Longinus literature: Encyclopedia II - Longinus literature - Concerns over Longinus and On the Sublime

Longinus literature - Concerns over Longinus and On the Sublime

Longinus literature - Ambiguity of the Author

The manuscript's contents page states Διονυσιου η Λογγινου ("by 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 (213 - 273 CE). Since the correct translation includes the possibility of an author named “Dionysius,” some attribute the work to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a writer of the first century A.D. (Grube xviii). There remains the possibility that the work belongs to neither Cassius Longinus or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but, rather, some unknown author writing under the Roman empire, likely of the first century.

Longinus literature - Misleading Translations and Lost Data

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 (23). Moreover, about one-third of the treatise is missing (Roberts 17); Longinus’ segment on similes, for instance, has only a few words remaining (Russell xxi). Matters are further complicated in realizing that ancient writers, Longinus’ contemporaries, do not quote or mention the treatise in any way (Roberts 2).

Longinus literature - Limitations of the Writing

Despite Longinus’ critical acclaim, his writing is far from perfect. Longinus’ occasional enthusiasm becomes “carried away” and creates some confusion as to the meaning of his text (Grube xi). Furthermore, eighteenth-century critic Edward Burnaby Greene finds Longinus, at times, to be “too refined” (163). Greene also claims that Longinus’ focus on hyperbolical descriptions is “particularly weak, and misapplied” (146). Occasionally, Longinus also falls into a sort of “tediousness” in treating his subjects (Roberts 34). The treatise is also limited in its concentration on spiritual transcendence and lack of focus on the way in which language structures and determines the feelings and thoughts of writers (“Longinus” 137). 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” (Russell xliii).

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Concerns over Longinus and On the Sublime", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki