1pFFjZK

Il6
THEORIES OF STYLE IN LITERATURE
define this difference, and with it the general distinction
between amplification and sublimity. Our whole discourse
will thus gain in clearness.
XII
I must first remark that I am not satisfied with the definition
of amplification generally given by authorities on
rhetoric. They explain it to be a form of language which
invests the subject with a certain grandeur.
Yes, but this
definition may be applied indifferently to sublimity, pathos,
and the use of figurative language, since all these invest the
discourse with some sort of grandeur. The difference seems
to me to lie in this, that sublimity gives elevation to a subject,
while amplification gives extension as well. Thus the sublime
is often conveyed in
a single thought, but amplification
can only subsist with a certain prolixity and diffusiveness.
The most general definition of amplification would explain
it to consist in the gathering together of all the constituent
parts and topics of a subject, emphasizing the argument by
repeated insistence, herein differing from proof, that whereas
the object of proof is logical demonstration, . . .
Plato, like the sea, pours forth his riches in a copious
and expansive flood. Hence the style of the orator, who is
the greater master of our emotions, is often, as it were, redhot
and ablaze with passion, whereas Plato, whose strength
lay in a sort of weighty and sober magnificence, though never
frigid, does not rival the thunders of Demosthenes. And, if
a Greek may be allowed to express an opinion on the subject
of Latin literature, I think the same difference may be
discerned in the grandeur of Cicero as compared
with that
of his Grecian rival. The sublimity of Demosthenes is
generally sudden and abrupt : that of Cicero is equally diffused.
Demosthenes is vehement, rapid, vigorous, terrible;