God as Absolute Beauty

Section 5: God as Absolute Beauty

perceptible unity, could not be productive of aesthetic pleasure. St. Thomas6 resolves the Augustinian concept of beauty into the following three essential elements: completeness of the whole (perfectio rei), harmonious relation of its parts (proportio debita partium), and, shed over all, a certain definiteness, clearness, lustre or splendor (claritas). Claritas renders a beautiful object visible to the mind; the proportio debita partium is the basis of * unity in variety * ; and the perfectio rei is the necessary foundation of both, because that which is imperfect lacks both proportion and clearness.6 b) From what we have said it follows that beauty is essentially related to the intellect and will, and also to truth and goodness. Truth and goodness are linked together by the notion of ens, with which they are both convertible; but they are still more closely bound up with the concept of beauty, because Beauty as it were draws with one hand from the well of truth, and with the other from the fountain of goodness. It holds the middle between truth and goodness. St. Augustine calls it “splendor veri — the brightness of reality,” 7 while St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that between beauty and goodness there is only a logical distinction.8 A beautiful object must above all else be good (i. e., perfect) in order to be able to elicit from the beholder pure love of complacency (amor complacentiae) . But 6 S. TheoL, ia, qu. 39, art. 8. eCfr. John Rickaby, S. J., General Metaphysics (Stony hurst Series), pp. 147 sqq. 7Cfr. Ch. Coppens, S. J.f English Rhetoric, pp. 98 sq., 3rd ed., New York 1887. 8Cfr. S. Theol, i-aae, qu. 17, art. 1, ad 3: ” Pule hr urn est idem bono, sola ratione differens. Quum enim bonum sit, quod omnia appetunt, de ratione boni est, quod in eo quietetur appetitus. Sed ad rationem pulchri pertinet, quod in eius aspectu seu cognitione quietetur appetitus… . Et sic patet, quod pulchrum addit supra bonum quendam ordinem ad vim cognoscitivam, ita quod bonum dicatur id quod simpliciter complacet appetitui, pulchrum autem id cuius ipsa apprehensio placet/’ THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 267 it must also be clear and evident, because if it lacked evidence, the mind could not easily perceive the conformity and grouping of the various parts around the central point of unity. Whence follows the important deduction, that the intellect, and the intellect alone, perceives beauty ; while the will, and the will alone, is the seat of aesthetic pleasure. Beauty, therefore, is a supra-sensual quality; and this holds true not only with regard to spiritual beings, such as God, the angels, and the soul, but also in respect of material objects, such as painting, sculpture, music, etc. The irrational brute may perceive a beautiful object, but it can not perceive its (intelligible) beauty. We may therefore define beauty with Kleutgen9 as “ret bonitas, quatenus haec mente cognita delectat — The goodness of an object, in so far as this, perceived by the mind, affords pleasure/’ c) As beauty and goodness materially coincide, the former must be a transcendental attribute of being like the latter.10 In matter of fact the elements of beauty, i. e., perfection, harmonious proportion, and clearness, or splendor, are proper to all objects in the same manner in which being is proper to them.11 2. Dogmatic Application of These Principles.— Though the Church has never defined it as of faith, yet Sacred Scripture and Tradition make it quite certain that beauty is an attribute of 9 De Ipso Deo, p. 418. 10 Cfr. Pseudo-Dionysius, De Div, Nomin., c. 4: ” Eorutn quae sunt, nullum est quin pulchri et boni particeps sit — No thing exists but what partakes of beauty and goodness.” 11 On the subdivisions of beauty, sublimity, elegance, charm, etc., see Jungmann, S. J., Asthetik, 3rd ed., Vol. I, Freiburg 1886; G. Gietraann, S. J., Allgemeine Asthetik, Freiburg 1899; John Rickaby, S. J., General Metaphysics, pp. 147 sqq.; Chas. Coppens, S. J., English Rhetoric, 3rd ed., pp. 98 sqq., New York 1887. God. Perhaps no divine attribute has been so generally neglected by theologians as this, owing probably to the circumstance that in the unsettled state of the science of aesthetics it was not easy to determine whether beauty must be classed as a “pure” or as a “mixed” perfection of the Divine Essence. We claim that it is a pure perfection; that the notion of pulchrum is formally predicate of God; that beauty in its formal sense is proper to God ; that He is primordial beauty, allbeauty, and beautiful in a higher sense than any creature, and that, precisely for this reason, He is the exemplar and the cause of all created beauty. a) Reason tells us that God must be beautiful ; for if He contains within His Essence the elements of beauty (perfection, harmonious proportion, and splendor), the attribute which necessarily results from these elements must also be His. Now, God is infinite perfection ; His infinitely numerous good qualities (not parts) coalesce in His Divine Essence into a most intensive unity; and, finally, He is all light, and pure clarity, and consequently, He must be beautiful. The Book of Wisdom concludes from the beauty manifest in the physical universe that the Creator is transcendently beautiful. Wisdom XIII, 3 sq. : ” Quorum [i. e., ignis, coeli, solis, etc.] si specie [pulchritudine] delectati deos putaverunt, sdant quanto his dominator eorum speciosior [pulchrior] est; speciei enim generator (6 tov koAAow ytveauxpxn*) haec omnia constituit — With whose beauty [viz., that of fire, the sun, etc.], if they, being delighted, took them THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 269 to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things.* Scripture frequently compares the beauty of God to a garment wrapped about the Divine Essence. Cfr. Prov. XXXI, 25: Fortitude et decor indumentum eius — Strength and beauty are her clothing.” Ps. CM, 1 sq. : ” Decorem induisti, amictus lumine sicut vestimento — Thou … art clothed with light as with a garment.” Ecclesiasticus compares ” Eternal Wisdom ” to the splendor of exquisite flowers, and calls it “mother of beautiful love.” In the Canticle of Canticles Divine Beauty appears in the guise of a charming bride-groom.12 With the exception of St Augustine, who has written on the subject with his usual profundity, the Fathers seldom descant on this divine attribute. b) God is not only beautiful, He is the very essence of beauty (pulchritudo a se), just as He is essential truth and goodness. And in the same manner that He is true in virtue of being Himself the Truth, He is beautiful in virtue of being Himself Beauty, because beauty is His own Essence. This proposition is demonstrable as a theological conclusion from the three elements of beauty: perfectio, proportio partium, claritas. God is infinite perfection itself.18 He is the subsisting monas, comprising within Himself all being,14 and He is light and splendor.15 Consequently, He is substantial, subsisting, aseitarian Beauty. This becomes still clearer if we apply to Him St. Augustine’s definition of beauty, viz.: Unity in variety. There can be no greater variety than that implied in God’s infinite perfections; 12 Cfr. Cant. Cantic, I, 15: 13 Supra, pp. 180 sqq. ” Ecce tu pulcher es, dilecte mi, et U Supra, pp. 196 iqq. decorus — Behold thou art fair, my 15 Supra, pp. 225 sqq. beloved, and comely.”

