Fryderyk Chopin

Fryderyk Chopin: A Short Essay

By

Varo Borja

The romantic era was one fueled and fanned by the winds of change, not only in the governments of Europe and America, but in the world of the arts as well. Hearkening back to the Baroque era in some respects, music, painting, sculpture, and literature began to be infused with emotion and the gilt ornamentation of faraway places once again; music became more complex and literature, painting and the other arts reflected the changing ideas and emotions of a generation nostalgic for its roots. The second Great Awakening and the Industrial Revolution laid the groundwork for an era of artists to become sick with the familiar and to reach out to the distant horizons or deep within themselves for an answer to the maddening world around them. The French Revolution and the American Civil war were only two of the bloodlettings that propelled this feeling as well. In the world of music, new innovations and technologies allowed composers to create music that would shake the very foundations of the world in flux in which they lived. Fryderyk Chopin was born into this changing and growing world with a gift; although Chopin’s body was weak, his heart was strong and deep, full of life and bursting with music. Fryderyk Chopin created music that transcended the barriers of nationality and ability, and although technically difficult, his music was imbued with an emotional quality and depth of character cultivated not only from his Classical and Baroque influences, but from his own struggles with ill-health and sexual relationships.

Fryderyk Chopin was born in the Polish village of Zelazowa Wola on March 1, 1810, to an expatriate Frenchman and a poor, but distinguished Polish noblewoman (Samson, 1996). Chopin probably contracted tuberculosis during his childhood, but he was loved and nurtured not only by his mother and father, but by the Polish people he came in contact with. Chopin had three sisters with whom he was very close; he received his first piano lessons from his sister Ludwika (Orga, 1980). His youngest sister, Emilia, died young from tuberculosis: an ominous foreboding of Chopin’s own death. Ill health kept the young Chopin indoors most of the year, where he was tutored in French by his father Nicholas, and where he began to receive his first formal instruction on the piano by the tutor Wojciech Zywny (Samson, 1996). Young Chopin was heralded as a prodigy by the aficionados in Poland; however, his father kept a tight rein on this kind of talk and while Chopin was still under his care, Nicholas didn’t let the boy become lazy in his studies (Orga, 1980). However, Chopin quickly outstripped his tutor Zywny, of whom he was very fond, and was published as a musician by the tender age of seven; he gave concerts for charitable purposes and became a favorite of several aristocratic families throughout Poland, most notably the Radziwill family (Orga, 1980).

When he was 16, Chopin went on to attend the University of Warsaw under the tutelage of Jozef Elsner; he was so precocious that he was allowed to skip much of the core curriculum and enter the university at a level of advancement beyond his age (Orga, 1980). Young Chopin was finally away from home and able to fully invest himself in his chosen art: music. Chopin made several friends while in attendance at the University, some of who were noted musicians with anti-government leanings such as the young student, Titus Woyciechowski, whom he would keep in correspondence with throughout his short life (Samson, 1996). According to the book, “Chopin” by Jim Samson, “Cafes were forbidden to the University pupils, but (Chopin) and his friends frequented the theatre, and there was a constant run of name day parties, balls and informal dances” (1996, p. 18). The young Chopin was influenced very heavily by the music he heard at these events in Warsaw, and he even took trips to the countryside (probably for his health) where he was familiarized with Polish peasant music (Samson, 1996). Chopin was plagued by fits of coughing, especially in winter, and suffered much from the cold weather of the region. However, he was accorded a high compliment by his professor, Elsner, on finishing his first year at the University; Elsner commented that Chopin possessed a remarkable talent. Traveling to Vienna while in attendance at the University, Chopin gave a concert there of one of his own compositions and was accorded much acclaim; however, he was also criticized for his smallness of tone. This negative review made the young Chopin question his ability to perform in public, and he developed an aversion for public performances, stating later in life that performing in public was “quite disturbing” for him; he much preferred small audiences and composing to large public displays of his work, at least by his own hand (Samson, 1996). Upon completing his last year at Warsaw University, Chopin was honored with the title of "musical genius" by his professor, Jozef Elsner (Samson, 1996).

