Marcus Cassius,

>>It would be helpful to recognize that these two overall policies by

default cover a fair amount of *specific* policies that seem to be
agreed upon by a majority of the Boni.<<

I am only answering you, because I believe since you took this
on the main list, you are confusing a lot of people here.
You seem exasperated by the fact that the College does not wish to
recreate a modernized Religio Romana that is more about philosophy
and less about honoring the Gods. That seems to be the biggest difference
between the directions here. You will accept all religios because Rome
did so. That great. The one problem I see is that before we accept all
these
many philosophies all fascinating in their own right, should we not have the
basics
down first? We are just scratching the surface right now. Lets get the
original RR
completed to the best of our ability, before adding every foreign cult that
wants a temple
here.
As you know, we have two Pontiffs that are declared Boni. A third Pontiff
was but left the
faction. The rest to the best of my knowledge have not declared publically
any factional
allegiance.
Those are Iulius, Equitius, Minucius and Gryllus.
Granted these are more conservative in their outlook then liberal.

Still you are reading a lot into two policies. I can tell you that there
are certain things that I believe. But my beliefs do not reflect those of
all Boni

1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office
of "Pontifex" because it is unhistorical, even though Nova Roma
was specifically set up to recognize the modern status of equality between
genders.

Actually, this was based on historic research. However, not every Pontifice
nor
even Boni are ready to say this is true forever. Our research continues.
We have women in Sacedotal positions. Last time I looked the Catholic church

did not have women acting as priests. And that church is partially our
descendants!

2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of
the "Flamen" positions, also on grounds of such gender roles being
unhistorical. This includes the not inconsiderable number of
Flaminates who serve Goddesses.

I must have missed that one in our meetings. Do we have a man who wants to
be a Vestal?
Or a woman who wants to be Flamen Dialius?

3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the
Religio Romana should not ascend the Curusus Honorum,

I have heard this before. If that is the case then Minucius Audens deceived
us.
He has proudly boasted of his Xtianity for years, but I seem to remember him
carrying
out all his offices except Censor, and carrying out all his public rituals as
well.
So I have to say you are mistaken about this as well..I also believe one of
our Tribunes is a devout Catholic.


4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another
Polytheistic religion other than the Religio Romana should not
become a member of the Priesthood.

Really? What we said and you were there, was to reject priests who want to
include Wiccan ceremonies in the Religio Romana. If what you say is true, we
cannot have a priestess for the Great Goddess, nor one for Isis, yet we have
both. We never said we did not want any
Priest who is a part of another polytheistic religion.

5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no
representation in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear
that our reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern
thought.

Well both Octavia and Modus "violated" that one, and I don't remember
them being prosecuted. I doubt our reconstructional stance can be tainted
since we are so focused. And I must have missed the vote to abolish
outreach.

6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are
potentially dangerous to the Religio Romana

Any citizen who wants to marginalize the Religio Romana is potentially
dangerous.
The chance that this would be a practitioner is nil. So logic remains that
any danger
would come from non practitioners. That's what was said in the College. And
it wasn't to start a witch hunt like you imply.
The fact is the faction is home to practitioners, and non practitioners
alike.
And we seem to have no problem, getting along.
What we feel is that the non practicing citizens should have respect for the
Religio and its tradition.. I would think you as PM would want this as well.

7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common
practice (rather than as a rare or occasional practice) as the best
means of reviving proper religious rites.

If I remember our Decree, we said that we neither encourage nor oppose animal
sacrifice.
You know this. My personal belief is let the Gods decide. I believe they
will decide in favor. But maybe they won't. Yours is to make up their minds
for them. That's pretty presumptuous of
you. And that was our objection.
But, I know members that would not do sacrifice and they are still with us.
So that means no tacit agreement.

8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one
of its cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and
Statehood, and stop trying to be in any way an independent nation.

Not at all. What we said was "Stop calling our self a micro nation in
public, due to
the negative connotation that accompanies micro national websites".
In reality we are the Cadillac of micro nations, but why point that out to
those who will not accept it? Also this national stance has been confusing some
of our citizens who believe we are going to buy an island, or conquer Africa,
even move to Australia. Such an idea is silly. And I respect NR too much
to have it appear silly. Micro nations aren't hip anymore. The dot com
explosion is over.
Let's call us something else.

People seem to believe that this has built a strong governmental/political
aspect
to Nova Roma which threatens the Religio.

You are like Fox News... When they are just grabbing facts not in evidence,
they say
"People Say." Is this the "Gens members in Bondage" theme again?

So, based on Sicinus Drusus and my comments in the college you believe we
speak
for all Boni? Some Boni are non religious, yet they believe the religio
should be respected
and they do. We don't agree on everything that's for sure. But some of
these people have been friends of mine since I joined NR, and I'd follow them to
Hades to support them. Do you have people that will make the same claim,
Marcus Cassius?

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus



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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Iuliano salutem dicit

These tacit agreements that you make are simply not true. As an ex-Bonus I
will share my opinions on these policies that you mentioned below.

In a message dated 9/13/2004 10:24:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cassius622@... writes:

Salve,

It is perhaps helpful to recognize that these two overall policies by
default cover a fair amount of *specific* policies that seem to be agreed
upon by a
majority of the Boni.

Here is a partial list of the general sentiments that I believe are shared
by a majority of this particular "group of friends." Please DO note that
these
are NOT official policies - they just generally seem to be points that most
of the "Friends" agree about and have acted upon:

1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office of "Pontifex"
because it is unhistorical, even though Nova Roma was specifically set up
to
recognize the modern status of equality between genders.

Modius: I agree that woman should be allowed to serve as pontifices. The
precedent was already set when Nova Roma allowed woman pontifices in the past.
I believe if there is doubt as to if woman should be allowed then the
Collegium Augurium should be convened to determine if the Gods deem woman
pontifices acceptable. I personally support woman pontifices, and don't necessarily
feel convening the Collegium Augurium would be necessary. However, as an
augur I would be willing to do so if necessary.


2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of the "Flamen"
positions, also on grounds of such gender roles being unhistorical. This
includes
the not inconsiderable number of Flaminates who serve Goddesses.

Modius: I don't believe woman should be Flamen, just as I don't believe men
should be vestals. These are gender specific priesthoods. Just like in
modern day Catholicism men do not become nuns, and woman do not become monks.
Both can live the monastic life, as either nuns or monks, but they cannot join
an order that is gender specific. Take the cult of Ceres. Ceres had a
Flamen (Flamen Cerealis), and also preistesses from Graeca Magna. If it was
appropriate for the Flamen of Ceres to have been a woman then it would have been
so, but it wasn't and the Flamen was a man, and the various Priestesses were
woman. Most people will consider it obsurd for a man to be a vestal, why is
it not obsurd of a concept for a woman to be a flamen?


3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the Religio Romana
should not ascend the Curusus Honorum, (meaning that they should not hold
any
Magistrates, up to and including the office of Consul) as they believe it
is
crucial that magistrates perform all historical religious roles themselves,
rather than allow another to perform them.

Modius: This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Both Sulla and
Laenas, both declared Boni, are non-Practitioners of the Religio Romana. I'm not
even going to address this comment further. Simply an attempt at political
polarization.


4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another Polytheistic
religion other than the Religio Romana should not become a member of the
Priesthood. (Unless of course they are extremely conservative and join the
Boni.)
This is particularly strongly felt in the case of anyone with a Wiccan or
other non-reconstructionist background, regardless of how much
reconstructionist
knowledge they might have or if they agree to act only in a
reconstructionist manner within the public Religio.

Modius: Umm... wrong again Cassius. I have not made it a secret that I
came to Nova Roma from a Wiccan background. I have not made it a secret that I
attend large Pagan gatherings and festivals. I have not made it a secret
that I am also involved in a Druid organization. But if I'm going to circle
with some Wiccan friends then I will conduct myself accordingly. If I'm going
to conduct a Druidic ritual then I will do so accordingly. If I am going to
perform a Rite to Pomona then I will do it as a Roman Reconstructionist. As a
both a Freemason and an Odd Fellow I would never enter a Masonic Lodge and
give the grip and password of an Odd Fellow, or expect my accomplishments as a
Knight of Pythias to have an impact on my status as a Freemason.

I am very involved in my Pagan community. My wife and I are the Liturgy
Coordinators for our local Pagan Pride Day. I'm also primary coordinator for a
Pagan festival in Ohio: Elysium Gathering (_www.three-roads.org_
(http://www.three-roads.org) ).


5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no representation
in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear that our
"reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern thought.

Modius: See above. This is a crazy idea. As a matter of fact I have been
pushing for a more provincial priesthood to help in the provinces with
working with local magistrates in organizing Religio events, and local Religio
activities. You opposed the idea of provincial priests.


6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are
potentially
dangerous to the Religio Romana, either as potential direct opponents, or
potential subversives which might sway us away from a reconstructionist
path.
(This has, in my opinion, lead to many arguments between Boni
representatives
of the Religio and various Citizens.)

Modius: There can be some danger from non-practitioners, but I have
confidence in the magistrates, senators, and pontifices that they will notice a
danger and deal with it. Hopefully, in a respectful manner.


7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common practice (rather
than as a rare or occasional practice) as the best means of reviving proper
religious rites. (There also *may* be a tacit understanding that it will
eventually be *required* of all members of the Priesthood, but the few
remarks I've
seen that seem to speak of that as a given fact may well be merely the
opinion of only a few of the "Friends" rather than the majority.)

Modius: As a Flamen, I can state with confidence that I cannot conduct any
animal sacrifices anytime soon. However, I respect the right and encourge
those priests who can conduct animal sacrifices. I would also oppose any
requirement to mandate animal sacrifice on any priesthood. This is simply
paranoia Cassius, and very irresponsible for the you as Pontifex Maximus to be
making statements like this.


8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of its
cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood, and stop
trying
to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem to believe that
this has built a strong governmental/political aspect to Nova Roma which
threatens the Religio.)

Modius: I accept the concept of a "Legal Fiction." I don't know if I
accept the concept of an independant state. We shall see how this develops over
the next 25 - 50 years.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Tribunus Plebis
Pontifex, Flamen Pomonalis, and Augur


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

Diana writes:
I would very politely like to disagree with you on you rlist of Boni
policies which you wrote below. Either I have been totally sleeping
as a Boni or most of your list are not in fact 'Boni' Policies at
all.

Cassius respondit:
I'll agree that some of points haven't seen much discussion on the main
list, but are rather policies that I have seen spoken about and acted on
repeatedly in the Collegium Pontificum. I could give more evidence by publicly
reposting from that private list and from private correspondences, but such an act
would do me no credit. (But I do have that final disrespectable option should
it come to it.)

But I really don't see why any of the points should be a surprise or a
controversy. The Boni have all shown that they are the most conservative and
reconstructionist minded people in Nova Roma. Is it really that unbelievable when
I say that on the whole they seem to prefer that ancient gender roles should
remain in place, etc? None of those points, not even all of them together,
constitute a "nefarious plot," they simply constitute the most conservative
stance on the Religio Romana that can possibly be taken.


<So > 1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office
<of "Pontifex" because it is unhistorical, even though Nova Roma
<was specifically set up to

> recognize the modern status of equality between genders.

I can mention who doesn't agree with that one! :-)

Cassius respondit:
There has been at least one female Pontifex application holding for at least
a year. The Boni in the Collegium all agreed that a female holding this
position was "unhistorical," and that no more females should be elected to the
position of Pontifex.

After a huge fight, Pontifex Scarus agreed to "research" the possibility of
women holding the position. The only point he has come up with is that
Pontifices sometimes did sacrifices to Hercules, which women could not attend. My
suggestion that female Pontifices simply would not attend sacrifices to
Hercules, (which have never yet been done in NR) met with little response. A year
later, "research" into this is still going on, and no female Pontifex will be
approved. I don't expect that this will happen any time soon, and feel it
constitutes a de-facto policy at this point.

> 2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of

<the "Flamen" positions, also on grounds of such gender roles being
<unhistorical. This includes the not inconsiderable number of
<Flaminates who serve Goddesses.

Cassius respondit:
Basically the same situation as above. The "Friends" in the Collegium seem
to feel that female Flamines are unhistorical, and should not be allowed. I
have heard no reasoning for this other than it is the "tradition of the Mos
Maiorum."

In my own opinion, Nova Roma was built with a very specific understanding
that we would recognize modern gender roles. We have female Senators, and could
have female Consuls should any of our women Citizens care to run. I find
that the top two levels of the Religio Romana being unavailable to women by "a
majority conservative preference" among the Pontifices who happen to be
"Friends" is a de-facto policy that is against the founding policies of Nova Roma.

> 3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the

<Religio Romana should not ascend the Curusus Honorum,

That is simply not true.

Cassius:
May I ask what reason I would have to lie? Several of the Boni have
mentioned that they believe that since most of the Roman magistracies have at least
some religious function as part of their public duties, and therefore these
offices should be held by practitioners of the Religio only.

The "Friends" that have advanced this idea seem to believe that not only
would it constitute the most accurate reconstruction of the "Mos Maiorum", it
would also ensure the safety of the Religio Romana from potential political
attacks from hostile non-practitioners.

I don't for a moment believe that this "opinion among many of the Friends"
is a deliberate attack against their fellow Citizens; instead I believe they
hold it out of a desire to protect the Religo and be as conservative in
reconstruction as possible.

< 4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another
<Polytheistic religion other than the Religio Romana should not
<become a member of the Priesthood.

That is simply not true. I think that you are confusing not wanting
Priests who want to make a Wicca Religio Romana for not wanting any
Priest who is a part of another polytheistic religion.

Cassius:
I have seen variations of this situation a couple dozen times now, and am
pretty sure by now I'm not "confused." This particular "opinion among many of
the Friends" seems to extend beyond those who are "part" of another
polytheistic religion - to those who "have in the past been part", or "were once
trained in", or "occasionally attend meetings of" (because they're the only public
pagan events going, etc.)

My difficulty with this "opinion among many of the Friends" is that people
have to come to the Religio Romana from *somewhere*. If you automatically
disqualify anyone who's ever been part of another polytheistic religion in any
way, there go about 90% of your possible people. I believe that our very
conservative Friends want to see only those who have come to the Religio through
scholarly study, or from other established traditional religions such as
Santeria. I contend that those paths bring their own sort of baggage, and that
candidates should be evaluated on their skills rather that instantly disqualified
for past associations.

> 5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no

<representation in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear
<that our reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern
<thought.

No way, as a Boni I have often been at many many pagan
conferences 'preaching' :-) the Relgio Romana. No Boni has ever made
any negative comments about that whatsoever.

Cassius respondit:
Actually, to my knowledge there are THREE members of the Boni, (well, one
has quit now) that do such outreach - yourself, Pontifex Hadrianus, and
Pontifex Athanasius who has since left the Friends. I don't imagine you're getting
much grief over it, that's true. However, others of the Boni have often
expressed that it is either a waste of time or an outright danger to traditional
reconstructionism to mix with other modern Polytheists. I therefore believe
that my point is valid by at least a slim majority among the "Friends."

I quite applaud the actions of you three, for without you the Boni would
seem to be quite the religious separatist group. Most of the other "Friends"
that I've ever had contact with have only the lowest opinion of other modern
day polytheists, either on the grounds that they aren't reconstructionist
enough, or on the grounds that they simply aren't Roman.

> 6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are

<potentially dangerous to the Religio Romana

That one is simply a huge exaggeration. We have non-practiioners in
the Boni. It is not that the Boni do not want citizens who are not
practioners, but all of us feel that the non practicing citizens
should have respect for the Religio. The Catholic and Jewish Boni
feel the same way.

Cassius:
I will be the first to agree that you have some non Religio practitioners in
the Boni. (And that your Jewish contingent consists solely of Lucius
Cornelius Sulla.) However, aside from the acceptance of those few non-practitoners
who are obviously among our most conservative Citizens, I still submit that I
do not exaggerate overall. My guess is that the number of non-religio or
"moderate Religio" Citizens argued with vehemently on the lists outnumbers the
amount of (dare I say!) token Non-Religio members of the Boni by a great
amount.

> 7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common

<practice (rather than as a rare or occasional practice) as the best
<means of reviving proper religious rites.

Hmm, well maybe, but I am a Boni and have already stated more than
once to all of them that I could not do an animal sacrifice. No one
of the Boni tried to "throw me out".

Cassius:
Nor would I, if you supported 90 percent of the other conservative policies
I stood for! That doesn't mean that common animal sacrifice would not remain
a serious goal of mine, even that it be "required" for members of the
Priesthood so that religious reconstruction would be *completely* accurate in the
future. I'd simply leave that hurdle to be dealt with at a later date, and
enjoy your comradeship on all the other important issues now.

> 8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one

<of its cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and
<Statehood, and stop trying to be in any way an independent nation.

I didn't know that was a Boni policy but I certainly agree with
that. I think the idea of an independent nation of NR is a bit of a
joke and firmly places us in fantasy land. Let's get our act
together as an organization dedicated to all things Roman then we
can see what happens down the road in twenty years. And with all of
the arguing going on, I wouldn't even want to live in the country of
NR jsut like I wouldn't want to live in the US. :-p

Cassius:
That Nova Roma should work toward at least partial sovereignty has been a
goal since the founding. There are many here (myself included) that feel this
goal is not only important in itself, but also that it is what gives any
validity at all to the rebuilding of the Religio Romana. As I've said many times
before, you can't have a State (or government) religion without a State or
government.



<(The "Friends" seem to believe that this has built a strong
<governmental/political aspect to Nova Roma which threatens the
<Religio.)

Again, that is simply not true.

Cassius:
I'm afraid I believe it is indeed true. From everything I've seen, the
majority of the Boni don't seem to be against Sovereignty and NR having a working
"government" simply because they think it is "silly." They rather see it as a
secular threat to the supremacy of the Religio, and the authority of the
Collegium Pontificum. Think of it - in the absence of sovereign government, the
Collegium Pontificum would surely be the guiding body of Nova Roma.

I don't know Cassius. I think that it is clear that our Boni
Pontiffs have given you a hard time in the CP, but I really think
that most of what you've written above as Boni policies are
exaggerations or based on the opinions of one of two Boni.

Cassius:
Actually, I'm trying my best not to exaggerate. None of the things I've said
here are inconsistent with an extremely conservative reconstructionist view.
Again, none of these things constitute a "plot," but rather a conservative
mindset that the "Friends" have found that they generally share overall.


The Boni as a collective is much more open minded than you think. I
may not agree with my Boni colleagues at all times, but I consider
many of them to be good friends. And friends can disagree with
eachother and it doesn't reflect negatively on their relationship.

Cassius:
I am quite sure that all the members of the Boni are indeed good friends,
and that your association has many more aspects to it than I have brought up. I
also don't believe that you all agree on every point!

The Boni are by no means evil plotters. Nor are they "wrong" simply because
I don't agree with many of the things that they seem to believe. The Boni
aren't even all that organized, other than merely sharing some very basic
opinions, and having a private mailing list!

However, like it or not, the Boni do *for the most part* act together, and
seem to constitute what comes closest to an organized block of Citizens in all
of Nova Roma. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it shouldn't be
ignored. I've seen several people argue that the Boni are not organized and
therefore should not be a point of attention. I've also seen it raised that any
attempt to imitate the Boni would lead to a "Balkanization" of Nova Roma.

To ignore the Boni, or to leave them as the only organized faction (no
matter how loosely organized they may be) could very well end up being a conscious
choice to agree with them and accept the things they seem to want. Maybe
that IS what everyone wants, and I stand alone. I honestly don't know, but I
certainly can't ignore the issue and let things continue as quietly as they have
been.

One last thing, Diana. I know you to be a good person, and to be truly
dedicated to the Religio. I think you'd do us all a favor by standing for the
office of Pontifex, or one of the Flaminates. Not only would you be able to open
the door for other women to hold such offices should they be qualified, you'd
also go a long way toward diffusing some of the ideas about the Boni which
you say are mistaken.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus



The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


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

Salvete Cives,

well, all the 7 leading players answered correctly! let's try with a new one ;-)

Seventh picture at:

http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius/photo_quiz

On the proposed page you will find a link with the answer to yesterday's pic and a first top ranking list!

Just write to m_iulius@... (m_iulius at yahoo dot it) the answer: subject matter of the photo, and the location of the subject. Also add your Nova Roman name ;-)

For this picture you will be awarded 2 point if you are partly correct, and 3 if you are completely correct.

Bona Fortuna, and Enjoy the Ludi!!!




M·IVL·PERVSIANVS
-------------------------
Aedilis Curulis
Vicarius Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae
Magister Academiae Italicae
---------------------------------------------
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/perusianus
http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
http://italia.novaroma.org
http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
---------------------------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM

---------------------------------
Scopri Mister Yahoo! - il fantatorneo sul calcio di Yahoo! Sport'

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

Salvete omnes,

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:16:06 -0000, meretrix4 <meretrix@...> wrote:
> < 4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another
> <Polytheistic religion other than the Religio Romana should not
> <become a member of the Priesthood.
> That is simply not true. I think that you are confusing not wanting
> Priests who want to make a Wicca Religio Romana for not wanting any
> Priest who is a part of another polytheistic religion.

As a Hellenist who is a priestess of Apollo here in NR, this makes me
extremely relieved. I was beginning to wonder if the presense of
Hellenists here may be construed as a problem. I know that there are
quite a few of us, many of us (including myself) reconstructionist.

I personally don't think that Wicca should be a part of the Religio
either. I think that this is a more than reasonable idea. Wicca is a
very separate and very different religion from either Roman Religio or
Hellenismos.

Thank you for providing us with this clarification.


Bene vale,
Andrea Gladia Cyrene


--
Nosce te ipsum ~ http://www.TempleApollo.com
Email: andrea.gladia.cyrene@...
Yahoo: andrea_gladia / kyreneariadne
AIM: A Gladia Cyrene / Kyrene Ariadne

I confess that while there's a puckish part of me that loves the idea
of an actual Republic of Nova Roma flying its flag at the UN,
bobsledding at the Olympics, mocking American tourists and doing all
the other things independent nations do, I question the realism of the
prospect. The acquisition of land is admirable, but as I am sure has
already been argued, the mere accumulation of territory will not be
enough to force recognition of sovereignty from existing nations --
especially the United States, from which I gather this nation is
intended to be carved.

Each of us has her or his own level of commitment to the ideals of
Nova Roma. But for me, even if independence became a reality, I doubt
I would give up my U.S. franchise and truck my family off to Culberson
County, Texas (which would by then, I suppose, be Provincia
Cvlbersonia).

----- Original Message -----
8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of its
cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood, and stop
trying to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem
to believe that this has built a strong governmental/political
aspect to Nova Roma which threatens the Religio.)

AVETE CIVES

Follows the VII question for the cultural contest of Ludi Romani.
Later the two previous answers and the classification!

List the names of all the roman buildings for the Curia (e.g., Curia
Iulia); who did and when were done the most important restorations
of the palace of Curia Iulia during the imperial age?

VALETE
L IUL SULLA

M IVL PERVSIANVS AED CVR QVIRITIBVS SPD

EDICTVM AEDILICIVM VI
Ex Collegio Interprov. pro Convento NR Europae

The members of the Collegium Interprovinciale have decided to extend the presentation of the candidacies for the year 2758 and 2759 AVC.

The related text of the "temporary provisions" of the PACTVM DE CONVENTO NOVAE ROMAE IN EVROPA (VII.D) has been updated as follows:

D. Until 30th September 2004 the Collegium Interprovinciale accepts candidacies for the IV and for the V Conventus Novae Romae, for 2758 A.V.C. and 2759 A.V.C. respectively. The governors who will submit the candidacies shall indicated for which year they are intended.
The Collegium shall vote between October 1st and October 15th. The President shall announce the results between October 16th and October 30th.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given on AD XVIII Kalendas Octobris in the year of the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur and Gn. Equitius Marinus.

September 14th 2757

valete







M·IVL·PERVSIANVS
-------------------------
Aedilis Curulis
Vicarius Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae
Magister Academiae Italicae
---------------------------------------------
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/perusianus
http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
http://italia.novaroma.org
http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
---------------------------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM

---------------------------------
Scopri Mister Yahoo! - il fantatorneo sul calcio di Yahoo! Sport'

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

P. Minius Albucius Dianae s.d.,

S.V.B.E.E.V.

Tongeren ?

I have lived in Lille (Rijsel) till last january and have spent some good time in Belgium, but am now living in Normandy.

If I can help you...


Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. XVIII Prid. Kal. Oct. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.
P. Minius Albucius
Scr. Propraetoris Galliae

----- Original Message -----
From: Casta Meretrix
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:33 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Imperial Eagles


Salve Sabina Equitia Doris,

> Do I understand correctly that you live in Beligica
> or Gaul?

According to NR's provinces I live in Gaul, but
according to the Romans I live in Germania Inferior
(Flanders). I live a stones throw from Atuatuca
Tungrorum which is about 3 hours from France but less
than an hour from the Belgian Ardennes (forests!.

<I understand that there may be some breeding pairs
<of the Imperial Eagle living in the forested areas of
> what is now France.

I can see why-- there are beautiful forests here.

<Do you know of any responsible conservation
> groups by which a person or group of people could
<make a contribution towards
> specifically helping preserve the last few living
> members of that
> species in central Europe?

I don't know of any in France but I will ask my French
speaking colleagues to snoop around for me on the
internet. I'll also look up Dutch speaking wildlife
conservation groups in Belgium and Holland.

I'll get back to you asap.

Vale,
Diana



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

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]

P. Minius Albucius M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae s.d.,

S.V.B.E.E.V.

Cara propraetor,

Thanks a lot for your post : very interesting !

So, the scenario could be this one :

1/ a people, with a common dna heritage - let's call it "P" - spread from Iberian peninsula to Ireland, then Scotland and Wales between - 6000 and - 3000. That would be a tremendous point, for we would have one of the first proofs of the existence of an original non-indoeuropean people (apart Basque question) ;

2/ the Indoeuropeans came around - 3000 in Europe ;

3/ Then 3 solutions :

a) First Iberian peninsula is invaded, Celt-acculturated, followed by its "colonies" : Ireland, Scotland and Wales (England ?) ;
b) First England is invaded from Belgium or France and the move go south to Iberian peninsula ;
c) The invasion occurs on both sides.


What is sure is that, as I told it in my last post, old Irish, Cornic, Britton, Gaulish languages are linked. Added to that, archaelogists and historians found proofs of a Celtic long occupation in Iberian peninsula.

What is interesting too, is a look on the Iberian peninsula map : Celts lived there from - 2200 in the west and center (archeological findings), as if they would have come from (now) France and cut the way to Ireland to a people, elderly settled there, which may be the other people who lived in this area at Carthago and Roma era : Iberians. This people, surely non-indoeuropean, lived east from a line that goes from Pyrenées mountains to the mouth of Guadiana river (so not only Galicia !).

So we could make the following hypothesis :

a) the Iberians were perhaps this old non-indoeuropean people (this we called "P") which colonized the now so-called "british" islands (are they linked with Basques ? are Basques the Iberian survivors ?) ;

b) they would have been "cut" from their islands colonies, when the Indoeuropean invaded the Iberian peninsula around - 3000 ;

c) As many invaders in History, Indoeuropeans (= Celts) borrowed iberian culture, while, as roman did in Gaul, brought their skills and laid down their language and their territory and, then, in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc.. This mix would have lasted two millenaries to drive to the situation Hannibal and Scipio met in this part of Europe.


What would call for further studies, is why, for example, old Irish is so close to Gaulish.

For, if our hypothesis are right, the people from the south side of the Pyrenées mountains should have develop separately during 2.000 years, and the languages would have been more different.

Maybe my 3 th invasion solution was not so insane :

c) while Celts were cutting Iberians from their colonies around 2500 b.c., Gaulish people settled in British islands and, from there and across the Pyrenées, keep links with their cousins, "Spanish" Celts.

to follow......

Optime vale.

P. Minius Albucius
Scr. Propraetoris Galliae

Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. XVIII Prid. Kal. Oct. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

----- Original Message -----
From: kirshner
To: albucius_aoe@...
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: We are not Celts at all but Galicians (The Herald)


M. Arminia Maior Fabiana P.Minio Albucio salutem dicit;
Salve Publi Mini;
this is one article, the better one is from the September 5th Sunday Times if you have access to their archive, otherwise put in
"irish not celts journal of human" and you'll get a forum with the article cut and pasted.
The findings will be published in the American "Journal of Human Genetics" and by the Irish Society of Human Genetics....
too fascinating for words, I haven't yet spoken to my Hiberni friends:) what a surprise!
vale
Marca Arminia Maior
Here is an article from The Herald I thought you might like: http://www.theherald.co.uk/23762.shtml


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

I'm not sure I understand the question. I understand what you are asking but specifically it comes across to my eyes as unclear.QCB

Lucius Iulius <21aprile@...> wrote:AVETE CIVES

Follows the VII question for the cultural contest of Ludi Romani.
Later the two previous answers and the classification!

List the names of all the roman buildings for the Curia (e.g., Curia
Iulia); who did and when were done the most important restorations
of the palace of Curia Iulia during the imperial age?

VALETE
L IUL SULLA


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

Salvete;
I think one of the big problems of the Boni, until Athanasius's
Peace List, is since they agree not to disagree with one another
publically that it is easy to think they work in lockstep.

I certainly believed Modius was against women pontifeces until he
said otherwise;-)

But it is true that certain issues appear and reappear;
1)questioning if Cato as an Orthodox Christian can serve as a
magistrate

2) a seeming disregard for NR as a state and the making of laws

3) the problems of the Religio

Now one of the big issues in the Religio is that no one really
separates the State Relgio from private religio. And they are
different!
You cannot mix'n mingle the State Relgio nor should you do so if
you represent it as a sacerdos, flamen or pontifex.

But witches, wiccans, pagans, druids, asatruar are all modern cults
that have a secure place in the private religio. I certainly have
just joined a list for witches of the stregha tradition who also
practice the relgio privata.
There certainly were people who practiced these things in Roman
times, as well as astrology and many forms of magic and divination.

I think the PM's NovaReligio list has really enlivened the discussion
and made welcome people who were turned off by the official State
Religio List.

Finally there is what I would say is a passive resistance to women
pontifeces and flamens and some outreach. As an enthusiastic new
civis I remember writing to a couple of pontifeces about having NR
posted on WitchVOx and no one ever wrote back. That is a passive form
of discouragement that I believe leads to the Religio right now being
a minor part of NR

If there were a public discussion of such things pro and anti it
would clear the air.

I would assert that there were certain sex specific cults such as
the Vestals, the Bon Dea, Hercules and Silvanus that were female &
men only.
But Flamens and Pontifeces were a form of state magistrate and
naturally women who did not even vote were not included.
In the Empire there were flamens and flaminicas of the emperor's
cult.

As for Modius's discussion of the Flamen of Ceres & the priestess,
I can tell him there was a priestess as her part of the cult was to
lead the mourning for Proserpina.... So she played the female part of
the mother.

But this is the point: public discussion in a lively and positive
way. Let the PM discuss his problems, we certainly are just starting
to have people talk enthusiastically about the Religio again.

So I would say let's discuss these things openly and freely. Maximus
and Drusus tell me why you and Scaurus don't believe women should be
pontifeces, I am happy to enter into a learned and polite public
discussion.
bene vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

> I don't know Cassius. I think that it is clear that our Boni
> Pontiffs have given you a hard time in the CP, but I really think
> that most of what you've written above as Boni policies are
> exaggerations or based on the opinions of one of two Boni.
>
> The Boni as a collective is much more open minded than you think. I
> may not agree with my Boni colleagues at all times, but I consider
> many of them to be good friends. And friends can disagree with
> eachother and it doesn't reflect negatively on their relationship.
>
> Vale,
> Diana

Can someone perhaps explain what is wrong with historical accuracy? Please provide something that will stand up to scrutiny. How can you state in your Constitution:

"We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome...Nova Roma shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio Romana. The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy."

If you seek to "recreate the best of Ancient Rome" then how can you stray from historical accuracy? Obviously some aspects of Rome cannot be brought back to life such as slavery, and other various practices. A respect for modern day national and international laws must be given. However, many subjects of Ancient Rome can be encompassed in Nova Roma. But to recreate requires historical accuracy not modern day thought. This itself is even stated in the last paragraph of the Nova Roma Constitution's Preamble where it clearly states:

"..Nova Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable, as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture, religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of ancient Rome."

The claim to stray from historical accuracy can only be founded in the use of the word "patterned" which itself can imply resembling but not accurately portraying those aspects. However, this can also be interpretted as meaning Nova Roma is historically accurate in what aspects of Ancient Rome it has recreated. But regardless of interpretation, the Preamble makes absolutley no sense because of the fact that in the beginning "recreate" is used as the operative word while in the closing "patterned" is chosen as the operative word. This in itself to me makes the entire claims and statements of the Preamble null and void. Do you seek to recreate or pattern aspects of ancient Rome?

Half this debate about Boni and Moderati lays in the fact that from what I see, have read, and how I interpret it there is no clear cut intent, policy, or meaning to things. I've seen what the Boni stand for or suppose to based on the totality of what people have explained. But what of the moderati? I've seen attacks on the Boni but why don't the Moderati stand up and loud and proud say what they stand for. Its easy to attack but harder to stand up and say what you stand for and take the heat back that you have given. When new cives enter Nova Roma do you expect them to really have a clue as to what's going on when there is nothing but tit-for-tat exchanges that amount to absolutely nothing. Frankly I find it to be a nuisance when I'm trying to read what everyone else has said that does not pertain to children's politics. People don't need to sit down and have little chit chats like this is some kind of surrender and working out the details of the surrender. Make things clear
as I said above and end the debate then and there with one fellow swoop. Nothing is Clear and understandable. Don't talk about ending it or it going away. Put soem Iron in the glove and put an end to it period.

Quintus Cassius Brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus M. Cassio Juliano Omnibusque salutem dicit

Si tu vales, benest.

As a former Bonus, let me shine some light on the topics which have been brought
up here. These are all my personal opinions, but I hope it shows that things
are not as black and white as they have been presented.

> 1. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy the office of "Pontifex"
> because it is unhistorical, even though Nova Roma was specifically set up to
> recognize the modern status of equality between genders.

To an extent, I agree with this, on two levels. First, if we are to be a
reconstructionist organization, I do not believe that we should be doing this
"picking and choosing" of what we keep of history and what we do not. That
makes us look even less credible as a reconstructionist organization in the eyes
of the outside world, and even in the eyes of some of our own. Second, we
already know that the Gods accept males as pontifices, but what about women? If
someone could prove to me (via augury) that the Gods will accept a woman
pontifex, then I would be willing to accept a woman pontifex.

> 2. A tacit agreement that women should not occupy any of the "Flamen"
> positions, also on grounds of such gender roles being unhistorical. This

includes

> the not inconsiderable number of Flaminates who serve Goddesses.

Exactly as above. I am certainly willing to accept a woman flaminica, if it can
and is proven that the Gods accept her.

> 3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the Religio Romana
> should not ascend the Curusus Honorum, (meaning that they should not hold any
> Magistrates, up to and including the office of Consul) as they believe it is
> crucial that magistrates perform all historical religious roles themselves,
> rather than allow another to perform them.

There is something to be said here, though. I personally could care less about
the religious beliefs of such a person, but I do think that magistrates should
perform their historical roles themselves. This does, however, require that our
magistrates either be practitioners, or be willing to set aside their personal
religious beliefs in order to fulfill their obligations to the Gods and to the
Republic. This is where we would be running into problems. I know of very few
who would subscribe to the latter, and that being so, it becomes almost
necessary that our magistrates be practitioners of the Religio Romana.

> 4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another Polytheistic
> religion other than the Religio Romana should not become a member of the
> Priesthood. (Unless of course they are extremely conservative and join the

Boni.)

> This is particularly strongly felt in the case of anyone with a Wiccan or
> other non-reconstructionist background, regardless of how much

reconstructionist

> knowledge they might have or if they agree to act only in a
> reconstructionist manner within the public Religio.

For my own part, I never have, nor do I now, subscribe to this agreement.

>
> 5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no representation
> in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear that our
> "reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern thought.

And I would disagree with this agreement as well. If we intend to grow, we do
need to get ourselves out there, and having representation is the best (if not
the only)way to do this.

> 6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are potentially
> dangerous to the Religio Romana, either as potential direct opponents, or
> potential subversives which might sway us away from a reconstructionist path.
> (This has, in my opinion, lead to many arguments between Boni representatives
> of the Religio and various Citizens.)

Because I have never been a fan of the "all-inclusive" argument, let me say that
I can not buy into this. There are some citizens, perhaps, who may be that
potential danger, but you couldn't pay me enough to get me to believe, or even
say, that all non-practitioners are potentially dangerous.

> 7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a common practice (rather
> than as a rare or occasional practice) as the best means of reviving proper
> religious rites. (There also *may* be a tacit understanding that it will
> eventually be *required* of all members of the Priesthood, but the few

remarks I've

> seen that seem to speak of that as a given fact may well be merely the
> opinion of only a few of the "Friends" rather than the majority.)

I do believe that animal sacrifices should be required to be performed by the
priests who would have, in Antiquity, been required to perform them, and I do
believe this is necessary to properly restore the Religio Publica. I think it
has been a very responsible course of action on the part of some of our priests
and priestesses to research their priesthood to see if such was mandatory of
them in Antiquity before submitting their applications for priesthood, and I
hope this responsible practice continues. I do not, though, believe that this
should be required of all members of the priesthood, strictly because there are
some priesthoods which did not require it in Antiquity, and to foist such on
them would be, in my opinion, at least an insult to the Gods, if not worse.

> 8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of its
> cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood, and stop

trying

> to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem to believe that
> this has built a strong governmental/political aspect to Nova Roma which
> threatens the Religio.)

I do not and did not subscribe to this agreement either.

Like I said, I hope everryone realizes that things are not as black and white as
they may seem. Within the Boni, there is a lot of disagreement between members.
One of the things which contributes to the belief that the Boni are unified on
every issue is the fact that a great deal of the disagreement between individual
Boni does not spill out onto other lists. But anyhow, that's my take on things.

Valete Optime,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

In a message dated 9/14/04 6:12:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
petreius@... writes:

> I confess that while there's a puckish part of me that loves the idea
> of an actual Republic of Nova Roma flying its flag at the UN,
> bobsledding at the Olympics, mocking American tourists and doing all
> the other things independent nations do, I question the realism of the
> prospect.

As do I. If all 420 of us were millionaires we would likely buy an island.
I understand the Caribbean has some going for real cheap right now :-).

But, we don't. And after the 24 mill to buy the Island, bribe the nearby
neighbors to leave us alone, we are going to have to establish a Patron Client
relationship with a nearby "power" that has patrol boats and militia to protect
us from pirates. That means we are paying Tribute.

Next comes the infrastructure. If we just want 1st cent BC Rome, it would be
cheap.

Maybe 200 million, for the 100 or so occupants. The most expensive would the
marble,
since it must be imported from far away. I doubt we would use lead pipes for
drinking water
PCV would do. Of course we would have to built replicas of Roman furniture,
villas and the
Temples. "Gladiator" spent 3.5 mill on two sets in Malta. Imagine we need
at least 30 sets and there's where most of the money will go.

But I doubt any of us 21st cent people would want to live in 1st Cent BC
Rome. Maybe as a novelty, but for life? I doubt it.

We are going to want electricity, flush toilets, gas stoves, and a landing
strip.

So triple that figure. We have to have a power generator, to build it will
cost 100 million
It'll be oil fired, so we have to import oil. We need a loading dock to and
storage tanks.
120 mill.
Landing strip is cheap if we just go with a macadamized strip. 3 mill
Tanks to hold our propane, piping to get it to our villas. 2 mill

Water. If we don't have a local source that is plentiful, then we need a
desalination plant
150 mill.

So you see such a dream is just that. Most of us here, based on the comments
gleaned are dirt poor. Most cannot pay 12 dollars American for their yearly
tax.
This is why I said earlier such an idea is patently silly.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

When will citizens be able to announce theri intentions to run for office


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

Salve Marcus Cassius Petreius ~

There's really a simple reason for our claims of Nationhood:

The Religio Publica requires the existence of a Roman State, so in
order to recreate the Religio Publica a Roman Republic has been
created. Land was donated and accepted: Our Republic can now point to
actual territory as its own.

As for National Independence and Sovereignty: Yes, it's a pipedream ~
But who knows?

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 08:15 AM, Marcus Cassius Petreius
wrote:

> I confess that while there's a puckish part of me that loves the idea
> of an actual Republic of Nova Roma flying its flag at the UN,
> bobsledding at the Olympics, mocking American tourists and doing all
> the other things independent nations do, I question the realism of the
> prospect. The acquisition of land is admirable, but as I am sure has
> already been argued, the mere accumulation of territory will not be
> enough to force recognition of sovereignty from existing nations --
> especially the United States, from which I gather this nation is
> intended to be carved.
>
> Each of us has her or his own level of commitment to the ideals of
> Nova Roma. But for me, even if independence became a reality, I doubt
> I would give up my U.S. franchise and truck my family off to Culberson
> County, Texas (which would by then, I suppose, be Provincia
> Cvlbersonia).
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> 8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of
> its
> cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood, and
> stop
> trying to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem
> to believe that this has built a strong governmental/political
> aspect to Nova Roma which threatens the Religio.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salvete Quirites,

Daniel Dreesbach wrote:

> When will citizens be able to announce theri intentions to run for office

When the elections are announced, sometime in early November.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Quinte Cassi,

Quintus Cassius Brutus wrote:

> Can someone perhaps explain what is wrong with historical
> accuracy?

Nothing is wrong with historical accuracy per se. Sometimes the pursuit
of historical accuracy becomes an impediment to progress, especially in
an organization intent on the resurgence of an ancient culture.

> Please provide something that will stand up to scrutiny.

Consider Senate meetings. In Roma antiqua the Senate had to convene
after dawn and complete all business by dusk of the same day. But in
Nova Roma our senators are spread all over the world, and communicate
via e-mail. Limiting the time of our Senate meetings to an interval
between dawn and dusk in Rome of the same day would be absurd. It would
not permit adequate time for the discussion necessary to a worthwhile
deliberative process. So in the Senate of Nova Roma we require at least
four days for deliberation and at least four more days after that for
voting. It often becomes more than an eight day process, as there are
many days on which the Senate is not permitted to conduct business for
religious reasons. But we blend the old with the new, and we manage.

> How can you state in your Constitution:

[snip of quotation]

I and many others realize that our Constitution needs some serious
overhaul. The preamble, which you cited, is a particularly ill-worded
section which has over the years been the basis for much disagreement.
I'm working on it, and will have revised Constitutional text for the
populace to vote on before the end of the year.

> Half this debate about Boni and Moderati

Permit me to point out that I am not a member of either of those
factions. Though I'm closer in most of my political positions to the
Moderati, I share the very strong commitment to proper Roman practice
that many Boni claim.

> lays in the fact that from what I see, have read, and how I
> interpret it there is no clear cut intent, policy, or meaning to things.

That would be due, in significant part, to the fact that the Moderati is
a pretty new political entity, and is composed mostly of people who are
fairly new to Nova Roma, having joined within the past year or so. They
are people with ideas and hopes, but in general they haven't been
engaged in the business of Nova Roma's government.

There are also a fair number of seasoned politicians in NR who subscribe
to similar positions. We're a loose alliance, and we sometimes work
together in the Senate toward common goals.

> I've seen what the Boni stand for or suppose to based on
> the totality of what people have explained. But what of the
> moderati?

Not to speak for the Moderati, but I think that they organized largely
as a Boni-opposition faction. They've been speaking out in more
positive terms in recent weeks, but I imagine it will take them a while
yet to really settle on some specific goals of their own.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Athanasius writes:
These tacit agreements that you make are simply not true. As an ex-Bonus I
will share my opinions on these policies that you mentioned below.

Cassius respondit:
I've heard you left the Boni because you believed you could advance the cause
of "conservative reconstructionism" better as an individual, not because you
actually differ with the Friends on any major issues. I do hope you forgive me
as considering you more as "on leave" from the Boni rather than as an
"ex-member" who might be assumed to not agree with them on various major points.

As to my statements being "not true," I believe that facts bear me out. If
you, Diana and Q. Fabius don't agree, that's fine. I'm putting on Roman Market
Day this week and don't have an unlimited amount of debate time. I'm sure the
three of you (and more of the Friends if needed) will be able to drown me out
pretty effectively in any case! :)

Modius: I agree that woman should be allowed to serve as pontifices. The
precedent was already set when Nova Roma allowed woman pontifices in the past.
I believe if there is doubt as to if woman should be allowed then the
Collegium Augurium should be convened to determine if the Gods deem woman
pontifices acceptable. I personally support woman pontifices, and don't
necessarily feel convening the Collegium Augurium would be necessary.
However, as an
augur I would be willing to do so if necessary.

Cassius:
I've tried to make it quite clear that not all the Boni agree on every issue.
I do believe that the "majority" of the Boni do not believe that women should
be Pontifices. I do however believe that pretty much "all" the Boni believe
the issue can be decided for the entire future of Nova Roma on a single Augury
done now - particularly since all the members of the Collegium Augurum are
members of (or in your case simply in agreement with) the Boni.


Modius: I don't believe woman should be Flamen, just as I don't believe men
should be vestals. These are gender specific priesthoods. Just like in
modern day Catholicism men do not become nuns, and woman do not become monks.
Both can live the monastic life, as either nuns or monks, but they cannot join
an order that is gender specific. Take the cult of Ceres. Ceres had a
Flamen (Flamen Cerealis), and also preistesses from Graeca Magna. If it was
appropriate for the Flamen of Ceres to have been a woman then it would have
been so, but it wasn't and the Flamen was a man, and the various Priestesses
were
woman. Most people will consider it obsurd for a man to be a vestal, why is
it not obsurd of a concept for a woman to be a flamen?

Cassius:
The Vestals were the *only* position in Roma Antiqua that were chosen because
of gender. All other positions were simply male through social custom. It was
equally unthinkable to have a woman Senator as it was for women to be
Flamens, simply because the two genders did not hold equal status in Roma Antiqua. To
say that a woman could not be the Flamen of the Goddess Ceres, *because of
her gender* seems to me the absurdity no matter how traditional it might be.

However, I do thank you for confirming to Diana that I wasn't simply making
the points about Pontifices and Flamines up. It has seemed to me that the
holding to traditional gender roles is a not uncommon stance among conservative
reconstructionists.


3. A tacit agreement that Citizens who do not practice the Religio Romana
should not ascend the Curusus Honorum,

Modius: This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Both Sulla and
Laenas, both declared Boni, are non-Practitioners of the Religio Romana. I'm
not even going to address this comment further. Simply an attempt at political
polarization.

Cassius:
A few non-practitioner members of the Boni do not disprove the quite
consistent arguments between our conservative reconstructionist "Friends" and
non-practitioner Citizens. Feel free to consider me a wild liar bent on
"polarization"... I didn't make this concept up and have heard it more than once from
various members of the "Friends."


4. A tacit agreement that anyone with connections to another Polytheistic
religion other than the Religio Romana should not become a member of the
Priesthood.

Modius: Umm... wrong again Cassius. I have not made it a secret that I
came to Nova Roma from a Wiccan background. I have not made it a secret that I
attend large Pagan gatherings and festivals. I have not made it a secret
that I am also involved in a Druid organization.

Cassius:
And you were universally despised for these very things among the "Friends"
until you were able to actually become a member of their loose confederation.
Have you forgotten the two times you were scornfully turned down as Augur? Care
to go back into the old Collegium files and read the comments about you from
your "Friends?" From my experience the Boni don't hassle their comrades too
much for outside involvements once they're "in." Anyone who doesn't belong to
the Boni does seem to get treated far differently.

5. A tacit agreement that the Religio Romana should have no representation
in or outreach to modern Pagan community, for fear that our
"reconstructionist" stance might become tainted with modern thought.

Modius: See above. This is a crazy idea. As a matter of fact I have been
pushing for a more provincial priesthood to help in the provinces with
working with local magistrates in organizing Religio events, and local Religio
activities. You opposed the idea of provincial priests.

Cassius:
As I have said before, you are very active in outreach. Even though the
majority of the Boni seem opposed to such policies, they have not hassled you about
them since you joined the Boni. (And seem not to have a problem with you
since you've been in and "left" as an independent conservative reconstructionist.)
But simply not hassling you does not mean that they particularly agree with
such outreach either.

As far as me being "opposed to the idea of provincial priests," I'm afraid
you misrepresent me. I'm very much for building up the various provinciae in
both civil and religious aspects. My having issues with *some* specific points of
*one* specific plan does not mean I'm against the idea entirely.

6. A tacit agreement that Citizens who are non-practitioners are
potentially dangerous to the Religio Romana (snip!)

Modius: There can be some danger from non-practitioners, but I have
confidence in the magistrates, senators, and pontifices that they will notice
a
danger and deal with it. Hopefully, in a respectful manner.

Cassius:
You say "magistrates, senators and pontifices" as if those groups were all of
one mind on the subject of "danger to the Religio," rather than one group
seeing this danger primarily in the other two. If that were actually the case I
wouldn't have raised the issue.

Modius: As a Flamen, I can state with confidence that I cannot conduct any
animal sacrifices anytime soon. However, I respect the right and encourge
those priests who can conduct animal sacrifices. I would also oppose any
requirement to mandate animal sacrifice on any priesthood. This is simply
paranoia Cassius, and very irresponsible for the you as Pontifex Maximus to be
making statements like this.

Cassius:
Is it irresponsible for me to repeat statements I've heard from various
members of the "Friends" regarding the absolute necessity of reviving animal
sacrifice? I also support choice on this issue, which is why sentiments I've heard
that it would be mandatory for Priesthood, and allusions that to *not* do so
would by nature carry a charge of "imprudens dolo malo" have disturbed me
greatly.


8. A publicly stated agreement that Nova Roma should remove one of its
cornerstones by ceasing all claims to Sovereignty and Statehood, and stop
trying to be in any way an independent nation. (The "Friends" seem to believe
that
this has built a strong governmental/political aspect to Nova Roma which
threatens the Religio.)

Modius: I accept the concept of a "Legal Fiction." I don't know if I
accept the concept of an independant state. We shall see how this develops
over the next 25 - 50 years.

Cassius:
As it states on the website, Nova Roma is not necessarily seeking to become a
fully independent state with its own separate population. Instead our
ultimate declared goal is to have a "108 acre world capital" which would function as
a symbolic headquarters. We have stated a goal of limited sovereignty, not
full independence.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pater Patriae


The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/
or subscribe by sending a blank email to:
NovaReligioRomana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


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

SALVE Q CASSI BRUTE

For the first part of the question I'm asking the names of all the
buildings that, ever, have taken the name "Curia". For example, one
name was Curia Iulia.

VALE
L IUL SULLA


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Quintus Cassius Brutus
<quintus_cassius@y...> wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand the question. I understand what you are

asking but specifically it comes across to my eyes as unclear.QCB

>
> Lucius Iulius <21aprile@e...> wrote:AVETE CIVES
>
> Follows the VII question for the cultural contest of Ludi Romani.
> Later the two previous answers and the classification!
>
> List the names of all the roman buildings for the Curia (e.g.,

Curia

> Iulia); who did and when were done the most important restorations
> of the palace of Curia Iulia during the imperial age?
>
> VALETE
> L IUL SULLA
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.

>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

AVETE CIVES ROMANI!

VI question and relative answer:
What did Q Caecilius Metellus build in Rome to celebrate the triumph
over Greeks in 146 b.C.? Who did he charge with this work, and which
innovation had this building in the Urbe?

The Temple of Iovis Stator; the architect was Hermodoros from
Salamina; the small temple was the first marble temple in Rome.

And now the classification:

10 pts:
Dom Constantinus Fuscus
Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus

9 pts:
Gn Equitius Marinus
M Iulius Aurelianus
Livia Iulia Drusilla
H Rutilius Bardulus

8 pts:
Q Salix Cantaber Uranicus
Publius Constantinus Placidus

6 pts:
Q Cassius Brutus

4 pts.
P. Minius Albucius

2 pts:
P Constantinus Vetranio
G. Equitius Cato

VALETE
L IUL SULLA

Salve Marinus,

"Sometimes the pursuit of historical accuracy becomes an impediment to progress, especially in an organization intent on the resurgence of an ancient culture."

--True this is agreed.

"In Roma antiqua the Senate had to convene after dawn and complete all business by dusk of the same day. But in Nova Roma our senators are spread all over the world, and communicate
via e-mail."

--There is some leeway needed in certain regards. I do not refer to, when I say historical accuracy, mimicking it to the letter. The Senate meetings would just cripple government if followed to the letter in regards to meeting times. But I refer to thinks like, lets just view the Religio for example. If there were gender specific roles in the Religio then follow them. This is not being sexist mind you. Obviously with regards to legal matters certain sacrifices would not exactly be wise. Slavery would unacceptable. But just as today there are gender specific roles in churches and military the Religio if it did indeed have them should be copied. Certain issues can be worked around such as times etc. But much can be repeated.

"But we blend the old with the new, and we manage."

--to what extent is what matters. If Nova Roma seeks to bring back Ancient Rome and its ways (within reason of course) then the degree to which modern concepts are introduced does matter. otherwise you dilute and destroy in my opinion all that you sought to accomplsih. This IMO is what must be looked at.

"The preamble, which you cited, is a particularly ill-worded
section which has over the years been the basis for much disagreement."

--Well at least I didn't misinterpret.

"They are people with ideas and hopes"

--well that's great but at what cost to what the goals of Nova Roma. I might be knew but I have had the opportunity to review some of the material and content of the site. To me certain things just simply cannot be done with regrads to historical accuracy. But at the same time there's just some things you cannot do otherwise you undermine what Nova Roma could've been or done.

Well thanx for the response to my statement.

Vale, QCB




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

I take it none of us are of the handy sort oh say like...carpenters,
electricians and plumbers. If the majority of us are like me I need
something to sell to be useful. Oh well. That's why it's a dream



Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

mikeabboud@...



_____

From: QFabiusMaxmi@... [mailto:QFabiusMaxmi@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:22 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Opportunity (The Land Grab)



In a message dated 9/14/04 6:12:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
petreius@... writes:

> I confess that while there's a puckish part of me that loves the idea
> of an actual Republic of Nova Roma flying its flag at the UN,
> bobsledding at the Olympics, mocking American tourists and doing all
> the other things independent nations do, I question the realism of the
> prospect.

As do I. If all 420 of us were millionaires we would likely buy an island.

I understand the Caribbean has some going for real cheap right now :-).

But, we don't. And after the 24 mill to buy the Island, bribe the nearby
neighbors to leave us alone, we are going to have to establish a Patron
Client
relationship with a nearby "power" that has patrol boats and militia to
protect
us from pirates. That means we are paying Tribute.

Next comes the infrastructure. If we just want 1st cent BC Rome, it would
be
cheap.

Maybe 200 million, for the 100 or so occupants. The most expensive would
the
marble,
since it must be imported from far away. I doubt we would use lead pipes
for
drinking water
PCV would do. Of course we would have to built replicas of Roman furniture,

villas and the
Temples. "Gladiator" spent 3.5 mill on two sets in Malta. Imagine we need
at least 30 sets and there's where most of the money will go.

But I doubt any of us 21st cent people would want to live in 1st Cent BC
Rome. Maybe as a novelty, but for life? I doubt it.

We are going to want electricity, flush toilets, gas stoves, and a landing
strip.

So triple that figure. We have to have a power generator, to build it will
cost 100 million
It'll be oil fired, so we have to import oil. We need a loading dock to and

storage tanks.
120 mill.
Landing strip is cheap if we just go with a macadamized strip. 3 mill
Tanks to hold our propane, piping to get it to our villas. 2 mill

Water. If we don't have a local source that is plentiful, then we need a
desalination plant
150 mill.

So you see such a dream is just that. Most of us here, based on the
comments
gleaned are dirt poor. Most cannot pay 12 dollars American for their yearly

tax.
This is why I said earlier such an idea is patently silly.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Q. Fabius Maximus


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






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1298494ve/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1095276304/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/compa
nion.yahoo.com> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=753722943>



_____

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
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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

But I refer to thinks like, lets just view the Religio for example.
If there were gender specific roles in the Religio then follow them.
This is not being sexist mind you.

Salvete;
Yes this is the difficulty, where does historicity stop and plain ,
not desiring to share power come in. I posted some reasons where I
argued that the posts of augur, pontifex and flamen should be open to
women as they are magistracies.
And the vestals were considered members of the COllegium
Pontificum, so being female is no bar.

Yet we have this unsaid situation. I for one would welcome Caecilus
Metellus or Maximus's or Druse's or Scaurus's learned response.

Most religions whether Christianity, Hinuism, Islam, Buddhism bar
women from the higher offices and usually some form of
the 'tradition' argument is heard from.

Women understandably are sick of hearing this and you can see the
growth in modern cults such as witchcraft and wicca amongst educated
Western women.
Hearing the tradition argument without any historical bolstering
does not make the all-male Collegium Pontificium of the Relgio a
pretty sight.
So please, convince me or share the power...,
bene vale in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

Quintus Cassius Brutus writes:

I've seen what the Boni stand for or suppose to based on the
totality of what people have explained. But what of the moderati? I've seen
attacks on the Boni but why don't the Moderati stand up and loud and proud
say
what they stand for.

Marcus Cassius Julianus respondit:
The biggest reason why the "moderates" among our Citizens have never stood
up "loud and proud" is because they're never had even the minimal organization
that the Boni have created. There is no private discussion list, no private
chats or groups of "friendships" that I am aware of.

I guess I am a de-facto moderate, since I seem to disagree with the Boni on
many points. If you'd like some of my own personal ideas on "moderate
policy," here are a few quick ones:


1. I believe that Nova Roma should continue the policy of gender equality
that it was founded on. I believe that women as qualified individuals should
have equal access to the highest offices of both political and religious
authority. This includes Senate seats and Consulships, as well as the Pontifice and
Flamen positions of the Religio Romana.

2. I believe that all qualified Citizens should have equal opportunity to
ascend the Cursus Honorum, whether they are practitioners of the Religio Romana
or not - so long as others can do rites on their behalf if necessary, and
they are willing to abide alongside the Religio peacefully, doing nothing to
attack or damage the Religio Romana.

3. I believe that so long as someone believes in and worships the Roman
Gods, a background involving paganism or even Wicca should not be an automatic
bar for the attainment of Priesthood. So long as someone has religious belief
in and feeling for the Gods, has the skill and is willing to perform the
standard public rites in an acceptable historical manner, that should be enough. I
do not agree with any quiet de-facto policy to the effect that "only
religious and political conservatives need apply."

4. I believe that animal sacrifice should be up to the choice, situation and
skills of the individual practitioner or member of Priesthood, and should
never be mandated or even expected from any individual office. (While we have
some people who simply do not agree that sacrifice is needed today, we also
have some officers (such as Pontifex Graecus) who live in countries where ALL
animal sacrifice is forbidden by law.)

5. I believe that the Religio Romana is by nature a syncretistic and
tolerant path (with only a few historical exceptions), and therefore Nova Roma
should participate in as much outreach into the modern polytheist community as
possible. I feel we should promote historical Religio Romana, but yet should
understand that not everyone starts out as a "conservative reconstructionist."
Potential Religio members should not be belittled, scorned or ridiculed should
their individual path (personal religion) begin on a less than scholarly
reconstructionist level. Everyone comes here from somewhere else, and everyone
begins at a beginning.

6. I feel that Nova Roma cannot and should not abandon it's founding goals
for limited sovereignty. Having a sincere claim to government gives us a valid
claim toward rebuilding the official Religio, which in Roma antiqua was a
part of government. It also makes Nova Roma more grand in scope than a mere
organization - which is needed for a community that has taken on the goals of
restoring many things from Roma Antiqua.

Hope that helps give you an idea of at least my personal "moderate" position
on some of the issues which have been discussed recently. I am sure that
some would disagree with a few of these points, and would certainly add others.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pater Patriae





The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

All things take time.--QCB

Mike Abboud <mikeabboud@...> wrote:I take it none of us are of the handy sort oh say like...carpenters,
electricians and plumbers. If the majority of us are like me I need
something to sell to be useful. Oh well. That's why it's a dream



Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

mikeabboud@...



_____

From: QFabiusMaxmi@... [mailto:QFabiusMaxmi@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:22 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Opportunity (The Land Grab)



In a message dated 9/14/04 6:12:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
petreius@... writes:

> I confess that while there's a puckish part of me that loves the idea
> of an actual Republic of Nova Roma flying its flag at the UN,
> bobsledding at the Olympics, mocking American tourists and doing all
> the other things independent nations do, I question the realism of the
> prospect.

As do I. If all 420 of us were millionaires we would likely buy an island.

I understand the Caribbean has some going for real cheap right now :-).

But, we don't. And after the 24 mill to buy the Island, bribe the nearby
neighbors to leave us alone, we are going to have to establish a Patron
Client
relationship with a nearby "power" that has patrol boats and militia to
protect
us from pirates. That means we are paying Tribute.

Next comes the infrastructure. If we just want 1st cent BC Rome, it would
be
cheap.

Maybe 200 million, for the 100 or so occupants. The most expensive would
the
marble,
since it must be imported from far away. I doubt we would use lead pipes
for
drinking water
PCV would do. Of course we would have to built replicas of Roman furniture,

villas and the
Temples. "Gladiator" spent 3.5 mill on two sets in Malta. Imagine we need
at least 30 sets and there's where most of the money will go.

But I doubt any of us 21st cent people would want to live in 1st Cent BC
Rome. Maybe as a novelty, but for life? I doubt it.

We are going to want electricity, flush toilets, gas stoves, and a landing
strip.

So triple that figure. We have to have a power generator, to build it will
cost 100 million
It'll be oil fired, so we have to import oil. We need a loading dock to and

storage tanks.
120 mill.
Landing strip is cheap if we just go with a macadamized strip. 3 mill
Tanks to hold our propane, piping to get it to our villas. 2 mill

Water. If we don't have a local source that is plentiful, then we need a
desalination plant
150 mill.

So you see such a dream is just that. Most of us here, based on the
comments
gleaned are dirt poor. Most cannot pay 12 dollars American for their yearly

tax.
This is why I said earlier such an idea is patently silly.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Q. Fabius Maximus


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






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1298494ve/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1095276304/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http:/compa
nion.yahoo.com> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2128215/rand=753722943>



_____

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
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Quinte Cassi,

Quintus Cassius Brutus wrote:

> If Nova Roma seeks to bring back Ancient Rome and its ways
> (within reason of course) then the degree to which modern
> concepts are introduced does matter. Otherwise you dilute
> and destroy in my opinion all that you sought to accomplsih.

Oh you're certainly right. The decisions we make should, as far as
possible, be made from a basis of Roman rationality. By that I mean
that if we do something, or propose to do something, different from the
way it was done in antiquity it ought to be for reasons that would make
sense to Romans, and fit with their ideas of propriety.

Consider, for example, the point you raised about women in official
positions. In Roman law there is a very important concept of "iura
publica" which is both the right to vote and to offer one's self for
public office. There is an important resprocity in this right, in that
anyone who has the right to vote *for* a given office also has, at least
in principle, the right to stand for it someday. (Assuming of course
that they're willing to do the things necessary to qualify for candidacy.)

It follows from the Roman Legal concept of the iura publica that since
we've given it to women in NR, then all offices that women can possibly
vote for are also offices that women can hold. For some offices there
would also be many years of prior experience needed, and possibly the
successful completion of other offices, but the Roman concept of the
iura publica tells us quite clearly what the answer to such questions
must be.

In terms of an explicitly religious office, such as pontifex, this
raises the question of whether or not any women are in a position to
vote for a pontifex. In the past we have had women serving as
pontifices within our Collegium Pontificum, which would have permitted
women to vote in the co-optation process of bringing in new pontifices.
However, there's another important thing to consider, and that is that
pontifices must be confirmed by the Comitia Curiata. Our Comitia
Curiata contains two women. Therefore it seems clear to me that the
Romans of antiquity have given us the answer we seek, if only we will
study the Roman law. It is clear in the definition of the iura publica
that voting for a given office implies a right to stand for that office.

