Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric, Or How Rhetoric Came Into Its Own Author(S): Ned O'gorman Reviewed Work(S): Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol

Rhetoric Society of America

Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric, or How Rhetoric Came into Its Own Author(s): Ned O'Gorman Reviewed work(s): Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 71-89 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40232412 . Accessed: 07/02/2013 17:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Rhetoric Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Society Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NED O'GORMAN

Longinus'sSublime Rhetoric, or How RhetoricGame into Its Own

ABSTRACT:This essay arguesthat Peri Hypsous (On Height or On the Sublime, traditionallyattributed to "Longinus")marks an important momentin the historyof rhetoric,as rhetoricis presentedtherein as an autonomous,sublime object. Throughnotions of hypsos (height) and physis (nature),and an amalgamationof Ciceronian/lsocrateanarid Gorgianicnotions of rhetoric, "Longinus" frees rhetoric from the project oflegitimation. He makesit a marvelthat needs no justification- rhetoric "comes into its own.*'Even as I accountfor the emergenceof this conceptionof rhetoricin Peri Hypsous, I questionits helpfulnessfor rhetoricalstudies.

"sublime"is a categoricalrefuge of a numberof recent projects, most notablythose of Jean-Francois Lyotard, in workssuch as ThePostmodern Conditionand Thelnhumany and Frederick Jameson inPostmodernism.1 These thinkersfind in the sublimea meansof displacingEnlightenment judgment evenas theyfind the sublime in Enlightenmenttexts. For example,Lyotard, whosenotion of the sublimeis drawnin his readingsof Kant,is concerned withartistic works that, "are not in principlegoverned by preestablished rules,and theycannot be judgedaccording to a determiningjudgment, by applyingfamiliar categories to thetext or to thework" (Postmodern Condition 81). This "postmodernsublime" refuses essential or teleologicaljustification. Kant'sown interest in thesublime was relatedto thework of the French critic NicholasBoileau-Despr&iux, who was a criticalcatalyst behind the upsurge of interestin the sublimein the eighteenthcentury. Boileau translatedand interpretedin 1674 an ancientmanuscript on stylein poeticsand rhetoricby a so-called"Longinus" entitled Peri Hypsous - literallytranslated On Height, but morecommonly On the Sublime,Peri Hypsousis the most important ancienttext with respect to the sublime.Inspired by thisancient treatise, Boileauwrote, "The sublime is notstrictly speaking something which is proven or demonstrated,but a marvel,which seizes one,strikes one, and makesone feel"(qtd. in Lyotard,The Inhuman97). Peri Hypsousoffered Boileau and his successorsanother route in the Enlightenmentproject of autonomyby offeringthe conceptof the self-justifiedartistic object, the sublimeobject.

RhetoricSociety Quarterly 7 1 Spring2004 | Volume34 | Number2

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FromLonginus to Boileau to Kantto Lyotardwe can tracea concernwith freeingart and artisticobjects from established criteria of judgment derived fromexternal sources or discourses.The artof rhetoric finds a place hereas well.I offerin thisessay a readingof Peri Hypsous, the locus classicus ofthe sublime,which reveals rhetoric as achievingtherein the status of the sublime object,even as I end byquestioning this achievement. Thetext of Peri Hypsous - forthe sake of continuity with critical discourses and forconvenience, I will refer to the author as Longinus2- has been,off and on, a partof the histories of rhetoric dealing with rhetoric under the Roman Empire.3Peri Hypsous,when it achieves mention,is typicallytreated by historiansof rhetoric as a "manualof style" discussed in commonwith those attributedto Dionysus,Demetrius, and others;its stress on grandioserhetoric and itslament for the "decline" of rhetoric are noted(these are commontopics ofthe style manuals of the Roman period); its provenance and influencesare debated.4Yet Peri Hypsous has notreceived substantial treatment by scholars ofrhetoric - no analysesin booksthat move significantly beyond a summary of its arguments,no articlesdevoted wholly to it. Its minimaltreatment, relativelyspeaking, indicates that the treatise has notbeen considered a major one in thehistory, or histories,of rhetoric. Againstthis grain, I argue that Peri Hypsous marks an important developmentin theevolution of rhetoric in Westernculture, not primarily for itsrelationship to thesublime, but for its positioning of rhetoric itself. The text representsa criticaldevelopment in whatMichael Gahn calls "therhetoric of rhetoric,"the wayin whichrhetorical strategies are employedto constitute, justify,and preservethe disciplineor traditionof rhetoricitself.5 From the sophiststhrough Aristotle and into Quintilian, the art of rhetoric, as Gahnshows, was subordinatedto certainessences (e.g. techne/art) or ends (e.g. persuasion) in orderto establishand maintainits statusand anchorits judgments. Even Gorgias,who in Helen grantslogos divine-likepower, seems to subordinate logosto theend (and essence?)of human desire and domination(represented by Parisin Helen),I arguethrough a close readingof the Peri Hypsous that it marksa pointwithin the trajectoryof the rhetoricof rhetoricwhere the art ofrhetoric is presentedas possessingits own end and essence,freeing it from subordinationand, likeKant's and Lyotard'snotions of the sublime, external judgment.This rhetoric of rhetoric in Peri Hypsous makes it a significanttext in rhetoric'shistory (or histories),especially presently, when the issue of rhetoric'slegitimation is propellingnew organizational and rhetoricalprojects withinthe academy in NorthAmerica. My reading of Peri Hypsous shows how rhetoricis thereinmade thesublime object, "not," to repeatBoileau's words, "somethingwhich is provenor demonstrated,but a marvel."I devotethe first sectionof my essay to thetreatise's general conception of rhetoric,and then lookmore specifically at threeof its key concepts: rhetorical height (hypsos), nature(physis), and desire.