nor a more intensive unity than the identity of the Divine Essence with its attributes. Consequently the notion of beauty is realized in God absolutely; and all the more perfectly as the element of multiplicity is not confined to the virtually distinct properties of the Divine Essence, but applies in an even higher degree to the real distinction of the Divine Persons. Absolute unity in real trinity must culminate in absolute beauty.16 Because God is Primordial Beauty, therefore He is All-Beauty, and excels every species of created beauty, as Nazianzen intimates when he says : ” Who is all beauty and far beyond all beauty.” 17 We will not rehearse the utterances of Pseudo-Dionysius, who has written so sublimely on the beauty of God, because we know now that this supposed ” disciple of the Apostles,” whom the Schoolmen held in such high esteem, was not the real Areopagite, but a Christian pupil of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus (+485). The sooner theologians cease quoting Pseudo-Dionysius as an authority, the better. He can at most serve as a witness to Tradition such as it existed in the latter part of the fifth and in the early part of the sixth century.18 c) How is Divine Beauty related to created beauty? Divine Beauty is the ideal and source of all created beauty, both in the spiritual and the material order. 16 Why beauty is especially appropriated to the Logos, is explained by St. Thomas, S. TheoL, i a, qu. 30, art. 8. 17 Or. TheoL, 2. Cfr. Idem, De Virginity cap. 11: No one is so obtuse as to be unable to see that God alone is beauty kclt efrxhv* in the original and exclusive sense.* 18 Cfr. H. Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen sum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen, Mainz 1900. Also the article ” Dionysius, the Pseudo- Areopagite/’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 13 sqq. and Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 535 sqq. Freiburg and St. Louis 1908. THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 271 With reference to Wisdom XIII, 3 sqq., St. Hilary teaches: ” De magnitudine enim operum et pulchritudine creaturarum consequenter generationum conditor conspicitur. Magnorum Creator in maximis est, et pulcherrimorum conditor in pulcherrimis.” Augustine confesses: “Nulla extra te pulchra essent, nisi essent abs te — No beautiful objects would exist outside of Thee, had they not received being from Thee,” 19 and deplores his own defection from the Source of Beauty thus: ” Sero te amavi, pulchritudo tarn antiqua et tarn nova… . Et ecce intus eras, et ego {oris, et ibi te quaerebam et in ista formosa, quae fecisti, deformis irruebam — 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.” 20 Unfortunately for himself, the great Bishop of Hippo had not followed the advice of St. Isidore of Seville,21 who urged that fallen man should use the beauties of creation as a ladder whereby to ascend to Primordial Beauty. God’s beauty is most splendidly reflected, not by the mineral, or the vegetable, or the animal kingdom, nor yet by the fine arts, but by the immortal soul of man, which presents a likeness and an image of Divine Beauty. Origen says: “The human soul is most beautiful; in fact, it possesses a beauty that is truly marvelous; for the Artist Who created it said: Let Us make man according to Our image and likeness. What can be more beautiful than such beauty and similitude?“22 Let it be added, however, that the soul is capable of l» Confess., IV. 10. 22 Horn, in Esech., 7. (Sec S. 20 Confess., X, 27. Thorn., S. TheoL, 1a, qu. 3, art. 1 ax De Summp Bono, I, 4. sqq.)

various degrees of beauty according as it is considered as the natural or the supernatural image of its Creator. 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.28 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 Aoyo« ivaapKos = 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.24 Closely related to beauty is the divine attribute of sublimity (sublimit as, /AcyoAwrpcVaa) y which is rooted in God’s infinity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence. Several of the Psalms describe J:his attribute in language of imposing 23Cfr. Scheeben, Die Herrlichkeiten der gottlichen Gnode, 6th ed. Freiburg 1897. 24 Cfr. Ps, XLIV, 3: ” Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, diffusa est gratia in labiis tuts — Thou art beautiful above the sons of men: grace is poured abroad in thy lips.* Cfr. Clem. Alex., Strom., II, 5: * Redemptor noster … est vera pulchritudo, nam erat lux vera — Our Saviour … is the true Beauty, because He was the true Light.” On the whole subject, cfr. J. Souben, Les Manifestations du Beau, dans la Nature, Paris 1901, THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 273 grandeur, and the famous “Prayer of Habacuc” has rightly been reckoned among the most precious gems of the world’s literature.25 Readings : — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § 85 (Wilhelmr Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, pp. 206 sqq.). — *Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 417 sqq. — Franzelin, De Deo Uno, thes. 30. — Nieremberg, Delia Bellezza di Dio. — Petavius, De Deo, VI, 8. — Thomassin, De Deo, III, 19 sqq. — *Stentrup, De Deo Uno, cap. VII, Oeniponte 1895. — H. Krug, De Pulchritudine Divina, Friburgi 1902.— Humphrey, “His Divine Majesty,” pp. 113 sqq., London 1897. 25 Habacuc, Cb. III.

CHAPTER II god’s categorical attributes of being The so-called categories (Karrjyopiat, praedicamenta) differ from the transcendental attributes of being in that they are not univocally predicable of all being, but of certain determined classes of being only. By reducing all concrete beings to their highest genera, Aristotle arrived at the ten so-called categories: substance and the nine accidents (crv^p^KOTa) ; quality quantity (wocw), relation «), place time position or attitude (situs, habitus or external belongings (*x«w = potency and faculties), action (vomv)9 and passion (irdaxuv, pati).1 In entering upon the discussion of the remaining attributes of God, we base the theological teaching concerning them upon these summa genera essendi, i. e.9 “the two all-embracing classes (substance and accident), to one or other of which all terrestrial things capable of being conceived in thought belong.” We do not, of course, mean to apply the predicaments to God in their strict sense — God is beyond and above lCfr. Clarke, Logic, pp. 187 sqq., and the article “Category” in the Catholic Encyclopedia III, 433 sqq. 274