On the Sublime Part 10

[Footnote 2: The notion of _yellowness_, as a.s.sociated with gra.s.s, is made intelligible by a pa.s.sage in Longus, i. 17. 19. ?????te???

t? p??s?p?? ?? p?a? _?e?????_]

3. 6.

The words ? ??? ... t?????e? are omitted in the translation, being corrupt, and giving no satisfactory sense. Ruhnken corrects, ?????ste?, f???e?, p??e?ta?, ? p. ?. t.

18.

sp???????s? ?a??? ??aa???????s? Probably of sea-sickness; and so I find Ruhnken took it, quoting Plutarch, _T._ ii. 831: ????t?? t??

?t????, ?a? ?????t?? t? sp?????a ?????e??. An objection on the score of _taste_ would be out of place in criticising the laureate of the Arimaspi.

X. 7. 2.

t?? ?????? ???st??d?? ???a???a?te? ???st??d?? ???a???a?te? appears to be a condensed phrase for ???st??d?? ?????a?te? ?a? ???a???a?te?. "Having chosen the most striking circ.u.mstances _par excellence_, and having relieved them of all superfluity," would perhaps give the literal meaning. Longinus seems conscious of some strangeness in his language, making a quasi-apology in ?? ?? e?p?? t??.

3.

Partly with the help of Toup, we may emend this corrupt pa.s.sage as follows: ??a??eta? ??? ta?ta t? ????, ?sa?e? ???ata ? ??a??ata, t?

?p?????ta ??e??? t? p??? ?????a s??se? s??tete???s??a. t? ???? here = "omnino." To explain the process of corruption, ta would easily drop out after the final -ta in ??a??ata; s??????????e?a is simply a corruption of s??????d???e?a, which is itself a gloss on s??tete???s??a, having afterwards crept into the text; ??e??? became corrupted into e???? through the error of some copyist, who wished to make it agree with ?p?????ta. The whole maybe translated: "Such [interpolations], like so many patches or rents, mar altogether the effect of those details which, by being built up in an uninterrupted series [t? p??? ?????a s?. s??tet.], produce sublimity in a work."

XII. 4. 2.

a?t?; the sense seems clearly to require ?? a?t?.

XIV. 3. 16.

? ... ?pe??e??? Most of the editors insert ?? before f????a?t?, thus ruining the sense of this fine pa.s.sage. Longinus has just said that a writer should always work with an eye to posterity. If (he adds) he thinks of nothing but the taste and judgment of his contemporaries, he will have no chance of "leaving something so written that the world will not willingly let it die." A book, then, which is t?? ?d??? ??? ?a?

?????? ?pe??e???, is a book which is in advance of its own times. Such were the poems of Lucretius, of Milton, of Wordsworth.[3]

[Footnote 3: Compare the "Geflugelte Worte" in the Vorspiel to Goethe's _Faust_: Was glanzt, ist fur den Augenblick geboren, Das Aechte bleibt der Nachwelt unverloren.]

XV. 5. 23.

p???e?de?? ?a? ?a???t???, lit. "like raw, undressed wool."

XVII. 1. 25.

I construct the infinit. with ?p?pt??, though the ordinary interpretation joins t? d?? s???t?? pa?????e??: "proprium est _verborum lenociniis_ suspicionem movere" (Weiske).

2. 8.

pa?a??f?e?sa. This word has given much trouble; but is it not simply a continuation of the metaphor implied in ?p??????a? pa?a?a??e?? t??a, in the sense of calling in an ally, is a common enough use. This would be clearer if we could read pa?a??f?e?s?. I have omitted t?? pa?????e??

in translating, as it seems to me to have evidently crept in from above (p. 33, l. 25). ? t?? pa?????e?? t????, "the art of playing the villain," is surely, in Longinus's own words, de???? ?a? ??f????, "a startling novelty" of language.

12.

t? f?t? a?t?. The words may remind us of Sh.e.l.ley's "Like a poet _hidden in the light of thought_."

XVIII. 1. 24.

The distinction between pe?s?? or p?sa and ???t?s?? or ???t?a is said to be that ???t?s?? is a simple question, which can be answered yes or no; pe?s?? a fuller inquiry, requiring a fuller answer. _Aquila Roma.n.u.s in libro de figuris sententiarum et elocutionis_, -- 12 (Weiske).

x.x.xI. 1. 11.

??a???fa??sa?, properly of the fixed diet of athletes, which seems to have been excessive in quant.i.ty, and sometimes nauseous in quality. I do not know what will be thought of my rendering here; it is certainly not elegant, but it was necessary to provide some sort of equivalent to the Greek. "Swallow," which the other translators give, is quite inadequate.

We require a threefold combination--(1) To swallow (2) something nasty (3) for the sake of prospective advantage.

x.x.xII. 1. 3.

The text is in great confusion here. Following a hint in Vahlin's critical note, I have transposed the words thus: ? ?a???? d? t?? ??e?a?

????? ???a t? p??? ?e?????? d???? ??a??eta?, ?a? t?? p???p???e?a? a?t??

?? ??a??a?a? ??ta??a s??ef???eta?? ? ??? ?., ???? ?a? t?? t????t??, ?????p??, f?s??, ?.t.?.

8. 16.

Some words have probably been lost here. The sense of p???, and the absence of ant.i.thesis to ??t?? ??, point in this direction. The original reading may have been something of this sort: p??? ??t?? ??

?p? f????????a? _pa???et?_? ???? ??d? t? ??ata t???s?? ???????e?a, the sense being that, though we may allow something to the partiality of Caecilius, yet this does not excuse him from arguing on premises which are unsound.

x.x.xIV. 4. 10.

? d? ???e? ????, ?.t.?. Probably the darkest place in the whole treatise. Toup cites a remarkable pa.s.sage from Dionysius of Halicarna.s.sus, from which we may perhaps conclude that Longinus is referring here to Thucydides, the traditional master of Demosthenes. _De Thucyd._ -- 53, ??t???? d? ???s?e??? ???? T????d?d?? ????t?? ????et?

?at? p????, ?a? p??s????e t??? p???t????? ??????, pa?? ??e???? ?a??, ??

??te ??t?f??, ??te ??s?a?, ??te ?s????t??, ?? p??te?sa?te? t?? t?te ??t????, ?s??? ??et??, t? t??? ????, ?a? t?? s?st??f??, ?a? t??? t?????, ?a? t? st??f???, ?a? t?? ??e?e????sa? t? p??? de???t?ta. So close a parallel can hardly be accidental.

x.x.xV. 4. 5.

Longinus probably had his eye on the splendid lines in Pindar's _First Pythian_:

t?? [??t?a?] ??e????ta? ?? ?p??t?? p???? ????tata?

?? ???? pa?a?, p?ta?? d?

???a?s?? ?? p??????t? ???? ?ap???-- a?????? ???? ?? ??f?a?s?? p?t?a?

f????ssa ?????d???a f??? ?? a?e?- a? f??e? p??t?? p???a s?? pat??? ????tata? a?t?? ????,

which I find has also been pointed out by Toup, who remarks that ????tata? confirms the reading a?t?? ???? here, which has been suspected without reason.

x.x.xVIII. 2. 7.

Comp. Plato, _Phaedrus_, 267, A: ??s?a? d? G????a? te ??s?e? e?de??, ?? p?? t?? ?????? t? e???ta e?d?? ?? t??t?a ?????, t? te a? s????

??a?a ?a? t? ??a?a s???? p????s? fa??es?a? d?? ???? ?????, ?a??? te ???a??? t? t? ??a?t?a ?a????, s??t??a? te ????? ?a? ?pe??a ??? pe??

p??t?? ??e????.

APPENDIX

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LESS KNOWN WRITERS MENTIONED IN THE TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME

AMMONIUS.--Alexandrian grammarian, carried on the school of Aristarchus previously to the reign of Augustus. The allusion here is to a work on the pa.s.sages in which Plato has imitated Homer. (Suidas, _s.v._; Schol.

on Hom. Il. ix. 540, quoted by Jahn.)

AMPHIKRATES.--Author of a book _On Famous Men_, referred to by Athenaeus, xiii. 576, G, and Diog. Laert. ii. 101. C. Muller, _Hist. Gr.

Fragm._ iv. p. 300, considers him to be the Athenian rhetorician who, according to Plutarch (_Lucullus_, c. 22), retired to Seleucia, and closed his life at the Court of Kleopatra, daughter of Mithridates and wife of Tigranes (Pauly, _Real-Encyclopadie der cla.s.sischen Alterthumswissenschaft_). Plutarch tells a story ill.u.s.trative of his arrogance. Being asked by the Seleucians to open a school of rhetoric, he replied, "A dish is not large enough for a dolphin" (?? ??d? ?e????

de?f??a ??????), v. _Luculli_, c. 22, quoted by Pearce.