Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:12:24.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE STOIC DEFINITION OF BEAUTY AS SUMMETRIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2017

Aiste Celkyte
Aiste Celkyte*
Affiliation:
Underwood International College, Yonsei University
*
aiste.celkyte@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Stoa might be not the first philosophical school that comes to mind when considering the most important ancient contributions to aesthetics, yet multiple extant fragments show that the Stoics had a non-marginal theoretical interest in aesthetic properties. Probably the most important piece of evidence for the Stoic attempts to theorize beauty is the definition of beauty as summetria of parts with each other and with the whole. In the first half of this article, I present and analyse the main evidence for this definition. Then I discuss Plotinus' critique of the definition and argue that it contains some pertinent remarks that, with support of additional evidence, lead to the conclusion that the Stoics conceptualized aesthetic properties as supervening on functional composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 88 - 105
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The term summetria is not translated throughout this paper, because I argue that the Stoic conception underpinning this word has a functional aspect that is not captured by the conventional translations of the word. Similarly, the translations of the terms τὸ καλόν and τὸ πρέπον are also problematic and quite often are left untranslated in contemporary scholarship. I adopt the same practice in this paper.

2 The most substantial treatment of this Stoic concept is Horn, H.-J., ‘Stoische Symmetrie und Theorie des Schönen in der Kaiserzeit’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 36.3 (1989), 1454–72Google Scholar and Bett, R., ‘Beauty and its relation to goodness in Stoicism’, in Nightingale, A. and Sedley, D. (edd.), Ancient Models of Mind (Cambridge, 2010), 130–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 I cite and discuss these passages below.

4 Gal. Plac. 5.3.15.6 (De Lacy); trans. De Lacy, P., Galen: On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1978–1984)Google Scholar, slightly amended. Cf. 5.2.46.

5 The fact that this definition is associated with Chrysippus is significant for my project. In this paper, I use a number of Stoic tenets that help to flesh out the interpretation of their definition of beauty. Chrysippus was either an author or an advocate of most of them. For instance, he is the author of many Stoic ideas in physics, including the theory of genera, which contains a classification of properties ( Long, A. and Sedley, D., The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. [Cambridge, 1987], 1.165–6Google Scholar, 1.173, as well as Menn, S., ‘The Stoic theory of categories’, OSAPh 17 [1999], 215–47Google Scholar suggest that Chrysippus was most likely the author of the Stoic ‘four genera’ theory). Since there is some basis for attributing both the definition of properties and the Stoic theory of properties to Chrysippus, investigating the former by means of the latter is not historically implausible.

6 Plotinus, Enn. 1.6, trans. A. Sheppard from Bychkov, O. and Sheppard, A., Greek and Roman Aesthetics (Cambridge, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, slightly changed to replace ‘symmetry’ with ‘summetria’ and ‘symmetrical’ with ‘summetros’.

7 Gerson, While L., Plotinus (London, 1994), 213Google Scholar and Evangeliou, C., ‘Portraits of Plotinus and the symmetry theory of beauty’, in Boudouris, K. (ed.), Greek Philosophy and the Fine Arts (Athens, 2000), 2.38–48Google Scholar, at 42–5 choose to read Plotinus' words as referring to a large unspecified group of thinkers or philosophers, it is also quite common to read Plotinus' attack as directed towards the Stoics. See, for instance, Sheppard (n. 6), 186; Graeser, A., Plotinus and the Stoics (Leiden, 1972), 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beardsley, M., Aesthetics from Classical Greece to the Present (New York, 1966), 80Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that Galen also wrote that all physicians and philosophers claimed that beauty was summetria (Plac. 5.3.17). It is hard to speculate what the relationship was between the Stoic and ‘physicians and philosopher’, but it is clear that this Stoic idea had some connection with a wider intellectual tradition.

8 See the following section below.

9 This is made clear in the argument regarding a face which appears beautiful at one moment but not so at another: see Plotinus, Enn. 1.6.1.

10 Cf. Cic. Off. 1.98, although this account is typically attributed to Panaetius, not Chrysippus.

11 Arius Didymus 5b4-5b5 (Pomeroy) = Stob. Ecl. 2.62.15 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.278; the translation is mine.

