But, while we allow to the Longinus of Palmyra a high station among the writers of his age,* we cannot forget that his was an age in which both literature and philosophy had fallen into "the sere and yellow leaf.” He lived in the reigns of Gordian, Decius, Valerian, Gallienus, Claudius, and Aurelian; a period, when all the taste and elegance of life, both as respects literature and the arts, was with the Empire itself, fast sinking into debasement and decay. Are we, then, to refer to such an æra, a work of taste so refined, and of elegance so consummate, as the Treatise on the Sublime?

We

This is a question, not merely curious, but to scholars at least, of no slight interest and importance. naturally seek to know all that can be known, respecting the circumstances of those, from whom we have derived benefit and gratification: and to the principles developed by a very few ancient critics, among whom the author of this Treatise bears a distinguished rank, we are indebted for the ground-work of all correct taste in the writings of the moderns.

The subject, indeed, within a few years, has fallen under frequent discussion; more especially since the publication of Weiske's edition of the work at Leipsic in 1809, with the remarks of Amati on the title of one of the codices in the Vatican. † It appears to me,

neque ego detrahere ausim

"Hærentem capiti multa cum laude coronam."

HOR. Sat. i. 10.

In the Edinburgh Review, for Sept. 1831, there is an able article on an anonymous work, entitled "Remarks on the supposed Dionysius "Longinus," &c. but which is understood to be by the Rev. J.W. Knox, A.M. To this work, and to the critique on it, I am indebted for much informa

nevertheless, that room is still left for diversity of opinion, and for further enquiry: on which account I shall now proceed to state the conclusions at which I have arrived, and the grounds upon which those conclusions have been formed.

But it may be proper, first, to remark that the Treatise on the Sublime has descended to us under circumstances of considerable mystery. There is no mention of it, nor any reference to it whatever, in the classical writers: and, till it was rescued from long and unmerited oblivion, by being drawn forth from the learned dust of some large library about the middle of the sixteenth century, its existence appears to have been scarcely known. Whether one manuscript of the work, or more than one, was, at that time, discovered; or whether more than one independent codex be now extant, has been the subject of much disputation. The greater probability is, that the manuscript, preserved in the Royal Library at Paris, which is generally referred to as "the Paris manuscript," is the parent of all the rest :*

tion, and for the correction of some opinions, which the present dissertation contained when it was first written,-several years before they were published. They have not, however, materially altered my view of the question; which differs, as it will appear, in some particulars from those of both these

writers.

* Very little seems to be, at present, known, concerning the Bessarion MS. But, as we are expressly told by P. Manutius that this was the copy which he used in his edition, we may reasonably infer from his text, that this also is a transcript from the Paris MS. In a prefatory Epistle written in Greek, Manutius says, Λογγίνον .... ὃς ἐν τῇ παρ ἡμῖν τοῦ Βησσαρίωνος βιβλιοθήκη κατακεκρυμμένος ἀπέκειτο· κἂν ὑπὸ σητῶν τῷ χρόνῳ, ὡς πολλαὶ καὶ ἄλλαι χρησιμώταται βίβλοι, κατεβρώθη. appears, from this, that the MS. was not preserved, even in the 16th century, with sufficient care. What may have been its subsequent fate, is very uncertain. It was left by that munificent patron of learning, Cardinal

It

since, where this is defective, they exhibit similar defects.

This manuscript is pronounced by Levesque and other competent judges, to be of the tenth century. It is a small quarto, written on parchment, containing 207 leaves, or 414 pages, each page consisting of 25 lines. Of these pages, the "Problems"* of Aristotle occupy rather more than 335 pages, leaving only about 79 for the present work. It is fairly written, in a remarkably neat running hand, very easy to be read, notwithstanding some peculiarities in the form of the letters. A fac-simile of this may be seen inserted in the preface of Pearce's edition. At some time or other it has belonged to the family of de Medici; and so little care has been taken of it that several whole leaves are lost. These losses are carefully noted by Pearce, Weiske, and other editors; and are enumerated in the present translation. I have described this manuscript with the greater particularity, because of the probability, mentioned before, that all the others are only transcripts, derived, either immediately or mediately

Bessarion, with the rest of his valuable library, to the Republic of Venice, in 1472, and deposited in the Library of St. Mark; where, if it has not fallen a prey to neglect, it probably still remains. It were greatly to be desired that some one of our numerous tourists would endeavour to ascertain its fate, and collate it with some printed copy. Toll appears to have hastily made a few excerpts from it; but nothing can be less satisfactory than his account. He says not a word about the actual condition of the MS. and respecting what he did with it, his words are, quæ raptim corrasi potius quam collegi excerpsique."

