequently, there is a gradation in the beauty of pure spirits, which is a
faithful reflection of the hierarchy formed by their degrees of being (pulchrum secundum quid).
The beauty simpliciter of angels is identical with their beauty secundum quid. This is so
because every angel is a species in itself, and has all the perfections (quantitas virtutis) proper to
its nature in their fullest possible degree.
We can also consider the beauty of an angel with regard to its transcendental end (God),
which it attains through its free acts. Here lies the real beauty simpliciter of an angel, since, as
mentioned above, its beauty in accordance with its nature is resolved into its beauty secundum
quid. The characteristics of beauty simpliciter (harmony, integrity, and clarity) are lost by an
angel through sin, which separates it from its last end.
b) Within the realm of material beings, beauty is more fragmentary and scattered,
because at this level, the limitation of the substantial form by matter hinders any individual from
possessing all of the perfections of its species.
No material being manifests beauty in all of its extension, not even all beauty which
pertains to its genus or species, since in different individuals the substantial form is affected by
various accidental forms, which are adapted to its nature in different degrees. Besides, any given
individual will hardly be beautiful in any every aspect. A horse may have a marvelously elegant
figure and may show astonishing gracefulness in racing or jumping, and yet its color may leave
much to be desired. A poem may have very suggestive stanzas and still have relatively less
accomplished lines.
Like spiritual beings, material substances also have degrees of beauty secundum quid, in
conformity with their degrees of being. With regard to beauty secundum quid, the more perfect
15

species are naturally more beautiful. However, with respect to beauty simpliciter, an individual
of an inferior species may be more beautiful than another of a superior species. A perfectly
formed rose, for instance, would be more beautiful than a deformed horse.
What has been discussed above refers only to the interior perfections of spiritual and
material beings in their natures. There is, however, a higher level of beauty which is attained
when a being directs itself towards its transcendent end (God). Truly, this constitutes the summit
of creatural beauty, for the attainment of the transcendent end is the summit of creatural
perfection. Especially in the case of man, bodily beauty pales in comparison with that beauty
acquired through free actions that lead to God. Hence, when we talk of the ugliness of sin, we are
not merely using a metaphor; on the contrary, we refer to a real disharmony and darkness
produced in a soul that has freely committed a sin. Such discordance and ugliness surpasses any
ugliness due to physical deformity.62
Writing about the spiritual beauty of proportion of actions to an end, Charles Hart
observes: Spiritual beauty is apprehended by the intellect and is directly concerned with mans
soul and, by inference and analogy, with the beauty of angelic and Infinite Being. The beauty of
the soul will be that of the natural endowments of intellect and will and its corresponding virtues.
As most properly human, such beauty is of incomparably more value than any which man shares
through his body with the lower orders. It should be emphasized, however, that the physical
beauty of mans material principle receives much greater value by reason of its relation to the
spiritual soul. Truly it is designated by inspired writers as the very temple of the Holy Spirit. Yet
because of its influence on mans passions, to the detriment of the spiritual beauty of his virtues,
it is also called, paradoxically, a vain and deceitful beauty.63
Joseph Pohle states that the infusion of sanctifying grace, the formation in the soul of the
image of Christ, the immersion of the spirit into the beatific light of the Divine Substance
produce in man a degree of beauty which no tongue can utter and no pen is able to describe.
Therefore ascetic writers justly claim that the attainment of moral perfection is the noblest of all
arts, and that no masterpiece of art can be compared to a holy soul. The most beautiful product of
Divine Art is the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in whose person innumerable privileges
and perfections are harmoniously blended. Jesus Christ Himself (as the Word made Flesh) would
have to be called the apex of creatural beauty, and therefore the most faithful image of Divine
Beauty, were it not for the fact that we must admire in him rather the Hypostatic Union of
created with Uncreated Beauty. For in His Divine Nature Christ is Substantial Beauty, while
created beauty shines forth in His human nature only.64
In her book Finite and Eternal Being, St. Edith Stein writes about the beauty that is above
bodily beauty, namely, spiritual beauty: There is spiritual beauty. There is the beauty of the
human soul, whose ways and actions are duly measured and ordered in accordance with the
intellectual clarity of reason.65 The closer a created being is to the divine Urbild, the more
perfect it is. This is why intellectual and spiritual beauty range above sensuous beauty. And
62

