Hubbry Logo
search
logo
On the Sublime avatar
On the Sublime
On the Sublime
current hub
2181314

On the Sublime

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
On the Sublime
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Rhetoric
History
Concepts
Genres
Criticism
Rhetoricians
Works
Subfields
Related

On the Sublime (Ancient Greek: Περì Ὕψους Perì Hýpsous; Latin: De sublimitate) is a Roman-era Greek work of literary criticism dated to the 1st century AD. Its author is unknown but is conventionally referred to as Longinus (/lɒnˈdʒaɪnəs/; Ancient Greek: Λογγῖνος Longînos) or Pseudo-Longinus. It is regarded as a classic work on aesthetics and the effects of good writing. The treatise highlights examples of good and bad writing from the previous millennium, focusing particularly on what may lead to the sublime.

Authorship

[edit]

The author is unknown. In a 10th-century reference manuscript (Parisinus Graecus 2036), the heading (f. 178v) reports "by Dionysius Longinus" (Διονυσίου Λογγίνου), whereas in the table of contents at f. 1v, the same copyist wrote "by Dionysius or Longinus" (Διονυσίου ἢ Λογγίνου). When the manuscript was being prepared for printed publication, the work was initially attributed to Cassius Longinus (c. 213–273 AD). Since the correct translation includes the possibility of an author named "Dionysius", some have attributed the work to Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Dionysius Atticus, both writers of the 1st century BC.[1][2] There remains the possibility that the work belongs to neither Cassius Longinus nor either Dionysius but, rather, some unknown author writing under the Roman Empire, likely in the 1st century. The error does imply that when the codex was written, the trails of the real author were already lost. Neither author can be accepted as the actual writer of the treatise. Dionysius maintained ideas which are absolutely opposite to those written in the treatise; with Longinus, there are problems with chronology.

Among further names proposed, are Hermagoras of Temnos (a rhetorician who lived in Rome during the 1st century AD), Aelius Theon (author of a work which had many ideas in common with those of On the Sublime), and Pompeius Geminus (who was in epistolary conversation with Dionysius).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus

[edit]

Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote under Augustus, publishing a number of works. Dionysius is generally dismissed as the potential author of On the Sublime, since the writing officially attributed to Dionysius differs from the work On the Sublime in style and thought.[3]

Cassius Longinus

[edit]

Credited with writing a number of literary works, Longinus was a disciple of Plotinus, and considered "the most distinguished scholar of his day." He received his education at Alexandria and then went to Athens to teach. He later moved to Asia Minor, where he achieved the position of advisor to Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra.[4][3][5] Cassius is a dubious possibility for author of the treatise because he wrote in the 3rd century, and no literature later than the 1st century AD is mentioned. The latest is Cicero, who died in 43 BC[clarification needed] and their work is now dated to the early 1st century AD. The work ends with a dissertation on the decay of oratory, a typical subject for the time when authors such as Tacitus, Petronius and Quintilian, who also dealt with the subject, were alive. Cassius was executed by Aurelian, the Roman emperor who conquered Palmyra in 273 AD, on charges of conspiring against the Roman state. This was most likely because of what he had written for Queen Zenobia of Palmyra while she was still in power. Longinus is reported to have written answers for the Queen, which were used in response to Aurelian, the man who would soon rise to power as the Roman emperor.[4]

Dionysius Longinus

[edit]

According to Byzantinist Carlo Maria Mazzucchi, editor of the text, "Dionysius Longinus" is the true name of the author. He argued that the combination of the nomen "Dionysius" and the cognomen "Longinus" is acceptable on the basis of several ancient sources, and that the perplexities shown by the manuscript's copyist are due to the fact that no other rhetor is known under the name of "Dionysius Longinus"; thus the copyist compiled the manuscript index adding the disjunctive ἤ ("or"), thinking of well-known Ancient Greek rhetors Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Cassius Longinus.[6][7]

Contents

[edit]

On the Sublime is both a treatise on aesthetics and a work of literary criticism. It is written in an epistolary form and the final part, possibly dealing with public speaking, has been lost.

The treatise is dedicated to Postumius Terentianus, a cultured Roman and public figure, though little else is known of him. On the Sublime is a compendium of literary exemplars, with about 50 authors spanning 1,000 years mentioned or quoted.[8] Along with the expected examples from Homer and other figures of Greek culture, Longinus refers to a passage from Genesis, which is quite unusual for the 1st century:

A similar effect was achieved by the lawgiver of the Jews—no mean genius, for he both understood and gave expression to the power of the divinity as it deserved—when he wrote at the very beginning of his laws, and I quote his words: "God said,"—what was it?—"Let there be light, and there was. Let there be earth, and there was."

— On the Sublime 9.9

Given his positive reference to Genesis, Longinus has been assumed to be either a Hellenized Jew or readily familiar with the Jewish culture.[9] As such, Longinus emphasizes that, to be a truly great writer, authors must have "moral excellence".[3] In fact, critics speculate that Longinus avoided publication in the ancient world "either by modesty or by prudential motives".[8] Moreover, Longinus stresses that transgressive writers are not necessarily shameless fools, even if they take literary risks that seem "bold, lawless, and original".[3] As for social subjectivity, Longinus acknowledges that complete liberty promotes spirit and hope; according to Longinus, "never did a slave become an orator".[10] On the other hand, too much luxury and wealth leads to a decay in eloquence—eloquence being the goal of the sublime writer.[8]

The sublime

[edit]

Longinus critically applauds and condemns certain literary works as examples of good or bad styles of writing.[8] Longinus ultimately promotes an "elevation of style"[8] and an essence of "simplicity".[11] To quote this famous author, "the first and most important source of sublimity [is] the power of forming great conceptions."[11] The concept of the sublime is generally accepted to refer to a style of writing that elevates itself "above the ordinary". Finally, Longinus sets out five sources of sublimity: "great thoughts, strong emotions, certain figures of thought and speech, noble diction, and dignified word arrangement".[9]

The effects of the Sublime are: loss of rationality, an alienation leading to identification with the creative process of the artist and a deep emotion mixed in pleasure and exaltation. An example of sublime (which the author quotes in the work) is a poem by Sappho, the so-called Ode to Jealousy, defined as a "Sublime ode". A writer's goal is not so much to express empty feelings, but to arouse emotion in her audience.[11]

In the treatise, the author asserts that "the Sublime leads the listeners not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful always goes together with a sense of dismay, and prevails over what is only convincing or delightful, since persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone's grasp: whereas, the Sublime, giving to speech an invincible power and [an invincible] strength, rises above every listener".[12]

According to this statement, one could think that the sublime, for Longinus, was only a moment of evasion from reality. But on the contrary, he thought that literature could model a soul, and that a soul could pour itself out into a work of art. In this way the treatise becomes not only a text of literary inquiry, but also one of ethical dissertation, since the Sublime becomes the product of a great soul (μεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα, megalophrosunēs apēchēma). The sources of the Sublime are of two kinds: inborn sources ("aspiration to vigorous concepts" and "strong and enthusiastic passion") and acquirable sources (rhetorical devices, choice of the right lexicon, and "dignified and high composition").[11]

Decay of rhetoric

[edit]

The author speaks also about the decay of oratory, as arising not only from absence of political freedom but also from the corruption of morals, which together destroy that high spirit which generates the Sublime. Thus the treatise is clearly centred in the burning controversy which raged in the 1st century AD in Latin literature. If Petronius pointed out excess of rhetoric and the pompous, unnatural techniques of the schools of eloquence as the causes of decay, Tacitus was nearer to Longinus in thinking[2] that the root of this decadence was the establishment of Princedom, or Empire, which, though it brought stability and peace, also gave rise to censorship and brought an end to freedom of speech. Thus oratory became merely an exercise in style.