Not long after graduation from the University, Chopin went to Vienna again with his friend Titus, but Titus returned early to take part in the Polish revolution in which the Congress government was overthrown (Samson, 1996). Russian troops occupied Poland soon thereafter, and Chopin settled in Paris, never to return to his homeland (Samson, 1996). While in Paris, Chopin continued to compose and met the acquaintance of such formidable musicians as Franz Liszt and Robert Schumann; Schumann remarked at Chopin’s first performance in Paris, “Hats off gentlemen! A genius!” (Mullen, 2004, p. 1). Chopin wrote his most famous pieces in Paris, including his “Minute Waltz” and “Funeral March Sonata” (Samson, 1996). Chopin also made the acquaintance of George Sand, a famous female novelist with whom he began a ten-year love affair. Sand and Chopin’s relationship was very turbulent, but Chopin composed prolifically while they were together, with emphasis on Polish themes such as the Polonaise and the mazurka, and short pieces named only for their catalogue numbers such as his Preludes and Etudes (Samson, 1996). The relationship ended over a dispute with Sand’s family, and Chopin died not long thereafter, on October 17, 1849. He was nursed on his deathbed by his sister, Ludwika, and at his behest his heart was sent back to Poland where it resides in the Holy Cross Church in Warsaw (Orga, 1980). Ludwika died six months later (Orga, 1980).

In conclusion, Chopin’s life was one of precocious talent, prodigious composition, stormy health and relationships, and early death. Many people have been greatly affected by Chopin’s music, but there have been some detractors and his music has fallen out of fashion at times. J.W. Davison, a music critic for the London Times, thoroughly denounced Chopin’s music when he said, “Compared with Berlioz, Chopin was a morbidly sentimental flea by the side of a roaring lion” (Yudkin, 2008). My reaction was somewhat different on hearing Chopin for the first time. I wrote this statement for my blog, “Tanzanian Peaberry” on December 8, 2006 when I was first introduced to Chopin’s preludes,

Up, down, down to the depths of the sea and all inside a gilded box. Tighter and tighter and back again, soaring and plummeting the sweat and the tears flowing but so reserved, the gentleman and his fiery steed, the fox and the bear and the unending struggle for air, just a breath of air and the sea, the sea. Bent upon the keyboard grand spectacle and faster, faster flows the fire unquenchable. Phillistines bowing before the God of heaven and the ark of the covenant and the Crimea snow covered and deathlike. FASTER, FASTER, spin the planets and suck the big bang into a ball, singularity becoming tinier and tinier and then silence. Cheers of the multitude. Death on a Sunday. The Queen bows and places the crown at the feet of a beggar, and silence. Silence.


At the time I had no idea that Chopin was afflicted with tuberculosis during his life and died young, or that he had ever been accused of being too “reserved”, which he was by a great many detractors. I also had no idea that Chopin had been presented to Queen Victoria or heard any of the rumors that she had become his pupil (Orga, 1980). Chopin’s music said it all. It was in his ability for expression and the depth of his sonorous meanderings on the piano that Chopin deserved the acclaim he received in his day, but it is in his ability to speak to the listener of today and his still far-reaching appeal that Chopin has earned a place among the greatest musicians of all time.

References

Mullen, A. (January, 2004). In search of Chopin. Hudson Review, 56,
695.
Orga, A. (1980). Chopin: His Life and Times. Neptune City, NJ: Paganiniana
Publications.
Samson, J. (1996). Chopin. New York: Schirmer Books.
Yudkin, J. (2008). Understanding Music. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Egyptian Art

The Amarna Style
By
Varo Borja

The reign of Amenhotep IV was a phenomenon. His revolutionary crusade to unite Egypt under one god, Aten, changed the course of Egyptian civilization and drastically altered the artistic style of the period. In this short essay I will attempt to define the Amarna style and contrast it with the older order of the Egyptian pharaohs. I will also give background information on Amenhotep's revolutionary life and how it affected Ancient Egypt.

Amenhotep IV was the son of Amenhotep III, and he came to rule Egypt in 1348 B.C. His father, Amenhotep III had venerated the sun disk, Aten, and had promoted its worship against the wishes of the predominant cult of Amun. The priests of Amun had grown over the years to have extreme weatlh and power, and the pharaohs had resented this. Therefore, when Amenhotep IV received the scepter, he destroyed the temples of the god Amun and even went so far as to erase the name of Amun from the public records. Amnehotep IV then moved his kingdom to the city Tel el' Amarna and changed his name to Akhenaten, which means, "effective for the Aten." Akhenaten and his wife, Nefertiti, ruled there until 1336 B.C., at which time Akhenaten died and, according to some sources, Nefertiti took up the throne.

