caldrail

Mallory's work was a later version of the Arthurian story and yet it often gets the credit for being the source. In fact, many Arthurian tales were originally derived from either celtic legend or Geoffery of Monmouths 'interesting' history of Britain. Sadly, Marion Zimmer Bradley must be consigned to the ranks of derivative works.

I've found an obscure reference to the point about nakedness... The Sicilians, having shot up in prosperity and acquired great wealth, began to purchase a vast number of slaves, to whose bodies, as they were brought in droves from the slave markets, they at once applied marks and brands. The young men they used as cowherds, the others in such ways as they happened to be useful. But they treated them with a heavy hand in their service, and granted them the most meagre care, the bare minimum for food and clothing. ... ...And because of the despiteful punishments received from them both, the slaves were filled with rage against their masters, and conceiving that they could encounter nothing worse than their present misfortunes began to form conspiracies to revolt and to murder their masters. On one occasion when approached by a group of naked domestics with a request for clothing, Damophilus of Enna impatiently refused to listen. "What!" he said, "do those who travel through the country go naked? Do they not offer a ready source of supply for anyone who needs garments?" Having said this, he ordered them bound to pillars, piled blows on them, and arrogantly dismissed them. Books 34/35 (?) by Diodorus Siculus

It is important to realise that Christianity is an offshoot of judaism. It's also a personality cult, one that supports the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Since the Romans were deeply enmeshed in personality cults of their own, the importance of dealing with them is clear, especially in a population you rightly describe as troublesome.

I wasn't expecting this to be so contentious Modern art is an attempt to remove the natural world from the composition. It's the same as taking melodies from music and arriving at Rap, which for some is interesting and for others nothing short of musical excrement. Can modern art succeed? Actually, yes, it can. The trick is to be aesthetically pleasing but the problem there is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, since we are social animals, every so often an individual breaks ranks and creates a new tribe. This has happened in art with these modern styles. Also, since individuals like to jostle for status, the work they complete becomes symbolic of their own importance, thus we see gross works and some very inflated ideas of the significance of it. Shock value also gets someone attention. If you want to grab an audience, make something that challenges current thinking. This happens in music too. In art, we see people going so far as putting real body parts in their compositions. Is that art, or just an excess of ego, or simply a crass attempt to get attention? On the subject of art, people will fall into whichever camp they prefer. Do they want the naturalistic and traditional form, or the brash artificial style? You choose, but in no way does opinion over art reflect ignorance. Nor does it require psychiatric treatment

That work was one of the major stepping stones of the current arthurian mythos, although there were many different versions of the same tale written by different authors. If I remember correctly, the original was by Chretien De Troyes which was never finished. He died before he completed it and the real secret of the Grail was never revealed, but the story was taken up by a variety of different authors who wrote their own endings.

or more accurately, the active brutality of one man upon another as opposed to the passive brutality of watching someone else suffer.

The Roman invincibility and unbreakable discipline is a myth. As for counselling, that's a modern idea, no Roman officer would mollycoddle his men in that manner and I would have thought a soldier, being basically a scumbag, would be astonished at that level of attention. What the Roman officers did was apply Leadership 101. Centurions were the driving force behind that since that was their prime responsibility. Remember that Roman methods were harsh and uncompromising. They considered that necessary, to ensure men were fit and ready to fight. That does not ensure obedience however, so that's why we see such penalties as being excluded from a camp for sleeping on guard duty (which was common practice amongst the men anyway despite the threat of discovery) Any group of men can suffer from poor morale according to circumstance and quality of leadership. The Romans were no different. The mood of a group is infectious and that's why military commanders jump on these trends as soon as they see them.

It's true, they were forbidden. During the empire however it was common practice for legions to be stationed in one place for extended periods and unofficially these relationships went on. Septimius Severus decided to make these unions acceptable since by that time hardly anyone took any notice anyway, and since the male offspring of soldiers were considered as suitable recruits, there was a beneficial side to allowing it.

I wasn't aware of that. However, it doesn't change anything. If the Romans had seen these early christians as a political threat they would have been flushed out and dealt with with en masse. What the Romans actually did then is treat these individuals as undesirable radicals, and given the zealousy we often find in judaic cults, may well have shown no sign of repentance. I do also feel that Pilate was concerned not to ruin his reputation by having a revolt in his province. Instead, if a leader was identified as a threat, arrest him and deal with him quietly. As with all movements, the early christians relied on charismatic individuals for the vitality of their cause; the Romans understood that. I wonder then if the spread of the remaining leaders was more to do with personal danger than religious zeal. The spread of christianity in the early days can't be ignored though. I see that the first ecumenical council was held in Jerusalem in ad50, on the subject of how to treat gentile converts.

What is art? that's a very philosophical question at first sight but a very important one if you intend earning your living from it. For most people, art is either pretty, pretty horrendous, or pretty well mystifying how someone got paid megabucks for a pile of oversized kiddies building blocks. There have been some incredible attempts at labelling mundane objects as art. There was that display in the Tate Gallery of a cube of unmortared bricks that earned the creator two million pounds. Most builders only get court summons and angry house-buyers. The reason I mention this is because of a new display that hit the news last night. Arnish Kapoor is one of those elite artists much in demand, and judging from his interview on tv, a consumate salesman. He likes the massive work, the shape, colour, and position (good grief, he's got me doing it now). His latest offering is an oval hole in a concrete floor with all the cutaway surfaces painted bright red. Yes... But what does it mean? Mundane art is so understandable. A still-life might be static and ordinary, but the skill is in the impression of motion, of depth, of character. Landscapes and seascapes speak for themselves. Impressions of mother nature are off to a good start anyway. But how do relate the world, or any sense of relevance, to a variety of garish blocks? It's a bit like buying a Hummer 4x4 because the salesman told you it encapsulated the misery and danger of twenty-first century soldiers. What car salesmam ever sold a car like that? The truth is, the artistry of the car you cast an approving eye on is the one that has balance and character of its own. It is, in other words, a visible sales point in it's own right. It doesn't need selling on artistry if that is what it has. So as far as I'm concerned, an artist that needs to explain a work has failed. Just admit it, Kapoor, you're in the wrong job. You were born to sell bright red cars. Art of the Week Here in Blighty we have a long running tv show that isn't exactly trendy. It's called Antiques Roadshow, a program in which locals bring out their dusty bric-a-brac for experts to appraise. Actually, whilst the program bores you to death with intricate details of the manufacture of victorian tableware and such, the faces of the owners when they discover the horrible old junk they wanted to throw away is actually worth hundreds of pounds is hilarious. This afternoon, whilst waiting to pop up the hill for my job course, I watched Antiques Roadshow in a state of bored stupor. They showed this dull ordinary painting of a river scene. Mostly beige, poorly conceived, and of no great artistic merit as far as I could see. Not according to the expert. It's woth at least

But then it wasn't the movement they were after was it? There must have been other religious cults in Judaea at the time. It seems Jesus was a victim of his own behaviour. Now the Bible (naturally) glosses over that, but there are some clues that he wasn't the saintly character he's usually decribed as. That is the problem with the Bible - it's not a history book at all, nor is the NT an objective account of Jesus

There was a Roman who mentioned that (Cicero?). He said that it demonstrated that even if a slave could die nobly, what then could a Roman do? Besides, he says, it prepares them for battle. Actually, it doesn't achieve that. Certainly people became more brutalised but not everyone was. Seneca shook his head at the pointless nastiness of it all, and ultimately, the increasing brutality of the games did not keep the crowds coming in. In any human society, you find a range of sensibilities and there would always be those who were more humanitarian. Worse still, the vast majority of those audiences would run for cover if a battle started (unless they had experience of fighting or were trained to do so as in the legions). In entertainment, you watch someone else get hurt, not risk your own pain.

It's not about understanding - in fact christian teaching doesn't require or want you to understand, but accept their word. The crucifixion (notice it's called the Crucifixion[/i]) is painted as a martyrdom, a noble death, a self sacrifice. If you you look at the circumstances it clearly wasn't. Jesus upset the Romans and they punished him the same way they'd punish anyone else accused of those infractions. The odd thing though is that the Romans liked to chop undesirable movements down wholesale. Yet only Jesus was crucified - not his disciples - which means only his death was thought sufficient to deal with the problem.

In some ways I'm lucky. I'm just old enough to remember seeing steam locomotives working mainline services on British Rail. Steam engines have this animistic quality which endures despite the nerdy image of those who like them. As for me, I've always had a soft spot for this powerful works of art that belch smoke and hiss and chuff... Well, you know what I mean. The distant sounds of whistles still draw my attention. I remember this forgotten world. All those sounds behind rows of trees, the exquisite paintings in books illustrating locomotives from around the world, or the little Hornby trainset racing around a circle of track on the living room carpet. It's often said that every small boy wanted to be an engine driver. Actually I didn't - I wanted to join International Rescue, launch Fireball XL5 off it's ramp, or plunge to the rescue of Seaville. Oh all right... I admit it... I wanted to be Batman too. Adam West has a lot to answer for. A few days ago I watched a documentary about the railways of Britain during World War Two. That opened my eyes. I once stood on the footplate of a small restored steam locomotive in New Zealand and admired the hard teamwork of the crew as they ran up and down the line. Imagining that but with bombs dropping everywhere is something else. As a small boy, dropping bombs was something on the boxlid of an Airfix kit. I simply had no idea of the real effect a high explosive bomb could do. Probably just as well. The Russians were pointing something even more powerful at my home town during my childhood years. Confrontation of the Week Last night I opened the window at the back of the house and looked out over Swindon. There was a faint residual warmth from the day, but a cold breeze. Along the alleyway the local cat was on patrol, making sure his territory was still safe from other cats. He spotted movement, a bird, about twenty feet away and landing on the branches of a tree growing out of the disused college grounds. The cat immediately followed the bird, looking up intently, patiently waiting for the bird to make a mistake and stop low enough for that fast sprint to a prize to please his owner. So intent was he that he failed to spot the ginger cat waiting in the car park. The tension mounted as the cat jerked to a standstill in suprise. Both cats watched each other from a dangerously close distance, neither keen to give way. For twelve minutes these cats sat there warily until a man walking his dog upset the equilibrium. Both cats wandered away looking behind them. Mark my words - this ain't over yet. The War of the Alleyway has begun.

If you look at the various cultures of the ancient world you soon see a very violent and harsh world. Life was short and cheap. Much is made of Roman brutality but they existed in a brutal world.

That's a modern viewpoint. The idea that Christ rose from the dead was to suggest he was divine in origin. Since Spartacus was a slave a ressurection in Roman eyes would have been offensive to them - why should a slave - a person considered less than human - be granted such a gift? Notice though the ressurection has little practical use. Jesus disappears afterward which to my mind renders the whole exercise suspicious. Why raise someone from the dead and then have them ascend to the afterlife immediately afterward? This is another example of storytelling to create the myth. As Jesus was sentenced by an earthly court to be crucified (there's no hard evidence that actually happened and some circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified at all) and was a mortal, his death was very real. In order to provide some meaning to it, some mystery, some religious awe in worshippers, the ressurection was added to justify the description of Jesus as the son of god. Please don't think I'm describing Jesusl by this - I'm not - but there's a parallel with the belief that Hitler didn't die in Berlin in 1945. His 'worshippers' want to believe he was more than the man whose world had collapsed, more than a failed dictator hiding in a bunker whilst his enemies closed around him. So they invent stories of escape and survival in South America even though the evidence from autopsies and eye-witness accounts prove fairly conclusively he shot himself.

Yes that's true but don't forget the christian church at the start of the 4th century was anything but united. That was the whole point of the Council of Nicaea, to thrash out exactly what was or wasn't christian, and even then they weren't unanimous. The Arian heresy remained very popular and once or twice was the preferred religion. What these early conferences did (there were more than one) was create a factional rivalry in which the Emperors support was a key to success, and with successive emperors favouring christianity, arianism, and paganism in turn the situation could easily have turned to civil war - it did affect politics and for instance was one reason (out of several) for the defeat at Adrianople.

