The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.16 (2012): 1-10

Words and Passions in Edmund Burke:
Revisiting Burke’s “Sublime” with Pseudo-Longinus
HOSHINO Futoshi

The University of Tokyo, Tokyo

Preface
In this paper, by examining the relationship between “word” and “passion” in A
Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757/59) by
Edmund Burke (1729–97), I intend to situate his theory on the sublime in the tradition ofrhetoric [1]. More concretely, by focusing on the role of passion in this book, I will reconsider
Burke’s theory on the sublime as a critical successor to On the Sublime by Pseudo-Longinus.
First, it seems necessary to justify such an approach to Burkean theory on the sublime.
As is well known, in part V of The Sublime and Beautiful, Burke relates the essence of
poetry to “sympathy” rather than “imitation” by discussing the influence of words on thepassion of others. As I will show in the following sections, part V of this book deviates from its
end, which is to clarify the origin of the notions of “sublime” and “beautiful,” so that it could beread as theory on language independently from the entire book. Further, the fact that hefocuses on “words” reminds us of the influence of Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime on Burke.
Generally, the influence of Pseudo-Longinus on Burke is barely referenced in discussionsof the notion of the sublime in the work of the latter. Rather, from the historical viewpoint,
Burke is often recognized as having introduced the rhetorical notion of the sublime topsychology and prepared the way to the “analytic of the sublime” that Kant delineated in The
Critique of Judgment (1790). Thus, the discontinuation, not continuation, from PseudoLonginus to Burke has long been emphasized. Indeed, Burke refers to Pseudo-Longinus only
once, and the reference to him in the preface of first edition published in 1757 was replaced in
the second edition in 1759. Furthermore, the following fact offers more evidence of the
discontinuation between them: the sublime in the Latin rhetorical tradition had beensucceeded by some French writers like Nicolas Boileau, who translated On the Sublime into
French in 1674; on the other hand, in the first part of the 18th Century, when Burke prepared
the book, the alternative view of the sublime that differed from the continental one had alreadybegun to form and Burke had an influence on the creation of such an atmosphere. These facts
are meant to explain why Burke referred to Pseudo-Longinus only once in his treatise on the
sublime.
Although these facts have been acknowledged, the continuity between them can berecognized by focusing on the relationship between words and passions in Burke. As I willshow, there is much evidence of this in the last part of his book, where he admires poetry overpainting. Concretely speaking, proofs, such as the description on the “sympathy” or “contagionof the passion,” and the statement requiring division between “clear expression” and “strong

2

HOSHINO Futoshi

expression” will explain the continuity that exists between Pseudo-Longinus and Burke. In thefollowing sections, through careful reading, I will show how The Sublime and Beautiful acts asa critical successor to Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime.

1. The Problem of Language in The Sublime and Beautiful by BurkeFirst, I review the construction of The Sublime and Beautiful by Burke. It comprises fiveparts and aims to distinguish the notions of the sublime and beautiful, which have been“frequently confounded” according to the preface to first edition. Judging from theconstruction of the book, Burke’s discourse is not sufficiently systematized, although it is safe
to say that it maintains a certain consistency along its main subject. The construction of thisbook should be summarized in the following manner.
In part I, Burke classifies passions according to the poles of pleasure and pain, andpromptly compares the sublime and the beautiful [2]. In parts II and III, he enumerates manysources of the sublime and beautiful and then addresses the more detailed mechanism thatcauses these feelings in part IV. These four parts are based on psychological and physiologicalobservations, which were aligned with the contemporary empiricism in England at the time;thus, the basic manner of discussion is clear and consistent. However, in part V, the approachis entirely different. The main subject of this part is the art of language, that is, poetry andrhetoric. Burke explains why he addresses these subjects at the beginning of this part:
Natural objects affect us, by the laws of that connexion, which Providence has establishedbetween certain motions and configurations of bodies, and certain consequent feelings in
our minds. Painting affects in the same manner, but with the superadded pleasure ofimitation. Architecture affects by the laws of nature, and the law of reason; from which
latter result the rules of proportion, which make a work to be praised or censured, in thewhole or in some part, when the end for which it was designed is or is not properly
answered. But as to words; they seem to me to affect us in a manner very different fromthat in which we are affected by natural objects, or by painting or architecture; yet words
have as considerable a share in exciting ideas of beauty and of the sublime as any of those,and sometimes a much greater than any of them; therefore an enquiry into the manner bywhich they excite such emotions is far from being unnecessary in a discourse of this kind.
(V, 1, 163)
It is true that his statement on the necessity of the observation of words is persuasive.
Moreover, it is consistent with the preceding parts, considering he discusses the effect thepower of language has on us. Nevertheless, it is apparent that there is also discontinuity
between the preceding four parts (I–IV) and the last part (V). Between parts I and IV, Burke
has shown many examples of poetry, painting, architecture, and natural objects that influence
our passions. However, in part V, he never addresses anything but poetry—and painting, which
is opposed to it—and concentrates on how the influence of words on our passions could bedemonstrated. In this sense, the last part of The Sublime and Beautiful concludes theWords and Passions in Edmund Burke

