Okay, so it turns out that things seem to be pretty normal down at the household which I visited, namely, the woman being occasionally hysterical but most often good fun, and the man, that I got to know a little bit better. It was amicable, kind, there was never at any time any threat of violence. There was no need to involve the authorities at any point, and it all seemed much ado about nothing.
That is, on the surface, at least. One does not pry too deeply into the personal affairs of others.
I happened to pick up a precious really quite curious books in various bookshops while I was there. I acquired a nice (old) translation of Plato's major works and picked up an excellent (again old) book on the history of Christian Latin poetry. Yet, besides finding a new dictionary on the Occult and Mysticism (somewhat more concise yet newer than my mainstay reference work in that area), I spent much of the time reading law.
I am reading at the moment Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine by Simester and Sullivan. It is not as boring as I was expecting. I might even learn to like this subject, even if Lex is more of a favourite mistress, rather than my darling 'wife': classical studies.
I suppose that this is essential reading. It covers pretty much the basics of criminal law for a would-be barrister or student of the law. I was even thinking of taking notes, but not knowing what I will be taking notes on means that there is no real point in doing so. I suppose a mental note should be sufficient, that is, until my new module starts in October. At the very least, I am starting to take note of key terms and cataloguing any abbreviations which are standard to the register of the subject matter.
Seemingly, there is no actual definition of the crime of murder in British criminal law (apparently), but the crime of homicide is treated at length in this book, later on.
One supposes that such punishments found in ancient Rome are absent in these pages, civilisation having come along a little way since the times of tyrants and heathens. One conjures up images of punitive measures taken against someone charged with parricide: being covered with the skin of a wolf, being made to wear clogs then sewn up in a sack which included a live dog, snake, monkey and rooster and thrown in the river to drown (see Cicero, In Defence of Roscius Amerinus 25 cf. [Cicero], To Herennius 1.13.12 etc.). I suppose that some more fundamentalist nations, perhaps in the Arab or American worlds have the death penalty still: hurling rocks at an adulterer in the public agora or giving someone the electric chair or gas chamber.
My daughter has been in touch, briefly, which is nice. I sent her a copy of my translation, and I should hope that she reads it with interest.
On my way down south on holiday (it rained the entire time), the tabloids were full of sensationalised articles about Russia and nuclear threats, exercises and tests. This is... worrying. Bluff or real, such rhetoric that comes from the Kremlin stirs a lot of unnecessary uncertainty and is not leastways helpful for people's well being. I do not like the way things are heading, but what can you do?
We all have strong opinions on this, no doubt, but I find it is best not to say anything at all, and just try not to worry about it.
Regarding more of a conventional conflict, I find it interesting that Moscow did not pursue a policy of SEAD in thier tactics, according to one report I just read. This is probably either a cautious stroke of genius or, given the track record of such conflicts, runs contrary to almost every war that has been fought since 1938. Air superiority is important. Even so, the Americans and their allies had air superiority in Afghanistan, and they didn't win that war. Perhaps Vlad the Invader puts more store in boots on the ground, from what evidence there is. That sixty mile long column heading towards the capitol city of Kiev looks quite something. Artillery. Tanks. There will be a lot of civilians killed, sadly. Much of the bombing seems to almost be indiscriminate. However, there is a picture of the Ukraine's television station being blown up on the cover of the Financial Times today, so it cannot be said that the Russians are not at least aiming at something.
Max.
No comments:
Post a Comment