Eugene Salazar September 13, 2007

Literary Theory and Criticism Mr. Oscar V. Campomanes

Exercise # 1

Aesthetics, Sublimity and Theories of Literary Composition

The long line of theoretical investigation into the nature and extent of aesthetics, its

corollary notion of sublimity and its consequent influence on the varied approaches of literary

composition owes much of its depth, tensions and uneasy truce with each competing theories that

dominated the thinking of Western critical theory since Longinus On Sublimity. This is practically

one of the first founding texts in the serious study of what is truly artistic and of what is truly

considered great writing. As deemed relevant to the literary text, the debate on what is truly

beautiful and therefore what is considered a mark of a literary classic was picked up in modern

times by the cultural theorists (from Raymond Williams to Ien Ang). The inevitable consequence

for the literary critic is to pose the question that ultimately leads to a critical examination of what is

indeed a great work of literature. Indeed it behooves serious readers and critics alike that this leads

to the question of what is aesthetically attractive.

Longinus, separated from the present generation by more than two thousand years, posed

the question for many contemporary observers and provided answers in his book On Sublimity.

Here he starts the ball rolling by defining sublimity as “a kind of eminence or excellence of

discourse” ( Leitch: 2001, 138) and in another part of the text “the echo of a noble mind” (Leitch,

2001: 141). This refined sense of pathos is the attributable source of why some literary writings are

deemed above those other writings which are considered common or ordinary. By tracing the

characteristic and sublime nature of certain writings, which Longinus tells the reader as those that

uplift the spirit, or move the inner person, the critic is therefore brought to the idea that Longinus
criticizes, albeit indirectly Plato’s notion of the “uselessness” of poets in the polis. In fact, it maybe

interpreted as a Longinian subversion of this central Platonic theme as regards the role of poets.

Thus by critically negating Plato’s misconstruing of the “possessed poet”, Longinus informs the

reader that what is truly beautiful in a literary work is that which was thought of after the effect of

the sublime has caught up with the writer and by consequence, the reader.

Longinus may also be credited for providing this notion of sublimity with unabashed

sources, which he positively identifies in the course of human activity: power to conceive great

thoughts, strong and inspired emotion, figures of speech, noble diction and dignified/elevated

syntax (Leitch, 2001: 140).His references to many works of antiquity testify not just to his bold

claims but even his critical analysis of extant texts that exemplify his standards. He quotes

extensively from the works of Homer, Archilochus, Euripides, Demosthenes and even Plato. By

specifically pointing out identifiable concepts, Longinus appeals to the critical reader for

engagement and validation of his claims , and by setting many critical terms used then as now,

Longinus is a looming figure in the history of literary aesthetics.

Although separated by thousands of years, the next great mind that occupied the center

stage in the debate sublimity and aesthetics is German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Although

perceived by some as highly inaccessible due to his technical language and erudite mind, Kant’s

contribution to aesthetics and the notion of sublimity should never be set aside by any serious

student of aesthetics. In his Critique of Practical Reason, Kant embarks on a massive intellectual

project to ground human sensibilities about the sublime in a universal human category, much as he

attempted to establish a moral theory based on a perceived common human nature and reason

(categorical imperative).
 Kant’s aim is not just to establish a philosophy of art, but to identify specific “markers” that

will help establish a universal judgment of what is truly sublime, and hence what is beautiful. He

distinguishes the nature of value judgments as assertions based on reflective thought. He concedes

that there are statements that can be considered determinative and objective (such as, “This is a

paper that needs to be submitted.”). Kant admits that value judgments of the sublime (and of the

beautiful) are forced on us by consensual agreement over the matter (although, there exists varying

degrees of disagreement among differing tastes). Kant’s contribution also resides in his detailed

analysis of tastes as individual proclivities brought about by various conditions. He distinguishes a

lot about what is agreeable and what is beautiful, and follows it up with clear examples although

they seem to diffuse into the same categories. By acknowledging that there is such a thing as

external beauty in an object, Kant informs us of how such property “resides” in the object as

perceived by us regardless of our differences, thus proving the point that even though we have

conflicting ideas of what is truly beautiful, Kant forces us to agree that something outside us (the

subjects) causes this judgment. Kant however affirms nonetheless the absence of an external

yardstick to determine the concept of what is objectively beautiful.

Kant’s treatment of the sublime is, in many ways, an extension of his idea on what is

beautiful; he affirms both judgments as neither determinative, that both give pleasure to the one

apprehending the object and that both judgments depend on the sensation of a cognitive person,

although its effects isn’t confined to purely conceptual representations. He affirms that judgment

of beauty and the sublime are singular (Leitch, 2001: 520) as they proclaim themselves universally

among all subjects.

Kant however brings forth their stark difference by highlighting the unbounded nature of

the sublime. By this perhaps he refers to the tendency of a sublime experience as something
overwhelming or something that seems to take the subject totally, affecting him significantly with

feelings of smallness or insignificance. He moves on to contrast this by using quantity as

recognizable analogy: the beautiful is about quality (or a specific trait) but the sublime is about

quantity or amount, or perhaps a massive amount. With further explications on meanings, sources

and comparative terms definition, Kant provides a rich understanding of the notions of literary

aesthetics and contributes much matter in the on-going discussion of the philosophy of art.

Edgar Allan Poe, American short story pioneer and master of tales of macabre, is another

significant name in the development of literary theory. His focus is mainly on the determinant and

active role of the writer in literary composition. In his Philosophy of Composition, Poe provides

contemporary readers and critics a very precise and Aristotelian concern for the form and purposes

of the literary text. Poe does not simply exaggerate the author’s role as creator of his work

(whether poem, short story or any other genre). By stressing the end goal of a writer as supremely

concerned with its effect (Leitch, 2001: 742), Poe takes on a determinate stand on the part of the

writer. For Poe, the author has to have his intended effect in mind. By consequence, the author is

given god-like powers (as well as responsibilities) to achieve this intention. As is exemplified in

his poem, The Raven, Poe admonishes prospective authors to take into account all details

exhaustively from plot and theme determination, word arrangements, sonic elements, connotative

as well as denotative aspects of word choice (and meanings). As for the poem, Poe encourages

readers to achieve the intended effect in a short range, for Poe believes that a very long work will

fail to grab readers attention as well as sustain the necessary excitement to end the story or poem.

When it comes to poetry, Poe also paid careful attention to the syntax, semantics (as well as

cultural and social contexts) and versification. His belief is that the very form and meaning of the

poem (the entire material text itself) affects significantly the readability and interest of the work.
Poe’s almost zealous focus on the materiality of the text as well as its representational dimensions

does not simply reveal a bizarre personality, but a philosophical stand on a matter that is of

absolute dedication to the craft as well as the establishment of rapport of the reader. One can see

here Poe’s seriousness in his craftsmanship as a writer; he thus stress for us the sanctity and

seriousness of the author’s craft which these days has given in to pressures of postmodern

sensibilities finely attuned to disregard for traditional fixtures and boundaries. Poe is very much

Aristotelian in this sense both for his care for reader comprehension and the writer’s composition.

Work Cited

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2001.