The style set forth by the Amarna artists is very different from the art of the dynasties before them. The Amarna style is very fluid, as exemplified by the limestone relief, Akhenaten and His Family, found at the top of the page. The Amarna style, headed by Thutmose, the King's head master, was much more perosnal and lighthearted than the style of the Old Kingdom. In the Old Kingdom, busts were done in a very rigid fashion, displaying the Pharaohs as being very muscular and stoic, as in the statue of Khafre from Giza, c. 2500 B.C. The reliefs and statues from the Amarna period display Akhenaten and Nefertiti as having long, spindly arms and free-flowing facial features. The Amarna style is certainly less stuffy and more compassionate, whereas the Old Kingdom style is more conservative and reserved. Thutmose, Akhenaten's "favorite master of works" was the first Egyptian sculptor that modern scholars have been able to identify as having a particular style. His limestone sculpture of Nefertiti is one of the most elegant pieces from antiquity, but it remained unfinished and was left behind in his workshop when he moved to Memphis after the death of Akhenaten in 1336 B.C.


In conclusion, the art of the Amarna period is something of an anomaly. Akhenaten's spiritual revolution changed Egyptian culture and art for years thereafter, and it remains, in my humble opinion, some of the best art from antiquity. Akhenaten was succeeded by Tutankhamen, who reinstated the worship of the god Amun, as is evidenced by his name. However, Tutankhamen did not abolish the creative genius that was evident during the Amarna period, as displayed by works he commissioned such as Workmen Carrying a Beam. The same organic and lifelike figures inhabit this relief, as they did in the Amarna period. Although lacking some of the playfulness and compassion of the Amarna pieces, this relief is a testimony to the far-reaching effects of Amenhotep IV's spiritual and creative revolution.

Pioneers and Pedantry

Pioneers and Pedantry: The Turner Thesis and Its Relevance in 21^st Century America
By
Varo Borja

In former songs Pride have I sung, and Love, and passionate, joyful Life,

But here I twine the strands of Patriotism

And Death. – Walt Whitman

The frontier in American history has been a source of inspiration, debate, and propaganda throughout the past two centuries since it has become a relevant topic. The Turner Thesis is but one document stating the importance of the Western frontier in America; we are to find this construct throughout our culture here in the United States. From the cowboy substrata still present in much of the South and found on CMT, to the fascination our current president has with playing Us vs. Them with the rest of the world in a circled-wagons, fight till the death, prolifically ignorant struggle to hog-tie the United and rogue Nations of the Earth into submission. The Turner Thesis stated, in grandiloquent terms, the overriding importance the Western frontier played in the early and adolescent development of the United States of America. In this essay I will attempt to relate some of the points stated by the Turner Thesis, and provide counterpoint to these assumptions from my own views and from two scholars who criticized, not only the relevance of Turner’s argument, but the very foundations upon which it was based.

Turner began his thesis by stating that, “Behind institutions, behind constitutional forms and modifications, lie the vital forces that call these organs into life and shape them to meet changing conditions. The peculiarity of American institutions is, the fact that they have been compelled to adapt themselves to the changes of an expanding people--to the changes involved in crossing a continent, in winning a wilderness, and in developing at each area of this progress out of the primitive economic and political conditions of the frontier into the complexity of city life. Said Calhoun in 1817, "We are great, and rapidly--I was about to say fearfully--growing!" (Turner, 1) This is quite a grand assumption, and not without merit. The westward expansion of the people of the United States of America certainly was filled with new and wonderful experiences for those who were brave enough to undertake the journey. Many of the people who pushed westward were of either Scotch-Irish or German heritage, and felt no love for the machinations of the English-style republic growing to fruition with the backing of the southern Tidewater elite and the Yankee traders of dubious Puritan heritage. Turner also states that, “The frontier is the line of most rapid and effective Americanization. The wilderness masters the colonist. It finds him a European in dress, industries, tools, modes of travel, and thought. It takes him from the railroad car and puts him in the birch canoe. It strips off the garments of civilization and arrays him in the hunting shirt and the moccasin. It puts him in the log cabin of the Cherokee and Iroquois and runs an Indian palisade around him. Before long he has gone to planting Indian corn and plowing with a sharp stick, he shouts the war cry and takes the scalp in orthodox Indian fashion. In short, at the frontier the environment is at first too strong for the man. He must accept the conditions which it furnishes, or perish, and so he fits himself into the Indian clearings and follows the Indian trails. Little by little he transforms the wilderness, but the outcome is not the old Europe, not simply the development of Germanic germs, any more than the first phenomenon was a case of reversion to the Germanic mark. The fact is, that here is a new product that is American.” So, according to Turner, the man who emerged from the wilds, wielding both tomahawk and pointed plow was a new creation: a self-reliant, and self-governing American. However, what shaped these primeval urges for rebellion, autonomy, and adventure? Was it not, at least in the case of the Scots-Irish pioneers, the love of free land and the age-old desire for self-government found in the lowland Scots as early as the twelfth century? The Scots had always fought off the mantle of English government and were bred with an intense dislike of Whitehall and its machinations. There were, of course, many Scots who had relinquished freedom to the English for land and title, but they were not to be found on the American frontier. No, the Scots-Irish of the American West were the poor souls who had come to this country with nothing more than a dram and a dream; they had an innate desire for land upon which they could farm and raise prodigious families, and they were heady with the fresh air of freedom from indentured servitude and English hegemony. However, the political philosophies adopted by those same pioneers were nothing new. According to Benjamin F. Wright, Jr. the system of government adopted by the westerners was, “Imitative, not creative. They were not interested in making experiments. Their constitutional, like their domestic, architecture, was patterned after that of the communities from which they had moved westward. However different their life during the period of frontier existence may have been from that of the older communities, they showed no substantial desire to retain its primitive characteristics when they established laws and constitutions of their own choice.” (The Turner Thesis, 64). So, in effect, Mr. Wright says that the torrid frontier conditions shaped nothing new in terms of government; the pioneers brought with them the same political constructs and ideologies that had been shaped and set into place on the Atlantic seaboard, if not in Old Europe.

Turner went on to state in his thesis that the movement of ideologies and culture flowed backwards from the frontier to the Atlantic seaboard. He named such statesmen as Andrew Jackson and others who had a great impact on this country during its early adolescent period, and even later personages such as Abraham Lincoln who, fresh from splitting rails, attempted to stay the schism of the Union. Turner did give place in his thesis for the overwhelming impact of the middle states and the Scots-Irish and German peoples who issued from there into the gulf of the West to take up residence in a leap-frog fashion; the pioneer would clear the land and cultivate it for a period of time, and then move on westward once the men of capital came close to develop the area further. (The Turner Thesis, 15) In a rebuttal to the thesis published in 1940, George Wilson Pierson, a Yale scholar long familiar with the Turner Thesis stated, “For how shall we account for the Industrial Revolution? By the Frontier? Do American Music and Architecture come from the woods? Did American Cattle? Were our religions born of the contemplation of untamed nature? Has science, poetry, or even democracy, its cradle in the wilderness?” (The Turner Thesis, 70) This is a very good question, considering all these disciplines and goods came from Old Europe primarily, and not from the Western wilderness. Another apropos statement was made by a more modern critic of the Turner Thesis in 1946 by Carlton J.H. Hayes, a devoted scholar in his own right and one time U.S. ambassador to Spain. He stated, “If we belonged to a Moslem or Confucian culture, or to a purely indigenous one, we would not have the mores which we have. We would not, for instance, be free on Sundays for church or for golf or for surreptitious privacy in library and laboratory. Probably we would not use knives or forks, and we would wear different clothes.” (The Turner Thesis, 109) Mr. Hayes also reminds us that we as Americans, just because a frontier existed once in this country where there were “savages” of a sort, and the people of this country were influenced by conversation and close proximity with them, that that very conversation and close relations did not make us “into” them any more than we are made into a country of Asiatic origins because of international trade with Japan. (The Turner Thesis, 110) Mr. Hayes goes on to warn that the idea of cultural and physical isolationism propounded by Mr. Turner through his thesis was and is dangerous to this country because we are surrounded by a world from which we came, and which we must still reach out to if we are to exist as a nation ad infinitum. However, Mr. Hayes is not a universalist; he makes that quite clear in his statements against a willy-nilly, heady idealism found in part four of his essay. (The Turner Thesis, 111)

In conclusion, I feel it is important to state the views of one of the many defenders of the Turner Thesis. Avery Craven, a one-time student of Dr. Turner’s and a professor of American History at Chicago University quoted Thomas Jefferson in his attempted refutation of the claims that Dr. Turner’s essay was “worthless”, or at least no longer relevant. The quote reads as follows, “Let a philosophic observer commence a journey from the savages of the Rocky Mountains, eastwardly toward our seacoast. These (the Indians) he would observe in the earliest stage of association living under no law but that of nature, subsisting and covering themselves with the flesh and skins of wild beasts. He would next find these on our frontiers in the pastoral state, raising domestic animals to supply the defects of hunting. Then succeed to our own semibarbarous citizens, the pioneers of the advance civilization, and so in his progress he would meet the gradual improved state in our seaport towns. This, in fact, is equivalent to a survey, in time, of the progress of man from the infancy of creation, to the present day.” (The Turner Thesis, 128) Dr. Craven went on to state that although misunderstood, and certainly misrepresented at times by his critics, Dr. Turner was a deliberate and thorough researcher who was not only hampered by the times in which he lived, but was open to criticism, as long as that criticism contained the seeds of truth and helped to further the knowledge of mankind. Frederick Jackson Turner’s magnum opus, although certainly narrow in scope in regards to today’s research, was very influential and helped to build the sense of self that the United States as a body politic lacked after the Civil War and the years of the Reconstruction South. Those times were riddled with internal strife, sectional hatred and outright embarrassment on the part of many Americans. If nothing else, Dr. Turner’s thesis could be seen as a type of salve for the wounds of a healing nation. However, Mr. Carlton Hayes’s statements prove the more prophetic in that we as a nation still insist on isolating ourselves from other cultures and creeds, and we rely too heavily on the myth constructed at places like Little Big Horn, The Alamo, and Wake Island (Fatal Environment, 10). Too many of us see the rest of the world as enemies with different colored skin or different gods, or divergent dress and foreign customs. A closer look reveals these very same attributes applied to us by other nations with, at different times, more accuracy. Other frontiers have existed for the peoples of the Earth that have engendered in them nationalistic tendencies and bold, self-aggrandizement: The interiors of the South American and African continents for example. Also, in a metaphorical sense, a religious frontier existed for the Islamic peoples of the Middle East in the coming of Islam nearly 1500 years ago and the development of a strained, but viable brotherhood under the prophet Muhammad. Where we, as United States citizens go awry is not in the esteem with which we hold our own sense of self and the importance of our own conquered frontier. Where we overstep our bounds is when we try to enforce our sense of supremacy and our self-centered egoism on the rest of the world through subversion and outright force. The people of the United States forget all too well that this type of force was attempted on us not too long ago by a “superior” nation who thought it had our best interests at heart, and with dire consequences. So, the relevance of Dr. Turner’s thesis lies in its ability to bolster the self-esteem and legitimate pride of a nation made up of people from all hemispheres, but not as an ideological weapon to be used to alienate and isolate us from countries and cultures just as proud and certainly as viable as our own.

Works Cited:

The Turner Thesis: Concerning the Role of the Frontier in American History, Third Edition. Edited and with an introduction by George Rogers Taylor, Amherst College: D.C. Heath and Company. Lexington, Massachusetts. 1972.

The Frontier in American History by Frederick Jackson Turner. Found at: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/TURNER/

Fatal Environment: The Myth of the Frontier in the Age of Industrialization 1800-1890. Richard Slotkin: Harper-Perennial, New York, New York. 1985.

