Generic Sublimity

While reading Bakhtin’s Problem of Speech Genres I began thinking about Longinus’ thoughts on sublime language. I highlight a point in the introduction of Longinus’ essay, “The ideal orator is acutely alive to the subtleties of verbal effects, but sees these effects as dependent on the moral qualities of the artist and audience as much as on the their taste in stylistic embellishments” which is what was claimed as a “necessary source” for experiencing sublimity (Longinus 345). My thoughts began to whirl because I began to wonder where sublime fit in the genre of languages, or why the sublime and concept of genre seem so similar in properties of defining themselves. It is stated that “sublimity will be achieved if we consistently select the most important of….features and learn to organize them as a unity by coming one with another” (Longinus 353). Bakhtin also approaches the organization of language in a similar way, however Bakhtin also says that “In essence, language, or functional, styles are nothing other than generic styles for certain spheres of human activity and communication” (Bakhtin 64), so does this mean that sublime language is a genre, but one of that is seemingly, as a whole, generic because it is still nonetheless a style of language used for a certain level of communication? Or is it even communication because communication relies on the response of the listener or reader? I ask these questions because sublime is created by the speaker, yet reliant on the audience, but the with sublime language the audience does not hold the responsibility of responding in the same genre (or style) as the orator, so how exactly is sublime language classified? I honestly have no answers, but simply curiosities.