Rome & The Republic

The study of history has largely been abandoned in the American education system, particularly any study of ancient history but there are many lessons to be learned by simply examining the mistakes of the past. The parallels between ancient Rome and modern America should give pause to our political leaders today. Rome was a Republic that lasted for 482 years. It had an elected body—the Senate led by two Consuls. This was a very successful government until overthrown by Caesar in his drive for total power, but Rome itself lasted for over a thousand years and during that period experienced many problems and situations America faces today.

Rome was expansionist in that it conquered and incorporated territories into the Empire. But Rome was careful to preserve the cultures and leadership of those territories. Kings were left in place but most importantly Rome was careful not to tamper with the local customs and religions, that is until they ran up against the monotheistic Jews and Christians. This religious tolerance was not again experienced until the founding of America who incorporated religious tolerance into the Constitution. The Romans tolerated the Christians at first but the Christians simply would not accept the polytheistic views of the Romans. Eventually the Christians prevailed and the Roman Empire became Christian. Today America tolerates all religions including Atheism and Islam. However, just as the early Christians refused to accept the religious tolerance of the Roman Government so does Islam refuse to accept any religion except Islam. The Muslim community pleads for peace and understanding just as the early Christians did, but it should be noted that the Christians did not Christianize Rome through violence but through creeping influence and conversion until Rome was Christian. How will Islam impact America and America’s religious tolerance?

Rome accepted other people and cultures and the city itself was overflowing with people from all parts of the Empire. The Goths, Gauls, Visigoths, Britons, and others were not trying to overthrow Rome, they wanted to be part of the Roman Empire. They wanted to share the wealth and standard of living that characterized Rome. But in the simplest view, Rome simply could not accept this influx of people and cultures. Today America is under assault from thousands of people crossing our borders not to conquer us but to share the wealth and enjoy the stability of the government. This was a problem the Romans could not resolve for many reasons. They were preoccupied with foreign affairs, various wars, corruption in the government, failure in communications, unemployment, and a weakening economy. All of these issues exist in America today and it doesn’t appear that our government is any closer to solving them than the Romans but perhaps it might be worthwhile examining what the Romans did and try to not do those things.

Initially the Roman Senate was elected by the citizens of Rome and it represented their interests but gradually the Roman Senate became a self-serving group filled with corruption. Posts were bought and sold with the understanding that the person filling the post would enrich himself through corruption. The American Senate isn’t quite that bad – yet, but does the American Congress represent the people who vote them into office or do they represent the special interests and wealthy contributors who pay for their elections? The Romans never resolved this problem and whether America can is yet to be seen.

At one time Rome had over a million men in the Army spread across the Empire. This military presence was very expensive to maintain and it required a huge tax base just to maintain it. Nevertheless this huge Army was simply not enough to protect the borders or to maintain the integrity of the Empire. Today American has a huge military spread around the globe protecting America’s and in most cases international interests. This is being done with American money with only token amounts from other countries in the form of soldiers and money. Can America continue to support NATO? Can America continue to pretend the UN has any relevance and authority? Can America continue to play world policeman? The Romans couldn’t can America?

The lessons are there – is any one listening?

Periodically I run into something from my childhood that is long forgotten and placed on some dusty mental shelf. Something that suddenly brings into sharp focus the things that shaped me as a child and I recently encountered one of these artifacts -- this poem written my Rudyard Kipling. I first read this poem either in the eighth grade or freshman year and have long since forgotten it but in re-reading it as a retrospective on my life I am amazed by its accuracy and how it describes so much of my life.

Everyone is faced with challenges throughout their life and they never get easier, especially if you elect to lead others. Leadership is not for the weak or faint of heart because to stand out you must stand up and in standing up you present a target for those who lack the courage or temperament to lead. This short poem captures what leadership is all about.

Cal

Rudyard Kipling
If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

What Is Art?

The common position seems to be that ART is in the eye of the beholder, meaning a pile of elephant dung painted royal blue is art if the painter says so. Then again what is the value of art? The answer once offered by an artist was that the value of his work was what a purchaser was willing to pay for it. From this we could conclude that nothing is ART unless someone is willing to pay for it. This would eliminate many of the artists whose work we see displayed as art even though they have never sold anything. They have been called an artist by some gallery owner using their elephant dung monstrosity as bait to shock the media into giving them free publicity so they can draw real buyers into their gallery to see real art, which brings us back to the original question of what is ART?

Art of course takes many forms and there is a range from amateur to great art and this applies to virtually every type of art from paintings to music to sculpture and everything in between. Perhaps one of the easiest ways to illustrate this range of artistic endeavor is to look at literature. On the one hand we find Shakespeare, the Greeks, Milton, and other great and famous authors. These are works cherished by the sophisticated and well read but ignored or scoffed at by the average person who may never have read them or having read them not understood them. Then there is the trade literature, the Clancy’s, Cussler’s, Kellerman’s, and that army of authors we find in any bookstore or airport. These tend to be well written, popular, and make their author’s rich and while technically art are they great art – probably not.

Music is perhaps the one art that most people, especially the young and unsophisticated, come into contact with on a daily basis. These contemporary concoctions have hosts of aficionado’s and technically they are art since people pay for their work, but are they great art? How much contemporary music will stand the test of time, probably not much given the historical record for popular music? Around the turn of the century Rag Time was very popular – the Rock and Roll of its day – but the only composer to survive with any degree of popularity and recognition is Scott Joplin. But not all popular music is doomed for oblivion because much of the music from the various decades survives and retains its popularity today, but while art is it great art?

This opens the question of what is “great art”, who determines it, and how is it defined? Unfortunately “great art” is much like quality in that defies definition but you know it when you see it. If there is an answer to that question perhaps it is that when you see or hear a great work of art you know it immediately. The first time you see a Michelangelo statue you know immediately that this is great work because the people see to be alive but then these are also well executed and realistic but not all sculpture is realistic. What about Calder’s mobiles and stabiles? These are totally abstract and resemble nothing – they just are. So is this great art? Consider Picasso’s abstractions or Dali’s surrealism – are these great art? Who determines this and on what basis?

There probably isn’t any answer to this question other than a shared and common belief that these pieces are great art. Some of this belief is undoubtedly tied to the originality of the work. After all Calder’s mobiles were original – the first of their kind, Picasso’s cubism was original as was Dali’s limp watches. Those that came after were followers so originality of the work plays a part and then later the name of the artist seems to determine if the work is “real” art. Consider the later works of Picasso and Dali – hardly original and certainly not the quality of their earlier work.

Music seems to be a little easier to classify given that the work of many composers rarely out last their lives. When you look at the classical music scene the great standout but there are few of them. When you look at popular music of any era the amount that survives is really quite limited. The music industry gives out awards every year in too many categories to even think about, but how many of those compositions are popular a few years later? How many people even remember who won what even 5 years ago? Popular music is quite perishable and may be art but hardly the great art of Gershwin or Porter.

So what is ART? I guess it is what the artist said – it’s worth what you pay for it and if it sells it is art. Great art stands alone and is determined by time and the appreciation of generations.