The reviewer could only have become aware of the identity of the editor and translator after composing this review, as the editor is referred to as “anonymous” [der ungenannte Verfertiger] in the very first line. Footnote “(a),” however, specifies that the editor was John Hudson. This review provides some information about Longinus’ life and work, drawn from the editor’s preface. In doing so, the reviewer effectively translates into German and disseminates information that was originally written in Latin by the editor. It is emphasized that the editor lists all existing editions of the treatise but has produced his edition solely to summarize Tollius’ extensive work in a concise form, making it easier for young readers to purchase and read more quickly. Since the “glosses” [Anmerkungen] essentially derive from Tollius and others, the reviewer chooses not to comment on them. This review does not evaluate the quality of the Latin translation or the readings in the Greek text. The last lines of the review appear typographically in the form of a colophon.

The review opens in a rhetorical manner. Thinking is an art, just as speaking is. While many people can think well on their own, they speak poorly, as they fail to express clearly to others what they have in mind. Melancholic peoples [Völker], precisely because they do not have a tendency to use many words, have never developed the art of eloquence. As scholars argued, the principles of eloquence were transmitted to us directly from the Greeks through the mediation of the Romans. Therefore, these principles are to be sought not so much among the Romans as among the Greeks. Many renowned Greek rhetoricians exist, such as Aristotle, Demetrius of Phalerum, and others. Nevertheless, Longinus’ text contains the very essence of eloquence—one might even say that the “quintessence” of eloquence is entirely concealed within his brief treatise. Indeed, authors like Aristotle and Hermogenes of Tarsus also made subtle observations in their works on rhetoric, but their style is so dry and arid that one would never guess they were rhetoricians. By contrast, Longinus intertwines his doctrine with eloquence itself, often explaining a rhetorical figure by employing the very figure he is describing. It is therefore unsurprising that Isaac Casaubon referred to Longinus’ little treatise as a “golden” book. Even though it is a short and incomplete work, “it carries the weight of a great folio volume.” The reviewer notes Hudson’s intention to produce an edition well suited for young students. He devotes considerable attention to Longinus’ life and identity (pp. 351–54), demonstrating erudition while reporting and commenting on Hudson’s views on these topics. Then, the reviewer mentions the first three editions of the treatise (Robortello, Manuzio, Porto), which include only the Greek text without a Latin translation, and provides an overview of all existing translations. He also references several manuscripts that served as the basis for various editions or translations of the treatise, once again displaying scholarly depth. The reviewer reports that Hudson produced his translation with the aid of Boileau’s French translation, although Hudson acknowledges that Boileau did not adhere too closely to the wording of the original text. The reviewer considers the “most perfect” edition of the treatise to be that of Tollius (1694), despite two drawbacks: it is too expensive for young students, and, like Boileau, Tollius did not follow the original text word for word. Hudson’s edition seeks to remedy these issues by presenting a Latin translation in which “superfluous words” have been removed. Regarding the textual apparatus (glosses, registers etc.), the reviewer states that he would have liked to see the glosses of the late Conrad Samuel Schurtzfleisch incorporated into Hudson’s Anmerkungen, as Schurtzfleisch had the opportunity during his travels in Italy to consult a manuscript from the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which provided information missing from both Tollius’ glosses and those of other scholars. At this point, the reviewer compares some of Hudson’s readings with those of Schurtzfleisch (pp. 358–64), most of which concern only the first chapter of the treatise. He leans toward Schurtzfleisch’s solutions but does not hesitate to propose new insights that differ from both editors.12 Within this framework, while commenting on a lacuna at the beginning of the third chapter, the reviewer reports the opinion of Richard Simon in his Lettres choisies, according to which all the manuscripts of Longinus’ treatise depend on a Paris codex or its copies. The reviewer also argues that Tollius probably overlooked the Milanese manuscript because he was aware that the best available manuscript is the Parisian one. Then, the reviewer examines Longinus’ famous biblical quotation (Gen. 1, 3–4) and reports various scholarly opinions on the matter. Schurtzfleisch argued that Longinus did not read this passage in either Hebrew or Greek translation but rather quoted it second-hand from Caecilius of Calacte. If Longinus had understood Hebrew—Schurtzfleisch argued—his astonishment would have been even greater. The reviewer, however, notes that Longinus had an almost perfect command of Syriac language. Furthermore, he is persuaded that the key question is not whether these words contain “sublimity,” but whether this sublimity should be attributed to Moses’ eloquence.13 He argues that this “sublimity” is to be sought not so much in Moses’ intellect and intention as in the “peculiar nature” [eigenschafft sic.] of the Hebrew language itself. While Moses generally employs a very simple style in his historical narrative, the Latin word “fiat” (Gr. γενέσθω [Longinus] or γενηθήτω [Septuaginta]) makes God’s eternal and infinite omnipotence comprehensible in His actions, which would otherwise be understandable for Hebrew speakers. Before concluding, the reviewer makes a curious statement: if Schurtzfleisch had wished, he could have explained and improved many Greek and Latin writers in the most learned manner. The nature of scholars well versed in every discipline, however, is akin to that of bees, as they move from book to book just as bees move from flower to flower, without having the time to complete a great and extensive work. Finally, the reviewer states that he knows of no other ancient author who has received such unanimous praise as Longinus. From a linguistic perspective, this review is particularly interesting, as the reviewer frequently employs Latinisms and expressions borrowed from French or Latin (e.g., “etliche alte Scribenten,” “auf ein atqui und ergo,” “Franztösichen traduction” etc.). Additionally, the text contains several linguistic inconsistencies characteristic of early 18th century German.