Bread, Circuses and BET

Bread, Circuses and BET

by

Varo Borja

We bring the bald lecher – the legions of Julius Caesar

The Roman Empire was a far-reaching, famously feared and complex organism. Before the Empire, in the days of the Republic, men of honor and ability graced the halls of the Roman senate with splendid oratories and diatribes, calling all citizens of the Republic who possessed intelligence and courage to great deeds. These illustrious senators also fought at the head of the Roman legions, conquering vast expanses of territory and furthering the interests of their fellow countrymen. Then, after the ascension of Augustus, a great empire was born, encompassing most of the known world; stretching from Spain to the Tigris-Euphrates river the Roman Eagle cast its shadow upon a world of toiling slaves, sturdy yeomen, and a luxuriant caste of persons who knew neither toil nor want. In the modern age, another eagle casts its shadow upon the Earth: the bald eagle of the United States of America. Born a republic and reluctantly, after a long period of isolationism, thrust into the forefront of global politics, this final superpower conceived under the auspices of liberty and justice seeks hegemony over the race of man. Through suggestion, sanctions, and outright subversion, the United States of America maintains its place at the head of the global machine. In the near or distant future, will the United States of America collapse, as Arnold J. Toynbee said, “by suicide, and not by murder”? (Dreher, 1) This remains to be seen, if not by our generation, then maybe by some future race of Americans. The Roman Empire fell amidst the fires lit by their neighbors the Goths, but the same flames were fueled by 400 years of licentious decline and outright cowardice. The moral armor of the Roman Empire was pierced with the arrows of pride, greed, gluttony and sloth. The once illustrious senators and noble patricians of the Republic were gone. They were replaced by a clan of self-interested, self-indulgent princes who cared neither for the austerity of toil for the good of their fellow citizens, or even for the defense of a bloated, but shrinking dominion from which they drew their incomes and pleasures. The United States of America has not wasted away to the extent of the late Roman Empire. However, the United States of America and the late Roman Empire have three broad characteristics in common that could, as in the case of the latter, lead to the eventual collapse of the United States and end life in America as we know it today.

The first characteristic that both empires have in common is the quality of the characters of their respective citizens. Citizens of the Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D. were copious gluttons, and they were both slothful and avaricious. Furthermore, they were loath to participate in government, and left its machinations to the “weak and distracted” (Gibbon, 663). Roman citizens also betrayed their fellow countrymen and “exploited public goods” (Dreher, 3) for their own purposes. From the time of the Julio-Claudian emperors, such disgusting public spectacles as the use of vomitoriums (public binging and purging houses) and the dispersal of massive quantities of bread to the mob at large gatherings were commonplace. Citizens of the United States of America in the 21^st century are also greedy, lazy and gluttonous. Voter turnout in the twenty-first century is negligible compared to that of the early 20^th century. Civil litigation is just as prevalent or more commonplace in the United States today than it was in the Roman Empire. According to insideprison.com, “The term ‘lawsuit abuse’ was first defined in the early 1990’s”. Many residents of the United States of America would rather sue their neighbors than carve out an existence by their own labors. Also, according to insideprison.com, “in 2002, civil lawsuits cost the U.S. economy a reeling 233 billion dollars.” This statistic is staggering considering the U.S. gross domestic product for the year 2002 was 9.5 trillion dollars (USA.gov); this means that two percent of the entire GDP for the United States of America was eaten up with civil disputes in the year 2002. Although some, if not most of these suits were legitimate, this disturbing statistic still reflects badly upon the land where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supposedly underpin a society of industrious and benevolent, freedom seeking citizens. Another truly upsetting fact reveals itself when examining the GDP statistics for the year 2002: more income was generated through civil litigation than through the industry of agriculture. According to statistics found on USA.gov, a paltry 164 billion dollars was produced by the agricultural sector in this country in 2002: a little less than half what the deluge of civil lawsuits that year cost the federal economy. This is a startling fact, considering the decline of agriculture within the Roman Empire coincided with the decline of civilization. To quote Edward Gibbon once again, “Agriculture is the foundation of manufactures; since the productions of nature are the materials of art” (Gibbon, 48). It is also common knowledge that obesity runs rampant in the United States, and eating disorders abound, while much of the rest of the planet struggles to maintain even the most minimal diet. Citizens of the United States gorge themselves at Golden Corral and Taco Bell and then some of the diners immediately retire to restrooms to vomit up their extravagant meals, while the residents of East Africa and parts of Asia die by the millions for lack of proper nutrition.