66

These Problems are critical investigations; and in Aristotle's time, the word Problem seems to have been confined to such works. Thus the Homeric Problems, πрobλńμaτа Oμńpov, mentioned by Suidas and others, are criticisms on Homer.

from this. It is regarded, also, as the copy from which the editio princeps of Robortelli* was printed, in 1554.

We are unable, at present, to discover at what precise period the Treatise on the Sublime began to attract the notice of European scholars. It appears to me highly probable that the first copies were brought from Greece by Cardinal Bessarion, who spent much time at Athens in. collecting manuscripts of Greek authors and that this illustrious scholar first communicated it to Cosmo de Medici, at the time when he was using every effort for procuring that treasure of Greek and Latin MSS. which constituted the founda. tion of the Laurentian Library. And this probability receives great strength from the well-known similarity of tastes and pursuits of Cosmo and the Cardinal; which discovered itself in their enthusiastic fondness for Grecian literature, and especially for the philosophy of Plato. It deserves notice, also, that the Paris MS. has certainly belonged to the family of de Medici. Is it too much then to imagine that this MS. may have been procured for the Florence library from Bessarion; †

* It is not a little singular that while Robortelli was preparing his editio princeps for the press of Oporinus at Padua, Paulus Manutius was engaged in a similar undertaking at Venice, without either of them being acquainted with the other's design. Robortelli gained the start of his competitor, having sent forth his edition in 1554; whereas that of Manutius, from his own press, bears the date of the following year.

+ I fancy I can trace the Paris MS. from the Cardinal, to its present asylum. It is well known that Bessarion, from his early youth, had been collecting Greek manuscripts, and that to him we are indebted for the single manuscript of Athenæus. At the very time when Cosmo was engaged in the same pursuit, the Council, which Pope Eugene IV. removed from Ferrara to Florence, of which Bessarion was the most distinguished member, brought these two illustrious patrons of literature into immediate contact, and continued it for a considerable time. It is, consequently, very probable

and that it has, by some unknown means, been transferred from that to the Royal Library at Paris? Upon this supposition, both the Parisian and the Venetian codices will appear to have been introduced to the learned of Europe about the same time,-the middle of the 15th century; and the preceding silence respecting the work will be at once accounted for.

But, however this may be, the notice of modern scholars does not appear to have been drawn to the Treatise, much before the editions of Robortelli and P. Manutius. That the discovery of such a work, whenever made, must have produced a great sensation among the learned, may be inferred from its high merit, which was, at once, universally acknowledged : and the enquiry must have instantly arisen, "Who is

this Dionysius Longinus ?" This would lead, of course, to the observation that Suidas mentions a Longinus, although not by the name of Dionysius Longinus, but of Longinus Cassius; and that Photius calls the same person Cassius Longinus. On further enquiry, it would also be discovered from the mention of his writings by Porphyry, Suidas, and others, that this same Longinus was a distinguished author, chiefly in works of philosophical criticism; and that, like the writer of the treatise before them, he was an ardent admirer of Plato.

that similarity of pursuits produced acquaintance; and that, if Bessarion did not present to the Duke the MS. in question, yet that the latter might have obtained it by an exchange of duplicates. Now let us see how any of the MSS. of the Laurentian Library found their way to Paris. Moreri, in his account of Cosmo, writes thus: "Cosme recueillit une admi"rable bibliotheque, que Catherine de Medicis partagea depuis avec son "frere Duc de Toscane; et elle apporta en France ce qu'elle avoit eu, tres considerable, à cause des Manuscrits Grecs.”