72 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Longinus's Ecstatic Rhetoric Peri Hypsousis recognizedas a critical,literary, and oratoricaltext. Its primarytopic is stylistic"height," and as such it moveseasily between poeticaland rhetoricaldiscussions, and most of the textoperates without any significantdistinction between the two. There are moments,however, whereLonginus seems to want to keeprhetoric (rhitoriki6) within the domain of the practicaland concrete.For example,"But thoughin factthe images foundin thepoets have a wayof going beyond what is mythicand ofentirely transcendingwhat is credible,in rhetoricthe images are alwaysbest that are practicaland correspondto the truth"(15.8). This prescriptionplaces the practiceof rhetoricwithin the realmof fact-finding and the criterionof the credible.It seems as thoughLonginus, in thissense, places rhetoricunder thestandard of the pragmatic. At the heart of Longinus's text, however, is the criticismof artistic performance, and hererhetoric is conjoinedto poeticsto forma singlepiece. For example, the passage above is followedby a description ofthe rhetorical use ofthe image that is, byLonginus's account, truly worthy ofadmiration and appreciation.Rhetoric shines for Longinus when audiences are "draggedaway from demonstrative arguments and are astoundedby the image,by thedazzle of which the practical argument is hidden"(15.11). Both thepoet and therhetor excel in artisticperformance when they transcend the ordinarymodes of their respective discourses to createextraordinary effects. Poetryand rhetoricare identicalin theirextraordinary manifestations, and as extraordinarystyle is Longinus'smain concern, the domain of poetry and rhetoricoverlap significantly in the text.7 Rhetoricas the Aristotelianart-of-the-available-means-of-persuasion (see Aristotle'sRhetoric), as the broad Isocrateanphilosophico-literary art forearthy political life (see Isocrates'sAgainst the Sophists and Antidosis), or as the Ciceronianartis forthe res publica (see Of Oratory),are not the Longinianconceptions of rhetoric. Longinus's treatise might as wellhave been entitledBeyond Persuasion, for its statedsubject is not the availablemeans ofpersuasion or thewell-being of the public per se, butthe road (methodos) to ecstasy(ekstasis) via "height"or hypsos(1.4).8 Longinusindicates that thesubject of stylistic hypsos had a followingin theHellenized paideia ofthe RomanEmpire, the educational world of his time.In fact,Peri Hypsous was probablynot the title of Longinus's handbook (technologias) first, but thatof his declaredopponent, Gecilius, and probablythe treatisesof others before.9 Certainlythere was a discourseabout hypsos and itsgenus, style, from which Longinus'stext emerged and Peri Hypsouspronounces a distinctconcern aboutthe status of hypsos in itstime and proffers to showthe reader the way to hypsos.Longinus states that he wouldhave his readerinterrogate the subject oi hypsosby asking anew what is hypsosand howmight it be realized(1.1). In bothcriticism and practice,Longinus relates, vices (kakias) have entangled

O'GonnanI Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric 73

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions theteachings about hypsos, especially as theyhave over-stressed novelty and technicalities.Longinus sets out to narratean escape (ekpheugein)or a way out of such vices (5.1). He offersPostumius Terentianus, his addresseeand "fellowpupil," a technologias,"first, to showwhat underlies the subject;. . . second... to showhow and bywhat orderly ways (methoddn) hypsos10 may be attainedby us" (l.l).11 He arguesin his treatisethat natural greatness of thoughtand a powerfulpathetic faculty underlie the subject, whereas figures, diction,and wordchoice constitute the orderly way (8.1). Longinus'sdouble focus, on thespeaker and the speech, puts Peri Hypsous in an interestingposition with respect to rhetoricaltraditions. Longinus makes use of both the Isocratean/Ciceronianand the Gorgianictraditions. With respectto the former,the speakerholds a criticalplace in the art rhetoric as Peri Hypsousis focusedon performance.Hypsos, as D. A. Russellnotes, connotesan ethicalquality, a typeof public virtue.Historically speaking hypsos"is appliedto moralcharacter and social statusbefore it is appliedto logoT (Russellxxxi). This is evidentin PeriHypsous, especially as Longinus wouldhave his addresseefind in hypsos a meansby which his nature (physis) can rise,achieving new heightsin thepitch (akrotes) of its elevation (exoke) (1.1-3).On thissummit the ancients achieved fame: "and from no othersource than this (hypsos) have the greatestpoets and prose-writersexcelled and thrownaround their glorious reputations the mantleof the ages" (1.3). This discussionof speakerand statusoperates within an Isocratean/Ciceronian rhetoricaltradition, what MichaelLeff calls the "humanist"tradition, one thatties eloquenceto virtueto publicactivity. Longinus's invocation of the notionof ekstasis, however, exposes his treatiseas somethingmore than an articulationof the humanist tradition. JeffreyWalker, in fact,argues that Longinus's hypsos represents a return to "a basicallyGorgianic theory of stylistic suasion" (Walker 119). Longinus's invocationof ekstasis gives credenceto this evaluation.The elevationof the speakerin Peri Hypsous is in ekstasis, "displacement"(LSJ), a term commonlyused in ancientGreek to describemental states beyond reason (logos). Josephus,in hisJudean Antiquities, describes madness as logismon ekstasin- the displacementof reason (17.246). Similarly,Plutarch's Solon feignsmadness, eskepsato men ekstasin ton logismon- "he pretendedto be out of his head" (Lives, Solon,8.1). The NewTestament uses ekstasis to describethat wonder, awe, or astonishmentthat comes to thosewho witness thesupernatural works of the Lord (Mark 5:42,16:8; Luke 5:5; Acts3:9, 10:10, 11:4, 22:17). In the RlietoricAristotle condescendingly puts ekstasis among the "barbaric"modes of honor."The componentsof honorare sacrifices, memorialsin verseand prose,privileges, grants of land,front seats, public burial,state maintenances, and amongthe barbarians, prostration and giving place (ekstaseis),and giftswhich are highlyprized in each country"(1361a).

