1.4.

Horace
(65 - 8 BC)

1.4.1. Introduction

Horace was the friend of Maecenas and Caesar Augustus. His poetry was a kind of
classical reaction to the baroque poetry of the Alexandrian era. His main critical work
is the verse epistle to the Piso family commonly known as Ars poetica or De arte
poetica. Another interesting work of his is an epistle to Augustus (Epistles II.I) which
is concerned mainly with Latin drama.

Horace does not care much about philosophical questions. He is concerned with the
mundane aspect of poetry; he is writing in a time of aristocratic patronage, and one in
which "the wise and the fools, all of us write poetry," as he complains. The main role
of criticism is for him to give advice to the aristocratic poet not to compromise his
reputation by writing bad verse and be ridiculed.

The Ars poetica is written somewhat at random; it may be divided in three sections,

dealing with poetry (poiesis or matter), the poem (poiema or form) and the poet
(poietes), respectively. The treatment is a loose and conversational one, and to that
extent it is "an Art written without art," as Scaliger used to say.

The medieval and neoclassical critics will develop the tradition of the ars
poetica turning it into a special poetical genre: that which is concerned with the
principles of poetry itself. Boileau's Art poétique, or Pope's Essay on Criticism will be
typical examples. We must not forget that all these works are poetry as well as
criticism: they try to formulate critical principles in a pointed and witty way, they seek
to amuse, as well as to instructæand in doing this they enact the principles of the
Horatian tradition they preach. They are of a much lighter nature than
Aristotle's Poetics .

Horace's approach is more consonant than Aristotle's to the general literary milieu of
the Renaissance, and he will be more widely known and followed. This will have
some consequences, because Horace is more superficial and more prone to giving
rules than Aristotle was.

 
 

1.4.2. Poetry: Nature and Subject Matter

Poetry need not tie itself to actual facts; poets have the license of invention, but they
must use it to create a unified whole. Parts must correspond to the whole, even though
in Horace "parts" and "whole" do not have the technical sense we found in
the Poetics. Horace stresses the importance of guiding principles, of "art" in the sense
of "knowledge." The main role of art is to keep everything in its right place and give it
its right share in the whole. This idea of technical knowledge as a principle of restraint
and order we call decorum : it is a classicist conception par excellence. "Decorum" is
probably the key word in Horace's approach to literature, and we can link it to
Aristotle's idea of the proper nature of things. In the neoclassical critics of the
seventeenth century we will find the general belief that there are two principles at war
in the poet's head: fancy and judgement, and that the role of judgement is to restrain
the flights of fancy within the boundaries of art. There is an insinuation of this in
Horace, but here the terms are simply native gift and art or technical
knowledge. There is no mythology of inspiration attached to Horace's idea of genius.
And the relationship between the gift of the poet and his technical expertise is usually
seen as one of complementarity, rather that opposition. Art, in the work or
(understood as technique) in the poet, is the supplier of what is lacking in nature. Art
keeps grand style from becoming bombastic, brevity, which in itself is a merit, from
being inintelligible, smoothness from becoming blandness. It also teaches a poet not
to choose a subject which is beyond his powers (inventio ), to give the right
distribution to the parts (dispositio ) and to keep a golden middle concerning the use
of words (elocutio ): Horace authorizes moderate coinage and novelty,
following usage, and understands the necessary evolution of language. Decorum,
then, is not necessarily an enemy of novelty: the best effects, Horace says, can be
obtained when a well-known word is skilfully set so that it looks as though it were
new.

Decorum also dictates the differences between the genres. By Horace's time, the
classical list of genres had been developed. This includes epic, tragedy, comedy, lyric,
pastoral, satire, elegy and epigram. Each has its own rules, it is not clear whether by
nature or by convention:
The changing parts and tone of each kind of poetry have had their limits set . . . . Each
has had its becoming place alloted: let them keep to it.

But Horace immediately qualifies this rule with a much more subtle observation; he
says that tragedy and comedy may sometimes achieve their best effects by
approaching one another.

Horace is presupposing a fit audience who is capable of understanding the rules; it is

not the audience at large-"I hate the ignorant common people, and I keep away from
them" (Odes, III.i)-but rather an ideal aristocratic audience whose taste he is
contributing to educate.

