|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Cecil of Calattes" etc.
- "If, as [source] suggests, On the Sublime was written in order to disprove the theories of Cecil of Calattes, an author who lived in the first century A.D.; considering that Longinus lived in the third century A.D., it seems quite improbable that the work can be a polemic treatise about a writing composed two centuries before." Without the source for this statement provided, it's empty of useful content. "Cecil of Calattes" may be an error of some kind. Perhaps it should be linked to a stub article on this figure who does not come up in googling. Nor does "Calattes". Can the Wikipedia get some assistance?
Correction: Caecilius of Calacte (who does have a wiki entry). This paragraph could go back in if a source can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist 14:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The remark on Genesis in this treatise is one of the most famous aspects of it. Perhaps the text covering this was dropped inadvertently. I see no reason to drop any of the former text. --Wetman 08:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added internal links and changed the format of the headings. The main body of the text can, I think, be divided between authorship issues and content.--Ethicoaestheticist 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be numerous mistakes and confusing renderings in the article entitled Longinus (literature): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_%28literature%29
“… the author quotes in the work is a Sappho’s poem ....” [sic, is Sappho’s poem/a poem by Sappho]
“And between them an empathic bound [sic?, bond] must set up.”
“Done these considerations, [In addition to?/Despite?] the literary genre ....”
“Thus, among the examples of sublime [the sublime/sublimity/sublime literature?], can be found close [??], and without hierarchies [without being in any particular order?], Homer, ....”
“... thus turning oratory in [sic, into] a mere exercise of style.”
Etc., etc., etc., mostly in second half of article.
It is correctly stated in the article: "There remains the possibility that the work belongs to neither Cassius Longinus nor Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but, rather, some unknown author writing under the Roman Empire, likely in the first century. The error does imply that when the codex was written, the trails of the real author were already lost. Neither author can be accepted as the actual writer of the treatise." As the author is unknown, and the original reason for naming him Longinus was confusion with the philosopher Cassius Longinus, he should be named Pseudo-Longinus. 188.8.131.52 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article is named Longinus, but both Longinus and pseudo-Longinus are used in the article. There needs to be consistency: one or the other. I don't think the article should be renamed, Longinus being the more familiar, less scholarly, name. But there's no reason why pseudo-Longinus shouldn't be adopted throughout the article with a note in the lead explaining the usage.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Longinus may be familiar, but it is familiar only because of a scribal error. There is no good reason to perpetuate such an error and to stick to it forever, more than hundred years after its discovery. The article on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite is named Pseudo-Dionysius, though "Dionysius" was his universally accepted name for more than thousand years. "Pseudo" helps the reader - even before he starts reading the article, he knows that it is definitely not Longinus. There should also be consistency between the article and its title. 184.108.40.206 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Latin word for Greek concepts
As mentioned in the article Sublime (philosophy), the word comes from the Latin sublimis ([looking up from] under the lintel, high, lofty, elevated, exalted). You are standing in front of a window or doorway. At the top of the opening, there is a horizontal supporting beam. As you look up at the high beam, you are looking at something exalted or elevated. Such is the hidden Roman trail of associations that lead from the sublime to the notions of high, noble, exalted, elevated, and lofty. Lestrade (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
It is "Longīnos" not "Longĭnos"
The "i" in the author's name is long, therefore it needs a circumflex. I guess someone took the form with acut from modern Greek, which abolished the circumflex, but as Longin is from antiquity, I prefer the original orthography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The first link currently on this page is not working. http://mercure.fltr.ucl.ac.be/Hodoi/concordances/lucien_rhetorique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the Greek article isn't linked: http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%AF_%CF%8D%CF%88%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82. don't know how to do that. (22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC))
At the beginning of the article, the Greek spelling of his name seems to be wrong. I would guess that it is supposed to be Greek: Λονγῖνος instead of Greek: Λογγῖνος.Lestrade (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
- You'd guess wrong. Double g is transliterated (and pronounced) ng. Thus άγγελος = angel. Nightspore (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)