74 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The ecstaticexperience of rhetoricrecalls the Gorgianicoration, rhetoricas-drugin the Helen, and Socrates'ironic self-description of his euphoric experienceof the funeral oration in Menexenus (234a). However,Peri Hypsous cannotbe summedup as a merereturn to a Gorgianictheory of suasion,as Walkerwould have it. Byadding the ecstatic to thehumanist configuration of eloquence,virtue, and publiclife, Longinus produces a distinctconception of rhetoric. The resultof Peri Hypsous's amalgamation of Isocratean/Ciceronian and the Gorgianictraditions, I suggest,is thatLonginus moves rhetoric beyond the traditionsof characterand persuasion,traditions which directlyor indirectlybind rhetoric to externalcriteria for judgment, and bringsrhetoric to autonomy.This happensthrough a sortof elevation. Hypsos and ekstasis constitutethe centerpiecesof Longinus'svocabulary of the elevationof rhetoric.George Kennedy stresses that Peri Hypsousemploys a traditional rhetoricalconceptual vocabulary, and he is correctHowever, he overlooks theway in whichLonginus invents a newvocabulary (Classical Rhetoric113). ThroughoutPeri Hypsousa vigorousspatial schema is collectedaround the treatise'skey termshypsos and ekstasis,such thatrhetoric is conceivedin verticalterms. "The abilityto be persuadedlies in us," Longinuswrites, "but whatis wonderfulhas a capabilityand forcewhich, unable to be fought,take a positionhigh over every member of the audience" (1.4). Longinusalso writes, "Yousee, bytrue sublimity our soul is somehowboth lifted up and- takingon a kindof exultant resemblance- filled with delight and greatglory" (7.2). He is so freewith his verticalvocabulary that it becomestautological: "sublimity (hypsos)lies in whathas been made lofty(diarmati)" (12.1). In Longinus, rhetoricrises above the audience,above the human,and above a coherent criticalvocabulary. Moreover, I argue that rhetoric is elevatedin Peri Hypsous beyondthe burdenof its own legitimation.Longinus constructs the road to rhetoricper se. Perhapsfor the first time in rhetoric'shistory, rhetoric - that means to riches,justice, fame, or freedomor thatessence ofcharacter and civiclife - becomesan end in and ofitself. Rhetoric per se becomesan object ofdesire. By "rhetoricper se" I mean the treatmentof "rhetoric"as if it werea supremeThing that possessed its own internaleconomy and justification. Aristotlecalls such "objects"teloi, or ends: "whatexists for itself is an 'end' (and the 'end' is thatfor the sake of whichother things exist)" (Rhetoric 1363b). Longinusdoes not explicitlyrely upon a teleologicalschema; neverthelesshe ties humanexistence itself to the realizationof rhetorical heights.He transfiguresrhetoric into that Thing that is realizedin fullonly in ecstasy.Aristotle, on the contrary,does not call rhetorica telos.Instead, he speaksof the teloiof rhetoric,the particularends of its variousmodes. Isocrates,though he esteemsthe artof words above any otherart, does not

O'GornianI Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric 75

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions characterizerhetoric as thatwhich exists for itself. It exists,rather, for the sake ofthe wellbeingof the political community. Not even Gorgias, the most ecstaticof the Greekrhetoricians, seems to imaginelogos as its ownend, as he continuallyplaces it within the nexus of social power. Longinus approaches rhetoricotherwise. As a treatiseabout hypsos, the workconcerns itself with whatmay be todaycalled "transcendence" (Longinus's hyperairos). Longinus provesrhetoric's inherent value by tyingit to thenatural in a muchmore ambitiousway than those before him. Additionally, and paradoxically, rhetoric inPeri Hypsous proves its inherent worth as itis lost,remembered, and longed for.In Longinus'speroration rhetoric per se becomesan objectof desire. These threemarkers - height(hypsos), nature (physis), and desire- structurethe path of the remainderof this essay. The followingaccount tracesLonginus's transfiguration ofrhetoric into a self-justifiedobject. I first interpretthe meaning of hypsos and itsplacement at thecenter of a treatise on rhetoric.I thenproceed to discussLonginus's notions of techni and physis thatunderlie his theory of hypsos. In thethird section, I readthe final section ofPeri Hypsous as themoment in a historyof rhetoric where rhetoric per se, rhetoricas thesublime object, is made the objectof desire as it is placedin memory.

LonginianHeight Longinus'shypsos exploits two senses of the word to formfor rhetoric an autonomy,a ruleand justificationentirely its own.Hypsos, as Russellnotes, was used in Homericliterature to indicatea qualityof character,and by extensiona qualityof speech (xxx-xxxi). Longinus, as I willshow, draws upon thisdenotation of hypsos when he describesit as theethereal echo ofa great soul (9.1). However,hypsos was also a termcommonly used in Greektexts to characterizea spatialdimension, or metrics,which I have alreadysuggested above when discussingLonginus's vertical vocabulary; it is, forexample, a keyword in Euclid'sgeometric schema. In historieslike those of Thucydides, hypsosis usuallyemployed when describing walls, mountains, or othertall structures.Josephus frequently enumerates the heights(hypsoi) of the temples.There are, then, ethereal and materialsides to hypsos that Longinus fusesto refigurethe art of rhetoric. The metricalsense of hypsos operates in PeriHypsous with connotations of materialitywhen Longinus discusses rhetorical products through analogy withplastic arts (forexample, bodies [3.4, 10.1, 11.2, 32.5, 40.1), natural scenes [35.4), paintings[17.2-3], images [15.1], and sculptures[36.3]) and especiallythrough analogy with natural phenomena. Longinus's rhetorical art imitatesmaterial phenomena. Aristotelian mimesis is groundedin an imitation ofsights, scenes, and practicesthat are seen outsideof art (see Poetics1449b, 1455a). Similarly,Longinus's regular use of naturalphenomena and plastic

76 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions artsto describe his rhetoricaltechni ofmimesis (22.1) makes externalobjects the focus of imitation.However, whereas Aristotlestresses the imitation of human action in the Poetics, Longinus's invocation of material objects as subjects ofmimisis is aimed at the superhuman.Art imitates plastic arts and naturein extremis. Thus, when Longinus aims to show that there is a techni ("art" or "technique") forachieving hypsos, and its counterpartbathos (depth,see 2.1), he offersas objects of imitationimages of the earth splittingopen (9.6, 35.4) or the heightsof the heavenly bodies (35.4). In this ambition fora metrical hypsos that imitates objects in extremis,Longinus casts offa concern with precision and representation.Hypsos turns attention to magnitude rather than precision. This point is made most vigorouslyin Longinus's defense of the superiorityof the imprecise and tainted Colossus over the perfectly precise "Spear-bearer": "[I]n reply to the one who wrote that the Colossus, withits mistakes,is not betterthan the "Spear-bearer"by Polycleitus,it may be said (in addition to many other things)that thoughwhat is wondered at in technique (techni) is the greatestprecision (akribestaton), in the workings of nature it is greatness (piegethos)" (36.3). As D. Thomas Benediktson writes,"Longinus here transcends Aristotelianmimesis .... [T]he goal of literatureis not accuracy but grandeur,the formerbeing the product of art, the latterthe productof nature" (143). Thus metricsis a way forLonginus to re-envisionthe art of speech. If rhetoricis a techni that aspires to precision, its perfectionand justificationis circumscribedby the criterionof accuracy. - For Longinus, logos- speech and writing has other, superior virtues and powers. As Benediktson writes of Longinus's comparisons between logos and the plastic arts, "the analogy of the arts is used to show that literatureis greaterthan visual art; its medium is less limitingand gives more opportunity fortrue accomplishment"(143). It is evident how Longinus'shypsos pushes the rhetoricaltechni beyond accuracy, and even beyond the human, as he pushes the analogybetween speech and statues: "[W)hile in statues likeness to a human being is sought,in speeches and writings,as I said, what transcends (hyperairon12)the human is sought" (36.3). Longinus presents two types of meaning here: what mightbe called representationalmeaning, which strives for precision, and what might be called ecstatic meaning, which strives for transcendence. Longinus's rhetoric,conceived of as a techni of height and depth, is not delimited by representation;it can achieve an ecstatic, transcendentmeaning as precisiongives way to magnitude,as techni as an art of precisiongives way to a /ogos-inspiredtechni of hyper-metrics. This ecstatic rhetoricalfeat depends also upon the Homeric meaning of hypsos, a quality of great character. Hypsos, Longinus announces, "is the resonance of greatness of mind." "As a result," he continues, "sometimes a bare thought,by itself,without a voice, is wonderfulbecause of its nobility

O'GornianI Longinus'sSublime Rhetoric 77

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ofmind, as thesilence of Ajax in theNekuia is greatand moresublime than any speech" (9.2). It is here,in hypsoticsilence, that the breechbetween thetechni of precision and Longinus'shyper-metrics is most apparent. How does one account for,even speak of, the precisionof silence? Instead,a vocabularyof resonance is needed,and hypsos is thecrux of that vocabulary. Homerichypsos had to do withcharacter and social status;it described,in Russell'sphrase, "godlike or kinglikequalities" (On theSublime xxxi). Even more,it describedthe effect of the presence of such company- thefeeling of beingbefore a greatheight. Heights and depths,natural or rhetorical,have a transfixatorypower for Longinus.The storyof the Pythianpriestess is indicativeof this sort of power. [T]here,where thereis a riftin the earth,she breathesin a divineexaltation from the ground;standing on the same place, impregnatedby the daemonicpower, she at once begins to prophesythroughout the period of inspiration. In the same way, fromthe natural greatness of the ancients, as ifout of holy orifices, kindsof effluencesare carriedinto the souls of thoseemulating them.(13.2) Longinus'shypsos fuses the metricand materialwith the transcendentand ethereal.It is a sortof holy ground marked by chasms or heightsthat breathe, transfix,and inspire.The originarysources for hypsos are neitherstrictly artisticnor strictlyinartistic: powers of thought and feeling,figures, diction, rhythm,and arrangementHowever, these finallydepend upon the edifice (edaphous) of the power(dunameis) of logos (8.1). Logos exaltsitself in its exhalationsas it surpassesrepresentation and strictmimesis. This powerfrees logos fromthe constraintsof technttas that human artof precision,even as logos exploitstechni in the creationof heights and depths.Longinus thus transfigures antecedent versions of techne and hypsos. In Homer,for example, the gods are able to exploittechni for their own crafty purposesand thosegods and humanswho possesshypsos do so as a mark of theirown nobility.Techni and hypsossignify their agency and power. However,Longinus's hypsos is finallyfixated on manifestingthe transcendent power of logos and the techni of heightand depth. Great speakerslike Demosthenesmay achieve for themselves the "mantel of the ages,nbut their fameis secondary,as it is derivedfrom the fusion of their souls with the power and profundityof the art of words.The greatrhetor is a sign of the great powerof the art and no more.That the rhetorical art can imitateobjects in theirextremes lifts it to a statusgreater than its particularpractitioners, its particularaudiences, its pragmatic ends, and, I willargue, nature itself. It is to Longinus's"nature" that I nowturn.

78 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LonginianNature There have been few as hungryfor heightsas Plato. Diotima, the philosopherof eros in theSymposium, describes the erotic,ecstatic ascent fromboy-loving to the love of Beautyunspoilt and unchangedin terms Longinuswould appreciate. Whena manhas been thusfar tutored in thelore of love, passing fromview to view of beautifulthings, in the rightand regular ascent,suddenly he willhave revealedto him,as he drawsto the close of his dealingsin love,a wondrousvision, beautiful in its nature.. . . Existingever in singularityof formindependent by itself,while all the multitudeof beautifulthings partake of it in suchwise that, though all ofthem are comingto be and perishing, itgrows neither greater nor less, and is affectedby nothing. (210e, 211b) However,whereas Plato finds that blissful singularity of formin a realityfar fromthe shifting,shadowy realm of nature{physis), for Longinus, as James Arietiand JohnGrossett put it, "the aestheticsof this world,of nature,is its own metaphysicalultimate" (xvi). The relationshipbetween nature and hypsosin Longinusis nothierarchical. Rather, the relationship is reciprocal: hypsoshas its sourceand inspirationin nature,and natureits fulfillmentin hypsos.The realmLonginus calls physis reaches its heights in volatility: in the strikeof a thunderbolt(34.4), in the knotof blood-pulsing veins that we call theheart (32.5), in theexcesses of eros (35.2), in thecraters of Aetna (35.4), in theNile and theDanube and theRhine (34.5). In Longinus,techni not only imitatesnature, but does much more; the relationshipbetween techni and physis is much more complexthan imitation.Humans are drivenby physis to wonderat therhetorical techni as, or exceeding,physis via hypsos,even as the rhetoricaltechni in its fullness is hiddenin physisby physisfsown design.There remain in Longinustwo distinctdomains, techni and physis.However, they are in deep collusion withone another,as techninot onlyimitates physis but also distortsit to achieveits effects,effects granted by physis.One of Longinus'swell-known contemporaryinterpreters, Paul Fry, claims that nature is the basis of Longinus'shypson techni; however, the ways in whichphysis is the"ground" oftechni are forLonginus obscure, and thelimits of both physis and techni are not altogetherclear (52-53). Consistentwith older Greekconceptions of techni,Longinus's techni "marks a domainof human interventionand invention"(Atwill 7, emphasisadded). The problempresented by Longinus's textfor a strictcorrelation between techni and thehuman, however, is that Longinus'streatise presents techni not just as a meansto thesuperhuman, but thesuperhuman as thefullness of techni. The fullness(see p. 119) oi techniis "beyondnature" (see 43.2) and beyondthe "human" (36.1).