T. ALVIRA, L. CLAVELL, T. MELENDO, op. cit., p. 170.

C. HART, op. cit., p. 394.
64
J. POHLE, God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, B. Herder, St. Louis, 1911, p. 272.
65
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 145, a. 2, c.
63

16

because the human soul by divine grace is drawn near to the divine being in an entirely new
sense, the splendor which grace pours out over a human soul surpasses all purely natural
brightness and harmony.66 However, that which imparts being and beauty to all created things
and beings must be supreme beauty beauty as such.67 God is perfect being without any want,
fault, or flaw. He is His own measure, determined in Himself in duly proportioned accord
with Himself, and wholly luminous in and for Himself: that eternal light in whom there is no
shadow of darkness.6869
The Beauty of God
Beauty is closely allied with perfection. There is no admixture of imperfection in the
beautiful, as beautiful. Therefore, beauty is an absolutely simple, and not mixed, perfection. In
God, nature and supposit are one. Hence we are able to affirm that God is Beauty. Beauty is
identified with His Essence. As perfection is the basis of both goodness and beauty, God, who is
Pure Act of Being, the Ipsum Esse Subsistens, is therefore Goodness and Beauty without limit.
The divine attributes exist in God both formally and eminently, and because of such eminent
perfection, the beauty of God can only be ineffably delightful and infinitely more perfect than
any created finite beauty which can only be but a faint and feeble reflection of the Divine
Beauty, God. In Him, explains Hart, there is an absolute fullness of being, an absolute
integrity. As to proportion or harmony of parts, or unity in variety, God has no variety which
would be a mark of imperfection. Rather, He has a unity so infinitely rich as to suggest variety
without its imperfections (as witness our mode of knowing him through a composition of, what
is for us, many perfections). Finally His complete separation from matter, as the root of
unintelligibility, makes Him Intelligibility or Truth Itself (Ipsa Intelligibilitas) to Himself, the
one source of intelligibility of all other things outside Himself. Thus is He the Beauty ever
ancient and ever new, of which Augustine complained he knew too late, and loved too late.70
Deploring his own defection from the Absolute Beauty, God, before his conversion, the Bishop
of Hippo and Father of the Church St. Augustine wrote of God in his Confessions: Too late
have I loved Thee, O Beauty so ancient, O Beauty so new, too late have I loved Thee! And
behold Thou wast within, and I was abroad, and there I sought Thee, and deformed as I was, ran
after those beauties which Thou hast made.71

66

Cf. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Commentary on the Psalms, Psalm 23.

Cf. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, In Dionys. De Div. Nom., 4, lect. 5.
68
1 John 1:5.
69
E. STEIN, Finite and Eternal Being, ICS Publications, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 323.
70
C. HART, op. cit., p. 393. Dougherty writes: The beauty of God is all perfect because He is pure act and act is
perfection. God in the splendor of His perfection is the efficient cause by which every beauty is made. Divine beauty
is the exemplary cause according to which every beauty is patterned and the final cause on account of which
everything beautiful exists. For God in contemplating Himself beholds all beauty. He possesses integrity most
perfectly because He is perfectly complete in act. He possesses proportion not between parts, because in God there
are no parts, no composition. He is pure act, simply perfect. He possesses the proportion of perfect harmony in
intelligibility, since matter is the root of unintelligibility and He is purely act. He has the perfect harmony of pure
simplicity in being(K. DOUGHERTY, op. cit., p. 85).
71
ST. AUGUSTINE, Confessions, X, 20.
67

17