Misleading translations and lost data

[edit]

Translators have been unable to clearly interpret the text, including the title itself. The "sublime" in the title has been translated in various ways, to include senses of elevation and excellent style. The word sublime, argues Rhys Roberts, is misleading, since Longinus' objective broadly concerns "the essentials of a noble and impressive style" than anything more narrow and specific. Moreover, about one-third of the treatise is missing;[8] Longinus' segment on similes, for instance, has only a few words remaining.[3] Matters are further complicated in realizing that ancient writers, Longinus' contemporaries, do not quote or mention the treatise in any way.[8]

Limitations of the writing

[edit]

Despite Longinus' acclaim, not all critical reception has been positive. 18th-century critic Edward Burnaby Greene finds Longinus, at times, to be "too refined".[13] Greene also claims that Longinus' focus on hyperbolical descriptions is "particularly weak, and apparently misapplied."[2] Occasionally, Longinus also falls into a sort of "tediousness" in treating his subjects.[8] The treatise is also limited in its concentration on spiritual transcendence and lack of focus on the way in which language structures determine the feelings and thoughts of writers.[9] Finally, Longinus' treatise is difficult to explain in an academic setting, given the difficulty of the text and lack of "practical rules of a teachable kind."[3]

Writing style and rhetoric

[edit]

Despite its faults, the treatise remains critically successful because of its "noble tone," "apt precepts," "judicious attitude," and "historical interests".[8] One of the reasons why it is so unlikely that known ancient critics wrote On the Sublime is because the treatise is composed so differently from any other literary work. Since Longinus' rhetorical formula avoids dominating his work, the literature remains "personal and fresh," unique in its originality. Longinus rebels against the popular rhetoric of the time by implicitly attacking ancient theory in its focus on a detailed criticism of words, metaphors, and figures. More explicitly, in refusing to judge tropes as entities unto themselves, Longinus promotes the appreciation of literary devices as they relate to passages as a whole.[2] Essentially, Longinus, rare for a critic of his time, focuses more on "greatness of style" than "technical rules."[8] Despite his criticism of ancient texts, Longinus remains a "master of candor and good-nature".[13] Moreover, the author invents striking images and metaphors, writing almost lyrically at times.[2] In general, Longinus appreciates, and makes use of, simple diction and bold images.[3]

As far as the language is concerned, the work is certainly a unicum because it is a blend of expressions of the Hellenistic Koine Greek to which are added elevated constructions, technical expressions, metaphors, classic and rare forms which produce a literary pastiche at the borders of linguistic experimentation.

Influences

[edit]

In reading On the Sublime, critics have determined that the ancient philosopher and writer Plato is a "great hero" to Longinus.[3] Not only does Longinus come to Plato's defense, but he also attempts to raise his literary standing in opposition to current criticisms. Another influence on the treatise can be found in Longinus' rhetorical figures, which draw from theories by a 1st-century BC writer, Caecilius of Calacte.[8]

Historical criticism and use of On the Sublime

[edit]
  • 10th century - The original treatise, before translation, is copied into a medieval manuscript and attributed to "Dionysius or Longinus."[9]
  • 13th century - A Byzantine rhetorician makes obscure references to what may be Longinus' text.[2]
  • 16th century - The treatise is ignored by scholars until it is published by Francis Robortello in Basel, in 1554, and Niccolò da Falgano, in 1560.[9] The original work is attributed to "Dionysius Longinus" and most European countries receive translations of the treatise.[8]
  • 17th century - Sublime effects become a desired end of much Baroque art and literature, and the rediscovered work of "Longinus" goes through half a dozen editions in the 17th century. It is Boileau's 1674 translation of the treatise into French that really starts its career in the history of criticism. Despite its popularity, some critics claim that the treatise was too "primitive" to be truly understood by a "too civilized" 17th-century audience.[citation needed]
  • 18th century - William Smith's 1739 translation of Longinus on the Sublime established the translator and once more brought the work into prominence. Longinus' text reaches its height in popularity.[2] In England, critics esteem Longinus' principles of composition and balance second only to Aristotle's Poetics. Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful and Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment[14] owe a debt to Longinus' concept of the sublime, and the category passes into intellectual discourse. As "Longinus" says, "The effect of elevated language upon an audience is not persuasion but transport," a fitting sentiment for Romantic thinkers and writers who reach beyond logic, to the wellsprings of the Sublime. At the same time, the Romantics gain some contempt for Longinus, given his association with the "rules" of classical poets. Such contempt is ironic, given the widespread influence of Longinus on the shaping of 18th-century criticism.[3]
  • 19th century - Early in the 19th century, doubts arise to the authorship of the treatise. Thanks to Italian scholar Amati, Cassius Longinus is no longer assumed to be the writer of On the Sublime.[8] Simultaneously, the critical popularity of Longinus' work diminishes greatly; though the work is still in use by scholars, it is rarely quoted. Despite the lack of public enthusiasm, editions and translations of On the Sublime are published at the end of the century.[2]
  • 20th century - Although the text is still little quoted, it maintains its status, apart from Aristotle's Poetics, as "the most delightful of all the critical works of classical antiquity."[2] Also see Neil Hertz's essay on Longinus in his book, The End of the Line. Hertz is in part responding to Thomas Weiskel's book The Romantic Sublime, probably the most influential recent account of British and German Romantic attitudes towards the Sublime of both Burke and Longinus.[15][16] Laura Quinney treats the attractions grim demystification in analyses of Longinus, particularly Weiskel's.[17] Jonathan Culler has an appreciation of Hertz on Longinus in "The Hertzian Sublime."[18] Anne Carson and Louis Marin have occasion to discuss Longinus as well and Harold Bloom and William J. Kennedy have significant accounts of his work. William Carlos Williams also uses three lines from the work as an epigraph to the Prologue to Kora in Hell.[19][20][21] The text is also critically edited and extensively commented, most notably by D. A. Russell,[3][22] Carlo Maria Mazzucchi[23][24] and Stephen Halliwell.[25]

German film director Werner Herzog claims to have an affinity with the work of Longinus, in a talk entitled "On the Absolute, the Sublime and Ecstatic Truth", presented in Milan. Herzog says that he thinks of Longinus as a good friend and considers that Longinus's notions of illumination has a parallel in some moments in his films. He quotes from Longinus: "For our soul is raised out of nature through the truly sublime, sways with high spirits, and is filled with proud joy, as if itself had created what it hears." [citation needed]

