This document provides a summary and analysis of Longinus' philosophical treatise "On the Sublime". It begins by outlining the contents and structure of Longinus' work. It then examines two philosophical presuppositions of Longinus - his notions of logos and pathos. Specifically, it analyzes Olson's view that Longinus conceived of the sublime as residing in the object, and argues this view does not align with Longinus' actual outlook which acknowledges an ontological difference between subject and object. It concludes by suggesting Longinus' play of logos and pathos describes the movement of the sublime between subject and object as manifested in language.
Minke W. Hazewindus - When Women Interfere - Studies in The Role of Women in Herodotus' Histories (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 12) - Brill Academic Pub (2004)
This document provides a summary and analysis of Longinus' philosophical treatise "On the Sublime". It begins by outlining the contents and structure of Longinus' work. It then examines two philosophical presuppositions of Longinus - his notions of logos and pathos. Specifically, it analyzes Olson's view that Longinus conceived of the sublime as residing in the object, and argues this view does not align with Longinus' actual outlook which acknowledges an ontological difference between subject and object. It concludes by suggesting Longinus' play of logos and pathos describes the movement of the sublime between subject and object as manifested in language.
This document provides a summary and analysis of Longinus' philosophical treatise "On the Sublime". It begins by outlining the contents and structure of Longinus' work. It then examines two philosophical presuppositions of Longinus - his notions of logos and pathos. Specifically, it analyzes Olson's view that Longinus conceived of the sublime as residing in the object, and argues this view does not align with Longinus' actual outlook which acknowledges an ontological difference between subject and object. It concludes by suggesting Longinus' play of logos and pathos describes the movement of the sublime between subject and object as manifested in language.
This document provides a summary and analysis of Longinus' philosophical treatise "On the Sublime". It begins by outlining the contents and structure of Longinus' work. It then examines two philosophical presuppositions of Longinus - his notions of logos and pathos. Specifically, it analyzes Olson's view that Longinus conceived of the sublime as residing in the object, and argues this view does not align with Longinus' actual outlook which acknowledges an ontological difference between subject and object. It concludes by suggesting Longinus' play of logos and pathos describes the movement of the sublime between subject and object as manifested in language.
Dimitrios Jardoulakis Avuqatoui. Mc tq utq otqv 0outo ctp tqv 0aootuoq. (Huci ukpiu u0to to kopi.) Lieaqo o 0co koituci tu vtu ou, v cevtu e aioe ou o` ie kpuuue o0puvc! Avuqatoui. Mcou otqv ateoq. Mc iu atqoq upuoouaq. Ki upiu. Ao0 oto upti. Tuoo Kuacpvupo 1 Introduction Longinus` treatise, the Iirst monograph on the sublime, is neither a rhetorical manual, nor a straight-Iorward philosophical work. The sublime is usually regarded as a literary quality. But it is clear that the concerns oI Hoi ,on (On the Sublime) go Iar beyond criticism, engaged as it is on a number oI perennial philosophical issues, such as human nature. My aim is to identiIy the philosophical presuppositions which underpin 0o. 2 This will be done with reIerence to Longinus` notions oI logos and pathos. I will examine the Subject Object relation with reIerence to 0o. In the second section, 'In the Straitjacket, I will argue that Elder Olson`s 47 1 Kapernaros, 1997:3233. 2 `Yo literally means 'height and the conceptual metaphor oI an upward movement oI the soul should always be kept in mind. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 47 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Vardoulakis, Dimitrios 2003. The Play of Logos and Pathos: Longinus Philosophical Presuppositions. In E. Close, M. Tsianikas and G. Frazis (Eds.) Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University, September 2001. Flinders University Department of Languages Modern Greek: Adelaide, 47-62. explication oI the sublime as a natural quality residing in the Object does not square with Longinus` outlook. In the third section, 'The Theatre oI the Sublime, I will Iollow Ernesto Grassi in arguing that Hoi ,on is aware oI the ontological diIIerence 3 and that, thereIore, 0o privileges neither the Subject nor the Object. The plav oI logos and pathos describes that move- ment oI 0o between Subject and Object which is made maniIest in lan- guage. We know nothing about the real name oI the author oI the treatise and we are unsure whether it was written in the Iirst or the third century A.D. 4 And we only know approximately two thirds oI the text. Actually, it is a small miracle that the treatise has survived: there is no mention oI it in antique or medieval literature, 5 and the earliest, tenth century, manuscript could easily have remained unnoticed, had it not been translated in 1674 by Boileau. 