To illustrate this unique appraisal o f Hyperides in Ps. Longinus’ characterization, the meaning o f a comparison with a ‘pentathlos’ has to be demonstrated.” ® At first sight, to be the first o f amateurs is critical, whereas in each competition to come second is not flattering at all. If we consider, however that the rules o f the pentathlon prescribe that in each particular competition, only a few o f the best could progress further and take part in the next round, the comparison appears in a different light. Moreover, as Herman Hager pointed out,” ^ to win the whole competition it was not enough to be always even the second or the third, but finally the ‘pentathlos’ had to win the very last round, the wrestling, in which he had to face a single man, who like the ultimate winner had ended up in one o f the first two places in the competition. Usually, as Hager emphasized, with this characterization ancient critics on the one hand target mediocrity and on the other many-sideness. ‘Idiotai’, are not completely laymen, but rather an opposition to the professional. Nevertheless it is remarkable that even within such conditions the final victory presupposes a place in the last round, though a professional wrestler might have beaten the ‘pentathlos’.
The stylistic characterization o f Hyperides does not differ at all from previous critical judgements. In agreement with Dionysius’ view the orator’s arrangement is praised in comparison with that o f Lysias, which, however, does not equal the level o f Demosthenes. Apart from generally known characteristics o f a good plain style, noteworthy is the highlighted recognition o f witticism and delivery, both o f which formed the bases o f Hyperides’ high renown in Rhodes. Beside the numerous aspects
^^°Cf. U.von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, (Lesebuch) 11,239: „Diese Vergleichung ist natiirlich zu der Zeit gefimden, als die ganze gute Gesellschaft sich an solchem Spiele beteiligte, nachweisbar zuerst im 4. Jhdt.”
Herman Hager, ‘On Hyperides’ JPh 5 (1874) 45-6.
^^^Russell, 160, refers to Sir Joshua Reynolds (Discourse V); the author uses this chapter to compare Michelangelo with Raphael: „If (the first rank) is to be given to him who possessed a greater combination of the higher qualities of the art than other men, there is no doubt that Rafaelle is the first. But if, as Longinus thinks, the sublime abundantly compensates the absence o f every other beauty - then Michael Angelo demands the preference”.
o f Hyperides’ wit,” ^ Ps.Longinus emphasizes the orator’s presumably striking uniqueness among other Attic writers. There are good reasons to accept the alternative reading o f the dubious passage (obK dpoixja obS’ dvdyayyot, xaxd xoùç
Axtikoùç eKeivouç dXocç fe7ciKel|ieva); gùk dpouoa obô’ dvdycoya Kaxd xoùç
Axxikoùç hKeivouç hîciKEKpipéva - ‘not tasteless or rude as in the case o f those
Attic writers, but well chosen’. T h i s characterization and the emphasis on Hyperides’ abilities in provoking pity (epilogue) and narration underline the reasonableness o f the Rhodians’ choice for Hyperides. This parallel to Rhodian rhetorical values might be strengthened by G. Martano’s observation that Ps.Longinus’ views on technical rules in rhetoric represent an intermediate standpoint between the strict prescriptions o f the followers o f Apollodorus and the easiness o f Theodorus, which he equates to the Rhodians’ intermediate attitude in general.^^^
As Doreen Innes has pointed out, Hyperides’ main quality, however, that is ethos (charm, wit, laughter) as a standard and permanent disposition is contrasted to the vehement and inspired emotion (kcc0oç), which is the decisive element in sublimity and can be found in Demosthenes’ style. On the other hand such ‘low emotions’ as grief, fear and pity, at which latter Hyperides excels, slightly confuse the clear antithesis between sublimity (iiàGoç) and pleasure-pointing ethos. Evoking pity is contrasted by Ps.Longinus, however, with indignation and anger and is generally characteristic o f the plain style. Although it represents emotion, it is a ‘low emotion’ not suitable to achieving sublimity. Similarly, in connection with the considerations in Ps.Longinus, a sign o f lacking sublimity is that no one feels fear, which is the case in reading Hyperides.” ^Meanwhile the emphasis laid on Hyperides’ stylistic virtues might reflect a deliberate contrast between the rejected Hellenistic value o f subtlety, intimate witticism and the grandeur, or ‘greatness’, which is favoured by
àCTxeïap,oi as ‘urbanities, smart and clever’ see A. M. Finoli, ‘xapi£vxiop,ôç festiva dictio, àCTxeïap,ôç urbana dictio’ Inst.Lomb. (RendLett.) 92 (1958) 569-80;
^^'‘Wilamowitz, (Lesebuch) II, 380; differently Russell, 161: „this is in itself not impossible, though it does not seem relevant or consistent with L’s general attitude”.
^^^Martano, 371.
^^^oreen Innes, ‘Longinus, Sublimity, and the Low Emotions’ Ethics and Rhetoric, Classical
Essays fo r Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Doreen Innes, Harry Hine and
Ps.Longinus.
Ps. Longinus certainly does not address his work to students o f rhetoric, but to a wider audience, and therefore not only are didactic characteristics missing from his method and form o f presentation, but also the whole conception is different. Instead o f thinking about correct models for imitation by students, he is searching for different - in his consideration real - representatives o f the sublime, and so his scope is not so limited as that o f Caecilius. This is the turning point for the revival o f Hyperides also, since with his elementary stylistic shortcomings (‘lektikos topos’) there is no scope for him in the conception o f a Dionysius” * or a Caecilius. Ps. Longinus’ appreciation in a way represents the favouring attitude o f extra scholam intellectuals, like later that o f Libanius, or Himerius, who on their own initiative discovered for themselves the magnificence o f Hyperides.
^^^Manfred Fuhrman, Dichtungstheohe der Antike, Aristoteles, Horaz, ‘Longin' (Darmstadt, 1992) 201.
^^*Differently D.Marin, ‘La patemita del ‘Saggio sul Sublime’ Studi Urbinati 29 (1955) 226, who argues for Ps.Longinus’ identity with Dionysius.