12 The connection between beauty and health is a complicated issue. Whereas several sources make a very explicit connection between these two, and Bett (n. 2), 136 argues that ‘this well-ordered state might just as well be called health as beauty’, Galen records Chrysippus' distinction between health and physical beauty. In Plac. 5.3.13-15, Galen criticizes Chrysippus for not distinguishing between health and beauty of the soul, as he distinguishes bodily beauty as summetria of limbs from health as summetria of elements. For this reason, I do not assume that Chrysippus proposed an equivalency between health and beauty.

13 This is argued by Graver, M., Cicero on The Emotions: Tusculan Disputations 3 and 4 (Chicago, 2002), 204–6Google Scholar, but an elaborate study of this question can be found in Tieleman, T., Chrysippus' On Affection: Reconstruction and Interpretation (Leiden and Boston, 2003), 290–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially at 296–303.

14 Tusc. 4.13.31 = SVF 3.279, trans. M. Graver. Cf. Philo, On the Life of Moses 2.140 = SVF 3.392.

15 See Gatti, M.L., ‘Plotinus: the Platonic tradition and the foundation of Neoplatonism’, in Gerson, L.P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (Cambridge, 1996), 10–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 10–14.

16 Plotinus, Enn. 1.6.

17 See Graver (n. 13), 152–4 for an in-depth discussion of this text.

18 See, especially Book 3, chapter 1.1-3. Physical beauty described here is probably the one referred to in the fragments that define love as an attempt to form a friendship because of manifested beauty (Diog. Laert. 7.130). It is noteworthy that beautiful youths that inspire love also show potential for virtue; see, for instance, Bett (n. 2), 141–4.

19 Bett (n. 2), 136.

20 See, for instance, Lombardo, G., L'Estetica Antica (Bologna, 2002), 30Google Scholar.

21 Plac. 5.3.16.

22 Possibly similar to the ratios described by Vitr. 3.1.1-3.

23 Cf. Pollitt, J.J., The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (New Haven and London, 1974), 14–15 Google Scholar, who also argues that summetria in Polycleitus' thought denoted proportionality of a structure.

24 Ti. 66A, 66D, 87D, 69B; Soph. 235D-236A, 228A.

25 Resp. 529D-530B.

26 Leg. 925A.

27 Symp. 211B; Prm. 130E-131A. Cf. for instance Hyland, D., Plato and the Question of Beauty (Indianapolis, 2008), 17–18 Google Scholar, 56–9.

28 See Asmis, E., ‘Hellenistic aesthetics. Philosophers and literary critics’, in Kelly, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Aesthetics (Oxford, 1998), 2.389–91Google Scholar, at 389.

29 Arist. Metaph. M 3.1078b1; Ph. 246b3-246b19; Top. 116b21; cf. [Mund.] 397a6.

30 Eth. Nic. 1125b6-8.

31 Pol. 1326a33.

32 Poet. 1450b34-1451a6.

33 Cf. Zagdoun, M.-A., La philosophie Stoïcienne de l'art (Paris, 2000), 80Google Scholar. Zagdoun notes that the Stoics borrowed elements from other philosophers, but ‘la définition stoïcienne du beau dans son ensemble est originale et serait incompréhensible sans une référence constante aux fondements du stoïcisme’.

34 Plotinus, Enn.1.6.2.

35 Plotinus, Enn. 1.6. Trans. Sheppard (n. 6), slightly changed by replacing ‘symmetry’ and ‘symmetrical’ with summetria and summetros respectively.

36 Cf. Schmitt, A., ‘Symmetrie und Schönheit. Plotins Kritik an hellenistischen Proportionslehren. Ihre unterschiedliche Wirkungsgeschichte in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit’, in Lobsien, O. and Olk, C. (edd.), Neuplatonismus und Ästhetik. Zur Transformationsgeschichte des Schönen (Berlin and New York, 2007), 59–84 Google Scholar, at 60–3.

