ancient views on talent and geniality

[eugene]

Which modern books or articles research ancient views and perceptions on such things as :
talent, geniality and, on the contrary, lack of talent and professional incompetence?

[Epictetus]

I'm afraid I can't mention any studies, but i did want to say that it would be a fascinating topic. When you read letters of recommendation, you practically never hear about talents or skills. The prime reason someone should be promoted, apparently, were their connections, not their abilities. You can find formal praise, like panegyrics, but they seem to have had a different purpose than actually listing talents.

[Kegluneq]

I'm afraid I can't mention any studies, but i did want to say that it would be a fascinating topic. When you read letters of recommendation, you practically never hear about talents or skills.

Not entirely true. Letters of recommendation for military officers do discuss their skills - although somewhat unhelpfully, in the context of their liberal education (educated conversation, letter writing, poetry etc). Military command itself seems to have been viewed as ingrained knowledge, tied into the typical aristocratic experience of ordering slaves around in large numbers, so an ability to network (as well as existing connections) was probably the most important thing they looked for. After all, on a remote military posting a general may have only a handful of men even close to his social position within a hundred miles, so it was in his interests to ensure they would be good company.

I think the problems with studying competence in the ancient world are twofold - firstly, you rarely had a fixed code of practice for any given craft (generally you would be expected to learn on the job), and secondly, craft activity of any kind was so low status that it was below the attention of the literate elite to talk about openly. It's also probably the case that any actually incompetent craftsman would swiftly find themselves so swiftly out of work that they would not ever figure significantly into the practice of that craft as a whole.

(Very interesting topic though, I hope someone can be more useful than me!)

[M. Demetrius]

Didn't the GreeksRomans regard artistic talents as being conferred by the Muses? That would mean that a "great artist/writer/poet" really got his ideas from elsewhere, and he couldn't claim them as his own. Given that, the recommendations or laudes would not include those mentions, except perhaps a passing reference to divine gifts.

In the end, a gift says little about the recipient, but may significantly describe the giver.

[john m roberts]

The ancients drew a sharp distinction between the intellectual and the performing arts. The latter were disgraceful, no matter how well delivered. Herodotus tells us (I paraphrase here) of a king whose son came to him one day and told him that a certain man of the city was a marvelous flute-player. "That may be so," said the king, "but he must be a miserable human being or he would not be a marvelous flute-player." So (by aristocratic standards anyway) James Galway would have been among the most despised of ancient citizens. The idea of an actor like Ronald Reagan becoming leader of the most powerful nation in the world would have struck the ancients as the most repulsive perversion imaginable. As for Arnold Schwarzeneggar, let's just not go there.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Didn't the GreeksRomans regard artistic talents as being conferred by the Muses? That would mean that a "great artist/writer/poet" really got his ideas from elsewhere, and he couldn't claim them as his own. Given that, the recommendations or laudes would not include those mentions, except perhaps a passing reference to divine gifts.

In the end, a gift says little about the recipient, but may significantly describe the giver.

Weren't most Roman Scholars/Philosophers/etc Atheists? I'd imagine self-attribution would be rather common to describe traits.

[Kegluneq]

Weren't most Roman Scholars/Philosophers/etc Atheists? I'd imagine self-attribution would be rather common to describe traits.

Stoics weren't really atheists, although the gods were certainly distant in their ideology and I think it is fair to say they attributed their knowledge to human training (cf. Marcus Aurelius). I think for most of the lay population the gods were real and involved in human affairs, although not always to the degree of attributing everything to divine guidance.

This is getting into the whole ars/tekne debate, especially with regards to craft skills, but it has been a while since I did the relevant reading on that area. :/

[Lyceum]

The ancients drew a sharp distinction between the intellectual and the performing arts. The latter were disgraceful, no matter how well delivered. ...

Not necessarily, certain polities like Thebes trained their young boys in dancing, the Spartiates were famous for their song and dance (and leave us with some of the final examples...), in Athens joining or leading the khoros was a serious civic duty and one to be bragged about. In fact choral lyric and theariai were some of the most important models of aristocratic expressing. Some performative arts depended on aristocratic involvement; commemorative elegy, skolia etc. Then of course one has the wonderful anecdote about Solon singing Sappho. Or even Solon's poetry. Or indeed pretty much any elegist....evidentally its not so clear cut at all. Rather say that there were was a hierarchy of types of performances, flautanists were considered pretty lowly since the whole thing was a jocular metaphor for fellatio whereas other types such as kitharoidoi were not under such constraints.

Didn't the GreeksRomans regard artistic talents as being conferred by the Muses? That would mean that a "great artist/writer/poet" really got his ideas from elsewhere, and he couldn't claim them as his own. Given that, the recommendations or laudes would not include those mentions, except perhaps a passing reference to divine gifts.

In the end, a gift says little about the recipient, but may significantly describe the giver.

Weren't most Roman Scholars/Philosophers/etc Atheists? I'd imagine self-attribution would be rather common to describe traits.