Notes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

On the Sublime

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
On the Sublime (Greek: Περὶ Ὑψους, Perì hýpsous) is a fragmentary treatise of ancient Greek literary criticism, conventionally attributed to an unidentified rhetorician referred to as Longinus and composed sometime in the 1st century AD.[1][2] The work defines sublimity as a transcendent quality in prose or poetry that elevates the reader's soul, producing astonishment and a sense of transport beyond ordinary experience, distinct from mere persuasive rhetoric or stylistic elegance.[1] Longinus identifies five principal sources from which this effect derives: grandeur of thought rooted in noble and capacious ideas, strong and inspired passion, effective use of certain figures of speech and thought, noble diction including metaphors and word choice, and dignified composition through harmonious arrangement of words.[1] The treatise critiques faults that undermine sublimity, such as tumid bombast, puerility, and false grandeur, while drawing examples from Homer, Sappho, Demosthenes, and Plato to illustrate successful elevation.[1] Its authorship remains uncertain, with no contemporary references in classical sources and later attributions varying, including to the 3rd-century philosopher Cassius Longinus during the Renaissance, though modern scholarship favors an anonymous 1st-century figure.[1][3] Preserved in a 10th-century manuscript, the text survives incompletely, with significant lacunae that obscure parts of its argument.[1] Unknown in antiquity beyond possible excerpts, On the Sublime was rediscovered in the 16th century through a Byzantine manuscript, with the first printed edition appearing in 1554 under Francesco Robortello, sparking renewed interest in classical aesthetics.[4] Nicolas Boileau's 1674 French translation popularized it across Europe, influencing neoclassical criticism, the shift toward valuing emotional intensity in Romanticism, and enduring concepts of literary grandeur in modern theory.[4][5]

Authorship and Historical Context

Proposed Attributions and Evidence

The authorship of Peri Hupsous (On the Sublime) is disputed, with no conclusive evidence identifying the writer, though manuscripts from the 10th century onward subscribe the text to "Dionysius Longinus" or variants thereof, prompting attributions to either Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60–7 BC) or Cassius Longinus (c. 210–273 AD).[6] This ambiguity arises from the treatise's rediscovery in the Renaissance, where early editors like Francesco Robortello in 1554 interpreted the subscriptio as indicating a single author combining elements of both names, but philological analysis reveals inconsistencies in style, doctrine, and historical references that undermine both primary candidates.[7] Attribution to Dionysius of Halicarnassus rests on his prominence as a 1st-century BC critic who analyzed rhetorical grandeur (hypsos) in works like On Literary Composition and his letters, sharing thematic overlaps such as the evaluation of historians like Herodotus and Thucydides. However, counter-evidence includes doctrinal divergences: the treatise's author defends Plato against critics like Caecilius of Calacte more vigorously than Dionysius does, praises Demosthenes and Hyperides uniformly in a manner absent from Dionysius's fragmented assessments, and claims authorship of lost treatises on Xenophon, political speeches, and emotions—none of which align with Dionysius's known oeuvre.[7] Stylistic differences further weaken the case, as Dionysius favors periodic prose and Attic purity, whereas Peri Hupsous employs freer, more eclectic syntax and quotes post-Dionysian authors like Apollonius of Rhodes without the historical skepticism Dionysius exhibits toward Hellenistic literature.[8] The case for Cassius Longinus, a 3rd-century Neoplatonist rhetorician, derives from the "Longinus" in the manuscript subscriptio and his reputed expertise in criticism, as noted by contemporaries like Porphyry. Yet, substantial arguments refute this: the treatise demonstrates no awareness of 2nd- or 3rd-century developments, such as the Second Sophistic's full maturation or works by authors like Lucian, quoting instead up to 1st-century figures like the anonymous author of On the Sublime (a self-referential puzzle) and responding to Caecilius, who predates Cassius by centuries.[9] Cassius's surviving fragments criticize Plato's style in ways incompatible with the treatise's ardent Platonic admiration, and he authored no matching treatises on Xenophon or emotions; scholars like Stephen Halliwell enumerate nine specific philological and contextual mismatches, including lexical preferences and ignorance of Cassius's own era's philosophical debates.[7] These factors place the composition likely in the late 1st century AD, post-Caecilius but pre-2nd-century innovations.[10] Alternative proposals, such as a Hellenized Jew suggested by Theodor Mommsen based on the author's biblical allusions (e.g., to Genesis 1:2 in chapter 9), lack manuscript support and rely on speculative interpretation of the text's universalist tone toward Hebrew poetry.[3] Overall, the preponderance of evidence favors pseudonymity or an anonymous author, with the "Longinus" label likely a later scholastic tag conflating rhetorical authorities, rendering definitive attribution improbable without new manuscript discoveries.[11]

Dating and Scholarly Debates

The dating of Peri Hupsous (On the Sublime) relies primarily on internal textual evidence, as no external historical references to the work survive prior to its rediscovery in the Renaissance. Scholars generally date the treatise to the first century CE, with a consensus favoring the late decades of that century, postdating the death of Augustus in 14 CE.[12] [13] This placement stems from the author's explicit critique of Caecilius of Calacte's contemporaneous treatise on sublimity, which Caecilius composed around the mid-first century BCE, necessitating a subsequent composition.[7] Additionally, the text's allusions to the "Hebrew poets" via the Septuagint translation and its analysis of imperial-era oratorical decline in chapter 44 align with a Roman imperial context under the early principate, where Greek rhetoric persisted amid perceived Latin dominance.[12] [14] Key evidential markers include the treatise's familiarity with authors up to the Augustan age, such as Horace and Ovid, without references to later figures like Lucan or Persius, supporting a terminus ante quem in the mid-first century CE for some analyses.[15] The absence of Christian influences or post-Flavian allusions further constrains the window, ruling out a second-century or later date.[14] Linguistic and stylistic features, including Koine Greek inflections and rhetorical patterns akin to those in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. ca. 30–7 BCE), reinforce this first-century framework, though the author's eclectic engagement with Hellenistic and Roman sources suggests a transitional imperial milieu.[16] Scholarly debates center on pinpointing the exact decade within the first century CE, with proposals ranging from ca. 40 CE to the 80s CE. James Boyd argued for circa 50 CE based on the text's implied response to Augustan-era rhetorical shifts and stylistic parallels with mid-century Greek critics.[15] Others, emphasizing the oratorical decay motif in chapter 44 as reflective of Neronian or post-Neronian disillusionment, advocate for a later date around 70–90 CE, interpreting the work's optimism about sublimity's revival as contemporaneous with Domitian's cultural patronage.[12] A minority once linked it to the third-century philosopher Cassius Longinus, but this view collapsed under scrutiny of anachronistic references, such as the pre-Christian treatment of biblical excerpts and incompatibility with third-century rhetorical priorities.[16] Recent consensus, informed by comparative philology, upholds the first-century attribution while cautioning against overprecise chronologies absent manuscript colophons or citations.[17] These debates underscore the treatise's anonymity and fragmentary transmission, which limit definitive resolution but affirm its roots in Augustan-to-Flavian rhetorical discourse.[18]