37 Plotinus, Enn. 6.7.22, trans. Armstrong.

38 The argument itself can be found in Cic. Fin. 3.27, Tusc. 5.15.43 and Plut. Mor. 1039C-D.

39 Plut. Mor. 1066C, trans. Cherniss.

40 Some commentators do read the Stoic definition of beauty as suggesting that beauty originated from internal structure and parts fitting together, however. Bett (n. 2), 136, for instance, argues as follows: ‘For it is clear that, according to the Stoics’ conception of the soul, reason or the hēgemonikon has a number of different aspects or functions, and that, in the wise person's soul, these aspects or functions will complement one another and fit together in a felicitous and harmonious way.’

41 Graver, M., Stoicism and Emotion (Chicago, 2007), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Diog. Laert. 7.94-5 = SVF 3.76, trans. Hicks. Cf. Sorabji, R., Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation (Oxford, 2000), 51Google Scholar.

43 Cic. De Fin. 3.32 = SVF 3.504.

44 Stob. Ecl. 2.62.15-2.63.5 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.278, trans. Tieleman (n. 13).

45 Tieleman (n. 13), 236–40.

46 Tieleman (n. 13), 237.

47 Parsons, G. and Carlson, A., Functional Beauty (Oxford and New York, 2008), 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar define functional beauty as follows: ‘The basic idea of Functional Beauty is that of a thing's function being integral to its aesthetic character. Expressed slightly differently, the idea is that of a thing's aesthetic qualities emerging from its function or something closely related to its function, such as its purpose, use, or end.’

48 Pl. Hp. mai. (290D-294E). See Barney, R., ‘Notes on Plato on the kalon and the good’, CPh 105 (2010), 363–77Google Scholar, at 364–5 for a discussion of the Platonic notion of functionality and its relationship to beauty.

49 Xen. Mem. 3.8.5-6.

50 Irwin, T., ‘The sense and reference of kalon in Aristotle’, CPh 105 (2010), 381–96Google Scholar, at 386–7 presents a survey and an analysis of Aristotle's use of to kalon in this way.

51 Aretē (‘virtue’) can also be translated as ‘excellence’. See, for instance, the translation of Arist. Eth. Nic. 1167a in Crisp, R., Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge, 2000), 171Google Scholar (cf. the brief discussion of this translation on 205).

52 Rogers, K., ‘Aristotle's conception of τὸ καλόν’, AncPhil 13 (1993), 355–71Google Scholar, at 355. Xenophon's passage is Mem. 3.10.9-10.

53 Cic. Off. 1.98, trans. Atkins.

54 Dyck, A.R., A Commentary on Cicero De Officiis (Ann Arbor, 1996), 240Google Scholar.

55 Cic. Off. 1.100.

56 Cic. Off. 1.97, trans. Atkins.

57 Cic. Off. 1.98, trans. Atkins.

58 Lombardo (n. 20), 136.

59 Diog. Laert. 7.100, trans. Hicks. Slightly changed by replacing ‘factors’ with ‘measures’. This phrase plays an important role in interpreting the Stoic notion of the proper function below.

60 Cic. Off. 1.93.

61 Cic. Off. 1.93.

62 Cic. Off. 1.94. It is also noteworthy that in this passage honestum is said to precede τὸ πρέπον.

63 Dyck (n. 54), 243. Note that, although this citation uses the term kalon, Cicero's text uses honestum. These terms are often treated as interchangeable in the scholarship.

64 Cic. Nat. D. 2.5.15. This is Cleanthes' argument.

65 Cic. Nat. D. 2.62.155. Cf. Setaioli, A., ‘Some ideas of Seneca's On Beauty ’, Prometheus 33 (2007), 49–65 Google Scholar, at 55 for a discussion of passages conveying the same message in Seneca's works.