Another disparaging aspect of the characters of both civilizations is the lack of zeal present for the defense of their respective, over-extended dominions. Roman citizens of rank in the fifth century A.D. spurned military service in favor of empty official titles and the pleasures of the symposium. The Roman army was overstretched and under-staffed, and therefore unable to defend its prodigious borders. Potential military talent was wasted as the old families of Rome cowered in their estates and left the protection of the empire to mercenaries and foreigners. 21^st century Americans support their military from the sidelines with yellow ribbons and Toby Keith inspired flag-waving, but few citizens in this country sign up for military service. Charles Moskos, a former professor at Northwestern University, noted in Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel’s article for the Los Angeles Times in December of 2006, that “of his 1956 Princeton University class of 750 men, 450 served (in the military). In the Princeton University class of 2006 there were 1,108 men and women, but only nine so far have joined the military” (Barnes and Spiegel, 3). Apparently, the Ivy League patricians of the U.S. aren’t as willing to defend this country as their forefathers were. The United States Army struggled to meet its goals for enlistment in the years 2004 and 2005, and according to the Barnes and Spiegel article, the army was willing to give exorbitant incentives for anyone under the age of 40 who would sign up for active service (Barnes and Spiegel, 3). Isn’t this a form of hiring a class of warriors to defend that which most of us are either too lazy, or too cowardly to defend? With such negative statistics as these confronting Americans today while we are in the midst of two overseas conflicts, an easy comparison may be made to the days of Rome when the outposts on the Rhine and the Danube went unmanned, and the Gothic barbarians trumpeted their entry into the age-old capital of a once proud empire. A more embarrassing fact may be noted when the military service records of the last two presidents of the United States are examined; the former president of the United States evaded the draft imposed by Congress during the Vietnam War, and the current Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States used family connections within the Federal government to evade active duty during the Vietnam conflict in favor a rear-echelon post in the States.

The second characteristic present in both empires that could lead to the eventual destruction of the United States is the content of their warped and highly self-indulgent cultures. The late Roman Empire featured a policy of Bread and Circuses, or an attempt to distract and sate the lust of the populace with material goods and horribly violent spectacles. Gladiatorial combats featured two or more opponents who fought to the death for the amusement of the mob. Horse races and exotic animals from obscure locales re-directed the attention of the denizens of Rome away from the ever-present threats of invasion from the Danube and Rhine sectors, and the potential assassination of whomever wore the purple of imperator at the moment. To quote Gibbon once again, “A people who still remembered that their ancestors had been the masters of the world would have applauded, with conscious pride, the representation of ancient freedom, if they had not long since been accustomed to prefer the solid assurance of bread to the unsubstantial visions of liberty and greatness” (Gibbon Vol. II, 85). Twenty-first century America has adopted economic policies that favor goods for the present, and a sedentary, television centered lifestyle. According to the California State University, Northridge website, “the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube” (www.csun.edu). This is a very disturbing statistic, considering American families lose 9 years worth of bonding and development; civic duties and religious affiliations fall by the wayside 2 months out of the year. Reality television composes much of what is broadcast in the United States today, and engenders feelings of self-hatred, exorbitant spending on the part of the viewers to become like those viewed, and a cynical, self-centered view of life in the modern age. Also, we Americans have our own brands of gladiatorial combat: WWE wrestling and the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Self-indulgence may also be found in the homes of many Americans who sit for hours in front of computer screens or Xbox monitors. According to the Canada Review of American Studies, “The video- and computer-game industry generated a profit of US$6.35 billion in 2001, earnings greater than those of either Hollywood films or pornography and, in the entertainment field, second only to those of the music industry. It is estimated that 60 per cent of all Americans regularly play computer or video games;¹ 42 per cent of them are women; the median age of gamers is twenty-eight.² The production budgets for computer games now regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and the creation of a single game may involve a team of designers, actors, programmers, and musicians that rivals in size some film production crews” (muse.jhu.edu). With all this technological deterioration in the homes of American families, it is quite easy to relate this type of societal decay to the Bread and Circuses policies of the late Roman Empire.

Furthermore, religion in the late Roman Empire was a state-mandated form of Christianity that lacked the vigor, self-sacrifice and courage displayed by the early followers of Christ. Petty squabbles over doctrine and the clambering for crumbs of power from the table of Constantine wreaked havoc on the religious lives of Roman citizens. To quote Gibbon once again, “Corruption, the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty, was successfully practised; honours, gifts, and immunities were offered and accepted as the price of an episcopal vote; and the condemnation of the Alexandrian primate was artfully represented as the only measure which could restore the peace and union of the catholic church” (Gibbon, 706). Many faiths abound within the borders of the United States, but an increasingly secular worldview, lackluster religious observance, and recent scandals associated with religious leaders have dampened what was once a vital element of the culture of the U.S. In the past twenty years, at least three major Protestant leaders have been indicted for crimes including solicitation of a prostitute and fraudulent money handling in regard to their congregations.

The third characteristic that both empires have in common is the nature of their respective capital cities. Rome, the capital of the Western Empire, was a city fraught with corruption and a professional governing class. The administrators of Rome were spurious at best; according to Mr. Dreher’s article the leading lights of Rome “ruled as if the common good coincided with their private interests” (Dreher, 2). Assassination was a constant threat in the Roman capital as well. Gibbon states on page 150 of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that, “The dark and sanguinary soul of the tyrant was open to every suspicion against those among his subjects who were most distinguished by their birth or merit. Whenever he was alarmed with the sound of treason, his cruelty was unbounded and unrelenting.” So, within the capital of Rome, whenever a tyrant was in power (which was most of the time) the constant threats of a leaderless empire or a general proscription laid upon those of the highest ability or rank laid waste to the societal peace of mind. Does not this same type of fear of assassination exist in Washington D.C.? Not always the act of physical assassination, but the even more cowardly process of character and political assassination enacted during the tenures of various Senators and Representatives, or Presidents and Vice-Presidents. Also, Washington D.C., the capital of the United States of America, is a city rife with the backhanded manipulations of lobbyists and self-interest groups. Furthermore, Washington houses a double-headed hierarchy of elected officials who both profit from and cling to their respective positions with all the fervor of babies clinging to their mother’s breasts. Is this image not akin to the sculpture of young Romulus and Remus, the mythological brother-founders of Rome, between whom fratricide was committed, suckling at the tit of the she-wolf who raised them with the same savagery and blood lust endemic to the other children of her breed?

In conclusion, I feel it is important to state two of the major differences between the late Roman Empire and the present United States of America: the resistance exhibited by Americans to be classified as an empire versus the Romans’ glory in that title, and the perfection taken for granted by Romans in their system of government, and a good portion of Americans’ desire for progressive fiscal and social policies over the outdated and archaic views held by some in power at the present time (Dreher, 3). Also, the Roman Empire had over a millennium to become stagnant and infertile. The United States, although certainly corrupt, lazy, and in some cases apathetic towards the rest of the world, is much younger and therefore stands a better chance of revival. Rome experienced periods of grandeur and political stability under such emperors as Hadrian, Trajan, the Antonines and Aurelian. The United States has also had moments of glory and unimpeded progress under various leaders, and has given birth to some of the best minds to ever grace the intellectual arena. However, the United States of America also designed, manufactured and dropped the first atomic bomb: a fact that haunts this country today in its dealings with rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. Also, much like the Romans, we have a hoard of manufacturing and capital craving “barbarians” seeking economic mastery just outside the gates of our empire: the Chinese. Still, we as a nation insist on forcing our brand of democracy, our love of the material, and our self-centered egoism on the rest of mankind. The future generations of this country will have some very difficult choices to make concerning character and culture, but hopefully reform in our capital will herald a new and brighter age for the free and brave citizens of the United States of America.

Informal Works Cited:

1. Are We Rome? How the U.S. can avoid its own version of the fall of the Roman empire by Rod Dreher. Dallas Morning News: July 29, 2007

2. Expanding the military, without a draft; proposals to sign up more troops are raising concern about lower recruiting standards by Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel. Los Angeles Times. December 24, 2006.

3. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Abridged Version). Edward Gibbon. The Modern Library, New York: 2005.

4. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Unabridged). Edward Gibbon. The Modern Library, New York: 1965.

5. Insideprison.com. Found at: http://www.insideprison.com/

6. USA.gov. Found at: http://www.usa.gov/

7. The Canada Review of American Studies. Found at: http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/canadian_review_of_american_studies/v034/34.1budra.html

8. Television and Health. Found at: http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html