«On Adornment»: When a young student of rhetoric visited him with a somewhat extravagant hairstyle and the rest of his appearance overly adorned, he said, Tell me, do you not think that some dogs and some horses are beautiful, and likewise, each of the other animals? -Yes, he said. -The same with humans, some beautiful and some ugly? -Of course. -So, according to the same criterion, do we call each of these beautiful within its own kind, or with a separate criterion for each? You will understand this. Because we see that a dog has one purpose by nature, a horse another, and, let's say randomly, the nightingale another, generally one would not conclude illogically that each is beautiful when it is the best according to its nature; and because the nature of each is different, it seems to me that each of them is beautiful in a different way; or not? -He agreed. -Therefore, what makes the dog beautiful makes the horse ugly, and what exactly makes the horse beautiful makes the dog ugly, if indeed their natures are different? -So it seems. -And indeed, I think that what makes the pankratiast beautiful does not make the wrestler good, while the runner is completely ridiculous; and one who is beautiful for the pentathlon is not very ugly for wrestling? -That's right, he said. -So, what else makes a human beautiful, but exactly what makes the dog and the horse beautiful in their kind? -That, he said. -Therefore, what makes the dog beautiful? The distinctive quality of the dog, when present. The horse? The distinctive quality of the horse, when present. And the human? Perhaps the distinctive quality of the human, when present? [...]