caldrail

"The slave Philemon, his amanuensis, who had promised Caesar's enemies that he would poison him," I rest my case. The witness can be killed, your honor. That doesn't state his reasons. It only records that he agreed to commit the crime.

Well, I'm afraid that I find your view on slaves not much more realistic than the opposite one. They both have in common that they interprete the concept 'slave' in a very monodimensional way : the worst possible one Oh? The vast majority of slaves were not treated well. Certainly some had reached positions of trust, even to the point of running businesses for their master, but these were exceptions rather than the rule. Given the numbers of slaves involved, the bulk were in menial labour (though some villas had astonishing retinues of slaves even in urban settings, though I imagine very few were there for intelligent conversation) The Empire it self was at times mostly run by slaves or freedmen who enjoyed a lifestyle beyond the imagination of the vast majority of the free citizens. I would fight shy of describing slaves as having lifestyles beyond the imagination. Freedemen sometimes did very well for themselves. Slaves were sometimes in administrative positions that afforded them some comfort, but lifestyle beyond the imagination? I seriously don't think so. Would a citizen of professional status tolerate a slave better off than he is? Not easily. Such extravagance toward a slave would not escape notice, and if you have a particular reference, I'd like to see it. I remember the anecdote you refer to, though I can't recall the author. I think your interpretation of it is not correct. If I am correct this incident was so noteworthy because it was one of the very few cases wherein there was even any suggestion that this law should actually be applied. There is a difference between laws and reality. Look around you. As to the distinction you make between fairness an humanitarianism, I fail to see it. The law was very specific. If a man was murdered by his slave, all the slaves of his household were to be executed. The law existed to deter slaves from agreeing to aid a murderous slave, or even thinking of such action to begin with. This was the post-Spartacus period in which the paranoia about the slaves around them was at it's height. The distinction over fairness was made by the Romans, not me. It was an excuse. They knew the local slaves were waiting to see what happened and quite probably their masters were aware of sentiment expressed privately. Why even the suggestion that in this one case the law should be applied caused so much uproar, among the free citizens, mind you, was that it was considered as completely inhumane because there was no indication at all that the slave who had murdered his owner had not acted all by himself. Irrelevant under Roman slave legislation. That law was inspired by the idea that if a slave murdered his master with serious premeditation, there was no way his fellow slaves with whom he was living in very close proximity, could not have gotten wind of something, therefore they were guilty of not denouncing the culprit. As it happens, I think that if a slave murdered his master, and I am not sure how often such things occurred, he almost always acted in a rage or with very little or no premiditation or planning. So the complicity of others would seldom even have to be taken into consideration and if it had to be, it is likely that in that case efforts would be made to determine who exactly had been implicated. That law was inspired as a means of detering such behaviour. Slaves were less than human and since it would be necessary to resort to torture to obtain legally valid testimony, it would normally be considered more expedient to execute them all. Although slaves had some rights (precious few in pre-principatal times) it did not extend to individual representation in court. If a slave wished to make a legal defence against this law, he must do so through his owner, who unfortunately had been killed. Consider it from a property point of view: does it make any sense to burn your own house down because the roof leaks ? I think that law was a purely theoretical statement implying that in such a case happening all the slaves of the murdered master had completely forfeited their right to live. That's not quite the same thing as being actually condemned to death and executed. The law stated that all were to be executed in the event of the murder. Also the flexibility of the human mind, it's ability to think in a slightly schizofrenic way if you will, is underestimated here. You are not necessarily either a fellow human being or a soulless, willless piece of property. You can very well be both, at the same time or alternatingly. I see no problem with that at all. Thats a modern perspective. We now find slavery an intolerable concept even though it still exists under our noses in an abstract way. Back then, slavery was normal. Roman citizenship wasn't a right. It was a privilege. Slaves were not included, and since self-determination was the essential quality that a free person, to have no self-determination made one a slave. Those with the legal status of slaves were not given human status by Romans. They state this themselves frequently. In some cases, an owner might have friendly relations with an individual slave. That of course was his choice since the slave was his property. Soome owners like Ciciero fostered loyalty by these means, but he didn't see it as demeaning to do so. Cato made a point of discussing the finer points of keeping slaves with absolutely no reference to their humanity at all. Depending on the circumstances, your own personality or qualities and my mood you can be either my second best friend or an inferior being who 'just has to do as you are being told'. Isn't that how we treat children ? I have come across plenty of indications, though not immediately from Roman times, that more humane slave owners often treated their slaves as much as children than as anything else. I like that concept. The difference between a pet and a domestic animal. I often get the impression that the concept is very widespread that people who lived 2000 year ago must have had a completely different mind set, world view, psychology and emotions from us. I do not believe that at all. Humans are humans. Then as now. Now be careful here. I agree the motivations and responses are from the same set as ours, and that human beings are the same as they were then. We must realise though that the Romans had a different view of the world. They saw their own culture, with its different rules to our own, as the primary source of civilisation. By the Principate, they truly believed they were destined to be (if not already) masters of the world. Their society had excesses we don't tolerate today, and their acceptance of violence in everyday life is only found in anarchistic regions in our own day. Of course, Romans must, by the omnipresence of it, have been pretty immune to sights that would rob us of our sleep for weeks. But I think that doesn't mean that an average Roman wouldn't to some extend be able to consider a fellow human being as such, even if that fellow human being was legally just a piece of cattle. Nor that people who enjoyed needlessly torturing fellow living creatures were overabundant at the time while they are very rare nowadays. The distribution of psychopathic individuals is probably impossible to determine. However it is true that chiildren (at least in the prosperous principate) were over-indulged and allowed to behave in an astonishing fashion by modern standards. They were brought up to believe their society was dominant, that Romans were masters over nature, and that slaves were tools. As for the lower classes, they existed in a world of street violence, gangs, unemployment, and dodgy trading. The prevailing life expectantcy was short. Unwanted infants were left to die outside houses or in sewers. Many Romans of the lower classes might not expect to live beyond twenty. Now as for torturing an individual even if he was considered a piece of cattle.... The man desiring the torture to be committed was unlikely to administer it. He might command another slave to do that. So the torturer might not be a psychopath at all, nor enjoy the experience in any way. He has been simply ordered to do it. If he was a slave - he has no choice but to obey. It is of course possible that a slave might speak up for the man he is about to torture if he felt strongly. Quite what the owner would have thought or responded is another matter.