66 Cic. Nat. D. 2.22.58, trans. Rackham.

67 Cic. Nat. D. 2.24.87.

68 Plut. Mor. 1054 E-F = SVF 2.550 = LS 29D, trans. Long and Sedley.

69 Simpl. On Aristotle's Categories 166.15-29 = SVF 2.403 = LS 29C.

70 Gal. Plac. 7.1.12-15 = SVF 3.259 = LS 29E; Plut. Mor. 440E-441D = LS 61B.

71 It is also related to the theory of oikeiōsis; see Tieleman (n. 13), 185–6.

72 This claim can be found in a large number of texts. Plutarch (Mor. 1069E = SVF 3.491) attributes it to Chrysippus.

73 Diog. Laert. 7.107 = SVF 3.493 = LS 59C.

74 For instance, looking after one's body and health is a proper function (Diog. Laert. 7.109 = SVF 3.496).

75 Cic. Fin. 3.17.20-2 = LS 59D.

76 Stob. Ecl. 2.93.14-18 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.500 = LS 59K.

77 Long, A., ‘The harmonics of Stoic virtue’, in id., Stoic Studies (Berkeley, 1996), 210–12Google Scholar.

78 Long (n. 77), 218–19.

79 Cf. Setaioli (n. 65), 50–1 for an argument that Seneca puts an emphasis on the beauty of the ‘whole’ in a way that seems to refer to the notion of τὸ πρέπον. Setaioli also traces this idea back to Chrysippus.

80 For the use of terms ‘structure’ and ‘composition’, cf. Harte, V., Plato on Parts and Wholes: The Metaphysics of Structure (Oxford, 2002), 14–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 158–67. Since I am dealing with aesthetic rather than mere logical problems, my use of these terms is not nearly as charged. I discuss structure as something an object has rather than is, to use Harte's distinction, because such a notion of structure is more relevant for aesthetic issues. I use ‘composition’ simply to denote the entirety of factors which render an object beautiful. Structure (especially proportionate structure) is one of them, but there can be other, more external, factors, such as functionality. One might reason, for instance, that a good composition of a house requires both proportionality and functionality.

81 Cic. Tusc. 4.29.34-5 = LS 61O, trans. Long and Sedley.

82 Stob. Ecl. 2.68.18-23 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.663 = LS 41I.

83 See Stob. Ecl. 2.88.8-2.90.6 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.378 = LS 65A. It is quite likely that this definition belonged to Chrysippus, because Galen's record shows that Posidonius addressed the criticism of this definition to Chrysippus in particular.

84 Gal. Plac. 4.2.10-18 = SVF 3.462 = LS 65J, translation by Long and Sedley. Cf. Stob. Ecl. 2.88.8-2.90.6 Wachsmuth = SVF 3.378, 3.389 = LS 65A, which contrasts controllable erroneous opinions and uncontrollable passions, and Gill, C., ‘Stoicism and Epicureanism’, in Goldie, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion (Oxford, 2010), 143–66Google Scholar, at 152.

85 This explanation is not necessarily mutually exclusive with the first explanation. Vices are, according to the Stoics, not only lacking of harmony but also contrary to nature (see, for instance, Gal. Plac. 4.2.10-18 = SVF 3.462 = LS 65J).

86 See, for instance, Sen. Ep. 76.9-10 = SVF 3.200a = LS 63D. Another relevant Stoic tenet is the claim that the telos of human life is living in agreement with nature, which is commonly held by all the early Stoics. See Stob. Ecl. 2.75.11-2.76.8 Wachsmuth = LS 63B and Diog. Laert. 7.87-9 = LS63C, which show that Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus advocated this idea, with slight emendations.

87 Plut. Mor. 1044A = SVF 3.55 = LS 63H.

88 Zangwill, N., The Metaphysics of Beauty (Ithaca, NY and London, 2001), 43–4Google Scholar.

89 Sibley, F., ‘Aesthetic concepts’, The Philosophical Review 68 (1959), 421–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 426.

90 Kristeller, O.P., ‘The modern system of the arts: a study in the history of aesthetics: part I’, JHI 12 (1951), 496–527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 See, for instance, Porter, J., ‘Is art modern? Kristeller's “modern system of the arts” reconsidered’, British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (2009), 1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Halliwell, S., The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems (Princeton, 2002), 7–8 Google Scholar.

92 See, for instance, Hon, G. and Goldstein, B., From Summetria to Symmetry: The Making of a Revolutionary Scientific Concept (Dordrecht, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Saito, Y., Everyday Aesthetics (Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, two monographs on functional and everyday aesthetics respectively.

93 This work was supported (in part) by the Yonsei University Research Fund (Postdoc. Researcher Supporting Program) of 2016 (Project No.: 2016-12-0167).