Abstract
This essay treats the relationship of Longinus’ Peri Hypsous to the history and criticism of sublime theory. Canonical narratives of the sublime suppress Longinus, reading Burke’s Enquiry as developing a theory of the sublime that is wholly new, without precedent. This essay puts Burke’s Enquiry into relationship with Longinus’ treatise in a manner that does not take for granted either Burke’s originality or Longinus’ obsolescence. By analyzing the theories of Burke and Longinus at a remove from the operative hierarchies and oppositions that have determined their relative value and meaning over nearly 300 years, this essay uncovers some of the complex ways that reception has ensured these very hierarchies and oppositions. Rather than the progressive model on which the canon of the sublime has for so long been staked, this model of intellectual entanglement is more attentive to the overlapping publication histories of Burke and Longinus on the sublime. The Peri Hypsous emerges as a treatise crucial to Romanticism as well as our present moment with regard to the theory of concepts as fundamental as originality, nature, art, and modernity itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, M. H. (1953). The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. London: Oxford University Press.
Baillie, J. (1747) An essay on the sublime. In A. Ashfield & P. de Bola (Eds.), The sublime: A reader in British eighteenth-century aesthetic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Reprint 1998.
Baucom, I. (2005). Specters of the Atlantic: Finance, capital, slavery, and the philosophy of history. Durham: Duke University Press.
Boulton, J. T. (Eds.) (1958). Editor’s introduction. In A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Burke, E. (1958). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful. In J. T. Boulton (Ed.) Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Ferguson, F. (1992). Solitude and the sublime: Romanticism and the aesthetics of individuation. New York: Routledge.
Guerlac, S. (1985). Longinus and the subject of the sublime. New Literary History, 16.2(Winter 1985), 275–289.
Hertz, N. (1985). The end of the line: Essays on psychoanalysis and the sublime. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kirwan, J. (2005). Sublimity: The non-rational and the irrational in the history of aesthetics. New York: Routledge.
Kneale, J. D. (1999). Romantic aversions: Aftermaths of classicism in Wordsworth and Coleridge. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Lamb, J. (1997). The sublime. In H. B. Nisbet & C. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge history of literary criticism (Vol. 4). The eighteenth century. London: Cambridge University Press.
Longinus. (1999). “On the sublime.” Ed. and Trans. W. H. Fyfe. Revised by Donald Russell. The Loeb Classical Library: Aristotle XXIII: 145–307. Rev. 1999.
Raysor, T. M. (ed.). (1936). Coleridge’s miscellaneous criticism. Cambridge.
(1899). Rev. of Longinus on the sublime. By W. Rhys Roberts. Cambridge (Engl.): University Press; New York: Macmillan, 1899. The Nation: A Weekly Journal Devoted to Politics, Literature, Science, & Art. The Evening Post Publishing Company. Vol. 68. 29 June 1899, 501.
Roberts, W. R. (1899). On the sublime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, D. A. (1964). On the sublime. Oxford: Clarendon.
Wimsatt, W. K., & Brooks C. (1957). Literary criticism: A short history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Reprinted 1966.
Wordsworth, W., & Wordsworth, D. (1978). The letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth: The later years part I: 1821–1828. In A. G. Hill, & de Selincourt, E. (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon. Letter, W.W. to Jacob Fletcher, April 6, 1825
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, J.J. Beyond Burke’s Precedent and Back Again: Longinus and the Romantic Sublime. Neophilologus 99, 175–189 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-014-9406-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-014-9406-4