Yesterday I was trawling through the archaeological archives in Swindon Library. I found a mention of a saxon burial in Devizes, Wiltshire, which included amongst the various goods - a ballista bolt. This is of interest to me. Clearly the ballista was still in use after the Roman withdrawal, albeit somewhat less common, but in a saxon burial? You would expect that in a Romano-British grave more likely. The Saxons aren't noted for artillery at all and were recognised as lacking in siege warcraft (their advance up southern England was delayed by earthworks built by the Romano-British defenders). A captured weapon? At the time, a ballista would have been a prize worthy of an important warrior and nowhere else have I seen evidence of Roman-style artillery for this period. Whether the skill to use it existed amongst the Saxons is another matter.

The only differences are cultural. The ambitions and motives of individual Romans are fundamentally no different than at any other place and time to others. But replacement can only occur if there are vacancies. This requires times of change and cultural stress which involve the loss of senior men. The social mobility of Romans varied over the centuries, with the exclusivity of the senatorial class being eroded by the increasing importance of equestrians as administrators.

Nor is equating a slave with an animal Not so. The rebellion of Spartacus made a considerable difference to how slaves were treated. Prior to that event, slaves had been increasingly available (and cheapened) by the larger scale wars Rome was conducting. In sicily in particular, slaves had been bought in such numbers that owners didn't have the money to look after them. Hardly suprising that revolts took place. Rome's paranoia about slavery emerged after these revolts - not before. The paranoia was nothing to do with the existence of intelligent slaves, but the social changes regarding slaves in the household. Following those revolts laws regarding slaves changed. For instance (and this was genera practice rather than a legal requirement), gladiators speaking the same language were seperated. The fact that Romans were aware of their slaves ability to think means nothing. They were, by virtue of their social status, less than human. Once a slave, you were forever marked as such, even if later freed, one reason why freedman were usually dependent on their former masters. The social changes regarding slaves in society emerge from the realisation in the 90-70's BC that slaves were not always going to be as compliant as they had previously thought, considering the infamously brutal treatment of that time. because the slaves were now in such numbers, one senators idea that slaves should wear special identification was refused for fear the slaves would realise how many of them there were. Only after the rebellions had that been a consideration. As more slaves were bought for domestic service in the homes of the wealthy in the late republic, then we see the first signs of humanisation. Of course their were owners with more generous ideals in earlier times, but the 'fashion' in treatment was going to change as the insidious presence of slaves in ordinary life (as opposed to labourers in barracks) made itself felt. Claudius after all was moved by the plight of slaves left to die on an island in the Tiber, and he was a man who enjoyed the arena and had private torture sessions arranged in the palace to indulge his fascination with the suffering of others. In that respect then, we see a clue to the mindset of Rome. Cruelty in itself was not the issue. Life was short and often risky. The slaves who fought in the arena were not there to satisfy the sadism of the crowd at all, but to provide an exciting spectacle. What could be more fantastic than to see a real fight, where one man will die if he loses? The presentation of heroic and tragic combat was immensely popular, far more than the savage killings of unfortunate criminals by various means. Why would a criminal be worthy of applause, when a gladiator shows courage? Cicero praises the gladiator for his fearlessness and describes them as example of what a true Roman could do. Even he, in praise of the professional fighters, differentiates them from the comman man. Brave and noble fighters certainly, but slaves, and therefore beneath contempt in social terms (although the attraction of succesful fighters as a naughty distraction for wealthy women is well attested in the Principate, but this again shows that the exploitation of slaves was becoming more personal than in the previous century) But the general labourer? Surely the most common class of slave. Huge numbers were working farms, quarries, mines, mills, and so forth. These men could expect a short and hard life, worked to death in many cases, and it's no coincidence that such men were only too keen to take any opportunity brought by a visiting lanista seeking recruits. In the home, slaves were often ill treated there too, even during the imperial period. A slave woman might be bedded at will by her owner. The owners wife would not think kindly of her for that. Since these slaves worked in close and sometimes intimate proximity to the owner and his family, there was always the risk of slaves becoming above themselves. Until the reign of Claudius, a slave might be executed or sold to the arena at will. The law that condemned the slaves of a household to death if one murdered his master was there as a deterrent. The exception I noted earlier occured because the locals were worried about a local revolt if the executions took place. Here then is the difference between the 'classic' slavery of the Principate and that of the time of Spartacus. In the earlier period, the treatment of the slave was often little better than an animal. There were so many that the Romans were indifferent toward the individual. In later times, especially when slaves were less readily available, more value had come to be placed upon them. Christianity is often credited with the increasingy humane treatment but there's little evidence this is so - especially since bishops had retinues of slaves themselves. As you can see, the respect paid to an individual under the christian sentiment of 'Love thy neighbour' did not extend to slaves. Even in the later period, with individualism emerging in the treatment of slaves, they remained less than human in the eyes of the typical owner. Because their master had so instructed them, not because the slave was intelligent. Most slaves were treated very badly whatever role they were given. The educated and literate slave was a rarity. In fact, most Romans weren't interested in the cognitive potential of their slaves in any way. Slaves were there to do as directed. The rural slave barracks for instance were not places to get noticed. In domestic terms, how many pedagogues would a master require? Once he had made a choice (and probably bought a slave for that purpose in mind as opposed to promoting one amongst his number) other literate slaves might not have opportunities to progress from silent menial duties. A slave does not approach his master and say "Look, boss, I'm clever and literate. Why don't you give a better job". How many masters would tolerate such forward behaviour from a slave? Obedience is everything, and such a slave might well find himself punished for forgetting his place. Ordinarily, this was unthinkable. No slave was worthy of fighting for Rome. Whe Augustus stooped so low as to gather such recruits, he had them made freedmen first, and even then refused them standard legionary equipment nor were they allowed to fight alongside regular troops. And in most cases, the freed slave remained connected with his former master. They weren't simply freed and forgotten. The freedman, in most cases, was part of an extended familia whose liveliehood was dependent on his former masters good graces. Slaves made free by a will were sometimes outside this category (but not always). Suetonius does not explain the slaves motives. In one sentence, he merely writes that Philemon was attempting to poison Caesar and was found out, and that Caesar had him killed without torture.

Amongst the crop of job adverts I've had to trawl through this week is a remarkable chance to be Country Manager in Denmark. They want a new ruler who can increase their market share. So if you want to blitzkrieg Europe at the command of the Danish armed forces apply now. Of course armed forces need fuel. I was interested to discover a vacancy for an oil company in Kyrgyzstan. Managing a pileline in some forgotten corner of the world doesn't strike me as an exciting opportunity, though it wouldn't suprise me if the locals made a lot more exciting than it seems. Then again, if you want excitement, how about running a petrol station in Afghanistan? There's a vacancy to run a military fuel depot. Incredible that a position like that is run by civilians these days. The Day I Had Too Much Fuel The weather wasn't good. It was a cloudy, very blustery, and there was a constant threat of rain. Still, I had a flying lesson booked so I dutifully turned up and there was the aeroplane parked outside the hangar on the back apron. As usual, I went through the pre-flight checks, which is a technical term for making sure the aeroplane is fit to fly. You always do that when you mean to fly. It's the problem you don't know about that will catch you out. I found a problem. Part of the checks was to test the fuel to ensure no water had accumulated in the tanks. Water in the fuel stops the engine, and that would spoil your entire flight, to say the least. There wasn't any water, but once I removed the prong from the tap avgas continued to dribble out. Oh brilliant. My instructor, EF, suggested we had enough fuel for an hours flight even with fuel leaking like that. Unacceptable. I insisted that something was done because there was no guarantee the leak wouldn't get worse in flight. Our emergency repair made it worse. The tap was now running. EF got me a bucket from the hangar and went off to find a toolbox. The wind was cold, damp, and highly variable. Even with the bucket raised up under the wing, half the leaking fuel seemed to blow into my face. It was an hour and a half of hell before EF returned and fixed the tap. "All right now? " He asked. Nope. I'd been breathing avgas fumes and it wasn't fun. To this day I cannot remember the flight at all. Except... We didn't run out of fuel. The Day My Fuel Was Running Out I'd been a qualified pilot for some time and had arranged to give a joyride with a guy I knew from work. The Cessna 172 was checked out and everything seemed fine. As I recall, the weather was quite good. A mild wind, conveniently down the runway, and some light cloud here and there. Every ten minutes or so, a pilot should do a series of checks to make sure his instruments are giving him the expected readings. If necessary, adjust the altimeter, the direction indicator, radio frequency, and so on. I looked down at the fuel gauges. The right hand tank was almost down to 20%. What? No way! The tanks were nearly full when we took off and that was only thirty minutes ago. Better safe than sorry. I said nothing to my passenger but I switched to left tank only, and sure enough, three minutes later, the right tank showed empty. I looked for signs of leakage, both in the cockpit and out under the wing. Nothing. The aeroplane was flying along happily and no sign of any danger. Nonetheless, I decided it was prudent to head home. The airfield was only fifteen minutes away and we landed without mishap. After I parked the Cessna the tanks were checked visually and guess what? Plenty of avgas sloshing around in there. The fault? A fuel gauge failure. Once I knew that, I told my passenger what had been going on. "I thought it was a bit funny you'd gone quiet." He said. I chuckled. The conversation may have run out, but at least the fuel hadn't.

Monopoly Money made real.

Perhaps, but we're discussing the finer points of Roman slavery and the psychology of Caesar, with reference to the general condition of the Roman slave market and the politics of the late Republic. That wasn't considered criminal by the Romans. Then lets make this as obvious as possible. Your logic is yours, not Caesars. You're dealing with an adventurer. Such people aren't concerned with logic or enquiry, they act quickly on information they have or go with gut instinct. All Caesar needed to know was that Philemon had been disloyal. Philomen was his slave, a tool, officially a servant with no reason to make any self determination at all. Why would Caesar bother to investigate? As I said before, he was an asprining politician with the same mindset as a gangster. Thats what he was. He was out to take control of the town, by hook or by crook. Such people are not entirely rational, though in Caesars case we have to allow for his intelligence (something often lacking in the unimaginative criminal fraternity). He already knows who his enemies and rivals are. The fact someone has plotted to kill him is neither here nor there in his mind. He expects such attempts and is prepared for them. He does not waste his time in revenge when he can wreak veageance after he has total control of the territory, when he has a position of power (and therefore, an assumed 'safety'). All that matters is Philemon was disloyal. Like a modern gangster, Caesar wacks him. Done. A lesson for everyone, now lets get back to the business in hand. Thats a modern perspective. For the Romans, freedom of self-determination was an essential quality of being human. Slaves did not have this quality - they were not human. The Romans really did make this differentiation. For instance, a perusal of Cassius Dio's history will show many examples of men who were forced to comply with instructions - although not of a slave status, Dio still refers to them as such. Further, in Agricola Tacitus refers to the Britons becoming slaves by virtue of the decandent luxuries offered by Roman civilisation. Since the concerns of a slave were only that of the enviroment provided by his master, of what possible concern would politics have for a slave? There wouldn't have been many Roman masters who wanted the opinions of a slave. They were described as "Talking Tools". Means to an end. The legal status of a slave in Roman times was one thing (that actually changed over time with increasingly humane restrictions on their use during the imperial period) but the attitude of the master to the slave is not bound by legislation. It varied by the temperament and character of the owner. Philemion does not change this situation. Even if we ascribe the man with his own motives, he acts with the support or at the behest of Caesars enemies. In Roman psychology, he is not acting alone, of his own volition. He is merely merely disloyal to his owner. For a Roman to treat his slave as a free man would be undesirable. It would give the slave ideas, to convince him that he was still human, and encourage disobedience. It's easy to point at Spartacus as an example. However, in his case, he never accepted his enslavement and was fighting for his own enrichment. The often-quoted 'Fight For Freedom' is nonsense, though the bulk of his followers attracted by his rebellion were indeed slaves and vagabonds who saw him as an excuse to seek relief from their labour. Certainly the Roman establishment were under no illusions, whatever lyrical stories were told of him. After all, the Romans lived with their slaves around them. The laws concerning their behaviour are very specific. Should a slave kill his master, all slaves of that household are condemned to death. There is only one recorded instance of that law being contested in a real case, and interestingly, this was for "fairness" rather than humanitarian reasons. Please be aware that your own humanitarian views are not those the Romans, for whom slavery was an everyday condition and whilst pitiable, not a matter of shame, especially since the ownership of slaves was a visible indicator of your own wealth and status.

If any of my slaves (or let say my dogs, their closest modern equivalent) ever tried to kill me, I'm pretty sure I would like to know the reason. Being Philemon Caesar's property in no way excluded an external influence, as Suetonius actually stated ("Philemon... had promised Caesar's enemies that he would poison him"). I suspect most people would be curious to discover the reason for betrayal. However, you also need to realise that most of us aren't of the same mindset as Caesar. He isn't a man to prevaricate. He considers the risk and dismisses it as an obstacle to be overcome in the furtherment of his objectives. He acts. He does things. He believes he can succeed in his endeavours. His slaves, as described by Suetonius, are possessions and whilst he may not have been as cruel as some owners, he clearly doesn't have any humane leanings such as Claudius. The period in which Caesar lived was the high point of slavery. The wars had brought in thousands. Delos had apparently traded ten thousand in one day. Labour was cheap, faceless, and as we see in the earlier root causes of some slave revolts, so plentiful that some owners bought more than they could afford to care for. Caesar therefore isn't concerned with the petty motives of his possessions. They aren't human beings, certainly not comparable to a man of breeding and status as Caesar is. They are expected to be obedient and loyal. If not, they are dispatched. Why would he need to discover the reason for a slaves betrayal? Caesar is already well aware of his enemies, their activities, and to ignore or be unaware of such things in the political bearpit of late Republican Rome would invite an assassination. Since a slave cannot by definition have any high handed motive of his own, and indeed Philemon is acting on the behalf of others, his motive is clear without need of further investigation. Therefore, Caesar is not concerned with Philemons desires. He is concerned solely that it happened, and therefore Philemon must be punished.

I think we do need to be aware of local fashions. Also, local circumstances. For instance, houses of the wealthy in Rome before and after the Great Fire of AD64 were biound to be different to some degree, partly because of changing land ownership, partly because of Nero's regulations, and partly because of social changes including the need to find or build a home in Rome that more urgently. The period quoted (100-200ad) falls within the Pax Romana and thus a period without any particular stress in society, apart from political changes, but I'm not aware of any widespread damage and most fires were local in scope (though I must include the possibility of fashion gradually replacing older properties by way of accidental destruction). Is the emperor Hadrian partially responsible? He was very keen on supporting the arts, and certainly had an interest in architecture. If he preferred a heavier and decorated style, the need to curry favour would mean homes of the wealthy would tend to follow that fashion.

Job searching doesn't get any easier. Now that Honda have cut back on production, they've started seconding their employees to local firms which means potential jobs won't get offered to the public. Jobs for the boys in other words. Now if full-time jobs are filled before I find them, I'm left with only the possibility of part-time work. The other problem I face is that agencies aren't keen on putting me forward. If I apply for part time jobs I get asked why. Because a lot of shirkers have been applying for part-time jobs in order to escape retribution for dossing around, I now need a good excuse in order to work less than full time hours. The trouble here of course is that the government also want mothers back in the workplace and naturally they get precedence for short hours. The inescapable conclusion is that I need to get pregnant. How Not To Get Pregnant Just in case anyone didn't get the previous joke, I wasn't serious. Good grief people didn't they teach you about the birds and the bees at school? Apparently someone hasn't taught the two breeding males I passed in the park the other day either. Sorry guys, I'm just not into your lifestyle at all. Job Fair of the Week My first invite to a Job Fair at the local hotel. Hey, things are looking up. If this carries on I'm in danger of a social life. There's the entrance. Party on! Yeah I know. But it amused the ladies on the door.

Vitruvius, in his Ten Books On Architecture, discusses the finer points of concrete in 25BC, 60-70 years before Nero's time. Waterproof concrete wasn't developed until Nero's time but this remained a very expensive medium and little used. As for Nero's palace, I suspect he was able to afford (and command) the better class of builder available in Rome, and since he was a client with considerable power over life and death, one also suspects his reputation ensured the builders did a good job. It must also be pointed out that the building regulations set by Nero after the Great of Rome in ad64 encouraged the use of concrete as a building material where some very cheap, jerry-built, and flammable were previously common.

So I'm correct then?

Since slaves were not considered human beings, torture wasn't considered an unusual way of treating them. After all, the testimony of a slave was not valid unless torture had been used to extract it (because the slave may have been ordered to say something particular). Suetonius isn't just underlining a prevailing attitude, but using the example to illustrate a character. Caesar is noted as, compared to some Romans, a man of action. Torture may have been a common result for a slave assassin, but since the slave was his and therefore not sent to kill him by someone else, was there any need to uncover the reason? Slaves are either obedient or punished. Caesar is therefore dealing with Philemon in a very practical manner and to do otherwise would give Philemon status he did not deserve.

So I'm correct then?

The Programme Centre has moved. They were inhabiting a pokey little place in that peculiar brick complex in the corner by the pub. You'd think that was very convenient, except the pub in question is a real 'sawdust on the floor and spit your broken teeth in the bucket please' kind of place. I was in there a few years back, quietly minding my own business, nursing a pint like several others. In came a bunch of lads, making a lot of noise, bouncinng off the walls. To be honest I didn't pay much attention but suddenly it dawned on me the pub had gone quiet. I looked over my shoulder to see one of them staring at me balefully with a bar stool raised above his head. Oh great. I came in here to get smashed out of my head, but this wasn't what I had in mind. What could I do? I stared him straight back in the eye. He didn't move. Eventually I snorted and went back to contemplating my pint. Never a dull moment in there. Then there was the time some old guy accosted me in there and told me he had a treasure map that showed the location of the Tomb of the Ancestor. Tomb of the Ancestress. Oh make your mind up... At the time I thought he either drunk or trying it on. Now it was time to find the Lost Programme Centre. 'X' marked the spot on the ragged photocopied map that had come into my possession. Right then. Droopy slouch hat, whip on my belt, and a can of snake repellent in my pocket. Off I go. Hidden behind a crevice between the shops along the main road, I found the Programme Centre, right where the old map said it would be. Overjoyed by my success at negotiating the difficulties of locating our new programme centre, I was overconfident and forgot that doors are not always the simple devices they seem to be. So when the session finished I stood there scratching my head over a stubbornly locked door. All was not lost. Action-archaeology hollywood blockbusters always have a gutsy babe to save the day, and right on cue a nice young lady from upstairs rescued me and pointed out where the secret door-opening thingy was. Chivalry is not yet dead. Job Vacancy of the Week Amongst the list of vacancies I dug out of the internet yesterday was a real gem. Land management in Zimbabwe. Salary negotiable. You bet it is mate.

Cats might be fun, but ultimately they're fair weather friends. Dogs are social creatures that treat their owning family as their 'pack' - it comes very naturally to them. Cats though are not pack animals, though their behaviour varies according to circumstance. Cats are individualistic because they tend to be reared as such. Those born as part of large groups (such as abandoned farmyards and old ladies homes) have a much more social outlook. I suspect dogs adapt too, but they much prefer to be part of a pack.