Roman Atheists: Well Atheism is not a helpful model for discussing antiquity, too modern and with totally different connotations lexically in antiquity. Someone who was atheos was disconnected from his civic status essentially, not a nice way to be and why it was so often hurled at Christians. It was one thing to be piddle about with Greek philosophical and literary constructs but quite another to interfere with those cardinal Roman values, religio romanaroum, mos maiorum etc.

Re: Muses. I was going to suggest that any approach to the Greek side of things be through this area actually Demetrius, its the most fecund and lots of work has been done. I think Pen Murray's article on the Muses and the divine (?) nature of poetry is still the best starting point as well Armand Angour's "Greeks and the New", Ford's book on lit criticism etc. Hordes of articles and books in this area actually.

For the Romans? meh not so much.

[Nathan Ross]

Which modern books or articles research ancient views and perceptions on such things as : talent, geniality and, on the contrary, lack of talent and professional incompetence?

As others have suggested, correspondence provides the best evidence for perceptions of 'geniality', friendship and recommendation in (aristocratic) Roman society. This book might prove fruitful:

The Gift of Correspondence in Classical Rome

As for professional incompetence, I would suggest that this was usually expressed in moral terms. Rather than (as we might see it) deriving from some professional or personal fault or ineptitude, incompetence stemmed from moral failings. You can see this is Cicero's Philippics against Marc Antony, or Suetonius's criticisms of bad emperors, or Sallust on Catiline - these men are bad or dangerous because they are immoral, gluttonous, vain, bloodthirsty, obsessed with sex or otherwise unable to control their baser urges. We discussed before (I think) two notable military disasters in Armenia: in both cases the commander was at fault, for hubris and lack of precaution, and for vain credulousness - both moral failings.

This study of Polybius's moral presentation of historical figures might be useful in this regard:

Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius

Stoics weren't really atheists, although the gods were certainly distant in their ideology and I think it is fair to say they attributed their knowledge to human training (cf. Marcus Aurelius).

I'd say Stoics were the more religiously-minded of the various competing philosophical schools. Their rivals, the Epicureans, were more likely to be accused of atheism: to the epicureans, as I understand it, the gods were rather distant perfect beings with little interest in the affairs of mankind. The stoics preferred the idea of gods being intimately acquainted and personally involved. Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, of course, provides an interesting resume of the state of play during the late republic.

There is evidence, I think, for a sort of popular version of epicureanism during the early centuries AD that more closely approaches the sort of atheistic (or 'agnostic') view that we might recognise today. The denial of any life after death, or of any dieties presiding over our lives, expressed rather frankly on some tomb inscriptions, may suggest a widespread loss of belief in spiritual reality, or just a fashionable sort of cynical sentiment. The connection between this apparent death of faith and the subsequent rise of monotheistic religious thinking (first in philosophy - neo-Platonism - but increasingly in popular devotion and later, of course, in christianity) is fascinating but probably outside the scope of this particular debate!

[Kegluneq]

I'd say Stoics were the more religiously-minded of the various competing philosophical schools. Their rivals, the Epicureans, were more likely to be accused of atheism: to the epicureans, as I understand it, the gods were rather distant perfect beings with little interest in the affairs of mankind. The stoics preferred the idea of gods being intimately acquainted and personally involved.

Agreed on Epicureanism, but I'm not sure about the Stoics believing the gods to be 'intimately acquainted' or 'personally involved' in a sense we'd understand. Marcus Aurelius talks of gods in the manner of fate, or as involved - but distant - influences on humanity from a higher level but not supreme powers (I think Buddhism has similar beliefs regarding divine beings). This is in contrast to Christianity which associates Jesus/God with both the creation of the universe and natural law, but also with day-to-day intervention and even with personal communication through prayer or revelation. Christianity does have its own demigods and supernatural entities (saints, angels, ghosts, revenants, witches) but although these are closer to the ancient concept of gods they aren't viewed as being equivalent to God in terms of power or significance.

Apologies if that's not very clear, but I do think there is a distinction to be made. :S

[Nathan Ross]

Apologies if we're getting rather off-topic here.

I'm not sure about the Stoics believing the gods to be 'intimately acquainted' or 'personally involved' in a sense we'd understand.

Not the same sense we'd understand in a Judeo-Christian way, but the stoic Balbus in Cicero does talk of the gods 'exercising a superintendence over human affairs' (II.I).

While the gods created the world, Balbus says, they also order and direct it - a sort of holy government which he calls divine providence. But 'the Gods not only provide for mankind universally, but for particular men. You may bring this universality to gradually a smaller number, and again you may reduce that smaller number to individuals.' (II.LXV)

'I have given proof to all of us,' Balbus goes on, 'that the Gods take care of all men, in every country, in every part of the world'. The gods also make their will known to mortals: 'the frequent appearances of the Gods, as I have before mentioned, demonstrate their regard for cities and particular men.' This is proved by the prophetic power of dreams, omens and divination (II.LXVI). But it turns out that certain men interest the gods more than others! - not the common herd, but remarkable or heroic individuals: 'The Gods take care of great things, and disregard the small. But to truly great men all things ever happen prosperously...'

