Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:40:52.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Longinus, On Sublimity 35.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Malcolm Heath
Malcolm Heath
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , May 2000 , pp. 320 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The problem addressed in this note exists irrespective of authorship. I argue in favour of the traditional attribution in ‘Longinus On Sublimity', PCPhS 45 (1999), 43–74; sceptics may supply their own ‘pseudo-’. An earlier version of the paper was presented to the departmental research seminar of the School of Classics at Leeds in November 1998; I am grateful to all those who contributed to the stimulating discussion, especially Roger Brock, Ronald Martin, and Stephen Todd.

2 Text after Russell, D. A. (ed.), ‘Longinus’ On the Sublime (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar; minor variants (e.g. Jahn-Vahlen print Pearce's αὐτo Aυαας) do not affect the substance of the passage.

3 Russell, D. A., ‘Longinus revisited’, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 72–86, at 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Russell goes on to talk of the ‘inadequacy’ of Lysias and Hyperides, by contrast with the ‘truly great’. But are authors who are not ‘truly great’ to be condemned as ‘inadequate’? Contrast Longinus 36.1: κα τ με ᾰπταιστoε oὐ ψγα δ κα θαυμζεται

4 Cf. Russell (n. 3), 74.

5 Photius (cod. 262, 489M-9, 13–15) reports the view of ‘some’ that Lysias was weak in amplification, and Caecilius’ claim (= fr. 110 Ofenloch) that he was less successful in than invention; cf. 262, 488b35–6 for an error that ‘even’ Lysias makes in the presentation of character. The one specifically stylistic criticism of Lysias that I have found is a comment by Theophrastus (fr. 692 Fortenbaugh = D.H. Lys. 14) on a single passage in a speech not regarded as authentic by later critics.

6 Contrast the terms in which Cicero rebuts excessive admiration of Lysias (Orator 29): ‘venustissimus … politissimus … quod nihil habeat insolens aut ineptum.’

7 The only modern scholar to have recognized the difficulties of the vulgate is Grube, G. M. A., ‘Notes on the περ ὺψoυ’; AJPh 78 (1957), 355–74:Google Scholar see 371–4 (not all his objections to the vulgate are valid; he overlooks, for example, parallels for elliptical oὐ … λλᾰ κα in the sense oὐμóεoε … λλᾰ κα) But his attempt to interpret the paradosis (advanced with due caution) is unsuccessful: see Russell's comments ad loc.