Relation to Contemporary Rhetoric

On the Sublime was composed as an epistolary treatise addressed to Terentianus, a Roman associate, in response to Caecilius of Calacte's earlier work on the same subject, which Longinus deemed inadequate for guiding aspiring orators toward true excellence.[1][19] This framing situates the text within the active rhetorical discourse of the early Roman Empire, where Greek rhetoricians like the author—likely a tutor to Roman elites—engaged with imperial audiences seeking to emulate classical models amid perceived declines in eloquence.[20] Longinus critiques contemporary rhetoric for its failure to produce sublime effects, attributing this to societal enslavement to wealth, pleasure, and autocratic rule, which diminish the grandeur of spirit necessary for elevated oratory.[19] He contrasts this with the transporting power of the sublime, which transcends mere persuasion by inducing ekstasis (astonishment) and enthousiasmos (inspiration), drawing on examples from Demosthenes and Cicero to illustrate how true sublimity elevates the audience's soul rather than merely instructing or convincing.[19] In chapter 12, Longinus directly compares Cicero's expansive, vehement style—marked by emotional intensity and rhythmic grandeur—to Demosthenes' more concise Attic precision, praising Cicero's ability to achieve sublimity through passion and figures of speech while noting his occasional excess as a flaw rooted in Roman rhetorical exuberance.[21] The work rebels against the pedantic, technique-obsessed rhetoric prevalent in Hellenistic and early imperial treatises, which emphasized lexical precision and stylistic classification over innate genius and holistic impact.[2] By prioritizing the cooperation of natural talent with acquired art, Longinus offers a corrective to the era's overly analytical approaches, such as those in Demetrius' On Style, advocating instead for rhetoric that forges an emotional bond capable of enduring beyond immediate contexts, as seen in his analysis of Sappho's ode for its vivid, soul-stirring imagery.[19] This emphasis on organic unity and psychological transport distinguishes On the Sublime from contemporaneous rhetorical handbooks, positioning it as both a techne and a philosophical reflection on rhetoric's moral and elevating potential in a politically constrained Roman world.[20]

Textual Transmission

Manuscript Discovery

The textual tradition of Peri hypsous (On the Sublime) traces to a single medieval archetype, the 10th-century Parisinus Graecus 2036, housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, which preserves approximately two-thirds of the original text due to losses at the beginning and end. All extant manuscripts descend from this codex, reflecting a precarious survival through Byzantine scribal copies rather than widespread dissemination in antiquity or the early Middle Ages.[13][22] The treatise's availability in Western Europe emerged during the Renaissance, facilitated by Greek émigrés after the 1453 fall of Constantinople, who transported manuscripts to Italian humanists. Cardinal Basilios Bessarion acquired and donated a copy to Venice's Marciana Library in May 1468 as part of his extensive Greek collection, though the text remained obscure without printing.[23][10] The pivotal "discovery" for modern scholarship occurred with the first printed edition in 1554, edited by Francesco Robortello in Basel, drawn from a manuscript in the Vatican Library's collection, itself derived from the Paris archetype. This publication, followed by Paolo Manuzio's Venetian edition in 1555, ended the work's dormancy and sparked its influence on rhetorical theory, despite the edition's reliance on a limited and imperfect manuscript stemma.[9]

Early Editions and Translations

The first printed edition of Peri hypsous, known as the editio princeps, was published in 1554 by the Italian scholar Francesco Robortello in Basel, Switzerland, based on the primary surviving manuscript from the 10th century.[9] This edition included Robortello's commentary and marginal glosses that loosely translated portions of the Greek text into Latin, reflecting early scholarly efforts to interpret the treatise's rhetorical concepts.[24] It was swiftly followed by a second Greek edition in 1555 from the Venetian press of Paulus Manutius, son of the famed Aldus Manutius, which incorporated additional philological notes and aimed to establish the text within the classical canon.[25] Subsequent early modern Greek editions reinforced the treatise's dissemination, including Franciscus Portus's version printed in Geneva in 1569 and Pietro Pagano's in Venice in 1572, each building on prior textual emendations to address perceived corruptions in the manuscript tradition. Latin translations emerged concurrently to broaden accessibility beyond Greek readers; printed Latin renderings first appeared in 1566 and 1572, often integrated into composite editions that paired the Greek original with interpretive apparatus.[26] The treatise's influence expanded through vernacular translations in the 17th century. The earliest English version, rendered by John Hall of Durham, was published in London in 1652 under the title Peri hypsous, or Dionysius Longinus of the height of eloquence, which preserved the work's focus on rhetorical elevation while adapting it for contemporary audiences.[27] This translation, drawn from Greek and Latin intermediaries, marked a pivotal step in integrating Peri hypsous into English literary discourse, predating more widely circulated editions like William Smith's in 1739.[28]

Definition and Nature of the Sublime

Core Definition

In Peri Hypsous, the sublime (hypsos) is defined as a consummate excellence and distinction in language that confers pre-eminence upon great poets and historians, setting their works apart through elevation beyond ordinary rhetorical persuasion.[29] This quality operates metaphorically as a "height" or "summit" in expression, historically associated with superior achievement in discourse as early as the third-century critic Metrodorus.[30] The effect of the sublime is to transport and elevate the audience's mind, filling it with wonder and a sense of proud possession, such that the hearer feels as though they themselves have generated the idea or image presented.[29] Unlike persuasive techniques that convince through logic or ethos, sublimity produces ekstasis—an ecstatic rapture that compels involuntary admiration and imitation, rendering the work timeless and universally compelling across eras and audiences.[29] The treatise posits that true sublimity arises from a synergy of innate genius and cultivated technique, though a full systematic art (tekhnē) of achieving it remains elusive due to its dependence on natural endowment.[30] This definition underscores hypsos not merely as stylistic ornament but as a rhetorical force capable of divine-like insight into human potential and the cosmos.[29]

Distinction from Other Rhetorical Virtues

The treatise distinguishes the sublime from persuasive rhetoric, emphasizing that sublimity does not merely convince the judgment but "transports" the hearer into a state of ekstasis or ecstasy, akin to being "carried away" beyond rational control.[1] This effect stems from the inherent power of elevated language and thought to overwhelm rather than argue, as persuasion operates through deliberate choice while the sublime compels involuntarily, producing astonishment (thaumazein) rather than mere approval.[1] Unlike the virtues of beauty (kallos) or elegance associated with the middle style in classical rhetoric, the sublime transcends ornamental refinement; beautiful diction illuminates thought like "the very light of thought," yet it serves utility or pleasure, whereas sublimity achieves elevation through grandeur that may incorporate but exceeds such polish.[1] The author critiques specious grandeur—hollow displays of ornate language—as a false sublime, concealing emptiness beneath a "gorgeous exterior," in contrast to authentic sublimity's substantive force derived from noble ideas and passion.[1] The sublime also diverges from pathos, or emotional appeal, by prioritizing lofty passions over base ones; while pity, grief, or fear represent "low" affects unfit for elevation, true sublimity harnesses vehement, uplifting emotion to amplify grandeur without descending into mere sentimentality.[1] It avoids the vice of bombast (makrologia), an overreaching tumidity that "transcends the Sublime" through empty excess, lacking the natural vigor and conciseness of genuine loftiness.[1] Finally, the author contrasts the sublime with faultless mediocrity in rhetorical execution, arguing that a style achieving sublimity, even if marred by minor flaws, surpasses unerring but moderate virtue; as exemplified in Homer's works, "sublimity accompanied by some faults" compels admiration over a "style which never rising above moderate excellence never stumbles."[1] This preference underscores sublimity's essence as exceptional elevation, not polished consistency, aligning it more closely with the grand style's persuasive force yet elevating it to a transcendent rhetorical ideal.[1]

Sources and Causes of Sublimity

Innate Genius Versus Acquired Skill

In chapter 36 of On the Sublime, Longinus directly confronts the question of whether the capacity for sublimity can be fully taught or acquired through instruction alone, concluding that while technical rules and practice are indispensable, true sublimity originates primarily from an innate endowment of genius.[1] He argues that nature supplies the "vital informing soul" that infuses expression with grandeur, likening unchecked natural impulses to passions devoid of reason, which require the "bridle" of art to achieve stability and direction, much as a ship needs ballast to navigate storms.[1] Without this native power, mere adherence to rhetorical precepts yields only polished mediocrity, incapable of transporting audiences to ecstasy; genius, even if flawed, produces flashes of elevation that redeem imperfections and surpass faultless but diminutive efforts, analogous to the vast ocean eclipsing a tranquil stream or a colossal statue outshining a meticulously proportioned but smaller figure.[1] Longinus illustrates this primacy of innate faculty through examples from eminent authors, noting that figures like Plato and Sappho achieve sublime heights through an inherent "noble and ambitious soul" that defies exhaustive codification by rules.[31] He posits that nature operates as the "first element and archetype," providing spontaneous elevation that technique can refine but not originate, rejecting the notion that sublimity is wholly unteachable while cautioning against overreliance on art, which risks taming genius into sterility.[31] This view echoes earlier rhetorical traditions, such as Demosthenes' emphasis on natural fortune tempered by counsel, but Longinus elevates the debate by insisting that the supreme sublime—capable of divine-like transport—demands a fusion where genius predominates, as technique alone cannot engender the "expression of a great spirit."[1] Ultimately, Longinus advocates a synergistic model: acquired skill through study and emulation hones innate potential, enabling writers to measure "how much" and "when" to deploy grandeur, yet he warns that without natural vigor, even exhaustive learning falters in producing works of lasting elevation.[31] This balance underscores his causal realism, wherein empirical observation of masterful texts reveals genius as the irreducible cause of transcendent effect, with art serving as a necessary but subordinate enhancer rather than a substitute.[1]

Five Principal Sources

Longinus enumerates five principal sources of sublimity in rhetorical and literary composition, emphasizing that these elements elevate discourse beyond mere persuasion to produce a transcendent effect on the audience. The first is formation of the thought or grandeur of conception, which he regards as the most essential, arising from an innate capacity for noble ideas that reflect a great soul; such thoughts, drawn from history, natural philosophy, or mythic invention, transport the listener as if witnessing divine acts, as exemplified in Sappho's vivid portrayal of divine possession.[1] The second source is vehement and inspired passion, or pathos, which must be genuine and fitting to stir profound emotion without artificiality; Longinus warns that feigned passion fails to achieve sublimity, contrasting effective instances like Plato's depictions of love with ineffective bombast.[1] The third source comprises figures of speech and thought, including rhetorical devices such as asyndeton, hyperbaton, and changes in person, which enhance elevation when used judiciously rather than mechanically; Longinus illustrates this with Demosthenes' strategic asyndeton in his Philippics, arguing that figures succeed by concealing their artifice and aligning with natural passion.[1] The fourth is noble diction, encompassing word choice, metaphors, and embellishments like epithets or periphrases, which must avoid puerility or excess; he praises Homer's metaphors for their vividness and suitability, noting that striking images, even if bold, contribute to sublimity if they illuminate profound truths.[1] Finally, the fifth source is dignified and elevated composition, or the harmonious arrangement of words, which involves rhythm, periodicity, and avoidance of clash; Longinus stresses that seamless phrasing, free from hiatus or awkwardness, mirrors the unhindered flow of thought, as seen in the fluid cadences of Aeschylus and Euripides, though he critiques overly antithetical structures for diminishing grandeur.[1] These sources interrelate, with innate qualities like thought and passion providing the foundation, while technical elements like figures and diction serve to amplify them, underscoring Longinus's view that true sublimity blends natural genius with cultivated skill.

Rhetorical Examples and Analysis

Illustrations from Ancient Texts

Longinus illustrates the sublime through direct quotations and analyses of passages from classical authors, emphasizing how they evoke grandeur, passion, and transport beyond ordinary persuasion. In Chapter 9, he cites Homer's depiction of Poseidon's advance across the sea from the Iliad (Book 13, lines 62–79), where the god's movement is likened to the extent visible from a high vantage: "As far as a man can see with his eyes from a towering rock, gazing over the wine-dark sea, so far do the high-spirited horses of Poseidon bound." This example demonstrates sublimity via vast spatial imagery and divine scale, which elevates the reader's conception of power without explicit persuasion.[1] A prominent illustration of emotional intensity appears in Chapter 10 with Sappho's Fragment 31, portraying the physical torment of unrequited love: "He seems to me equal to the gods, that man who sits facing you and hears you nearby sweetly speaking... but this causes my heart to flutter in my breast... my tongue is broken, a thin flame runs under my skin." Longinus praises the accumulation of sensory details—tongue, fire, sound, sight—for their vivid transport, arguing that such passionate synthesis creates an immediate, overwhelming effect akin to divine inspiration.[1][29] Homer provides further examples of imaginative elevation, as in Chapter 8's reference to the Aloadae's hubristic attempt to pile Ossa on Olympus (Odyssey 11.315–316): "Ossa they strove to set on Olympus, and on Ossa Pelion with its shaking forests, that they might scale the heavens." Longinus highlights the bold hyperbole as sublime daring, contrasting it with mere bombast by noting its rootedness in mythic grandeur that stirs awe.[29] In Chapter 10, Homer's stormy sea passage from the Odyssey (Book 5, lines 291–296) evokes terror through relentless natural force: "The waves rose mountain high... the ship would be lifted on the crest, and then plunged down again into the trough." This illustrates sublimity's power to mimic chaos and overwhelm the audience's senses.[1] Tragic poets supply illustrations of pathos and vision in Chapter 15, such as Euripides' Orestes (lines 255–257), where the protagonist hallucinates Furies: "I see the snake-coils of the dread Gorgons... go, Furies, go!" Longinus values this for its transportive imagery of madness, which conveys inner turmoil more potently than rational description. Similarly, Aeschylus' oath in the Seven Against Thebes (lines 42–46) invokes primal curses to heighten heroic resolve, exemplifying how adjuration amplifies sublimity by invoking ancestral or divine authority.[29] Orators like Demosthenes are analyzed in Chapter 16 for rhetorical elevation, as in his oath by Marathon's heroes: "You could not have erred; I swear it by those who fought at Marathon!" Longinus contends this sublimates historical memory into a transcendent appeal, filling hearers with vaunting pride and ethical transport. Plato's emulation of Homeric style in philosophical prose, such as the downward gaze of the unenlightened soul (Phaedo or related), further shows sublimity through dignified imitation, blending elevation with intellectual depth.[1] These selections underscore Longinus's view that true sublimity arises not from artifice but from innate nobility manifesting in apt, forceful expression.[29]

Effective Use of Figures and Diction

In On the Sublime, figures of speech constitute the third principal source of sublimity, functioning to amplify emotion and vividness when employed judiciously to mimic natural passion rather than apparent artifice.[32] Longinus emphasizes that effective figures transport the audience, as in Demosthenes' apostrophe swearing "by those who fought at Marathon," which elevates the orator's ethos by invoking ancestral heroism and conceals rhetorical contrivance through emotional fervor.[32] Similarly, asyndeton—omitting conjunctions—creates a rush of urgency and agitation, exemplified in Xenophon's battle description: "they pushed, they fought, they slew, they fell," where the staccato rhythm heightens immediacy without deliberate seams.[1] Hyperbaton, or word inversion, succeeds by replicating disordered excitement, as in Dionysius of Halicarnassus's transposed phrasing that conveys desperate haste.[32] Longinus warns that figures fail when their mechanism is detectable, leading to frigidity or suspicion of sophistry; sublimity demands concealment, where "brilliance and emotion" defend against critique of the device itself.[1] Noble diction forms the fourth source, comprising precise word selection, metaphors, and linguistic elaboration to illuminate and exalt grand conceptions without vulgarity or excess.[33] Effective diction employs striking, elevated terms that align with the subject’s dignity, such as periphrasis substituting "destined journey" for death in Plato's funeral oration, which imparts solemn beauty over bluntness.[1] Metaphors, when vivid and chained in series, propel sublimity, as in Demosthenes' torrent-like outpourings likening oratory to natural forces, evoking awe through their unforced intensity.[1] Longinus advocates restraint in elaboration, praising Herodotus' metaphor of a "female malady" for Persian softness, which tersely conveys cultural decay via apt imagery.[1] Misuse arises from petty or over-ornamented words, degrading grandeur into triviality, as in Theopompus' domestic banalities that undermine epic scope; true nobility in diction thus mirrors innate passion, avoiding the "kitchen-like" meanness of low registers.[1] Both figures and diction thrive when subordinated to overall emotional authenticity, ensuring rhetorical elevation feels instinctive rather than engineered.[32]

Critiques of Rhetorical Decline

Common Faults and Vices

Longinus delineates several principal vices that arise when writers aspire to sublimity but fail, rendering their efforts counterproductive and antithetical to true grandeur. These faults, explored primarily in chapters 3 through 5 of Peri Hupsous, include turgidity (bombast), puerility, false pathos (or parenthyrson), and frigidity, each stemming from misapplications of rhetorical ambition such as overreaching for novelty or grandeur without substantive foundation.[1][34] He observes that such vices are pervasive because "bombast is one of the hardest things to avoid in writing," often afflicting even capable authors who prioritize superficial elevation over genuine elevation of thought.[1] Turgidity, or bombast, manifests as an inflated style that swells beyond natural limits, producing a hollow, smoky excess rather than solid height. Longinus illustrates this with Gorgias's phrase "Xerxes, the Zeus of the Persians," which he deems absurdly grandiloquent, evoking not awe but ridicule through mismatched metaphors and overambitious epithets that lack intrinsic power.[1][34] This vice arises from straining for loftiness with words that promise more than they deliver, resulting in a turbulent, unmelodic pomp that obscures rather than illuminates meaning.[34] Puerility, akin to undergraduate wit or childish trifling, occurs in feeble intellects that pursue polish and attractiveness but devolve into paltriness and affectation. Writers commit this fault by over-elaborating trivial ideas, aiming for brilliance yet landing in silly, insubstantial conceits that betray immaturity.[1][34] Longinus attributes it to minds lacking depth, where the quest for novelty yields petty, false wit rather than profound insight, often evident in mixed metaphors or jingly phrases favored by inexperienced authors.[34] False pathos, termed parenthyrson by Theodorus, involves disproportionate emotional displays untethered from context or cause, leaving audiences unmoved or repelled. Longinus critiques instances where authors indulge in "violent transports" without warrant, producing an excessive, disconnected fervor that appears ridiculous, as the absence of genuine stimulus renders the passion hollow and self-indulgent.[1][34] Frigidity emerges from hyper-refined elaboration or unnatural phrasing, chilling the intended warmth of expression into absurdity or coldness. Examples include Xenophon's description of the eye's pupils as "modest maidens," a forced metaphor that Longinus deems a "piece of absurdity," or Timaeus's contrived comparisons, such as likening Alexander's conquests to Isocrates's writing duration, which prioritize ingenuity over aptness and result in unimpressive, degrading lapses.[1] These faults collectively trace to a shared origin: the obsessive pursuit of novelty in diction and thought, which disrupts harmony and substitutes contrivance for authentic elevation.[1] Longinus warns that while true sublimity transports universally, these vices provoke only fleeting disdain, underscoring the necessity of aligning rhetorical means with elevated content to evade corruption.[1]

Historical Causes of Corruption

In On the Sublime, Pseudo-Longinus attributes the historical decline of rhetorical sublimity primarily to the erosion of political liberty following the transition from democratic republics to autocratic empires in the Greco-Roman world. Under earlier democratic systems, such as those in classical Athens, public oratory thrived amid fierce political contests, forensic debates, and the rivalry of free citizens, fostering ambition and genius; democracy, he argues, acts as "the kind nurse of genius" by providing arenas for elevated discourse on matters of state survival and justice.[1] This environment incentivized speakers like Demosthenes to elevate their style to match the grandeur of the themes, but the advent of imperial rule—exemplified by the Roman Empire's consolidation under Augustus in 27 BCE—suppressed such freedoms, reducing oratory to flatteries of rulers rather than substantive arguments in assemblies or courts.[8] The subsequent era of relative peace under despotism, spanning from the late Roman Republic's end around 31 BCE onward, further contributed to this corruption by engendering luxury and moral softness, though Longinus qualifies this as secondary to internal failings. He contends that "world-wide peace," a euphemism for enforced stability under tyranny, diminished the urgency of great public themes like war and liberty, leaving rhetoricians without inspiring subjects and leading to a proliferation of minor writers chasing novelty over depth.[1] Yet, he rejects peace alone as the culprit, insisting that external tranquility merely exposed underlying vices; historical abundance of wealth in the imperial period amplified tendencies toward extravagance, but true decline stemmed from the populace's acclimation to "benignant despotism" without experiencing the rigors of freedom.[1] Fundamentally, Longinus identifies the corruption of personal character as the decisive historical cause, manifesting in an intensified "war within us" driven by avarice and hedonism, which gained traction amid the empire's economic prosperity from the 1st century CE. He describes love of gain as "the most debasing" affliction and love of pleasure as "the most ignoble of the mind’s diseases," arguing these enslaved minds historically, eroding the "greatness of soul" essential for sublimity; in his era, widespread pursuit of material wealth and sensual indulgence—fueled by imperial trade and stability—replaced noble aspirations, resulting in rhetoric marked by pettiness, bombast, and frigidity rather than transport.[1] This internal decay, he posits, explains why, despite increased numbers of practitioners post-1st century BCE, true sublimity vanished, as corrupted genius fixates on sordid views of life over universal truths.[1]

Reception and Intellectual Impact

Rediscovery in the Renaissance

The treatise Peri hypsous (On the Sublime), attributed to Longinus, survived in Byzantine manuscripts but received scant attention in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, with no known Latin translations or significant citations prior to the 15th century.[20] Following the migration of Greek scholars to Italy after the Council of Florence (1438–1439) and the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, several Greek manuscripts of the text entered Italian humanistic circles, including copies held in libraries such as the Vatican and those of private collectors.[35] These manuscripts, derived from a 10th-century exemplar like the Parisinus Graecus 2036, enabled philologists to access the full work, which had previously been known only through fragmentary references in late antique authors.[36] The pivotal moment came with the editio princeps prepared by the Italian humanist Francesco Robortello (1516–1567), published in Basel on August 9, 1554, by printer Joannes Oporinus.[37] Robortello, drawing on his expertise in Aristotelian poetics and access to a manuscript likely from Venetian or Paduan collections, included a Latin translation alongside the Greek text and marginal annotations emphasizing the treatise's rhetorical insights into elevated style.[24] This edition marked the text's entry into print, facilitating wider dissemination amid the religious tensions that prompted its Basel publication rather than in Italy.[10] A Venetian edition followed in 1555 under Paolo Manuzio at the Aldine Press, which incorporated corrections and further commentary, accelerating its availability to scholars across Europe.[9] Renaissance reception centered on the work's alignment with revived classical rhetoric, influencing philologists like Julius Caesar Scaliger, who referenced it in his Poetics (1561) for its analysis of grandeur in oratory and poetry.[37] Humanists valued Longinus's emphasis on innate genius (hypsos) over mere technical rules, integrating it into debates on eloquence amid the era's focus on Ciceronian and Demosthenic models, though its aesthetic dimensions gained fuller traction only later.[3] Latin translations proliferated, including one by Agostino Nifo around 1554, ensuring the treatise's role in shaping 16th-century rhetorical theory despite initial limited circulation compared to more canonical texts like Aristotle's Poetics.[38] By the late 16th century, annotations and commentaries, such as those by Denys Lambin, underscored its utility for dissecting sublime passages in Homer and Sappho, embedding it within the humanistic project of recovering ancient literary criticism.[37]

Influence on Enlightenment Aesthetics

The French translation of Peri Hypsous by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux in 1674 revived the text's prominence in European literary theory, framing the sublime as an elevating force in rhetoric and poetics that transcended classical rules of decorum and proportion. Boileau's preface portrayed sublimity as a spontaneous outburst of genius capable of transporting the audience, a view that bridged ancient rhetoric with emerging modern sensibilities and influenced subsequent aesthetic debates by prioritizing emotional impact over technical perfection.[39] This dissemination facilitated the concept's adaptation in Enlightenment thought, where it evolved from a primarily rhetorical device to a broader category of aesthetic experience evoking awe and vastness. In early 18th-century Britain, Joseph Addison's essays in The Spectator (Nos. 411–421, 1712) explicitly invoked Longinus to analyze the sublime's psychological effects, associating it with the grandeur of natural phenomena like mountains and oceans that provoke astonishment and expand the mind's faculties. Addison emphasized the sublime's affective power, derived from Longinus' notion of hypsos as elevating the soul, while integrating empirical observations of human response to novelty and infinity.[40] Similarly, John Dennis's The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry (1704) applied Longinian principles to advocate for passion-driven elevation in literature, influencing the period's shift toward subjective experience in aesthetics. Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) directly referenced Longinus in its discussion of poetry and rhetoric, endorsing the ancient author's observation that true sublimity instills a "glorying sense of inward greatness" in the perceiver. Burke adapted this to an empirical framework, linking the sublime to sensations of terror, obscurity, and power—qualities that overwhelm rational faculties—while distinguishing it sharply from the pleasing smoothness of beauty. This synthesis marked a pivotal causal link in Enlightenment aesthetics, grounding Longinus' rhetorical insights in physiological and psychological realism, and paving the way for later developments in Kantian and Romantic theories without uncritically adopting the original's optimistic elevation.[41][42]

Legacy in Modern Literature and Philosophy

Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) adapted Longinus's rhetorical concept of the sublime—originally tied to elevated language and genius—into a broader aesthetic and psychological phenomenon linked to emotions of terror, vastness, and the infinite, marking a pivotal shift in modern philosophy.[43] This transformation emphasized the sublime's capacity to overwhelm reason, influencing subsequent thinkers by framing it as an experiential response rather than merely stylistic elevation.[44] Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Judgment (1790), further developed the sublime into mathematical (vast scale) and dynamical (overpowering force) forms, drawing indirectly from Longinus through Burke's lens to explore how it elevates the mind beyond sensory limits toward moral ideas of reason.[43] Friedrich Schiller's essay "On the Sublime" (1801) positioned the sublime as a moral educator, contrasting it with beauty by arguing it reconciles human frailty with ethical striving, thus extending Longinus's elevation of passion into a tool for personal and cultural development.[45] In Romantic literature, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge invoked the sublime to prioritize emotional intensity and nature's grandeur over neoclassical restraint, as seen in Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800), where poetic power evokes overwhelming natural forces akin to Longinus's transport.[46] Coleridge critiqued Wordsworth's application while echoing Longinus in valuing imagination's "sublime" synthesis of disparate elements, influencing the era's focus on subjective awe in works like The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1798).[47] This legacy persisted into 19th-century aesthetics, shaping perceptions of literature as a vehicle for transcendent experience rather than mere ornament.[48]

Scholarly Evaluations and Limitations

Strengths in Psychological Insight

Longinus exhibits profound psychological insight by conceptualizing sublimity as a force that elevates the soul and induces ekstasis, a transport beyond self-awareness and rational constraints, wherein the reader experiences an overwhelming emotional elevation akin to divine inspiration.[33] This effect, he argues, stems not from calculated persuasion but from the authentic infusion of passion, where great thoughts and vehement emotion from the author resonate deeply with human faculties, bypassing mere intellectual assent to achieve a holistic psychological rapture.[49] Scholars note this as an early recognition of literature's capacity to trigger involuntary affective responses, prefiguring modern understandings of emotional contagion and peak experiences in aesthetics.[50] A key strength lies in his causal analysis linking the author's innate grandeur of soul—megalophuia—to the psychological potency of the work, positing that true sublimity arises from an organic alignment between the writer's emotional disposition and expressive form, rather than rote technical mastery.[51] For instance, Longinus dissects how figures like hyperbaton disrupt syntactic expectations to heighten suspense and mimic mental agitation, thereby amplifying the hearer's psychological immersion and vulnerability to transport.[52] This granular examination of linguistic mechanisms' emotional impacts underscores his sensitivity to the interplay between form and psyche, distinguishing sublimity from lesser rhetoric by its power to forge a shared, transcendent mental state.[53] Furthermore, Longinus' evaluations of passages from Homer and Sappho reveal an astute grasp of empathy's role in sublimity, where vivid imagery evokes the author's inner turmoil to mirror and intensify the audience's latent passions, fostering a psychological unity that transcends cultural or temporal barriers.[54] His insistence on strong emotion as a primary source—elevating it above diction or arrangement—highlights a realistic view of human motivation, wherein unfeigned vehemence alone can pierce defensive rationales and achieve lasting affective dominance.[55] This framework anticipates empirical insights into how authentic emotional expression in narrative triggers mirror neuron activation and heightened engagement, affirming the treatise's enduring analytical depth despite its fragmentary nature.[56]

Criticisms of Incompleteness and Style

Scholars have observed that Peri hypsous exists in a fragmentary condition, surviving through a tenth-century Byzantine manuscript that was first edited and published in 1554 by Francesco Robortello.[49] The text breaks off abruptly at chapter 36.4 during a discussion of Plato's Phaedrus, without resolving promised elements such as a systematic refutation of Caecilius of Calacte or a concluding synthesis of sources of sublimity. This incompleteness hampers its utility as a methodical rhetorical handbook, as later chapters alluded to in earlier sections—potentially addressing noble birth, education, or further vices—appear absent, rendering the argument elliptical and reliant on inference.[49] The treatise further lacks a unified structure, digressing into exempla and asides that disrupt logical progression; for instance, the five sources of sublimity introduced in chapter 8 are elaborated unevenly, with grandeur of thought dominating while figures and diction receive sporadic treatment.[57] Elder Olson critiqued this as a "disregard of the logical schematism," reducing the work to an "aggregation of fragments" valued more for discrete insights than coherent theory.[57] Such fragmentation, possibly exacerbated by textual transmission or authorial intent as informal notes rather than a polished essay, precludes comprehensive analysis of sublimity's mechanics, leaving readers to reconstruct connections amid abrupt shifts. Longinus' prose has drawn mixed evaluations, with some nineteenth-century philologists, as noted in Pauly's Real-Encyclopädie, censuring it as feeble in places, particularly where transitions falter or examples overwhelm exposition.[1] Critics highlight an unsteady quality, where rhetorical elevation occasionally veers into the tumidity or passion the author himself deprecates, as in chapter 3's hyperbolic dismissal of Caecilius, mimicking the very excesses analyzed.[58] This stylistic inconsistency—elevated yet prone to obscurity through dense allusions and unintegrated quotations—can obscure arguments, demanding from readers the critical acumen Longinus prescribes, though it undermines claims of universal clarity in sublime expression.[1]

References

  1. Longinus: On the Sublime - Project Gutenberg
  2. 'On the Sublime': Ancient Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism
  3. The Sublime from Antiquity to the Renaissance - Oxford Academic
  4. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789047400639/B9789047400639-s015.pdf
  5. Introduction: the sublime before and after Longinus (Chapter 1)
  6. [Longinus], Introduction - ATTALUS
  7. Pseudo-Longinus, On the Sublime - Bryn Mawr Classical Review
  8. LONGINUS, On the Sublime | Loeb Classical Library
  9. [PDF] Appropriating Peri hypsous - Scholarly Publications Leiden University
  10. [PDF] Appropriating Peri hypsous - CORE
  11. The Sublime in Antiquity - Bryn Mawr Classical Review
  12. 'Longinus' | Oxford Classical Dictionary
  13. Longinus | The Poetry Foundation
  14. [PDF] Symptoms of the Sublime: Longinus and the Hippocratic Method of ...
  15. The Aesthetic Principles of the Peri Hupsous - jstor
  16. Longinus, on Sublimity | The Cambridge Classical Journal
  17. [PDF] Longinus On Sublimity - White Rose Research Online
  18. (PDF) Longinus On Sublimity - Academia.edu
  19. The Pygmies in the Cage: The Function of the Sublime in Longinus
  20. Defining the Longinian sublime (Chapter 1)
  21. Longinus, On the Sublime 12.4-5: Demosthenes and Cicero - jstor
  22. Longinus on the sublime: the Greek text edited after the Paris ...
  23. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004470057/BP000018.xml
  24. Peri Hypsous in translation: the sublime in sixteenth-century ... - Gale
  25. Διονυσιου Λογγινου περι 'υπσος λογου = Dionysii Longi 1555
  26. LONGINUS, On the Sublime | Loeb Classical Library
  27. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A88516.0001.001
  28. Patrick Cheney. English Authorship and the Early Modern Sublime
  29. [Longinus], On the Sublime (1) - ATTALUS
  30. Longinus, On the Sublime - Notes & Outline - MTSU
  31. Chapter 2: Nature and Technique – Longinus, On the Sublime
  32. [Longinus], On the Sublime (1)
  33. from “On the Sublime” | The Poetry Foundation
  34. Chapter 3: Vices: Turgidity, Undergraduate Wit, Parenthyrson
  35. [PDF] Cover Page - Scholarly Publications Leiden University
  36. <i>Translations of the Sublime: The Early Modern Reception and ...
  37. DENYS LAMBIN'S OWN COPY OF LONGINUS' «PERI HUPSOUS»
  38. https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcoll/9789047400639/B9789047400639-s015.xml
  39. Boileau: the birth of a concept (Chapter 4)
  40. [PDF] the Metamorphosis of the Sublime in Eighteenth-Century British ...
  41. [PDF] Edmund Burke A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas ...
  42. [PDF] Revisiting Burke's “Sublime” with Pseudo-Longinus
  43. Introduction - The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant
  44. [PDF] On Inheritance of the Sublime: From Longinus to Burke
  45. A Short History of the Sublime | The MIT Press Reader
  46. The Romantic Sublime - Project MUSE
  47. Longinus and Later Literary Criticism (Concluded) - jstor
  48. [PDF] The Sight of Sublimity - Denison Digital Commons
  49. [PDF] Longinus and His 'On The Sublime' A Historical and Critical Overview
  50. [PDF] From Longinus to Tolkien: A Theory of the Fantastic Sublime
  51. Longinus's theory of sublimity (Part I)
  52. [PDF] The Sublime in Motion: Longinus, Freud, and Embedded Metaphors
  53. Longinus: Sublime Rhetoric and Emotion - Classical Poetics - Fiveable
  54. [PDF] A Study of Longinus's Treatise On the Sublime
  55. On the Sublime by Longinus | Research Starters - EBSCO
  56. [PDF] Emotion and the sublime - Scholarly Publications Leiden University
  57. The Argument of Longinus on the Sublime - Elder Olson - eNotes.com
  58. [PDF] Sublime Method: Longinus on Language and Imitation
User Avatar
No comments yet.