PERVSIANVS ET AVRELIA IVL PVLCHRA SATVRNINO ET FINNICAE SPD

amici, what a joy! We're so happy for this big news!
Hopefully we can meet you again in your honeymoon here in Rome? ;-)

At the same time I give you all, Nova Romans, my best wishes for the
day of the Foundation of Rome.

TERRARVM DEA GENTIQVE, ROMA, CVI PAR EST NIHIL ET NIHIL SECVNDVM
(Martial, XII, 8)

valete

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Ad decorem Romuli Quirini die natali Romae poemam modestam offero:

Cum Mars flosculam Vestae captam suaviter carpisset,
specula optima Romae ample concepta est.
O lupa felix nutrix, quamvis stabulum Augiae
res clara magnaque fuit, grandior res tua vero
est; nutrita es fratres reges donumque Aris.
Corporis eidem valebant, duces imnium certe.
Auspex acrior sane Romulus fratre illo die,
has aquilas duodenas Romulus observavit.
Vae, Remus sic contemptu moenium fratris saluit!
Romulus, conditor Romae, saepsit populum suum muro
consecrato cocco fratris Remi celeriter;
"Sic" que "meos muros transeat hostis" ait.
Deinde Romulus dolens fluens exsequias dedit.
Sapienter regens recte, Romam edocuisti;
Romule, usque doce cives fidi Romae!
Te precor usque uti tu propitius Romae
aedibus civibus belli domique patribus sitis,
Romule Quirine, mihi princeps omnibus tu es.

Valete.

Scaurus

Salve Amici,

Congratulations! I wish both of you the very best of luck together. May the gods watch over you, and grant you happiness together.

Vale.

O. Flavius Pompeius




---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve!
No these informations are not correct. AFAIK the Romans had not tattoos at
all. Just look at all the wall paintings, mosaiks etc. You will not ind a
single tattoo. Apart from thise there are virtually no reports of tattoos
among the Romans from any of the ancient writers. I think this is rather a
modern myth.
Caius

> Salvete Omnes,
> a visitor of our provincial website, sent me a couple of question.
> I'm searching information and documents, but it's very hard. Please
> can you help me?
> He wrote that in Roma Antiqua the tatoos were used only for the
> slaves and soldiers fighting in the north of the State. Usually the
> Romans avoided the tatoos havinh fear of infections, etc.
> After several years, the patricians accepted and "took" the tatoos
> and some very important philosophers had coloured tatoos.
> This information are correct?
> And he asked me where he could find special roman symbols like the
> tribal symbols for the celts.
>
> Further information are well accepted.
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--
Bonis nocet, qui malis parcit.


NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL
Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgeb�hr: http://www.gmx.net/dsl

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirities.

I have been ask to reanslate the prefatory material and the poem in
English. The prefataory material reads: "Toward the glory of Romulus
Quirinus on the birth day of Roman I offer a modest poem:"

>Ad decorem Romuli Quirini die natali Romae poemam modestam offero:
>
>Cum Mars flosculam Vestae captam suaviter carpisset,
>specula optima Romae ample concepta est.
>O lupa felix nutrix, quamvis stabulum Augiae
>res clara magnaque fuit, grandior res tua vero
>est; nutrita es fratres reges donumque Aris.
>Corporis eidem valebant, duces omnium certe.
>Auspex acrior sane Romulus fratre illo die,
>has aquilas duodenas Romulus observavit.
>Vae, Remus sic contemptu moenium fratris saluit!
>Romulus, conditor Romae, saepsit populum suum muro
>consecrato cocco fratris Remi celeriter;
>"Sic" que "meos muros transeat hostis" ait.
>Deinde Romulus dolens fluens exsequias dedit.
>Sapienter regens recte, Romam edocuisti;
>Romule, usque doce cives fidi Romae!
>Te precor usque uti tu propitius Romae
>aedibus civibus belli domique patribus sitis,
>Romule Quirine, mihi princeps omnibus tu es.
>

The poem is in a dactylic hexameter, which like Ovid's _Fasti_ which is
not easily directly rendered into English, so I shall translate it as
free verse.

When suavely Mars plucked the small, captive flower of Vesta,
the greatest glimmer of hope for Rome was fully conceived.
O she-wolf, happy wetnurse, although the stable of Augias^1
was a brilliant and great work, grander truly is your work:
you nourished brother kings and the gift of Ares.
They grew strong in body, of a surety leaders of all.
A keener auspex, obviously, Romulus than his brother on that day,
Romulus sighted these eagles -- twelve, one after the other.^2
Alas, Remus so with contempt he leapt the wall of his brother!
Romulus, founder of Rome, enclosed his people with a wall
swiftly consecrated with the scarlet of his brother Remus;
and he said, "Thus the enemy crosses over my walls."^3
Then Romulus, griving, weeping, performed his funeral rites.
Wisely ruling rightly, you have trained Rome;
Romulus, always teach the the faithful citizens of Rome!
I pray you always that you propitious to Rome,
to the temples, to the citizens, at war and at home, to the Fathers may be,
Romulus Qurinus, for me you are the foremost in everything.

______________
^1 - Acca Laurentia, wife of Faustulus, the "lupa" was reputed to have
also been at one time a mistress of Hercules; the allusion is to one of
his Herculean labours.
^2 - This prodigy cemented for all time Romulus reputation as foremost
of the Augur.
^3 - This one line is borrowed directly from Ovid's _Fasti_, vi.846.I

Valete.

Scaurus

>
>

Salvete Quirites,

Today is the traditional birthday of Roma, the ancient and eternal city.
On this day, our tradition tells us, Romulus plowed the pomerium, the
sacred boundary of the urbs.

I wish you all joy of this day, and sincere hope that a year from now,
and two years, and five years, and many years from now we shall be
exchanging greetings on this day.

Valete,

Gn. Equitius Marinus

Salvete Quirites,

This news of Saturninus and his lovely Emilia Curia Finnica fills me
with joy. They are both fine young people I've gotten to know well over
the past three years. I wish them a long and happy life together, and
all the blessings of a happy marriage.

Caius Curius Saturninus wrote:

> My announcement is that I have proposed my long time loved one,
> Emilia Curia Finnica, and she has accepted. We are going to be
> husband and wife from May 22nd onwards!

[...]

Valete,

-- Marinus

Salve C. Tarquitii et omnes,

Although I share your concerns as far as the amount and quality of
evidence of tatoos is concerned, may I point out that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

One must be very careful when passing judgement on the everyday life
of our ancestors : The meagre and scattered information does not, in
my eyes, justify dismissing roman tatoos out of hand. Let's see if we
can learn and research more on the subject before actually making our
minds.
Optime Vale,

Moravius Laureatus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Koepfer"
<caiustarquitius@g...> wrote:

> Salve!
> No these informations are not correct. AFAIK the Romans had not

tattoos at

> all. Just look at all the wall paintings, mosaiks etc. You will not

ind a

> single tattoo. Apart from thise there are virtually no reports of

tattoos

> among the Romans from any of the ancient writers. I think this is

rather a

> modern myth.
> Caius
>
>
> > Salvete Omnes,
> > a visitor of our provincial website, sent me a couple of

question.

> > I'm searching information and documents, but it's very hard.

Please

> > can you help me?
> > He wrote that in Roma Antiqua the tatoos were used only for the
> > slaves and soldiers fighting in the north of the State. Usually

the

> > Romans avoided the tatoos havinh fear of infections, etc.
> > After several years, the patricians accepted and "took" the

tatoos

> > and some very important philosophers had coloured tatoos.
> > This information are correct?
> > And he asked me where he could find special roman symbols like

the

> > tribal symbols for the celts.
> >
> > Further information are well accepted.
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Bonis nocet, qui malis parcit.
>
>
> NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL
> Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgebühr: http://www.gmx.net/dsl

Salve Romans

As am am putting together the merchandise that I will be selling in The Galerius Shop, I find that I need the services of an artist. If you are artistically inclined and would like to work for the Galerius Shop please drop me a note and we can talk.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Proprietor, The Galerius Shop
Ordo Equester


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Domitius Constantinus Fuscus et al who said in part

"it's doubtful a Tribune could object to the constitutionality of a decretum from the collegium pontificum anyway. Which basically means our Constitution is weak and changeable at will when the Tribunes are looking away or, more easily, in those areas subject to acts the tribunes have no power about.

In my opinion you are wrong on the first point about the power of the Tribunes and vetoing religious decreta. You are right on the second point in that our constitution is weak if simple decrees or even ordinary laws can change the constitution in any way. To amend the constitution requires "a Lex passed by the comitia centuriata and approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate. Simple legislation or the of the act of any Magistrate (not including a Dictator) or collegium does not meet this standard.

The Constitution of Nova Roma limits the power of the Tribunes in only two cases. They can pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate with the exception of the of the dictator and the interrex). NO WHERE does it say that a Tribune can not veto the actions of the collegium pontificum. In fact it clearly states they they CAN veto any religious decreta. The constitution also states under the section on the Religio Romana that while religious decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or by a Senatus consultum it does not include the Tribunes in this section as being devoid of the power of veto on religious matters.

I quote the passage from the constitution below.

Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term lasting one year. They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
1.. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby;
The Constitution also empowers the Tribunes to " administer the law;" I interpret this to mean that we are bound by the constitution and are expected, no required to insure that the constitution is adhered to to the best of our abilities.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs


From: G.C.
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:03 PM
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Some legal inconsistencies related to religio


Ave Omnes

And especially Quintus Lanius Paulinus, Pompeia Cornelia and A.
Apollonius Corpus, who have been so kind to reply to my email (the
latter privately), raising some interesting points.

I'll address Quintus first.

The ideas the founders established the res publica are not so really
important, I'm afraid. One hundred years from now, no one will be
able to know what the founders really thought. To make an example
easy to understand, no one knows the exact personal intention of
every single person who took part in the redaction of the American
declaration of independence and the constitution. We consider as
their original thought what was left written, and is logical to do
so. When interpreting the two documents (I guess the second more
than the first, but then the second is interpreted often basing on
the first, so...) in a legal way, no one quotes the personal diaries
of the founding fathers, but refers only to what is written down in
the documents themselves.

In our case, while the ideas of the founding fathers are surely
worth of respect, is what is *written* in the founding Declaration
and the Constitution we have to follow, and nothing else. Even
because many have joined reading those and is just logical that they
shall be bound by what is within those documents, not by what was
the *unwritten* thoughts o fteh founding fathers.

Now, in the Founding declaration is not written that the Religio
shall be the state religion, and in the constitution, where this
status is granted, is not written that its status shall be
untouchable. Whatever was the intention of the founding fathers,
still what we have to stick to are the written laws, and those laws
do not guarantee perpetually the status of the Religio as the faith
of state.

Sempronia raised the point that even if the constitution doesn't
secure the status of the Religio, that task is performed by the oath
every magistrate of Nova Roma has to take to never act in a way that
would change the Religio's Status. Now, that oath comes from a law
(The Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum) that, by compressing and deminishing
the rights given by the constitution of Nova Roma (specifically, the
right of free political activity within the constitutional frame)
is, likewise, unconstitutional just as much as the Decree about
Blasphemy.

Therefore, I adfirm that the oath taken by the magistrates is, right
now, maybe binding on a personal level, but unlawful and void
following the letter of the Nova Roma Constitution. More, by taking
an oath that goes against the constitution, every single magistrate
of Nova Roma has violated the very same oath they took, which is not
so bad considering the oath is against the law, and, worse, the
constitution of Nova Roma where it says "This Constitution shall be
the basic authority for all decision-making within Nova Roma and
shall limit the authority of all magistrates and bodies,"...
obviously, a magistrate that takes a oath conflicting with the
constitution exceeds the limits set by the constitution itself.

Pompeia, is not acting against the oath taken that would be unlawful
and treasoning, is that very oath an act of treason against the
Constitution, which might be excused as involuntary, yet treason is
nevertheless as long as the constitution is changed to match the
oath, or the oath to match the constitution.

Fact is, as someone noted, there is no authority in Nova Roma to
declare a law or a decrete un-constitutional once passed the period
given to the consules or the tribunes to object with their veto(and
it's doubtful a tribune could object the constitutionality a
decretum from the collegium pontificarum anyway). Which basically
means our Constitution is weak and changeable at will when the
Tribunes are looking away or, more easily, in those areas subject to
acts the tribunes have no power about.

In a period where another debate about "lots of money" is going on
(a debate, I admit I'm not really following in detail), I'd be wary
to pledge real money to an organization whose basic law is so easy
to change, where, as things are, against it already so many acts
have been taken and are in place and where there is not any remedy
once an act violating the constitution as settled in. To the limit,
the very scope of Nova Roma could be changed by a mere decretum not
countered in time by a veto.

I think a minimum of seriousness would impose to the magistrates a
critical, deep, review of all the decrees/laws/various legal
documents falling under their powers with a scrupulous analysis of
their content in a constitutional light in order to withdraw them or
propose their abrogation/modification when they go against the
Constitution (like the Decree about Blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de
JusIurandum).

I think a minimum of respect of the Constitution would require a
magistrate or, better, a collegium with the power of a
Constitutional Court able to declare null and void any act going
against the letter of the Constitution.

Vale Bene

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus







Yahoo! Groups Links







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus SPD

Avete Omnes

This is so COOL! :-D

Caius Curius Saturninus & Emilia Curia Finnica, may your home and you both
have all that is healthful, prosperous and bountiful.

If Nova Roma has done one thing to help two people find love and happiness,
then the trials and tribulations are worth it.

Valete
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:19:18 +0300
From: Caius Curius Saturninus <c.curius@...>
Subject: special announcement

Novaromani, Quirites et Patres, Amici!

(Saturninus, rises to rostra and says:)
I come today here in the Forum with special announcement. The
announcement is not about Nova Roma in particular, rather a personal
one... Those of you who know me, might guess what it is all about
when you see the special smile on my face now.

I come here today to tell you about the most important decision of my
life, something that will change it permanently, something that
cannot be undone, something that is holy to me even while I don't
belong into any religious group.

My announcement is that I have proposed my long time loved one,
Emilia Curia Finnica, and she has accepted. We are going to be
husband and wife from May 22nd onwards!

(Emilia enters to the side of Saturninus)

(Saturninus says:)
In a special moment like this I wish I could say something profound
and deep, but I cannot think anything else than to say: Emilia, I
love you and I hope I will be worthy husband for you for lifetime.

(Emilia responds:)
I know you will be and I'll never stop trying to be the good wife you
deserve.

(Saturninus concludes:)
Now, before I left the rostra for normal political speeches let me
just say one final thing:
If any Novaromani should happen to be in Helsinki, Finland at May
22nd, you are invited to visit our ceremony and party afterwards.
Just contact me and I will give needed information about where and
when.

Thank you for your time!

Caius Curius Saturninus & Emilia Curia Finnica

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.:

>I have been ask to reanslate the prefatory material and the poem in
>English. The prefataory material reads: "Toward the glory of Romulus
>Quirinus on the birth day of Roman I offer a modest poem:"
>

Make that "I have been asked to translate..." Every once in a while I
can type. I know that's hard to believe, but sometimes it happens :-).

Valete.

Scaurus

>
>

Salve Caius,
the italina cives Caius Ianus Flaminius sent me the following
information about the roman tatoos.
It seems that Vegetius (?) talked about them in his Epitoma rei
militaris, I, VIII, in the paragraph titled "QUANDO TIRONES SIGNANDI
SINT" (when the soldiers must to be scattered). The writer says that
the soldiers must to be scattered after a not specified period of
work. There are references about the kind of tatoo.
I think that this is more than a "modern myth" and I suppose that
the majority of the ancient paintings don't show specfied kinds of
slaves.
So IMHO I think there could be other historical sources and I'll
continue to search. Your help will well accepted, thank you very
much.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christian Koepfer"
<caiustarquitius@g...> wrote:

> Salve!
> No these informations are not correct. AFAIK the Romans had not

tattoos at

> all. Just look at all the wall paintings, mosaiks etc. You will

not ind a

> single tattoo. Apart from thise there are virtually no reports of

tattoos

> among the Romans from any of the ancient writers. I think this is

rather a

> modern myth.
> Caius
>
>
> > Salvete Omnes,
> > a visitor of our provincial website, sent me a couple of

question.

> > I'm searching information and documents, but it's very hard.

Please

> > can you help me?
> > He wrote that in Roma Antiqua the tatoos were used only for the
> > slaves and soldiers fighting in the north of the State. Usually

the

> > Romans avoided the tatoos havinh fear of infections, etc.
> > After several years, the patricians accepted and "took" the

tatoos

> > and some very important philosophers had coloured tatoos.
> > This information are correct?
> > And he asked me where he could find special roman symbols like

the

> > tribal symbols for the celts.
> >
> > Further information are well accepted.
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Bonis nocet, qui malis parcit.
>
>
> NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL
> Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgebühr: http://www.gmx.net/dsl

Salvete omnes,

I checked around on this subject over the last half hour and found
out that tattooing was also practiced during the time of ancient
Rome and Greece. In Latin the word for tattoo is "stigma" which now
means, prick with a pointed instrument. Roman and Greek culture did
not see tattoos in a positive light. In those times tattoos were
associated with Barbarians. Do to this the Greeks and Romans
practiced tattoo removal. There primary technique was to chemically
burn off the tattoo. Greeks and Romans also used tattooing as a
punishment or identifying slaves.

I see more research is needed but my initial impression is that it
would not have been accepted by the Roman norm in those days. Even
today big tattoos on your forarms are exposed parts of the body are
frowned on in the professional end of the coorporate world and even
in the military, I don't recall seeing officers above Warrants who
sport big tattoos. Perhaps no one of any rank or class above that of
the mob would have had them.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

This has been discussed in the ImperialRome2 group. You can do a search on
the group and see what conclusions we came to. I've uploaded a monograph by
Mark Gustafson of Calvin College on "Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity".

From his conclusion:

"It is precisely the ambivalent nature of tattoos-first applied as
punishment
and intended to signify criminality and degradation, but then seen by those
so
marked and their comrades as positive group symbols-that brings us back to
the
present day where this discussion began. For, in our society, the
association of
tattoos with defamation-the perpetual stigma-persists, in the eyes and minds
of many if not most of those on the outside. For the insiders, the tattooed
and
their sympathizers (who have yet to submit to the needle), it is a mark worn
with
pride, a sign of belonging, the positive connotations of which are
strengthened
by the negative opinions of the majority. Whether the agents of and
participants in
the so-called "tattoo renaissance" can alter this situation and break down
these
deep-seated cultural attitudes remains to be seen."

Ti. Ambrosius Silvus

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Koepfer [mailto:caiustarquitius@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 9:30
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] roman tatoos


Salve!
No these informations are not correct. AFAIK the Romans had not tattoos at
all. Just look at all the wall paintings, mosaiks etc. You will not ind a
single tattoo. Apart from thise there are virtually no reports of tattoos
among the Romans from any of the ancient writers. I think this is rather a
modern myth.
Caius

Salvete!

Congratulations to you and your wife-to-be!

If I could have been in Finland on that date, be sure that I would have attended!
Thanks for the invitation :)

I wish both of you all of the best!

Valete,


Lucius Cornelius Cicero

INTERPRETER(Afrikaans)
SCRIBA GENII DOCTRINAE PHILOSOPHIAE (Academia Thules)


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Curius Saturninus
<c.curius@w...> wrote:

> Novaromani, Quirites et Patres, Amici!
>
> (Saturninus, rises to rostra and says:)
> I come today here in the Forum with special announcement. The
> announcement is not about Nova Roma in particular, rather a

personal

> one... Those of you who know me, might guess what it is all about
> when you see the special smile on my face now.
>
> I come here today to tell you about the most important decision of

my

> life, something that will change it permanently, something that
> cannot be undone, something that is holy to me even while I don't
> belong into any religious group.
>
> My announcement is that I have proposed my long time loved one,
> Emilia Curia Finnica, and she has accepted. We are going to be
> husband and wife from May 22nd onwards!
>
> (Emilia enters to the side of Saturninus)
>
> (Saturninus says:)
> In a special moment like this I wish I could say something profound
> and deep, but I cannot think anything else than to say: Emilia, I
> love you and I hope I will be worthy husband for you for lifetime.
>
> (Emilia responds:)
> I know you will be and I'll never stop trying to be the good wife

you deserve.

>
> (Saturninus concludes:)
> Now, before I left the rostra for normal political speeches let me
> just say one final thing:
> If any Novaromani should happen to be in Helsinki, Finland at May
> 22nd, you are invited to visit our ceremony and party afterwards.
> Just contact me and I will give needed information about where and
> when.
>
> Thank you for your time!
>
> Caius Curius Saturninus & Emilia Curia Finnica

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave Omnes

and especially Pompeia Cornelia (you are too kind, your compliments,
altho surely undeserved, are extremely nice), Q. Cassius Calvus and,
belatedly, Palladius.

I owe a reply to Palladius first, as his original post came before my
first reply, but unluckily, while appearing twice in the mailing list,
it never made it to my mailbox, I guess for the same reasons my posts
usually take three attempts to reach the mailing list. He resented what
he thought was an purposefully intention of ignoring him and so it's
just fair I reply him first.

Now, with all due respect to your position of Founding Father, I just
have to state again that the personal intentions of a group of people
who create a legal document is only partially important, and in this
case on a secondary level, once the document is written and made public.
Books have been written about how, of the many different methods on
interpretation of a legal text, the so called "historical" one is the
least scientific and the one more leading to unsatisfactory results.

Generally speaking, all the methods that require, in the explaination of
the content of a legal document, a call to something external to the
document itself are prone to a myriad of inconsistencies. What if the
Founding Fathers, as probable, were of different opinions or shade of
opinions on this or that point? And what are the text that can be used
to conduct such a search? The logs of the works that brought to the
approval of the document? The public writings? The personal letters? The
diaries? The writings of the people who interacted with them? All of
those, or some of hose or others altogether?

No, Palladius, once the authors give life to a Constitution, or even a
lesser documents, that starts living a life of its own and just as a
father does with his son, they cannot pretend to recreate it, but at
most try to educate him, or in this case, correcting using the rules
they themselves have created for such a purpose. As parents, the
founders are bound to see their creature face the world on her own legs,
or have it grown overprotected, spoiled and eventually, weak.

And that includes the Religio issue. Now I personally do not care in
this specific circumstance if the Religio was the very reason Nova Roma
was created, as you adfirm, or not. I do not think is relevant at all in
fact. Many have joined Nova Roma without not knowing it, reading the
Constitution and judging on that what they could expect from this place,
what would had been their rights and obligations and are within their
right to ask that the Constitution will be respected by all parties.
They have read that everything in the Constitution can be changed by a
law passed by the Comitia Centuriata and confirmed by the Senate *and
only by that* and that "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher
authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." hence the laws
passed but contradicting the Constitution will be superseded by that.
There's no way out of it and therefore, again, the Lex Iunia de
Jusiurandum ad the decree about blasphemy (among others) are
unconstitutional acts and are void and without power and I'm just about
tempted to put them to a practical test and see if the magistrates would
choose between the constitution and those unlawful acts.

You, Palladius, asked me if all this was just a mental exercise of mine.
Far from it. Just an attempt to bring legality in what it appears to me,
right now, to be an "association" with high ideals and too many
contradictions in its internal administration, that claims to follow the
laws it has given itself and then betries the very ground rule, it's
constitution.

And from here, I will address briefly Q. Cassius Calvus. Cassie, I'm one
of those few people coming out from a law faculty who doesn't believe
that something can be "technically" one way and yet be practically in
another. Maybe is the reason I didn't pursue a lawyer career :-)
seriously, tho, I agree with you and in fact my whole reasoning here is
not really a specific discussiong about the Religio, but an attempt to
bring (or maybe bring for the first time?) Nova Romans to realize how
easily their Constitution has been and is being currently ignored.

That this was started on an issue regarding the Religio is a case
probably brought forward by the fact that an organization or country
whose "civil" constitution can be practically changed or the freedoms in
it restricted by a decree issued by a religious institution, of any kind
or faith, reminds me too closely of countries I think most of us
wouldn't like to live in the real world in present times and that
tickled me enough to start this thread (even if, if anyone remember, a
while ago I had pointed out the disarray the Tabularium is in, and I
hope that who at that time answered me with assurances that was being
worked upon is actually doing the job, or I will once again volounteer
for it).

To Pompeia, my regards and the promise I will find the time to reply to
her private email.

And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are both
unconstitutional.

Vale Bene

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aediles Urbis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave Omnes

and especially Pompeia Cornelia (you are too kind, your compliments,
altho surely undeserved, are extremely nice), Q. Cassius Calvus and,
belatedly, Palladius.

I owe a reply to Palladius first, as his original post came before
my first reply, but unluckily, while appearing twice in the mailing
list, it never made it to my mailbox, I guess for the same reasons
my posts usually take three attempts to reach the mailing list. He
resented what he thought was an purposefully intention of ignoring
him and so it's just fair I reply him first.

Now, with all due respect to your position of Founding Father, I
just have to state again that the personal intentions of a group of
people who create a legal document is only partially important, and
in this case on a secondary level, once the document is written and
made public. Books have been written about how, of the many
different methods on interpretation of a legal text, the so
called "historical" one is the least scientific and the one more
leading to unsatisfactory results.

