This text is part of:
1 “Non satis est pulchra” Hor. Ars 99, etc. Bentley objects to pulchra because this, he says, is a general term including under it every species of beauty, and therefore that of dulcis or the affecting. As if general terms were not frequently restrained and determined to a peculiar sense by the context. But the great critic did not sufficietly attend to the connection, which, as F. Robertellus, in his paraphrase on the epistle, well observes, stands thus: "It is not enough, that tragedies have that kind of beauty which arises from a pomp and splendor of diction, they must also be pathetic or affecting."
2 The connection lies thus: language must agree with character; character with fame, or at least with itself.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.