Why do we call genius anybody?

[Peter]

No one will justly appreciate the figure of Caesar who does not love the history of Rome. Those epithets --destrucction, glory, warfare-- are the more commonly given to Ancient Rome nowadays, in the same way as Germans and Englishmen put her in a shrine and adored her. Now we are in the other extreme. Rome gave us its Law, for Romans had the genius of law as no other people had. This is its greatest legacy. Rome gave us its literature, he taught Europe to write. Not the abc, but to write with style. On the other hand, English grammar was until the turn of the last century an appendix to Latin grammar, to pick just an example.

Now, I went through the words you used in your post, and have found that 39 of them come from Latin. If we let aside prepositions and pronouns, which belong to the Germanic core of the language, the words of Latin ancestry make nearly 80% of the total. The tongue you speak is thoroughly penetrated by the language of the Romans. "So?", somebody would ask. So, by despising Rome, you despise not only your cultural heritage but the very language you speak.

This is not addressed to you in special. But to those who associate Rome with force and conquering. As a fourth item I could enumerate, among so many things, the transmission of the Greek heritage. Nothing less.

Is war just destruction? Think in the independence war in US. Was it a war. Yes, it was. Did it create anything? It certainly destroyed the old order. But the US constitution would never exist without it. So it was a prerequisite for the emergence of a great nation. France is another great country. A modern french historian, Jacques Madaule, said: "If we [french men] are what we are, for good or for evil, we owe it to Caesar's sword". He certainly made possible the Merovingians and Carolingians. Do you think a Gaul in the 2nd century cried about he's lost liberty? Certainly not. He enjoyed the thousand material commodities brought by the Romans. The prestige of the Roman Empire was enormous. Barbarian peoples wanted to belong to it. In the 3rd century Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all the provinces. True, in order to vote they had to travel to the capital, an almost impossible trip for the majority. But this was more a technical fault than anything else. Antiquity did not envision the representative system.

EDIT: the last statements are more properly applied to the late Republic. During the Empire, I do not know if there still were electoral government offices. Were the aediles in Rome, for example, appointed by the emperor?

Roman civilisation covers 1000 years of history and within that period there will obviously be a mixture of good things and bad things, things to admire things to abhor - and lets be frank there was much to abhor about Rome with its terrible cruelty and persecutions, and frequently insane Emperors. History is written by the victors and your use of the word 'barbarian' reveals this - many of the conquered tribes had a highly developed culture of their own, certainly the Celts. Ancient Greece (particularly Athens) through its art, philosophy and political systems had a much deeper and lasting influence on Western civilisation, without conquering and subjugating the peoples of Europe - they kept their conflicts largely to themselves and seemed to prefer civil war! The legacy of democracy (even though it was imperfect and still is!) is perhaps their greatest gift.
I understand your admiration for Caeser as a military leader, but I simply do not regard him by my criteria as a genius. The Emperor Constantine (whatever his motives) did far more by adopting Christianity as the religion of the Empire - perhaps one of the most significant events in Western history because the consequences were profound. By adopting what was at the time an obscure sect, he united the Empire and sowed the seeds of Western art, music and literature - a stroke of genius.

[Enrique]

Roman civilisation covers 1000 years of history and within that period there will obviously be a mixture of good things and bad things, things to admire things to abhor - and lets be frank there was much to abhor about Rome with its terrible cruelty and persecutions, and frequently insane Emperors.

Do you think Rome made its empire by just sending its legions to conquer neighboring peoples. First, think the many times they were at the verge of extinction at the hands of volsci, samnites, ecuos, gaules, and germans, when Rome was not greater than a little part of the peninsula. The seizure of the city by the Gauls is well known. The name of Gauls made Romans tremble. And that was not the only time. The gauls went south into the peninsula many times, and it was due to the expertize of some generals and the good preparation of the Roman solder that many catastrophes were avoided.

Secondly, Romans preferred diplomacy to war and, in this matter, they excelled. It was a great thing for a nation to bear the title of "friend of the Roman people". If Rome could build an empire that lasted so long, and not some ephemeral construction like those of Gengis Kahn, it was thanks to it system of alliances. Italy itself was an alliance of peoples up to the social war. And what did Rome do after she won the war? They offered full citizenship to all Latin and Italian communities who had not revolted (lex Julia).

About the conquest of the East, much could be said, but suffice it to say that Rome's was a landowner's aristocracy which always repelled overseas adventures. It was Rome's mission to put order in the East, and she at last accepted it, but with the utmost reluctance. Thirdly, the Empire was the decomposition of the Republic. These were the glorious days, these are the Romans that were admired by the following generations and of whose deeds Beethoven learned in Plutarch. So please, let us not speak of the Empire. Caesar belonged to the Republic.

History is written by the victors and your use of the word 'barbarian' reveals this - many of the conquered tribes had a highly developed culture of their own, certainly the Celts.

I knew that word, 'barbarian', would lend itself to commentaries. Do you think I am so naive? I used it with exactly the same meaning it once had among the Greeks. Now, in the same measure Ancient Rome has been lowered in our admiration, the Celtic world has climb in our appreciation. Hallstatt and La Tene! But let me tell you about what a man closer to the facts than us, the Greek Polybius, had to say about the celtic swords and hence, about its metallurgy: In the middle of the battle, the Gauls had to lay their swords on the ground, put one foot over it, and pulling with their arms, they straightened the blade, making it useful again, and they went on fighting (obviously, the blade had bent before that)!

Ancient Greece (particularly Athens) through its art, philosophy and political systems had a much deeper and lasting influence on Western civilisation, without conquering and subjugating the peoples of Europe - they kept their conflicts largely to themselves and seemed to prefer civil war!

Very little would have been left of Greece were not for the Romans. I said that before. They were the vehicle of Greek civilization, and a lot more than that. Rome set the political framework of Europe. Do you think History is about art, philosophy, democracy? The birth of nations is much more interesting to the historian (of course there is a history of art, of music, and so on). And do you think there was not a Greek imperialism? You have read about the Peloponesian War, have you not? What was the most important cause? The antinomy between the conservative Sparta and the Athenian imperialism. The gold of the Delian league was kept in an island and belonged to the whole confederacy. But under Pericles, it was moved to Athens, to build the Parthenon and other niceties. And what was the Acropolis with all its monuments? A symbol of the supremacy of Athens. The city states under the supremacy of Athens paid heavy tributes, and when they rebelled, they were severely punished.

The legacy of democracy (even though it was imperfect and still is!) is perhaps their greatest gift.

For me their greatest legacy is of another kind. Greece represents, in the current of human events, the discovery of reason and the matrix of Western science. The history of European philosophy (is there another one?) could be summarized as comments to Aristotle and Plato. And then the mathematical reason. Euclid could be called with justice the founder of mathematics. He made of it a deductive system and nobody before had thought of it. Only that Archimedes is put first on the list by historians of that science, or whatever its name is.

I understand your admiration for Caeser as a military leader, but I simply do not regard him by my criteria as a genius. The Emperor Constantine (whatever his motives) did far more by adopting Christianity as the religion of the Empire - perhaps one of the most significant events in Western history because the consequences were profound. By adopting what was at the time an obscure sect, he united the Empire and sowed the seeds of Western art, music and literature - a stroke of genius.

So you admit genius can exist in a statesman. For certain, for you Caesar was no statesman then. Do you know about the vast body of legislation passed under Caesar during his short stays at Rome during the Civil War and then only the one year he was there after the final victory at Munda and before his assassination?

[Peter]

Do you think Rome made its empire by just sending its legions to conquer neighboring peoples. First, think the many times they were at the verge of extinction at the hands of volsci, samnites, ecuos, gaules, and germans, when Rome was not greater than a little part of the peninsula. The seizure of the city by the Gauls is well known. The name of Gauls made Romans tremble. And that was not the only time. The gauls went south into the peninsula many times, and it was due to the expertize of some generals and the good preparation of the Roman solder that many catastrophes were avoided.

Secondly, Romans preferred diplomacy to war and, in this matter, they excelled. It was a great thing for a nation to bear the title of "friend of the Roman people". If Rome could build an empire that lasted so long, and not some ephemeral construction like those of Gengis Kahn, it was thanks to it system of alliances. Italy itself was an alliance of peoples up to the social war. And what did Rome do after she won the war? They offered full citizenship to all Latin and Italian communities who had not revolted (lex Julia).

About the conquest of the East, much could be said, but suffice it to say that Rome's was a landowner's aristocracy which always repelled overseas adventures. It was Rome's mission to put order in the East, and she at last accepted it, but with the utmost reluctance. Thirdly, the Empire was the decomposition of the Republic. These were the glorious days, these are the Romans that were admired by the following generations and of whose deeds Beethoven learned in Plutarch. So please, let us not speak of the Empire. Caesar belonged to the Republic.



I knew that word, 'barbarian', would lend itself to commentaries. Do you think I am so naive? I used it with exactly the same meaning it once had among the Greeks. Now, in the same measure Ancient Rome has been lowered in our admiration, the Celtic world has climb in our appreciation. Hallstatt and La Tene! But let me tell you about what a man closer to the facts than us, the Greek Polybius, had to say about the celtic swords and hence, about its metallurgy: In the middle of the battle, the Gauls had to lay their swords on the ground, put one foot over it, and pulling with their arms, they straightened the blade, making it useful again, and they went on fighting (obviously, the blade had bent before that)!



Very little would have been left of Greece were not for the Romans. I said that before. They were the vehicle of Greek civilization, and a lot more than that. Rome set the political framework of Europe. Do you think History is about art, philosophy, democracy? The birth of nations is much more interesting to the historian (of course there is a history of art, of music, and so on). And do you think there was not a Greek imperialism? You have read about the Peloponesian War, have you not? What was the most important cause? The antinomy between the conservative Sparta and the Athenian imperialism. The gold of the Delian league was kept in an island and belonged to the whole confederacy. But under Pericles, it was moved to Athens, to build the Parthenon and other niceties. And what was the Acropolis with all its monuments? A symbol of the supremacy of Athens. The city states under the supremacy of Athens paid heavy tributes, and when they rebelled, they were severely punished.



For me their greatest legacy is of another kind. Greece represents, in the current of human events, the discovery of reason and the matrix of Western science. The history of European philosophy (is there another one?) could be summarized as comments to Aristotle and Plato. And then the mathematical reason. Euclid could be called with justice the founder of mathematics. He made of it a deductive system and nobody before had thought of it. Only that Archimedes is put first on the list by historians of that science, or whatever its name is.



So you admit genius can exist in a statesman. For certain, for you Caesar was no statesman then. Do you know about the vast body of legislation passed under Caesar during his short stays at Rome during the Civil War and then only the one year he was there after the final victory at Munda and before his assassination?

Hmm, the words of the late Michael Winner in a tv ad come to mind, 'calm down dear!'. We have allowed ourselves to become side-tracked now because we are debating the history of ancient civilisations, rather than individual genius which is what I thought the thread was about?

What is needed is a proper definition of genius, so I suggest contemplation of the thoughts of some great minds on the matter. The word genius is related to the Latin verb gigno, genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce."

Kant considered that originality was an essential component of genius - a talent for producing ideas that are non-imitative.

Schopenhauer considered a genius is someone in whom intellect predominates over "will" much more than within the average person - this predominance of the intellect over the will allows the genius to create artistic or academic works that are objects of pure, disinterested contemplation. 'Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.'

Interesting ideas with which I would agree.

[Enrique]

Hmm, the words of the late Michael Winner in a tv ad come to mind, 'calm down dear!'. We have allowed ourselves to become side-tracked now because we are debating the history of ancient civilisations, rather than individual genius which is what I thought the thread was about?

What is needed is a proper definition of genius, so I suggest contemplation of the thoughts of some great minds on the matter. The word genius is related to the Latin verb gigno, genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce."

Kant considered that originality was an essential component of genius - a talent for producing ideas that are non-imitative.

Socrates states: 'Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.'

Schopenhauer considered a genius is someone in whom intellect predominates over "will" much more than within the average person - this predominance of the intellect over the will allows the genius to create artistic or academic works that are objects of pure, disinterested contemplation.

Interesting ideas with which I would agree.

I was prompted by the description of Caesar in your preceding post., the post I quoted. I thought you liked history, do not let me down. After all, you have very elegantly evaded the question "can a statesman be a genius"? Or "Does a statesman create anything?". OK. By the way, could you give a source for that statement of Socrates'? I would never have guessed ancient people spoke about genius other than as a guardian spirit of some place or person.

I think Kant, Socrates and Schopenhauer would agree that genius is a rare product, not to be found but in very few people. As it is not a mathematical entity, it cannot have a clear and distinct definition. As there are no primitive concepts in a dictionary, every "definition" on it is a very large tautology. But at least we could agree on a set of notes that every learned man would attach to the concept of genius. Then one of them is its rarity. But we could add more notes, delimiting the concept even more. There must be creation, I think everybody would agree. Creation is to make something appear where there was nothing before. Sensu stricto, then nobody was a genius. When Beethoven began to compose, the sonata form was already well established. We need to define creation too, ufff. There has to be permanency. Perhaps this is the most important of all. To subject the work of art to the test of time. So we can avoid speaking about Irving Berlin (whose music for Top Hat, with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers, I was listening a few days ago) and Jerome Kern, or even whole musical tendencies. Just, as you mentioned in some post too, too close to present events. In brief, let history be the judge.

[Peter]

I was prompted by the description of Caesar in your preceding post., the post I quoted. I thought you liked history, do not let me down. After all, you have very elegantly evaded the question "can a statesman be a genius"? Or "Does a statesman create anything?". OK. By the way, could you give a source for that statement of Socrates'? I would never have guessed ancient people spoke about genius other than as a guardian spirit of some place or person.

I think Kant, Socrates and Schopenhauer would agree that genius is a rare product, not to be found but in very few people. As it is not a mathematical entity, it cannot have a clear and distinct definition. As there are no primitive concepts in a dictionary, every "definition" on it is a very large tautology. But at least we could agree on a set of notes that every learned man would attach to the concept of genius. Then one of them is its rarity. But we could add more notes, delimiting the concept even more. There must be creation, I think everybody would agree. Creation is to make something appear where there was nothing before. Sensu stricto, then nobody was a genius. When Beethoven began to compose, the sonata form was already well established. We need to define creation too, ufff. There has to be permanency. Perhaps this is the most important of all. To subject the work of art to the test of time. So we can avoid speaking about Irving Berlin (whose music for Top Hat, with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers, I was listening a few days ago) and Jerome Kern, or even whole musical tendencies. Just, as you mentioned in some post too, too close to present events. In brief, let history be the judge.

Sorry my mistake the quote actually was Schopenhauer, not Socrates and it comes from Volume 2 of The Word as Will and Representation. I'll edit the post to correct. Of course I like history but we are talking here about genius and we can't describe Rome or Greece as genius! BTW I don't have a great downer on Rome either, of course there are great things to admire not least the tremendous feats of engineering.

No I don't regard Caesar as a genius, I regard him as a clever politician and military leader but he doesn't meet my criteria for creative genius which I perceive as more academic and of the intellect. Actually I don't regard Constantine as a genius either, I was being flippant, but it was a moment of inspiration!

You mention Beethoven's use of sonata form and that he didn't invent the form, I don't think that is important - after all he didn't invent the piano or orchestra either. No one can deny that he created music of great originality that was way beyond that of a merely talented person.

[Enrique]

Of course he did. I was making an example of the difficulty of defining creation. Sensu stricto, there was only one creation: that of the universe. Humans do not create. They transform old materials, I dare say.

[Peter]

Of course he did. I was making an example of the difficulty of defining creation. Sensu stricto, there was only one creation: that of the universe. Humans do not create. They transform old materials, I dare say.

Maybe, but that literal definition doesn't take us any further. So Beethoven writes a symphony, there have been symphonies written before, nothing new there, but his particular symphony never existed before he wrote it down, therefore it is a new creation. Of course I could do the same and the same would apply, but it most certainly would not be a work of genius, so we have to go beyond creativity which is nonetheless a necessary ingredient.

[Enrique]

Alright, that is true too. But a prerequisite for a definition of genius in music, would be to make clear that society is divided into two classes: the many and the minority. The many are those for whom the most important thing in the world is a baseball game. The minority is what is left once you remove the many. Once all is said, one has to admit that the recognition of excellence for a work of art is a matter of social consensus. Even if Kant defines genius, we have to agree, in order to accept the definition, that Kant was a great philosopher. So every definition boils down to consensus, which is a social parameter.

And do not please tell me Beethoven is enjoyed by millions of people and, hence, is art for the masses. Classical music, for which in this forum the more useful name of art music could be chosen, is unpopular by its very essence. Only the hypocrisy of our time, which is egalitarian as no other one has been, can deny a fact so plain as the division between the vulgar and the selected, between those for which to live is just to be like they are and those who permanently strive looking for the best.

[Peter]

Alright, that is true too. But a prerequisite for a definition of genius in music, would be to make clear that society is divided into two classes: the many and the minority. The many are those for whom the most important thing in the world is a baseball game. The minority is what is left once you remove the many. Once all is said, one has to admit that the recognition of excellence for a work of art is a matter of social consensus. Even if Kant defines genius, we have to agree, in order to accept the definition, that Kant was a great philosopher. So every definition boils down to consensus, which is a social parameter.

And do not please tell me Beethoven is enjoyed by millions of people and, hence, is art for the masses. Classical music, for which in this forum the more useful name of art music could be chosen, is unpopular by its very essence. Only the hypocrisy of our time, which is egalitarian as no other one has been, can deny a fact so plain as the division between the vulgar and the selected, between those for which to live is just to be like they are and those who permanently strive looking for the best.

This is all true so we are indeed faced with this problem of reality - each of us has different perceptions and beliefs, so how do we arrive at consensus? Obviously on this forum it isn't going to be too hard for us to arrive at names of composers, artists, philosophers, scientists and writers that we can reasonably agree on - but to the wider world this is meaningless! So are we closer to the truth, or in turn deluded by our senses?

[Joy]

Good thread. Another word we tend to misuse is 'superstar'.

[Enrique]

Good thread. Another word we tend to misuse is 'superstar'.

Hollywood is to blame. First stars, then superstars, next what? Scientists a more austere in there vocabulary. When they say supernova, they mean a star that shines like 100000 novas altogether!

[Enrique]

Rachmaninoff was a product of the lagging romanticism ("romanticismo rezagado") as Sibelius, a live anachronism. Does not matter. Bach also lagged his epoch, I mean his greatest compositions were written when Johann Christian was already copioneering the shymphony. Question: can the second piano concerto be considered a genial work? When I was a child, a friend explained to me that Ferde Groffe, his Grand Canyon Suite, was a mixture of Debussy and don't know how many other things. I liked it very much but accepted his opinion. Maybe, in the same way, a musicologist would explain to us Rachmaninoff was only "copying" from other composer's works. If he did, he did it very well.

[Peter]

Rachmaninoff was a product of the lagging romanticism ("romanticismo rezagado") as Sibelius, a live anachronism. Does not matter. Bach also lagged his epoch, I mean his greatest compositions were written when Johann Christian was already copioneering the shymphony. Question: can the second piano concerto be considered a genial work? When I was a child, a friend explained to me that Ferde Groffe, his Grand Canyon Suite, was a mixture of Debussy and don't know how many other things. I liked it very much but accepted his opinion. Maybe, in the same way, a musicologist would explain to us Rachmaninoff was only "copying" from other composer's works. If he did, he did it very well.

I think these two, although following in an older tradition nonetheless had their own unique voice and sound, they weren't just imitators - they also developed from their earlier style, especially Sibelius - compare the 1st symphony with the 7th. So I think we have identified another necessary quality for genius, especially in music - your own sound.