6 But these uncertainties seem to have only excited the imagination oI the readers, who have oIten heard a congenial voice in Longinus. Eor instance, Harold Bloom in the Iirst sentence oI a selI-review characterises his criti- cal stance as Longinian, in the sense that 'our author |Bloom| remains un- philosophical, believing as he does that Longinus began criticism`s quarrel 48 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 3 By the ontological diIIerence Grassi means (Iollowing Heidegger) the underivability oI being Irom individual beings by rational means. 4 Initially 'Longinus was thought to reIer to Cassius Longinus, the third century rhetori- cian e.g. Korais, 1998:164 reIers to the author oI Hoi ,on as a contemporary oI Plotinus. However, since the beginning oI the nineteenth century, scholars have noted that the name oI the author in the oldest manuscript is ambiguous and that textual evidence points to the Iirst century AD as a more likely time oI composition. Eor a general discussion oI the history oI attribution and dating, see Russell, 1964:xxiixxx. Eor the most comprehensive argument Ior the dating in the Iirst century, see Crossett & Arieti, 1975. Eor the latest attempt to argue Ior a third century date, see Heath, 1999. I take as a mistake unsubstantiated sec- ond century datings, e.g. Mothersill, 1997:407. 5 A couple oI reIerences to a Longinus in the eleventh century rhetorician John oI Sicily need not reIer to the author oI Hoi ,on see Russell, 1964:xxvxxviii. There has also been debate about the reIerences to Cassius Longinus in Photius see Heath, 1998. 6 Eor a succinct account oI the editions as well as the reception oI the treatise Irom the six- teenth century to the present, see Macksey, 1993:924-32. Besides the well attested inIluence oI Hoi ,on in Erance, England, and Germany, it is also worth noting Italy see Costa, 1981. D.A. Russell`s translation (Russell, 1965) is recommended Ior the general reader. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 48 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au with philosophy. 7 The wide-spread appeal may be due to Longinus` com- parative method: he quotes Irom Greek, Latin and Judaic literature, and Ireely moves Irom poetry to history, and Irom rhetoric to philosophy. 8 The treatise is addressed to Terentianus, Longinus` student. Its aim, as stated in the Iirst paragraph, is twoIold: to precisely describe 0o and to present 0o as teachable. Chapter 8 lists the Iive sources oI 0o. The most important is 'the con- ception oI great thoughts. 9 Then come 'strong emotions. 10 The Iirst two sources are 'Ior the most part natural`. 11 The other three sources are de- rived Irom art. Third come Iigures, 12 which are distinguished Irom Iourth, tropes and diction. 13 And last comes the harmonious synthesis oI the elements and thoughts oI the text. We should note, Iirst, that the sources are not necessary and suIIicient conditions Ior the attainment oI 0o. 14 Thus, the sources should not be 49 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 7 Bloom, 1988:426. Eor a discussion oI Bloom`s reception oI Longinus, see Hart, 1993, passim. 8 The Iamous quotation Irom Genesis (Hoi ,on, 9.9) has provoked a number oI specula- tions. Eor a recent interpretation see West, 1995. 9 to acpi tu voqoci oopcaqoov (8.1) 10 to ooopov kui v0ouoiuotikov au0o ibid. 11 kutu to acov u00icvci ouotuoci ibid. There have been a number oI diIIerent trans- lations oI u00icvci ouotuoci: 'innate dispositions (Grube, 1957); 'natural (Russell, 1965); 'congenital constituents (EyIe, 1995); 'selI-bred constituents (Arieti & Crossett, 1985); 'native-born constituents (Prickard, 1926); 'innate components (Roberts, 1907); 'uoiku upioutu (Kopidakis, 1990); 'natrlicher Anlage (Brandt, 1966). 12 One should be careIul not to assume that 'Iigures here corresponds to the usual meaning oI the term in the rhetorical manuals: rather, q oqutev auoi, seems to mean later (ch. 1629) 'some abnormal arrangement oI words or expression oI thought (Russell, 1964:126). 13 What Longinus calls q cvvuiu puoi (8.1). 14 Eor instance, Longinus asserts that certain emotions, usually called the low emotions, e.g. oiktoi 0aui ooi ('pity, grieI, and Iear; EyIe, 1995:8.2), do not partake oI sublimity, while the high emotions do, e.g. ocpu ('terrible; EyIe, 1995:9.7) and ocivu ('awe-inspiring; EyIe, 1995:10.4). Eor an analysis oI Longinus` use oI high and low emotions and about that distinction in ancient literature in general, see Innes, 1995. According to 8.34 the sublime can be achieved without the involvement oI pathos, but notice that here Longinus is reIer- ring to the pathos oI the author (cI. Grube, 1957:11, It.1). Also, great thoughts are not suI- Iicient, as is made clear by Longinus` remarks on Euripides. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 49 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au taken as an essentialist deIinition oI the sublime, nor as a Iull description oI its characteristics. Second, due to the lack oI a Iormal deIinition, one should pay special attention to a host oI metaphors which are used throughout the treatise: Ior instance, 0o is oIten described as creating an inner upward movement. Stylistic elements in the treatise are not merely decorative, they are also argumentative. 15 Third, 0o in a work is always everywhere and Ior everyone. Longinus means that 0o as such is constant, not that the re- ception oI each individual part oI the work is constant. 16 And, Iourth, Longinus explicitly states the useIulness oI 0o Ior public liIe. 17 This does not merely introduce a political element; Iurthermore, it entails that 0o does away with the dichotomy theory practice: 0o has to be dis- cussed in terms oI its present historical realisation. 18 Having circumscribed the 'Iield oI action oI the Longinian 0o, we turn to Olson`s reading oI the treatise. Olson: In the Straitjacket Olson starts Irom the Object arguing that the sublime is Iound in the text: here it is instantiated, Irom here it is transmitted. Logos is the text, the 50 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 15 Eor instance, Longinus oIten represents his argument by using the Iorm that the content oI his language is discussing. Such selI-conscious language is deIinitely argumentative, and the conceptual content oI the treatise is more oIten than not presented in this manner. Longinus` tendency to 0qopci (write in sublime language) when he talks about the sublime has been oIten noted. Eor Iurther examples see Innes, 1994:4850. 16 The text is ambiguous on this point: iv ti kui tu0tov 0u acpi tv u0tv 0auoiv ookj (7.4) does not necessarily mean that 'diIIerent people have a uniIorm judgment regarding the whole oI the work. Indeed, such a suggestion would seem out oI place, since Longinus is talking here speciIically about sublimity and no other Ieatures; also, it is out oI place in the whole oI the treatise, which does not make any more allusions to it; Iurther, iI the measure oI merit is 0o itselI, one need not look elsewhere Ior a judgment oI the value oI the work as a whole, which is diIIerent Irom the judgments oI its individual parts e.g. Longinus makes judgments oI individual elements oI Euripides which are not sublime, but he would argue that Euripides`s work is sublime. So, it seems more natural to interpret the passage as saying that 'diIIerent people have the same judgment about one Ieature oI the work, namely its sublimitv. 17 1.2 an idea he returns to in the last chapter. 18 CI. Grassi, 1994:63. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 50 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au essence oI the sublime is its passive eIIect. According to this materialist line, 'conception and passion are independent oI words 19 moreover, they are independent oI each other: in Olson`s scheme, the Iirst source, conception, is attributable to the author, the second, passions, to the audience, and the last three (Iigures, diction, synthesis) to the text. Olson`s privileging oI the object is explicit: 'Certain things are by na- ture sublime. 20 Man is by nature equipped to perceive the sublime, and the great thought oI the genius is the conception which mirrors the sublime object and captures the passions oI the audience. The work oI art is the reI- erent oI the sublime object: it appeals to the senses oI the recipients, stir- ring their emotions and leading always to the same eIIect: ikotuoi. 21 Longinus has become Aristotelian: means and ends operate on the practical level, causes and eIIects on the theoretical. The sublime, as end or eIIect, is a universalised psychological state, an aIIect. Everything Longinus says about human nature is explained in terms oI psychology providing the cause oI the sublime, and the means are the work oI art itselI: 'hvpsos is to all literature what catharsis is to tragedy, is Theoharis` revealing sum- mary oI this approach. 22 What is so characteristic oI this approach is the stark distinction be- tween the author`s perception oI the sublime object and the work, the reI- erent oI that object. These are irreconcilably diIIerent in kind; yet, with re- gard to the eIIect or end oI the sublime the distinction collapses into a psychological state. To put it in another way, the language oI the text qua the sublime object Iunctions simultaneously and distinctly as the thought oI and the reIerence to that object; the language qua sublimity Iunctions as 51 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 19 Olson, 1952:246. 20 Olson, 1952:257, my emphasis. 21 Ecstasy Olson translates as 'transport. 22 Theoharis, 1978:59, It.16. Eor Olson, the diIIerence between Aristotle and Longinus is this: 'Whereas Aristotle discriminates among kinds oI works and uses this discrimination as a principle oI his treatment oI them |...