Horace gives some advice on imitation. In contrast to Aristotle or Plato, who spoke of
imitation of nature or ideals, Horace means imitation of other authors. Of course, he
says, you may imitate from nature and may wish to invent your own themes, but it is
safer to learn from others. He warns against choosing bad models, and he praises
Homer because he knows how to give unity to his work mingling fact and fiction, and
because he knows how to be lively by virtue of restraining himself:

He does not begin (...) the war of Troy from the twin eggs [ab ovo ]. He ever hastens
to the issue, and hurries his hearers into the midst of the story [in medias res ], just as
if they knew it before; and what he thinks his touch will never turn to gold, that he lets
alone.

It must be kept in mind that Horace is not advocating a frozen kind of beauty: he
thinks that only the poems which follow the rules of art will be able to draw the
hearer's feelings; charming a cultivated audience is the true test of beauty.

1.4.3. Drama

 
It is surprising that Horace being a "lyrical" poet he skips lyrical forms in his account
of poetry and devotes instead most of his treatise to drama, a genre which was neither
dominant in Rome nor practised by Horace himself. This may be one sign of the
conventional nature of the Ars poetica.

Horace's discussion of drama is also based on decorum. He complains of silly plays

with complicated scenery, multitudinary casts and disjointed plots, and he gives some
clear-cut laws which will become the credo of neoclassical writers:

· characters in comedy must be typical, and speak and behave according to their age
and nature;

· traditional characters in tragedy must not be altered;

· invented characters must be consistent;

· unbelievable or immoral actions must be narrated and not shown on stage;

· plays must have 5 acts;

· the deus ex machina must not be used in unworthy occasions;

· only three actors can speak at one time in a scene;

· the chorus must behave like one of the actors, and side with the good characters.

Much of this was found in Aristotle in a slightly less categoric formulation.

Horace writes a thumbnail history of Greek and Roman theatre (see also the epistle to
Augustus), and recognizes the superiority of Greek models; Roman poets and
playwrights he sees in general as rude and careless as far as technique is concerned.

 
 

1.4.4. Classicism and Novelty

Being a Roman and a mediator between his age and the superior Greek culture of the
past, Horace is already to some extent a neoclassical writer: he has a classical tradition
behind him, models to follow and to adapt, which is the basic defining trait of
neoclassicism. However, Horace is not in favour of an unreasonable admiration to
past writers. He says that they often have important defects, which must be criticised
and not foolishly justified. He defends novelty and change; we have here a classical
forerunner of the defence of the moderns against the ancients. This will be
remembered in the long debate between the classicists and the moderns during the late
seventeenth century. What is more, Horace says that in favouring change he is
following the example of the Greeks, the classics themselves: "If novelty had been as
despised by the Greeks as it is by us, would we have anything old?"

1.4.5. The Poet, the Critic and Ridicule

Horace presents us an ideal of the poet as a man of society, who faces a public of
learned and cultivated aristocrats. He laughs at extravagant "bohemian" poets who
claim to be inspired by the Muses; he advises them to cut their hair and their nails, and
to wash without any fear of washing their inspiration away. We may notice that now
the theories of inspiration linger on as myths, but that they are already an object of
ridicule. Now it is the natural gift of the poet, and not an external inspiration, which is
opposed to technical knowledge. Neoptolemus, one of Horace's influences,
distinguished the technically skilful from the born poet. Horace is insisting on the
necessity of rules, but it is not that he does not believe in the necessity of a natural
gift: "the source and fountainhead of writing well is wise thinking." But much study
and care are also needed. One must not trust one's own judgement, but rather ask
friends for their sincere opinion before one ventures to publication, and , in any case,
let the poems lay for a long time before you decide anything. The bad poet falls to the
depths of ridicule.

