1 The Dating of Longinus

I. The Problem

Up through the eighteenth century, scholars universally assumed that the author of the treatise entitled On the Sublime (Περὶ ὕψος) lived in the third century CE. and was to be identified with the most famous philologian of that century, Cassius Longinus. During the nine­teenth century, scholars began to revise that concurrence of opinion and to locate the author in the first century CE.^[1] The earlier dating is now the prevalent one, although some eminent scholars disagree.^[2] Among those who disagree on the first century there is, however, widespread· disagreement about the part of the century in which the treatise was composed (see Appendix A).

II. Data

A. Hard Data

1. Caecilius of Calacte

It is virtually certain that Longinus is rebutting the views of Caecilius of Calacte, a rhetorical theorist whose life spanned the first century BCE. and the first century CE. and who was a friend, and contemporary, of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^[3] Caecilius was famous enough to be cited frequently by later rhetoricians.^[4]

Longinus attacks Caecilius with vigorous outbursts of indignation and amazement (see Appendix B). It would seem more in keeping with human nature to assume that Longinus was concerned with a critic whose influ­ ence was still vital and dangerous; later critics merely cite Caecilius and do not attack him. The indignation expressed by Longinus has for its occasion—whether fictive or real—his concern for a young man, Terentianus, with whom he has recently read Caecilius. Such a c0mbina­ tion of heat and concern does not suggest an academic attack on a critic dead for almost three centuries, although we can find historical parallels for one or the other separately.^[5]

2. Theodorus of Gadara

In 3.5, Longinus mentions the name Theodorus; although he does not specify that this Theodorus is Theodorus of Gadara, most critics assert the identity, and there are many supporting arguments (see Appendix C, section 1). The floruit of Theodorus of Gadara is set at 30 BCE.;^[6] he was still alive around 1 CE, for he was a teacher of Tiberius during the future emperor’s retirement to Rhodes.^[7]

If Longinus did have in mind Theodorus of Gadara, then certain grammatical and syntactical usages in the sentence suggest that Longinus is referring to a man either still alive or not long dead (see Appendix C, section 2)0 If this line of argument be valid, then we have for Longinus a terminus post quem of either (a) 30 BC, if Theodorus were still alive, or (b) 1-10 A.B., if Theodorus were not long dead. The same line of reasoning will also suggest a possible terminus ante quemo^[8]

B. Soft Data

1. Mention of the Colossus

When, in 36.2, Longinus mentions “the Colossus,” readers generally and instantly think of the famous Colossus of Rhodes This identifica­ tion would gain in power if Longinus had been writing during a period when colossal statues were in vogue. Such a period occurred in the middle of the first century CE, from Caligula to Vespasian (see Appendix D).

If such evidence be relevant, we may adjust the earliest date for the composition of On the Sublime to 40 CE. or thereafter but well be­ fore the death of Vespasian in 79 CE. As will be true throughout the section called “Soft Data,” any individual argument will not have much weight; it is our thesis, however, that when many slight arguments point in one direction, and the counterarguments to each do not point in one direction, then preference may properly be given to the direction sug­ gested by the concurrence.

2. Two Related Problems:

(a) The Banishment of Philosophers

Although there had been official antipathy towards philosophers at Rome as far back as the second century BCE,^[9] Vespasian was the first to banish philosophers from Rome. Some returned; but Domitian, contin­uing Vespasian’s policy, again banished them and—a few years later—he also banished rhetoricians (see Appendix E, section 1).

In ch. XLIV, Longinus introduces a conversation which he had with a philosopher. The casual circumstances suggest that the meeting was public and natural; Longinus shows no apprehension of, or resentment at, oppression, such as we find almost everywhere in the pages of Tacitus.

It would seem reasonable, then, to state as a possibility—and perhaps even as a likelihood—that Longinus wrote at a time when philosophers, and rhetoricians, were not under suspicion or repression, that is, either before Vespasian or after Domitian. As we shall show later, a date after Domitian is highly improbable. Hence, once again, we may tentatively select as a dating for the composition of On the Sublime a period after Claudius but before Vespasian, i.e., the time of Nero.

(b) The Persecution of the Jews

Several critics, from Mommsen on, have suggested that Longinus was a Hellenized Jew.^[10] Hence a good deal of emphasis has been placed on the possible relationship of Longinus and Philo.^[11] To the degree that we may legitimately build hypothesis upon hypothesis—and we are reduced to doing so as we attempt to solve the problem of dating Lon­ ginus—it will be relevant to consider anti-semitism in antiquity, es­ pecially in the first and third centuries CE.

According to Philo, anti-semitism began under Tiberius at the in­ stigation of Sejanus; Caligula and Claudius continued the persecution of Jews (see Appendix E, section 2). After Claudius, however, anti-semitism seems to have declined, for we do not find a recorded recurrence of the policy until the end of Domitian’s reign (95 CE).^[12]

If then, Longinus was a Hellenized Jew, and if the policies of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius affected Hellenized Jews—who may or may not have been practising Jews—we might expect some sense of this to appear in Longinus’ work, especially in ch. XLIV. Nothing of the kind appears. Since Domitian’s late years would not seem, on the basis of other arguments,^[13] to have been a probable time for the composition of On the Sublime, we may possibly conclude that Longinus came after Claudius (54 CE). Vespasian’s sustained war on Judaea, which cul­ minated in the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, would presumably have made Jews unpopular at Rome even if no overt signs of actual per­ secution are recorded.^[14] On a basis of this highly speculative series of hypotheses, we may arrive at a date somewhere in the time of Nero.

3. Longinus and the Conflict between Asianism and Atticism

Although the history of the conflict which existed between the two literary styles, known as Asianism and Atticism, is not fully known, careful analysis of what data we do possess will shed some light on the dating of Longinus.

Caecilius was an Atticist, and the movement was, then, recogniz­ able as early as the time of Cicero.^[15] It continued to function, even if it did not flourish, as late as the second half of the first century CE.^[16] By the end of the century, however, it appears to have been moribund (see Appendix F).

Insofar as Longinus attacks Caecilius, Longinus must have been writing at a time when Atticism was still an active movement. Longinus’ own style is highly elaborate, ornate, and even Asiatic—although not in the extreme mode of that movement.^[17] In fact, Longinus spends as much time attacking excessive Asianism as he does Atticism, e.g., 5.1 and 15.8. In these two passages, the words “now” and “by now” indi­ cate that the movement being attacked is contemporary and only recently established. What we want to find, then, is a period in which both Atticism and Asianism were both active enough to warrant the two­ pronged attack which Longinus makes. The most appropriate period would be the middle of the first century CE.

Attacks on excessive Asianism start, in the first century CE, with the elder Seneca, towards the end of the reign of Tiberius, and reach a crescendo in the time of Nero.^[18] Longinus would thus appear to have been a part of that mounting censure. As we have seen in Plutarch, Atticism was still a foe to be dealt with even after the middle of the century. As one influenced by Theodorus, Longinus would naturally have criticized both Atticism and excessive Asianism: he approved of emotion like Theodorus, but, also like Theodorus, he opposed its excessive use.^[19]

4. Omission of Reference to the Eruption of Mt. Vesuvius

In 79 CE, ML Vesuvius erupted: the event is recorded for us at first hand by Pliny the Younger, who wrote an account of his experi­ ences as grist for the historical work of his friend Tacitus, We have lost that part of Tacitus which would have shown us how he used the many details provided by Pliny; the eruption became, however, a kind of minor topos for vivid writing, as can be seen in the accounts composed by numerous ancient authors, many of whom were writing contemporane­ ously (see Appendix G).

An argumentum ex silentio—and such is what this one is—always is suspect; hence Russell duly scouts Schmid1s suggestion that the non­ mention of the eruption can be used for dating Longinus.^[20] Still, it is reasonable to suppose that Longinus might have mentioned the erup­ tion in ch. XXXV, where he uses Aetna as an example of the sublime. Longinus does not confine himself only to traditional exempla, as wit­ ness his use, in addition to the Nile, of the Danube and the Rhine and his comparison of Cicero with Demosthenes.

If the argument has any validity, it contributes to the conclu­ sion that Longinus was writing before 79 CE (see Appendix G).

5. Theories of Cultural Beeline and the Dating of Longinus

This argument is the most important of those which we are here ad­ vancing. As it is complex, we shall first require a conspectus of the various theories about cultural decline held from the time of Cicero to the rise of the Second Sophistic (i.e., the time of Dio Chrysostom); the conspectus should make clear (a) what the theories were; (b) who held what theories; (c) when a particular theory or set of theories was held and with what emphasis and interpretation. Once all this is seen, we shall be able to locate the most appropriate period for the theories advanced by Longinus in ch. XLIV, both those advanced in his own person and those put forth in the persona of the philosopher.

The ancients held four views about the cause of cultural decline: 1) natural; 2) historical and social; 3) political; 4) moral.^[21] They sometimes spoke of cultural decline in general; at other times they emphasized oratorical decline. We may take up these four causes seriatim.

a. The Natural Theory of Cultural Decline

According to the “natural theory of cultural decline,” decay comes about either as a consequence of growing old—the lot of all living creatures and hence, by analogy, of societies—or as a periodic deteri­ oration in a natural and continuing cycle of growth and decay. A sense of decay appears as early as Homer and Hesiod and continues throughout antiquity (see Appendix H). The notion of cyclic movement appears to begin with Plato.^[22]

From the birth of Cicero (106 BCE to the death of Dio Chrysostom (ca. 113 A.D.) there is a span of more than 200 years. Within this span the following writers discuss or reflect the topos of cultural de­ cline: Cicero, Velleius Paterculus, Seneca the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Petronius, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quin­ tilian, Juvenal, and Dio Chrysostom. Of these, Cicero, Velleius Paterculus, Seneca the Elder, and Pliny the Elder offer a theory of cultural decline resulting from natural causes. All of these writers lived and wrote during the first half of the 200-year span mentioned above, with the exception of Pliny the Elder; after them, the theory of natural causes disappears, for we do not find it in Petronius, Seneca the Younger, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Quintilian, or Dio Chrysostom. Longinus does not discuss it directly, although there may be an allusion to the theory in 44.1 (seen. 22 above and Appendix H).

b. The Historical and Social Theory of Cultural Decline

Writers who subscribe to this theory argue that historical and social conditions produce, at certain times, greatness or its opposite. It is a theory similar to that advanced by the modern historian Arnold Toynbee, which he has called “challenge and response;” we find it first advanced by Pliny the Elder.^[23] Pliny begins by observing that peace, prosperity, commerce, and communications have improved life enormously, so much so that there has been little or no need to develop new ways of doing things, nor even to preserve all of the ancient ways. Anciently, he argues, men were more industrious and productive and inventive, for nations were then more limited both in scope and in genius: the poverty of fortune made it necessary for men to be inventive, and rulers then rewarded men for their inventiveness.^[24]

In Pliny the Elder, the historical and moral theories of decay coalesce (see below): nowadays, Pliny says—perhaps more observa­ tionally than analytically—our possessions have led to possessiveness; “our arts are those of avarice;” our purpose is pleasure; and men’s sense of reward has been perverted accordingly.

The historical and social explanation is naturally allied to the political, and it is the political explanation which attracts a large number of exponents, as we shall see.^[25]

c. The Political Theory of Cultural Decline

This theory—that political repressiveness destroyed the greatness to be found in Cicero and his contemporaries—is not fully developed until the time of Tacitus, who wrote at the end of the first century CE. Because of the close connection between politics and oratory, the po­ litical theory is primarily an explanation of oratorical decline; it is, however, often expanded to include the other arts and hence to become a theory of cultural decline. Although Tacitus writes at the end of the century, he traces political repression to the end of the reign of Augustus.

Before Tacitus, various writers express their political explana­tions in veiled ways; Tacitus records that such speculation began with the death of Augustus (see Appendix I). Seneca the Elder, for example, writing under Tiberius, is very circumspect, but occasionally his voice bursts out to express his true feelings (see Appendix I). Petronius parodies the topic of libertas, which, he says, is practiced by orators only in declamations (see Appendix I).

In ch. XLIV, Longinus puts the political argument for cultural decline—and specifically for oratorical decline—into the mouth of the philosopher.^[26] The artfulness of the argument resembles the explanation given in Petronius (see Appendix I); later, as we see in Tacitus and his contemporaries, improved conditions of political free­ dom did not require such artistic subterfuge.

d. The Moral Theory of Cultural Decline

Imperial writers came increasingly to couch their criticism of emperors and the imperium in moral terms. Since Longinus, too, ex­ presses his most profound analysis of cultural decline in moral terms, by examining this form of the topos carefully we may be able to improve the certainty of his dating.

Those who deal most extensively with the m0ral topos are Petronius, Seneca the Younger, and Pliny the Elder, all of whom wrote in the middle of the century (see Appendix J).The accumulation of previous evidence has been pointing steadily to that part of the century as the most probable date for Longinus.

Resemblances between Petronius and Longinus are striking, for both make oratorical decline the exemplar of cultural decline and both attack Asianism in the same terms. Seneca the Younger, like Petronius, treats cultural decline by analyzing its most overt vice, gluttony: the vice is the external symbol of what Longinus conceives of internally as “craving” (44.6). Seneca specifically links the growth of gluttony and the decay of oratorical excellence (see Appendix J), Pliny the Elder melts from an explanation that is historical and social into one that is moral (avaritia); like Petronius, he expands the decline to include not only oratory but the plastic arts as well.

Pliny the Younger, writing at the end of the century, offers as a specific date for the commencement of oratorical decline the year 59 A.D., under Nero. According to his analysis, Asianism was thriving under Nero. Virtually all others who discuss Asianism describe it in terms of excess, the characteristic which marked all of the vices preva­ lent in the century. The vices of the century were examples of what we call “conspicuous consumption,” that is, they were public, and their practitioners seemed almost to require an audience. Similarly, Pliny observes that Asianism required an audience—since its aim was to pro­ duce a sensational effect—and its practitioners were willing to obtain audiences by unscrupulous means (see Appendix J).

Tacitus, a contemporary of Pliny’s, has one of the interlocutors in the Dialogus put forth a moral argument for the decline of oratory; he does not, however, adopt a theory of internal moral corruption such as that advanced by Longinus in ch. XLIV. It would appear, then, that a theory of internal moral corruption was most prevalent in the middle of the century.

Now since the revival of Asianism corresponds to the growth of cul­ tural decline; and since the growth of Asianism corresponds to the de­ cline of Atticism; and since the most astute and extensive critics of such corruption came in the middle of the century and not at the be­ ginning and the end, it would seem reasonable to locate the similar moral analysis advanced by Longinus in the same period. If we can show, as we now propose to do, that a moral and cultural revival took place toward the end of the century, and that the leading critics of that time were conscious of it, we shall be able to establish both a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem for the dating of Longinus.

e. Summary of Evidence for Dating by Means of the Topos of Cultural Decline

We may now summarize the conclusions for section II.B.5, the topos of cultural decline. As we argued at the outset, if we can distinguish the various theories of cultural decline entertained in antiquity, and establish which authors held which, in what degree or combination, and in what parts of the century, we shall be able to ascertain when the par­ ticular arguments offered by Longinus were most apt to have been written.

Since the topos of cultural decline starts with the anonymous speakers mentioned by Tacitus, who began to speculate on political re­ pression as the cause of decline at the end of the reign of Augustus, Longinus must have come either at this time or later. The anonymous political theory appears in the pages of Seneca the Elder, who wrote under Tiberius; but as it appears in veiled and laconic language, and as this theory is put forth openly by the philosopher in ch. XLIV of Lon­ ginus, then Longinus must have come after Seneca the Elder. Longinus himself has the philosopher say that the political explanation was “com­ mon talk” (44.2). In Tacitus’ Dialogus, Aper—speaking ca. 75 CE—also describes the political theory as being already “common talk” (Dialogus 19).^[27] Hence Longinus must have been writing before 75 CE. The philosopher in Longinus appears to have been a Stoic, one who had a theory of cyclical decay (44.1), although he never gets to develop this theory because Longinus interrupts him. The theory of cyclic decay would have been anathema to Longinus, who believed fervently in the per­ petual fertility and energy of nature (ch. XXXV).

Furthermore, Longinus bases his own theory of cultural decline on moral decline, specifically the lust for money and for the kind of pleasures which money could buy. The writers after Vespasian all com­ ment on the marked improvement in public morality; the writers after Seneca the Elder—particularly those in the middle of the century— emphasize the pecuniae cupiditas (Petronius, Seneca the Younger, Pliny the Elder). Tacitus, Quintilian, and Pliny the Younger, although they discuss the question of cultural decline, do not attribute it to pecuniae cupiditas.^[28]

It would seem reasonable, then, to conclude that Longinus’ treat­ ment of the topos belongs to the middle of the century.

6. Theories of Cultural Revival

As we have seen, theories of cultural decline often overlap, for the political blends with the moral and historical. The categories are, however, distinguishable, and a revival in any one will sooner or later subsume a revival in the others. That there was a revival in cultural excellence—or that men thought there was—at the end of the century is made specific in Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Quintilian, and Dia Chrysos­ tom.

a. Political Revival

Tacitus shows how personal cruelty increased steadily in the em­ perors from Tiberius through Nero (see Appendix K). Even Claudius, who may seem to represent a momentary lull in the progressive deterioration of the Julio-Claudian line, was cruel “by nature,” as Suetonius reports (Appendix K). From Vespasian through Trajan, however, a reverse move­ ment occurs, as Tacitus makes specifically clear: his view is supported by Suetonius and Dia Cassius (see Appendix K). Suetonius carefully marks in the lives of each emperor that the members of the Julio-Claudian line were “not cruel by nature.”

Longinus nowhere suggests that any amelioration in political con­ ditions was taking place, either in the philosopher’s speech or in his own.

b. Moral Revival

According to Tacitus, the period from the Battle of Actium to the accession of Galba was one of moral and social deterioration.^[29] With Vespasian commenced a period of regeneration and improvement. Tacitus characterizes the moral corruption as luxus mensaeque, gluttony (see Appendix J); in doing so, he agrees with Petronius and Seneca the Younger, although he does not attribute the decline in oratory to this moral cause. According to Suetonius, Claudius instituted and sanctioned the practice of public gluttony.^[30]

Contrasted with the Julio-Claudian emperors are Vespasian and his successors: as if to produce a balance, Claudius marks a slight inter­ ruption in the steady deterioration of the Julio-Claudian line; Domitian is an aberration from the steady improvement of Vespasian and his suc­ cessors a Suetonius says that Domitian was driven to avarice “against his nature” and out of “fear.”^[31]

Vespasian’s love of money had the public good for its aim; he did not spend much of his money on himself.^[32] Tacitus also comments on the improvement that occurred in conduct when new senators were drawn from the municipia and the provinces, where parsimonia was still practiced.^[33]

Furthermore, Vespasian’s eating habits were austere and old-fashioned.^[34] He was emulated, and Tacitus confirms that the rage for conspicuous con­ sumption died out, although gradually.^[35] Titus, according to Suetonius, was irreproachable once he became emperor;^[36] Domitian, as noted above, was epiphenomenal to the steady improvement; and Nerva and Trajan were praised by Tacitus—a critic not given to praising.

c. The Revival in Oratory

As political and moral life began to improve, cultural life im­ proved also, especially in oratory. Tacitus, Quintilian, Pliny the Younger, and Dio Chrysostom all specifically point to an actual revival in rhetorical excellence, and most of these predict a greatness that will match the best of the past.

Looking back over the period of thirty or more years that had elapsed from Vespasian to Trajan, Tacitus concedes that there is much in both politics and art to merit praise.^[37]

Quintilian, who did not apparently subscribe to any pessimistic or general theory of cultural decline,^[38] cites as examples of good orators men who died as late as 90 CE.^[39] Domitius Afer, who flourished under Nero, is called summus orator.^[40] For Quintilian, clear-cut dis­tinction between a man as orator and a man as moral being was possible; Longinus, like Seneca the Elder, like Cicero, and like Cato, made no such distinction. For them the great orator was a “good man speaking well.”^[41] So confident was Quintilian of a coming renaissance that he predicts that future historians will find “flourishing in my own day geniuses who rival the ancients.”^[42] Afer was, he says, the only one of the previous generation worthy of being rated with the ancients; today, he adds, the forum is brilliant with men of genius.^[43] Since Quintilian is regarded as, and was, one of the greatest rhetorical teachers and theoreticians of all time, his judgment cannot be attributed to mere enthusiasm.

Pliny found signs of an oratorical renaissance in certain young orators, whom he praises extravagantly.^[44] He praises Tacitus as the best orator of the age, and his own Panegyricus was, by his own estimate as well as that of others, a masterpiece.^[45] Pliny subscribes to a political theory of revival: greater eloquence, he says, results from greater freedom. His political view represents a departure from the moral profundity found in the critics of the mid-century.

Dia Chrysostom advises an older friend who wished to enter po­litical life to study the orators of the early part of the first century.^[46] He recognizes that such advice is not common; those he recommends are all Greeks, and it would appear that the oratorical revival occurred earlier in Latin than in Greek.^[47] Such writers, he says, do not intimidate us, as do the ancients, and we may legitimately hope to equal or surpass them. Although less enthusiastic than Quintilian and Pliny, Dia adumbrates the rise of the Second Sophistic, of which he him­ self was a significant figure; his nickname (“golden mouth”) suggests that posterity thought him worthy of being ranked with the ancients.^[48]

We today may not concur with the judgments of Quintilian and the others cited, although the scanty remains of literature in the second century A.D. should make us cautious.^[49] We must admit, however, that they thought the renaissance genuine. And the very names of the men who held this thought are no mean sign of a genuine revival, Regard­ less of our own estimate, we find nothing of such a view or tone in Longinus; like the great critics of the mid-century, he is aware only of decline, to which he opposes his own theories about the nature of man and of human greatness. Since the topos of cultural decline is al­ most an exclusive feature of the first century ce, and since it was a conspicuous feature, and since Longinus clearly fits in with one special group of writers on the topos, it would appear that he should be dated to the middle of the first century ce.

d. Evidence for Dating Longinus on the Basis of the Topos of Cultural Revival

It would seem reasonable, then, to conclude that Longinus did not write during or after the period in which a cultural renaissance oc­ curred and was consciously noted by the leading intellectual figures of that renaissance, Even Tacitus, who is, in the Dialogus, pessimistic about a decline, hints at a new standard of excellence, for he has Maternus begin to develop such an argument. And, in the Annals (3,55) he specifically praises the virtues of his own age in comparison with the past. The fictive date of the Dialogus is ca. 75 ce; even such a tentative theory is absent from Longinus, who simultaneously holds that there is a cultural decline, that it is still going on, and that nature provides men with constant opportunities for greatness. Both the re­ sources and the standards for human greatness are, in his judgment, eternal and universal. Tacitus, in the Dialogus, offers at best a modi­ fied and reduced kind of greatness.

Furthermore, Longinus seems to reject any notion of cyclical decay and specifically rejects political explanations. His own theory is a variation of that first touched on by Seneca the Elder, probably in the 30’s, and mentioned as only one possibility out of three. The moral theory, mentioned in passing by Seneca the Elder, is discussed by Petronius, Pliny the Elder, and Seneca the Younger before 68 ce. in the terms luxuria and cupiditas. All these men particularly and spe­ cifically link these vices with cultural decline. Where they see the moral decline as external—clothes, furniture, houses, gluttony—Lon­ ginus turns inward to an analysis of the soul, in the manner of Plato: the condition of the soul in the individual will manifest itself in the society at large.

The topos of cultural revival, then, provides a terminus ante quem, just as the topos·of cultural decline provides a terminus post quem. If we assume, as seems reasonable, that Longinus intended ch. XLIV to be a reply to the theory most prevalent at the time—the theory of ex­ ternal luxuria and cupiditas—it would seem proper to conclude that he wrote at the time of Petronius, Pliny the Elder, and Seneca the Younger. That time, as we shall attempt to show in the conclusion, came under Nero.

7. Cassius Longinus and Longinus

Because so eminent a contemporary critic as G.M.A. Grube supports the view, held universally up through the eighteenth century, that the author of On the Sublime was Cassius Longinus, we have thought it proper to comment on this possibility. In our judgment, as we have stated ear­ lier, the absence of any discussion about the topos of cultural decline in the third century ce. Do makes that century ineligible for considera­ tion. If, however, any candidate in the third century be possible, that candidate would be Cassius Longinus.

The arguments in his favor are as follows: his name was Longinus; he was, in the judgment of his own day and often thereafter, regarded as an outstanding literary critic; although most of his works have been lost, he was voluminous; he was strongly interested in philosophy as well as in literary criticism; one striking parallel between his work and On the Sublime is acknowledged by everyone.^[50]

Against these we may offer the following observations: there is huge uncertainty about any name; the extant remains of Cassius Longinus do not, in our judgment, show him to be a great critic; what evidence we have for the missing volumes written by Cassius Longinus simply does not allow for any firm conclusion; his philosophical position would seem to have been neo-Platonic, and the author of On the Sublime shows no traces of neo-Platonism; the one striking parallel is more than coun­ terbalanced by strong differences in diction, in style, and in thought (see Appendix L).

It is our conclusion, based on the analysis contained in Appen­ dix L, that Cassius Longinus did not write On the Sublime.

III. Conclusion

We have prepared a chart (Appendix M), based on the various argu­ ments discussed here, in which we list the various periods proposed for the dating of Longinus; under each period we have marked whether the particular argument discussed is applicable. The chart in no way weights the various arguments and hence is purely quantitative. On the basis of this quantitative argument, the age of Nero receives the high­ est number of votes (17 out of 17); the next highest total is the age of Caligula (15); then Claudius (13+1/2) and Tiberius (14). Augustus is just slightly ahead of the third century CE. (12+1/2 to ll+l/2); the first century BCE is even higher than the reigns of Vespasian (with whom we bracket Titus), Domitian, and Nerva-Trajan (12+1/2 to 7, 7, and 10 respectively).

Critical consensus nowadays locates Longinus in the middle of the first century A.D.; our quantitative analysis confirms this judgment and makes the location specifically under Nero. When we weight our arguments, and give prior consideration to the argument based on cul­ tural decline, the reign of Nero seems almost certain. What part of Nero’s reign would be most appropriate seems impossible to determine at this point, unless further evidence turns up.