Longinus's On the Sublime

Longinus's "On the Sublime" discusses the conditions where the sublime can occur. For Longinus, it lies in literature because literature incites critical emotions in the reader. Through literature, the sublime is accessible to everyone.

Longinus assumes, first, that everyone is aware of, and believes in, the sublime. He also believes that everyone recognizes genius. He also believes in human nature; that the essence of the sublime can be found in human nature. This would require a belief in essences or essentials, which he also assumes that his audience shares. It seems likely that Longinus also assumes that his audience shares the belief in a one-to-one correlation with art; in other words, that there is a universal, and direct, experience between looking at an artwork and a sensory response. Perhaps this might mean that there are little to no contingent factors that go in to aesthetic judgment, or even interpolations that permit people to be open to having these experiences. Because literature is didactic, he assumes that literature itself is pure.

However, Longinus seems to want to change the fact that the sublime is merely transient or a brief escape from reality. He believes that literature itself can provide the model for purity; that everyone can find in literature how to act or behave. He says, “persuasion, as a rule, is within everyone’s grasp” which suggests that he is making the sublime an experience anyone can have.

I am wondering about Longinus’s definition of “ecstasy.” He writes: “The sublime leads the listeners not to persuasion, but to ecstasy: for what is wonderful goes always together with a sense of dismay…”. What, then, is ecstasy (and its relationship to “dismay”?) Further, how does ecstasy jibe with his idea that the sublime is more than a mere transitory, out-of-body experience?

Related to this question, I think, is how Longinus’s conception of the sublime relates to the body itself. If it is found in literature (created by Genius), then it must – at least in some degree – exist outside the body. However, it can be accessed by everyone through literature, so we have again an external force that acts outside of the body. Then, I wonder, how does Longinus conceive the relationship between the body’s ability to receive the sublime, and the external forces acting upon the body?

For me, what stands out in this piece is its focus on literature and the sublime. Others discuss art, poetry, etc – but Longinus discusses literature almost exclusively. I’m also interested in his conceptions of Genius, and how genius is conferred. Unlike Horace, who values hard work and dedication, Longinus seems to place a large focus on innate abilities – both of the author and of the work itself. So, then, where does Genius lie? Is it in the relationship between work and author? Or between author and reader? Who confers this status? I’m also interested in the distinction Longinus makes between persuasion and ecstasy, given that persuasion has been linked in classical Greek rhetoric to deception, ecstasy, and all sorts of “bad” things. That is, what is the difference between these two, and why is persuasion entirely separate from a subliminal experience?

I’d also like to briefly mention Longinus’s style, which, like Horace, I found quite good and even pleasing to read.