A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Fabió Máximó omnibusque sal.

> The whole thing is improbable. I have enough slaves
> from Umbria and Latinum
> to work my fields until we starve those pesky Plebs
> into submission. Why
> don't I? The Spartan society did not fall apart
> after Helots revolt in 466. The
> Spartans blockaded the rebels, until they
> surrendered. We didn't the Pats?
> Someone held the Patricians back.
> We don't know the whole story. But, before the
> Roman army marched they took
> the auspices and I'll bet the reading were
> unfavorable. Thus divine decision
> was carried out.

I find it quite incredible that someone who claims to
be a professional historian would dismiss the evidence
of every primary source available based on nothing
stronger than "the whole thing is improbable". Now, I
could understand it if you were saying "the whole
history of early Rome was too distant at the time when
it was first written down, and we can't say anything
reliable about it at all". But you're clearly not
saying that, because you accept that the secession of
the plébs did really occur. Your theory, as far as I
can tell, is that the plébs did secede, and the
patricians then gathered an army without them; but
then the auspices were bad, and so the patricians
spontaneously caved in to the plebeian demands on the
basis that these must have been supported by the gods.
Is that about it?

Perhaps you could explain a few further aspects of
your theory:

1. Why did the plebeian tradition - that the
patricians had been forced into negotiations - make it
into the history books while the 'true' story - the
patricians piously gave the plebeians what they wanted
even though they didn't have to - was forgotten?

2. Of whom was this patrician army composed? Did it
consist entirely of patricians, even though a year
earlier the patricians had been unable to fight the
Sabines without a levy, and even though a few years
later one of the foremost patrician gentés consisted
of only 306 able-bodied men? Or did the patricians
recruit their slaves, something which was never even
considered again until the time of Marius even in
times of utmost need?

3. When they saw these unfavourable auspices you
imagine, why did the patricians not simply wait until
the following day and try again?

4. If the patricians were capable of mustering an
army without the help of the plebeians, why did they
need to blockade the plebeians at all - why not simply
carry on as they were, secure in the knowledge that
they could meet any invasion without the help of the plébs?



___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

G. Equitius Cato Q. Caecelio Metello Posthumiano Gn. Iulio Caeso
Corneliano Q. Fabio Maximo S.P.D.

Salve, Caecilius Metellus, Iulius Cornelianus et Fabius Maximus.

METELLUS: "Let me remind you that the very foundation of our
respublica is the Religio Romana."

CATO: No. The foundations of Nova Roma are the Constitution and
the Declaration. The religio derives its position from these
documents, and leges and edicta which follow in their path (even
though some of the latter may contradict the original two former).
The government, likewise, derives its authority from these.

I am glad to see that you and I agree entirely as regards the idea
of role playing, and its adverse effect upon our res publica.

> Nova Roma is alive and well, growing and evolving, stretching
> its limbs towards the sun of new life based on the Virtues of
> ancient Rome. This action would prune still-living branches
> from the body of the res publica, stunting its growth and
> appearance, for the sake of a few withered and dead roots.

METELLUS: "Withered and dead roots? If that were so, we could apply
the same analogy to the entire Religio. Should we dismiss the entire
Religio Romana? I'm sure all too many would love that, myself not
being one."

CATO: By "a few withered and dead roots", I mean only those parts
of the ancient mos maiorum which are no longer acceptable or
reasonable in the current age --- NOT the entire religio, by any
means. I have spoken repeatedly in support of the religio publica,
and have not changed in my support thereof. I see the religio
publica as absolutely essential to the growth and existence of Nova
Roma; even if I do not, however, believe it to be the only source of
the res publica's existence.

But I do believe that we, the citizens, have the right to mold our
own future by learning from the errors of the past. I believe that
discrimination based on gender is one such error.


Caesar Cornelianus, I suggest that you tolle et legere a dictionary,
because despite your protestations, "discrimination" is precisely
the appropriate word; it is not a political question, but a social
and even moral one.

CORNELIANUS: "This neglects to consider a lot of factors including
where women have made advances. They have the right to vote, right
to equal opportunity employment, etc. But this all falls into the
realm of social life not religious."

CATO: There are women rabbis, women priests, women bishops...if
these do not qualify as elements of religious life then I do not
know what does.

CORNELIANUS: "But you don't care so long as you can push your
political point of view across and force it on others."

CATO: Like the decision by a group of citizens to disengage an
entire gender from specific roles in the religious life of the res
publica?

CORNELIANUS: "How many modern societies that are truly open and free
have clauses such as this 'The Religio Romana, the worship of the
Gods and Goddesses of Rome, shall be the official religion of Nova
Roma. All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall
be required to publicly show respect for the Religio Romana and the
Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great.'
embedded in their law? Their comes a point where advancement and the
intentions of NR was part ways...."

CATO: The United Kingdom has a state religion. The Republic of
Germany does. The Republic of France does. The Republic of Italy
does. The Empire of Japan does. Poland, Russia, Greece, Canada,
Ireland, Australia, New Zealand --- all have Established Churches.

CORNELIANUS: "You couldn't very well ask women to be part of an
organization or body in which they had no say could you? So it is
only proper that they have a right to vote and be able to hold
political office in the government. But unlike the government,
itself a social institution, we are talking about a religious
institution....the two are completely different issues....there is no
inconsistency..."

CATO: So...women shouldn't be involved in the religio, then?
Because if they are denied a vote in the College of Pontiffs, then
they have no say in the direction of the religio publica. I'd like
you to demonstrate a society or culture in which religious
institutions are not also themselves by very definition social
institutions.

It's very simple. Either we discriminate or we do not. If we are
so afraid of the wrath of the Di Immortales, then by all means we
should start inaugurating our magistrates and all public officials.
The Gods can then make Their will known clearly.

And we could start cleaning up our act by initiating the three
proposals I have put forth (now for the fifth time).

Fabius Maximus, what can I say? Nova Roma would be indeed a much
less interesting (if more intellectually credible) place without
*you* in it, so I'd never dream of suggesting that you leave. It
seems that your pat response to any discussion in which your self-
styled "knowledge" is challenged is that the challenger leave. My
pat response to you is: never. Do not presume to judge the level of
commitment of any citizen but yourself, Fabius Maximus.


Valete,

Cato

Ave Omnes

I, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus I hereby submit my candidacy for the
position of Tribunus Plebis.

I've been a civis for over 4 years now, I'm in the category of the assidui,
the Pater of one of the most numerous gens of Nova Roma and I'm a somewhat
active civis over the mailing lists (maybe a little less in the last weeks,
due problems at home that are,luckly, solving themselves) and in the real
life Nova Roma. In that regards, I'm one of the two elected aediles urbis
administering the Oppidum of Rome.

If elected, I plan to use the tribucian powers to strictly protect the
Consitution of Nova Roma, at that effect putting in the effort all the
technical knoweledge that a law degree with a academic curriculum including
a good number of roman law exams can give.

And given I think electors have to know the persons they face and that
hiding your own beliefs on the "hot" topics, even when potentially
controversial, is not honourable, here we are:

- I'm in favor of woman Pontifices
- I'm against male Vestals (and no, filius Serapio, that can not be a
contradiction)
- I've nothing against animal sacrifices
- whenever it doesn't infringe the Consitution, I'm from a "to each its own"
approach to the religionS that are comprised in Nova Roma
- I'm for a rigid Constitution and think our own needs to be severely
overhauled with the help of technicals, because a Consitution, like any
legal document, has its own language and logic.
- I've definitely little sympathy for the Boni, for a number of reasons.
- I'm not a member of the new Libra Alliance (at least, not yet)
- I am one of those who called themselves moderati.

if you are curious about anything else, I'm at disposal for questions and
clarifications.

Hoping I shall have your support,

Valete optime

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
E' PROduttiva, PROfessionale, PROtetta...è Email.it Pro15, Pro 50, Pro100
la casella più efficiente che puoi trovare.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1046&d=20041126

You know I am afraid that while I can be a feminist b*tch at times,
that I really have a hard time agreeing with women as pontifices and
flamens. Mainly because there are a great many religious positions
that are available to women within Nova Roma that sit for the most
part empty. How many priestesses do we have to Magna Mater, to Venus,
Iuno, Vestal Virgins and so forth??
For political prestige why not someone who really wishes it take
apply for the position of a Vestal Virgin.. or perhaps the bit of
self sacrafice required for that is a bit more then some are willing
to spend on the roles. But afterall if the desire is voting power
within the collegium, well there ya go.
At the university an anthropological class that I am taking is rather
interesting as it does explore masculine and feminine roles.
Sometimes what may seem to be an large inequality to most modern
people, was not deemed so much as such by those who lived it. Yes men
and women had different rites, different priesthoods (some of which
were just as restricting of men as those that restrict women).
Sometimes being selective in differences just means just that.. being
different. Not having to do with the better of one over another.
Women did have their own amount of spiritual importance within roman
society less we forget.
Sometimes being a living religion doesn't necessarily mean to bend it
to your will, and make mockery of it simply because it doesn't appear
to be PC :) Appearances can after all be deceptive.

Vale,
Lucia Modia Lupa

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cassius622@a... wrote:
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus writes:
>
> But, so that my long-windedness does not make you forget the
question which
> was meant to be the heart of this missive, please, I should ask
you all,
> step back, and ask yourselves: Is not the will of the Gods more
important
> that the will of mortals?
>
> Cassius respondit:
>
> The situation here is that there is a fundamental disagreement
about "what
> the will of the Gods" actually is.
>
> The conservative faction (the Boni) believe that the will of the
Gods is
> unchanging, and that the ancient Mos Maiorum is the only possible
expression of
> their will. Therefore, if it was decided that the Gods had decreed
something
> in ancient times, it has been decreed *for all time.* We are
powerless to
> question it, consider other options, or change it.
>
> The moderate faction believes that while the Gods themselves are
unchanging,
> their Will can change, and *has* changed in regard to many
social/religious
> issues within the human community. The Gods are conscious beings
which have
> the capacity to adapt and react to changes in mundane reality. The
role of
> women in western civilization has changed irrevocably. I won't
take the time to
> list the specifics - almost every single social role for women
under the
> traditional Mos Maiorum has changed completely in the western
world. If the Gods
> do not recognize this, are they conscious beings? If they are
completely
> opposed to this, why did they let it happen?
>
> These two world views encompass a larger situation than this one
issue. Is
> the Religio Romana a 'static' religion that cannot change in any
way, or is it
> a 'living' religion that can adapt to new situations if there is a
rational
> and reasonable need?
>
> It is the ultimate scope of the issue that has made arguments here
so long
> lasting and bitter. Those who believe that the Religio Romana is
unchanging
> cannot abide any change whatever. Those who believe that the
Religio Romana is a
> living religion cannot abide a total disregard of modern
conditions, or the
> needs of the people worshipping the Gods today.
>
> To be honest, I myself have never been able to figure out a
workable
> compromise to these two issues, other than the Religio Romana
fracturing into two
> sects, "Conservative" and "Moderate."
>
> That might not even be a bad thing, so long as the two sects could
at least
> acknowledge the right of the other to exist. Unfortunately, there
is no Roman
> system for dealing with two such factions.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pontifex Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/25/04 6:00:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

> Perhaps you could explain a few further aspects of
> your theory:
>

I will try. After all I postulated years ago that the peltast went through
three periods of evolution and people laughed at that too. Now it is pretty
much accepted, so who knows?

> 1. Why did the plebeian tradition - that the
> patricians had been forced into negotiations - make it
> into the history books while the 'true' story - the
> patricians piously gave the plebeians what they wanted
> even though they didn't have to - was forgotten?