O'GormanI Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric 79

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Longinus'saccount of ecstatic rhetorical effect is groundedin physis.His relativelylengthy discussion of the image (phantasia), for example, depends on the orderof physis forits account of the ecstaticeffect of the image (phantasia).Writing of Hype rides, Longinus states, You see, the public speaker(rhetdr) here has simultaneously triedhis hand at a practicalargument (pragmatikds) and made an image (pephantastai);therefore he has exceeded the limit of persuasivenessin the point being taken up. But somehow by nature(physei) in all such thingswe hear whatis stronger; as a resultwe are draggedaway fromdemonstrative arguments (apodeiktikou)and are astoundedby the image,by the dazzle ofwhich the practicalargument is hidden.And it is not unlikely thatwe shouldfeel this: you see, whentwo thingsare arranged together,the strongerover and overagain draws off to itselfthe capacityof the weaker. (15.10-11) The orderof physis makes the imagestronger than demonstrative argument. In Longinus,rhetorical effect is "natural."Thus Longinus'sconception of art imitatingnature is quite severe- rhetoricaltechni reproduces nature. Even when thistechne violates the commonorder of nature,as withhyperbata where"things which are by natureunified and indivisible"are rupturedand brokenup, it reproducesthe phenomena of physisJs self-rupturing seen in the crateror the thunderbolt.For Longinus,the affectiveresponses of human spectatorsto physis and techni can be explainedin exactlythe same language. Rhetoricaltechne does notonly aspire to imitatenature; it is entirely"natural" in itspower and effects. Yet, physis would have techni exceed the natural."Demosthenes," Longinuswrites, draws on "excellenceswhich start from what is greatin natureand end up on theheight." Demosthenes "outthunders, as it were,and outshinespublic speakers of all ages: one mightactually be morecapable of openinghis eyestoward a thunderboltbearing in on himthan to set his eyes on the emotionsof thisman as theycome one on top of another"(34.4). Demosthenes,of all theorators, goes "beyondnature" (physin methestakos) in hypsosyemotion, and rhetoricalproof (16.2). Rhetoricis thusultimately realizedas exceedingnature and theordinary limits of the human. Longinus's referencesto the superhumando not, however,describe a transformation fromthe human to thedivine; they are, rather, ways of talking about humans exceedingthe limitsof what is normallycalled "human"(35.2, 36.1-2). Rhetoricis therealization of the god-like in thehuman, not the annihilation of thehuman in deification. The fullestrealization of rhetoric in an oratorlike Demosthenes presents a problemfor a writerof a technicaltreatise on rhetoric.Is rhetoric,as the ancientsposed, a formof incantationor magic? Or does it amountto a

80 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions sophisticatedform of technical manipulation? Is therea "method"to thegod- like? Whatdoes one make of the "technological"nature of rhetoricin Peri Hypsous?Longinus seems to be wrestlingwith a paradox.To embracerhetoric- as-techniis to riskit beingcast intothe lower realm of the instrumental arts, whererhetoric is a methodby which to swayan audience,whereas to disavow rhetoric-as-tec/inealtogether is to stuntthe realizationsof its most profound potentialities.Further, rhetorioas-techne raises questionsabout judgment. Technaiare judgedaccording to the qualityof theirform and function.As longas rhetoricalways remains subject to judgment,it cannotexceed the "human."It mustalways be a subjectof debate and criticism.How, then, is rhetoric-as-technekept from the humiliations of instrumentality (a demotion in theteleological scheme) and judgment (a demotionin thesocio-epistemic scheme,in "essence")? Longinus'sanswer to thisparadox is twofold.First, Longinus recognizes the instrumentalfunctions of rhetoric,and can treatit as an object of judgment.This, however,is the secondaryconception of rhetoricin the treatise.The primaryconception, and thisis the cruxof his solutionto the paradox,is a rhetorichidden in physisas it becomesnatural. There is in Peri Hypsousa revisionof the doctrineof obscurantismfound in Horace, Demetrius,and Dionysus,where art hides its artfulness(see Weithoff).This standardnotion of obscurantismis in Longinus.For example,on figureshe writes,"it is thegeneral opinion that a figureis mostexcellent when the fact thatit is a figurethoroughly escapes our notice"(17.1). However,this falls underthe secondary,instrumental conception of rhetoric,where rhetoric is an art of persuasion.Longinus gives obscurantism another turn when he describesphysis as itselfpossessing and obscuringthe techni. "[I]n themost excellentprose-writers mimesis approaches the workingsof nature.Then is technique(techni) fulfilled, when it is thegeneral opinion that it is natureat work;and . . . naturecomes out luckily whenever she has in hera technique thatescapes notice91 (22.1, emphasis added). Longinus's obscurantism is about thereception of rhetorical techni as natural.In hiscoupling of art and nature, hischaracterization of the collusion between techni and physis, the dignity of physismore than techni is saved.Rather than aid technidirectly, Longinus's obscurantismupholds physis. For the collusionbetween techni and physis could invitea Platonic-likeresponse (though not strictlyspeaking Platonic), wherephysis and techniare togetherrelegated to the shadowy, unreliable, and suspect.In otherwords, in attemptingto raiserhetorical techni to thelevel of physis,Longinus risks bringing physis down if techni is derogatorilyviewed as merelyhuman. Longinus would instead have physis"get lucky" through technitaking on itsappearance. Techni and physis cohabitate in Longinusso as to obscureeach other,for techni is at itsheight when it appearsas physis, or as evenas exceedingphysis, and physis is at itsbest when techni takes on