| Longinus obliterates ultimately all such distinctions oI kinds and end and makes the Iocal point oI his inquiry a certain quality discriminated Irom among other qualities oI composition (1952:236). VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 51 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au the transmutation oI the object into pathos. In the deIinition oI logos as text, what is inadmissible is a Iunction oI language qua thought: language can- not 'think, thought is not selI-reIlexive, language is either a concept or a reIerence. 23 Logos becomes a sort oI second order Iunction oI the Object, while the pathos, as the eIIect oI logos, is Iurther demoted to a third order Iunction. This rationalist approach views Hoi ,on as a logical structure in which every element Iinds an interdependent placing. So much so, that Olson claims that the content oI the lacunae is deducible. To achieve such assurance, Olson had to limit logos to a reIerent. This rigid restriction, compared to the vibrant selI-reIlexivity oI Longinus` lan- guage, makes this approach look like a straitjacket which would disintegrate when one lets the text speak Ior itselI. Take, Ior instance, Longinus` handling oI Homer`s theomachy: 'Homer, in recording the woundings, quarrels, vengeances, tears, imprisonments, and maniIold passions oI the gods, has done his best to make in the Iliad the men gods and the gods men. 24 What makes this passage remarkable, is Longinus` own 0qopiu 25 in order to describe the sublime. Notice the quickening motion oI the asyndeton and the grand impression oI the plurals which are Iigures contributing to the sub- lime 26 and which lead up to the great thought expressed by the chiasmus. Longinus is playing by his own rules a Ieature which has been much ad- mired, Ior example by Alexander Pope who praised the bold Longinus, 'Whose own Example strengthens all his laws, / And is himselI that great 52 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 23 Implicitly criticising the reading oI the treatise by the Chicagoan Aristotelian, Paul H. Ery says: 'The quality that gets transmitted |hvpsos| can be understood either as language or as spirit but it cannot be divided into language and spirit, language and thought, or language and reIerence (1983:49). 24 9.7, my translation based on EyIe, 1995. 25 'sublime discourse cI. Iootnote 15. 26 CI. Longinus` discussion on the asyndeton in 19.2: 'The phrases being disconnected, and yet none the less rapid, give the idea oI an agitation which both checks the utterance and at the same time drives it on (EyIe, 1995); oI plurals in 23.2: 'the plurals sometimes make a grander impression (cuoppqovcotcpu), courting Iavour by the sense oI multitude given by the grammatical number (idem). VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 52 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Sublime he draws. 27 Unless this selI-reIerentiality is overlooked or denied, an analysis according to Olson`s precepts will lead to paradoxes. So, iI we accept that our passage is sublime, what is, then, the external object that gives the passage its sublimity? It cannot be Homer`s verses, because they are a text, and thus they must themselves be a reIerence to a sublime object. Let us suppose, then, that the object is the image oI the theomachy. Now, this solution makes Longinus` comments logically tautological: Ior it im- plies that anv proposition which has a sublime component is itselI sublime. Thus, Olson would have to concede that the opposite oI what Longinus says is also sublime: 'Homer |...| has not done his best to make in the Iliad the men gods |...|. But this is an absurd conclusion which we cannot possibly tolerate: it says, in eIIect, that the Longinian sublime is indiIIerent to con- ceptual content. Olson might deny that in the theomachy example there is a tautology in the sense that the cause oI the sublime is Homer`s text itselI which can be taken as an external sublime object. 28 This amounts to saying that the sub- lime object, when it is a quotation, need not be external aIter all. It is doubt- Iul that Olson could claim that without doing violence to his own description oI the logical distinctness oI the sources oI sublimity. Eor in this case the logos (quoted text) and the sublime object coincide. But even so, we are still Iaced with paradoxes. Because this states that in the case oI quotation the text (Olson`s third distinct source oI the sublime) is somehow more im- portant than the conception (Iirst source) oI the author quoting that text. In other words, Olson would have to admit here that the logos is superordinate to the idea that the author conveys. But, then, how would Olson explain Longinus` commenting in sublime manner on a text which is not sublime? Eor example, in 3.1 Longinus claims that striving too hard Ior sublimity can become a selI-parody (auputpuou). He gives an extract oI a tragedy 53 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 27 Pope, 1736:133. Gibbon asked in his Journal Ior 3 September 1762: 'Which is the more sub- lime, Homer`s Battle oI the Gods or Longinus` apostrophe to Terentianus upon it. 28 I.e., Olson might deny that what causes the sublimity oI Longinus` words is the image oI the theomachy contained in Homer`s text. In order to avoid the tautology, Olson might take in- stead the Homeric text itselI as the sublime object oI Longinus` sublimity. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 53 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au which mixes up sounds and images. Longinus comments: tc0oetui up tj puoci kui tc0opuqtui tui uvtuoiui (it darkens the sounds and deaI- ens the sights). By mixing up his own verbs and objects, and drawing at- tention to the phrase by the alliteration, Longinus` harmonious language pro- duces a sublime eIIect. Nevertheless, this should be Ior Olson a clear example oI a quoted logos which is subordinate to the conception oI the au- thor who does the quoting. In the example oI 3.1 what takes precedence is not the quoted author; rather, what takes precedence in order to identiIy the sublime object is Longinus` conception. To be consistent with his idea oI the distinctness oI the sources, Olson would now have to give a Iurther qual- iIication: in cases oI quotation, the quoted text is the sublime object onlv if that text is sublime itselI. Thus, the tautology which he tried to deny comes to haunt him again: Ior how can Olson know that a text is sublime unless he is able to identiIy its external sublime object? Besides the amusing logical paradoxes that the text itselI generates in this reading, what ultimately undermines Olson`s approach is its inability to ac- count Ior the interplay oI logos and pathos. Due to Olson`s insistence on the distinctness oI the sources oI sublimity, logos and pathos are assigned their spheres oI Iunction which are in no way allowed to interact. What operates here is a rationalist metaphysics which sees the logos determined by 'Objective reality and the pathos as the innate disposition to apprehend this process. The primacy oI the Object is nowhere more obvious than in Olson`s contention that the 'passions are not |...| open to voluntary ac- quisition. 29 Longinus is presented to us as drawing a sharp distinction be- tween the passive Subject and the true Object, the latter exempliIied in the passionlessness oI the gods. 30 The Iact that the distinctness oI logos and pathos leads, as we showed, to insurmountable paradoxes says nothing about Longinus` concepts but it does tell us that any attempt to Iit 0o into a rationalist metaphysics is Ialse. 54 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 29 Olson, 1952:258; see also pp. 23640 & 25557. 30 'The gods are passionless (Olson, 1952:257) but Olson must have overlooked the exam- ple oI the Homeric theomachy (Longinus, 9.7) which is explicitly based on the suIIering oI the gods. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 54 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Grassi: The Theatre of the Sublime Ernesto Grassi`s reading orientates logos in the completely opposite di- rection: 'The experience oI the sublime language is determining of place and time in realitv. 31 In this reading, Longinus is well-aware that it is im- possible to move Irom an individual Object to a substance. Hence, the sum- mons to the logos as the Word which has the ability, when it is sublime, to create the 'clearing where reality reveals itselI. In contrast to Olson, Grassi translates u00icvci as 'indigenous or abo- riginal in the sense that it has the capacity oI becoming maniIest that is, the logos is the source oI itselI. 32 Human nature, then, is not seen as anti- thetical to the divine, rather, it is striving towards and pertaining to the 0ciov. 33 And textual evidence supports Grassi`s reading: Ior instance, Longinus` text on the theomachy continues aIter the anthropomorphic chi- asmus (Homer made the men gods and the gods men) with a remarkable theomorphism: 0` qiv cv ouoouiovo0oiv 0aokcitui iqv kukv o 0uvuto, tv 0cv o` o0 tqv uoiv, 0u tqv 0tuiuv aoiqocv ueviov. 34 55 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 31 Grassi, 1994:67, italics in the text. The achievement oI Grassi`s work is his demonstration that, contra Heidegger, a host oI post-socratic writers are well aware oI the ontological diIIerence. 32 Grassi, 1994:66-67. 33 'Let us keep in mind the kind oI lexicon Longinus turns to when he speaks oI this sublime passion: enthousiastikon, enthousia:o, enthea:o are terms which point to the condition oI one who is inspired,` to the state oI one who is entheos, who has within himselI that which is sa- cred and integral. This sacredness, this divinity is deeply Ielt in the passionate experience oI the noetic project oI the word which discloses primordial knowledge (Grassi, 1994:6768). 34 (9.7). Notice how Longinus breaks the speed oI the preceding sentence, not only by including a proverb in iambic (iqv kukv o 0uvuto ), but also by condensing a thought in a word (ouoouiovo0oiv) with a double nuance. Notice also that the grammatical subjects oI the an- tithetical sentences are 0uvuto and Homer. CI. also 2.3 where Longinus says that is the natural giIt oI writing iI we put the two passages together, then we have the human on the one level, which is characterised as ouoouiovciv, c0tuciv and mortal, as opposed to the divine which is ouioviov, represented as 0tuciv by a sublime writer, and immortal. I am thinking here oI ouoouiovo0oiv as roughly synonymous to Mngelwesen (the lacking being) see Hans Blumenberg`s inIluential article 'An Anthropological Approach to the Contemporary SigniIicance oI Rhetoric (Blumenberg, 1987). VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 55 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au The common translation is 'to us and our sorrows the harbour oI our suI- Ierings is death, but he |Homer| not the nature but the misIortunes oI the gods made everlasting, 35 rendering the aIIective meaning oI ouoouiovo0oiv man`s sorrows. Yet, given (1) the driIt oI the whole chap- ter which points out the divinizing power oI the sublime; (2) the chiasmus oI the preceding sentence; (3) the description oI the divine nature as ouioviov in the immediately Iollowing sentence; and (4) the description oI the irresistible love oI the human soul Ior what is ouiovietcpov in 35.2 given these Iour points, the theomorphism oI the etymology oI ouoouiovo0oiv could not have been lost to the Greek reader. Thus, we read the text as: 'to us, whose nature is defectivelv divine, the harbour oI our suI- Ierings (defects) is death. This existential pronouncement associates 0o with death: elevation can only be achieved because we are human, or, to put it Iormally, death is a necessary condition oI sublimity. But, inherent in the assonance oI the ouoouiovo0oiv mortal and the immortal ouioviov is the natural upliIting oI man in contact with the sublime. It Iollows, then, that logos is not innate and does not admit oI a con- ception oI human nature as a Iixed structure emanating Irom Iirm objects; instead, since logos is 'aboriginal (Grassi), the word reveals that being, the primarily real is accessible through the word. This Iunction oI the word can- not be seen in abstraction, as a Iormal or logical relation, because then logos will become a synonym oI rationality which requires the primacy oI the ex- ternal object Ior its legitimisation. Here is the relevance oI Longinus` com- ment that the sublime is useIul Ior public liIe: logos is grounded by human doings, it is not just a matter oI theory, logos is also praxis. This Iunda- mental historicity oI logos is the sublime`s au0q. 36 The reception oI the 56 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 35 According to LSJ, this is the only instance oI the verb. The German word unselig, having both an emotive as well as a religious content, is well suited to translate ouoouiovo0oiv, e.g. 'Aber uns, die unseligen Menschen, erwartet als HaIen unserer Leiden der Tod (Brandt, 1966:45). All English translations I have cited in the bibliography render the emotive mean- ing oI ouoouiovo0oiv. 36 'passions see Grassi, 1994:69. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 56 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au experience oI the word is pathetic, that is, both the logos oI the author pre- supposes a passionate reception oI reality which is not ontic, and, also, the spectator cannot receive the logos oI the author without that same kind oI pathos. In this giving oI the logos and receiving oI the au0q the grammat- ical subject and object is reality. In other words, we cannot say that the logos belongs solely to the author and the au0q solely to the spectator because they are ontologically interdependent. As Grassi puts it, Passion discloses reality, it raises the curtain on a play oI which we are both the actors and the spectators. The power oI nature maniIests itselI through, and subsists in, sublime language, pointing to its own ways and arche- types, sources oI original images, places oI the true sacredness oI reality`. 37 The metaphorical description oI the play oI logos and pathos as a theatrical play is Iound in Hoi ,on. It appears Iirst at the discussion on mimesis and then at the digressive chapter 35. An analysis oI this image will depict all the crucial elements which constitute the existentialism and anti-materialism oI Longinus. There are three meanings in the word mimesis. Eirst, it is that oI enactment, which describes someone present who acts out a coded action, such as a dance or a play, which is viewed by spectators. 38 Second, is the meaning oI imitatio or emulation, a standard Ieature oI the rhetorical man- uals with didactic implications: one has to copy the greats in order to excel. In these two meanings human action and presence are crucial. Not so in the third, the metaphysically loaded notion oI mimesis as a representation oI re- ality here the paradigm oI Republic X springs immediately to mind. The Iirst two meanings are easily discernible in the theatre metaphor oI chapter 14. Emulation is described as a battle with the greats 39 which is 57 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 37 Grassi, 1994:70. 38 The very inIluential study about this aspect oI mimesis is Koller, 1954 which argues that the original meaning oI mimesis consists in presentation through dancing. 39 Longinus says that sublimity is impossible unless one is willing to comport himselI towards Homer 'like a young antagonist with one who had already won his spurs, perhaps in too keen emulation, longing as it were to break a lance (EyIe, 1995 the Greek reads: ' 0vtueviotq vco apo qoq tc0uuuocvov, Ioe cv iovikotcpov kui oiovci oiuoopuutiocvo, 13.4). VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 57 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au worthy because, even iI deIeated, to qtt6o0ui tv apocvvcotcpev o0k 0ooov. 40 Eor best mimetic practice, says Longinus Iurther, one has to imagine that he is in a theatre where the greats are present (aupev) as judges and spectators. 41 But the metaphysical import oI chapter 14 is not clear. Indeed, a neo-Platonic interpretation oI this passage is possible: all that is needed Ior that is to equate 0o with a Iorm or idea; Ior example, one can equate 0o with the kuov (good, beautiIul) in art, and then argue that Longinus makes the greats spectators to the creation oI copies oI Iorms or individual beings. All we have done is to substitute the deity in Timaeus ob- serving the original chaos oI the cosmos with the divine artist who observes the creation oI the art-work. 42 Here, then, 0o becomes transcendent, and a gaze oI it is but a shadow in a cave. But any suspicion oI neo-Platonism is dispersed in the second use oI the theatre metaphor. We learn here that we are not solely actors observed Irom beyond, but also spectators oI the metaphysical drama. 'Nature |...| brought us into this liIe and into the whole universe as into a great celebration, to be spectators oI her whole perIormance and the most ambitious actors. 43 Man is predisposed to participate in the play oI the receiving pathos and the giv- ing logos. The text continues: She |nature| implanted at once into our souls an invincible love Ior all that is great and more divine than ourselves. That is why the whole universe gives 58 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS 40 'where even to be worsted by our Iorerunners is not without glory (EyIe, 1995:13.4). 41 14.2. Longinus combines the meanings oI imitatio and presentation in a pun: in 13.2 he says that the genius oI the greats aIIects those who strive to emulate them 0ao icpv otoiev 0aoppoiui tivc. Here, otoiev can mean both the chasm Irom which the Pythia`s vapours Ilowed and, literally, the mouth, Irom which the prophetic words oI the greats Ilowed (cI. Kopidakis, 1990:232 thus, the passage can be translated either as having an eIIect 'sim- ilar to the divine vapours oI the Delphic oracle, or as having the same eIIect 'as the words uttered by |coming Irom the mouth oI| the priestess). ThereIore, I disagree with D.A. Russell who says about this same passage that 'this way oI looking at mimesis is original (1979:11); the pun merely encapsulates both the early meaning oI presentation and the later one oI imitatio. Eor a diIIerent interpretation oI the same passage see Walsh, 1988:266-67. 42 Timaeus 28b, 29a, 30a. 43 35.2, Grube, 1957. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 58 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au insuIIicient scope to man`s powers oI contemplation and reIlection, but his thoughts oIten pass beyond the boundaries oI the surrounding world. 44 This crossing over the boundaries is bound up with the sublime: 0o is the stepping over the perceived limits oI the world and the entering into the ex- istential theatre where the distinction between actor and spectator is dis- solved by the play oI logos and pathos. This is a heightening oI the soul, which is not taking us into an 'other, transcendent dimension, but attracts us to the Iundamental historicity oI our existence. It is relevant, practicable and timely, kuipio or c0kuipo, as Longinus calls it. 45 Last Words The last words oI summary are leIt to Grassi, whose reading we have been Iollowing: Language which expresses and communicates the sublime is not an individual creation but a natural occurrence, a reality we are made to experience with passion. |...| While traditional metaphysics, through the rational process, strives to identiIy nature with the multiplicity oI individual beings, Longinus` point oI departure is language as the maniIestation oI the power oI mystery, oI the abyss, and oI the sublime. Every dualism oI nature and spirit |...| thus ceases to exist. The mystery oI language is no longer made maniIest by the rational deIinition oI individual beings; it is revealed through its Iunction oI initiating man into history. And here man must be interpreted as the being capable oI the passionate experience oI lan- guage. 46 59 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS 44 35.23, idem. Notice that what Longinus says about human nature (going bevond the bound- aries oI the world) in order to justiIy the 'aboriginality oI 0o is reminiscent oI the et- ymology oI the translation oI 0o into Latin: sublimis (Irom sub aIter, beyond and limen lintel, limit). 45 E.g. 1.4, 10.1 and 22.4, 32.4. 46 Grassi, 1994:71. VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 59 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Bibliography Arieti & Crossett, 1985 James A. Arieti and John M. Crossett, Longinus, On the Sublime. Texts and Studies in Religion Vol. 21, New York: E. Mellen Press. Bloom, 1988 Harold Bloom, Poetics of Influence. New and Selected Criticism, ed. and intr. John Hollander. New Haven: Henry R. Schwab. Blumenberg, 1987 Hans Blumenberg, 'An Anthropological Approach to the Contemporary SigniIicance oI Rhetoric. In After Philosophv, ed. Kenneth Baynes:42958, Cambridge Mass.: MIT. Brandt, 1966 Reinhard Brandt, Pseudo-Longinos Jom Erhabenen. Darmstadt: Wissen- schaItliche BuchgesellschaIt. Costa, 1981 Gustavo Costa, 'Longinus`s Treatise On the Sublime in the Age oI Arcadia, Nouvelles de la Rpublique des Lettres 1:6586. Crossett & Arieti, 1975 John M. Crossett and James A. Arieti , The Dating of Longinus. Pennsylvania: Department oI Classics The Pennsylvania State University, Studia Classica III. Ery, 1983 Paul H. Ery, The Reach of Criticism. Method and Perception in Literarv Theorv. New Haven: Yale UP. EyIe, 1995 W.H. EyIe, rev. trans. D.A. Russell, Longinus On the Sublime. In Aristotle Poetics, Longinus On the Sublime, Demetrius On Stvle. Loeb Classical Library vol. 199. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard UP. Gibbon, 1929 Edward Gibbon, Gibbons Journal to Januarv 28th, 1763, Mv fournal I, II, & III, Ephemerides, ed. D.M. Low. London: Chatto & Windus. Grassi, 1994 Ernesto Grassi, The Primordial Metaphor. Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies vol. 121. 60 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 60 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Grube, 1957 G.M.A. Grube, Longinus On Great Writing. Indianapolis: The Library oI Liberal Arts Press. Hart, 1993 Kevin Hart, ' The Rapid, Impatient Labour oI the Negative`: Reading Harold Bloom, Scripsi 9:185203. Heath, 1998 Malcolm Heath, 'Caecilius, Longinus, and Photius, Greek, Roman and Bv:antine Studies 39:27192. Heath, 1999 Malcolm Heath, 'Longinus, On sublimity, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Societv 45:4374. Innes, 1994 Doreen C. Innes, 'Period and Colon: Theory and Example in Demetrius and Longinus. In Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, ed. W.W. Eortenbaugh and D.C. Mirhady:3653. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 6. Innes, 1995 Doreen C. Innes, 'Longinus, Sublimity, and the Low Emotions. In Ethics and Rhetoric, ed. D. Innes, H. Hine and C. Pelling:32333. OxIord: Clarendon Press. Kapernaros, 1997 Tuoo Kuacpvupo, 'A0cpiov ico , inOopn/ooi. Athens: Kedros. Koller, 1954 Hermann Koller, Die Mimesis in der Antike. Bern: Eroncke. Kopidakis, 1990 M.Z. Koaioukq, Aiovnoion Aoyyivon Hcpi 0ou. Hpukcio: Bikcuiu. Korais, 1988 Aouuvtio Kopuq, 'Hcpi lcpokcou kui tv ci u0tov 0otciev, `Eaiotoq, |1812|, Hooyonvo o:o Po,oion Epv onyyooi, vol.2. Athens: Mopetiko 1opuu E0vikq Tpuacq. Macksey, 1993 Richard Macksey, 'Longinus Reconsidered, Modern Language Notes 108:91334. Mothersill,1997 Mary Mothersill, 'Sublime. In A Companion to Aesthetics, ed. David Cooper:40712. OxIord: Blackwell. 61 THE PLAY OE LOGOS AND PATHOS: LONGINUS` PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 61 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au Olson, 1952 Elder Olson, 'The Argument oI Longinus` On the Sublime` . In Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern, ed. R.S. Crane:23259. Chicago: University oI Chicago Press. Plato, 1914 Plato, Timaeus, trans. R.G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library vol. 234. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard UP. Pope, 1736 Alexander Pope, 'An Essay on Criticism. In Works, vol. I. London. Prickard, 1926 A.O. Prickard, Longinus on the Sublime. OxIord: Clarendon Press. Roberts, 1907 W. Rhys Roberts, Longinus On the Sublime. Cambridge: CUP. Russell, 1964 D.A. Russell, 'Longinus` On the Sublime. OxIord: Clarendon Press. Russell, 1965 D.A. Russell, 'Longinus` On Sublimitv. OxIord: Clarendon Press. Russell, 1979 D.A. Russell, 'De Imitatione. In Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, ed. D. West and T. Woodman:116. Cambridge: CUP. Theoharis, 1978 Zoe Geo Theoharis, The Concepts of noesis and pathos in Ancient and Modern Criticism. Longinus and T.S. Eliot on the Dissociation of Sensibilitv. PhD Dissertation, Comparative Literature Program, Indiana University. Walsh, 1988 George B. Walsh, 'Sublime Method: Longinus on Language and Imitation, Classical Antiquitv 7:25269. West, 1995 Martin West, 'Longinus` and the Grandeur oI God. In Ethics and Rhetoric, ed. D. Innes, H. Hine and C. Pelling:33542. OxIord: Clarendon Press. 62 DIMITRIOS VARDOULAKIS VARDOULAKIS.qxd 15/1/2001 2:36 Page 62 Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au
Minke W. Hazewindus - When Women Interfere - Studies in The Role of Women in Herodotus' Histories (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 12) - Brill Academic Pub (2004)