Some Roman once wrote of the poet Ovid:
"He would have been a better poet if he had controlled his genius instead of letting his genius control him."
I have pondered and pondered that sentence but it still makes no sense to me.
Any thoughts?
Winner of the best response gets a certificate for ten days free obedience training for his/her inner genius.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Obedience School for your inner Genius
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Perhaps the suggestion is that genius can cause problems for the individual. Like lack of social skills, relationships.
Or that genius is correlated with some other undesirable like stubbornness, obsession, narrow focus etc.
Perhaps genius just doesn't always apply itself, and it puts itself to crappy, pointless pursuits.
But if his genius -- and I think we have to stick with its original sense of a personified being capable of providing inspiration, rather than simply the modern idea of brilliance -- was what made him a poet, then how would it being in control diminish his poetic accomplishments?
Hmm I wasn't aware of that way of defining genius. I prefer the modern idea of brilliance, really. Because so many very average people can inspire others. Although perhaps average people can only inspire average others. Eg Anthony Robbins.
I don't think the kind of 'genius' that inspires people can control an individual.
Throughout ages, genius has often been associated with leading to madness. From the Artist Vincent van Gogh whom cut off his ear. The Composer Mozart is portrayed in many fashions. The Poet Edgar Allan Poe has been proclaimed mad or having done narcotics. And some think Science geniuses such as Albert Einstein just look crazy. The point is, if van Gogh had controlled his genius instead of letting his genius control him, he would not have cut off his ear. But does any of this apply to Ovid? Not according to J. W. MACKAIL in chapter IV. OVID
Ovid
“Of the extraordinary force and fineness of Ovid's natural genius, there never have been two opinions; had he but been capable of controlling it, instead of indulging it, he might have, in Quintilian's opinion, been second to no Roman poet.”
Post a Comment