O'GoniumI Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric 8 1

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions itsappearance. However, it is technethat finally comes out on topin itsability to preservephysis's exalted status even as it can exceedphysis. Ifphysis can come out on top,and techneeven more so, theconditions are wroughtfor rhetoric per se to emerge,and it does quite vigorouslyin chapter35 ofPeri Hypsous. I willquote at length. Now what did those authors(who achievedhypsos)y equals of the gods,understand as theydesired what is greatestin writing (sungraphes)and feltthemselves to be above precisionin all details?It was,in additionto manyother things, this: that nature (physis)did not decide that man would be a lowor ignobleanimal; butleading us intolife and intothe whole cosmos (kosmori) as if intoa kindof panegyricto be, in a way,its observersand to be loversof the esteem (philotimotatous) which comes to thosewho compete(agdnistas), immediately she implantsinto our souls (psychais)an erotic(erdta) passion which cannot be fought.. . . Forjust thisreason not even the entire cosmos taken together can cope withthe thrust of human theorizing and perceptiveness,but man'sintentness on perceivingoften everywhere goes outbeyond the limitsof whatholds him in. ... [T]houghwhat is usefulor even necessaryhas forhumanity an easy passage,still, what is contraryto opinion(paradoxori) is overand overagain wonderful (thaumastcm).(35.2-3, 5) Rhetoric,that techni of opinion (doxa) and judgment(krisis), emerges from chapter35 as "contraryto opinion"(paradoxori) or, as Longinussays earlier, "the objectof wonder(to thaumazomend). . . whichdoes not lend itselfto debate"(7.4). Rhetoric,which Aristotle conceived of as an instrumentalart, eruptsup to an acme whereneither utility nor necessitymatter any more. Rhetoric,realized fullyin hypsos,is the object of desire that cannot be resisted.Hence, Longinus gives us a new Diotimianfantasy, where rhetorical hypsos,not the disembodied form of beauty, is metin ecstasy.

On Desiring Rhetoricper se It is one thingfor rhetorical heights to become the personalobject of desirefor the orator or wordsmith,and anotherfor it to be cast as theobject of social desire.If Terentianus had been underthe impression that his teacher's treatisewas meantto helphim find fame and reputationthrough excellence in logoiywhen he reachedthe final chapter, he quicklylearned that his teacher's ambitionswere much greater, or, perhaps, much smaller. Rhetoric, he learned, had been lost.It was wellas a persuasiveand politicalart. However, rhetorical hypsoshad been lost,which for Longinus meant that rhetoric in itsfullest and finestform had evaporatedinto the air of memory.13Terentianus may have been disappointed.

82 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions On the otherhand, he may have finallyunderstood his teacher'sobsession withhypsos. Peri HypsousyI have argued, turns rhetoricin on itself,makes rhetoricitself an object and an end. For rhetoricper se to become the object of desire, it would seem requisite that it be lost Desire requires a lack. The desire of Peri Hypsous is unaccounted for until its final chapter; hence for the firstforty-three chapters there is a certain pettiness about the treatise's insistences,and a certain arbitrarinessabout its judgments. The value and significanceof hypsos is itselfunresolved in these chapters. In chapter 44 the lack is announced through the "philosopher," an interlocutorsuddenly thrown into the treatise.He says, Wonderholds me, as no doubt many others,how it is thatthough in our age there are natures which are highly persuasive and political,insightful and apt, and more fertilein producingpleasing touches in speeches and writings,yet thereno longercome to be- except ratherrarely - men who are hypsos and transcendentally great So universal is the infertilitywhich has hold over our life. (44.1) The object of wonder is now a lack, a lack of "natures" that are hypsos. This philosopher has clearly been thinkingalongside Longinus on this point. Nature is in crisis rightthere with the rhetoricaltechne. A wonder, indeed. The philosopher,however, departs fromLonginus in his diagnosis. He makes a political diagnosis that blames the lack on the erosion of political freedom. The diagnosisis consistentwith his organicmetaphor of "infertility."The lack, afterall, is not ultimatelythe lack ofrhetoric per se, but ofconditions in which rhetoricand rhetoric's"natures" can thrive.14 Longinus'sdiagnosis, over againstthat of the philosopher,is more directly about desire. He, too, findshimself in a state ofwonderment. The love of material things (of which we are all now insatiably - sick) and the love of pleasure drive us into slavery rather (as one mightsay), theyplunge us- men, lives,and all- down into an abyss Indeed, I am not able to discoverby reasoninghow those of us who over-esteemlimitless wealth and (to say it more truly) make it into a divinitycan avoid admittinginto our souls the vices thatnaturally follow it (44.6-7) Longinus,familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures,15accuses his age of being one of idolatry.The societal soul has grownconsumed with a desire formaterial wealth; esteem, even religious devotion, has turned toward wealth as a "limitless"object of desire. Whereas the "philosopher"is directlyconcerned withpolitical conditions, Longinus is concerned with the directionof social desire. Despite the agon constructedby Longinus,his diagnosisis in factnot that differentfrom the philosopher's own. Both interlocutorsare making social

O'GornianI Longinus'sSublime Rhetoric 83

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions critiques.Both place rhetoricalhypsos at thecenter of the rhetoricaltechne. Bothjudge the state of rhetoric according to thecomings and goings of hypsos. Andboth describe themselves as beingin an ecstaticwonder over rhetoric's lack- theyfeel out ofplace, or, in theirhistorical moment, they cannot find theirplace withrhetoric. And so rhetoricper se becomesthe object of theirsocial desiresand thesubject of their philosophizing and teaching.They articulate a rhetorical objectthat transcends their particular place and moment,an object,in fact, whichtranscends all particularplaces and moments.They monumentalize rhetoricas hypsos,height, that Colossal object of wonderment of bygone days. The monumentbecomes not just the object of theirlongings, but also the sourceof theirsevere social critique,a critiquefrom a lack realizedthrough a memoryspun upon the pieces of theirparchment. This is a significant momentfor rhetoric. Rhetoric was placedin memoryand transformedthere fromthe Gorgianicpower for success, or theAristotelian afternoon techni of availablemeans of persuasion, or theIsocratean logon techni of the polis, or theCiceronian artis of the res publica,to a Thinglonged for in itself,itself the telos.Rhetoric, it couldbe said,came intoits own.

Epilogue Thus,Longinus made rhetoricitself into a sublimeobject, a marvel.In the historiesof rhetoricwe writeand edit,the significanceof thisrhetoric of rhetoricstill needs to be explored.I have here triedsimply to add a new strainto the histories,putting alongside the often-toldstory of rhetoric's institutionalizationunder the RomanEmpire a shortstory of its exaltation intoexcess and freedomfrom the project of its legitimation. In responseto the demandfor rhetoric to justifyits own existence,Quintilian institutionalized rhetoric,and thuspreserved it. Longinusmonumentalized it, and lostit. Rhetorichas been longengaged in the projectof its own legitimation. My hunchis thatthis project is oftenfelt to be a burden.Rhetoricians are now as much as ever faced withexplaining to institutionalpowers what rhetoricis, whatit means,and how it mightbe used productively.In this, some contemporaryrhetorical scholars have vigorouslystood againstthe Quintilian-likereduction of rhetoricto a schoolart, to "mererhetoric." We have insteadmade argumentsfor big rhetoric,for architectonic rhetoric, forthe universalityof rhetoric,for the greatidea of rhetoric.However, the shunningof "mererhetoric" might lead us to a new sortof rhetoricper se, throughan argumentativeprogression like this: Rhetoricis everywhere. Whatis everywhereneeds no legitimation. Therefore:Rhetoric needs no legitimation.16

84 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Now I do not know of any rhetoricalscholars that are makingthis argument, nor do I know of any that desire to. There is, however,within the expansion of rhetoric (with respect to general popularity,areas of inquiry, and the "discovery"that all symbolic use is rhetorical)the potential that rhetoric's imagined or real omnipresence mightbe interpretedas freeingit from the obligationof the rhetoricof rhetoric.That rhetoricalstudies could ever be so freedseems impossiblegiven its institutionaland culturalcontext. However, I believe even the wishfor freedom from the burden of legitimation is a dangerous wish. Rhetoricper se has consequences thatare more severe forrhetoric than umere rhetoric."Peri Hypsous suggeststhat a theoreticalproject that would freerhetoric from the burden oflegitimation, that would bringrhetoric into its own, has its own burdens: will rhetoricin such projects become a thingof the past (or the future)perpetually out of reach? How is a rhetoricbrought into its own kept frombeing lost, memorialized,and monumentalized?Will rhetoric always be seen througha lack? If rhetoricis to presentlybe a theoretical, practical, and productive art, it must deliberatelyand continuallybear the burden of its justificationand remain vulnerableto the shiftsand alterations thatforces external to it exert upon it. Otherwise,brought into its own, made the sublime object, it will be placed just out of reach.

Departmentof Communication Arts & Sciences ThePennsylvania State University

I would like to thank Stephen Browne,Rosa Eberly,and David Tell for theirsubstantive contributions to the developmentof this essay.

Notes 1. A number of rhetoricalscholars have also made use of the sublime in works of criticism,albeit in very differentways. See forexamples of various approaches Gunn and Beard, McDaniel, and Oravec. 2. In the eighteenth-centuryPeri Hypsous was attributedto the third-century C.E. Gassius Longinus,but studies of its provenance have since cast serious doubt on any claims about its authorship.Likewise, the date of Peri Hypsous is unknown.That the date ofthe textfalls between the firstand thirdcenturies is suggestedby the tenth-centurymanuscript Parisinus 2036, the source of all other extant manuscripts.The manuscripthas Dionusiou Longinou as its title,but uDionusiou and Longinou" in a table of contents. Russell states that the formername refersto the first-centuryDionysius of Halicarnassus, but the latterto the third-centuryGassii Longini (xx). Most commentatorshave favoreda first-centurydate, as the treatise is writtenagainst Gaecilius, an Augustanwriter on style. For a more extended discussion of the provenance

O'Gorman I Longinus's Sublime Rhetoric 85

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ofPeri Hypsoussee Russell'sintroduction to his edited"Longinus" on the Sublimeand Kennedy'sArt of Rhetoric in theRoman World 369-372. 3. Thoughanthologized in textslike The Rhetorical Tradition, Peri Hypsous is nevertreated as a majortext in rhetoricalhistories and, consequently, in the tellingof the history of rhetoric. Kennedy's description of the text as "themost sensitivepiece ofliterary criticism surviving from antiquity" is consistentwith itsgeneral treatment by twentieth-century scholars as an earlywork in literary criticism(Art of Rhetoric in theRoman World 369). As such,while a workin literarycriticism like Paul Fry'sThe Reach ofCriticism contains an extended discussionof Longinus,a rhetoricalhistory even like thatof M. L. Clarke's Rhetoricat Rome,which focuses solely on theepoch in whichOn theSublime wascomposed, bypasses completely the work. Kennedy rightly begins to repair thetreatise's status in rhetoricalhistory by noting its concern with oratory and publiclife, however, his 641-pagehistory of Romanrhetoric devotes a mere eightpages to Peri Hypsous (Art of Rhetoric in theRoman World 369-377). 4. See KennedyArt of Rhetoric in theRoman World, W. RhysRoberts Greek Rhetoricand LiteraryCriticism, H. J. RoseA Handbookof Greek Literature, and BrianVickers In Defenseof Rhetoric. 5. Gahn means by "discipline"a subject which achieves a degree of institutionalization,professionalization, and theorizationsufficient to grant it culturalauthority (61-62). This use of "discipline,"however, is subjectto debate.Maurice Gharland argues that presently rhetoric is nota discipline,as it has no clearlyidentifiable code ofscholarly conduct, no set ofrules for what constitutesauthentic rhetorical inquiry and whatdoes not.Gharland, instead, prefers"tradition" over "discipline" when talking about rhetoric's social and institutionalstatus. 6. In this essay Greek termsplaced in parenthesesdenote Longinus's terminology. 7. ForAristotle too one area wherepoetics and rhetoricsignificantly overlap is in theart of style (lexis), such that Book 3 ofthe Rhetoric and thediscussion of stylein the Poetics are presentedby Aristotleas havinga supplemental relationship. 8. In general,I willnot translate hypsos in thisessay; however, both "height" and "sublime"suggests important dimensions of the meaningof the word, whichI willhighlight in thisessay. To renderhypsos as "sublime"consistently, though,would bringunwanted modern and postmoderndenotations and connotationsthat have come to circulatedaround the concept 9. Longinus'sdescription of his treatiseas a technologiasputs the work withinthe nominal history of the techne logon or technographia,the "artof speech"handbook, which thrived in fifth-and fourth-centuryGreece and was carriedwell into Roman rhetoric.