The Meaning of Life? We all have different values and ambitions, so I guess the meaning of life varies from person to person. If you need to address that question, then perhaps your life is lacking? Firstly, never forget what you are. Human beings, despite two thousand years of christian culture to the contrary, are social animals. Almost everything we do is an extension of instinct. There's no need to be ashamed of this connection. To regard ourselves as 'special' is arrogance, nothing more. After all, is not the natural world something special? The conditions for life seem to somewhat rare in our universe, so treasure it in it's entirety. Some people see religion as an answer. I have my own beliefs for sure, but surrendering to an organisation that wants to dictate my behaviour seems to me less than desirable. It isn't about what you believe, but what you do. How you treat others is more important. truth is after all in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty. The japanese used to say that a mans fate is a mans fate, and life but an illusion. They recognised the fletting impermanence of our existence and accepted it. I might not quite go that far, but I do say that fate is the sum of all decisions and natural forces. You can decide what you wish to do - you must accept that others may decide differently. Do you accept the world as is or do you strive to change it? It's your choice.

For a couple of days now the weather has been very warm and sunny, albeit a tad windy. The rainfall that has drenched France has threatened to claw its way north and finally today, it's here. Not heavy, just that dull drizzle that makes everything damp. It always brings that dull greyness that I associate with Swindon. It also brings a subdued mood too I notice. It also brings out the dull people. It really does. Now the sun has gone away and the bright cheerful crowd with it there's a crowd of people in the library sounding miserable. People of foreign extraction are crowding around computers and researching prices of tickets home. What I would like is the woman in the next cubicle to go home too. She attacks the keyboard with a gusto of a serious musician. I swear, if she hits those keys any harder, she's going to break them. I'm looking forward to my jobsearch session this afternoon. It's dry, quiet, and there won't be any machinegun fire of computer keyboards. The only downside is that it will be dull. Advert of the Week Promoters are pushing a new music album and the television advert has run for a few weeks now. It's an interesting way to sell it... The new album by the man who used to be Cat Stevens Now that's one gentleman who's being sold as a Has-Been. Not that it should worry him unduly I suppose, the great thing about being a Has-Been is that you must Have Been at some point. So good luck with your album Mr Stevens... ahh... Yusuf.

Interesting. But since Stonehenge was a religious site, calling him the 'King of Stonehenge' doesn't sound right, and more like typical journalism. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call him "King of the Tribes In And Around Salisbury Plain"? The importance of Stonehenge as a cultural center isn't a matter of contention (Stonehenge was clearly an important festial site and arcaeological finds also suggest annual gatherings in shanty towns for the big event), but we should be wary of ascribing extra status to it until we know more about this man and his influence.

Indeed. That's the entire rationalisation behind the Koran, that it represents the last word of God as relayed to Muhammud and his followers over a twenty two year period by the angel Gabriel, amnogst others. In fact there is some consensus between the accounts of Jesus in biblical and islamic work. Fundamentally, the problem is the subject of Jesus's divinity. The earlier versions of his story say that he was a mortal - the Koran explicity underlines that - and only Christianity (post Council of Nicaea) agree on this holy trinity stuff. This is therefore the influence of Roman culture. The establishment of Jesus's credentials as the Son of God is in fact a result of the Roman mindset, who associated such status with powerful men. Since Jesus is the centerpoint of the story, the figurehead of his sects, and a self-declared messiah (chosen one), he must indeed have that power, and therefore the Romans ensured that he was made a demigod in their adaption of Christian belief. If however Jesus made the claim he was the Messiah (which the bible suggests), then clearly his judaic peers didn't think so. To this day, Judaism refuses Jesus the title of the Chosen One. Is this the origin of Jesus's fate? We are quick to blame the Romans for crucifying him, but then, was Pilate more concerned with keeping the peace with some dangerous radical upsetting the establishment? The comparison of early sources makes clear how strongly Jesus spoke out against greed. I wouldn't contest that. The story about the moneylenders table shows his anger too, rather than the calm saintly man he's usually portrayed as. In both the Bible and Koran, there is a mention of Jesus saying that a wealthy man has no more chance of reaching heaven than passing a camel through the eye of a needle, though the context in each case is different. It almost seems as if Jesus is railing against the great inequality of wealth and poverty he witnessed in his, as if he was behaving like a sort of ancient marxist. Certainly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he had less than religious motives. This shouldn't suprise us. Muhammud was calling upon the same early sources as christians, and in fact, his work was to attempt a unification of belief in a troubled era though with much less self-interest than Constantines idea of one religion to bind them all. We shouldn't forget also that Constantine tried to have one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus. In considering the veracity of the early sources we should realise that our sources are a small number of individuals whose versions of the story vary and there is no official record to back them up from the Roman side.

The British countryside has a popular image of peaceful and idyllic pace of life. What the townies discover all too quickly is the locals have to live off the land their and spread smelly stuff over their fields, populate them with noisy tractors and animals, fill the roads with slow moving harvesters, and there always seems to be a busy airfield next door. They're chasing a myth about the good life. generally speaking, these people get quite uptight that their fantasies are untrue and spend a lot of time trying to close it for business so they can sleep in the mornings.

Do we have such a slave race? Actually, yes we do, but the risk of alienating my fan base prevents me from being outrageously sexist (Before anyone slaps me on the cheek, my tongue is firmly in it aleady - Why do I get the impression I'm digging myself into a pit here?) As it happens, I agree, cats are very quick to manipulate and exploit mankind. We used to get a cat hanging around our home many years ago. It was incredibly cute the way it rubbed itself up your leg and inevitably, my parents began feeding it, until we discovered it was doing exactly the same thing for every house in the street. That was a well fed cat. Sorry, kitten, doting privileges revoked. Serves you right. The next cat to try that got shown off the premises with a hosepipe. Nice try, but no cigar.

One of the joys of opening my post box every morning is the flyers and handouts that fuill it. After all, most of the letters I get are no more than rejection letters from employers, so it gets a bit depressing reading them. Thanks for the application, you're not shortlisted, please don't feel upset or suicidal, and apply again whenever you like. I'm starting to think the post service is making bogus job adverts to keep their members in gainful employment. The flyers are different. Some are simple photocopies of ads for cleaning and domestic services, notes from enterprising individuals asking whether I'd like to sell the house, or full colour glossy menus of mouthwatering chinese, Indian, or Italian takeaways. As much as I like this sort of food, most of the flyers get binned. The outlets are too far to walk considering I've got dozens up and down the hill to choose from and pizzas require a small re-mortgage to pay for. A couple of days ago however I got one flyer from a sushi bar, just around the corner from where I live. Huh? I never spotted that! It seems then that since Honda has reduced production there are Japanese in the area with time on their hands. How could I possibly resist? So last night it was cash in hand and off down the hill in my usual investigative manner. The bar was small, almost hidden in a recessed front of a brick terrace, overwhelmed by the presence of the extrovert pizza place next door. Blink and you'd miss it. To my suprise, I was served by a gentleman of east european origin. Hmmm. That didn't bode well. Waiting for my sushi to be served was something of an experience. The dull outward colour may not attract attention, but anyone inside is clearly visible from the road and as cars slowed to a halt at the traffic lights the occupants of the vehicles kept looking across. Did they not realise a sushi bar was there? Or are they in awe of the ramboesque survivalist about to eat raw fish with nothing more than sanded down twigs? Oh come on, I'm not that fat.... Inevitably, I was disappointed. The portiions were little more than snack size (British size - Americans need to adjust by a factor of x0.01) and whilst the food tasted excellent, I can't help feeling that I was eating crab pate instead of the salmon I ordered. I know the Japanese are into small things, but this fish was microscopic. Okay, lesson learned, I'll stick to supermarket sushi. Fishiness of the Week Something is going on down at the local library. You know how you spot a change of mood? The librarians are walking past me grinning like cheshire cats. Come on girls, it just isn't true. I'm really not that fat. Especially now that I'm on a starvation diet of raw fish. Why do I get the feeling that this is actually about something I have no idea of? How can I sleep at nights not knowing what the joke is? Life can be so cruel.

Since the bible contains invented prose anyway, it isn't hard to believe the crucifixion of Jesus is also fictional. By that I mean the various miracles attributed to Jesus, which are also found in Indian and Egyptian mythos of the time. In other words, the story is embellished to portray Jesus as divine. That doesn't cover the point however. There is a strong possibility that Jesus was indeed nailed up - we just don't have any positive proof of that and there is a contemporary tomb in northern India that is named as the tomb of Jesus, who spent his later years living there according to the locals. Don't dismiss that out of hand, there is a case to answer. After all, the sect of Saint Thomas was discovered in India by Portuguese explorers in the 16th century. Now as to why Jesus's followers would spread stories of crucifixion we enter the realm of hypothesis. I could certainly attempt a few alternatives, but without any stronger historical connection, it wouldn't have any validity. That however is the problem with the bible. It's a story rewritten to give Jesus the status of a demigod, to make him the figurehead of a religion. Notice the bible is split into two. The Old Testament, an embellished account of Jewish history, and the New testament, a portrayal of Jesus. Although the bible is our primary source for the life of Jesus (as indeed it was always intended to be) it remains a biased and suspect work.