Vale,

-- Marinus

can't argue with that. Well said I must say. Even if I was to be argumentative it would be that of a last stand argument.--QCB

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:Salvete Quirites, et salve Quinte Cassi,

Quintus Cassius Brutus wrote:

> If Nova Roma seeks to bring back Ancient Rome and its ways
> (within reason of course) then the degree to which modern
> concepts are introduced does matter. Otherwise you dilute
> and destroy in my opinion all that you sought to accomplsih.

Oh you're certainly right. The decisions we make should, as far as
possible, be made from a basis of Roman rationality. By that I mean
that if we do something, or propose to do something, different from the
way it was done in antiquity it ought to be for reasons that would make
sense to Romans, and fit with their ideas of propriety.

Consider, for example, the point you raised about women in official
positions. In Roman law there is a very important concept of "iura
publica" which is both the right to vote and to offer one's self for
public office. There is an important resprocity in this right, in that
anyone who has the right to vote *for* a given office also has, at least
in principle, the right to stand for it someday. (Assuming of course
that they're willing to do the things necessary to qualify for candidacy.)

It follows from the Roman Legal concept of the iura publica that since
we've given it to women in NR, then all offices that women can possibly
vote for are also offices that women can hold. For some offices there
would also be many years of prior experience needed, and possibly the
successful completion of other offices, but the Roman concept of the
iura publica tells us quite clearly what the answer to such questions
must be.

In terms of an explicitly religious office, such as pontifex, this
raises the question of whether or not any women are in a position to
vote for a pontifex. In the past we have had women serving as
pontifices within our Collegium Pontificum, which would have permitted
women to vote in the co-optation process of bringing in new pontifices.
However, there's another important thing to consider, and that is that
pontifices must be confirmed by the Comitia Curiata. Our Comitia
Curiata contains two women. Therefore it seems clear to me that the
Romans of antiquity have given us the answer we seek, if only we will
study the Roman law. It is clear in the definition of the iura publica
that voting for a given office implies a right to stand for that office.

Vale,

-- Marinus


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

what desire would there be to not share power? However, playing the women are sick of this or that card does nothing more that making any further debate of this look bigotted and sexist and is not worth debating.--QCB

Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:But I refer to thinks like, lets just view the Religio for example.
If there were gender specific roles in the Religio then follow them.
This is not being sexist mind you.

Salvete;
Yes this is the difficulty, where does historicity stop and plain ,
not desiring to share power come in. I posted some reasons where I
argued that the posts of augur, pontifex and flamen should be open to
women as they are magistracies.
And the vestals were considered members of the COllegium
Pontificum, so being female is no bar.

Yet we have this unsaid situation. I for one would welcome Caecilus
Metellus or Maximus's or Druse's or Scaurus's learned response.

Most religions whether Christianity, Hinuism, Islam, Buddhism bar
women from the higher offices and usually some form of
the 'tradition' argument is heard from.

Women understandably are sick of hearing this and you can see the
growth in modern cults such as witchcraft and wicca amongst educated
Western women.
Hearing the tradition argument without any historical bolstering
does not make the all-male Collegium Pontificium of the Relgio a
pretty sight.
So please, convince me or share the power...,
bene vale in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

G. Equitius Cato Q. Cassio Bruto S.P.D.

Salve, Cassius Brutus.

Let me quote myself (with some paraphrasing) from a little while ago:

"We Moderati realize that just being "anti-Boni" is not productive.
It is what brought most of us together, and is a touch-stone from
which we are developing a much more organized way of approaching
issues, but simply being a negative force is, well, negative. To
be "anti" someone or something is not a foundation on which to
build; we have realized that we can be a very productive force in
NR, and would rather turn our efforts to building. If the Boni,
either in singular or plural form, disagree with how we would
approach an issue, then it that particular instance, on that
particular issue yes, we would be "anti"-Boni --- but would present
an alternative viewpoint, rather than simply screech without purpose
or aim. We are not, and will in the future not be, a chorus of "nay-
sayers". We will present our ideas and opinions after careful
consideration and conversation with each other. If we still
disagree, we are free to voice our individual opinions.

We call ourselves "Moderati" because we have a much broader vision
of what Nova Roma can be, without a pre-conceived set of straight-
jacket-like approaches to any issue. We, like the Romans, are
willing to syncretize, to adapt, to mold and shape as we see best
for Nova Roma, even if it involves branching out into new
territories --- always with a firm eye fixed on Roma Antiqua."

Now, I'd like to add a bit.

We have all accepted the fact that the phrase "the best of ancient
Rome" is basically useless as a guideline. On the Constitution List
everyone, conservative or whatever alike, agreed that in a revised
Constitution this phrase would be best dropped. It only serves to
act as a point around which arguments will spring full-grown like
Athena from Zeus' head.

We have all also accepted the fact that there are certain parts of
ancient life which either cannot be reconstructed due to illegality
in any number of the macronations in which Nova Roman citizens
reside, or are not reconstructed simply because it is unthinkable
that we do so: I speak specifically of the use of computers,
electricity, automobiles (or other modern methods of
transportation), medicine, etc., which are an indispensable part of
life in the 28th century A.U.C. We accept these last because it is
utterly inane to imagine trying to exist in the world today without
them.

What about other things? Let's look at two: gender-specific
priresthoods (Male vestals, female priests of Hercules), and female
pontifices.

The Moderati would agree that there were in the ancient world gender-
specific religious orders, as there are within many religions
today. Because there is no appreciable difference in the activities
or benefits or social standing of these priesthoods, the Moderati
see absolutely no reason why they cannot be continued, as gender-
specific, in Nova Roma. There is no stigma attached to being one or
the other, neither is more "important" than the other: it is simply
a matter of those wishing to become a priest in Nova Roma join a
priesthood appropriate for their gender as determined by the
ancients.

The question of female pontifices is quite different. Here is where
the Moderati would say that, in accordance with both the letter and
the spirit of our Constitution, as determined by our Founders, there
is no reason to continue the sexism of the ancients. Women are the
equals of men in every societal, ethical, moral, and political way.
That is simply a fact. The ancients were, quite simply, wrong. It
is not demeaning to recognize that they were not able to understand
this the way we are today; it's just a fact of history. But it is
still wrong, and we are by no means required to follow them into
this error simply because they *are* the ancients. To do so is
folly.

The Moderati would say that any issue that comes before Nova Roma is
subject to the same scrutiny by her citizens that the ancient Romans
would have used in their day. If, as outlined above, we think that
the ancients were wrong, we are willing to acknowledge it, correct
it, and move on. The ancients did the same thing, and became
greater and stronger for it. That is their spirit, and the Moderati
believe that the *spirit* of Rome is as important as the letter.

Very simply put, the Moderati do not see the past 1700 years as
a "mistake" to be glossed over or ignored. Good and bad have
happened; we believe that Nova Roma's citizens are wise enough to be
able to tell the difference.

Vale bene,

Cato
Moderatus

Salvete Cives,

still the 7 leading players answered correctly!

This time you must be VERY accurate in your answers: what we need is the name of the subject of the picture and its location.

The picture is at:

http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius/photo_quiz

On the proposed page you will find a link with the answer to yesterday's pic and a first top ranking list!

Just write to m_iulius@... (m_iulius at yahoo dot it) the answer: subject matter of the photo, and the location of the subject. Also add your Nova Roman name ;-)

For this picture you will be awarded 2 point if you are partly correct, and 3 if you are completely correct.

Bona Fortuna, and Enjoy the Ludi!!!





M·IVL·PERVSIANVS
-------------------------
Aedilis Curulis
Vicarius Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae
Magister Academiae Italicae
---------------------------------------------
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/perusianus
http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
http://italia.novaroma.org
http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
---------------------------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM

---------------------------------
Scopri Mister Yahoo! - il fantatorneo sul calcio di Yahoo! Sport'

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

This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes
only. The text is copyright of its owner. I am not the author of the
proceeding document, it has been presented for Educational purposes
and all known Authors have been given due and proper credit.



LEX
LEX This term indicates generally a rule of law binding universally
on the citizens of a given state: Lex est commune praeceptum, virorum
prudentium consultum, delictorum coercitio, communis reipublicae
sponsio (Dig. 1, 3, 1); Legis virtus est haec, imperare, vetare,
permittere, punire (ib. 7). In the works of the Roman writers and
jurists it is used to denote an enactment of any body (or even
individual) constitutionally empowered to legislate, but more
properly it is used only of the enactments of the Comitia Centuriata.
Definitions of lex will be found in Cicero, de Leg. i. 6 (cf. ii.
16); in Aulus Gellius, x. 20 (by the jurist Capito); in Gaius, i. 3
(adopted in Justinian's Institutes, i. 2, 4); and in Dig. 1, 3, 1 (by
Papinian).

The earliest leges of which we read were those made in the Comitia
Curiata (whence they are called Leges Curiatæ), which till the
reforms of Servius Tullius was the only legislative body at Rome.
Some of these--the so-called leges regiae--were said to have been
enacted by the Comitia on the motion of Romulus, as well as of the
kings who succeeded him (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 2). Dionysius says (iii. 36)
that a collection of these leges regiae was made towards the end of
the regal period by one Sextus Papirius, a commentary on which,
written in the time of Julius Caesar by Granius Flaccus, is quoted in
Dig. 50, 16, 144; but it is improbable that they were anything more
than formal restatements of customary law already binding, and the
fact that Sextus Papirius was (according to Dionysius) a pontifex
suggests that they may have been only of sacerdotal import. (Some of
their substance has been collected in a fragmentary form by earlier
writers, and there is an essay on the subject by H. E. Dirksen:
Versuche zur Kritik und Auslegung, Leipzig, 1823). It may indeed be
doubted whether any large proportion of the enactments of the Comitia
Curiata were genuine laws, though the fifty leges of Servius
mentioned by Dionysius (iv. 13) seem to have made some general
changes; at any rate it is certain that after the establishment of
the Comitia Centuriata by Servius Tullius the assembly of the Curiae,
as a legislative body, fell almost entirely into disuse. We read of
its conferring the imperium on the magistrates, sanctioning
testaments and adrogations, and confirming some of the resolutions of
the centuries which were held to require a religious sanction, and in
all these cases it acted by a resolution or lex, but the difference
between such a lex and a true law is too obvious to need any further
exposition. And though even under Augustus a shadow of the old
constitution was preserved in the formal bestowal of the imperium by
a Lex Curiata only, the assembly of the Curiae had ceased even before
Cicero's time to consist of the old patricians: they were merely
represented by thirty lictors.

In the sense of a genuine enactment, establishing a rule of law, lex
denotes the legislation of the Comitia Centuriata, in which the law
was proposed (rogabatur) by a magistrate of senatorial rank, usually
by one or both of the consuls for the year (Inst. i. 2, 4). Such
leges were also called populiscita (Festus, s. v. Scitum Pop.).

The resolutions of the Comitia Tributa, whose origin was almost
contemporaneous with that of the centurial assembly, had not at first
the force of law: they seem to have been regarded merely as
expressions of plebeian opinion, by which the patricians gauged the
temper of the political opposition, and were guided to the line of
policy which party exigencies rendered expedient. They were known as
plebeiscita because the Comitia Tributa was at first attended only by
members of the plebs, though every Roman was in fact enrolled in a
tribe, and entitled to attend. When the tribunate of the plebs was
instituted (circ. B.C. 494), a means was provided by which the
resolutions of the tribes might become law. The tribunes were
permitted to appear at the threshold of the building where the senate
deliberated, and lay before it the proposals of the order which they
represented: if approved, these proposals could then be referred in
the ordinary way to the Comitia Centuriata, and thereby become
genuine enactments of the sovereign populus (Val. Max. ii. 2, 7).
After the enactment of the Lex Horatia Valeria (B.C. 449) the
patricians seem to have begun to take part in the business of the
Comitia Tributa, and it was perhaps provided by the same statute that
plebiscita which related to matters of purely private law should have
binding force without confirmation by the centuries. This exemption
was apparently extended to all plebiscita by the first of the Leges
Publiliae, B.C. 339 (Liv. viii. 12; Gellius, xv. 27), and finally a
Lex Hortensia (B.C. 287) dispensed with the requirement of senatorial
sanction to plebiscita. By this last change they were placed on a
footing of complete equality with leges passed in the Comitia
Centuriata (Dig. 2, 14, 7, 7; Gaius, i. 3; Inst. i. 2, 4): as the
latter were proposed to the centuries by a senatorial magistrate, so
they were submitted to the tribes by a tribune: leges related in the
main to administrative and constitutional matters, plebiscita to
matters of private law. The result of the equal legislative authority
of the two comitia was that plebiscita came not uncommonly to be
called leges, lex becoming a generic term (Dig. 1, 3, 32, 1), to
which was sometimes added the specific designation, as lex
plebeivescitum, lex sive plebiscitum est (e. g. the Tabula
Heracleensis, Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c. vol. ix. p. 355). Cicero, in
his enumeration of the sources of Roman law (Top. 5), does not
mention plebiscita, which he undoubtedly included under leges: among
the so-called leges which in fact were plebiscita are the Lex Aquilia
(Cic. pro Tullio, 8, 11; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1), the Lex Canuleia, Lex
Rubria, &c. [p. 33]

The term rogatio means any measure proposed (bill, projet de loi) to
the legislative body, whether on its enactment it would technically
be a lex or a plebiscitum: hence the expressions populum rogare (Cic.
Phil. i. 1. 0, 26), plebem rogare (de Leg. iii. 3, 9), legem rogare
(de Republ. iii. 10, 17; Phil. ii. 29, 72; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1), and, by
analogy, magistratum rogare, to offer a magistrate for election to
the people (Liv. iii. 65, vi. 42; Cic. ad Att. ix. 1. 5, 2, &c.;
Sallust, Jug. 29: cf. Festus, s. v. Rogatio). The form of such
rogation (in the case of an adrogation effected before the Comitia
Curiata) is given by Gellius, v. 19, 5, 9: Velitis jubeatis, uti L.
Valerius L. Titio tam jure legeque filius siet, quamsi ex eo patre
matreque familias ejus natus esset, utique ei vitae necisque in eum
potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est, haec ita uti dixi, ita vos
quirites rogo. Assent to the proposal was expressed in the form uti
rogas (which explains the term sponsio in the definition of lex above
from Dig. 1, 3, 1); rejection by the verb antiquo (Liv. iv. 58, v.
30, 55, &c.; Cic. de Off. ii. 2. 1, 73; ad Att. i. 13; de Leg. iii.
17, 38). The measures submitted were not unfrequently called
rogationes even after their definite enactment as leges or
plebiscita; and in Dig. 35, 2, 1, pr., an enacted statute is termed
lex rogata. Promulgare legem denotes the publication of its terms for
the public information (see LEX CAECILIA DIDIA inf.), such
publication being usually followed by contiones or meetings in which
the bill was explained and recommended to the people by its proposer
or supporters (suasores): this promulgation and informal discussion
is expressed by the phrase ferre legem as contrasted with rogare,
which is confined to the solemn submission of the measure to the
Comitia for acceptance or refusal: the general term used for
acceptance is rogationem accipere. Legem perferre is to carry a
rogatio, to convert it into a lex (Cic. Cornel. fragm. ap. Ascon.;
Liv. xxxiii. 46). Other terms familiarly used in connexion with leges
are explained by Ulpian (Reg. 1, 3): Lex aut rogatur, id est fertur:
aut abrogatur, id est, prior lex tollitur: aut derogatur, id est,
pars primae legis tollitur: aut subrogatur, id est, adjicitur aliquid
primae legi: aut obrogatur, id est, mutatur aliquid ex prima lege.

By Festus rogatio is described as equivalent to what is otherwise
called privilegium: a command of the populus relating to one or more
persons, but not to all persons, or relating to one or more things,
but not to all: cf. Dig. 50, 17, 196. Privilegia had been forbidden
by the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Leg. iii. 1. 9, 44; pro Domo, 17, 43),
but in the sense of statutes in favour of or directed against
individuals they are common; e. g. the Lex Centuriata by which Cicero
was recalled from exile: Non sunt generalia jussa, ... sed de
singulis concepta, quocirca privilegia vocari debent, quia veteres
priva dixerunt quae nos singula dicimus (Gellius, x. 20, 4). The term
is generally used by Cicero in the unfavourable sense (pro Domo, 17,
43; pro Sestio, 30, 65; Brut. 23, 89), and from the language in pro
Domo, 11, 28, it may be inferred that privilegia were not considered
leges proper: cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 3, 8: Jura non in singulas
personas, sed generaliter constituuntur. In the Corpus juris
privilegium is used generally to denote a jus singulare or privilege
conferred on classes by law: cf. Dig. 1, 3, 16; 9, 2, 51, 2; 1, 3, 14
and 15: and see Savigny, System, i. p. 61.