So I think there is an idea of personal involvement here, and an intimate link (at least for some select people) with the diety. Not the christian idea of a god both universal and personal, but a long way from the remote beings of the epicurean system.

Quite possibly these sort of ideas changed over time though. The stoicism of Marcus Aurelius does seem more inclined towards fatalism and the hard dutiful drudgery of existence than the direct interest and 'regard' of the gods in human affairs!

[Epictetus]

Marcus thanks the gods and mentions how they gave him cures via dreams. Scholars of Stoicim point out he isn't strictly following 'doctrine', but Stoicism evolved quite a bit over the centuries and I wouldn't consider it as an unchanging system of dogma.

[john m roberts]

The ancients drew a sharp distinction between the intellectual and the performing arts. The latter were disgraceful, no matter how well delivered. ...

Not necessarily, certain polities like Thebes trained their young boys in dancing, the Spartiates were famous for their song and dance (and leave us with some of the final examples...), in Athens joining or leading the khoros was a serious civic duty and one to be bragged about. In fact choral lyric and theariai were some of the most important models of aristocratic expressing. Some performative arts depended on aristocratic involvement; commemorative elegy, skolia etc. Then of course one has the wonderful anecdote about Solon singing Sappho. Or even Solon's poetry. Or indeed pretty much any elegist....evidentally its not so clear cut at all. Rather say that there were was a hierarchy of types of performances, flautanists were considered pretty lowly since the whole thing was a jocular metaphor for fellatio whereas other types such as kitharoidoi were not under such constraints.

Didn't the GreeksRomans regard artistic talents as being conferred by the Muses? That would mean that a "great artist/writer/poet" really got his ideas from elsewhere, and he couldn't claim them as his own. Given that, the recommendations or laudes would not include those mentions, except perhaps a passing reference to divine gifts.

In the end, a gift says little about the recipient, but may significantly describe the giver.

Weren't most Roman Scholars/Philosophers/etc Atheists? I'd imagine self-attribution would be rather common to describe traits.

Roman Atheists: Well Atheism is not a helpful model for discussing antiquity, too modern and with totally different connotations lexically in antiquity. Someone who was atheos was disconnected from his civic status essentially, not a nice way to be and why it was so often hurled at Christians. It was one thing to be piddle about with Greek philosophical and literary constructs but quite another to interfere with those cardinal Roman values, religio romanaroum, mos maiorum etc.

Re: Muses. I was going to suggest that any approach to the Greek side of things be through this area actually Demetrius, its the most fecund and lots of work has been done. I think Pen Murray's article on the Muses and the divine (?) nature of poetry is still the best starting point as well Armand Angour's "Greeks and the New", Ford's book on lit criticism etc. Hordes of articles and books in this area actually.

For the Romans? meh not so much.

I believe the distinction here is one of amateurism vs. professionalism. Choral song, for instance, was a community activity in honor of the gods, as was accompanying dance (as in the gymnopaedia) and was performed by well-born people. Musicians, on the whole, were paid professionals as were actors, and it was this aspect of performing publicly for pay that made them low-status, no matter how talented they might be.

[Lyceum]

Yes that is an interesting way of looking at it and generally might hold true, but as I said there are important exceptions; kitharoidia in general (though again in Rome this had decidedly negative connotations) and certain great poets like Pindar and Bakkhylides who certainly were able to partake in the exact same aristocratic networks as their patrons, despite being professionals and even using craft metaphors they're still speaking in terms of xenia, fashioned agalmata etc.

Admittedly by creating a professional/amateur dichotomy we're talking in terms more reminiscent of 19th century German scholarship than anything relevant to antiquity, I'd much rather see it as something than can vary given "profession" and time. You can be a eupatrid poet living via musical agones and be highly respectable or you can be a rich flute player and still be considered a prostitute.

I think when you get to Rome things are more blatant, but even then in Cicero (the Brutush, Tusc Dis, pro Arch. pro rosc. etc) and A Gellius we kind of some see some subtleties in status of poetic performers that you don't see in, say, Livy. There's the whole kettle of fish that was the a collegium poetarum, the temples for the Musae and Camenae etc too to bear in mind.

[Theodosius the Great]

I believe the distinction here is one of amateurism vs. professionalism. Choral song, for instance, was a community activity in honor of the gods, as was accompanying dance (as in the gymnopaedia) and was performed by well-born people. Musicians, on the whole, were paid professionals as were actors, and it was this aspect of performing publicly for pay that made them low-status, no matter how talented they might be.

What about public speaking? Or was it not considered a 'performing art'?
Cicero was praised for his oratory skills by his contemporaries including Caesar, his political enemy.

And Cicero praised Caesar for the quality of his written Latin (i.e. Commentarii de Bello Gallico)


~Theo