I just finished a blog posting that, for whatever reason, didn't post, so I'm starting from scratch. Argh.
Basically, I liked the fact that Longinius is the progenitor of Bartholomae's argument in "Inventing the University." He does a nice job of arguing that correctness doesn't equal greatness and that the errors of compositional fervor are far outweighed by the sublimity it produces.
On the other hand, Longinius aligns sublimity with hegemonic discourse in argument that is reflected in the rhetors of proceeding generations. If one wants to write well, they should not try to write something original (because that leads to stylistic ruin). Instead, they should imitate the big names of antiquity. Because sublimity is beholden to the hegemonical 'greats,' and sublimity is a matter of nature, sublimity is inherently tied to hegemony.
Now that I look at it, these two positions seem to be somewhat oppositional to one another. Interesting.
Politically, Longinius reminds me of a megachurch pastor. He points problems of x profession or activity (in this case lack of sublimity in oratory) back to the sinful ways of humankind, not the constitutions that bind people together.
"This must necessarily happen, and men will no longer lift up their eyes or have any further regard for fame, but the ruin of such lives will gradually reach its complete consummation and sublimities of soul fade and wither away and become contemptible, when men are lost in admiration of their own mortal parts and omit to exalt that which is immortal." - Longinius or Billy Graham?