Of the form and style of Roman legislation we can judge to some
extent from the fragments which survive. The Romans seem to have
always adhered to the old expressions, and to have used few
superfluous words. Great care was taken with such clauses as were
intended to alter a previous lex (whence the standing clause de
impunitate si quid contra alias leges, ejus legis ergo, factum sit,
Cic. ad Att. iii. 2. 3), and to avoid all interference with prior
enactments when no change in them was contemplated (whence the common
formula ejus hac lege nihil rogatur, E. H. L. N. R. Lex Tab. Heracl.,
Lex Rubria, Lex Quinctia de aquaed.: cf. Valerius Probus; Cic. pro
Caec. 33, 95; pro Balbo, 14, 32): though the general principle seems
to have been that a subsequent repealed or modified a prior lex with
which it was inconsistent. The leges were often divided into chapters
(capita), e. g. the Lex Aquilia (Gaius, iii. 210, 215, 217): cf. also
the tablet of the Lex Rubria or de Gall. Cisalp. and Cic. ad Att. l.
c. In order to preserve a permanent record, the lex was engraved on
bronze (aes) and deposited in the Aerarium (Sueton. Jul. 28; Plut.
Cat. min. 17): but it also seems to have been usual to cut statutes
on tablets of oak (Dionys. iii. 36), which were whitened over and
then fixed in a public place for all citizens to read, though whether
they were so exposed for any great length of time is uncertain (Cic.
ad Att. xiv. 1. 2). The title of the lex was generally derived from
the gentile name of the magistrate who proposed it, and sometimes
from those of both the consuls or praetors (e. g. Lex Aelia Sentia,
Junia Norbana, Papia Poppaea, &c.): and it was sometimes further
described by reference to the topic to which it related (e. g. Lex
Cincia de donis et muneribus, Lex Furia de sponsu, Lex Furia
testamentaria, Lex Julia municipalis, &c.). Leges which related to a
common subject were often designated by a collective name, as Leges
agrariae, judiciariae, sumptuariae, &c. When a lex comprised very
various provisions, relating to matters essentially different, it was
called Lex Satura.

The terms in which a statute was expressed were fixed by the
proposer, though he would usually be assisted by others who possessed
the requisite familiarity with technical language: it was proposed to
the Comitia for acceptance or rejection in its entirety, there being
no discussion of or alteration in its clauses, which indeed in such
an assembly would have been injurious, if not impossible. One
important part of the lex was its sanctio--i.e. that part of it which
provided a penalty for, or declared what should be the effect of, its
infraction (Inst. ii. 1, 10; Auct. ad Herenn. ii. 10; Cic. de Invent.
ii. 4. 9, 146; Papinian in Dig. 48, 19, 41). If the sanctio declared
that the act against which the statute was directed should be void,
the lex was said to be perfecta; if there was no such provision, it
was imperfecta (e.g. the Lex Cincia): and if an act was merely
penalised, but not declared void, the lex is said by Ulpian (Reg. 1,
2) to be called minus quam perfecta (e. g. the Leges Furiae [p. 34]
testamentaria and de sponsu): cf. Savigny, System, iv. p. 549 sq.

The number of leges was largely increased towards the end of the
republican period (Tac. Ann. iii. 25-28), and Julius Caesar is said
to have contemplated a revision of the whole of them. Augustus, and
perhaps his immediate successors, was careful to conduct his
legislation under republican forms, though it may be doubted whether
any statute was enacted after the fall of the Republic except on the
initiative of the emperor, or at any rate without his sanction
express or implied. The Comitia assembled and gave the force of law
to the proposals submitted to them for some time after the
constitution had lost all trace of real freedom (Tac. Ann. i. 15
relates to the election of magistrates, not to legislation); and most
of the Leges Juliae, a Lex Visellia, an agrarian law of Caligula, and
a law of Claudius (Gaius, i. 157, 171) were enacted in the ordinary
way. The last statute which we know to have been passed in this
manner is a lex agraria of the time of Nerva (A.D. 96-98), mentioned
in Dig. 47, 21, 3, 1. Gaius speaks of the Comitia as in theory still
a source of law ( lex est, quod populus jubet atque constituit,
plebiscitum, quod plebs jubet atque constituit, i. 3: cf. Inst. i. 2,
4, in which the present tense has been turned into the past): but it
is improbable that they had been called upon to discharge legislative
functions since A.D. 100.

For some reigns after that of Augustus legislation was most
ordinarily conducted by resolutions of the senate [SENATUSCONSULTUM],
into which the proposed law was introduced by a consul, or very often
by an oration of the emperor [CONSTITUTIONES]. Originally
senatusconsulta did not acquire the force of law until they had been
confirmed by the Comitia, in which case they were leges proper: but
during the last half-century of the Republic the senate asserted and
established an independent right of legislation. Hence, when genuine
statutes ceased to be enacted with any frequency, senatusconsulta
came to be actually called leges. Justinian says (Inst. i. 2, 5), Cum
auctus esset populus Romanus in eum modum ut difficile esset in unum
eum convocari legis sanciendae causa, aequum visum est senatum vice
populi consuli: a passage based on similar language of Pomponius in
Dig. 1, 2, 2, 9. The name comitia came to be commonly given to the
sittings of the senate (Tac. Ann. i. 15; Capitol. Max. 10). Gaius
says (i. 4) that a senatusconsultum vicem legis obtinet, and in i. 85
he terms a senatusconsult of Claudius a lex: for similar passages cf.
Dig. 14, 6, 9, 4; ib. 14; 48, 16, 10. No senatusconsulta occur after
the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). The constitutions of
the emperors, which succeeded senatusconsulta as the ordinary mode of
legislation, were also called leges (e.g. Lex Anastasiana, Cod. 4,
35, 22): cf. Inst. i. 2, 6, and Dig. 1, 4, 1: Quodcunque Imperator
statuit, legem esse constat. [See CONSTITUTIONES]

A less common and proper signification of lex, quite distinct from
that of a general rule of law, is that in which it denotes the
conditions under which a thing is to be done, or under which parties
contract with one another: e. g. lex commissoria [COMMISSORIA]; leges
venditionis or emptionis, conditions of sale, Dig. 18, 1, 40 (which
explains why Cicero speaks of Marcus Manilius' work on sales as
Manilianas venalium vendendorum leges, de Orat. i. 58, 246); legem
traditioni dicere, Dig. 8, 4, 17, 3; lex donationis, Dig. 1, 5, 22,
Accordingly we find the expression leges censoriae to express the
conditions on which the censors let the public property or taxes to
farm, which were perhaps embodied in certain standing regulations
(Fragm. de jure fisci, § 18; Dig. 50, 16, 203). Similarly the term is
used of conditions imposed on a testamentary disposition: legatario
legem dicere, Dig. 40, 5; 40, 1; cf. Dig. 32, 22, pr. Not
unfrequently lex denotes merely the statute of the Twelve Tables (e.
g. Dig. 2, 14, 7, 14; 8, 3, 13; 41, 3, 3, &c.), and in one passage it
means nothing more than the nature or character of a thing: lex danda
operi talis, ne quid noceat vicinis, Dig. 39, 2, 15, 10. The extant
authorities for Roman leges are inscriptions and the works of the
classical writers and jurists. The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum of
Mommsen of course comprises all extant records of authentic
legislation, along with a vast number of other inscriptions; smaller
collections, relating more particularly to leges, are those of
Göttling (Römische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein, Halle, 1845) and Zell
(Delectus inscriptionum cum monumentis legalibus fere omnibus): cf.
also Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, i. § § 81-86. The best
information as to the fragmentary citations from or references to
leges which are found scattered about in non-juristic Latin writers
is to be obtained from Haubold's Institutiones juris Romani
litterariae, vol. i. pp. 241-44, 297-349 (Leipzig, 1809): of the
imperial legislation (independently of the Codes which have come down
to us) there is a very full collection by Haenel, Corpus legum, &c.
Fasc. i. (Leipzig, 1857). But perhaps the most useful modern
collection to the classical student is that of Orelli (vol. viii. of
his edition of Cicero) entitled Index legum Romanarum quarum apud
Ciceronem ejusque Scholiastas, item apud Livium, Velleium Paterculum,
A. Gellium nominatim mentio fit.

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, LLD.
William Wayte. G. E. Marindin. Albemarle Street, London. John Murray.
1890.



Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP

P. Minius Albucius Gn. Equitio Marino Consul s.d.

Honorable Consul,

As scriba propraetoris, I just have the opportunity to translate from English to French all the texts of the laws approved by NR. I am still alive.

Instead of keeping groaning on the way NR laws have been written and desperating on how I can translate in sharp words what has been written in imprecise ones, I take the liberty to send you these observations and proposals. They may help you reaching a better text.

Humbly and respectfully.

Optime vale.

scr. Cadomago (Gallia) a.d. XVII Kal. Oct. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

P. Minius Albucius
Scr. Propraetoris Galliae


Lex EQUITIA de tirocinio civium novorum

In the following observations, a :

@ is for a formal (juridical, textual) remark ;

@@ is for a matter or an opportunity one.

The original text (digest Consul Equitius post n° 28635) is in italics.





@ I think that this project could have been an opportunity for precising the powers of the Censors in the field of dealing with requests for citizenship : neither the constitution nor the laws have yet done that work.





Nova Roman citizenship begins at the instant a pater- or
materfamilias recognizes a person as a member of their Nova Roman
familia and informs

@ precise " (the magistrates) of this recognition "



the lawfully designated Nova Roman magistrates

@ Let us be precise and write " the censors " or a more general expression like " the censors office ".

@@ For it seems that, for an important question like citizenship, and according to roman classic republican age history, the place of the censors is a key one. Do not let us be vague, and point the censors as THE responsible in dealing with any citizenship application.


responsible for citizen registration of this recognition.

@ So, when does the citizenship begins REALLY ? When the pater-/mater- familias recognizes OR when he/she informs the " magistrate " ? That is not indifferent. You may have several weeks between the two acts.

If we choose to leave " and (informs) ", we consider that the citizenship begins at the instant when the information is given.

@@ It is not just a matter of words : does the power of recognition belong to the gentes or the magistrates ? The formal solution that we will choose will set our answer to this question.

@ when the information is given or RECEIVED ? Should not we foresee these proceedings ?



In the case of newly created familia, where the pater or materfamilias is joining Nova Roma as the familia is being registered,



@ We should hereby take the opportunity to propose to Novaromans some precisions on the relations between individuals and pater or mater familias according the citizenship registration.

I think that we cannot say that " where the pater or materfamilias is joining
Nova Roma as the familia is being registered " : for when " Novum " joins, he joins first as an individual.

Then our laws tell us that he needs a pater or mater recognition. You will tell me " except for the creation of a family ", that is the aim of this paragraph. Yes, but we need to be more precise. For example, what happens if the family creation proposed by " Novum " is not accepted ? Would the magistrates recommend him/her to get a pater or mater familias ? But would he/she accept ?

So, let us open clearly, in a general paragraph, two ways of that kind :

" when someone requests his/her citizenship, he has to choose on two different application ways :

- as a member of an existing family ;

or

- as a pater or mater familias, according to his/her sex, such as this word is defined by Nova Roma laws.

etc.



citizenship begins with the approval of the Censors.

@ Let us precise something like " the approval act, duly communicated to the applicant " (see my remark above) ;

@ Here are used the word " censors ". Is it willingly that they are not use it in this draft first paragraph, speaking of " the lawfully designated NR magistrates " ? If yes, for what intention ? If no, why would not we change this last expression for " censors " ?





Beginning Kalendis Ianuarias, MMDCCLVII, all new citizens of Nova
Roma shall be subject to a probationary period of at least 90 days,




So, our Novum is now a citizen...



@ In all the modern systems of laws, retroactive laws are forbidden, and generally seen as contrary to democracy.

Did the writer intend to write " 2757 " or did he have in mind " 2758 " ?



@ Just an humble proposal - but maybe U.S. cultural lawmaking is different : it is often more simple to write " a citizen " or " each citizen " instead of " all citizens ", for what is set for one is set for all. That is the essence of Law. And the more a law is precise and short (even if both are a hard work !), the better is.

@ Same remark for the use of the future : the present has in Law a compulsory meaning. So you can say : " From X, each citizen is subject to.. ".

@@ I think that the point to know if it was interesting to create 2 new categories of citizens has been already debated, the lucky still inside and the future new ones. I understand this will to have " skilled " citizens. But if Rome has done this way, it would have stay a little territory without Latins, Etruscans, Italians, and so on. They finally got citizenship, and rather soon. Added to that, I think your honorable project can be contrary to the central aim of Nova Roma as a " Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. " (Constitution, preamble). Maybe we should accept people and help them to bring their love for Rome in " roman " ways instead of telling them : " be skilled first ". But I admit that this point is really a matter of view, one of the most important for NR, perhaps.



@ " at least 90 days " is correct if the text is to explain that this period can go further, how and why. Maybe this explanation can be found in the next paragraph ?



during which they will not possess the 'iura publica', the public right
to vote and to stand for any public office.


@ forgive me if I miss some NR law : are the " iura publica " defined somewhere else, in our NR law system ? If not, it would be interesting to do it, for this kind of rights seem to have a general level which would draw them inside a general law on civil rights or in the constitution itself.

@ " iura publica " is a plural. However, the text writes just after the comma : " the public right " without an " s ", and quotes 2 rights, not one.

@ Is it to say that Novum, after having passed his/her exam and/or ended his/her 90 days prob period will have all his/her " public rights ", such as the draft defines them ?

Let us do not forget the laws Vedia and Cornelia Octavia de assidui et capiti censi :



" No member of the capiti censi may run for or hold office as one of the ordinarii (including the apparitores), nor be appointed to or hold office as provincial governor. Members of the capiti censi may hold provincial or local offices at the discretion of the governor of the province in question. " (Vedia III, C)




The probationary period will end when 90 days have passed and the
new citizen has taken and passed a simple examination

@ When does the examination stand : inside or outside this 90 days period ?

We must precise it. The more simple solution is inside, I think.

@ When does this period end EXACTLY ? The " have passed AND the new citizen has taken and passed " could be precised.

In a extensive interpretation, we could consider that, as long as Novum has not passed the exam, he/she is citizen but a second rank one, without " iura publica ". If Novum fails to pass his exams, he will remain in this situation several weeks or several months.

@ In this previous case, what would be NR obligation ? Would our Res publica have the duty to schedule an exam every month, for example ? If we are in that case, let us write it down.

@ what kind of appeal Novum has he/she against the results of this exam, or the way it has been led ? Theorically, Novum has access to provocatio...



covering elementary matters of Nova Roman citizenship and basic Roman history, religion, language, and social practices.

@ Care to the differences that you set between these different fields :

ELEMENTARY matters of (..) citizenship

BASIC roman history

Religion, language, and social practices.

So, Novum will be asked to be more skilled in language, for exemple, than in citizenship or roman history. Is this your intention ?



@@ I am wondering how many nowadays citizens would pass such an average exam...





This examination shall be made available, upon request of the applicant, in any of the languages for which Nova Roma has qualified translators.



@ " qualified translators " : from what language to which one ? Swahili to ouïgur ? We would need to precise this notion.

@ I propose : " (..) available in the language chosen by the applicant inside a list of official languages "

[and, apart, we can define, for example in this draft law, this list of official languages. Here, we have two possibilities :


- a conservative one : explaining beside this list that " official " languages quoted in the list have people recognized as " qualified translators " from and to them to and from Latin or English ;

- a progressive one : the same, and, in addition, you bring modifications in lex Cornelia de linguis publicis (2755-02-07) to let every NR province official macronational language to be an official language of NR.



