ON THE SUBLIME
LONGINUS
c. 213-273
AUTHORSHIP OF ON THE SUBLIME
|
The author is unknown. In the reference manuscript
(Parisinus Graecus 2036), the heading reports
"Dionysius or Longinus," an ascription
by the medieval copyist that was misread
as "by Dionysius Longinus." 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, a writer of the 1st century
CE. There remains the possibility that the
work belongs to neither Cassius Longinus
nor Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 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. The former
maintained ideas which are absolutely opposite
to those written in the treatise; about the
latter, there are problems with chronology.
Among further names proposed, are Hermagoras
(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 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. Cassius Longinus
Accredited with writing a number of literary
works, this disciple of Plotinus was "the
most distinguished scholar of his day."
Cassius received his education at Alexandria
and becomes a teacher himself. First teaching
at Athens, Cassius later moved to Asia Minor,
where he achieved the position of advisor
to the queen of Palmyra, Zenobia. Cassius
is also a dubious possibility for author
of the treatise, since it is notable that
no literature later than the 1st century
AD is mentioned (the latest is Cicero, dead
in 43 BC), and the work is now usually dated
to the early 1st century AD. The work ends
with a dissertation on the decay of oratory,
a typical subject of the period in which
authors such as Tacitus, Petronius and Quintilian,
who also dealt with the subject, were still
alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_(literature)
CASSIUS LONGINUS
c. 213-273 THE SUBLIME IN TEN WEB-PAGE PARTS
- WEB-PAGE ONE
Translated by W. Rhys Roberts
Longinus, c. 213-273, Greek rhetorician and
philosopher (Cassius Longinus), c. 213-273,
Greek rhetorician and philosopher of the
Neoplatonic school. He taught rhetoric at
Athens. He later became counselor to Queen
Zenobia of Palmyra; when the anti-Roman policy
he had advocated failed, he was delivered
to the Romans, who executed him as a traitor.
Of his numerous rhetorical, philosophical,
and critical works, only fragments remain.
On the Sublime, a Greek treatise of literary criticism,
was long attributed to Longinus, but it is
now agreed that the author, often known as
Pseudo-Longinus, lived in the 1st cent. A.
D. 1 See D. St. Marin, Bibliography of the Essay on the Sublime (1967). 2
ON THE SUBLIME
PART ONE
Chapters I - VI
YOU will remember, my dear Postumius Terentianus,
that when we examined together the treatise
of Caecilius on the Sublime, we found that
it fell below the dignity of the whole subject,
while it failed signally to grasp the essential
points, and conveyed to its readers but little
of that practical help which it should be
a writer's principal aim to give. In every
systematic treatise two things are required.
The first is a statement of the subject;
the other, which although second in order
ranks higher in importance, is an indication
of the methods by which we may attain our
end. Now Caecilius seeks to show the nature
of the sublime by countless instances as
though our ignorance demanded it, but the
consideration of the means whereby we may
succeed in raising our own capacities to
a certain pitch of elevation he has, strangely
enough, omitted as unnecessary. 2. However,
it may be that the man ought not so much
to be blamed for his shortcomings as praised
for his happy thought and his enthusiasm.
But since you have urged me, in my turn,
to write a brief essay on the sublime for
your special gratification, let us consider
whether the views I have formed contain anything
which will be of use to public men. You will
yourself, friend, in accordance with your
nature and with what is fitting, join me
in appraising each detail with the utmost
regard for truth; for he answered well who,
when asked in what qualities we resemble
the Gods, declared that we do so in benevolence
and truth. 3. As I am writing to you, good
friend, who are well versed in literary studies,
I feel almost absolved from the necessity
of premising at any length that sublimity
is a certain distinction and excellence in
expression, and that it is from no other
source than this that the greatest poets
and writers have derived their eminence and
gained an immortality of renown. 4. The effect
of elevated language upon an audience is
not persuasion but transport. At every time
and in every way imposing speech, with the
spell it throws over us, prevails over that
which aims at persuasion and gratification.
Our persuasions we can usually control, but
the influences of the sublime bring power
and irresistible might to bear, and reign
supreme over every hearer. Similarly, we
see skill in invention, and due order and
arrangement of matter, emerging as the hard-won
result not of one thing nor of two, but of
the whole texture of the composition, whereas
Sublimity flashing forth at the right moment
scatters everything before it like a thunderbolt,
and at once displays the power of the orator
in all its plenitude. But enough; for these
reflexions, and others like them, you can,
I know well, dear Terentianus, yourself suggest
from your own experience.
