Longinus and Barthes

   When I was reading Longinus' On the Sublime I began to think a lot about Barthes' The Death of the Author. Longinus' and Barthes' arguments both seem to give a fair amount of agency to the audience but each in their own way and for different purposes. In Barthes' argument, the author is removed from criticism of the text in order for the text to stand up on its own. In this way the reader determines the meaning and quality of the text. Longinus has a very similar approach to criticism. He again gives agency to the reader but he uses the reader to measure an author's sublimity instead of using him gauging the quality of the text. We see this when he says "sublimity, on the other hand, produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orator's whole power at a single blow" (347).We see the emotion of the reader in the "whirlwind" and this attribute is directly credited to the orator. So to Longinus, the reader's emotional reaction to the text tells a critic how sublime the author is.

   It is interesting that Longinus and Barthes use the reader to reach such different ends. I think both theories can coexist even though they seem a little at odds with each other. The reader has a very specific relationship with the text. He can read it and interpret it and decide what it means, and this is done without acknowledging or considering the author according to Barthes. At the same time, though, the reader can determine the sublimity of an author just by measuring their own emotions according to Longinus. I picture a triangle (since those are getting so trendy) with the reader, author and text on each of the corners. "Reader" and "author" are connected by a solid line as determined by Longinus and his emotional connection between the author and reader. "Reader" and "text" are also connected by a solid line as determined by Barthes and the reader's agency to uncover text. "Author" and "text" would be connected by a dotted line. Their relationship now seems very complicated. I think that connection is implicitly sought after by most of the theorists we read and would require much more analysis than what I've offered here.