Horace claims that there is no use for bad or middling poets : "to be second-rate is a
privilege which neither men nor gods nor bookstalls ever allowed." Better write
nothing. This is the kind of advice we would not find in Aristotle; Horace is writing
an entirely different type of criticism. Horace gives some advice to critics, too.
Criticism must be "a whetstone,which can make steel sharp, though itself cannot cut."
The critic must never try to flatter the poet when asked for advice, but rather say their
sincere opinion. The flatterer is the worst enemy of the poet. On the other hand, they
need not be too harsh critics of petty faults in a good work. Not all works are equally
ambitious and not all follow the same rules: we must see them in context and not ask
from them the kind of pleasure they cannot provide. However, Horace concludes, the
poet is free not to listen to criticism and make a fool of himself: "Poets should have
the right and the power if they choose to destroy themselves. To save a man against
his will is as bad as to murder him." He concludes the work with a caricature of the
bad poet trying to read his poems to people who escape from him. This is a caricature
of the inspired poet, the Democritean divine madman, and it is advice as well as satire.

1.4.6. The Aim of Poetry

Horace's definition of the aim of poetry is perhaps the most widely known, though not
often in the original:
The aim of the poet is either to benefit, or to amuse, or to make his words at once
please and give lessons of life.

These are three different aims, and not just one ("delectare et docere"), as is often
affirmed. It is clear, however, that Horace favours the third, a combination of pleasure
and profit. In his epistle to Augustus (a more formal piece than the Art of poetry), he
speaks of two aims: to teach, and to placate the anger of the gods. The poets were the
first civilisers of mankind, those who taught men to tell good from bad, to establish
laws and to worship the gods. Horace interprets in this way the myths of Orpheus and
Amphion.

But there is another aim of poetry which is more pervasive in the Ars poetica. Writing
good poems which instruct or delight is only the means to the real end, which is to
achieve fame and immortality through one's works. This aspiration is more in tune
with Horace's urban approach to poetry and criticism, and can be seen more clearly in
some of his odes, for instance "Exegi monumentum aere perennius":

I have built a monument more lasting than bronze,

Taller than the massive ruins of the kingly Pyramids.

Rain will not damage my work, and the violent northern wind

Will not be able to destroy it, nor will the innumerable

Succession of years and the flight of time.

I shall not die for good: most of me

Will escape the death-goddess Libitine.

I will keep on growing, forever young with the praise of years to come,

As long as the Pontifex ascends the Capitol,

The silent virgin by his side.

It will be said that, after being born in the country where the violent Aufidus roars,

Where dry Daunus governed a race of rough men,

I elevated myself out of my humble condition and was the first

To fit aeolic songs into Italian airs.

Dress yourself, Melpomene, in pride equal to my merits,

And willingly wreathe my locks with Delphic laurel.

Ars poetica, (Latin: “Art of Poetry”) work by Horace, written about

19–18 BCE for Piso and his sons and originally known
as Epistula ad Pisones (Epistle to the Pisos). The work is an
urbane, unsystematic amplification of Aristotle’s discussion of
the decorum or internal propriety of each literary genre, which at
Horace’s time included lyric, pastoral, satire, elegy, and epigram,
as well as Aristotle’s epic, tragedy, and comedy. For
example, Ars poetica elevates the Greek tradition of using
narration to relate offstage events into a dictum forbidding such
events as Medea’s butchering of her boys from being performed
onstage. Where Aristotle had discussed tragedy as a separate
genre, superior to epic poetry, Horace discusses it as a genre
with a distinct style, again with considerations
of decorum foremost. A comedic theme was not to be set forth in
verses of tragedy; each style had to maintain the standards and
follow the conventions that had been established.
Written, like Horace’s other epistles of this period, in a loose
conversational frame, Ars poetica consists of 476 lines containing
nearly 30 maxims for young poets. The work was prized by
Neoclassicists of the 17th and 18th centuries not only for its rules
but also for its humour, common sense, and appeal to educated
taste.
His epistle to Piso and his sons (later called Ars poetica) that was
so influential throughout Europe in the 18th century. It supported,
among acceptable if trite theses, the dubious one that poetry is
necessarily best when it mingles the useful (particularly moral)
with the pleasing. Much of the work concerned itself with drama.
The Romans were better at discussing literary trends than
fundamental principles—there is much good sense about this in
Quintilian, and Tacitus’ Dialogus is an acute discussion of the
decline of oratory.
Classical theory: Horace-Ars Poetica or The Art of Poetry
Important points in Ars Poetica:

The subject matter of poetry: A poem must have organic unity, all the
parts must be vitally connected with one another. The poet is free to
indulge his fancy, but he must not lapse into absurdity and create
monsters or impossible figures.  The poet must choose only those
subjects which he is able to deal with. The subject must suit both the
power and style of the poet.

Discretion must be exercised in the use and choice of words. A poet is

at liberty to coin new words and revive old ones, but this should be
done with much discretion and only when absolutely necessary.

Each particular genre should stick to the meter allotted to it by the

ancient Greeks. For epic: iambic hexameter; elegiac verse, poems of
complaint, tragedy and comedy: iambic verse; and for hymns to the
gods, odes to victory, love poems: lyrical meter.

Form of poetry: The plot should be based on familiar old stories, and

novelty may be imparted through skilful treatment. Entirely new
themes may also be invented, but these would require great skill and
art on the part of the poet. If an old story is chosen, a slavish imitation
of the details is not necessary, but the poet should stay away from
inconsistencies and absurdities. Comic themes should not be treated in
a lofty vein of tragedy and tragic themes in the low vein of comedy.

Medias res: As regards the plot construction, it is good to follow the

example of Homer and plunge straight into the middle. The beginning
should be simple and all the unnecessary details should be avoided.
Moreover, the incidents should have a logical connection.

Characterisation: Characters must be consistent and true to type.

Characters drawn from traditional legends must preserve their
traditional traits. A different treatment of such characters will make
them unreal and unconvincing. Similarly, characters must fit their ages.

The dramatic style must also vary in accordance with character, mood
and circumstance. Different tones must be used for different moods
and personalities for verisimilitude.

 Further, the dramatist should know what to represent on stage and

what to report to the audience. Ugly and horrible incidents should not
be shown on stage.

Next, a play should not have more than five acts, and there must not be
more than 3 characters in any one scene. The gods should not
intervene unless absolutely essential. The denouement should logically
follow from the preceding incidents. The Chorus should form an
integral part of the play.
Iambic metre should be used. The Greek models should be followed. To
achieve excellence, the poet must read the Greek masters by day and
think of them by night.

Qualities of a poet:

 1) The art of poetry requires labour and persistence, and so a poet

should revise his work many times to attain excellence. He should also
show it to some wiser and more skilful person to get guidance from
him. In fact, Horace suggests that before publishing his work, a poet
must let it stand for about a decade.

2) A poet must be a keen observer of men and manners, and he must

try to replicate characters true to life.

3) A poet must instruct or please, or combine both functions. He should

not however indulge in romantic extravagances just for the sake of
pleasure. He should aim to mix pleasure with profit. He should be brief
and avoid superfluity, for only then will the people pay attention to his
instruction.

4) Minor faults should be forgiven, however, poets should avoid faults

as much as possible.

5) Great poets have been great prophets, so poets should not be

ashamed of their office.

6) For great poetry, both nature and art are essential. Abundant wit and
natural ability without a sound workmanship, or vice versa is of no
avail. Both wit and training are necessary.
7) The idea of poetic madness or inspiration is absurd. Excess must be
kept under restraint. A poet who relies on mere inspiration is generally
laughed at.
ON THE SUBLIME
LONGINUS
By the word 'sublime' Longinus means "elevation" or "lofti-
ness"—all that which raises style above the ordinary, and gives to
it distinction in its widest and truest sense. So sublimity is "a
certain distinction and excellence in composition. " Both nature
and art, says Longinus, contribute to sublimity in literature. "Art
is perfect when it seems to be nature, and nature hits the mark
when she contains art hidden within her." (Longinus)

Longinus finds five principal sources of the sublime, the first

two of which are largely the gifts of nature the remaining three the
gifts of art (1) grandeur of thought, (2) capacity for strong
emotion, (3) appropriate use of Figures, (4) Nobility of diction,
and (5) dignity of composition or a happy synthesis of all the
preceding elements.
(1) Grandeur of Thought
Nobody can produce a sublime work unless his thoughts are
sublime. For "sublimity is the echo of greatness of soul It is
impossible for those whose whole lives are full of mean and servile
ideas and habits, to produce anything that is admirable and
worthy of an immortal life. It is only natural that great accents
should fall from the lips of those whose thoughts have always
been deep and full of majesty." Stately thoughts belong to the
loftiest minds.
Therefore, he who would attain distinction of style must feed
his soul on the works of the great masters, as Homer, Plato and
Demosthenes, and capture from them some of their own
greatness, This reflects the classicism of Longinus. However,
what Longinus has in mind is not mere imitation or borrowing,
but that "men catch fire from the spirit of others." To Longinus
the operation is one that aims at capturing something of the
ancient spirit, something of that vital creative force which had
gone to the " making, of the earlier masterpieces; and its effect he
describes as that of illumination, guiding the mind in some
mysterious way to the lofty standards of the ideal.
The grandeur of conception is to be emphasized and made
effective by a suitable treatment of material. Details should be so
chosen as to form an organic whole. Amplification or
accumulation of all the details of a given subject is also helpful.
Such an amplification by its profusion suggests overwhelming
strength and magnitude. The use of vivid and compelling images
is also useful, for it brings home to the readers the conception of
the writer, effectively and forcefully.
(2) Capacity for Strong Emotion
The second source of the sublime is vehement and inspired
passion. Longinus asserts that nothing contributes more to
loftiness of tone in writing than genuine emotion. At one place, for
instance, he says, "I would confidently affirm that nothing makes
so much for grandeur as true emotion in the right place, for it
inspires the words, as it were, with a wild gust of mad
enthusiasm and fills them with divine frenzy. " It is for this
reason that he prefers the Illiad to the Odyssey and Demosthenes
to Cicero. But the emotions have to be 'true emotions' and 'in the
right place'. He thus justifies emotions more artistically than
Aristotle. However, the subject of emotions has not been dealt
with in detail. The author declares his intention of dealing with it
in a second treatise, which unfortunately has not come down to
us.
(3) Appropriate Use of Pictures
The third source of attaining excellence of style is the use of
figures of speech which he considers very important, and so
devotes nearly one third of his work to it. He shows great
discrimination and originality of thinking in his treatment of the
subject. Figures of speech should not be used mechanically, rather
they must be rooted in genuine emotion. Used naturally, they
impart elevation to style, and are themselves made more effective
by an elevated style.
The figures of thought and diction have to be judiciously
employed. The grandeur of any figure "will depend on its being
employed in the right place and the right manner, on the
right occasion, and with the right motive.'" It strengthens the
sublime, and the sublime supports it. We need the figures only
"when the nature of the theme makes it allowable to amplify, to
multiply or to speak in the tones of exaggeration or passion; to
overlay every sentence with ornament is very pedantic." When the
figure is unrelated to passion, it creates a suspicion of dishonesty
and is divorced from sublimity. The chief figures that make for
sublimity are the theoretical question, asyndeton,
hyperbaton, and periphrasis. In brief, the use of figures must be
psychological—intimately connected with thought and emotion,
and not merely mechanical.                
(4) Nobility of Diction
The fourth source of the 'sublime' is diction which includes
choice and arrangement of words and the use of metaphors and
ornamental language. The discussion of diction is incomplete
because four leaves of this part of the book are unfortunately lost.
Nevertheless, words, when suitable and striking, he says, have ''a
moving and seductive effect" upon the reader and are the first
things in a style to lend it "grandeur, beauty and mellowness,
dignity, force, power, and a sort of glittering charm." It is they
that breathe voice into dead things. They are 'the very light of
ought'—a radiance that illumines the innermost recesses of the
writer's mind. But 'it should be noted that imposing language is
not suitable for every occasion. When the object is trivial, to
invest it with grand and stately words would have the same
effect as putting a full-sized tragic mask on the head of a little
child.' This necessitates the use of common words which, when in
elegant, make up for it by their raciness and forcefulness. Among
these ornaments of speech Longinus considers metaphor and
hyperbole.
(5) Dignity of Composition
The fifth source of the sublime is the dignity of composition,
that is, a dignified composition or the arrangement of words. It
should be one that blends thought, emotion, figures, and words
themselves—the preceding four elements of sublimity—into a
harmonious whole. Such an arrangement has not only 'a natural
power of persuasion and of giving pleasure but also the
marvellous power of exalting the soul and swaying the heart of
men." It makes the hearer or reader share the emotion of the
speaker. But 'if the elements of grandeur be separated from one
another, the sublimity is scattered and made to vanish but when
organised into a compact system and still further encircled in a
chain of harmony they gain a living voice by being merely
rounded into a period.' A harmonious composition alone
sometimes makes up for the deficiency of the other elements. A
proper rhythm is one of the elements in this harmony. Negatively,
deformity and not grandeur is the result if the composition is
either extremely concise or unduly prolix. The one cripples the
thought and the other overextends it.
(6) The False and the True Sublime
Making a distinction between the false and the true sublime,
Longinus says that the false sublime is characterised first, by
timidity or bombast of language, which is as great an evil as
swellings in the body. "It is drier than dropsy." Secondly, the false
sublime is characterised by puerility, which is a parade and pomp
of language, tawdry and affected, and so frigid. Thirdly, the false
sublime results when there is a cheap display of passion, when it
is not justified by the occasion, and so is wearisome. True
sublime, on the other hand, pleases all and "pleases always," for it
expresses thoughts of universal validity—thoughts common to
 man of all ages and centuries—in a language which instinctively
uplifts our souls.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
1.          "Sublime" means "elevation", or "loftiness"—"a certain
distinction and excellence in composition."
2.          The principal sources of the Sublime are—(1) grandeur of
thought; (2) capacity for strong emotion; (3) appropriate use of
figures of speech; (4) Nobility of diction, and (5) dignity of
composition or a happy blend of the preceding four elements.
3.          Sublimity the echo of a great soul; lofty thoughts and ideas a
pre condition for sublimity; trivial thoughts—mean and servile
ideas— do not lead to sublimity.
4.          The second source of the sublime is the vehement, inspired
and genuine emotion.
5.          Sublimity can be attained by the appropriate use of the figures
of speech which should not be used mechanically but naturally to
be rooted in genuine emotion—should be employed in the right
place and right manner. The chief figures that make for sublimily
are asyndaton, hyperbaton and periphrasis.
6.          For sublimity the choice and arrangement of right words. Use
of grand words for a trivial object will only be ridiculous.
7.          Hence sublimity in a work of art is the result of a happy
blending of lofty thought, strong and genuine emotion,
appropriate figures of speech and suitable words. Elements of
grandeur cannot he separated from each other.
8.          True Vs. False Sublime—False sublime is characterized by
timidity or bombast of language and also by puerility (a parade
and pomp of language). True Sublime, on the other hand, is
marked by universality of appeal: it pleases all and always : it
uplifts our souls.
1.5.1. Introduction