86 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10. For the reasons explained in note #2, 1 have here and elsewhere untranslatedthe translation"the sublime," putting"hypsos" or its variations where the translatorhas put "sublime" or its variations.On the translation, see the next note. 11. I use here and elsewhere the translationof Peri Hypsous made by James A. Arieti and John M. Grossett (1985). The translation,though perhaps too "contemporary"in some of its language, has two virtuesover other English translations.It attempts to closely approximate Longinus's syntax, and it uses consistentvocabulary, e.g. hypsos and its morphologicalvariations are consistentlytranslated as "sublime" or as one of its variations. 12. Among the translationsof hyperairon in LSJ are "liftor raise up over," "overshoot,"and "go beyond." 13. George Kennedy discusses the "decline of rhetoric" as a motif among Augustan critics in his A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Kennedy finds this pessimism in Philo of Alexandria, the elder Seneca, Velleius Paterculus, Quintilian, Tacitus, and Longinus, who each have their own explanations for the decline (see Kennedy New History 186-192). However, Walker has persuasivelyargued that the "decline" motifof the Augustanperiod does not mean that rhetoricalpractice itselfhad evaporated. Rather,certain political and pedagogical types of rhetorical practice had eroded, while new and/or revivedforms replaced them (see Walker94-109). 14. Walker's argument regarding the "decline" of rhetoric explains the "philosopher's"lament well. Longinus interpretsthe "philosopher"as blaming the decline of rhetoricon "the peace of the world,"the post-Roman-Republic pax. The finaldays of the Roman Republic, the days of Cicero, were highly agonistic and extremelydangerous, as we know from Cicero's fate. The "philosopher" seems to believe that those days of agon and danger were responsiblefor the heightsof rhetoric(see Walker94-109). 15. Longinusrefers to the book of Genesis in 9.9 of his treatise. 16. This syllogism deliberately echoes Edward Schiappas in Second Thoughtson the Critiqueof Big Rhetoric,"where he summarizesthe "rhetoric is everywhere"argument as progressingas such: All persuasiveactions are rhetorical. All symbol/language-useis persuasive. Therefore:All symbol/language-use is rhetorical. Schiappa concludes that the "rhetoric is everywhere"argument does not force us to conclude "rhetoricis nowhere." I concur with this and most of Schiappa's defense of "Big Rhetoric." My conclusions only advise against seeing the "rhetoricis everywhere"argument as freeingrhetorical scholars fromthe ongoingand difficultobligation to justifythe disciplineor traditionof rhetoricalscholarship.

O'Goraian I Longinus'sSublime Rhetoric 87

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions WorksCited Aristotle.On Rhetoric.Trans. George Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press,1991. . Poetics.Trans. W. H. Fyfe.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Atwill,Janet M. Rhetoric Reclaimed: Aristotle and theLiberal Arts Tradition. Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1998. Bizzell,Patricia and Bruce Herzberg,eds. The RhetoricalTradition. 2nd ed. NewYork: Bedford/St. Martin's Press, 2001. Cahn, Michael."The Rhetoricof Rhetoric:Six Tropesof DisciplinarySelf- Constitution."The Recovery of Rhetoric. Eds. R. H. Robertsand J.M. M. Good.Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1993. 61-84. Charland,Maurice. aThe Constitutionof Rhetoric'sTradition." Philosophy and Rhetoric36.2 (2003): 119-34. Clarke,M. L. Rhetoricat Rome:A HistoricalSurvey. New York:Routledge, 1996. Covino,William A. and DavidA. Jolliffe,eds. Rhetoric:Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries.Boston: Allyn and Bacon,1995. Fry,Paul H. The Reach of Criticism:Method and Perceptionin Literary Theory.New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress, 1983. Gorgias.Helen. The RhetoricalTradition. 2nd ed. Eds. PatriciaBizzell and BruceHerzberg. New York: St. Martins,2001. 44-46. Gunn,Joshua and David E. Beard."On the ApocalypticSublime." Southern SpeechCommunication Journal 65.4 (2000): 269-86. Josephus.Jewish Antiquities. Ed. E. H. Warmington.9 vols. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1988. Kennedy,George Alexander.The Art of Rhetoricin the Roman World. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972. . A New Historyof Classical RJietoric.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress, 1994. Leff,Michael. "Tradition and Agency in HumanisticRhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric36.2 (2003): 135-47. Liddell,Henry George, Robert Scott, and HenryStuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Longinus.On the Sublime. Trans,and eds. JamesA. Arietiand JohnM. CrossettNew York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985. . 'Longinus9on the Sublime. Greek text. Ed. D. A. Russell. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1964. McDaniel,James P. "Fantasm:The Triumphof Form (an Essay on the DemocraticSublime)." Quarterly Journal of Speech 86.1 (2000): 48- 66.

88 RhetoricSociety Quarterly

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Oravec, Christine. "The Evolutionary Sublime and the Essay of Natural History."Communication Monographs 49 (1982): 215-28. Plato. Menexenus. Trans. R. G. Bury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. . Symposium. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 2001. Plutarch. Lives of the Noble Greeks. Ed. Edmund Fuller. New York: Dell, 1959. Poulakos, John and Takis Poulakos. Classical Rhetorical Theory.New York: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1999. Roberts,W. Rhys. Greek Rhetoricand LiteraryCriticism. New York: Cooper Square Publishers,1963. Rose, H. J. A Handbook of Greek Literature. New York: E. P. Duttori& Co., 1965. Russell, D. A. "Introduction.""Longinns" on the Sublime. Greek text. Ed. D. A. Russell. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1964. ix-xlx. Schiappa, Edward. "Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric." Philosophyand Rhetoric34.3 (2001): 260-274. Vickers,Brian. In Defense ofRhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Walker, Jeffrey.Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2000. Wiethoff,William E. "Obscurantismin Ancient HellenisticRhetoric." Central StatesSpeech Journal 30 (1979): 211-19.

O'Gonuan I Longinus'sSublime Rhetoric 89

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:33:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions