Chapter 17: Concealment of Figures
It is worthwhile, my friend, not to omit one of the matters I have theorized about—but I shall be quite concise—that figures naturally ally themselves with sublimity and that they gain wonderfully from it. But where and how shall I phrase it? A readiness to accomplish everything by figures is by its own nature suspect and produces a sense of insinuation, of lying in wait, of plots, of deception; and this is so whenever the speech and writing is delivered before somebody who is to make a decision, most of all before tyrants, kings, or leaders in pre-eminent positions. Such a man, you see, is quite sore, if, like a senseless child, he is outsophisticated by a speaker who is a technician at figures, and, taking the deception for an insult, he sometimes goes completely wild, and even if he should prevail over his rage, he firms himself entirely against the persuasiveness of the speeches and writings. For just this reason it is the general opinion that a figure is most excellent when the fact that it is a figure thoroughly escapes our notice.
2. Now surely sublimity and emotion form a remedy and a wonderful kind of assistance against the suspicion of using figures, and the technique of being ready to do anything disappears amid the surrounding beauties and greatnesses and flees from all suspicion. What was said before is sufficient for inferring this: “I swear by those at Marathon “You see, how has the speaker hidden his figure here? Manifestly in the light itself. Just as a faint gleam is almost made to disappear when the sun radiates all around it, so rhetorical contrivances grow faint when greatness is poured over them from all sides. 3. And something not different from this occurs in painting: although light and shadow are portrayed in colors on the same surface side by side, the light meets our eyes first, and not only is it more conspicuous, but it also appears to be much nearer. Now in speeches and writings, since emotion and sublimity lie nearer to our souls—because of a kind of natural kinship and because of their dazzling effect-over and over again they appear to us before the figures, and they cast technique into the shade and keep it hidden.
Commentary
how shall I phrase it?: the rhetorical question emphasizes the tone of the first sentence of this chapter, where Longi nus reassures any potentially bored readers that he will be brief. Having promised to be concise, Longinus pre tends suddenly to perceive the size of his commitment in the face of the complex topic.
readiness … deception: what rhetoric could do the Athenians quickly became aware of; in fact, so hypersensitive did they become that they executed a man who spent a good deal of his life attack ing rhetoric and rhetoricians. In Plato’s Apology (12B), Socrates seeks to defend himself against the charge of being a “powerful” (i.e., clever and unscrupu lous) speaker. Aristotle makes the Machiavellian observation (Rhetoric 1414bl8 ff.) that it is necessary for the speaker to conceal his art and to seem to be natural: men suspect artifice in speech the way they suspect doctored wine, and think that the speaker is trying to trap and trick them. Hence speakers often try to persuade their audience that they are “just plain ordinary men.” President Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” were just such an attempt by a sophisticated rhetorician; Huey Long’s incompetence as an intellectual was one of his strongest points. Common, too, are the claims of shrewd Washington attorneys that they are “mere country lawyers.” The pow erful recommendation of incompetence was noted in antiquity by Philodemus.
insinuation: Hermogenes ( On the Method for Powerfulness 408; p. 419 Rabe) makes “insinuation” the genus of paraleipsis (praeteritio) and aposi opesis, i.e., rhetorical devices for mak ing one’s “insinuation” or “hidden meaning” more conspicuous. The word may be either honorific-as when it ref ers to the deeper meaning of myths-or pejorative, like the sense suggested here.
lying in wait . .. deception: Quintilian (I0.1.21) says that speeches of a great orator must be read and re-read contin ually, especially those speeches where the excellences have been deliberately concealed, “for often the orator sets his audience up, dissimulates, and lies in wait for it.” In 4.5.5, he discusses the situation in which it is necessary to practice deceit on judges. The word here translated “deception” comes from the Greek word meaning “contrary to reason” and is used to de scribe folly, fallacy, and trickery. See ch. 20, n. on anaphora, where Aristotle is cited as calling asyndeton and ana phora species of “fallacy.”
tyrants, kings, leaders: Russell suggests distinctions based on generalized politi cal conditions (for the precise connota tions may depend in part on the time during which Longinus wrote): “ty rants” means usurpers; “kings” refers to the so-called “client kings” of the Roman Empire; “leaders” refers to pro vincial governors. For an example of how an emperor could be affected by a speech, see Libanius, I.87-88.
outsophisticated: the root of the word means “skilled”; its cognates can be either pejorative or honorific. Because Longin us is describing rhetorical tricks, and the rhetoricians were generally clas sified as “sophists,” we may assume that the use here is pejorative. English “so phisticated” bears both a good and a bad sense.
figures: Longinus uses the diminutive form, which expresses contempt. Eng lish “figurines,” though it exists, has a different meaning altogether.
beauties: the Greek word (lit., “fine nesses”) is often translated as “beau ties,” the regular term in the eighteenth century for the fine or beautiful passages in an author.
Just as a faint gleam: the simile is a variation on Sappho’s poem (Lobel and Page, fr. 34) comparing her love to the moon, whose brightness hides the bril liance of the stars.
hidden: in the closing two sentences of the chapter, Longinus draws an anal ogy between painting and poetry, a familiar notion that dales back at least as far as Simonides. In the opening sentence of the chapter, Longinus had seemed lo claim originally for his point, or at least for its application. We may contrast with his theory that pro pounded by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (On Composition 23) in his discussion of the smooth style. Those excelling in this style are, according to Dionysius, Hesiod in epic, Sappho in lyric, Euri pides in tragedy, Isocrates in oratory, and no one perfectly in history, al though he praises Ephorus and Theo pompus for some attainment in it. Of this even-flowing style he says: “it is like … well-woven webs or paintings where the light [colors] blend with shadows.” Plutarch discusses the analogy of poetry and painting in his essay How a Young Man Should Read Poetry (ch. 3).