Longinus is the wrong name. We know nothing about the author of the
treatise Peri Hypsous (On the Sublime ), but it was long attributed to a
rhetorician named Longinus. Now we know it was not his work, so we
may call the author "Pseudo-Longinus" or "anonymous", or whatever we
like. We may as well call him Longinus. The date of the treatise is
unknown : somewhere in the centuries 1 to 3 AD. It was discovered in
the XVIth century, and was published by the Italian critic Robortello in
1554.

The treatise On the Sublime takes an approach to criticism which is

completely different from that of Aristotle. If Aristotle is the model for
all neoclassic and systematic approaches to literature, Longinus may be
looked upon as a forerunner of the intuitive and romantic views of the
later neoclassical age, when several critics (Boileau, Burke, Kant) wrote
works on the subject of the sublime. The key concept in Longinus is no
longer "decorum," but rather "sublimity."

1.5.2. Sublimity

1.5.2.1. Definition

1.5.2.2. Inspiration and technique

1.5.2.3. Sublimity and rhetoric

1.5.2.1. Definition

Longinus is not too explicit while defining sublimity: "Sublimity is a

certain distinction and excellence in expression" (On the Sublime ,
chapter I). One reason may be that the feeling of the sublime defies
expression. It is there when the audience is no longer simply convinced,
or approves of the work, but is transported with admiration instead:

As if instinctively, our soul is lifted by the true sublime; it takes a proud

flight, and is filled with joy, and vaunting, as though it had itself
produced what it has heard. (VII)

Sublimity cannot be accurately defined by criticism, because it is beyond

reason and technique. Sublimity is that which ravishes the mind, that
which cannot be despised. It withstands the judgement of learned men,
of different ages and nations, and is acclaimed by common consent.
Now we may think that this is a bit too ambitious. There are no divisions
in Longinus' public.