Generally speaking, all the methods that require, in the
explaination of the content of a legal document, a call to something
external to the document itself are prone to a myriad of
inconsistencies. What if the Founding Fathers, as probable, were of
different opinions or shade of opinions on this or that point? And
what are the text that can be used to conduct such a search? The
logs of the works that brought to the approval of the document? The
public writings? The personal letters? The diaries? The writings of
the people who interacted with them? All of those, or some of hose
or others altogether?

No, Palladius, once the authors give life to a Constitution, or even
a lesser documents, that starts living a life of its own and just as
a father does with his son, they cannot pretend to recreate it, but
at most try to educate him, or in this case, correcting using the
rules they themselves have created for such a purpose. As parents,
the founders are bound to see their creature face the world on her
own legs, or have it grown overprotected, spoiled and eventually,
weak.

And that includes the Religio issue. Now I personally do not care in
this specific circumstance if the Religio was the very reason Nova
Roma was created, as you adfirm, or not. I do not think is relevant
at all in fact. Many have joined Nova Roma without not knowing it,
reading the Constitution and judging on that what they could expect
from this place, what would had been their rights and obligations
and are within their right to ask that the Constitution will be
respected by all parties. They have read that everything in the
Constitution can be changed by a law passed by the Comitia
Centuriata and confirmed by the Senate *and only by that* and
that "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the
higher authority shall take precedence." hence the laws passed but
contradicting the Constitution will be superseded by that. There's
no way out of it and therefore, again, the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum
ad the decree about blasphemy (among others) are unconstitutional
acts and are void and without power and I'm just about tempted to
put them to a practical test and see if the magistrates would choose
between the constitution and those unlawful acts.

You, Palladius, asked me if all this was just a mental exercise of
mine. Far from it. Just an attempt to bring legality in what it
appears to me, right now, to be an "association" with high ideals
and too many contradictions in its internal administration, that
claims to follow the laws it has given itself and then betries the
very ground rule, it's constitution.

And from here, I will address briefly Q. Cassius Calvus. Cassie, I'm
one of those few people coming out from a law faculty who doesn't
believe that something can be "technically" one way and yet be
practically in another. Maybe is the reason I didn't pursue a lawyer
career J seriously, tho, I agree with you and in fact my whole
reasoning here is not really a specific discussiong about the
Religio, but an attempt to bring (or maybe bring for the first
time?) Nova Romans to realize how easily their Constitution has been
and is being currently ignored.

That this was started on an issue regarding the Religio is a case
probably brought forward by the fact that an organization or country
whose "civil" constitution can be practically changed or the
freedoms in it restricted by a decree issued by a religious
institution, of any kind or faith, reminds me too closely of
countries I think most of us wouldn't like to live in the real world
in present times and that tickled me enough to start this thread
(even if, if anyone remember, a while ago I had pointed out the
disarray the Tabularium is in, and I hope that who at that time
answered me with assurances that was being worked upon is actually
doing the job, or I will once again volounteer for it).

To Pompeia, my regards and the promise I will find the time to reply
to her private email.

And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are
both unconstitutional.

Vale Bene

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aediles Urbis

Salvete omnes!

I am curious if there are any chapters of Nova Roma that are
specifically geared to college students, or that are based around a
campus?

(Am trying to compile a discussion forum for collegiate reenactment
groups, and would like you all to receive fair representation there!)

Valete,

Scapulae Niveae
(...as near as my Hibernian persona-name translates.) ;)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "flaviascholastica" <flavia@l...> wrote:

> Salve, Christopher/Flavi!
>
> Conata sum epistulam electronicam ad te mittere, sed machina

diabolica

> inscriptionem tuam deletam esse dixit. Te rogo ut epistulam ad me

privatim mittas.

> Certe consules occupatiores multis rebus respondere non possunt, sed

nos accensi

> possunt.
>
> [I tried to e-mail you privately, but the [diabolical] DAEMON

said that your address had

> been cancelled. Please write to me in private. Surely the consuls

are too busy with

> many matters and cannot respond, but we, their assistants, can.]
>
> Flavia Scholastica
> Accensa Consuli Gnaeo Equitio Marino
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "cmcqueeny" <cmcqueeny@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete!
> >
> > As the subject indicates, I've recently applied for Nova Roman
> > Citizenship, and I have a few political questions which seem to simple
> > to bother the Consuls about:
> >
> > I: Is the Cursus Honorum enforced, or even followed, in Nova Roma? At
> > a glance I have observed several who have not followed it, so I assume
> > not.
> >
> > II: Is there any practical difference between the Curule & Plebian
> > Aediles? Historically, I beleive that the only difference was the
> > ivory chair permitted to the Curule Aediles, so that also seems

unlikely.

> >
> > III: Most importantly, what would you recommend as a first political
> > office? Would it be wise to go for an appointed position or is it
> > fairly easy to get elected Quaestor or Aedile?
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Christopher D. McQueeny (Hopefully soon to be Flavius Claudius

Aurelius.)

Salve!

As I've just been accepted for citizenship, I've made a new account to
reflect the change. The account from which I now post has a correct
email address. I shall email you soon.

Vale

Flavius Claudius Aurelius

(Third attempt to send it over the last 14 hours, my apologies for
possible duplications)

Ave Omnes

and especially Pompeia Cornelia (you are too kind, your compliments,
altho surely undeserved, are extremely nice), Q. Cassius Calvus and,
belatedly, Palladius.

I owe a reply to Palladius first, as his original post came before
my first reply, but unluckily, while appearing twice in the mailing
list, it never made it to my mailbox, I guess for the same reasons
my posts usually take three attempts to reach the mailing list. He
resented what he thought was an purposefully intention of ignoring
him and so it's just fair I reply him first.


Now, with all due respect to your position of Founding Father, I
just have to state again that the personal intentions of a group of
people who create a legal document is only partially important, and
in this case on a secondary level, once the document is written and
made public. Books have been written about how, of the many
different methods on interpretation of a legal text, the so
called "historical" one is the least scientific and the one more
leading to unsatisfactory results.

Generally speaking, all the methods that require, in the
explaination of the content of a legal document, a call to something
external to the document itself are prone to a myriad of
inconsistencies. What if the Founding Fathers, as probable, were of
different opinions or shade of opinions on this or that point? And
what are the text that can be used to conduct such a search? The
logs of the works that brought to the approval of the document? The
public writings? The personal letters? The diaries? The writings of
the people who interacted with them? All of those, or some of hose
or others altogether?

No, Palladius, once the authors give life to a Constitution, or even
a lesser documents, that starts living a life of its own and just as
a father does with his son, they cannot pretend to recreate it, but
at most try to educate him, or in this case, correcting using the
rules they themselves have created for such a purpose. As parents,
the founders are bound to see their creature face the world on her
own legs, or have it grown overprotected, spoiled and eventually,
weak.

And that includes the Religio issue. Now I personally do not care in
this specific circumstance if the Religio was the very reason Nova
Roma was created, as you adfirm, or not. I do not think is relevant
at all in fact. Many have joined Nova Roma without not knowing it,
reading the Constitution and judging on that what they could expect
from this place, what would had been their rights and obligations
and are within their right to ask that the Constitution will be
respected by all parties. They have read that everything in the
Constitution can be changed by a law passed by the Comitia
Centuriata and confirmed by the Senate *and only by that* and
that "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the
higher authority shall take precedence." hence the laws passed but
contradicting the Constitution will be superseded by that. There's
no way out of it and therefore, again, the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum
ad the decree about blasphemy (among others) are unconstitutional
acts and are void and without power and I'm just about tempted to
put them to a practical test and see if the magistrates would choose
between the constitution and those unlawful acts.

You, Palladius, asked me if all this was just a mental exercise of
mine. Far from it. Just an attempt to bring legality in what it
appears to me, right now, to be an "association" with high ideals
and too many contradictions in its internal administration, that
claims to follow the laws it has given itself and then betries the
very ground rule, it's constitution.

And from here, I will address briefly Q. Cassius Calvus. Cassie, I'm
one of those few people coming out from a law faculty who doesn't
believe that something can be "technically" one way and yet be
practically in another. Maybe is the reason I didn't pursue a lawyer
career J seriously, tho, I agree with you and in fact my whole
reasoning here is not really a specific discussiong about the
Religio, but an attempt to bring (or maybe bring for the first
time?) Nova Romans to realize how easily their Constitution has been
and is being currently ignored.

That this was started on an issue regarding the Religio is a case
probably brought forward by the fact that an organization or country
whose "civil" constitution can be practically changed or the
freedoms in it restricted by a decree issued by a religious
institution, of any kind or faith, reminds me too closely of
countries I think most of us wouldn't like to live in the real world
in present times and that tickled me enough to start this thread
(even if, if anyone remember, a while ago I had pointed out the
disarray the Tabularium is in, and I hope that who at that time
answered me with assurances that was being worked upon is actually
doing the job, or I will once again volounteer for it).

To Pompeia, my regards and the promise I will find the time to reply
to her private email.

And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are
both unconstitutional.

Vale Bene

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aediles Urbis

Ave Omnes

and especially Pompeia Cornelia (you are too kind, your compliments,
altho surely undeserved, are extremely nice), Q. Cassius Calvus and,
belatedly, Palladius.

I owe a reply to Palladius first, as his original post came before my
first reply, but unluckily, while appearing twice in the mailing list,
it never made it to my mailbox, I guess for the same reasons my posts
usually take three attempts to reach the mailing list. He resented what
he thought was an purposefully intention of ignoring him and so it's
just fair I reply him first.

Now, with all due respect to your position of Founding Father, I just
have to state again that the personal intentions of a group of people
who create a legal document is only partially important, and in this
case on a secondary level, once the document is written and made public.
Books have been written about how, of the many different methods on
interpretation of a legal text, the so called "historical" one is the
least scientific and the one more leading to unsatisfactory results.

Generally speaking, all the methods that require, in the explaination of
the content of a legal document, a call to something external to the
document itself are prone to a myriad of inconsistencies. What if the
Founding Fathers, as probable, were of different opinions or shade of
opinions on this or that point? And what are the text that can be used
to conduct such a search? The logs of the works that brought to the
approval of the document? The public writings? The personal letters? The
diaries? The writings of the people who interacted with them? All of
those, or some of hose or others altogether?

No, Palladius, once the authors give life to a Constitution, or even a
lesser documents, that starts living a life of its own and just as a
father does with his son, they cannot pretend to recreate it, but at
most try to educate him, or in this case, correcting using the rules
they themselves have created for such a purpose. As parents, the
founders are bound to see their creature face the world on her own legs,
or have it grown overprotected, spoiled and eventually, weak.

And that includes the Religio issue. Now I personally do not care in
this specific circumstance if the Religio was the very reason Nova Roma
was created, as you adfirm, or not. I do not think is relevant at all in
fact. Many have joined Nova Roma without not knowing it, reading the
Constitution and judging on that what they could expect from this place,
what would had been their rights and obligations and are within their
right to ask that the Constitution will be respected by all parties.
They have read that everything in the Constitution can be changed by a
law passed by the Comitia Centuriata and confirmed by the Senate *and
only by that* and that "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher
authority, the higher authority shall take precedence." hence the laws
passed but contradicting the Constitution will be superseded by that.
There's no way out of it and therefore, again, the Lex Iunia de
Jusiurandum ad the decree about blasphemy (among others) are
unconstitutional acts and are void and without power and I'm just about
tempted to put them to a practical test and see if the magistrates would
choose between the constitution and those unlawful acts.

You, Palladius, asked me if all this was just a mental exercise of mine.
Far from it. Just an attempt to bring legality in what it appears to me,
right now, to be an "association" with high ideals and too many
contradictions in its internal administration, that claims to follow the
laws it has given itself and then betries the very ground rule, it's
constitution.

And from here, I will address briefly Q. Cassius Calvus. Cassie, I'm one
of those few people coming out from a law faculty who doesn't believe
that something can be "technically" one way and yet be practically in
another. Maybe is the reason I didn't pursue a lawyer career :-)
seriously, tho, I agree with you and in fact my whole reasoning here is
not really a specific discussiong about the Religio, but an attempt to
bring (or maybe bring for the first time?) Nova Romans to realize how
easily their Constitution has been and is being currently ignored.

That this was started on an issue regarding the Religio is a case
probably brought forward by the fact that an organization or country
whose "civil" constitution can be practically changed or the freedoms in
it restricted by a decree issued by a religious institution, of any kind
or faith, reminds me too closely of countries I think most of us
wouldn't like to live in the real world in present times and that
tickled me enough to start this thread (even if, if anyone remember, a
while ago I had pointed out the disarray the Tabularium is in, and I
hope that who at that time answered me with assurances that was being
worked upon is actually doing the job, or I will once again volounteer
for it).

To Pompeia, my regards and the promise I will find the time to reply to
her private email.

And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are both
unconstitutional.

