ABSTRACT
The long lacunae in περί ὕψους, especially the one at 9, 4, preclude any certain reconstruction of its entire argument 1 ). The mysterious disappearance of the Second Source, πάθος, must therefore remain mysterious, though various hypotheses more or less meet the existing evidence. It is not the purpose of this essay to debate this problem, but rather to protest against the implications of some attempts to solve it, and to plead for greater attention to be paid to the author’s polemical intentions and techniques of advocacy. When Reinhold Brandt 2 ), whose ingenious transposition of Chapter 44 to follow Chapter 15 is a natural and stimulating focus of discussion, observes that the possibility of the author’s breaking his proposed disposition is ruled out by the express statement at 39, I that there remains “nur noch der fünfte Punkt” he is making, I think, two dubious assumptions, (i) L’s actual words do not necessarily imply that all the other four points have been handled. If I refer to ‘number five’ on a list, I merely refer the reader to that list as it originally stood, and there is no contradiction involved in the hypothesis that one of them has for some reason been postponed and will be taken out of order, (ii) More seriously, the implication that L is to be expected to go through his list in the order in which it was proposed must itself be questioned. It was a precept of ancient rhetoric that chapters (ϰεϕάλαια) should be arranged according to the needs of the case, and not put ‘in alphabetical order’ ([Dion. Hal.] Ars 363, 11 ff.); the orator has different criteria from the grammarian. And περί ὕψους, as I hope to illustrate in this paper, is a highly sophisticated rhetorical piece, whose polemical ends and main contentions are not at all forecast in the scheme laid down in Chapter 8.