This review is a brief report on Hudson’s third edition. It informs that the first and second editions of Hudson’s Longinus were published, respectively, in 1710 and 1718. In all editions, the name of the editor does not appear. This edition is expanded, as it also includes a Latin translation of Longinus’ fragment De metris and incorporates the comments of the late Conrad Samuel Schurtzfleisch into its “glosses.” This edition has already been praised as the most convenient and useful of all. While Tollius’ edition is also useful, it is too expensive for young readers, and the glosses are too extensive. Finally, the reviewer notes that Hudson produced his edition by summarizing the comments from previous existent editions and commentaries, some of which were very costly to purchase, and cutting away the superfluous, thus making Longinus’ treatise easier to acquire and read more quickly.

This is a very short report [Nachricht] in a Sammelresenzion, i.e. a review that includes reviews of multiple books published in the same place, of a Dutch translation of Longinus’ treatise. The reviewer begins by stating that Longinus’ treatise has been appreciated by scholars of every era. The bitterness that affected Homer, Virgil, Horace, and others has not touched Longinus. As Casaubon said, it is a “golden book.” Since Dutch poets may find this treatise useful, they now have access to a Dutch translation. This translation is recommended to all lovers of an excellent and graceful way of writing.

This is a very short report. The reviewer provides information about the text and the quality of the book. The Greek text, along with the Latin, French, and Italian translations, is printed on facing pages in four columns. The Greek edition of the treatise and its Latin translation are those of Hudson. Therefore, the reviewer refers to the review of Hudson’s first edition, which appeared in this journal (See [R2]). For the Italian [Toscanische] translation, Pinelli’s version was used.14 The reviewer states that this learned Florentine became widely renowned through various historical contributions, and his translation has been recognized by all scholars as an excellent rendering of the Greek text. Additionally, an unpublished Italian translation by Giovanni da Falgano [John. Falgani], which was famous around 1570, has been included [beygefügt], and Antonio Magliabechi counted him among the best translators. The French translation is that of Boileau, published in 1729 in The Hague. The print and the quality of the paper are spotless.

This is a short report in a Sammelresenzion. The Latin translation is that of the Oxford edition of 1710, here corrected and improved on the basis of the Greek text. The Italian translation is by Gori, who had already completed it in 1720 under the supervision of Abbot Salvini. The French translation is that of Boileau. The four texts are presented side by side. The notes are those of Boileau, Boivin, Dacier, Tollius, and other authors. This edition includes all the variant readings [variantes lectiones] compared with other printed editions published so far, as well as with a specific manuscript “aus der Bibliothek des Bischoffs Joh. Mori” (p. 308). These variant readings were added in an appendix because they did not arrive in time during the printing process. An indexed description of the book’s parts (dedications, registers etc.) follows.

This is a brief report. The public is now offered a quadrilingual edition in a single volume. It is described as a “complete masterpiece.” The Greek text comes from the best manuscripts, the Latin version is by Tollius, the French by Boileau, and the Italian by the editor. Information is provided regarding the book’s price. Those interested may contact “Herr Rickershaufen,” from whom they can receive, free of charge, two catalogues listing the available books, most of which are in German or French, alongside some in Romance languages or Italian.

This is a short report in a Sammelrezension. The reviewer begins with some information about the book. It is an Amsterdam reprint of a book previously published in London. It contains the Greek text, along with Pearce’s Latin translation and glosses. Pearce’s first edition appeared in 1724. The print quality of this edition is no less than that of the original English edition. Moreover, this edition is enhanced, as it is published together with Franciscus Portus’s commentary. The Dutch publishers, given the success of the London edition, had begun the printing process when, during production, Pearce announced a revised second edition. As a result, the publishers had to place the improvements concerning the already printed pages in an appendix. Thus, this Amsterdam edition remains just as good as the London one. Indeed, considering the addition of the glosses by Franciscus Portus—which are edited here for the first time by the Amsterdam gymnasial professor Isaac Verburg (1680–1745) and had remained hidden until then—it is even better. The reviewer does not dwell on the quality of Pearce’s work regarding Longinus’ treatise, as it has already been acknowledged by all the most renowned journals.

This is a German report on a review originally published in French in the Bibliothèque raisonnée. Pearce had published the first edition of his Longinus nine years ago. Since it was too expensive, Dutch publishers decided to reprint it, encouraged in their decision by the discovery of a previously unpublished commentary on the treatise. The author of this commentary, Franciscus Portus, had died about 150 years earlier, and his work was included as an appendix. While the Dutch publishers were nearly finished with the printing process, news reached them that Pearce had, in the meantime, published a revised edition. Therefore, they awaited the English edition and gathered everything the editor had added or improved in it, then they printed these additions separately. Before Pearce, Tollius had devoted significant efforts to Longinus. Pearce, above all, sought more information about the Paris manuscript of the treatise, which had been produced over 600 years earlier. Boivin, through correspondence, provided him with the most precise description, and a Greek scholar residing in Paris compared it [conferirte es] with a printed edition. In particular, these efforts revealed that much is missing from Longinus and that one is often mistaken in believing that a gap can be filled with just a few lines. From this, it becomes clear that Tollius’ conjectures are entirely erroneous. Pearce describes the manuscript. His glosses fall into two categories: purely critical-textual [critisch] or explanatory. The former are placed at the bottom of the book, while the latter appear beneath the text—an arrangement that provides the reader with considerable convenience. From the selection of glosses, one can appreciate Pearce’s refined taste. Moreover, they are highly useful, leaving nothing more to be desired. To compile them, he made use of the best tools available to him. Regarding the translation: his Latin is good, yet it does not obscure the clarity and meaning of the original text. The fragments of Longinus were taken from Hudson. Finally, the German reviewer notes that the French reviewer provides some “samples” [Proben] of both types of Pearce’s notes but does not reproduce them.

This is a report in a Sammelrezension. From the third edition of this work, it is clear that it has been well received by the educated public. The first edition appeared in 1724, the second in 1732. Now, a third edition has been released, which surpasses both in many aspects. In his Preface, the author reviews previous editions of the treatise—not only his own—and evaluates them. He also explains why he undertook a new edition and details the sources he used. He acknowledges that he retains the text of Manutius’ edition but under the condition that he has never disregarded the best readings of Robortello’s edition and the manuscripts. He has not included all the notes that have been written on Longinus’ text but has made a selection, with most of them being his own. In his glosses, Pearce demonstrates both erudition and refined taste. Pearce found it necessary to prepare a new Latin translation of Longinus. He argues that, although Tollius’ version is among the finest, it is not sufficiently faithful, as it does not closely follow the original [nicht allzu treulich dem Texte folge]. Pearce uses the Paris manuscript, the best available, with Bovin having sent him its variant readings. Pearce also questions whether the readings noted in the margins of the manuscript used by Tollius, attributed to Voss,15 are actual textual variants from other manuscripts, as Tollius believed, or merely Voss’ conjectures. Pearce has not found these variants in any manuscript. The final index is positively assessed. Finally, the reviewer reports also the death of Alexander Pope.16

This review occurs in a Sammelrezension. Praise for Gori. The reviewer offers interesting evaluations of the translation: “As far as possible, he has translated the thoughts and expressions [of Longinus] not with servile [knechtischen] fidelity, but with noble fidelity” (p. 115). “The method of translation that merely aims to capture the author’s thought while expanding his expressions with as many words as one finds convenient has never appealed to him” (pp. 115–16). Gori was not the first to undertake an Italian translation of the treatise. There was a translation by Giovanni da Falgano, once kept in the Magliabecchi Library but now lost. Reporting implicitly a Gori’s conjecture, however, the reviewer supposes that the text commonly referred to in these cases is actually none other than the Rhetoric of Demetrius of Phalerum, translated by Falgano and effectively preserved in the Library. As a result, Niccolò Pinelli was the first to produce an Italian translation of the treatise, published in Padua in 1630. This book is extraordinarily rare, and in 1723 Gori was granted permission to consult it, but only for a few days. Gori himself published his Italian version in 1733, but this new edition has been improved in several places, and some errors have been corrected. Finally, the reviewer comments on the frontispiece (see Figure 1), which is taken from an ancient gem of which Gori possesses an imprint. It depicts the following scene: Icarus, with his left wing already attached, impatiently waits as his father Daedalus finishes crafting the right wing. Above, there is Mercury’s caduceus, and below, the inscription: χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά, i.e. “beautiful things are difficult”.17

Figure 1 – The frontispiece of Trattato del sublime di Dionisio Longino tradotto dal greco in toscano da Anton Francesco Gori. Firenze: Albizzini 1737.

This is a report in a Sammelrezension. The translator renders into German one of the most difficult Greek texts to translate. Regarding the source language, he has followed the text word for word. Where euphony had to take precedence, however, he made use of the freedom granted to a translator and, at the same time, demonstrated how skilful our mother tongue is in conveying the emphasis of Greek rhetoric. He has also taken into account all other translations in different languages, meticulously noting and correcting their errors. In the glosses, he has explained what is most important. Everything contributed by other scholars to improve the Greek text has been gathered and carefully examined. The Greek text is that published in Pearce’s edition. Nevertheless, Heinecke has spared no effort in refining his text to some degree by comparing all available editions. Heinecke’s essay on the life of Longinus surpasses all others in completeness. His glosses sufficiently clarify the obscure passages. The record of previous translations is both comprehensive and appropriate. In examining what Longinus understands by the sublime, Heinecke has repeated all the statements provided by him and illustrated them with German examples, thereby revealing his ability to render judgments on eloquence and poetry in accordance with reason and good taste. The work is dedicated to Count Sulkowski, and the printing is clean.

The reviewer begins by stating that Longinus’s treatise has always been held in high regard, and that rhetorical principles are not unusual nor exclusive to a single language. Consequently, this translation is also useful to Germans. Until now, we have not had a translation of Longinus into our language. Gratitude is due to Heinecken for making the text accessible even to those among us who do not master the Greek language—and even more gratitude is due because of the translation’s quality. It is so well executed that it brings honor both to the translator and to our homeland. The contents of the book are as follows: an introduction including the life of Longinus, the Greek text alongside the German translation, and a treatise by the editor aimed at understanding what Longinus meant by the word “sublime.” The reviewer intends to report on each section of the book. After recounting Longinus’s life based on Heinecken’s introductory essay, the reviewer focuses on the German translation:

Moreover, the editor has supplemented his translation with numerous scholarly glosses—some clarify the meaning of the text, others justify his translation, still others point out errors in other translations, defend Longinus against unfair criticisms, or bring in various elegant reflections, especially from history and rhetoric. As a sample of the translator’s glosses, the reviewer presents an example taken from the commentary on section IX of the text, which discusses the concept of the sublime and offers a quotation from the first book of Genesis—whose sublimity has been hotly contested. Heinecken cites the opinion of Pierre-Daniel Huet (1630–1721), who claimed that the passage has nothing inherently sublime about it, and that the prophet did not intend to express himself sublimely—thus, in Huet’s view, Longinus’s statement is pointless. The Port-Royal Society, however, in the preface to its translation of the first five books of Genesis, not only cited this very passage from Longinus, but also Boileau’s reflections on it, fully agreeing with Boileau’s judgment. Thus, in a new edition of Longinus, Boileau quoted that preface and expressed astonishment at the opinion of a learned man like Huet. A short history of this controversy follows, and it is noted that M.[agister] Christoph Wolle (1700–1761) held a disputation in Leipzig on this passage, citing the positions of Boileau, Tollius, Huet, Le Clerc, and others. The final section of the book is a treatise on what the sublime was for Longinus. He wrote this part to clarify Longinus’s “sublime”—but above all, for the pleasure of German readers. Heinecken has repeated all of Longinus’s statements on the sublime and illustrated them with German examples. In general, the word “sublime” [Erhaben] designates the highest perfection of a thing. The sublime in poetic and rhetorical art, however, is a thought that has been brought to its perfection through what is rich in meaning and spirit [Geist], and whose production depends partly on the natural capacity of the intellect, partly on passion, partly on fine representation, partly on word choice, and partly on artful synthesis. Many people have a mistaken idea of the sublime because they fail to note the great difference between sublimity in thought and elevated style. The editor concludes his essay by stating that Longinus, in his treatise, spoke only of sublimity in thought. This must be clearly kept in mind when reading Longinus—for to believe he was offering stylistic advice would be entirely misleading. In general, Heinecken’s conclusive essay is well written and contains many correct and profound insights. Nevertheless, since the editor has made strong use of the “illustrans ad opposito” (explaining by the opposite) strategy, and since most of the quoted passages are taken from still-living authors, the reviewer ironically doubts that these authors will feel particularly grateful to Heinecken.

This is a brief report on the second edition of the work (1742), published with a new anonymous introduction. This report was received by the journal without any information regarding the author or place. The journal opts to publish the following report. Nonetheless, a response to it will probably follow. This work is not new, as this translation had already been published several years ago. Nevertheless, it was not particularly well known. The translator was Heinecken. This work had bad luck, the reviewer does not know whether the fault lies with Longinus or with Heinecken himself. There have been several attempts to reprint it, but without success. This is in fact the fourth edition, and it stands out because of an anonymous Introduction. The fact that it is anonymous aligns with its intent, as it is verbose and contains “slander” [Lästerungen] against Prof. Gottsched and the poets of Leipzig, as well as being very long-winded. Prof. Gottsched is not attacked on the merits, but with malice. Also the editors of this journal were insulted. One cannot write an objection to this introduction, because the purpose of an objection is to point out an opponent’s error. In this case, however, it is unnecessary, because we place our trust in the impartial and reasonable reader. A brief discussion follows about who the author of the anonymous introduction might be—whether it is Heinecken himself or someone else. Since the work is now on the market, the translator is wished well. Certainly, it would have been better if the translator had stuck to his task without venturing into the fine arts.

Review of the second edition of the work (1742). The book had already been published, but it is now reissued with a new title page and a new anonymous Introduction. The author of the new Introduction expresses dissatisfaction with Gottsched and others. Every reader is curious to see what their response will be. Regarding the work itself, there is a new account of the life of Longinus, carefully prepared, which attempts to shed light on what has come down to us from those very obscure times. Evaluation of the translation: “The translation has been rendered in clear German [in reines Teutsch eingekleidet] and conveys well the sense of the Greek text, which is printed according to Pearce’s edition” (p. 807). In the glosses, attention has been paid not only to the beauty of the German style but also to the clarification of the text. The appendix on the concept of the sublime in Longinus is worth reading, and this edition, due to its many merits over all the others, deserves the attention of lovers of eloquence.

This is a report in a Sammelrezension. The reviewer opens the review with the following statement: “The translator was moved by the intrinsic—and universally recognized by scholars—beauty of Longinus to translate him into English” (p. 479). His translation had already been undertaken when he became aware of the work of others. During his work, three English translations came to his eyes. The first was that of Welstedt (1724). Smith notes that this is a translation from the French into poor English, in which all the beauties of the French are lost, while all its errors, including misprints, are carefully preserved. The second is that of John Hall (1654), and the third is an anonymous one published in Oxford in 1698, which also includes the French. Smith judges these translations to be such that he does not regret having prepared one of his own. His translation had been ready for nine years, but he had it read by friends and reviewed it several times in light of the Greek text. The reviewer states: “He paid particular attention to drafting it in such a way that it did not seem like a translation, without thereby weakening the spirit and force of Longinus” (p. 480). Through his edition of the text and his notes, Pearce not only shed light for him in many passages, but also improved certain translations here and there. Smith, however, had already completed the majority of his glosses when he read Pearce’s Latin. Moreover, he found in English writers many passages where he could illustrate Longinus’s judgments [Critiken]. One can only rejoice if he refined the taste of his readers and enabled them to distinguish truly meaningful words from hollow sounds, false brilliance from true magnificence, and the sublime from bombast [Bombast] and pomposity [Schwulst]. The critical apparatus is very well prepared. It would only have been better if the notes were printed below the text rather than at the end.

This is a few-lines report. There were already three English translations of Longinus’s treatise. The work under review, however, is the first English translation made directly from the original Greek. Some of the glosses were suggested to the author by Pearce, who was working on the second edition of his own edition of Longinus.

Brief German report of an English review published in the English journal History of the Works of the Learned. Three English translations of Longinus’ treatise have already been published, but Smith’s is the most beautiful of all. He has proven to be well-suited to undertake this translation. His thoughts and expressions are so elevated that they can serve as examples for Longinus’ rules on elevated style. The apparatus is better than that of Boileau. Smith’s glosses on Longinus, partly his own and partly by Pearce, can be found at the end of the translation.

The reviewer welcomes this publication with pleasure, noting polemically that

The edition is valuable, and we must thank Morus, who possesses a command of the language, has taste, and does not lack critical accuracy. In a word: he has been formed according to the best model. The Preface explores themes such as why Longinus enjoys prestige among both those who merely offer reflections on the sublime etc. and those who investigate their causes, as he unites both approaches in his treatise. The Greek text follows Pearce’s 1732 edition, as he collated the Parisian manuscript with greater accuracy than his predecessors. Morus included the variants in the footnotes and provided a new Latin translation. Through this translation, Morus “aims to make the text understandable to those who know nothing of Greek” (p. 724).

The critical apparatus is useful. Superfluous elements have been cut, as well as audacious emendations. The reviewer concludes:

This review appears in a Sammelrezension. Morus is well known for his efforts in the field of Greek literature. His edition will be instructive and very useful, especially in light of the current zeal with which contemporary scholars engage with the concept of beauty and its determinations. The Greek text chosen for the edition is that of Pearce; textual critics will find in the footnotes the changes proposed by Morus, either based on manuscript evidence or on his own conjectures. There is an evaluative comment on Morus’s explanatory glosses. The notes were selected from other authors, and Morus added some of his own. He considered it overly verbose to list all the parallel passages in ancient authors where the words under discussion are used with the same meaning as in Longinus. Nevertheless, he made considerable efforts to provide helpful insights into the metaphors employed by Longinus. The translator deemed it necessary to produce a new translation, as those currently available are partly inaccurate and flawed, and partly verbose. At p. 110 the reviewer begins to offer judgments on the translated renderings and textual readings, and the examples and opinions are nearly identical to those found in another review. In fact, several propositions in this review recur verbatim in [R 22]; see p. 109, lines 5–7; p. 110, lines 3–13; pp. 110–112, passim. Nevertheless, this review displays stylistic originality, which makes it unlikely that the two reviews share the same author.

This review appears in a Sammelrezension. Much has been said about Longinus, but in this edition Morus says no more than what is necessary for our understanding of Longinus’ treatise—and he also says something that previous scholars had neither mentioned nor noticed. It is an excellent text for young readers, particularly in the field of aesthetics. The translation possesses its own Latin elegance, which can be admired in only few other translations.

The quality of the printing is praised. This is not a technical review; there are no references to the Greek text.

At the opening of this review, the reviewer offers some interesting cultural reflections. This edition of one of the finest critics of antiquity does honor to our Germany in the eyes of all foreigners. The editor and publisher have done everything to endow it with the value it deserves. If German booksellers were to procure for themselves the great classical Greek authors—not with an overflow of annotations, but as correct as possible, simple, and in a middle ground between the tasteless Dutch luxury and the cheap German printings—then it might indeed be possible, given the gradually reviving interest in Greek literature, to stand firm against the influx of frivolous belles lettres and journalistic pedantry. For, once someone has shaped their taste according to the ancient Greeks, he can no longer be tempted either to waste an entire life—of which our homeland and fellow citizens have such a strong claim to the greater part—nor to submit to the debasing cabal of the journalists. This is followed by a brief description of Morus’s edition: the published text is that of Pearce, suggested improvements to the text are placed in the footnotes etc. Judgment on the translation: “The Latin translation is more elegant and beautiful in Latin than it is faithful in character to Longinus; but precisely for that reason, it will openly please less” (p. 316). Though brief and not focused on technical matters, the review is remarkably brilliant and written in a refined style.

This review appears in a Sammelrezension. The edition is of considerable value and was published several years ago. At the beginning, there is a dissertation by Morus in which he demonstrates both taste and philosophical insight. He argues that the term ὕψος does not carry the same meaning across the various chapters of Longinus’s work, and that it does not always correspond to what we now call “the sublime.” According to Morus, the term ὕψος has the following meanings: (1) The grand or elevated that astonishes [Erstaunen]; (2) The grand through which we ourselves are drawn into a feeling of our own greatness—this pertains to critical judgment (“and this is the twofold kind of the sublime, as we use the word”, pp. 97–98); (3) It refers to the vehemence and fire of thought; (4) It refers to the powers of thought insofar as they set in motion; (5) It refers to the refinement through which certain objects are made beautiful by the intellect. Morus applies this conceptual analysis to the five characteristics Longinus proposes for the sublime expression. The reviewer acknowledges that, in order to establish a true understanding of Longinus’s treatise, more is to be gained from this brief dissertation—which is also praised for Morus’s literary style—than from the treatises of theorists or from other editors of ancient works. Rarely are such profound linguistic knowledge and philosophical depth found together (p. 98). The notes are highly useful and well worth reading.

The review opens with a brief description of the book. The edition begins with a disputed dissertation [Disputation] by Ruhnken titled De vita et scriptis Longini. This is followed by the text of the treatise On the Sublime, as well as the other fragments, with Pearce’s Latin translation printed beneath the Greek. Starting from p. 133, Ruhnken’s glosses are included, while Toup’s begin on p. 153. The reviewer reports some emendations suggested by Toup in the notes, followed by a brief discussion. Toup often draws apt comparisons between the style of Longinus and that of Plutarch; at times, however, he is too hasty in asserting that a particular word must be used in the text merely because it appears in another passage of Plutarch, of another author, or even of Longinus himself. For example, in a passage from section XXIX [par. 29.1] of the text, Toup prefers the word ἐπίκαιρον (opportune) to the one transmitted ἐπίκηρον (risky), simply because it occurs in a similar expression in another passage of Longinus. But that is not the issue. The question is whether it should appear in this particular passage. The Greek text contains few conjectures, though numerous improvements are suggested in the glosses. The critical apparatus is excellent and is based on the editions of Robortello and Manutius, three Paris manuscripts (that of Pearce, that of Voss, and one shared with Toup by Larcher), and a codex that Toup was able to consult personally in Cambridge. The reviewer reports on Toup’s attempts to fill in gaps in the text. There are mentions of supposed relations between Manutius and Porto, and some notes on Ruhnken’s glosses. It is useful for the reader to compare the notes of Toup and Ruhnken, even when they disagree, and there is no regret in seeing some things explained twice in this edition. This edition certainly confirms, supplements, and corrects previous editions, though it does not render them superfluous. Perhaps it is unnecessary to recall Morus’s Animadversiones ad Longinum (1773), where here and there one reads with pleasure some explanations of terms or expressions—explanations that Toup’s edition rightly identifies as incorrect or to which he assigns the same meaning already given by Morus. The anonymous reviewer demonstrates expertise in the subject, particularly in linguistic matter, through his criticism. The reviewer, however, does not propose any improvements or new conjectures regarding the editors’ readings.

This review appears to be unavailable. Although it can be retrieved from the GJZ18 project database, it does not appear in the journal’s records for the years 1778–1782, which I have consulted.