There are five sources of sublimity: 1) great ideas, 2) passion, 3) the

appropriate use of figures, 4) the right diction, and 5) a skilful
composition. The first two are qualities of the poet, the others of the
poem. They are identified with natural and artistic sources respectively.
Also, the first two are those proper to sublimity; the others we might
wish to link to beauty as well as to sublimity. So it is not very clear at
times how sublimity is supposed to manifest itself in the poem. Nature
(the part of the poet) and art (the poem) are divorced to some extent in
Longinus' theory.

1.5.2.2. Inspiration and Technique

Sublimity is a natural gift. Two of the main causes of sublimity, the

power of forming great conceptions and the power to feel a vehement
and inspired passion, are inborn in the great poet. They cannot be
learned through art. The great poet must be stirred and carried away by
his conception; he must feel the same great emotions his characters feel,
and pass them over to his audience. This, by the way, may be taken as a
somewhat anti-cathartic pronouncement.

Sublimity raises the writer near to the majesty of God. The poet who is
attempting sublimity must be daring, even at the cost of committing
faults which could be avoided with the reasonable advice of technique.
The way to sublimity is dangerous, it is attended by great risks.
Longinus says it is safer to follow all the rules of art, but it is clear he
prefers the sublime even at the cost of some small faults. The rules of
art, he thinks, may curtail the flights of inspiration, so that a work which
is perfect according to the rules of art is rarely found to be sublime.
"Invariable accuracy incurs the risk of pettiness" (XXXIII). A new note
in classical criticism rings here: art and technique are seen for the first
time as machinery, which will not ensure the success of the work;
Longinus seems to suggest that the rules of poetry are an obstacle rather
than a help when the poet tries to achieve greatness.
The opposition between the beautiful and the sublime, which will be an
important critical concept in eighteenth-century aesthetics, can be traced
back to these ideas of Longinus. A knowledge of art may produce grace
or beauty, but that is not enough to attain sublimity. Sublimity requires
transport, genius, permanent value and a subject of physical grandeur.
Here Longinus sings the praise of human imagination, which goes
beyond the limits which even great things in nature set to it.

Grandeur with its attendant faults is preferable to moderate success:

Demosthenes is better than Hyperides. Mere impression of skill results
from the whole texture of the composition, but the sublime manifests
itself in concrete ideas or expressions, which flash forth at the right
moment like a thunderbolt. This idea of the touch of genius in which
greatness is revealed independently from the whole of the work will
influence eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English critics like
Addison, Ruskin and Arnold. We can measure here the full distance
between Longinus' aesthetics and Aristotle's. However, they are not as
far apart all the time. Longinus makes a difference between a sublimity
of invention (the one we have mentioned) and a sublimity of
composition, in which the impression of sublimity results from the
whole, each part being unremarkable in itself. This idea forms a bridge
between the poles of art and inspiration. There is an important place for
art and technique in Longinus' aesthetics too, even if Longinus never
draws a direct relationship between sublimity and the right use of
figures.

Inspiration may be a natural gift, but nevertheless, Longinus says, nature

does not act without system. A knowledge of art will help to eliminate
some of the faults which beset the aspirant to sublimity. Technique will
help to avoid bombast, frigidity or untimely expression of passion. The
test that we have failed to reach sublimity is that hearers are not moved.
So, inspiration may be guided by art the better to achieve its end. But art,
technique, must always be subservient. It must know how to set its own
limits, as well as those of inspiration. So it must not be too noticeable; it
must escape attention. This is not exclusive of Longinus' romantic
criticism; the principle of "hiding art by means of art" (ars celare
artem ) is one of the tenets of classical criticism.