According to Stephen Fry on QI (always a source of astonishing ephemera) the bulk of Britons today have genetic roots in Basques from Northern Spain, who crossed into Britain during the Ice Age when the English Channel was only a river valley. His words, not mine, but I also note Tacitus speculated on a spanish origin for the Silures.

Every year the English go one better than spending a weekend parked on a Bank Holiday motorway. They go on their summer hols. I always find it remarkable that the English generally regard the rest of the world as their playground. The most popular playground for many years has been Spain. Now up until now I always thought this was because Spanish hotels were so unfinished that it didn't matter if drunken English tourists wrecked them. We English do like to remind other countries of our victories over them and indeed we did clout the Spanish in 1588. So every year we hold re-enactments in nightclubs all over Spain just to make sure they haven't forgotten. It is interesting that one Roman writer commented on the similarity between the Spanish and some British tribes, especially since it now appears that Basque natives were amongst the first settlers of Britain, crossing the Ice Age river valley that is now the English Channel. So it seems the popularity of our Spanish hols is nothing more than a migration instinct, as the British return home empty handed after their hunting trip and expect to get drunk instead. No wonder fights break out. It also explains the British tea break, that infamous ritual where no-one does anything for twenty minutes, a mutated descendant of the siesta (since the British Isles are never sunny). In fact, is our need to head for half-completed Spanish resorts a deeply rooted instinct for an annual siesta? This half baked theory has been brought to you by the Independent Peanut Republic of Rushey Platt. "Flying the flag for Spanish ex-pats" Pic of the Day Another sunset. We get a lot of those in Swindon. Job Vacancy of the Week Occaisionally I still come across a job vacancy. Despite the best efforts of our current government, some companies still manage to find enough profit to pay someone to work. I was alerted about this one by a telephone service who told me there was a part time warehouse job available. What are the hours? School hours? What's that all about? Anyway I rang the agency who are determined to find someone desperate enough to enslave themselves and asked them. Apparently the job is intended for working mums wanting to earn a few quid while their demonic offspring are someones elses problem. What on earth could possibly interest me in a job working for a warehouse full of bored mothers whose families are somewhere else?

Funny thing is I tend to be the same when travelling. Way back in my college days we were in a minibus heading for some spelunking in Wales. The lecturer, who happened to be sat next to me, prodded me and asked "Are you thinking about the caves?" Eh? What? No, I'm looking out the window.... And even funnier, he turned out to be the one with claustrophobia.

If that's indeed true then it's intended as humiliation surely? I can't think of any other eason for it.

Ok, you spotted the deliberate mistake!

The Eternal Idol (Black Sabbath)

There's no evidence that soldiers were taught to read and write. I don't think that ability was as widespread as some have hinted, especially since many recruits were rural in origin which typically has a lower educational background anyway. Even Vegetius, the most optimistic of commentators on Roman legions, makes no such claim. Recruits were either literate or not. If so, they had an easy life doing the bookkeeping the officers would rather not bother with. If not, they built aqueducts like everyone else. Look at it like this. Any Roman soldier who could read and write had an advantage. His skills gave him a cushy job in a warm office. Why would he reduce his chances of staying there by teaching his rivals the same skills? If the centurion suggested he should, a few coins might change his mind. I also think the record keeping is possibly over emphasised. Yes, there was a lot of it, but remember that the handful of men given the job weren't going to be sat there drinking coffee with their feet up all day. Granted they'd probably do as little as piossible if they could get away with it, but if they ain't busy, there's plenty of aqueduct still unfinished. In the back of my mind I can't help thinking that the record-keeping was done on an as-needed basis, rather than a formal set of bureaucratic obligations, especially since the legion was effectively autonomous and did not ordinarily report much of this information to a higher authority. Therefore, the paperwork requirement had more to do with circumstance and the attitude of officers. In peace-time, I suspect there was more of it. Once on campaign, of what use is a clerk?

Wow Doc, what were you like when you were a kid?