It follows a brief commentary on the glosses: in the notes, Longinus’s examples are expanded upon with others, mostly taken from English writers; the correctness of Longinus’s observations is examined; the misapplication of his rules and observations to misleading examples is demonstrated; and his reflections are traced back to psychological motives. In the concluding section of the book, there is an essay on the sublime by Schlosser, in which he “discusses the concept of the sublime and shows how it is possible for the sublime to arise in us through words and the representation of ideas” (p. 737). Had he made use of David Runken’s [sic] treatise De vita et scriptis Longini, published in Toup’s edition, Schlosser could have enriched the brief section he dedicated to the life of Longinus with more interesting information. The reviewer would also have liked Schlosser to use the editions of Morus and Toup, described as “two of the greatest critics of our time” (p. 738). The translation reads, aside from a few awkward word connections and expressions, in a light and pleasant manner. “We doubt, however, whether it may not itself lose something when compared to the original, as we have occasionally lamented the translator’s lack of fidelity” (p. 738). In this regard, a discussion follows of several renderings from the Greek, including terminological ones—the Greek text or word is provided, along with Schlosser’s translation and the reviewer’s commentary. Notably: there is a literal rendering of the word προπεπωκότες [par. 32.2], literally “drank away,” as zugetrunken, which does not sound natural to the German ear; the translator should have used a different metaphor. The reviewer raises these critical points so that the public may form its own opinion. Translating Longinus is no easy task—as the reviewer notes “from personal experience” (p. 739). Schlosser also sketched out a plan for a theory of the sublime that is so beautiful the reviewer regrets it remained only a plan.

This report appears in a Sammelrezension. The review opens with a series of critical remarks. It begins with a quotation from Schlosser’s Preface, in which he claims to have conferred greater prestige on Longinus than Heinecke did. According to the reviewer, Schlosser would have done well to make better use of Morus’s work. It seems that Schlosser is unfamiliar with Toup’s recent edition. Schlosser states that he aims to write more for lovers of literature than for scholars (“what a contradiction!,” p. 574). The reviewer, however, notes that only scholars can make use of this translation and of his essay on the sublime. In fact, the treatise by Longinus discusses rhetorical categories such as metonymies, asyndeta etc., which are not accessible to non-specialists. Moreover, Schlosser’s own essay on the sublime employs philosophical and psychological concepts. This is a valuable part of the book, and the translation is also good (“pleasant to read and useful”). Before printing, however, the translation should have been cleaned of unusual, foreign, or peculiar constructions and words. Nevertheless, pompous expressions, flatness, and errors are evident. Examples follow. The reviewer would have wished, as in the “much-maligned” edition by Heinecke, that the Greek text had been printed alongside the translation, so that one could consult the original when the latter proved unclear. Continuing with examples, the reviewer states the following: in some cases, certain words have been left untranslated; and there are passages that have been mistranslated. Despite this, this “German Longinus” is a “valuable publication” (p. 575), and the author deserves thanks.

Since Heinecken’s translation is awkward and, for the most part, incorrect, there was a desire for a better translation of this treatise, which, although fragmentary, remains a precious remnant of ancient aesthetics. This translation not only surpasses those of its predecessors in every respect, but is indisputably one of the few translations of Greek authors that is readable in our language, and it may rightly be placed alongside Boileau’s esteemed French translation. The expression is pure, fluent, full of vigor and dignity. Nevertheless, it is at times too free, and occasionally it seems as if we are reading Schlosser more than Longinus. Anyone familiar with the original Greek also knows the difficulties a translator must contend with, and it is often nearly impossible to extract a coherent meaning from passages where the text is corrupted. Yet, where the translation occasionally lacks a precise understanding of the Greek language and its nuances, this shortcoming is rightly compensated for by Schlosser’s sensitivity and insight, especially where he penetrates the thought of Longinus. Often, in passages where critics—with all their emendations and interpretations—have failed to extract any acceptable meaning from the text, Schlosser intuitively grasps Longinus’s intent. The reviewer states that in many passages of the text we must ask ourselves: Longinus must have meant this, even if the text as it stands seems to say something else or nothing at all. The passages from poetic works cited in the treatise are excellently translated. The translation is based primarily on Morus’s edition. The reviewer would have liked Schlosser to have also consulted Toup’s more recent version. Fortunately, the translator does not belong to that group of translators who, out of blind enthusiasm for their author, see in him nothing but beauty and revere every word as if it were an oracular pronouncement. The notes are well judged. The reviewer recommends Schlosser’s essay on the sublime to all theorists and scholars of aesthetics, as a rich collection of psychological and aesthetic observations and reflections, which—although not always expressed with sufficient precision—nonetheless reveal sound taste and clear judgment. The style in which the essay is written is warm and lively, though at times a bit too assertive and dismissive. The review is signed with the initials “Ik.” The reviewer is identified as Friedrich Gedicke (1754–1803).