3

discussion on poetry and prose that was partially discussed in the preceding parts, instead ofengaging in the discussion of the entire book, which seeks to investigate the “origins of thesublime and beautiful” in our minds.
Indeed, part V tends to be seen as independent from the other parts of the book [3]. On
one hand, some people relate its rhetorical discussion to Burke’s political activity after
publishing the book. On the other hand, it has been read as a refutation of French writer JeanBaptiste Dubos (1670-1742), who estimated that painting held a higher position than poetry.
The former reading recognizes The Sublime and Beautiful as a manifestation of thesensibilities of the young Burke, who would become a famous politician in the latter part of hislife. Moreover, the latter reading emphasizes the discussion of “paragone (comparison
between poetry and painting)” and concludes that Burke insisted on the preeminence of poetry,
while Dubos insisted on that of painting [4]. In any case, the empirical and psychologicalobservations by Burke turn out to be a sort of poetics or rhetoric in the last part of the book.
Furthermore, the very subject of the division between the sublime and beautiful seems to beneglected as a secondary aspect [5].

2. “Passion” and “Word” in Burke’s Discussion on Language
Burke classifies words into three categories in section 2 of part V: (1) “aggregate words,”
such as man, horse, tree, castle; (2) “simple abstract words,” such as red, blue, round, square;(3) and “compounded abstract words,” such as virtue, honor, persuasion. According to Burke,
the first corresponds to “many simple ideas united by nature,” the second to “one simple idea,”
and the third to “an arbitrary union of both the others, and of the various relations between
them” (V, 2, 163-4). However, in section 4 of this part, Burke states they are the only expedient
categories for the more essential subject [6].
What, then, is the essential subject here? The aim of this section is, ultimately, to assertthat the main effect of language is not imitation. By referring to the three categories he has
mentioned, Burke summarizes the effects of language in the following manner: language has
the three effects of “sound,” “picture,” and “affection of the soul.” Among these, the “picture,”
which will be the most important in the following discussion, is defined as a “representation of
the thing signified by the sound” (V, 4, 166), while “affection of the soul” is “produced by one orby both of the foregoing [=sound and picture].” According to Burke, compounded abstract
words can create sound and cause affection of the soul, but cannot a picture. Compounded
abstract words such as “honor, justice, liberty” have no corresponding objects as aggregate
words and simple abstract words do. He continues to say that simple abstract words can
produce all the three effects, and aggregate words can do so at an even higher degree.
However, it is important to note the following fact: Burke does not intend to say thatcompounded abstract words are inferior to aggregate words and simple abstract words. In fact,
the opposite is true. As he states in the following paragraph, the general effect of language is
not to produce a picture through the imagination, but to urge the hearers and readers to
sympathize. In other words, it is true that we form some pictures from simple abstract words oraggregate ones, but these are merely derived from “a particular effort of the imagination” (V, 4,

4

HOSHINO Futoshi167). If so, in contrast to our expectations, compounded abstract words would hold the mostgeneral power of language. Since they cannot produce “pictures” that correspond to them, it
could be said that they can produce the “affection of the soul” only by the “sound” of words
without “pictures.”
In section 5 of this part, Burke attempts to provide “examples that words may affectwithout raising images,” as the title of section indicates. He enumerates examples of Mr.
Blacklock, a poet blind from his birth, Mr. Saunderson, a blind professor of mathematics, andsome noteworthy poems. The most important observation appears when Burke examines De
Rerum Natura by Lucretius [7]:What idea do you derive from so excellent a picture? none at all most certainly; neither has
the poet said a single word which might in the least serve to mark a single limb or featureof the phantom, which he intended to represent in all the horrors imagination canconceive. In reality poetry and rhetoric do not succeed in exact description so well as
painting does; their business is to affect rather by sympathy than imitation; to display
rather the effect of things on the mind of the speaker, or of others, than to present a clear
idea of the things themselves. (V, 5, 172)
Burke repeats these points in the following sections. Confirming that poetry is not by
nature a mimetic art, he indicates three reasons for the stronger affectiveness of poetry thanpainting. First, we can “take an extraordinary part in the passions of others” through words andexpress strong emotion, for it often happens that we experience stronger emotion as a result ofothers’ opinions on a thing, than from the thing itself (V, 7, 173). Second, words can also
express what is rarely realized, or what does not exist, in such a manner that it induces verystrong emotions in us (V, 7, 173-4). Third, words have the added power of “combinations,”
which paintings do not have. These “combinations” are, by nature, different from the “laws ofcombination” that Burke referred to in the preceding section. As examples of “combinations,”
Burke presents the “angel of the Lord” or “universe of Death,” insisting that these are notadequately represented in paintings. The “combinations” that are provided in the above
examples are entirely different from the “laws of combination” or dispositions of things inpainting. According to Burke, we cannot obtain any clear ideas from such combinations ofwords, and it is for this very reason that these expressions affect us so strongly (V, 7, 174).
As I mentioned above, Burke explains the influence of words on our passions from threeperspectives. First, poetry has to be distinguished from other arts like painting or architecture,in that words make it possible for us to “take part in” others’ passions. Second, words, or poetry,greatly influence our passions by representing the things that are not visually grasped in reality.
Third, words induce strong emotions in us through the power of “combinations” that is
appropriate to them.
The preeminence of words is founded on the fact that they are capable of demonstrating
our opinions on certain things as well as demonstrating the thing itself. Burke goes on to saythat they induce strong emotions in us through their capability of transmitting opinions orinviting sympathy. In other words, the linguistic expression he supposes here is a non-Words and Passions in Edmund Burke5

representative expression, the nature of which is not conveying a “clear expression” of thingsand events but rather a “strong expression,” not relying on “imitation” but on “sympathy.”This is difficult to us, because we do not sufficiently distinguish, in our observations upon
language, between a clear expression and a strong expression. These are frequently
confounded with each other, though they are in reality extremely different. The former
regards the understanding; the latter belongs to the passions. The one describes a thing as
it is; the other describes it as it is felt. […] The truth is, all verbal description, merely as
naked description, though never so exact, conveys so poor and insufficient an idea of thething described, that it could scarcely have the smallest effect, if the speaker did not call in
to his aid those modes of speech that mark a strong and lively feeling in himself. Then, by
the contagion of our passions, we catch a fire already kindled in another, which probably
might never have been struck out by the object described. (V, 7, 175-6)
Therefore, it would be safe to say that the expression “the contagion of our passions”
practically refers to the “sympathy” mentioned above. From these lines, it is evident that Burke
understands the word “sympathy” in the strong sense, that is, it means “to share (syn-) others’
passions (pathos) [8].” For Burke, the most fundamental power of words is to act on a hearer’s
or reader’s passions, thereby resulting in “sympathy” or “contagion of passions.”

3. The Notion of “Pathos” in Pseudo-Longinus’ On the Sublime
As stated in the preface of this paper, it is in the discussion of words and passions that
continuity between Pseudo-Longinus and Burke can be found. Before examining this, I present
the lines in which Burke refers to Pseudo-Longinus in The Sublime and Beautiful. The
following lines are cited from the last paragraph of section 17 of part I, the subject of which is“ambition”:
Hence proceeds what Longinus has observed of that glorying and sense of inward
greatness, that always fills the reader of such passages in poets and orators as are sublime;
it is what every man must have felt in himself upon such occasions. (I, 17, 51) [9]Furthermore, in the preface to the first edition published in 1757, Burke criticizes PseudoLonginus, although this criticism was replaced in the preface to the second edition in 1759.
He [=Burke] observed that the ideas of the sublime and beautiful were frequently
confounded; and that both were indiscriminately applied to things greatly differing, andsometimes of natures directly opposite. Even Longinus, in his incomparable discourse
upon a part of this subject, has comprehended things extremely repugnant to each other,under one common name of the Sublime. (Preface to the first edition, 1)
The reason Pseudo-Longinus is relatively neglected could be explained by the following

6

HOSHINO Futoshi

account. According to J. T. Boulton, an editor of The Sublime and Beautiful, Burke read On the
Sublime when he was a student at Trinity College. It was given to him as a masterpiece ofrhetoric and influenced him greatly. It is true that On the Sublime is one of the importantsources of The Sublime and Beautiful. If so, why did he mention it but once—though twice inthe first edition—in his own treatise? According to Boulton, this could be explained from ahistorical and contextual viewpoint. On the Sublime was first translated into English in the
middle of the 17th Century, at which point it greatly influenced people across Europe throughthe publication of the French translation by Boileau and another English translation by Smith,which appeared in the second part of the 17th Century. However, in the 1740s when Burke
prepared The Sublime and Beautiful, the influence of Pseudo-Longinus had already graduallydiminished, whereas the new type of “sublime” based on empirical and psychologicalobservations came to be accepted in mainstream England [10]. This situation is also reflectedin the fact that Burke frequently refers to Locke, Hutchson, Hume, and Dubos in his treatise.
Nevertheless, one can perceive the influence of Pseudo-Longinus on Burke in part V, thesubject of which is poetry and rhetoric. More precisely, this influence is that of the rhetorical
tradition that originated in the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian and also PseudoLonginus. In any case, at least, by focusing on “passion” in the Burkean treatise, the contact
point of Pseudo-Longinus and Burke should be found, as “passion (pathos)” is one of the mostimportant notions in Pseudo-Longinus [11].
Reading along a perspective such as this, the description of pathos can be found in chapter
8, where the five sources of sublimity are enumerated. Following the first source, “the power of
forming great conceptions,” “vehement and inspired passion” is listed as the second source ofthe sublime. These being “for the most part innate,” there remain three other sources “partly
the product of art,” that include “the due formation of figures,” “noble diction,” and “dignified
and elevated composition.” Read literally, these lines reveal “vehement and inspired passion” is
not more than one source of the sublime (On the Sublime, VIII, 1).
However, it is too soon to conclude that “passion” is nothing but an element of the sublime
here. After the lines mentioned above, Pseudo-Longinus says, “there is no tone so lofty as thatof genuine passion in its right place” (On the Sublime, VIII, 4), criticizing Cecilius—anotherwriter of a treatise on the sublime—for his lack of consideration on passion. I can enumeratesuch cases in this book. For example, Pseudo-Longinus evaluates Demosthenes’ exceptionalpassion in the following manner: “Demosthenes draws—as from a store—excellences allied tothe highest sublimity and perfected to the utmost, the tone of lofty speech, living passions,
copiousness, readiness, speed, and that power and vehemence of his which forbid approach”(On the Sublime, XXXIV, 4).
How were these insistences on passion understood by Burke’s contemporaries? John
Dennis (1657–1734), who is the most famous and enthusiastic follower of Pseudo-Longinus, is
one of the writers who emphasized the importance of passion in his treatise. M. H. Abrams
states, “What Dennis has done is to elaborate upon Peri Hupsous [=On the Sublime] by making
the emotions, which to Longinus had been only one of several sources of the single quality of
sublimity, into indispensable—almost the sufficient—source and mark of all poetry [12].” As
Abrams states, On the Sublime had been frequently referred to in English Romanticism as a

Words and Passions in Edmund Burke

7

great pioneer that emphasized the importance of “passion” and “emotion.”
It should also be noted that the recognitions of Dennis and Abrams are not as correct. To
be precise, “passion” in Pseudo-Longinus is not just one source of sublimity. As is evident fromthe preceding paragraphs, while it is considered the second and innate source of the sublime inchapter VIII, the vehement passions of great poets and rhetoricians are frequently identified
with the “sublime (hypsos)” itself throughout the book. While Pseudo-Longinus mainlypresents examples of orators, he occasionally discusses the contagion of the passion amongaudiences as well.
[…] I maintain, as I said in dealing with figures, that strong and timely passion and noble
sublimity are the appropriate palliatives. For it is the nature of the passions, in theirvehement rush, to sweep and thrust everything before them, or rather to demandhazardous turns as altogether indispensable. They do not give the hearer time to examine
how many metaphors there are, because he shares the excitement of the speaker. (On the
Sublime, XXXII, 4)
In dealing with figures in chapter XVII, Pseudo-Longinus states that orator’s passions
often “detoxicate” the hearer’s suspicion. He emphasizes this aspect again by mentioning cases
in which the hearer “shares the excitement of the speaker.” As this expression literally means,“sharing the enthusiasm (synenthousian),” the subject discussed here is the contagion ofpassion from speaker to hearers. Generally, if too many figures were used, the speaker would
be in danger of being suspected of unfaithfulness. However, such suspicion could be detoxified
by “timely passion and noble sublimity,” which conceal the artifacts and have a strong effect onhearers.
These lines are important to comparing Burke, who speaks of the “contagion of ourpassion,” with Pseudo-Longinus. Moreover, it is worth considering chapter XV of On the
Sublime in which Pseudo-Longinus emphasizes “strong expression,” which is opposed to themere representation of fact, in reading Hyperides. As was evident in section 2 of this paper,according to Burke, “clear expression” is tied to “imitation” and “strong expression” to“sympathy.” Further, he clearly emphasizes the latter in part V of The Sublime and Beautiful.
Like Burke, Pseudo-Longinus also speaks of the importance of strong expression; however, hisemphasis is poised on the different roles of poetry and prose.
Further, you will be aware of the fact that an image has one purpose with the orators andanother with the poets, and that the object of the poetical image is enthrallment, and thatof the rhetorical is vivid description [13]. Both, however, seek to stir the passions and theemotions. (On the Sublime, XV, 2)
The purpose of the poetical image is enthrallment, while that of the rhetorical is vivid
description, although both seek to “stir the passions and the emotions.” In other words, forPseudo-Longinus, a hearer’s acting on passion is the most essential problem with the use oflanguage. However, for Burke, the difference between “clear expression” and “strong

8

HOSHINO Futoshi

expression” does not correspond to the difference between genres. As we have seen, thedifference between them is related to whether a “picture” is produced. According to Burke,
while “clear expression” can only cause “imitation,” “strong expression” can produce“sympathy,” which is the essential effect of words. These are among the most important aspects
in The Sublime and Beautiful.
This comparison has revealed that the relationship between words and passions in Burke’s
writings is not dependent on the form of expression. While Pseudo-Longinus—who ascribed
different roles to poetry and rhetoric—states that both have a common purpose of producing
passions and emotions, Burke regards the purpose of the arts of language as arousing“sympathy,” not achieving “imitation.” These are the essential differences between PseudoLonginus and Burke. Apart from these, there is another important difference. In clarifying thisdifference, I will conclude the paper.

4. Conclusion: Whether There Is a “Picture”
As I have stated earlier, for Burke, to make a “picture” that is a “representation of the thing
signified by the sound” is not an essential effect of language. According to him, engendering therepresentation of the real thing, the “imitation” to use his words, is the purpose of paintings,
while words can act directly on the passion of a hearer and reader without affecting theformation of such clear pictures. Interestingly, such a viewpoint is entirely opposite to that of
Pseudo-Longinus—in his treatise, the pictures created by orators are inseparable from thepassion caused. The following passage is cited from chapter XV, where Pseudo-Longinus
addresses the transmission of words through the strong passion of the orator.
Images [phantasia], moreover, contribute greatly, my young friend, to dignity, elevationand power as a pleader. In this sense some call them “mental representations.” In ageneral way the name of image or imagination [eidolopoiia] is applied to every idea of themind, in whatever form it presents itself, which gives birth to speech. But at the present
day the word is predominantly used in cases where, carried away by enthusiasm andpassion, you think you see what you describe, and you place it before the eyes of yourhearers. (On the Sublime, XV, 1) [14]According to these lines, a certain image is transmitted through the passion of orators toan audience. In contrast to such a view, in Burke’s writing, the act of passion seems to be
independent from the occurrence of such an image. For Burke, the words that can produce the“picture” are “simple abstract words” and “aggregate words,” whereas “compounded abstract
words,” including “God, Universe, Death” and other ideal nouns, are regarded as the mostaffective because they do not have a visual corresponding to them. “Compounded abstract
words” result in “affection of the soul” only through their “sound,” so that “pictures” formed byimagination or habit have no place to act.
For this very reason, Burke’s standpoint is entirely opposite to that of Pseudo-Longinus.
As far as the preface to the first edition is concerned, Burke’s criticism is not as essential. The

Words and Passions in Edmund Burke

9greatest opposition between them is the role of “picture” in the discussion of words andpassions. As is often indicated, it is not so clear whether Burke makes much account of thevisual in his theory on the sublime or not. However, in part V of The Sublime and Beautiful, theanti-visual standpoint of Burke is evident. Burkean theory on words and passions ischaracterized by praise of “sound” that engenders “sympathy” and rejection of the “picture.”
In this paper, I have shown that Burke succeeded the framework of Pseudo-Longinus to acertain extent, in that he emphasizes “passion.” However, The Sublime and Beautiful adopts an
opposite view to On the Sublime in that the former states that the relationship between words
and passions is formed without a “picture.” As I stated in the preface to this paper, suchinfluence and difference remain invisible in superficial comparisons between the two works.
Moreover, the presupposition that Burke has changed the meaning of the sublime thatoriginated with Pseudo-Longinus appears to make the influence and difference even less visible.
Against such opinions, I sought to show that there is a certain residue of rhetorical tradition in
Burke’s treatise. This relation to the past should be an indispensable perspective to have whenreading The Sublime and Beautiful.
Notes
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]
[6]

All references and quotations from Burke are from the following edition. Edmund Burke, A
Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, James T.
Boulton (ed.), 1958, London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.
This opposition of “pleasure” and “pain” corresponds to that of “society” and “self-preservation.”
See part I, section 6 ff. In addition, Burke presents other oppositional coupling like “sublime” and“beautiful,” “light” and “darkness,” “men” and “women,” etc. These oppositions have often
incurred criticisms that indicate contradictions or inconsistencies. The remarkable example is thedescription of “a negro woman” in The Sublime and Beautiful, which is analyzed by Meg
Armstrong, “The Effects of Blackness: Gender, Race, and the Sublime in Aesthetic Theories of
Burke and Kant,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 54, no. 3, 1996, pp. 214-221.
Terry Eagleton discusses such oppositions in Burke from a wider perspective in The Ideology of
the Aesthetics, Oxford; Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990, pp. 52-66.
See Mark Gellis, “Burke, Edmund (1729-1797),” in Theresa Enos (ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoricand Composition: Communication from Ancient Time to the Information Age, New York:
Garland Publishing, 1996, p. 89. Although this article comments on the rhetorical aspect in The
Sublime and Beautiful, it does not refer to any parts other than V.
For Burke’s criticism of J.-B. Dubos, see part II, section 4.
More precisely, by shifting the opposition of the “sublime and beautiful” to that of “poetry andpainting,” Burke partially changes the subject of this book.
It is often noted that John Locke had an influence on these three categories. See Dixon Wecter,“Burke’s Theory of Words, Images, and Emotion,” PMLA, vol. 55, no. 1, 1940, pp. 169-171;
Burleigh Taylor Wilkins, “Burke on Words,” Studies in Burke and his Time: a Journal devoted to
British, America, and Continental Culture 1750-1800, vol. 11, 1969, pp. 1305-1309. In addition, theconcept of “idea” that Burke frequently uses in this book seems to have been influenced by Locke.
The notion Burke uses in part V is practically synonymous with “representation,” as was Locke’s.
Translators of the French and German version of The Sublime and Beautiful basically translate“idea” as “représentation, Vorstellung (representation)” or “image, Bild (image).” See Recherches
philosophiques sur l'origine de nos idées du sublime et du beau, traduit par Baldine Saint Girons

10

[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

HOSHINO Futoshi(1990), Paris: Vrin, 2009; Philosophische Untersuchung über den Urspung unserer Ideen vom
Erhabenen und Schönen, übersetzt von Friedrich Bassenge; neu eingel. und hrsg. von Werner
Strube, Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1980.
“Humana ante oculos fœdè cum vita jaceret, / In terris, oppressa gravi sub religione, / Quœ capute cœli regionibus ostendebat / Horribili desuper visu mortalibus instans; / Primus Graius homomortales tollere contra / Est oculos ausus.” (De Rerum Natura, I, 62-67). Burke slightly modified
the original text by Lucretius.
It must be noted that the “sympathy” used here is entirely different from how the word is used inpart I, section 16 of The Sublime and Beautiful.
In the 18th Century, it was believed that On the Sublime (Peri Hupsous) was written by Cassius
Longinus, while it is now estimated to be someone’s work in the 1st Century. On the reception ofthis text after the 16th Century, see Baldine Saint Girons, “Sublime” in Barbara Cassin (ed.),Vocabulaire européen des philosophies: dictionnaire des intraduisibles, Paris: Seuil; Le Robert,
2004, pp. 1226-1232.
See Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime andBeautiful, James T. Boulton (ed.), Editor’s Introduction, xvi and xliv-xlvii. Some people estimatethat the influence of Pseudo-Longinus on Burke has been greater than Boulton did. See Dixon
Wecter, “Burke’s Theory of Words, Images, and Emotion,” op. cit., pp. 172-173. Although Wecter’s
paper focuses on words, images, and emotion in The Sublime and Beautiful, his comparison of
Pseudo-Longinus and Burke is too brief to be referred to.
All quotations from Pseudo-Longinus are cited from Longinus, On the Sublime, trans. by W. Rhys
Roberts (1899), Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2007. I have slightly modified the translation by
Roberts comparing it with the following English and French translations: Longinus, On the
Sublime, trans. by W. Hamilton Fyfe, revised by Donald Russell, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press (The Loeb Classical Library), 2005; Longin, Du Sublime, traduit par Jackie Pigeaud (1991),
Paris: Éditions Payot & Rivages, 1993.
M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (1953),
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, p. 75. Here, I cannot develop how much influence Dennis’interpretation had in this period. With regard to the “passion” in Burke, Wecter estimates that it
is partly derived from Berkeley. Dixon Wecter, “Burke’s Theory of Words, Images, and Emotion,”op. cit., pp. 174-177. With regard to Dennis, see also Samuel H. Monk, The Sublime: A Study ofCritical Theories in Eighteenth-century England (1935), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1960, pp. 45-54.
“Vivid description” is translated from “enargeia” in Greek, which generally means “what gives
clear, vivid impression.” However, the definition of enargeia varies among exemplaryrhetoricians like Cicero or Quintilian. See Carlo Ginzburg, “Descrizione e citazione,” in Il filo e letracce. Vero falso finto, Milano: Feltrinelli, 2006.
Roberts translates “phantasia” as “image.” This notion of phantasia is generally translated into
“image,” “imagination,” or “visualization.” However, it is very difficult to fix its translated word,
for it is important notion originated from Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism. With regard to thisproblem, see the commentary by J. Pigeaud. Longin, Du Sublime, traduit par Jackie Pigeaud(1991), op. cit.

This paper is based on the Japanese version published in Bigaku, No. 236 (Summer, 2010), pp.13-24.