@@ A real international organization recognizes as official each language spoken officially in each of its state. In the European Union, for example, Polish has the same value than English, Lithuanian than German. We are and want to be an international organization : let us do the same. It does not prevent people to communicate through a vehicular language. When we really want to communicate, this is never a problem.

The examination will be developed by the Censors or such other magistrates as the Censors may designate,

@@ Let us keep this power inside censorial functions or inside censorial office. A key subject like this must not be shared with other, less accepted, magistrates. Let ask the censors to keep this responsibility.



and shall be reviewed annually by the Senate.

@@ Why ? Let us ask, if we think it useful, an opinion to the Senate. But again, do not let us create interference between constitutional powers and weaken the Censors efficiency in that task.



The examination will be graded by the Censors or by such other persons as
may be directed by law.


@@ Inside censorial function or censors office, I would suggest. Again do not let us make things complicated and give first power and responsibility to the censors, and then let dilute them !

Let us accept, if the censorial work is too hard, to see them getting more assistants and scribes, but under their personal responsibility.



These requirements may be wholly or partially waived by the Senate
in exceptional circumstances.

@@ Exceptional circumstances are always dangerous for a res publica.

@@ Again, why " the Senate " ? Generally, the first authority which is authorized in departing from a rule is this one which is usually in charge with its application. Why not give this exceptional power to the Censors, for example after a senatorial advice ?


@ I think this just a matter of writing. It seems that you have intended to evoke

" particular (application) cases ", the following ones.



Examples of such exceptions would include, but not be limited to, applicants who have been perigrinus citizens of a municipium or oppidum for 6 months, applicants who are perigrinus citizens of municipia or oppidia who have been elected to an elective office such as duumvir or aedilis, and applicants sponsored by a curule magistrate, to include provincial governors.


@ " examples of " can be deleted.

@ If the plural is to be kept, " peregrinus " must become " peregrini "



Minor citizens who join Nova Roma after Kalendis Ianuarias, MMDCCLVII
and who have not yet reached 18 years of age may take the examination up
to 90 days before their 18th birthday. Taking and passing the
examination early will not entitle them to vote or stand for office
before their 18th birthday.


@ Only " impuberes " fit that definition of " minor citizens who (can) join " before 18.

We should use this term, used by the Constitution.





(end)



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

Salve Marce Iuli!

Are you kidding? That's all we get? :-O.


This might be it for me.

Vale,

G. Popillius Laenas




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Iulius <m_iulius@y...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete Cives,
>
> still the 7 leading players answered correctly!
>
> This time you must be VERY accurate in your answers: what we need

is the name of the subject of the picture and its location.

>
> The picture is at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius/photo_quiz
>
> On the proposed page you will find a link with the answer to

yesterday's pic and a first top ranking list!

>
> Just write to m_iulius@y... (m_iulius at yahoo dot it) the answer:

subject matter of the photo, and the location of the subject. Also
add your Nova Roman name ;-)

>
> For this picture you will be awarded 2 point if you are partly

correct, and 3 if you are completely correct.

>
> Bona Fortuna, and Enjoy the Ludi!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> M·IVL·PERVSIANVS
> -------------------------
> Aedilis Curulis
> Vicarius Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae
> Magister Academiae Italicae
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://www.insulaumbra.com/aediles/perusianus
> http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
> http://italia.novaroma.org
> http://italia.novaroma.org/signaromanorum
> ---------------------------------------------
> AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM
>
> ---------------------------------
> Scopri Mister Yahoo! - il fantatorneo sul calcio di Yahoo! Sport'
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Apollonius Cordus omnibusque sal.

Since the subject of factions has arisen again, and
since the current conversation seems to involve people
who were not, I think, participating in the last such
discussion, let me just repeat something which I (and,
it seems, very few others) think is quite important.

Organized political groups - even ones with such
minimal organization as the 'Boni' and the 'Moderati'
possess - would have been regarded by the Romans as
dangerous and subversive conspiracies (conjurationes),
and would in all likelihood have been forcibly closed
down by the consuls acting on the advice of the
senate. No one who claims to be a supporter of
historical accuracy has any business being in one at all.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Publi Albuci, et salvete omnes,

Publius Albucius wrote:

> As scriba propraetoris, I just have the opportunity to translate from
> English to French all the texts of the laws approved by NR. I am still
> alive.

And I certainly appreciate your efforts.

> @ I think that this project could have been an opportunity for precising
> the powers of the Censors in the field of dealing with requests for
> citizenship : neither the constitution nor the laws have yet done that work.

I'm very concerned with the way that the Censorship has been realized in
Nova Roma, and would like to see it become more like it was in
antiquity. Our Censors should be elected together, in special elections
called for the sole purpose of electing a pair of Censors, and should
serve until they complete the census and celebrate the lustrum. If this
is to happen, we also need to shift some of the duties currently given
to the Censors to the Rogators, who handled routine voter registration
in antiquity.

> Nova Roman citizenship begins at the instant a pater- or
> materfamilias recognizes a person as a member of their Nova Roman
> familia and informs
>
> @ precise " (the magistrates) of this recognition "
>
>
>
> the lawfully designated Nova Roman magistrates
>
> @ Let us be precise and write " the censors " or a more general
> expression like " the censors office ".

No, because it may not be the Censors office.

> responsible for citizen registration of this recognition.
>
> @ So, when does the citizenship begins REALLY ? When the pater-/mater-
> familias recognizes OR when he/she informs the " magistrate " ? That is
> not indifferent. You may have several weeks between the two acts.

From a practical perspective, it begins when the information is placed
into the Citizen database. If the p/mater is slow to provide this
information, then the citizenship date will be later. The nature of the
sentence in the law is an *and* statement, which means both of those
conditions must be satisfied.

> If we choose to leave " and (informs) ", we consider that the
> citizenship begins at the instant when the information is given.

Yes, that is correct.

> @@ It is not just a matter of words : does the power of recognition
> belong to the gentes or the magistrates?

Magistrates recognize new gentes. P/maters recognize new citizens in
existing gentes.

> In the case of newly created familia, where the pater or materfamilias
> is joining Nova Roma as the familia is being registered,
>
>
>
> @ We should hereby take the opportunity to propose to Novaromans some
> precisions on the relations between individuals and pater or mater
> familias according the citizenship registration.

That already exists in the Lex Labiena de Gentibus.

> I think that we cannot say that " where the pater or materfamilias is
> joining
> Nova Roma as the familia is being registered " : for when " Novum "
> joins, he joins first as an individual.

Not necessarily.

> Then our laws tell us that he needs a pater or mater recognition. You
> will tell me " except for the creation of a family ", that is the aim of
> this paragraph. Yes, but we need to be more precise. For example, what
> happens if the family creation proposed by " Novum " is not accepted ?
> Would the magistrates recommend him/her to get a pater or mater
> familias ? But would he/she accept ?

Those are questions to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and not to
be forced to solution by an over-constrained law.

> citizenship begins with the approval of the Censors.

I should edit this, as it's from an earlier draft and should be replaced
by "responsible magistrates."

> Did the writer intend to write " 2757 " or did he have in mind " 2758 " ?

2758, and my accensi have already pointed this out to me. It will be
corrected in the text.

> @ forgive me if I miss some NR law : are the " iura publica " defined
> somewhere else, in our NR law system ?

No, it's a term from Roman Law, which has been recognized as a
legitimate basis for Nova Roman law for some years now.

> If not, it would be interesting
> to do it, for this kind of rights seem to have a general level which
> would draw them inside a general law on civil rights or in the
> constitution itself.

Yes, that's something to include in Constitutional reform, a matter I'm
also working on. But that is separate from this.

> @ " iura publica " is a plural. However, the text writes just after the
> comma : " the public right " without an " s ", and quotes 2 rights, not one.

This is a tricky concept, because the iura publica were granted as a
set. So in one sense it's a singular thing, and in another it's a set
of public rights.

> @ Is it to say that Novum, after having passed his/her exam and/or ended
> his/her 90 days prob period will have all his/her " public rights ",
> such as the draft defines them ?

Yes.

> Let us do not forget the laws Vedia and Cornelia Octavia de assidui et
> capiti censi :

The iura publica doesn't exempt a potential candidate from having to
meet qualifications for office. One of those qualifications is to be
assidui.

> @ When does the examination stand : inside or outside this 90 days period ?

Inside.

> In a extensive interpretation, we could consider that, as long as Novum
> has not passed the exam, he/she is citizen but a second rank one,
> without " iura publica ". If Novum fails to pass his exams, he will
> remain in this situation several weeks or several months.

That is exactly correct.

> @ In this previous case, what would be NR obligation? Would our Res
> publica have the duty to schedule an exam every month, for example? If
> we are in that case, let us write it down.

The test should be offered frequently. However, I don't want to
over-define the thing. Perhaps we should say that re-tests will be
offered at least once a month?

> @ what kind of appeal Novum has he/she against the results of this exam,
> or the way it has been led ? Theorically, Novum has access to provocatio...

Yes, there is provocatio.

> ELEMENTARY matters of (..) citizenship
>
> BASIC roman history
>
> Religion, language, and social practices.
>
> So, Novum will be asked to be more skilled in language, for exemple,
> than in citizenship or roman history. Is this your intention ?

No. The adjective "basic" applies to history, religion, language, and
social practices.

> @@ I am wondering how many nowadays citizens would pass such an average
> exam...

I have no idea. I hope that all of our citizens will voluntarily study
the basic citizenship information once it's posted. It would be a shame
if our new citizens made our existing citizens look foolish.

> This examination shall be made available, upon request of the applicant,
> in any of the languages for which Nova Roma has qualified translators.
>
>
>
> @ " qualified translators " : from what language to which one ? Swahili
> to ouïgur ? We would need to precise this notion.

Qualified translators in this case means translators approved by the Senate.

[much snipped]

Anyhow, thank you for your suggestions. I'll circulate them among my
accensi, and I feel sure we'll incorporate some of this. Please write
to me personally if there's anything else you wish to discuss about this
law.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Corde,

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

> Organized political groups - even ones with such
> minimal organization as the 'Boni' and the 'Moderati'
> possess - would have been regarded by the Romans as
> dangerous and subversive conspiracies (conjurationes),
> and would in all likelihood have been forcibly closed
> down by the consuls acting on the advice of the
> senate. No one who claims to be a supporter of
> historical accuracy has any business being in one at all.

I read the mailing list of the moderati as a guest. The Boni won't have
me (no surprise there) but I'd read their mailing list too if it were
open. The real problem is that a significant number of Senators are
members of the Boni, so it would be impossible for me to get the kind of
senatus consultum you suggest.

If I had a Senate with the ethical backbone to require a Code of Conduct
from themselves, the situation might be different. But we both know the
reality of the matter.

I do agree that if I had the sort of Imperium that a Consul in antiquity
had, I should march my Lictors into the meetings of both the Boni and
the Moderati, and demand that they disperse. But alas, I have to
recognize reality, and deal with the situation as it is, and not as I
wish it were.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Consul

If I may, your last statement is a bit ingenerous

> I do agree that if I had the sort of Imperium that a Consul in antiquity
> had, I should march my Lictors into the meetings of both the Boni and
> the Moderati, and demand that they disperse. But alas, I have to
> recognize reality, and deal with the situation as it is, and not as I
> wish it were.

Don't know about the Boni, but the fact the Moderati actually invited you,
not even requiring some kind of a pledge but allowing you as a mere
spectator over their list maybe suggest that they aren't a seditious group
plotting the fall of Nova Roma that should be dispersed threathening the
force of the lictors. From what I know of the moderati, they'd probably
dissolve by a mere request from a consul. I doubt teh same could be said of
the boni.

Putting the Moderati and the Boni in the same plate there was not exactly
nice, nor made justice to a group that at least is apparently open to be
somewhat under the control of the institutions of Nova Roma and it
ingenerates the idea the two groups, even with opposite ideas, are
essentially the same, bad, thing... which, it seems to me, is not.

Vale

DCF


--------- Original Message --------
Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Factions
Data: 15/09/04 16:26

>
>
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Corde,
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> > Organized political groups - even ones with such
> > minimal organization as the 'Boni' and the 'Moderati'
> > possess - would have been regarded by the Romans as
> > dangerous and subversive conspiracies (conjurationes),
> > and would in all likelihood have been forcibly closed
> > down by the consuls acting on the advice of the
> > senate. No one who claims to be a supporter of
> > historical accuracy has any business being in one at all.
>
> I read the mailing list of the moderati as a guest. The Boni won't have
> me (no surprise there) but I'd read their mailing list too if it were
> open. The real problem is that a significant number of Senators are
> members of the Boni, so it would be impossible for me to get the kind of
> senatus consultum you suggest.
>
> If I had a Senate with the ethical backbone to require a Code of Conduct
> from themselves, the situation might be different. But we both know the
> reality of the matter.
>
> I do agree that if I had the sort of Imperium that a Consul in antiquity
> had, I should march my Lictors into the meetings of both the Boni and
> the Moderati, and demand that they disperse. But alas, I have to
> recognize reality, and deal with the situation as it is, and not as I
> wish it were.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Conto Arancio. Zero rischi, zero spese, tanti interessi.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=658&d=20040915

AVETE CIVES ROMANI!

V bis question and relative answer:
Which was the main Middleage's use for the Theatre of Marcellus? Who
used to live there?

First of all was of Pierloni family; then Faffo family; it was then
transformed in a fortress by Savelli's family, probably during XIII
c.

VII question and relative answer (a tough one!):
List the names of all the buildings that, ever, have taken the
name "Curia". For example, one name was Curia Iulia; who did and
when were done the most important restorations of the palace of
Curia Iulia during the imperial age?

Strictly, the correct sequence for the Curiae Senatus was: Curia
Hostilia, Curia Sullana (or Curia Sullae, or Curia Cornelia), Curia
Pompei, Curia Iulia.
I was not obviously referring to all the temples where the Senate
used to meet.
The most important restorations during imperial age were: the one of
Domitianus, in 94 a.C.; the one of Diocletianus after the fire under
Carinus of 283 a.C., probably inaugurated in 303.

And now the classification:

11 pts:
Livia Iulia Drusilla
Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
Dom Constantinus Fuscus

10 pts:
Gn Equitius Marinus
H Rutilius Bardulus
M Iulius Aurelianus

9 pts:
Publius Constantinus Placidus

8 pts:
Q Salix Cantaber Uranicus

6 pts:
Q Cassius Brutus
P. Minius Albucius

2 pts:
P Constantinus Vetranio
G. Equitius Cato


VALETE
L IUL SULLA

A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Equitio Marino consuli
amicoque et omnibus sal.

> I read the mailing list of the moderati as a guest.
> The Boni won't have
> me (no surprise there) but I'd read their mailing
> list too if it were
> open.

I'm also a member of a list which is not, I think, the
list of the 'Moderati' themselves but one in which
they discuss things with those sympathetic to them. I
don't see anything wrong with talking to or observing
the members of such groups, and indeed I'm currently
in fairly amiable correspondence with about two of
each.

> ... The real problem is that a significant number
> of Senators are
> members of the Boni, so it would be impossible for
> me to get the kind of
> senatus consultum you suggest.

You never know - when confronted with the choice
between demolishing their own faction and exposing
their professions of historical rigour as insincere,
they might do something unexpected. :)

But seriously, I'm not asking you or the senate to
close these things down by force this minute. At the
moment that would probably do more harm than good, and
at any rate it would take up time which could be far
more constructively used. I still hope that they can
be persuaded to dismantle their factions voluntarily.
No doubt they will want to do this, as they do other
things, by consensus, and that will take some time. I
entertain the possibly naive hope that both groups are
currently discussing whether or not to dismantle
themselves as we speak.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

SALVETE CIVES

VIII question:
Aurelian Walls: during the reign of Aurelianus were built up the
great walls of Rome: how long were the walls? Who was the first
emperor who had to restore and strenghten the walls? And: who
inspired the following restoration under the reign of Honorius and
Arcadius (401-2)?

VALETE
L IUL SULLA

Granted I am merely a lurker, not a member of NR in
any way or in any capacity. I simply wish to comment
that as time goes on in human socities overall animal
sacrifices in religious contexts get discarded, much
as human sacrifices were discarded before animal
sacrifices were used to replace them. Such was
already a process underwy in Rome herself before she
fell. Plenty of Romans found animal sacrifices
barbaric and unnecessary and substituted non-animal
forms of sacrifice without seeming problem; this was
hastened by the introduction of the Egyptian orders,
particulalrly the cult of Isis, that often used bread
instead of animals for ceremonial sacrifices (which is
where Xianity gets its use of bread from as a
sacrificial item -- see
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no_11_isis_and_serapis.htm
and
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0808almanac.htm).


In addition, I suspect there may be a large number of
folks who are or who would be potential NR members who
would avoid membership knowing that the official
religion condones or encourages animal sacrifice. The
awareness in human societies these days at large that
humans are categorically mistreating animals is rising
and that the reinstitution of animal sacrifice may
well do irreparable harm to the NR cause.

My 2 cents.

Matt

> 7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a

common
<practice (rather than as a rare or occasional
practice) as the best
<means of reviving proper religious rites.

Hmm, well maybe, but I am a Boni and have already
stated more than
once to all of them that I could not do an animal
sacrifice. No one
of the Boni tried to "throw me out".

Cassius:
Nor would I, if you supported 90 percent of the other
conservative
policies
I stood for! That doesn't mean that common animal
sacrifice would not
remain
a serious goal of mine, even that it be "required"
for members of the
Priesthood so that religious reconstruction would be
*completely*
accurate in the
future. I'd simply leave that hurdle to be dealt with
at a later date,
and
enjoy your comradeship on all the other important
issues now.



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

Salve Amice,

Thank you for your thoughtful post regarding animal sacrifice in Nova
Roma.

Personally, I am a vegetarian of nearly three decades standing and I
sacrifice no animals in my practice of the Religio. Indeed, I would
hope that as people come to understand the conditions under which our
herd animals live and die, as well as the hidden costs to society and
the economy of the business of meat production, that wholesale
slaughter of animals would come to a halt.

On the other hand, the humane killing of animals for the purpose of
augury, for example, is well documented as a part of the Religio. I
firmly believe that when Rites are conducted in the name of Nova Roma
they are done in as humane a way as possible. I trust that the Rites
are conducted by persons of serious mind and honest intent. I am
grateful to them that they are doing everything that they can to
re-establish the Pax Deorum. Alteration of these Rites is not
something that we alone can decide to do, as they were instituted in
time out of memory by the Immortals. I would hope that anyone who
considers applying to Nova Roma would take a similar view.

I freely admit that it is possible that at some future date the
Immortals may make it clear that it is time for a change.

Again, thank you for bringing this up as I agree that it is something
that deserves serious consideration.

In peace,

Marcus Gladius Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Campbell <mcc99@y...> wrote:
> Granted I am merely a lurker, not a member of NR in
> any way or in any capacity. I simply wish to comment
> that as time goes on in human socities overall animal
> sacrifices in religious contexts get discarded, much
> as human sacrifices were discarded before animal
> sacrifices were used to replace them. Such was
> already a process underwy in Rome herself before she
> fell. Plenty of Romans found animal sacrifices
> barbaric and unnecessary and substituted non-animal
> forms of sacrifice without seeming problem; this was
> hastened by the introduction of the Egyptian orders,
> particulalrly the cult of Isis, that often used bread
> instead of animals for ceremonial sacrifices (which is
> where Xianity gets its use of bread from as a
> sacrificial item -- see
> http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no_11_isis_and_serapis.htm
> and
> http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0808almanac.htm).
>
>
> In addition, I suspect there may be a large number of
> folks who are or who would be potential NR members who
> would avoid membership knowing that the official
> religion condones or encourages animal sacrifice. The
> awareness in human societies these days at large that
> humans are categorically mistreating animals is rising
> and that the reinstitution of animal sacrifice may
> well do irreparable harm to the NR cause.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Matt
>
> > 7. A return to official live animal sacrifice as a
> common
> <practice (rather than as a rare or occasional
> practice) as the best
> <means of reviving proper religious rites.
>
> Hmm, well maybe, but I am a Boni and have already
> stated more than
> once to all of them that I could not do an animal
> sacrifice. No one
> of the Boni tried to "throw me out".
>
> Cassius:
> Nor would I, if you supported 90 percent of the other
> conservative
> policies
> I stood for! That doesn't mean that common animal
> sacrifice would not
> remain
> a serious goal of mine, even that it be "required"
> for members of the
> Priesthood so that religious reconstruction would be
> *completely*
> accurate in the
> future. I'd simply leave that hurdle to be dealt with
> at a later date,
> and
> enjoy your comradeship on all the other important
> issues now.
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com

"Some things, as your own Post admits, CANNOT realistically be recreated...the subjugation of women."

The above quote and the "women are tired hearing" this line used by Maior are simply not worth responding to. This type of rhetoric is specifically designed for pinning someone down and cornering them for the purpose of offensive/attack rhetoric. Any argument countering those points is viewed as sexism, "subjugation of women" or not "sharing power." I am not about to set myself up for such an assault and will not reply. View it however you want and draw your opinion however you want. But it simply won't be based on any response of mine. But since subjugate was the word employed why not look at its meaning. To have gender specific roles or say have male only pontifices is hardly subjugation. Subjugate: "1) To bring under control; conquer, 2) To make subservient; enslave." This definition does not constitute gender specific roles as subjugation. There is no conquering, subservience or enslavement. And no cive would be placed under control. That's all I have to say on the
matter anything else will receive nothing from me. This argument is farsical if it requires one side or the other to make statements designed to pin the other side down for the purpose of labelling them and then attacking them because of that forced label.

Vale


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

as always, well said.
--- gawne@... <gawne@...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Corde,
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
>
> > Organized political groups - even ones with such
> > minimal organization as the 'Boni' and the

'Moderati'

> > possess - would have been regarded by the Romans

as

> > dangerous and subversive conspiracies

(conjurationes),

> > and would in all likelihood have been forcibly

closed

> > down by the consuls acting on the advice of the
> > senate. No one who claims to be a supporter of
> > historical accuracy has any business being in one

at all.

>
> I read the mailing list of the moderati as a guest.

The Boni won't have

> me (no surprise there) but I'd read their mailing

list too if it were

> open. The real problem is that a significant number

of Senators are

> members of the Boni, so it would be impossible for

me to get the kind of

> senatus consultum you suggest.
>
> If I had a Senate with the ethical backbone to

require a Code of Conduct

> from themselves, the situation might be different.

But we both know the

> reality of the matter.
>
> I do agree that if I had the sort of Imperium that a

Consul in antiquity

> had, I should march my Lictors into the meetings of

both the Boni and

> the Moderati, and demand that they disperse. But

alas, I have to

> recognize reality, and deal with the situation as it

is, and not as I

> wish it were.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

A. Apollonius Cordus Domitio Constantino Fusco
omnibusque sal.

I'm not sure whether your comment below is directed at
me in any measure, but let me take it as an
opportunity to clarify:

> Putting the Moderati and the Boni in the same plate
> there was not exactly
> nice, nor made justice to a group that at least is
> apparently open to be
> somewhat under the control of the institutions of
> Nova Roma and it
> ingenerates the idea the two groups, even with
> opposite ideas, are
> essentially the same, bad, thing... which, it seems
> to me, is not.

I think the two groups are equally bad only inasmuch
as they are both factions, and as I've explained
several times before the very existence of such
groups, regardless and even in defiance of the good
intentions of their members, is in my view detrimental
to the res publica.

Having said that, it doesn't follow that the
individual members of the two groups, or even the
collective attitudes and (if they have any) policies
of the two groups are equally bad. One could draw an
analogy with two violent protest groups, one of which
campaigns for animal-rights, the other of which
campaigns on the basis of ethnic hatred. Inasmuch as
they use violence - that is to say, with regard to
their methods - the two groups are equally bad; but
with regard to their objectives, one is clearly worse.

I might also mention that I don't consider it a flaw
of character to belong to a faction. I must admit,
however, that I find the 'Boni' collectively somewhat
more deserving of blame on this count than the
'Moderati' since they, unlike the 'Moderati', claim to
espouse the strictest possible standard of historical
accuracy (so they can hardly claim to think the
introduction of unhistorical political partisanship a
desirable innovation) and also have several members
who profess a fair degree of historical learning (so
they really ought to know better).





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete Quirites, et salve Marce Gladi,

Marcus Gladius Agricola wrote:

> ... the humane killing of animals for the purpose of
> augury, for example, is well documented as a part of the Religio.

Augury is a term which properly refers to the observation and
interpretation of the flight of birds. The examination of entrails is
part of the wider set of methods known as Divination, and discussed in
Cicero's 'De Divinatione.' Examination of entrails is properly known as
haruspicium, and was practiced by haruspiciers. Haruspicium is a method
of divination that the Romans got from the Etruscans.

True augury is a method of divination that was peculiar to the Romans.
While other ancient societies placed some importance on the flights of
birds, only the Romans developed a detailed and codified process for
interpreting the will of the Gods by the activities of birds.

Not to disagree with your basic point, that freshly dead animals are
required for one of the kinds of divination that Romans practiced; but I
wanted to make sure we're all clear on what *augury*, that uniquely
Roman method of divination, entails.

For more see

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Augurium.html

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato Matt S.P.D.

Salve, Matt.

One correction:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Campbell <mcc99@y...> wrote:

>the cult of Isis, that often used bread
> instead of animals for ceremonial sacrifices (which is
> where Xianity gets its use of bread from as a
> sacrificial item -- see
>
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no_11_isis_and_serapis.ht
m
> and
> http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0808almanac.htm).

CATO: The use of bread in the Eucharist is in no way a result of
any Mystery Cult; it is not only a direct adaptation of the Pesach
Feast of the Jews, but in response to the direct command of Christ
when He instituted it: "He took bread....He broke it and and gave it
to them", etc. But be of good cheer: I once mistakenly suggested
using stuffed animals (albeit specially-made, stern-looking ones) as
substitutes during a sacrifice; I was (perhaps justifiably) laughed
out of the Forum.

Vale bene,

Cato

I wonder if anyone can help. I'm looking for information on Saturnalia. I'm looking for information about it in Roman times rather than the sort of neo-pagan celebrations I've found on the web. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be really grateful.

Thanks

Flavia Lucilla Merula



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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Domiti Constantine,

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus wrote:

> Don't know about the Boni, but the fact the Moderati actually invited you,
> not even requiring some kind of a pledge but allowing you as a mere
> spectator over their list maybe suggest that they aren't a seditious group

I know, and I don't mean to suggest that you or any of the other
Moderati are seditious. Far from it, if what I've seen there is any
indication.

> plotting the fall of Nova Roma that should be dispersed threathening the
> force of the lictors. From what I know of the moderati, they'd probably
> dissolve by a mere request from a consul.

I won't put that to the test anytime soon, but it's comforting to know.

> I doubt teh same could be said of the boni.

Not a request from this consul, I'd guess. No.

> Putting the Moderati and the Boni in the same plate there was not exactly
> nice,

Please don't take the comparison for anything more than it is: a
comparison of the two known organized Nova Roman political
organizations. Obviously I'd be far more likely to accept a dinner
invitation from you and yours.

Going back to the issue Cordus raised, *if* we were all in Roma Antiqua,
then a political organization like the Nova Roman Boni would have been
suppressed by the Senate as soon as it emerged. (The Boni of Roma
Antiqua is a separate problem, since those Boni were mostly senators.)
In that hypothetical situation, there would have been no need for a
counter-boni group such as the Moderati to ever come into existence.
Similarly, no Roman from antiquity would raise an eyebrow if the Censors
were to throw every Senator who is involved in the Back Alley out of the
Senate, but we're not about to see anything like that happen here -
especially since a Nova Roman censor is co-owner of the Back Alley list.

So while in the best of all possible Roman restorations, there would be
no organized political groups like the Boni or the Moderati, the fact is
that here in Nova Roma we're not the best possible Roman restoration.

But I do hope to bring us a little closer.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Cordus ~

I think I can safely speak for the other Moderati when I say that we
would gladly disband and go back to informal "networking" if we were
persuaded that the Boni really had shut down their Private List
permanently.

However: It is a Private, Invitation Only, Unlisted List ~ How can we
ever know it has really been shut down and not just moved to a new
unlisted List?

The way I see it, when the chief complaints regarding the Boni have
ceased to be issues then people will lose interest: Some will drift
away saying "My job here is done", and no new "Boni Victims" or
Opponents will come to take their place.

In short, when the Boni cease making enemies then the Moderati will
likely fade away of its own accord, as will (presumably) the "Un-named
Faction" ~ we'll all go back to forming "informal Alliances" on
individual issues.

Personally, I look forward to that day: I came here to learn more about
the Religio, meet like-minded people and pick up some Latin along the
way ~ not to get involved in Politics.

In the meantime, we are working out agreement on various issues and
putting together our "official" positions: We already have quite a few.
So unless the situation goes away soon, there is the very real risk of
a more permanent "Political Party" evolving: Eventually such
organizations take on a life of their own, so to speak; ours hasn't
reached that point yet. Has the Boni's?

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 11:47 AM, A. Apollonius Cordus
wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus Cn. Equitio Marino consuli
> amicoque et omnibus sal.
>
>> I read the mailing list of the moderati as a guest.
>> The Boni won't have
>> me (no surprise there) but I'd read their mailing
>> list too if it were
>> open.
>
> I'm also a member of a list which is not, I think, the
> list of the 'Moderati' themselves but one in which
> they discuss things with those sympathetic to them. I
> don't see anything wrong with talking to or observing
> the members of such groups, and indeed I'm currently
> in fairly amiable correspondence with about two of
> each.
>
>> ... The real problem is that a significant number
>> of Senators are
>> members of the Boni, so it would be impossible for
>> me to get the kind of
>> senatus consultum you suggest.
>
> You never know - when confronted with the choice
> between demolishing their own faction and exposing
> their professions of historical rigour as insincere,
> they might do something unexpected. :)
>
> But seriously, I'm not asking you or the senate to
> close these things down by force this minute. At the
> moment that would probably do more harm than good, and
> at any rate it would take up time which could be far
> more constructively used. I still hope that they can
> be persuaded to dismantle their factions voluntarily.
> No doubt they will want to do this, as they do other
> things, by consensus, and that will take some time. I
> entertain the possibly naive hope that both groups are
> currently discussing whether or not to dismantle
> themselves as we speak.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salvete, quirites,

Complementing the excelent post of the consul in a subject I
personally love, public auspices are the consulting of the will of
the gods in the name of the roman state. Private auspices are the
lararium worship. Everyone has private auspices to worship its own
lararium, but only the magistrates have public auspices to consult
the will of the gods in the name of the state, by its own or calling
an augur to help him. The ultimate source of the public auspices is
the Comitia, called by a auspicato magistrate, the Comitia pass the
public auspices to the new magistratures, and is called throught a
consult of the auspices. Magistrates with Imperium have ´bigger´
Auspices, magistrates with Potestas ´lesser´ auspices, magistrates
Sacrosainct (ie, plebeians) have no auspices at all... that is why
all Comitia called by the tribunes are held without auspices taken -
inauspicata.

People uses to make a confusion between divination and auspices, and
even some encyclopedias uses the term ´auspices´ and ´aruspication´
as the same. Well, the meaning has a broad meaning, anyway.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Marce Gladi,
>
> Marcus Gladius Agricola wrote:
>
> > ... the humane killing of animals for the purpose of
> > augury, for example, is well documented as a part of the Religio.
>
> Augury is a term which properly refers to the observation and
> interpretation of the flight of birds. The examination of entrails

is

> part of the wider set of methods known as Divination, and discussed

in

> Cicero's 'De Divinatione.' Examination of entrails is properly

known as

> haruspicium, and was practiced by haruspiciers. Haruspicium is a

method

> of divination that the Romans got from the Etruscans.
>
> True augury is a method of divination that was peculiar to the

Romans.

> While other ancient societies placed some importance on the flights

of

> birds, only the Romans developed a detailed and codified process

for

> interpreting the will of the Gods by the activities of birds.
>
> Not to disagree with your basic point, that freshly dead animals

are

> required for one of the kinds of divination that Romans practiced;

but I

> wanted to make sure we're all clear on what *augury*, that uniquely
> Roman method of divination, entails.
>
> For more see
>
>

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Au
gurium.html

>
> -- Marinus