Vale Bene

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aediles Urbis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

salvete all!

On this beautiful day I whish everybody all the best and happy
birthday!!!!!!!!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus
<hermeticagnosis@e...> wrote:

> Oh, I'd have to disagree on the battles in Spartacus: Half of them

were

> okay, but the half of the time the Romans broke formation and

rushed

> forward like a Germanic Mob! Even when they maintained formation,

they

> didn't maneuvre properly or use their weaponry realistically.
>
> Sure, it's nice to see another Roman production, but it would be

even

> nicer if they did one with an eye for the details!
>
> ~ S E M Troianus
>
> On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Lucius Cassius Pontonius

wrote:

>
> > I saw Spartacus, the new miniseries more as a veiled commentary

on the

> > current political climate in the United States.
> >
> > They made a point of the Senate discussing thier obligations to
> > "National Security" and that all opposed are traitors. Overall

the

> > battle scenes were well made, but historical "political" accuracy

was

> > not exactly followed.
> >
> > With Respect,
> >
> > Lucius Cassius Pontonius (Michael Ponte)
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: cassius622@a...
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:11 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Sparticus - (or, Ah - the wonders of
> > television!)
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Well, I just spent two evenings watching the "Spartacus" the

latest

> > 2-part
> > 'historical' miniserieson the USA network. What a revelation!

Here

> > is what I
> > learned about the Roman world:
> >
> > 1. All Romans (except for one old Senator who finally saw the
> > 'light') were
> > evil and bad.
> >
> > 2. All Slaves and Celts (except for one hotheaded Celtic

leader)

> > were kind
> > and good.
> >
> > 3. Spartacus and his army were fighting for all that was good

in

> > mankind; the
> > Romans for all that was evil and corrupt.
> >
> > 4. Spartacus' rebellion planted the seeds for the destruction

of the

> > Republic
> > and of Rome itself, and people understood this clearly at the

time.

> >
> > 5. Even though Christianity hadn't been invented yet, Sparticus

and

> > his army
> > were clearly influenced by the ethical monotheism and concepts

of

> > "free will"
> > that would later become Christianity. (As personified in the
> > character
> > "David," Spartacus' friend.)
> >
> > Good to see all the "modern myths" about Rome and its world

being

> > upheld in a
> > manner palatable to the general public. Rome bashing still

makes for

> > some
> > real "feel good" family entertainment!
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Senator, Pontifex Maximus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

> > -------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms

of

> > Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~-->
> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or

Lexmark

> > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US

&

> > Canada.
> > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/wWQplB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

---

> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >I must say i found most of the movie to be off. Some of the

battles, like the final one with Spartacus seemed to be appropriate
but most of it stunk. Especially toward the end when Crassus and
Pompey were announced Co-consuls like it was a special thing, but
there were always two consuls. Also, why was it all the Legionnaries
carried Spears and not Pilum, and why was the armor leather????im
sorry if i seem critical but why is it they rarely make movies
historically accurate.

> >
> >

G. Equitius Cato D. Constantio Fusco T. Galerio Paulino quiritibusque
S.P.D.

Salvete omnes,

Paulinus: I looked, but could not find, in the Constitution for
a "statute of limitations" clause regarding the power of the
Tribunes. Does this mean that right now, as of the moment of this
posting, a Tribune could veto the decretum having to do
with "blasphemy" that Fuscus has stated is unConstitutional?

valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Domitius Constantinus Fuscus et al who said in part
>
> "it's doubtful a Tribune could object to the constitutionality of

a decretum from the collegium pontificum anyway. Which basically
means our Constitution is weak and changeable at will when the
Tribunes are looking away or, more easily, in those areas subject to
acts the tribunes have no power about.

>
> In my opinion you are wrong on the first point about the power of

the Tribunes and vetoing religious decreta. You are right on the
second point in that our constitution is weak if simple decrees or
even ordinary laws can change the constitution in any way. To amend
the constitution requires "a Lex passed by the comitia centuriata and
approved by a vote of two thirds of the Senate. Simple legislation
or the of the act of any Magistrate (not including a Dictator) or
collegium does not meet this standard.

>
> The Constitution of Nova Roma limits the power of the Tribunes in

only two cases. They can pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto)
against the actions of any other magistrate with the exception of the
of the dictator and the interrex). NO WHERE does it say that a
Tribune can not veto the actions of the collegium pontificum. In fact
it clearly states they they CAN veto any religious decreta. The
constitution also states under the section on the Religio Romana
that while religious decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in
the comitia or by a Senatus consultum it does not include the
Tribunes in this section as being devoid of the power of veto on
religious matters.

>
> I quote the passage from the constitution below.
>
> Tribuni Plebis (Tribune of the Plebs). Five tribunes of the plebs

shall be elected by the comitia plebis tributa to serve a term
lasting one year. They must all be of the plebeian order, and shall
have the following honors, powers, and obligations:

> 1.. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the

actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator
and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious
decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and/or
letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta,
Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby;

> The Constitution also empowers the Tribunes to " administer the

law;" I interpret this to mean that we are bound by the constitution
and are expected, no required to insure that the constitution is
adhered to to the best of our abilities.

>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
>
>
>

Salvete omnes!

On this beautiful day I whish everybody all the best, wonderful
years and happy birthday!!!!

Salvete omnes!

Red as the blood in my Roman corpus,
White as Zeus's hair (when He's anthropomorphous),
Green as Cere's sheaves of growing wheat,
But BLUE is color which cannot be beat!

VENETA! VENETA! VENETA!

valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Red is beautiful,
> White is grand!
> But... green is the color
> Of the big victorious man!!
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "FAC" <sacro_barese_impero@l...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Omnes,
> > would you like win the next Ludi Circenses? Would you like to be
> the
> > next winner of the Ludi Floralia and Cerialia?
> > Choose the Factio Russata, became a red auriga and you could
> receive
> > glory and gifts!
> >
> > Subscribe the official mailing list and plan with us the next
> races
> > at http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/russata or contact me.
> >
> > The first red winner of the next Ludi will receive a little
> necklace
> > with a silver horse.
> >
> > And claim with us ...
> > RUSSATA RA RA RA
> > RUSSATA RA RA RA
> > RUSSATA RA RA RA
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> > Russatae Dominus

On this beautiful day I wish you all the best and happy
birthday!!!!!!!!!!

(I lost count of the attempts of sending this message in the last 24
hours... with Outlook, my webmail service or the novaroma post
option, still the message won't appear, so much I wonder if it's not
being blocked... anyway, sorry for duplications, in case)

Ave Omnes



and especially Pompeia Cornelia (you are too kind, your compliments,
altho surely undeserved, are extremely nice), Q. Cassius Calvus and,
belatedly, Palladius.



I owe a reply to Palladius first, as his original post came before
my first reply, but unluckily, while appearing twice in the mailing
list, it never made it to my mailbox, I guess for the same reasons
my posts usually take three attempts to reach the mailing list. He
resented what he thought was an purposefully intention of ignoring
him and so it's just fair I reply him first.



Now, with all due respect to your position of Founding Father, I
just have to state again that the personal intentions of a group of
people who create a legal document is only partially important, and
in this case on a secondary level, once the document is written and
made public. Books have been written about how, of the many
different methods on interpretation of a legal text, the so
called "historical" one is the least scientific and the one more
leading to unsatisfactory results.



Generally speaking, all the methods that require, in the
explaination of the content of a legal document, a call to something
external to the document itself are prone to a myriad of
inconsistencies. What if the Founding Fathers, as probable, were of
different opinions or shade of opinions on this or that point? And
what are the text that can be used to conduct such a search? The
logs of the works that brought to the approval of the document? The
public writings? The personal letters? The diaries? The writings of
the people who interacted with them? All of those, or some of hose
or others altogether?



No, Palladius, once the authors give life to a Constitution, or even
a lesser documents, that starts living a life of its own and just as
a father does with his son, they cannot pretend to recreate it, but
at most try to educate him, or in this case, correcting using the
rules they themselves have created for such a purpose. As parents,
the founders are bound to see their creature face the world on her
own legs, or have it grown overprotected, spoiled and eventually,
weak.



And that includes the Religio issue. Now I personally do not care in
this specific circumstance if the Religio was the very reason Nova
Roma was created, as you adfirm, or not. I do not think is relevant
at all in fact. Many have joined Nova Roma without not knowing it,
reading the Constitution and judging on that what they could expect
from this place, what would had been their rights and obligations
and are within their right to ask that the Constitution will be
respected by all parties. They have read that everything in the
Constitution can be changed by a law passed by the Comitia
Centuriata and confirmed by the Senate *and only by that* and
that "Should a lower authority conflict with a higher authority, the
higher authority shall take precedence." hence the laws passed but
contradicting the Constitution will be superseded by that. There's
no way out of it and therefore, again, the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum
ad the decree about blasphemy (among others) are unconstitutional
acts and are void and without power and I'm just about tempted to
put them to a practical test and see if the magistrates would choose
between the constitution and those unlawful acts.



You, Palladius, asked me if all this was just a mental exercise of
mine. Far from it. Just an attempt to bring legality in what it
appears to me, right now, to be an "association" with high ideals
and too many contradictions in its internal administration, that
claims to follow the laws it has given itself and then betries the
very ground rule, it's constitution.



And from here, I will address briefly Q. Cassius Calvus. Cassie, I'm
one of those few people coming out from a law faculty who doesn't
believe that something can be "technically" one way and yet be
practically in another. Maybe is the reason I didn't pursue a lawyer
career J seriously, tho, I agree with you and in fact my whole
reasoning here is not really a specific discussiong about the
Religio, but an attempt to bring (or maybe bring for the first
time?) Nova Romans to realize how easily their Constitution has been
and is being currently ignored.



That this was started on an issue regarding the Religio is a case
probably brought forward by the fact that an organization or country
whose "civil" constitution can be practically changed or the
freedoms in it restricted by a decree issued by a religious
institution, of any kind or faith, reminds me too closely of
countries I think most of us wouldn't like to live in the real world
in present times and that tickled me enough to start this thread
(even if, if anyone remember, a while ago I had pointed out the
disarray the Tabularium is in, and I hope that who at that time
answered me with assurances that was being worked upon is actually
doing the job, or I will once again volounteer for it).



To Pompeia, my regards and the promise I will find the time to reply
to her private email.



And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are
both unconstitutional.



Vale Bene



Domitius Constantinus Fuscus

PF Constantinia

Aediles Urbis

> You ask that no one be nice to you but rather be direct and to the
> point. Fair enough.
>
> I don't know who you think your opponents are, though obviously you
> wait pleasurably squirming with bated breath to receive a much

desired

> written lashing from them. Unfortunately, if any supposed opponent

of

> yours were even inclined to respond, they would be hard pressed to
> find a specific point of view to slice and dice among the deadwood

of

> generalized verbiage. If you want your posts read, let alone

responded

> to, try concision and precision.
>
> Vale,
>
> P

Salve

1. You responded
2. One other person responded.
3. Opponents? Well I waited to see who responded and the quality of
their replies.
4. I think I have my answer

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

No

Caesar

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:45 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The joys of battle!


Is that you Formy?

The Name is different, but the style and personality are the same.

Drusus



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes

One must take into account that while there is archaeological evidence
of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus. His "existence" is
equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.

valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49" <lovelyone49@y...>
> wrote:
> > Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He called
> > King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was clever,
> > and also could someone share with me about the different Herods of
> > the Roman Empire?
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Three members of Herod's family figure prominently from Augustus to
> the reign of Claudius. Herod the Great was the king during the reign
> of Augustus. When he died Herod Archelaus ruled in his place. Herod
> Antipas ruled Galilee during the time of Tiberius. He was the one
> most famous for getting drunk and horny at a party watching his sexy
> niece dance� then having a famous prophet's head brought on a
> platter to please her; bad manners by the standards of those times
> from what I read. Herod Antipas was also around for the
> Propraetorship of Pilate and there was much political intrigue from
> what we had all read.
>
> FOX. � Thus is usually rendered the Hebrew, sh�'�l, which signifies
> both fox and jackal, even the latter more often than the former. The
> fox, however, was well known by the ancient Hebrews, and its cunning
> and deadlliness was as proverbial among them as among us. Even in
> modern fairy tales the fox is shown as wise, cunning and trickful.
>
>
> Anyway it was well known that some of the Herod dynasty made people
> like Saddam and old Doc Duvalier look like amatures even by today's
> standards. For example it was said that you were safer being one of
> Herod's The Great's swines than one of his sons or close family
> members. He killed some of them off! On a more positive note he was
> a great architect and city planner; built that Caesaria On The Sea
> that is being excavated over the last decade or so.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> � To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> �
> � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> �
> � Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply to: Q. Fabius Maximus

Salve,



I think I noticed somewhere in the archives or elsewhere some mention of the need to avoid offensive language and the need to debate civilily etc. Does using the "a" word in response to a small offering that completely managed to avoid even the hint of profanity, constitute somewhat of a breach of policy, or is it just the use of the Anglo Saxon style of rhetorical skills? Please enlighten me so I can formulate future "orations" accordingly.



Actually rhetoric was what I was trying to inject in some small measure to this board. It has far more sophistication than short semi-abusive posts that smack of Anglo-Saxon crudity. I am sure being such a well known hard-line re-constructionist that you abhor the descent into the "fast food" style of debate. I count myself blessed that the first person to reply was your noble self with such a well thought out and witty reply. I tip my head in due deference to your obviously fine rhetorical skills. Were these honed in a formal setting, or did you acquire them in dribs and drabs as you went? I have heard you have the reputation as an amateur historian, so it is always a pleasure to discuss in such a civil manner the intricacies of significant moments in history with someone who takes time out to indulge a hobby. I always have felt the amateur should be encouraged and guided, who was your guide here as I may want to use him/her?



A demagogue in Nova Roma? Oh surely not? I mean the horror of it. I am sure the very virtual foundations of this noble experiment would collapse immediately. I am not too clear on the mechanics of how one of these vile creatures would flourish in a virtual world, where the threat of violence cannot be exerted. If you haven't read it, let me recommend Elias Canetti - Crowds and Power (1981 Nobel Laureate in Literature). Another good topic for debate!

Definition
demagogue, US ALSO demagog
noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting people's emotions rather than by having good ideas



We could have an interesting chat about that ghastly and odious (historical) clique of such luminaries as Bibulous and Cato aka the Boni, as to whether they fitted the definition, albeit being optimates and Boni. Lets see...oh yes they manipulated (or tried to) public opinion by strident personal attacks, often laced with abuse, on the character of amongst others Gaius Iulius Caesar.......



Well you are right, there are only just opinions, and how timely that such a person of standing as yourself in this community should clearly state that there are just "opinions" and therefore one assumes the logical (assuming you follow the path of logic) extrapolation of that is that everyone here has a right to a view, there is no wrong or right view and no "correct" and "approved" view? Well said sir for taking such a firm stand against some of the personal insults with no rhetorical style about them, we have all sadly witnessed recently.



You are so right, I do like to speak. I suppose it is because without speech, we have oligarchy. It is too sacred a gift not to employ, for you know what happens to things if you don't use them, you tend to loose them. I just wait in eager anticipation of learning a branch of the classical rhetorical style I was never trained in. I think your style appears too pithy, succinct and almost <gasp> barbarian Germanic in its style. I will go immediately to my local bookstore to search for an appropriate title, on it. Perhaps I will find it in the same section as Germanic drinking songs?



Well time to tear myself away from your noble reply; I trust I wasn't the cause of too many hours lost sleep composing this? I only ask because it appears in draft and unfinished form, lacking that normal "polish" of yours which must take hours to perfect; hours and hours and hours and hours. So were you half-asleep when you hit send? Was this accidental and you really meant to complete this later? If so I will wait a few weeks while you polish up the real offering. Such gems are always worth the wait aren't they?



Oh, by the way, nice photograph in the Album Gentium! The pose is very, umm well I am not too sure, it seems very "imperial" but I am sure that was not the impression you intended to display. What was the arm gesture? Was that a salute or were you holding the camera up to photograph yourself in the absence of friends? Not too sure that the rather confined hallway offers an appropriate setting for such a truly wonderful display of, well whatever it was meant to be. One small point, your tunic rides up a tad. Now call me picky but if you spent a lot of money on that you should post haste send it for alteration. I am sure you recovered quickly but it appears your foot was bandaged? I trust that wasn't from kicking slaves or plebeians around was it? <just joking - of course> Don't know whether I would have chosen a tunic, that is almost Greek. Why did you not wear the noble and simple toga, free from such un-roman decoration?



Anyway - your post it was - interesting, very. No..really it was......



Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

----- Original Message -----
From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The joys of battle!


Well, Well, Well, such a pretty speech Iulius cognomated Caesar. We are of
kin, since I too have hungered for Rome, a chance to see, experience, chat
with our Roman behind the door, to learn. And what have I learned?

Why, it doesn't matter what anybody says, no matter how educated, there are
always opinions, just like assholes, everyone has one. As for factions
destroying Rome, it was your namesake that put the final gladius thrust into the
Republic, finished that fine work of destruction, begin such a short time before
by Marius, and Cornelius Sulla. Of course without the Iulio/Claudians we would
have no republic records to read about 1700 years later. By forming their
Empire they assured that we would get to read the literature which allows us to
make the opinions that we so passionately debate.
But fear not Iulius cognomated Caesar, of factions ruining Rome. What would
ruin Rome is some deluded demagogue here to manipulate the people into doing
what is thought to be their bidding, when it is not. That would ruin Rome
faster than any faction strife could ever
do. Since you seem to like to hear yourself talk, I suspect we have not
heard the last of you.
More the pity.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus L. Iulio Sulla s. d.

Salve Sullae,

I have read with great interest the new interview that you offer to the list, and I wanted to collaborate with some questions:

1) What represent Augustus' epigraphic change for roman society? and what represent it specially for people of few economic resources?

2) Was Augustus' new epigraphic conception effective during the first three centuries of the Empire?

3) What characterize to the terza età of the epigraphy?

Vale bene,

Pompeianus.


Lucius Iulius <21aprile@...> wrote:
SALVETE CIVES ROMANI

Interview the Expert; just remember our monthly Expert:
Prof. Fem. Silvia Giorcelli Bersani (Professor at the University of
Torino, teaches Roman History and Latin Epigraphy) will answer to
your questions related to

LATIN EPIGRAPHY

So, enjoy this Expert, and start asking your questions, to:
21aprile AT email DOT it.

Visit our website:
http://www.novaroma.org/expert/index.htm

You have time till May the 10th!

VALETE!

L IUL SULLA
Academia Italica



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!: 6MB, más protección contra el spam ¡gratis!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

Can you clarify a point. The Lex appears to say that to be included as an official group then the terms of the lex have to be followed. It does not appear to preclude a group existing nor place restrictions on citizens from joining such groups.

Therefore I conclude that a non-official group could exist without sanctions on citizens joining it, but not being official could not attempt to portray itself as official nor use the trademarked SPQR logo?

The way you explained it, at first read to me anyway, could imply that all groups have to follow the terms of the lex. Yet what it actually says is that they can only be "inside" the official fold if they follow the conditions - all of which makes perfect sense.

A clarification maybe helpful as some citizens I have spoken to privately already appear somewhat confused by this?

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

----- Original Message -----
From: AthanasiosofSpfd@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] CONTINUUM is born !


Gaius Modius Athanasius C. Moravio Laureato Armorico SPD

Below is the text for the Lex that requires all groups within Nova Roma to
obtain senate approval (or approval via comitia). You are free to claim today
as the day you launched the idea, but the group cannot officially be considered
official until it has approval by a higher authority within our Republic.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Tribunus Plebis

LEX CASSIA DE CREATIONE SODALITATVM
I. A group or association, cultural, social, historical or political, created
by or involving Nova Romans shall be considered officially a part of Nova
Roma only by official recognition/approval by the Republic. Any such group that
wishes official recognition or status within Nova Roma must make a formal
application for inclusion. Until such an application is placed and granted by the
Senate or through vote in any one of the Comitia, all such groups are
considered completely separate from Nova Roma.
II. The above clause is also binding to all Religious groups, organizations
and associations involving Nova Roma Citizens, with the exception that they may
only apply to and be approved by the Collegium Pontificum. This is in accord
with section IV of the Nova Roma constitution which places all religious
associations under the authority of the Collegium Pontificum.
II. Organizations applying for recognition by Nova Roma must present a formal
charter and outline of intent before the Senate or to one of the Comitiae (or
if a religious group to the Collegium Pontificum.)
II. The charter for any group, organization or association applying for
recognition within Nova Roma must include:
A. A statement of intent (what the organization is about, and what it is
trying to achieve.)
B. An action plan outlining how it intends to achieve its goals.
C. An outline of its internal organization, hierarchy and offices.
IV. A group, organization or association approved for official inclusion into
the infrastructure of Nova Roma must adhere to the Constitution and Laws of
Nova Roma. An application for official recognition is therefore considered a
binding statement of intent to be governed by Nova Roma's laws, constitution and
legal government.


In a message dated 4/19/2004 4:56:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cornmoraviusl@... writes:
This is why we are launching today, after much thought, a group
called "continuum" for the study of the Romanitas : How it came
about, how it did evolve, how it influenced the modern western world,
and what we can learn from it. In studying the people we claim as our
ancestors we have the opportunity to analyse how they went about
resolving their problems with the invaluable advantage to know how it
all turned out.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "G.C." <dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:

>
> And the Decree about blasphemy and the Lex Iunia de Jusiurandum are
> both unconstitutional.

Section VI A of the Constitutions states
"The Religio Romana, the worship of the Gods and Goddesses of Rome,
shall be the official religion of Nova Roma. All magistrates and
Senators, as officers of the State, shall be required to publically
show respect for the Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that
made Rome great. Magistrates, Senators, and citizens need not be
practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in any
activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the
Religio Romana, or its practitioners."

So the Constitution itself states that citizens may not blaspheme The
Gods of Roma. The Decree about blasphemy is a statement from the
Pontifs on what is and isn't covered under this section of the
Constitution. Blasphemy is establihed as a crime in the Constitution,
but not defined. The Decree dosen't establish the crime, it ensures
that citizens know in advance what conduct will result in the Pontiffs
pressing charges of blasphemy. It is a self imposed limitation to an
open ended crime established in the Constitution.

L. Sicinius Drusus
Pontifex

Salve Octavi,

Well Jesus was a pretty everyday common Joe in those times so I
doubt no that more archeological evidence would exist for him any
more than it would for Pilate's stable master or the propriator of
an Tavern - Inn or Pilate's blacksmith. It is only from writings
which are often under debate as to their authenticy.

Christianity was just a tiny local sect during and after Christ's
ministry and we all know that it blossomed outward of the next 30 to
40 years thanks to the efforts of Saul Of Tarsus or Paul. Without
him the religion may have just stayed in the Palistine area or
fizzeled out to nothing. Now does anyone know if there is any hard
evidence that Paul existed other than from the writings?

With regards to the other gods, in my opinion most stories or myths
are certainly based on some kind of real situations or truths even
though hard evidence for their existance has faded away over time.
Were they great visionaries priests or some kind of super military
geniuses that turned frightened hunter gatherer societies into
civilizations? Are they lost in the mists of time fluxuating
between legend and possible reality somewhat like King Arthur.
Perhaps what it all boils down to is that they were revealed
themselves to man in order to give us a sense of direction, purpose
and conduct and show there are other planes of existance. No matter
what our particular belief is, religions are based on faith rather
than empirical evidence and the truths can never be scientifically
proven one way or another.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

PS - Don't forget about the Religio Romano Course coming up in
Thules. I expect there will be much discussion, research,
assignments and debates on these matters. Hope to see some of you
there!
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
<octavius@q...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes
>
> One must take into account that while there is archaeological

evidence

> of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.

His "existence" is

> equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
>
> valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael

Kelly)

> wrote:
>
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lovelyone49"

<lovelyone49@y...>

> > wrote:
> > > Could anyone share with me what Jesus Christ meant when He

called

> > > King Herod 'The Fox.' I think He meant that King Herod was

clever,

> > > and also could someone share with me about the different

Herods of

> > > the Roman Empire?
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Three members of Herod's family figure prominently from

Augustus to

> > the reign of Claudius. Herod the Great was the king during the

reign

> > of Augustus. When he died Herod Archelaus ruled in his place.

Herod

> > Antipas ruled Galilee during the time of Tiberius. He was the

one

> > most famous for getting drunk and horny at a party watching his

sexy

> > niece dance  then having a famous prophet's head brought on a
> > platter to please her; bad manners by the standards of those

times

> > from what I read. Herod Antipas was also around for the
> > Propraetorship of Pilate and there was much political intrigue

from

> > what we had all read.
> >
> > FOX. — Thus is usually rendered the Hebrew, shû'ãl, which

signifies

> > both fox and jackal, even the latter more often than the

former. The

> > fox, however, was well known by the ancient Hebrews, and its

cunning

> > and deadlliness was as proverbial among them as among us. Even

in

> > modern fairy tales the fox is shown as wise, cunning and

trickful.

> >
> >
> > Anyway it was well known that some of the Herod dynasty made

people

> > like Saddam and old Doc Duvalier look like amatures even by

today's

> > standards. For example it was said that you were safer being

one of

> > Herod's The Great's swines than one of his sons or close family
> > members. He killed some of them off! On a more positive note he

was

> > a great architect and city planner; built that Caesaria On The

Sea

> > that is being excavated over the last decade or so.
> >
> > I hope that helps.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> >  
> > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >  
> > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

Terms of

> > Service.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[posted with copy to original sender]

Salvete Quirites, et Salve Scapula Nivea,

You asked:

> I am curious if there are any chapters of Nova Roma that are
> specifically geared to college students, or that are based around a
> campus?

No, we don't currently have any local groups specifically based on a
given college campus. However, since your interest is in reenactment
groups, perhaps a post in the Sodalitas Militarium mailing list would
stir up some interest. I can point you toward it if you'd be interested.

Vale, and Valete,

-- Marinus

[posted with copy to original poster]

Salvete Quirites, et salve Cato,

G. Equitius Cato writes:

> Paulinus: I looked, but could not find, in the Constitution for
> a "statute of limitations" clause regarding the power of the
> Tribunes. Does this mean that right now, as of the moment of this
> posting, a Tribune could veto the decretum having to do
> with "blasphemy" that Fuscus has stated is unConstitutional?

It does not. Tribunician veto must occur within a specified time, which
I recall as being 72 hours.

But even if it were possible, I still find it extremely unlikely.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Omnes,

CulturalWeb, the official magazine of the Italian Cultural Ministry,
a wonderful source for cultural information in Italy, published an
interesting news today at
http://www.culturalweb.it/dettaglioxstampa.asp?ID_Articolo=14799
Today "Latinum: il latino facile, veloce e divertente" (Latinum: the
easy, fast and funny latin) have been opened in Rome. It is the
first latin school for foreigners and lovers of Roma Antiqua.
The article is in italian, but you can translate it with a web-tool.
If you have problems, please contact me, I'll happy to help you
translating the text

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

+++++++++++++

APRE A ROMA LA PRIMA SCUOLA DI LATINO PER STRANIERI
Nel programma anche storia, arte e gastronomia.
Aprira' nella capitale la prima scuola di latino per stranieri e per
appassionati della Roma antica.

Il progetto pilota, unico al mondo nel suo genere,
denominato "Latinum: il latino facile, veloce e divertente"sara'
presentato mercoledi' 21 aprile, presso la sala delle conferenze
della libreria Montecitorio. L'iniziativa e' stata finanziata lo
scorso anno grazie all'intervento dell'assessore alla Cultura della
Provincia di Roma, Paola Guerci, che sara' presente alla conferenza
stampa insieme all'attuale assessore alle Politiche Culturali e alla
Comunicazione, Vincenzo Vita. Invitato all'incontro anche Francesco
Storace. Il progetto e' patrocinato dalla Regione Lazio ed
organizzato dall'associazione "Il Regno di Camelot". I corsi sono
stati ideati per far apprendere ai turisti, in poche ore, i
rudimenti della lingua latina come numeri, frasi celebri ed
etimologia di parole tuttora di uso corrente. Il Gruppo Storico
Romano, inoltre, offrira' agli iscritti l'opportunita' di gustare
piatti tipici e di partecipare a manifestazioni in
stile "gladiatorio". Alle lezioni, totalmente gratuite, saranno
abbinate anche sintetiche spiegazioni relative alla storia, al
diritto, all'arte ed allo stile di vita degli antichi romani.

a cura della Redazione CulturalWeb

G. Equitius Cato Quintus Lanius Paulinus quiritibusque S.P.D.

salvete,

With all due respect, that is a ridiculously un-historical
statement. I find it difficult to believe that an educated person in
the present day could seriously try to bring up that old bag of
tricks. The question was not about Jesus' existence, and an attempt
to add in ludicrously offensive material is unworthy of this forum.
For the record, here are a couple of references you might consider...

Tacitus' Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of
considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been
lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial
of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. Jesus and the Christians
are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after
Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's
fire of 64 AD:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the
bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which
could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the
infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire
of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the
guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities.
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius
Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not
only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the
city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every
part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly,
an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their
information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the
crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." - Annals,
XV.44

Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery, for the
evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage. The
passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy
of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none
dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is
so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have
written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is so
strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the
sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin - and
it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish
and anti-Christian bias.
If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been --
without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument
centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it would
not have gone away quietly and without notice, especially not in a
collectivist society; and one with the care and concern of Tacitus
for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this effect,
it would have been a strike against him, and made him a laughingstock
before his peers (in an age, again, when honor and shame were the
primary motivators); and someone who does such careless things once
is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes.
He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This mitigates
against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological head
of Christianity.
He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign of
Tiberius.
He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time.
This would hint at the probability that Christianity was recognized
to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the
name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This mitigates
against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan
religious ideas.
He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were dying
for their faith.

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His
correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on
proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his
supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse
Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He also
described their actions and practices thusly:

"They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their
error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed
day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to
Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any
wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never
to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called
upon to deliver it up."

Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference more
valuable than we might suppose. Pliny, prior to being a governor,
held a position as a state priest - the same position held somewhat
earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an
overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a quote
from Cicero, those who aspired to this position ought to be
distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the good
administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of
religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard the
wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the know"
about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized
as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something
about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore likely that,
while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand,
he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus'
existence.


Lucian of Samosata, a second century satirist, spoke scornfully of
Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of
Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in
Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ...
Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all
brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by
denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified sophist
himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus

Suetonius talks of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in the reign
of Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he expelled
them from Rome" - Life of Claudius


"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by
several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the
beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica

"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do
not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of
Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity
of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-
myth' theories."
- F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at
Manchester University.

Hope this helps.

valete,

Cato Fanaticus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
<octavius@q...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes
>
> One must take into account that while there is archaeological

evidence

> of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.

His "existence" is

> equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
>
> valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael > >
> > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> >  
> > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >  
> > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

Terms of

> > Service.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 4/21/04 11:33:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gnaeus_iulius_caesar@... writes:

> Therefore I conclude that a non-official group could exist without
> sanctions on citizens joining it, but not being official could not attempt to portray
> itself as official nor use the trademarked SPQR logo?
>
>

Of course anyone can have a gathering of like minded people here in NR.
All that the recognition of the Senate grants you is a possibility to ask for
funding, and
your ability to legally use NR and its trademarks in your public gatherings.

Q. Fabius Maximus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes.

I am looking for the Latin version of a very famous phrase by Saint
Augustine. in English it reads:

"Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one
of the thieves was damned."


Quintus Caelius Urbanus

Gaius Popillius Laenas Gnaeus Iulius Caesar S.P.D.

If this response to your posts lands me on the list of
your "opponents" so be it, but I have to ask why you begin your
appearance in the Forum seemingly spoiling for a fight?

As someone who joined Nova Roma less than a month ago you already
have a "bone to pick" with the "Boni"? As far as I can remember,
the existence of such a group has not even been mentioned here since
the summer of last year. How is it that you (apparently) already
have an agenda, and that you are so sure it conflicts with that of
the boogeymen Boni?

Slavete Omnes,

Who would I contact regarding pictures on Album Civium? I have a picture
now, but I want to change it. Please let me know. Thanks.

BENE.VALE.
MANENS.IN.AMORE.ROMAE.
ET.FORTIS.IN.FIDE.
ET.DOMINVS.SODALITATIS.GEOGRAPHIAE.
NOVAE.ROMAE.ET.AVXILIORVM.LEGIONIS.XXIVAE.MA.
GN.SCRIBONIVS.SCRIPTOR.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Scriboni89@a... wrote:

> Slavete Omnes,
>
> Who would I contact regarding pictures on Album Civium? I have

a picture

> now, but I want to change it. Please let me know. Thanks.
>
> BENE.VALE.
> MANENS.IN.AMORE.ROMAE.
> ET.FORTIS.IN.FIDE.
> ET.DOMINVS.SODALITATIS.GEOGRAPHIAE.
> NOVAE.ROMAE.ET.AVXILIORVM.LEGIONIS.XXIVAE.MA.
> GN.SCRIBONIVS.SCRIPTOR.

Salve Gnae Scriboni.

Send it to webmaster@...

Vale,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve Gaius Popillius Laenas,

Multas Gratias! I think thats right... :-/.....


BENE.VALE.
MANENS.IN.AMORE.ROMAE.
ET.FORTIS.IN.FIDE.
ET.DOMINVS.SODALITATIS.GEOGRAPHIAE.
NOVAE.ROMAE.ET.AVXILIORVM.LEGIONIS.XXIVAE.MA.
GN.SCRIBONIVS.SCRIPTOR.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Cato,

Please reread what I said. People get there shirt in a not for
nothing and miss the point when something is not read carefully.

The point is that there is all the writings you mention; I've seen
them all before and mentioned them on other forums ; Pliney,
Tacitus, Josephus and all.

I just was commenting on a previous post that said unlike Herod,
there is no hard physical archeological evidence such as epitaths,
tombs, real articles or reams of independent writings, details or
memoirs like there are in great detail, monuments and art for
Caesar, Marcus Aurelius. That seems to leave a lot of room for
debate and argument.

Personally I believe he existed as a historical figure, I stand by
my comments that Paul was the big driving force in the spread of the
religion and even that was drilled into us by Jesuit Theologens.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato Quintus Lanius Paulinus quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> salvete,
>
> With all due respect, that is a ridiculously un-historical
> statement. I find it difficult to believe that an educated person
in
> the present day could seriously try to bring up that old bag of
> tricks. The question was not about Jesus' existence, and an
attempt
> to add in ludicrously offensive material is unworthy of this
forum.
> For the record, here are a couple of references you might
consider...
>
> Tacitus' Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of
> considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has
been
> lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the
trial
> of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. Jesus and the
Christians
> are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after
> Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after
Rome's
> fire of 64 AD:
>
> "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the
> bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements
which
> could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the
> infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the
fire
> of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the
> guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their
enormities.
> Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius
> Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
> pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not
> only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the
> city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from
every
> part of the world find their center and become popular.
Accordingly,
> an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon
their
> information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of
the
> crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." - Annals,
> XV.44
>
> Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery, for the
> evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage.
The
> passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known
copy
> of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none
> dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone
is
> so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could
have
> written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is
so
> strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in
the
> sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin -
and
> it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-
Jewish
> and anti-Christian bias.
> If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been --
> without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument
> centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it
would
> not have gone away quietly and without notice, especially not in a
> collectivist society; and one with the care and concern of Tacitus
> for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this
effect,
> it would have been a strike against him, and made him a
laughingstock
> before his peers (in an age, again, when honor and shame were the
> primary motivators); and someone who does such careless things
once
> is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes.
> He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This
mitigates
> against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological
head
> of Christianity.
> He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign
of
> Tiberius.
> He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time.
> This would hint at the probability that Christianity was
recognized
> to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the
> name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
> He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This
mitigates
> against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan
> religious ideas.
> He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were
dying
> for their faith.
>
> Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His
> correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report
on
> proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his
> supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse
> Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He
also
> described their actions and practices thusly:
>
> "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their
> error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain
fixed
> day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn
to
> Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to
any
> wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery,
never
> to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be
called
> upon to deliver it up."
>
> Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference
more
> valuable than we might suppose. Pliny, prior to being a governor,
> held a position as a state priest - the same position held
somewhat
> earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an
> overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a quote
> from Cicero, those who aspired to this position ought to be
> distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the good
> administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of
> religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard the
> wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the know"
> about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was
recognized
> as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something
> about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore likely
that,
> while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-
hand,
> he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus'
> existence.
>
>
> Lucian of Samosata, a second century satirist, spoke scornfully of
> Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues
of
> Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in
> Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ...
> Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were
all
> brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all
by
> denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified sophist
> himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus
>
> Suetonius talks of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in the
reign
> of Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the
> instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he
expelled
> them from Rome" - Life of Claudius
>
>
> "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
> opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
> which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by
> several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at
the
> beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica
>
> "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they
do
> not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of
> Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the
historicity
> of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-
> myth' theories."
> - F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis
at
> Manchester University.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> valete,
>
> Cato Fanaticus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes
> >
> > One must take into account that while there is archaeological
> evidence
> > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.
> His "existence" is
> > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
> >
> > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael > >
> > > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> > >  
> > > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >  
> > > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes,

I Ask each of you to please respect the beliefs of your fellow
citizens on matters of Religion. I Can't think of any profit that Nova
Roma can possibly derive from a heated debate over the existance or
divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, or of any way that angering many of our
fellow citizens is going to benifit the Religio Romana.

Some of our citizens have strong feelings on this mater one way or
another. No ammount of heated debate is going to change these people's
minds, all it's going to do is cause strife between us.

There is nothing I can do to prevent this from being discussed other
than advising against this topic on this forum, but if you insist in
doing so please try to show respect for your Fellow Nova Roman's
deeply felt beleifs.

L. Sicinius Drusus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
<octavius@q...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes
>
> One must take into account that while there is archaeological evidence
> of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus. His "existence" is
> equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
>
> valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
> wrote:
>

Salvete Quirites,

I fully endorse this reasonable request by L. Sicinius Drusus.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Lucius Sicinius Drusus <drusus@...> writes:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I Ask each of you to please respect the beliefs of your fellow
> citizens on matters of Religion. I Can't think of any profit that Nova
> Roma can possibly derive from a heated debate over the existance or
> divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, or of any way that angering many of our
> fellow citizens is going to benifit the Religio Romana.
>
> Some of our citizens have strong feelings on this mater one way or
> another. No ammount of heated debate is going to change these people's
> minds, all it's going to do is cause strife between us.
>
> There is nothing I can do to prevent this from being discussed other
> than advising against this topic on this forum, but if you insist in
> doing so please try to show respect for your Fellow Nova Roman's
> deeply felt beleifs.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes
> >
> > One must take into account that while there is archaeological evidence
> > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus. His "existence" is
> > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
> >
> > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
> > wrote:
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve Druse,

You are correct. I did slip on this one today. I'll drop this
subject; besides I have to hit the road in 10 minutes for a
conference in Calgary. Thank you for the reminder!

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes,
>
> I Ask each of you to please respect the beliefs of your fellow
> citizens on matters of Religion. I Can't think of any profit that

Nova

> Roma can possibly derive from a heated debate over the existance or
> divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, or of any way that angering many of

our

> fellow citizens is going to benifit the Religio Romana.
>
> Some of our citizens have strong feelings on this mater one way or
> another. No ammount of heated debate is going to change these

people's

> minds, all it's going to do is cause strife between us.
>
> There is nothing I can do to prevent this from being discussed

other

> than advising against this topic on this forum, but if you insist

in

> doing so please try to show respect for your Fellow Nova Roman's
> deeply felt beleifs.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes
> >
> > One must take into account that while there is archaeological

evidence

> > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.

His "existence" is

> > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
> >
> > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael

Kelly)

> > wrote:
> >

Reply to Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve,

Of course just responding to a post doesn't classify you as an
opponent, at least not to me. Your post is relevant and certainly
deserves an answer. It was at least civil.

1. Regarding my date of joining: apart from the moderation placed on
new members posts, I am unaware of any requirement to refrain
entering into any aspect of life in NR, even if it involves
contentious debate.

2. I have some concerns over the path of literal and hard-line
reconstruction as came to the fore in the recent debates over
sacrifices.

3. The Boni have a clearly established position on reconstruction –
in that they are very literal and very "hard line". I take "hard
line" to be defined as inflexible and immovable to the point that
people who have posted views to the contrary have found themselves
the focus of return posts and emails the general tone of which
is "if you leave you won't be missed", because these posters (often,
but not exclusively, new citizens) have not demonstrated sufficient
zeal for a "return to basics".

4. In the recent debate on sacrifice this was once more evident, and
a number of new citizens came away feeling scorched. There is a
general dissatisfaction amongst these people directly affected and
others that watched this unfold that the lack of any civility,
comradeship or friendly debate was totally unnecessary and without
reasonable excuse (firmly held religious opinions notwithstanding).

5. Just because the Boni have not been mentioned nor posted openly
does not mean that they are not "alive and kicking". They were
never, it would appear, a group given to formal meetings, policy
statements and a "party" style of operation, where they made
themselves available for debate. They were a faction that relied on
using those who identified as Boni in positions of in the Senate and
elsewhere to propel their agenda and candidates behind the scenes.

6. I am ready to debate openly with anyone. I would prefer that the
Boni came out from the shadows which they prefer to operate in, step
to the front, clearly identify who they are, what they believe in
and how they hope to achieve it. Being new of course I doubt that
the Boni care little for what I think or others. Sadly I think they
see new citizens as a really objectionable result of having to
extend membership outside of an approved set of applicants. I think
that would be a far more honest and honourable approach for people
who unlike others, have access to the "corridors of power" in Nova
Roma.

7. As new citizens we are tolerated by the Boni and their adherents
if we either say nothing, say nothing of relevance to anything the
Boni have a platform on, or if we become adherents / puppets of the
founding members of the Boni.

8. Reconstruction as you have seen is an emotive issue. It is also
very significant. Broadly put there are two "camps"; the "I don't
care what anyone thinks" camp that believes there are no limits on
turning the clock back and the "what will the rest of the world
think camp". Both camps include people who passionately believe in
their position. The significant difference to date has been that the
former have been extremely uncivil in attitude and don't seem to
care a whit if people consider that there are limits beyond which
they could not travel with a reconstructionist Nova Roma. They seem
almost eager for such people to leave.

9. If the only way to engage those people who have been Boni, still
are Boni and always will be, was to stand up here and post an
impassioned appeal to think of being Roman as something other than a
literal adherence to social standards that died long before the
final assault on Rome's walls began. Being Roman, to me at least,
has a lot to do with attitude and it was not the attitude of harsh
unthinking near brute savagery, but is much more and considerably
more complex than gladiators, slavery, and other more brutal aspects
of how popular mediums today depict life as a Roman (or under Roman
rule). You can understand there is a general concern as to how far
the Boni would take Nova Roma if they had the chance down this hard-
line route. What limits, if any would apply? It is hard to ascertain
when they operate in the shadows.

10. You will note that of the two main initial replies I had, one
wandered off topic and included an unnecessary departure from basic
rules on civilized debate (you can be provocative, sarcastic,
cutting – all the things I was willing to take on the chin) but you
don't have to start to verge into the use of near profanity. The
least you can say about that reply was that it was poorly done for
someone of such reputed talent. The other reply exhorted me to be
brief lest no one pay any attention. Sadly I doubt that person
would have paid attention had I composed one line that said it all.
I am afraid Romanitias and the direction of Nova Roma is too
important to have all the vim sucked out of debate.

11. Frankly I don't mind if people didn't like the style or the
content. It was my right to post on an issue of concern, and if an
implied message in your post was – you haven't been here long enough
to judge; how long does it take someone to recognize uncivil
behaviour, contempt for other's opinions, and a total unwillingness
to engage in discourse and dialogue? It doesn't take most people
very long. If then the expectation is that I just sit back
and "watch, listen and learn", then sadly I decline that route of
appeasement and wilful "Nelsonian blindness". I really don't want to
take the analogy into emotive waters, so I will close that point by
saying that in the 20th century many Western nations were
horrendously guilty at a governmental, as well as popular, level of
that blindness to wrongs and injustice. Life is too short to sit
back and allow others to drive the bus towards the cliff, just
because you only got on at the last stop.

12. It is my honest contention, and that of others who have been
here far longer, that until this almost subversive element in the
upper reaches of Nova Roman life is drawn out into the light, maybe
kicking and struggling along the way, and is presented to people as
a clear unambiguous choice for the future direction of Nova Roma, we
are just putting off the inevitable decision.

I trust that sheds a little light on why I posted my original
message.

Vale
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

How many times has this issue been discussed before? Really. I guess we
might all just be wasting our breath since I doubt anyone will be convincing someone
to the contrary of their firmly held beliefs.

Nevertheless I find the need to comment on some of Cato's statements. In fact,
I would like to comment on his entire 'article' which is filled with some truly ridiculous
arguments and leaps of logic that are astounding(if not original).

Cato Wrote:

>With all due respect, that is a ridiculously un-historical
>statement. I find it difficult to believe that an educated person in
>the present day could seriously try to bring up that old bag of
>tricks. The question was not about Jesus' existence, and an attempt
>to add in ludicrously offensive material is unworthy of this forum.
>For the record, here are a couple of references you might consider...

The statement which you are referring to is not ridiculous. Why would you claim that
it is? Simply because you do not agree with it? Nice ploy there of saying that an
'educated' person wouldn't doubt the existence of Jesus. I would also like to know where
you find your ludicrously offensive material, as you called it? Yes, now let's look at your references.

>Tacitus' Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of
>considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been
>lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial
>of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. Jesus and the Christians
>are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after
>Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's
>fire of 64 AD:

What does this really prove? That there were Christians? That has never been
the issue here, we can all see them. I'd like to quote from an article which really
sums this up better than I can:

"It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus."

Why do you put such stock in what Tactius said? You yourself claim that he also
said that Christians committed atrocities? Do you believe that? Do you believe that
the Greco-Roman gods really exist because Tacitus also speaks of them? Or do you
simply take the part which you want to believe and hold that forward as 'evidence'?

Cato said:

>He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This mitigates
>against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological head
>of Christianity.
>He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign of
>Tiberius.

??? How does that mitigate the idea that Paul was the ideological head
of Christianity? A simple reading of the Bible will show you that. So does more revent
evidence such as the dead sea scrolls, which prove that the form of Christianity which
survived into the Roman Empire and to this day was the sort developed by Paul.

Secondly, Tacitus does not confirm his execution. He is simply saying what the Christians
said happened, since, as noted in the quote above, Christian writings were already in circulation
when Tacitus wrote. Remember, he was saying who the Christians were and what they BELIEVED,
not what he knew (or could have known) was historical fact or not.

Cato said:

>He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This mitigates
>against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan
>religious ideas.

How? Simply because a movement starts at a certain 'source' does not mean that
it doesn't accrue other influences. The pagan influences on the development of Christianity
and Christian theology are well attested, even in ancient times. But that is a whole other
subject.

Regarding Pliny, Cato said:

>In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized
>as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something
>about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore likely that,
>while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand,
>he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus'
>existence.

What a leap of logic here! How on earth can you come to the conclusion that
because Pliny had second-hand knowledge of Christianity and Christian beliefs
that he somehow had firsthand knowldege of facts surrounding Jesus' existence?
Please elaborate, since that is not at all made clear in your writing.

Let me quote that article i referred to above again:

'Thus it provides nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment. It provides no evidence of an historical Jesus.'

Cato said:

>Lucian of Samosata, a second century satirist, spoke scornfully of
>Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues of
>Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in
>Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ...
>Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all
>brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by
>denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified sophist
>himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus

I'm glad to see that you turn to satirists for historical evidence! Once again,
this proves NOTHING! The only thing it tells us is that there were Christians
and they believed in someone they called Christ! Please, tell me how a second
century joke about Christians proves that Jesus existed? Do you believe historical
references to followers of Bacchus to prove that Bacchus exists? You might want
to look up Livy, who goes into a lot of detail surrounding the Bacchanalia conspiracy
and its suppression. Surely you see that your logic is failing you here.

Cato said:

>Suetonius talks of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in the reign
>of Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the
>instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he expelled
>them from Rome" - Life of Claudius

Let me be lazy again and quote once more:

'The passage in question is Claudius 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus. Jesus was supposed to have been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during the reign of Tiberias and, moreover, he was never supposed to have been in Rome! Suetonius lived during the period c. 75 - 150 C.E. and his book, Lives of the Caesars, was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E., having been written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and so we cannot be certain of its accuracy. The name Chrestus is derived from the Greek Chrestos meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or Christus which are derived from the Greek Christos meaning "anointed one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent. Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Christos were often confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah. This person may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may not even have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E., and the passage may be referring to his followers in Rome. Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. Thus we may conclude that Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.'

Another quote:

'Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.'

And another:

'John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.'

Enough said.


Cato said:

>"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do
>not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of
>Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity
>of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-
>myth' theories."
>- F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at
>Manchester University.

Not surprising that he would said that, since 'the late F.F. Bruce, [was] regarded by many
as the prince of conservative evangelical scholars'.



Contrary to what you might trying to prove with your quotes from the professor and from
the encyclopedia, there exists absolutely no consensus within the academic and historical
community on the existence of Jesus. So much for your own 'old bag of tricks'.

I'd be happy to debate this further with you or with anyone else.

Some of the articles which I quoted:

REFUTING MISSIONARIES by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

DID JESUS EXIST by Frank R. Zindler

DID A HISTORICAL JESUS EXIST? by Jim Walker


THE DIVINITY OF JESUS - HISTORICAL FACT OR RELIGIOUS MYTH?

By Robert D. Brinsmead

I'll gladly provide links if you wish.


Valete,

Lucius Cornelius Cicero

INTERPRETER(Afrikaans)
SCRIBA GENII DOCTRINAE PHILOSOPHIAE (Academia Thules)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve Quinte Caeli Urbane!

It is difficult to answer this question, as that quote comes not from
a translation of Augustine, but from the writings of Samuel Beckett,
and many have speculated that it is not authentic. There is, however,
a similar phrase in Augustine's "De Symbolo ad Catechumenos", which
runs "Let the good man fear lest he perish through pride; let the evil
man not despair of his many wicked acts." I'm afraid that I don't have
the Latin text, but you can find it in the Patrologiae Latina.

Vale,

Flavius Claudius Aurelius

Salvete omnes

Me too. No offense intended, Paulinus.

valete

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salve Druse,
>
> You are correct. I did slip on this one today. I'll drop this
> subject; besides I have to hit the road in 10 minutes for a
> conference in Calgary. Thank you for the reminder!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> <drusus@b...> wrote:
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > I Ask each of you to please respect the beliefs of your fellow
> > citizens on matters of Religion. I Can't think of any profit that
> Nova
> > Roma can possibly derive from a heated debate over the existance

or

> > divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, or of any way that angering many

of

> our
> > fellow citizens is going to benifit the Religio Romana.
> >
> > Some of our citizens have strong feelings on this mater one way or
> > another. No ammount of heated debate is going to change these
> people's
> > minds, all it's going to do is cause strife between us.
> >
> > There is nothing I can do to prevent this from being discussed
> other
> > than advising against this topic on this forum, but if you insist
> in
> > doing so please try to show respect for your Fellow Nova Roman's
> > deeply felt beleifs.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> > <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > > Salvete omnes
> > >
> > > One must take into account that while there is archaeological
> evidence
> > > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.
> His "existence" is
> > > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
> > >
> > > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
> Kelly)
> > > wrote:
> > >

G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanius Paulinus S.P.D.

salve Paulinus,

You are correct and I apologize; I meant to reply directly to the
post by Lucius Calpurnius Piso but got confused with the names. No
offense intended.

vale,

Cato Fanaticus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> Salve Cato,
>
> Please reread what I said. People get there shirt in a not for
> nothing and miss the point when something is not read carefully.
>
> The point is that there is all the writings you mention; I've seen
> them all before and mentioned them on other forums ; Pliney,
> Tacitus, Josephus and all.
>
> I just was commenting on a previous post that said unlike Herod,
> there is no hard physical archeological evidence such as epitaths,
> tombs, real articles or reams of independent writings, details or
> memoirs like there are in great detail, monuments and art for
> Caesar, Marcus Aurelius. That seems to leave a lot of room for
> debate and argument.
>
> Personally I believe he existed as a historical figure, I stand by
> my comments that Paul was the big driving force in the spread of

the

> religion and even that was drilled into us by Jesuit Theologens.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> > G. Equitius Cato Quintus Lanius Paulinus quiritibusque S.P.D.
> >
> > salvete,
> >
> > With all due respect, that is a ridiculously un-historical
> > statement. I find it difficult to believe that an educated

person

> in
> > the present day could seriously try to bring up that old bag of
> > tricks. The question was not about Jesus' existence, and an
> attempt
> > to add in ludicrously offensive material is unworthy of this
> forum.
> > For the record, here are a couple of references you might
> consider...
> >
> > Tacitus' Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of
> > considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has
> been
> > lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the
> trial
> > of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. Jesus and the
> Christians
> > are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after
> > Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after
> Rome's
> > fire of 64 AD:
> >
> > "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the
> > bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements
> which
> > could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the
> > infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the
> fire
> > of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the
> > guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their
> enormities.
> > Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius
> > Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
> > pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again,

not

> > only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through

the

> > city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from
> every
> > part of the world find their center and become popular.
> Accordingly,
> > an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon
> their
> > information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of
> the
> > crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." -

Annals,

> > XV.44
> >
> > Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery, for the
> > evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage.
> The
> > passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known
> copy
> > of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none
> > dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone
> is
> > so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could
> have
> > written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is
> so
> > strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in
> the
> > sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin -
> and
> > it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-
> Jewish
> > and anti-Christian bias.
> > If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been --
> > without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and argument
> > centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it
> would
> > not have gone away quietly and without notice, especially not in

a

> > collectivist society; and one with the care and concern of

Tacitus

> > for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this
> effect,
> > it would have been a strike against him, and made him a
> laughingstock
> > before his peers (in an age, again, when honor and shame were the
> > primary motivators); and someone who does such careless things
> once
> > is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes.
> > He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This
> mitigates
> > against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological
> head
> > of Christianity.
> > He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign
> of
> > Tiberius.
> > He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time.
> > This would hint at the probability that Christianity was
> recognized
> > to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the
> > name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
> > He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This
> mitigates
> > against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan
> > religious ideas.
> > He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were
> dying
> > for their faith.
> >
> > Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His
> > correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a

report

> on
> > proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his
> > supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse
> > Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He
> also
> > described their actions and practices thusly:
> >
> > "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their
> > error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain
> fixed
> > day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn
> to
> > Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to
> any
> > wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery,
> never
> > to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be
> called
> > upon to deliver it up."
> >
> > Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference
> more
> > valuable than we might suppose. Pliny, prior to being a governor,
> > held a position as a state priest - the same position held
> somewhat
> > earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an
> > overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a

quote

> > from Cicero, those who aspired to this position ought to be
> > distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the good
> > administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of
> > religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard the
> > wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the know"
> > about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was
> recognized
> > as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know

something

> > about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore likely
> that,
> > while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-
> hand,
> > he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus'
> > existence.
> >
> >
> > Lucian of Samosata, a second century satirist, spoke scornfully

of

> > Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the synagogues
> of
> > Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified in
> > Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world ...
> > Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were
> all
> > brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all
> by
> > denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified sophist
> > himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus
> >
> > Suetonius talks of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in the
> reign
> > of Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at

the

> > instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he
> expelled
> > them from Rome" - Life of Claudius
> >
> >
> > "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
> > opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
> > which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds

by

> > several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at
> the
> > beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica
> >
> > "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they
> do
> > not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity

of

> > Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the
> historicity
> > of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-
> > myth' theories."
> > - F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and

exegesis

> at
> > Manchester University.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > valete,
> >
> > Cato Fanaticus
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> > <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > > Salvete omnes
> > >
> > > One must take into account that while there is archaeological
> > evidence
> > > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.
> > His "existence" is
> > > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and Mithras.
> > >
> > > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael >
>
> > > > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> > > >  
> > > > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an

email to:

> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >  
> > > > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the

Yahoo!

> > Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi There Cato,

Thanks Cato, none taken. All the citizens that post here sure have
heads on their shoulders and debates are always most challenging.
I don't always see when we head for thin ice on certain subjects so
I do my best to respect the suggestions of the moderators or others
who point out when things may be going astray.

I'm off now; meanwhile you have a great weekend!

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanius Paulinus S.P.D.
>
> salve Paulinus,
>
> You are correct and I apologize; I meant to reply directly to the
> post by Lucius Calpurnius Piso but got confused with the names.
No
> offense intended.
>
> vale,
>
> Cato Fanaticus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus
(Michael
> Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:
> > Salve Cato,
> >
> > Please reread what I said. People get there shirt in a not for
> > nothing and miss the point when something is not read carefully.
> >
> > The point is that there is all the writings you mention; I've
seen
> > them all before and mentioned them on other forums ; Pliney,
> > Tacitus, Josephus and all.
> >
> > I just was commenting on a previous post that said unlike Herod,
> > there is no hard physical archeological evidence such as
epitaths,
> > tombs, real articles or reams of independent writings, details
or
> > memoirs like there are in great detail, monuments and art for
> > Caesar, Marcus Aurelius. That seems to leave a lot of room for
> > debate and argument.
> >
> > Personally I believe he existed as a historical figure, I stand
by
> > my comments that Paul was the big driving force in the spread of
> the
> > religion and even that was drilled into us by Jesuit Theologens.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:
> > > G. Equitius Cato Quintus Lanius Paulinus quiritibusque S.P.D.
> > >
> > > salvete,
> > >
> > > With all due respect, that is a ridiculously un-historical
> > > statement. I find it difficult to believe that an educated
> person
> > in
> > > the present day could seriously try to bring up that old bag
of
> > > tricks. The question was not about Jesus' existence, and an
> > attempt
> > > to add in ludicrously offensive material is unworthy of this
> > forum.
> > > For the record, here are a couple of references you might
> > consider...
> > >
> > > Tacitus' Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of
> > > considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has
> > been
> > > lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the
> > trial
> > > of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. Jesus and the
> > Christians
> > > are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after
> > > Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after
> > Rome's
> > > fire of 64 AD:
> > >
> > > "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the
> > > bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements
> > which
> > > could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from
the
> > > infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration,
the
> > fire
> > > of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with
the
> > > guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their
> > enormities.
> > > Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius
> > > Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the
> > > pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again,
> not
> > > only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through
> the
> > > city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from
> > every
> > > part of the world find their center and become popular.
> > Accordingly,
> > > an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon
> > their
> > > information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much
of
> > the
> > > crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." -
> Annals,
> > > XV.44
> > >
> > > Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery, for the
> > > evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this
passage.
> > The
> > > passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every
known
> > copy
> > > of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and
none
> > > dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian
tone
> > is
> > > so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could
> > have
> > > written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity
is
> > so
> > > strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for
in
> > the
> > > sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad
Latin -
> > and
> > > it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-
> > Jewish
> > > and anti-Christian bias.
> > > If there had been no historical Jesus, there would have been --

> > > without a doubt -- a "ripple" effect of accusation and
argument
> > > centered on this subject. Had such a ripple effect existed, it
> > would
> > > not have gone away quietly and without notice, especially not
in
> a
> > > collectivist society; and one with the care and concern of
> Tacitus
> > > for accuracy would have noticed it. And if he had missed this
> > effect,
> > > it would have been a strike against him, and made him a
> > laughingstock
> > > before his peers (in an age, again, when honor and shame were
the
> > > primary motivators); and someone who does such careless things
> > once
> > > is enormously likely to do it again, and make more mistakes.
> > > He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This
> > mitigates
> > > against ideas that Paul or some other person was the
ideological
> > head
> > > of Christianity.
> > > He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the
reign
> > of
> > > Tiberius.
> > > He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a
time.
> > > This would hint at the probability that Christianity was
> > recognized
> > > to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the
> > > name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
> > > He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This
> > mitigates
> > > against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from
pagan
> > > religious ideas.
> > > He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were
> > dying
> > > for their faith.
> > >
> > > Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His
> > > correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a
> report
> > on
> > > proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to
his
> > > supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians
to "curse
> > > Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He
> > also
> > > described their actions and practices thusly:
> > >
> > > "They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or
their
> > > error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a
certain
> > fixed
> > > day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a
hymn
> > to
> > > Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not
to
> > any
> > > wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery,
> > never
> > > to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be
> > called
> > > upon to deliver it up."
> > >
> > > Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this
reference
> > more
> > > valuable than we might suppose. Pliny, prior to being a
governor,
> > > held a position as a state priest - the same position held
> > somewhat
> > > earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as
an
> > > overseer in the state religion. As Wilken further notes in a
> quote
> > > from Cicero, those who aspired to this position ought to be
> > > distinguished citizens who would "safeguard religion by the
good
> > > administration of the state and safeguard the wise conduct of
> > > religion." A member of the priesthood, in order to "safeguard
the
> > > wise conduct of religion," should be expected to be "in the
know"
> > > about religion. In light of the fact that Christianity was
> > recognized
> > > as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know
> something
> > > about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore
likely
> > that,
> > > while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-
> > hand,
> > > he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus'
> > > existence.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lucian of Samosata, a second century satirist, spoke
scornfully
> of
> > > Christ and the Christians. He connected them with the
synagogues
> > of
> > > Palestine and alluded to Christ as: "the man who was crucified
in
> > > Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the
world ...
> > > Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they
were
> > all
> > > brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for
all
> > by
> > > denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that cruicified
sophist
> > > himself and living under his laws." - The Passing Peregrinus
> > >
> > > Suetonius talks of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in the
> > reign
> > > of Claudius. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at
> the
> > > instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus), he
> > expelled
> > > them from Rome" - Life of Claudius
> > >
> > >
> > > "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even
the
> > > opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of
Jesus,
> > > which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate
grounds
> by
> > > several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and
at
> > the
> > > beginning of the 20th centuries" - Encyclopedia Britannica
> > >
> > > "Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but
they
> > do
> > > not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The
historicity
> of
> > > Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the
> > historicity
> > > of Julius Ceaser. It is not historians who propogate
the 'Christ-
> > > myth' theories."
> > > - F.F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and
> exegesis
> > at
> > > Manchester University.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > valete,
> > >
> > > Cato Fanaticus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Octavius Giraldo-Vay"
> > > <octavius@q...> wrote:
> > > > Salvete omnes
> > > >
> > > > One must take into account that while there is
archaeological
> > > evidence
> > > > of Herod's existence there is none of that of Jesus.
> > > His "existence" is
> > > > equaly as valid as that of Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus and
Mithras.
> > > >
> > > > valete omnes, in pacem deorum. Lucius Calpurnius Piso.
> > > > On Apr 17, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Quintus Lanius Paulinus
(Michael >
> >
> > > > > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
> > > > >  
> > > > > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> > > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >  
> > > > > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]