caldrail

Yes, this is interesting, answers my questions. "The master could free his child, but he could not acknowledge or adopt it: law and society was adamant on this point." Slavery in the US and in much of the Western Hemisphere was founded on race. This is a major difference from the Roman institution. Thanks for your response to my questions! Veyne was misquoted out of context above: the actual phrase (pg. 52) is "Today's closest psychological analogy to ancient slavery is racism". No, it wasn't out of context. You've merely repeated my point.

Way cool. What needs to be emphasised however is the cost of waterproof concrete in Roman times which I gather wasn't cheap. For that reason, ordinary concrete was used where-ever possible, or in cases where builders thought they could get away with it such as part of the Hypogaeum wall at the Colosseum.

The Roman Empire (Paul veyne) has a very down to earth personal viewpoint and interestingly says that the only thing we have today that comes closest to Roman slavery is racism.

The weather yesterday was nothing short of a battle between the gods. In the blue corner, the sun god, a warm and comforting brightness in his perfect blue realm. In the red corner, the rain god. A bringer of greyness and wet, master of dampening chaos, riding the wind to wreak rainfall upon the land. All morning the wind was dragging ragged grey cloud across what was otherwise a fine and sunny day. By lunchtime, the first heavy grey mountains were on the horizon, and by the time I was walking through Lawns wood, the first showers had arrived, Woodland is an enviroment I've always loved, and today it was a chaotic mix of conditions with which to enjoy it as I sheltered under the dubious protection of a spreading tree. The wind in the leaves made tides of white noise, waves of sound that are curiously relaxing if you don't suffer the chill edge of the breeze that causes it. At this time of year the colour in the wood was delightfully diverse. White and pink blossoms. Light green deciduous trees, dark green pines. Behind me, a tall mature tree with purple brown leaves. Over to my left, a solitary cream butterfly flitted around in total defiance of the wind. The pair of magpies, black and white birds with an almost oily sheen to their feathers, remained grounded and watched the butterfly flt past them. Then all activity ceases as dog walkers vanish along with their faithless hounds as the slanted curtain of rainfall that appears around me. Oh yeah. I got wet too. Conversation of the Week Inevitably I got somewhat dampened after deciding that the tree wasn't as generous with its shelter as I hoped it might be. I had tried stopping at the local art gallery in Old Town to sit out the weather, but the local school had the same idea and hordes of barely controlled kids made that impossible to enjoy. So I trudged down the hill and eventually got a minor soaking. Two lads were walking past as I reached my front door and fumbled for the keys. "Crap weather innit?" Said one. "Yeah!" Agreed the other with a chuckle. The art of conversation is not yet dead.

You're plainly reversing the logic; Philemon was first "found" (that's the antecedent) and then the identity of Caesar's enemies was discovered in any suitable way (that's the consequence). No, Im not. How was Philemon found out? Suetonius doesn't tell us that. Really it amounts to two situations. Firstly, that he was found 'in the act' of using poison by an alert member of Caesars household (which indicates they expected some sort of skulduggery at the behest of Caesar himself) or that Philemon was seen talking to Caesar's enemies, which indicates that Caesar already knew who his rivals were and was having them watched for his own protection. In any case, it doesn't matter. At that stage of the game Caesar is pushing hard to come out on top. He doesn't want a war with petty rivals to distract him and embarras his politic career. It's enough that his rivals made such a cack-handed attempt. Since he survived, Caesar would have thought little more of it. The poisoner was known and executed, his enemies aware that Caesar wasn't so easily killed. Caesar was sharp edged politician. Such people do not easily trust others and make sure that their rivals are kept under close watch. If Caesar had failed to do that, he would have been the victim of a plot much earlier. Poisoned perhaps? Maybe a subborned slave?