1.5.2.3. Sublimity and Rhetoric

In spite of his tendency to leave sublimity unanalyzed, Longinus does

make some interesting remarks on the use of rhetoric to achieve the right
effect. The sublime is the result of selecting the basic elements in things,
suppressing all that is mean or diminishing, and combining these
elements into a single whole. For instance, Homer at one point forces
words together in unusually harsh combinations to imitate the meaning
which is being expressed. Longinus speaks of the use of amplification,
of images, and of figures both of thought and of expression, such as
asyndeton, polysyndeton, hyperbaton, polyptoton, periphrasis, the use of
direct style and of feigned objections, as well as of combinations of
figures. Under 'figures' he includes any abnormality of syntax; metaphor
he studies under 'diction'. He observes that an excess of rhythm is felt to
be lacking in passion, and lowers sublimity: "overrhythmical style does
not communicate the feeling of the words, but simply the feeling of the
rhythm" (XLI). The same happens with the opposite, an excessive
ruggedness. The extremes of prolixity and concission are also to be
avoided. Vulgar words may be used sometimes for the sake of lively
expression, but in general a dignified utterance is the best way to
sublimity.
 

1.5.3. Democracy and Sublimity

Longinus quotes an unknown rhetorician as saying that the decay of

rhetoric and of sublime utterance in general was due to the loss of liberty
under the Roman empire. Freedom, democracy and free competition are
stimuli to greatness of thought and expression; the unknown rhetorician
sees servitude as a cage both to soul and thought: under an authoritarian
regime, the human spirit cannot find its proper expansion. But Longinus
does not agree, and he blames instead the vices of the age, excessive
love of riches and ostentation, and unrestrained passions --a moral rather
than a political theory of invention.

1.5.4. Homeric Criticism

Homer is the model for sublime poets; he is fierce and passionate, he

feels the same emotions of his characters as they fight. Longinus
opposes this Homer of the Iliad to the Homer of the Odyssey; he sees the
latter as the product of old age, characterized by the episodic action and
the taste for delineation of character. In this way Longinus tries his hand
at a biographical approach to criticism and the psychology of literary
creation. This interest in the figure of the author which is lacking in the
approaches of Aristotle or Horace will not find its full expression until
the Romantic age.

1.5.5. Posterity

Longinus is the first critic to be concerned with the judgement of

posterity, even though the idea had already appeared in the poets
themselves (cf. Horace, or Pindarus before him). He considers it the
definite test of sublimity; the sign of maturity in a poet is that he writes
for posterity. All this gives a distinctive touch to the critical perspective
of Longinus: he looks upon the classics much as we do, with the idea of
a literary tradition in mind. We must not forget that this is the first study
on literature by someone who is neither a poet nor a philosopher.

 
1.5.6. Conclusion

Longinus cannot define what the sublime is, but he is also concerned
with lively and elevated style in general, and to that he provides a more
explicit approach, also based on the reactions of the audience. Longinus'
most characteristic idea is his use of intuitive response to measure the
greatness of a passage. However, we may not feel that we understand
that greatness much better once we have recognized it.

At its worst, Longinus' idea of sublimity is redundant, a variety of purely

rapturous and impressionistic criticism. But at its best it defines a limit
to both art and criticism; it sets us before the indefinable, that which
escapes our power of judgement and can only grasped through emotion.
In this way, Longinus sets a decorum of his own to poetry, but it is one
opposed to that of Horace. It is not a decorum of restraint, but of
transport. Longinus will be forgotten for many centuries, but his treatise
was rediscovered in the Renaissance and his sentimental approach to
literature became fashionable in pre-Romantic criticism, when
"sublimity" is resurrected as a criterion to determine literary excellence.
Longinus lays the stress in an area of criticism --valuation-- which is
crucial when it comes to determine the ultimate aims of literature or to
make a selection of authors in the mass of written material. Valuation is
an area of heated debate in twentieth-century criticism. Some critical
schools (F. R. Leavis and the New Critics) hold that valuation is the
primary aim of the critic, his moral and social function; other schools
(structuralism, deconstruction, feminism) have cast doubt on the
legitimacy of the traditional criteria of valuation, and have stressed the
relativity and ideological nature of evaluative criticism.