1

with fimplicity, is, either immediately or remotely, the fundamental quality of whatever is fublime; but we have seen that amplitude is confined to one fpecies of fublime objects; and cannot, without violent ftraining, be applied to them all. The author of "a philofophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the fublime and beautiful," to whom we are indebted for feveral ingenious and original thoughts upon this fubject, propofes a formal theory upon this foundation, that terror is the fource of the fublime, and that no objects have this character, but fuch as produce impreffions of pain and danger. It is indeed true, that many terrible objects are highly fublime; and that grandeur docs not refufe an alliance with the idea of danger. But though this is very properly illuftrated by the author (many of whofe fentiments on that head I have adopted), yet he feems to ftretch his theory, too far, when he reprefents the fublime as confifting wholly in modes of danger, or of pain. For the proper fenfation of fublimity appears to be very diftinguishable from the fenfation of either of thefe; and, on several occafions, to be entirely feparated from them. In many grand objects, there is no coincidence with terror at all; as in the magnificent profpect of wide-extended plains, and of the ftarry firmament; or in the moral difpofitions and fentiments, which we view with high admiration; and in many painful and terrible objects, alfo, it is clear, there is no fort of grandeur. The amputation of a limb, or the bite of a fnake, are exccedingly terrible; but are deftitute of all claim whatever to fublimity. I am inclined to think, that mighty force or power, whether accompanied with terror or not, whether employed in protecting or in alarming us, has a better title, than any thing that has yet been mentioned, to be the fundamental quality of the fublime; as, after the review which Vol. I.

H

we have taken, there does not occur to me any fublime object, into the idea of which, power, ftrength, and force, either enter not directly, or are not, at least, intimately affociated with the idea, by leading our thoughts to fome aftonishing power, as concerned in the production of the object. However, I do not infift upon this, as fufficient to found a general theory: it is enough to have given this view of the nature and different kinds of fublime objects by which I hope to have laid a proper foundation for difcuffing, with greater accuracy, the fublime in writing and compofition.

LECTURE IV.

THE SUBLIME IN WRITING.

HAV

AVING treated of grandeur or fublimity in external objects, the way feems now to be cleared, for treating, with more advantage, of the description of such objects; or, of what is called the fublime in writing. Though I may appear to enter early on the confideration of this fubject; yet, as the fublime is a fpecies of writing which depends less than any other on the artificial embellishments of rhetoric, it may be examined with as much propriety here, as in any fubfequent part of

the lectures.

Many critical terms have unfortunately been employed, in a fenfe too loofe and vague-none more fo, than that of the fublime. Every one is acquainted with the character of Cefar's commentaries, and of the style in which they are written-a style, remarkably pure, fimple, and elegant-but the most remote from the fublime, of any of the claffical authors. Yet this author has a German critic, Johannes Gulielmus Bergerus, who wrote no longer ago than the year 1720, pitched upon as the perfect model of the fublime, and has compofed a quarto volume, entitled, De naturali pulchritudine Ora

tionis; the exprefs intention of which is to fhow, that Cefar's commentaries contain the moft complete exemplification of all Longinus's rules relating to fublime writing. This I mention as a strong proof of the confufed ideas which have prevailed, concerning this fubject. The true fenfe of fublime writing, undoubtedly, is fuch a defcription of objects, or exhibition of fentiments, which are in themfelves of a fublime nature, as fhall give us ftrong impreffions of them. But there is another very indefinite, and therefore very improper fenfe, which has been too often put upon it; when it is applied to fignify any remarkable and diftinguishing excellency of compofition; whether it raife in us the ideas of grandeur, or thofe of gentleness, elegance, or any other fort of beauty. In this fenfe, Cefar's commentaries may, indeed, be termed fublime, and fo may many fonnets, paftorals, and love elegies, as well as Homer's Iliad. But this evidently confounds the ufe of words; and marks no one fpecies, or character, of compofition whatever.

I am forry to be obliged to obferve, that the fublime is too often ufed in this laft and improper fenfe, by the celebrated critic Longinus, in his treatife on this fubject. He fets out, indeed, with defcribing it in its juft and proper meaning; as fomething that elevates the mind above itfelf, and fills it with high conceptions, and a noble pride. But from this view of it he frequently departs; and fubftitutes in the place of it, whatever, in any ftrain of compofition, pleases highly. Thus, many of the paffages which he produces, as inftances of the fublime, are merely elegant, without having the moft diftant relation to proper fublimity; witnefs Sappho's famous ode, on which he defcants at confiderable length. He points out five fources of the fublime. The firft is, boldnes or grandeur in the thoughts; the fecond is, the pathetic;

the third, the proper application of figures; the fourth, the use of tropes and beautiful expreffions; the fifth, mufical ftructure and arrangement of words. This is the plan of one who was writing a treatife of rhetoric, or of the beauties of -writing in general; not of the fublime in particular. For of these five heads, only the two firft have any peculiar relation to the fublime; boldness and grandeur in the thoughts, and, in fome inftances, the pathetic, or ftrong exertions of paffion: the other three, tropes, figures, and mufical arrangement, have no more relation to the fublime, than to other kinds of good writing; perhaps lefs to the fublime than to any other fpecies whatever; because it requires lefs the affiftance of ornament. From this it appears, that clear and precife ideas on this head, are not to be expected from that writer. I would not, however, be understood, as if I meant, by this cenfure, to reprefent his treatife as of fmall value. I know no critic, ancient or modern, that difcovers a more lively relifh of the beauties of fine writing, than Longinus; and he has alfo the merit of being himself an excellent, and, in feveral paffages, a truly fublime, writer. But, as his work has been generally confidered as a standard on this fubject, it was incumbent on me to give my opinion concerning the benefit to be derived from it. It dcferves to be confulted, not fo much for diftinct inftruction concerning the fublime, as for excellent general ideas concerning beauty in writing.

I return now to the proper and natural idea of the fublime in compofition. The foundation of it must always be laid in the nature of the object defcribed. Unless it be fuch an object, as, if prefented to our eyes, if exhibited to us in reality, would raife ideas of that elevating, that awful, and magnificent kind, which we call fublime; the defeription, however finely drawn, is not entitled to come under