Advertisement

Neophilologus

, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 175–189 | Cite as

Beyond Burke’s Precedent and Back Again: Longinus and the Romantic Sublime

  • J. Jennifer Jones
Article

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.

Keywords

Longinus Burke Sublime Aesthetics Affect Romanticism Translation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, M. H. (1953). The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Baucom, I. (2005). Specters of the Atlantic: Finance, capital, slavery, and the philosophy of history. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, F. (1992). Solitude and the sublime: Romanticism and the aesthetics of individuation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Guerlac, S. (1985). Longinus and the subject of the sublime. New Literary History, 16.2(Winter 1985), 275–289.Google Scholar
  8. Hertz, N. (1985). The end of the line: Essays on psychoanalysis and the sublime. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kirwan, J. (2005). Sublimity: The non-rational and the irrational in the history of aesthetics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Kneale, J. D. (1999). Romantic aversions: Aftermaths of classicism in Wordsworth and Coleridge. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Raysor, T. M. (ed.). (1936). Coleridge’s miscellaneous criticism. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. (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.Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, W. R. (1899). On the sublime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Russell, D. A. (1964). On the sublime. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Wimsatt, W. K., & Brooks C. (1957). Literary criticism: A short history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Reprinted 1966.Google Scholar
  18. Wordsworth, W., & Wordsworth, D. (1978). The letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth: The later years part I: 18211828. In A. G. Hill, & de Selincourt, E. (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon. Letter, W.W. to Jacob Fletcher, April 6, 1825Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.ProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations