.... iniquus censor 66 Superest Dionysius Longinus, quem supra magistros "dicendi colloco scriptorum subtilis et acer, nec homo doctissimus et summi sin"cerique judicii." Janus Rutgersius speaks of certain verses of Euripides, quos affert Dionysius Longinus « in aureolo libello περὶ ὕψους λόγου.” Lucas Holstenius declares, that "Longini ingenium accuratum, limatum "judicium, atque eruditionis copiam satis ostendit "libellus de sublimi genere orationis." D. Heinsius denominates him "summus vir," and "judex accura"tus." It is unnecessary, I believe, to extend these "judicia et testimonia," collected by Toll; which it were very easy to do by a reference to the writers of that age. I will only add a single remark of Gesner: "Audacter "dixerim ille se profecisse sciat, qui Longinum intellexerit intellectus enim quin placeat Longinus non "est dubium." These are assuredly no incompetent judges; and yet we see here something of the gold, but not a word concerning the silver. Nor, indeed, has Longinus been less highly estimated by the profoundest critics and the most elegant scholars of a later age. It is quite unnecessary for me to quote Barnes, and Porson, and Musgrave, and Harris, and Twining, and Wakefield, and Gregory, and Beattie, and Blair, and a whole host besides; not one of whom would have been likely to express approbation of a work, debased by a vitiated style, and a depraved taste. But why, it may be asked, has no writer of the classic times made mention of the work? How has it happened that kindred minds, employed on kindred subjects, have entirely overlooked a Treatise of such unquestionable merit? The work itself will furnish us, I think, with an answer to this enquiry. But, before we examine this point, we may also ask another question, not equally easy to be answered: How has it happened that, if the work was really composed by the learned Palmyrene, it was neither included by Suidas in the catalogue of his works, nor mentioned by any writer of the third, or the following centuries? It will not do to tell us that Suidas closes his list by intimating that there were "many others." many others." The Treatise on the Sublime is not a work which, even in the most barbarous age, or by the most barbarous writer, could have been so passed over. Whatever was written by the same author, this was, unquestionably, if not his most distinguished, yet certainly one of his most distinguished performances. Could any doubt be entertained of this, it would be soon dispelled by referring to the titles of those mentioned in the catalogue given by Suidas. We do not pretend that there is no difficulty involved in each of these enquiries; but till the latter is answered, we must not be pressed too closely with the former. Let us, however, see what the work itself will suggest. The whole book abounds with internal evidence of its having been written, with much of the freedom of an epistle, from an elder* to a younger man: that these two men had read and studied together:† that the connexion thus begun had ripened into an easy familiarity, and finally, into a friendship of a very endearing — νεανία. * In the beginning of Sect. xv. he accosts him+ In Sect. i. Ανασκοπουμένοις ἡμῖν κοινῇ; also Sect. viii.ὡς καν τοῖς περὶ Ξενοφῶντος ὡρισάμεθα, or rather as in MS. Vat. 2.-ωρισάμεθον. character.* In short, as we read the book, we are irresistibly reminded of the account which the younger Cicero gives to his father,† of the delightful intercourse between himself and his tutor Cratippus, at Athens. Let any one keep this representation in mind, with the present work before him, and mark whether the whole scope of it does not bear evidence of the relation, subsisting, at some period or other, between Longinus and Terentianus, having been that of tutor and pupil,‡ of the accomplished Greek rhetor, and the ingenuous young Roman. The intrinsic testimony of this fact appears to me so strong, that I do not see how it can be questioned for a moment. How, then, stands the matter? A Roman youth, probably of the Cassian family, named Terentianus, had been, as was then the usual practice, completing his education, either at Athens, or at Rome, it is uncertain which, with a learned Greek. Eloquence and polite literature had, of course, constituted a material branch of his studies: in the prosecution of which, he had read with his instructor, a critical work on Sublimity, perhaps recently published, by Cæcilius.§ The preceptor seems to have pointed out all that was valuable in this treatise, and also to have remarked the * Sect. i. ad init.-Ποστούμιο Τερεντιανὲ φίλτατε : also in the same Sect.-Tape and TeperTiare dore, et passim: Sect. vi.- oinos: Sect. vii.—φίλτατε : Sect. ix.—ἑταῖρε : Sect. xii φίλτατε Τερεντιανὲ : and similar expressions throughout the book. + Epistolæ familiares, xvi. 21. Hence we find, Sect. xiii. that the former knows that the latter had read Plato's Treatise de Rep. ἀνεγνωκας τὰ ἐν τῇ Πολιτεία, τὸν τόπον οὐκ ἀγνοῶς. § See Sect. i. particulars in which it was deficient. These defi ciencies, at the solicitation of Terentianus, his former tutor undertakes to supply in the present work;* but, at the same time, he admonishes his friend to regard it as engaged in, exclusively, at his desire, and for his private perusal. Such is the character, which the work assumes in the first Section; and with this its whole tenor agrees. Every where we remark the overflowings of an affectionate, probably a grateful, heart, towards a favourite pupil and an accomplished man, in whose eminence he could not fail to take a peculiar interest, and of whose friendship he had reason to be proud. There are expressions, which seem to intimate that Terentianus had already gone forth into public life, before he made the request to his friend, "et accesserat ad rempublicam." Still, the friendship And and confidence between them was undiminished. this confidence is more especially manifested, when, in a very ticklish and dangerous time, Longinus ventures to pour forth those liberal sentiments on the politics of the age, which he knew perhaps would meet with a cordial acceptance in the heart of his friend; the very counterpart of those indignant feelings which Cicero, even in his philosophical writings, could not restrain. * Sect. 1.—Επει δὲ ἐνεκελεύσω καὶ ἡμᾶς τι περὶ ὕψους πάντως εις σὴν ὑπομνηματίσασθαι χάριν,—and again, Sect. xliv. ἕνεκα τῆς σῆς χρηστομαθείας, οὐκ ὀκνήσομεν, κ.τ.λ. † Sect. i.-Γράφων δὲ πρὸς σὲ, φίλτατε, τὸν παιδείας ἐπιστήμονα, κ.τ.λ. and at the end of this section Ταῦτα γὰρ οἶμαι, κ.τ.λ. † Sect. i.—εἰς σὴν χάριν ........ and, ἀνδράσι πολιτικοῖς. Couple these. § Sect. xliv. These circumstances, taken all together, render it highly probable, to say the least, that the work was never published:* that it was treasured by Terentianus with all the care, which its surpassing merit could not fail to secure from an accomplished friend: that it might, perchance, be communicated to a few congenial spirits, under the seal of confidence; but was never given to the world at large. I really can see no objection to this hypothesis, thus supported; which removes every difficulty, and creates none. It shews why the work was never mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, or Plutarch, or Quintilian, or the Author of the Dialogue on the corruption of eloquence,† or any other writer, by whom we might have expected to find it referred to or quoted. It accounts satisfactorily also for the paucity of independent copies; and explains the state in which the few existing MSS. are found at the present day. The supposition, moreover, of * The words ὑπομνηματίσασθαι, in Sect. i. and ὑπόμνημα in Sect. xxxvi. seem better adapted to a work meant for private use. + There are, however, passages in this work, which lead to the suspicion that the author of it had read the Treatise on the Sublime. With the exception of the Paris MS. which seems to have come from the pen of a regular librarius, they shew, by their very penmanship, and by the marks which they exhibit, of unpractised, and hasty transcription, that they were the work of private hands. Some of the writers appear to have wanted sufficient leisure, or perseverance, to accomplish the task they had undertaken. This seems to have been particularly the case with Cod. Vat. I. No. 285, in which Amati made his grand discovery. It extends but little beyond the middle of the second section; when the writer seems to have altered his mind, and substituted for the remainder of the work, certain passages from the writings of Galen. The other two Vatican MSS. only confirm what I have remarked. Of the Codex Venetus, if it be still in existence, too little is known to form the ground of any opinion: and considering where the Codices Eliensis, Ambrosianus, and Laurentianus, are deposited, it may excite surprise that they have not been more carefully |