The point thats been lost over the recent exchanges concerning slavery is the ambivalence of the Romans toward slavery. Would a Roman say "You're less than a person?" Actually, yes, they would, if they felt they had reason. A slave in the imperial household might be anything from a trusted retainer and confidant to the far more common drink dispenser. The fact a slave was in the imperial household was neither here nor there, and a view of the slaves quarters in the homes of the wealthy on the Palatine shows the restricted space and dark passages these people were kept in. It might well be then that in such an enviroment occcaisionally a slave got a little above himself, especially since imperial families were even more careful about appearances than lesser folk. You wouldn't want to be seen with slaves who talk back or disobey if you're standing beside the Emperor. A modern definition, though I accept the difference with the Roman model is subtle and carries with it a stronger message about the value of freedom. Roman women in the Principate chose their own partners at will. Sex for pleasure was a method of filling in the free time these women had, and their wealth meant they weren't preoccupied with manual labour. The Romans were using contraception - abeit a little primitive. Marriage was another matter of course. I find that a suspect way of regarding slaves. Just another class? I seriously doubt many Romans saw them as such. The Roman caste system was well established and the slave fell outside it, since as property and something officially less than human, they could not be part of society (though again Roman ambivalence found such roles as convenient). Anyone can discuss it, Don't be so cheeky

Philemon had his own motives - you've already stressed that point - but we don't know what they were, because we read no more than he agreed to aid Caesars enemies . In some way or other they had realised he might be willing to do so, and their succesful attempt to subborn Caesars slave may well have been what tiped him off (Caesar had his own informants too) That's what you would do. Naturally, since you don't expect to be assassinated and to learn that someone was about tto would demand an explanation. In Caesars case, he already knows who's behind it because how else would Philemon have been found out? In any event, Caesar is committed to becoming top dog and will not be swayed from that path. To get embroiled in a personal war with another politician will only weaken his case and divert his attention from matters he considers more important. When he's powerful, then he can get even. A failed assassination is neither here nor there. He expects such behaviour and since the attempt failed in such a manner, clearly his opponent isn't as dangerous as it seems, so why worry. You're not dealing here with an ordinary person. Caesar is an invererate risk taker. His entire political plan involves a risk of assassination anyway. There simply wasn't any need for an exhaustive interrogation. Caesar is often hasty and in a hurry to achieve (He even broke down in tears at his failure to compete with Alexanders success). He hasn't got the time to bother with a disloyal slave. Like all dictatorial and dominant ypes, he regards an assassination as an occupational hazard, and consequuently guards himself against it. King rats have very different priorities from ordinary people. That's not just my opinion - it's an observalble psychological phenomenon and one demonstrated many times in the historical record in a variety of individuals.

Nature is such a fascinating subject. You can't help but admire those colourful documentaries, even if they're carefully constructed and selective in what they show. It is supposed to be entertainment after all. Still, the program about the South Pacific was of interst to me. It seems the 'Bird of paradise' has a habit of making a stage and attracting a mate by going into a song and dance routine. In effect, so do human beings. Birds have mating dances, we have nightclubs. In fact, the only difference is that when birds throw up afterward, it's generally to feed their young instead of decorating the pavement. I built a stage once. Way back when I worked in one particular warehouse, a bunch of managers had formed a rock band to play a Red Nose Day event ('Red Nose Day' is an annual public charity drive based on comedy). I got roped in to play the drums because the selected manager had all the percussive skill of a koala bear. So I built the stage and played my 'song and dance' routine. It was obvious afterward that as a comedy event we failed. The audience, even though they were captive employees, were actually impressed. What was obvious to me was that as a means of attracting a mate I had failed as well. I guess you need the lovely plumage too. Car Vandalism of the Week My car has been broken into again. For the third time, some idiot has ripped a large hole in the hood to get the door open. How many times does that moron have to break into it before he realises it doesn't work anymore and doesn't have anything left inside it? I know... I'll put a sign up. This car is disabled. Then again, they'd only nick the sign...

"If anyone is startled" is the key phrase. Slaves in luxury is one thing, slaves in luxury beyond imagination is another. The slaves described above are clearly pampered, few in number, and extremely lucky to have such comfortable lifestyles, assuming of course they don't have some onerous function for which their luxury is compensation. More likely though is that these slaves are deliberately cossetted because coarse intimate servants weren't to the owners taste. One other thing. These slaves were greek? The treatment of greek and Roman slaves wasn't necessarily the same. Although their societies had common ground, cultural attitudes differed.

"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?