II
First of all, we must raise the question
whether there is such a thing as an art of
the sublime or lofty. Some hold that those
are entirely in error who would bring such
matters under the precepts of art. A lofty
tone, says one, is innate, and does not come
by teaching; nature is the only art that
can compass it. Works of nature are, they
think, made worse and altogether feebler
when wizened by the rules of art. 2. But
I maintain that this will be found to be
otherwise if it be observed that, while nature
as a rule is free and independent in matters
of passion and elevation, yet is she wont
not to act at random and utterly without
system. Further, nature is the original and
vital underlying principle in all cases,
but system can define limits and fitting
seasons, and can also contribute the safest
rules for use and practice. Moreover, the
expression of the sublime is more exposed
to danger when it goes its own way without
the guidance of knowledge,--when it is suffered
to be unstable and unballasted,--when it
is left at the mercy of mere momentum and
ignorant audacity. It is true that it often
needs the spur, but it is also true that
it often needs the curb. 3. Demosthenes expresses
the view, with regard to human life in general,
that good fortune is the greatest of blessings,
while good counsel, which occupies the second
place, is hardly inferior in importance,
since its absence contributes inevitably
to the ruin of the former (Against Aristocrates
113, at Perseus). This we may apply to diction,
nature occupying the position of good fortune,
art that of good counsel. Most important
of all, we must remember that the very fact
that there are some elements of expression
which are in the hands of nature alone, can
be learnt from no other source than art.
If, I say, the critic of those who desire
to learn were to turn these matters over
in his mind, he would no longer, it seems
to me, regard the discussion of the subject
as superfluous or useless...
III
Quell they the oven's far-flung splendour-glow!
Ha, let me but one hearth-abider mark-- One
flame-wreath torrent-like I'll whirl on high;
I'll burn the roof, to cinders shrivel it!--
Nay, now my chant is not of noble strain.
(Aeschylus, tr. A. S. Way)
Such things are not tragic but pseudo-tragic--'flame-wreaths,'
and 'belching to the sky,' and Boreas represented
as a 'flute-player,' and all the rest of
it. They are turbid in expression and confused
in imagery rather than the product of intensity,
and each one of them, if examined in the
light of day, sinks little by little from
the terrible into the contemptible. But since
even in tragedy, which is in its very nature
stately and prone to bombast, tasteless tumidity
is unpardonable, still less, I presume, will
it harmonise with the narration of fact.
2. And this is the ground on which the phrases
of Gorgias of Leontini are ridiculed when
he describes Xerxes as the 'Zeus of the Persians'
and vultures as 'living tombs.' So is it
with some of the expressions of Callisthenes
which are not sublime but high-flown, and
still more with those of Cleitarchus, for
the man is frivolous and blows, as Sophocles
has it,
On pigmy hautboys: mouthpiece have they none.
(Sophocles, tr. A. S. Way) Other examples
will be found in Amphicrates and Hegesias
and Matris, for often when these writers
seem to themselves to be inspired they are
in no true frenzy but are simply trifling.
3. Altogether, tumidity seems particularly
hard to avoid. The explanation is that all
who aim at elevation are so anxious to escape
the reproach of being weak and dry that they
are carried, as by some strange law of nature,
into the opposite extreme. They put their
trust in the maxim that 'failure in a great
attempt is at least a noble error'. 4. But
evil are the swellings, both in the body
and in diction, which are inflated and unreal,
and threaten us with the reverse of our aim;
for nothing, say they, is drier than a man
who has the dropsy. While tumidity desires
to transcend the limits of the sublime, the
defect which is termed puerility is the direct
antithesis of elevation, for it is utterly
low and mean and in real truth the most ignoble
vice of style. What, then, is this puerility?
Clearly, a pedant's thoughts, which begin
in learned trifling and end in frigidity.
Men slip into this kind of error because,
while they aim at the uncommon and elaborate
and most of all at the attractive, they drift
unawares into the tawdry and affected. 5.
A third, and closely allied, kind of defect
in matters of passion is that which Theodorus
used to call parenthyrsus. By this is meant
unseasonable and empty passion, where no
passion is required, or immoderate, where
moderation is needed. For men are often carried
away, as if by intoxication, into displays
of emotion which are not caused by the nature
of the subject, but are purely personal and
wearisome. In consequence they seem to hearers
who are in no wise affected to act in an
ungainly way. And no wonder; for they are
beside themselves, while their hearers are
not. But the question of the passions we
reserve for separate treatment.
IV
Of the second fault of which we have spoken--frigidity--
Timaeus supplies many examples. Timaeus was
a writer of considerable general ability,
who occasionally showed that he was not incapable
of elevation of style. He was learned and
ingenious, but very prone to criticise the
faults of others while blind to his own.
Through his passion for continually starting
novel notions, he often fell into the merest
childishness. 2. I will set down one or two
examples only of his manner, since the greater
number have been already appropriated by
Caecilius. In the course of a eulogy on Alexander
the Great, he describes him as 'the man who
gained possession of the whole of Asia in
fewer years than it took Isocrates to write
his Panegyric urging war against the Persians.'
Strange indeed is the comparison of the man
of Macedon with the rhetorician. How plain
it is, Timaeus, that the Lacedaemonians,
thus judged, were far inferior to Isocrates
in prowess, for they spent thirty years in
the conquest of Messene, whereas he composed
his Panegyric in ten. 3. Consider again the
way in which he speaks of the Athenians who
were captured in Sicily. 'They were punished
because they had acted impiously towards
Hermes and mutilated his images, and the
infliction of punishment was chiefly due
to Hermocrates the son of Hermon, who was
descended, in the paternal line, from the
outraged god.'I am surprised, beloved Terentianus,
that he does not write with regard to the
despot Dionysius that 'Dion and Heracleides
deprived him of his sovereignty because he
had acted impiously towards Zeus and Heracles.'
4. But why speak of Timaeus when even those
heroes of literature, Xenophon and Plato,
though trained in the school of Socrates,
nevertheless sometimes forget themselves
for the sake of such paltry pleasantries?
Xenophon writes in the Policy of the Lacedaemonians:
'You would find it harder to hear their voice
than that of busts of marble, harder to deflect
their gaze than that of statues of bronze;
you would deem them more modest than the
very maidens in their eyes' (de Rep. Laced.
III. 5., at Perseus)
It was worthy of an Amphicrates and not of
a Xenophon to call the pupils of our eyes
'modest maidens.' Good heavens, how strange
it is that the pupils of the whole company
should be believed to be modest notwithstanding
the common saying that the shamelessness
of individuals is indicated by nothing so
much as the eyes! 'Thou sot? that hast the
eyes of a dog,' as Homer has it (Iliad 1.225,
at Perseus). Timaeus, however, has not left
even this piece of frigidity to Xenophon,
but clutches it as though it were hid treasure.
At all events, after saying of Agathocles
that he abducted his cousin, who had been
given in marriage to another man, from the
midst of the nuptial rites, he asks, 'Who
could have done this had he not had wantons,
in place of maidens, in his eyes?' 6. Yes,
and Plato (usually so divine) when he means
simply tablets says, 'They shall write and
preserve cypress memorials in the temples
(Laws 5. 741c, at Perseus)
And again, 'As touching walls, Megillus,
I should hold with Sparta that they be suffered
to lie asleep in the earth and not summoned
to arise' (Laws 6. 778d, at Perseus). The
expression of Herodotus to the effect that
beautiful women are 'eye-smarts' is not much
better (Histories 5. 18, at Perseus). This,
however, may be condoned in some degree since
those who use this particular phrase in his
narrative are barbarians and in their cups,
but not even in the mouths of such characters
is it well that an author should suffer,
in the judgment of posterity, from an unseemly
exhibition of triviality.
V
All these ugly and parasitical growths arise
in literature from a single cause, that pursuit
of novelty in the expression of ideas which
may be regarded as the fashionable craze
of the day. Our defects usually spring, for
the most part, from the same sources as our
good points. Hence, while beauties of expression
and touches of sublimity, and charming elegancies
withal, are favourable to effective composition,
yet these very things are the elements and
foundation, not only of success, but also
of the contrary. Something of the kind is
true also of variations and hyperboles and
the use of the plural number, and we shall
show subsequently the dangers to which these
seem severally to be exposed. It is necessary
now to seek and to suggest means by which
we may avoid the defects which attend the
steps of the sublime.
VI
The best means would be, friend, to gain,
first of all, clear knowledge and appreciation
of the true sublime. The enterprise is, however,
an arduous one. For the judgment of style
is the last and crowning fruit of long experience.
None the less, if I must speak in the way
of precept, it is not impossible perhaps
to acquire discrimination in these matters
by attention to some such hints as those
which follow.
|