The time Livius wrote the story may have something to do with it.
Augustus was in the process of solidifying power and he needed a
legend like that to remind the masses that his Clan while a Patrician
had been in the lead to grant rights to their inferiors.
But my theory makes as much sense as Equitius'.
If you are spitballing an idea, you should have a better theory then
"the Pats couldn't live without them."
That's why I used the Helot revolt of 466, as an example. The situations
were similar and the Spartans solved the problem by no concessions
The Spartans couldn't live without the helots, they worked the farms, so the
Spartan could drill, and they were forced to break the revolt by military
force.

>
> 2. Of whom was this patrician army composed? Did it
> consist entirely of patricians, even though a year
> earlier the patricians had been unable to fight the
> Sabines without a levy, and even though a few years
> later one of the foremost patrician gentés consisted
> of only 306 able-bodied men?

Legio means levy. But it does not have the same meaning as today.
Secondly yes the first class made up the bulk of the fighting men,
since they were following the Etruscan century system.
The Fabii could put into the field, 306 men. So how many from the Iulii, th
e Claudii,
et al. Probably similar. But a hoplite is more then a match for an unarmed
peasent.
so if you have five gens giving around 200 each this is 1000 men.

Or did the patricians > recruit their slaves, something which was never even

> considered again until the time of Marius even in times of utmost need?
>

So you don't believe the slave legiones existed after Cannae? Both Polybios
and Livius mentions them.

> 3. When they saw these unfavourable auspices you
> imagine, why did the patricians not simply wait until
> the following day and try again?
>

Well, what if the auspices were unfavorable daily? Wouldn't you
finally admit that the Gods were against the enterprise and make peace?
Livius doesn't tell us. So we do not know. But a military power that
cannot control
its peasents? Highly improbable unless something else was going on.

> 4. If the patricians were capable of mustering an
> army without the help of the plebeians, why did they
> need to blockade the plebeians at all - why not simply
> carry on as they were, secure in the knowledge that
> they could meet any invasion without the help of the plébs?
>

That's a tough one. Let's see. We will leave a hostile enemy on our border
who will cooperate with our many enemies if or when they will invade us.
Our Patrician Romans would be smarter then that. If the Gods won't support a
move against our enemies, perhaps they are better used as friends.

Your problem my friend, is you cannot believe. It would destroy your careful
constructed rational world. And we cannot have that, can we?


Q. Fabius Maximus


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

In a message dated 11/26/04 1:42:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lucia_modia_lupa@... writes:

> Gods is unchanging, and that the ancient Mos Maiorum is the only possible
> expression of their will. Therefore, if it was decided that the Gods had
> decreed
> something in ancient times, it has been decreed *for all time.* We are
> powerless to question it, consider other options, or change it.
>

Not for all time. Do you ever listen to us? But before we can do any
renegotiation of our pact, like you wish, we have to return to basics. We have to
reconstruct the Religio the way it was. Then and only then may we move forward
from there.

Q. Fabius Maximus





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

AVE OPTIME FVSCE

> - I'm in favor of woman Pontifices
> - I'm against male Vestals (and no, filius Serapio, that can not

be a

> contradiction)

Well, actually, according to Lex Equitia de Familia, article VI.e
I'm sui iuris because I'm a civil magistrate (Propraetor). Given
that I am sui iuris, according to article I.b of the same law, I
myself I am Paterfamilias, so I can no longer be your "filius" :-)
Anyway...

Why do you think it wouldn't be a contradiction to be in favor of
women Pontifices and against male Vestals?

OPTIME VALE
M'Con.Serapio

Ave

> Well, actually, according to Lex Equitia de Familia, article VI.e
> I'm sui iuris because I'm a civil magistrate (Propraetor). Given
> that I am sui iuris, according to article I.b of the same law, I
> myself I am Paterfamilias, so I can no longer be your "filius"

:-)

> Anyway...

Actually, filius sounded nicer than "gens-fellow who came after me and for
years has been my filius under Nova Roma law but now not anymore", but
alright, remind me to never use affectionate terms with you anymore

> Why do you think it wouldn't be a contradiction to be in favor of
> women Pontifices and against male Vestals?

Simply put, I think it is perfectly fine for someone to think that the
limitations to women regarding the position of Pontifex were mostly social
in nature, akin to teh ones barring women to political position, while
believing at the same time that the vestal cult was religiously female-only
and not deriving by social "superstructure".

I might argument, with absolutely no pretense of expertise, this with the
fact that there are many "primordial" rites that are essentially tied to the
possibly of women to generate (and isn't a flame rite essentially a life
cult, after all), while the pontifex position always seemed to me as a
"second level" religious superstructure (and in fact they do not have their
specific deity and rites, but they mostly particpated to teh rites of teh
other deities, if I'm not mistaken), socially elaborated to represent the
people (men and women) to the gods... I think it was just the social ideas
of the time to close this representacy to the women.

Now, again, I do not claim that my vision is the correct one, but generally
I believe one can hold different positions about the two cases without
ahving to be accused to be in contradiction or inconsistant.

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

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=20041126

In a message dated 11/25/2004 4:09:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
julius_cornelianus@... writes:
--You couldn't very well ask women to be part of an organization or body in
which they had no say could you? So it is only proper that they have a right
to vote and be able to hold political office in the government. But unlike the
government, itself a social institution, we are talking about a religious
institution....the two are completely different issues....there is no
inconsistency...
Oh, lovely. Do we next get to look forward to a version of the Council of
Nicea, where the burning question "Are women human?" was decided in favour of
women by ONE VOTE? (I am in Washington State, where the entire election issue is
rather a touchy one right now)

If a God or Goddess calls upon you for service, a wise person responds,
regardless of gender. Trust me, if you don't get it right, They will let you know!
Denying a person the right to serve the Gods in public is a human choice of
which the Gods do not approve.

Valete,

V. Rutilia Enodiaria
Morte nunquam reget.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people."
My Man Godfrey


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

A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Fabió Máximó omnibusque sal.

> > 1. Why did the plebeian tradition - that the
> > patricians had been forced into negotiations -
> make it
> > into the history books while the 'true' story -
> the
> > patricians piously gave the plebeians what they
> wanted
> > even though they didn't have to - was forgotten?
>
> The time Livius wrote the story may have something
> to do with it.
> Augustus was in the process of solidifying power and
> he needed a
> legend like that to remind the masses that his Clan
> while a Patrician
> had been in the lead to grant rights to their
> inferiors.

And how exactly does Livy make this point, given that
he doesn't mention anyone called Octávius or Július
throughout his account of the secession?

> But my theory makes as much sense as Equitius'.
> If you are spitballing an idea, you should have a
> better theory then
> "the Pats couldn't live without them."

I know you would like to depict this as your theory
versus Cató's, but it's not. It's your theory versus
what all the ancient sources state clearly and
unequivocally.

> That's why I used the Helot revolt of 466, as an
> example. The situations
> were similar and the Spartans solved the problem by
> no concessions
> The Spartans couldn't live without the helots, they
> worked the farms, so the
> Spartan could drill, and they were forced to break
> the revolt by military
> force.

This is an absurd analogy. The Spartiates were the
entire fighting force of the Spartan army, while the
helots were semi-slaves who had no voting rights and
certainly were not allowed to carry weapons. The
plebeians, on the other hand, were part of the Roman
citizen body and fought as legionaries. When the
helots revolted, the Spartan army remained precisely
as large as it had been before. When the plebeians
seceded, the patricians lost most of their soldiers.

> > 2. Of whom was this patrician army composed? Did
> it
> > consist entirely of patricians, even though a year
> > earlier the patricians had been unable to fight
> the
> > Sabines without a levy, and even though a few
> years
> > later one of the foremost patrician gentés
> consisted
> > of only 306 able-bodied men?
>
> Legio means levy. But it does not have the same
> meaning as today.

I think you're looking at the wrong passage of Livy.
The word he uses at II.27.10 is not legió but
díléctus. He says "díléctúque décrétó némó nómen
dedit": "and, the levy having been decreed, no one
gave his name". This is the year before the secession.
The plebeians refuse to volunteer to fight the
Sabines, and so the patricians are unable to field an
army against the Sabines. If the patricians couldn't
field an army without the plebeians in 495, how were
they able to do it in 494?

> Secondly yes the first class made up the bulk of the
> fighting men,
> since they were following the Etruscan century
> system.

You're confusing the composition of a Roman army with
the composition of the Roman population. When an army
was raised, most of the army was drawn from the first
class; but that doesn't mean that the first class
constituted a majority of the population. It just
means that a member of the first class had more chance
of being called up than the rest. Again, if the first
class was large enough to defeat the whole of the
plébs, why was the first class not large enough to
raise an army against the Sabines the previous year?

> The Fabii could put into the field, 306 men. So
> how many from the Iulii, th
> e Claudii,
> et al. Probably similar. But a hoplite is more
> then a match for an unarmed
> peasent.
> so if you have five gens giving around 200 each this
> is 1000 men.

That's one legion, and a very, very small one at that.
Later the very same year, 494, an army of ten legions
- almost certainly more than 1, 000 men each - was
levied. In other words, your theoretical patrician
army of 1, 000 would have been outnumbered by more
than ten to one if it tried to attack the plebeians.
Your statement that "a hoplite is more than a match
for an unarmed peasant" is true - perhaps a hoplite
would even be a match for ten unarmed peasants. But
the plebeians were not unarmed peasants; they were
hoplites themselves. Every class except the prólétárií
was expected to supply its own hoplite arms and
armour, plus or minus greaves and other items. An army
of patricians would have been equipped in pretty much
the same way as an army of plebeians.

> Or did the patricians > recruit their slaves,
> something which was never even
> > considered again until the time of Marius even in
> times of utmost need?
>
> So you don't believe the slave legiones existed
> after Cannae? Both Polybios
> and Livius mentions them.

The slaves were freed before being recruited. Of
course, they could have done that - but then who would
have been left to work the fields in order to save the
patricians from starvation, as you postulated? And are
you of the opinion that the patricians would have been
happy to free slaves and arm them in order to avoid
having to give political rights to plebeians? Surely
this would have been like swallowing the spider to
catch the fly?

> > 3. When they saw these unfavourable auspices you
> > imagine, why did the patricians not simply wait
> until
> > the following day and try again?
>
> Well, what if the auspices were unfavorable daily?
> Wouldn't you
> finally admit that the Gods were against the
> enterprise and make peace?
> Livius doesn't tell us. So we do not know.

What a bizarre idea. Livy doesn't say that the Romans
invented gunpowder - does that mean it's plausible
that they did? The fact that Livy doesn't mention it,
and that no other ancient source mentions it, is
itself evidence that it didn't happen, unless there is
some very good reason to think that it did happen.

> ... But a
> military power that
> cannot control
> its peasents? Highly improbable unless something
> else was going on.

Yes, the "something else" that was going on was that
the peasants constituted the majority of the army. You
seem to be thinking of the patricians as the Romans
and the plebeians as resident foreigners. That idea is
totally anachronistic - the plebeians had been a part
of the Roman citizen body for generations. They were
indisputably recognized as full citizens by the time
of the XII Tables, during the lifetime of people who
had been young during the secession. The patricians
were not a military power, and the plebeians were not
their peasants. Rome was a military power, and the
plebeians made up the majority of the population and
of the fighting force.

> > 4. If the patricians were capable of mustering an
> > army without the help of the plebeians, why did
> they
> > need to blockade the plebeians at all - why not
> simply
> > carry on as they were, secure in the knowledge
> that
> > they could meet any invasion without the help of
> the plébs?
>
> That's a tough one. Let's see. We will leave a
> hostile enemy on our border
> who will cooperate with our many enemies if or when
> they will invade us.

But, according to your theory, the plebeians were not
dangerous because they were unarmed peasants and could
easily be defeated by the powerful army of patricians.
Have you now changed your mind to make the plebeians
into a "hostile enemy on our border"? If they were
unarmed peasants, what would it matter if they joined
forces with other enemies?

> Your problem my friend, is you cannot believe. It
> would destroy your careful
> constructed rational world. And we cannot have
> that, can we?

Yes, we all know that one doesn't get to be a
professional historian by relying on rational argument
and empirical evidence. I guess as long as I base my
understanding of history on primary sources and
logical academic methods I shall be doomed to remain
an amateur.





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

Salve!

I would like to formally welcome, and I am sorry it is a bit late, a new
member of Gens Traiana. Please join me in a belated welcome to Caius
Traianus Scaevola!

Welcome to Nova Roma and the Family.

Vale!
Valerius.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/04


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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Caecili Metelle,

Q. Caecilius Metellus wrote:

[a lot, all of it thoughtful and well considered, but I'm snipping most
of it to get to the question I want to address]

> Is not the will of the Gods more important that the will of mortals?

I'll answer with two other questions: Why do we make pacts with the
Gods? Why did King Numa Pompilius create the Religio Romana out of the
gentilic religion of Latium in the first place?

I think the answer to my questions provides an insight into the nature
and character of the Religio Romana that your question misses. The
Religio Romana seeks to bind the Quirites and the Dii Immortales into a
mutually beneficial compact. Romans make pacts with the Gods in order
to improve things for both the Romans and the Gods. The Gods get
worship, from which they grow stronger and more powerful. In turn the
Romans get the favor, advice, inspiration, and protection of the Gods.
Unlike some Eastern religions, where the mortals are seen as slaves to
their gods, the Religio Romana envisions the Quirites as powerful allies
of the Dii Immortales.

Is the will of the Gods important in all this? Of course it is. They
want our worship, and they've promised to guide us and help us in order
to maintain that worship. Is the will of the Quirites also important?
Most definitely. Are the terms of the pact open for re-negotiation?
Indeed they are. From both sides.

> On a related note, the practice of inauguration had been discussed, and I
> believe we had even called for the practice to be re-instituted.

Yes, that is correct. I would very much like to see all of our
pontifices properly inaugurated, and any future pontifices inaugurated
at the beginning of their entry into pontifical office.

> Furthermore, I remember asking that the Collegium Augurium be convened to
> consider the question, more specifically, that it be considered on a
> case-by-case basis.

That would be ideal, and in keeping with the practices of antiquity.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Corneliane,

Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus wrote:

> But unlike the government, itself a social institution, we are
> talking about a religious institution....the two are completely
> different issues....

Oh no they are not.

While religion and government are strongly separated in modern western
nations like the United States, they are strongly intertwined in a Roman
Republic.

Valete,

-- Marinus

Salve!

I am sorry to hear of his problems, and I will keep him in my thoughts and
prayers.

Pax!
Valerius


-----Original Message-----
From: quintuscassiuscalvus [mailto:richmal@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:23 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Request for thoughts, prayers, or whatever your
religious affilitation dictates


Salvete,

My brother-in-law has just been diagnosed with
stomach cancer. It appears to be localized but we won't know for
certain until he has surgery at Mass General in Boston and they can
get a better idea from the inside on what to do after that and
whether or not they can drive it into remission or just make life as
comfortable as possible for whatever time may remain.

I ask my fellow citizens of Nova Roma for their prayers at this
time.

Valete,

Q. Cassius Calvus






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dt93cp/M=296572.5585671.6651487.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1101349457/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12ime77ah/*http://clk.
atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1101263057770396>
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dt93cp/M=296572.5585671.6651487.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1101349457/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ime77ah/*http://clk.
atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1101263057770396>
Get unlimited calls to
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dt93cp/M=296572.5585671.6651487.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1101349457/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ime77ah/*http://clk.
atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1101263057770396>
U.S./Canada
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dt93cp/M=296572.5585671.6651487.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1101349457/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ime77ah/*http://clk.
atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1101263057770396>



_____

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! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/04


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

> Is not the will of the Gods more important that the will of mortals?

I'm afraid I have lost track of who originally asked this question. I
have avoided joining in until now out of a desire to stay absent from
a discussion that has, at times, run around in circles. However, I
have a question that I do not believe has been asked.

Of course the will of the gods is more important than that of the
mortals. I do not think that anyone is disputing that. My question
is: Is anyone asking the Gods what their will is?

We cannot rely entirely on ancient texts in this matter. We cannot
assume that what was the will of the Gods during the time of the
Roman Republic is still the will of the Gods. It may be, but we
cannot assume that it is, unless we ask them. Who is asking?

Before we run ourselves around in circles too much longer, let us see
if we can determine what the will of the Gods actually is.

vale bene,
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia

Salvete Quirites;

I Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana, plebian and citizen of Nova Roma
since May 2003, announce my candidacy for Tribune of the Plebs.
I have been the propraetrix of Provincia Hibernia since March
2003 and scriba to our current Censor Quintilianus since March 2004.
As Tribuna Plebis I will keep to the principles and reforms of
the Roman Republic as our guide.
bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
<mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:

> CATO: and the Gods have given women new powers in the intervening
> 1700 years, Fabius Maximus. This much is obvious. If the Gods

did

> not want it to happen, it would not have happened. Who are you to
> decide to ignore the Gods' will?
>

Interesting hypothesis that women's rights were given by Divine
Fiat. Actually that is not the case at all. The Women's Rights
movement grows out of Secular Humanism, which fundamentally denies
an authority superior to humanity.

There are hard core fundamentalist Christians that would not only
laugh at the idea that women's rights are a gift from any God but
would point right to their King James Bible (after all if King James
English was good enough for Jesus... <G>) and say that women are to
be obedient to their father/husband and to keep silent in matters
concerning the church and claim that any break from that comes from
Satan. So the hard core fundamentalists could just as easily say
that the women's rights movement is in direct defiance of Divine
Will.

So who is right and who is wrong? Neither are right and neither are
wrong. For the pagan who wishes women in position of authority,
Wicca is right next door. For the "high church" Christian there are
plenty of Episcopal churches more than happy to have you warm their
pews, and for the Protestants there are plenty of denominations that
ordain women. If you're Jewish there is always the Reform
Synagoge. If your a Muslim.... .... well I guess one can't have
everything... In short if what you are looking for isn't there look
elsewhere instead of trying to make things be there that just
aren't.

Vale,

Calvus

AVE OPTIME FVSCE

> Actually, filius sounded nicer than "gens-fellow who came after me

and for

> years has been my filius under Nova Roma law but now not anymore",

but

> alright, remind me to never use affectionate terms with you anymore

I would never imagine you would use affectionate terms with me. I'm
happy for that. My comment was simply about the "official", how to
call it, nomenclature? Anyway, those are details :-)

> Simply put, I think it is perfectly fine for someone to think that

the

> limitations to women regarding the position of Pontifex were

mostly social

> in nature, akin to teh ones barring women to political position,

while

> believing at the same time that the vestal cult was religiously

female-only

> and not deriving by social "superstructure".

I fully agree with you, and I also think that to a certain extent
the "social superstructure" you talk about had a relevant influence
in this field. Still I must also recognize that I have absolutely no
evidence that it was *only* social superstructure.
What I mean is that we have no evidence to say if the requirement
for the Pontifices to be male was determined by this social
superstructure totally or only in part.
Given that we have no evidence for that, it is impossible to
authoritatively decide that it was only social superstructure.

OPTIME VALE
[Filius] M' Con. Serapio

Salvete,

Our PM, Marcus Cassius Julianus, writes:

>The conservative faction (the Boni) believe that the will of the Gods is
>unchanging, and that the ancient Mos Maiorum is the only possible
>expression of
>their will. Therefore, if it was decided that the Gods had decreed something
>in ancient times, it has been decreed *for all time.* We are powerless to
>question it, consider other options, or change it.

and

>These two world views encompass a larger situation than this one issue. Is
>the Religio Romana a 'static' religion that cannot change in any way, or
>is it
>a 'living' religion that can adapt to new situations if there is a rational
>and reasonable need?

Are we avoiding the obvious?

The Gods decreed that proper worship required the participation of the
king. This was utterly necessary. And this was probably the biggest
problem for the nascent republic--other, of course, than neighboring
hostile Etruscan kingdoms with an interest in what went on in Ruma and how
those upstart Patricians might given their own aristocrats ideas....

The staggering Roman solution was to create a king who was NOT king. The
office of the rex sacrorum is as serious (and fine) a step as anything
that's been suggested for our current problem. Hey guys, the pontifices
say we can't set up without a king, because the Gods require one. So who
are we going to make the new royal family? What? We can't agree on whom
to let be the new legal tyrant? But the Gods require a king!

It's an exquisite--and ruthlessly legalistic solution. It's almost
Jacksonian (apologies to those cives not familiar with that US President's
statements and actions). The pontifices and Gods require a king? Fine,
let them have one of their own. Here. Here's a rex for the sacrorum and
we'll keep the politics the way we have them.

<gasp>

The Gods appear to have been satisfied with that decision, and well
satisfied.

And yet, it implies that there's a strong element of flexibility to the
absolute requirements -- if absolute they be -- of the Immortals. Just as
with the sacred goat conundrum, the Gods appear to appreciate a clever
solution, even if it's strictly legalistic and only just stays within the
bounds.

We could create a parallel to the pontifices and decree them the equal of
the pontifices--but not being pontifices, not obliged to attend rites which
their gender forbids them to attend.

We could permit female pontifices, but oblige them to step down from their
offices immediately prior to the rites that they are forbidden to attend
and participate in... with the arrangement (purely legalistic...) that the
resignation be subject to <something> within <X> time. Upon that not
occurring, they would return to their posts. Perhaps "something" could be
"acceptance" by the Chief Vestal. This would tend to make the CV a
particularly significant post, in essence making her the holder of the
terms of all female pontifices....

I'm not proposing any particular solution. I'm simply pointing out that
there are solution_s_ in the plural that are possible. And pointing out
further that there are things in the Religio Romana that are precedential.

Could priestesses who are pontifices be made "vir sacrorum"? I suppose
that's possible. If a king who's not a king can be king enough to please
the Gods, then a vir who's not a vir could be. But that seems like
unnecessary baiting of the Gods.

I know that the Romans were creative. IF we can't be... we're doomed.

Valete,
M Umbrius Ursus

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

The position of pontiff in Nova Roma is one that has very little political
clout but a good amount of religious significance. However, the followers of
the Religio Romana as well as the Hellenistic and Celtic Immortales are not
bound to any kind of official status to celebrate the rites and festivals of our
respective faiths. Male or female may offer rites on the behalf of themselves,
their gentes, and Nova Roma by posting such rites on the ML, RR, or other
associated lists with very little restriction--Hercules and Silvanus being just a
couple of examples. There are also rites and festivals that only women may
attend and from which all males, including the Pontifex Maximus, are forbidden.
As a flamen, I have discovered that my Goddess had priestesses with official
standing that celebrated certain rites that the flamen doesn't perform.
Also, while I bow to the extensive knowledge of Gaius Scaurus on matter of the
Religio, everyone with an interest on this subject are perfectly free to pursue
research that would validate the status and activities of women in the Religio;
providing they will supply documentation to support their conclusions. Gaius
Scaurus' material support his conclusions but it is still a little slim, in
my opinion, to support a general sweeping statement on exclusion of women from
the office of Pontiff. This is especially true since Nova Roma has already
established the precedent for having women as Pontiffs by HAVING WOMEN AS
PONTIFFS.

Valete.


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

Why is it alright for women to have places and titles
to themselves but when men do it women cry foul and
kick and scream their way in? [ Jobs, Clubs, Sport etc
--- mcserapio@... <mcserapio@...> wrote:

>
> AVE OPTIME FVSCE
>
> > - I'm in favor of woman Pontifices
> > - I'm against male Vestals (and no, filius

Serapio, that can not

> be a
> > contradiction)
>
> Well, actually, according to Lex Equitia de Familia,

article VI.e

> I'm sui iuris because I'm a civil magistrate

(Propraetor). Given

> that I am sui iuris, according to article I.b of

the same law, I

> myself I am Paterfamilias, so I can no longer be

your "filius" :-)

> Anyway...
>
> Why do you think it wouldn't be a contradiction to

be in favor of

> women Pontifices and against male Vestals?
>
> OPTIME VALE
> M'Con.Serapio
>
>
>

=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen



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

Actually the Bona Dea is an indigenous Italian Goddess while the Magna Mater
was imported to Rome in 197 BC (556 AVC) from Asia Minor after the Patricians
had consulted the Syballine Books.

F G A


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

---P. Minucia Tiberia F. Galerio Aureliano S.P.D.

Hear, Hear........

In addition, to digress a bit on your comment with respect to
offering familial rites, we have had 'materfamiliae' since the
founding of Nova Roma, as well as female Pontifices. This is of
great religious significance, as you know, but some may not fully
realize this. A pater/materfamilias is the 'priest/priestess' of
the most basic element building the Religio and the Pax.....the
family.

In giving women the rights to materfamiliasship, we are entrusting
them to perform the 'rites' of the familia...they are the priestess
of that familia....not just the 'mom', the 'boss'......but the
holders of the Religious sacra.

With respect to comments of Pontifex Scaurus on the matter of rites
to Hercules, we read from him that all Pontifices were required to
be in attendence, and also that women were forbidden. Otherwise,
the ritual was botched and had to be restarted. Okay, but what I
would like to know is, how significant was this ritual to the
integrity of Religio Publica...was it necessary to perform this
ritual to maintain the Pax, or was it simply necessary that all
Pontifices were present and all women were absent to 'hold' the
ritual, and prevent it from being repeated? There is a bit of
difference here. And I am not prepared, in the absence of knowing
this and a couple of other things, to assume or conclude that this
is conclusive that the Romans were proactively adamant that women
just didn't cut it as Pontifices.

At the same time I realize that there are certain priestly roles
which require a given sexual gender, but I don't see the role of
Pontifex being one of them.

I am still open to the close examination of the fact that given the
prevailing social convention of the day, in Rome, outside Rome,...in
most of the 'civilized' world, womens' opportunities were rather
limited...this was everywhere, not just in Rome. In fact, I'd
venture to say that when you compare the rights of women to Greece
in some areas, and other cultures, that Roman women had it pretty
good. But nonetheless, I'm sure that the age old belief that women
were less competent had great influence over the Roman ancients, as
it did everyone, however erroneous this obviously is,
right....*right*??? (grin)

I am prepared to respect the fact that some women would 'chose' not
to be Pontifex, having personal misgivings about assuming this role,
being a women. But to proactively and officially forbid it, based on
the academic arguments we have seen to date, to me, would be
unsubstantiated.

Valete
P. Minucia
Concerned Citizen of the Religio Publicus
Nova Roma




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

> F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> The position of pontiff in Nova Roma is one that has very little

political

> clout but a good amount of religious significance. However, the

followers of

> the Religio Romana as well as the Hellenistic and Celtic

Immortales are not

> bound to any kind of official status to celebrate the rites and

festivals of our

> respective faiths. Male or female may offer rites on the behalf

of themselves,

> their gentes, and Nova Roma by posting such rites on the ML, RR,

or other

> associated lists with very little restriction--Hercules and

Silvanus being just a

> couple of examples. There are also rites and festivals that only

women may

> attend and from which all males, including the Pontifex Maximus,

are forbidden.

> As a flamen, I have discovered that my Goddess had priestesses

with official

> standing that celebrated certain rites that the flamen doesn't

perform.

> Also, while I bow to the extensive knowledge of Gaius Scaurus on

matter of the

> Religio, everyone with an interest on this subject are perfectly

free to pursue

> research that would validate the status and activities of women in

the Religio;

> providing they will supply documentation to support their

conclusions. Gaius

> Scaurus' material support his conclusions but it is still a little

slim, in

> my opinion, to support a general sweeping statement on exclusion

of women from

> the office of Pontiff. This is especially true since Nova Roma

has already

> established the precedent for having women as Pontiffs by HAVING

WOMEN AS

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

Salvete,

I have finished making all the changes that I received concerning
Nova Roma's provincial government appointees.

It is now 12:15 AM my time, so things may have gotten a
little "fuzzy" near the end of the process. Being human I may have
made a mistake here and there.

Please take the time to go to Nova Roma's provincial page
http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/provinciae and take a peak at your
province to see if I have your province's staff correct. Please
note that "special titles" such as Militarium Prafectus and such do
not show up on the provincial page. On a couple of them I had to
make a best guess on the approximate standard title (ie Scriba
Propraetoris, Legate, ect).

If your province still needs changes to be made let me know using
the following format:

For removals (REMOVE: Namicus Nemo Here)

To add: (ADD: Namicus Nemo Here, Title (ie Legate, Scribe, ect)

For those "special titles" that I guessed wrong let me know what
the "standard title" (ie legate, scribe, ect) that you wished to
have ascribed to that special title.

Valete,

Quintus Cassius Calvus
Scriba Censoris adCommunicationes Primus
for Censor Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

---P. Minucia Tiberia M. Umbrio Urso S.P.D.

Some comments below:


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pat <p-mclaughlin@c...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Our PM, Marcus Cassius Julianus, writes:
>
> >The conservative faction (the Boni) believe that the will of the

Gods is

> >unchanging, and that the ancient Mos Maiorum is the only possible
> >expression of
> >their will. Therefore, if it was decided that the Gods had

decreed something

> >in ancient times, it has been decreed *for all time.* We are

powerless to

> >question it, consider other options, or change it.

Pompeia: Well, to this I would say that if the will of the Gods was
so irrespective of times, places, situations, then there would be no
need to take auguries, would there? I think we have to be careful
in being too fundamentalist in our conclusions regarding higher
powers and their will concerning us.

>
> and
>
> >These two world views encompass a larger situation than this one

issue. Is

> >the Religio Romana a 'static' religion that cannot change in any

way, or

> >is it
> >a 'living' religion that can adapt to new situations if there is

a rational

> >and reasonable need?

Pompeia: My view is the latter. If the Romans adopted such an
amish (no disrespect) and strictly fundamentalist outlook, they
would, to me, not have met with the successes they did. They were a
clever lot, striking a balance between assimilating themselves with
other cultures and belief systems, yet not giving up those things
which were sacred to them. Ahh, that NR could learn such a
balance.....we would increase our membership 10 fold, our treasury
would burst, and people would be banging on her doors to become a
part of her.

The comments of M. Ursus Umbrius:

>
> Are we avoiding the obvious?
>
> The Gods decreed that proper worship required the participation of

the

> king. This was utterly necessary. And this was probably the

biggest

> problem for the nascent republic--other, of course, than

neighboring

> hostile Etruscan kingdoms with an interest in what went on in Ruma

and how

> those upstart Patricians might given their own aristocrats

ideas....

>
> The staggering Roman solution was to create a king who was NOT

king. The

> office of the rex sacrorum is as serious (and fine) a step as

anything

> that's been suggested for our current problem. Hey guys, the

pontifices

> say we can't set up without a king, because the Gods require one.

So who

> are we going to make the new royal family? What? We can't agree

on whom

> to let be the new legal tyrant? But the Gods require a king!
>
> It's an exquisite--and ruthlessly legalistic solution. It's

almost

> Jacksonian (apologies to those cives not familiar with that US

President's

> statements and actions). The pontifices and Gods require a king?

Fine,

> let them have one of their own. Here. Here's a rex for the

sacrorum and

> we'll keep the politics the way we have them.

Pompeia: That is interesting, and my comments herein will touch on
your subsequent paragraph below mine. So, if I understand you
correctly, the ancient republic's 'remedy' to lack of King, an
element mandated by the Gods, was to appoint a Rex Sacrorum. This
does appear to be a rather legalistic measure, which they undertook,
seemingly out of necessity; they needed to escape a kingly tyranny
yet didn't wish to lose divine favour by breaking their bridge to
the Gods.

In fact, after a while the Romans didn't take this office very
seriously, as the appointments of Rex Sacrorum were very
inconsistent and eventually unheard of. What *I* glean from this,
is that, since the ancients felt confident that the presence of a
republic was divinely 'ok', there was no need to keep providing the
Gods with a 'pretend king' (they didnt receive any major
repercussions due to conversion to a republic). They were confident
at that point that they knew the will of the Gods concerning the
republic. It doesn't suggest to me, mind you, that they were pleased
with everything all of the time, but the general concept of republic
vs. kingship *seemed* to be acceptable.

>
> <gasp>
>
> The Gods appear to have been satisfied with that decision, and

well

> satisfied.
>
> And yet, it implies that there's a strong element of flexibility

to the

> absolute requirements -- if absolute they be -- of the Immortals.

Just as

> with the sacred goat conundrum, the Gods appear to appreciate a

clever

> solution, even if it's strictly legalistic and only just stays

within the

> bounds.

Pompeia: Agreed. And I venture to say that the most important
element is that the will of the Gods was entertained to the extent
that they were placated to begin with. The Romans had a passionate
interest in keeping the bridge between themselves and the Gods open
(the role of the King) by providing a Rex Sacrorum who would serve
as a figurehead. Is it that the people were right or wrong, or was
it the fact that they sought divine favour that was the key
element? I venture to say that they were 'right', given the length
of time the republic existed. And,you've got it, the solution of
appointing a Rex Sacrorum is a tad legalistic per se, but
the 'intent' behind it, on the part of the people to maintain the
Pax was hardly legalistic, to me, which I'd think is the more
important element of their actions.

So....... why do we demand more of ourselves here in NR than the
people of Ancient Rome did...do we think that more is divinely
expected of us?

>
> We could create a parallel to the pontifices and decree them the

equal of

> the pontifices--but not being pontifices, not obliged to attend

rites which

> their gender forbids them to attend.
>
> We could permit female pontifices, but oblige them to step down

from their

> offices immediately prior to the rites that they are forbidden to

attend

> and participate in... with the arrangement (purely legalistic...)

that the

> resignation be subject to <something> within <X> time. Upon that

not

> occurring, they would return to their posts. Perhaps "something"

could be

> "acceptance" by the Chief Vestal. This would tend to make the CV

a

> particularly significant post, in essence making her the holder of

the

> terms of all female pontifices....
>
> I'm not proposing any particular solution. I'm simply pointing

out that

> there are solution_s_ in the plural that are possible. And

pointing out

> further that there are things in the Religio Romana that are

precedential.

>
> Could priestesses who are pontifices be made "vir sacrorum"? I

suppose

> that's possible. If a king who's not a king can be king enough to

please

> the Gods, then a vir who's not a vir could be. But that seems

like

> unnecessary baiting of the Gods.
>
> I know that the Romans were creative. IF we can't be... we're

doomed.

Pompeia: The Romans were very resourceful...and ...so are you :). I
wonder if your ideas could be the basis for some entertainable
solutions....atleast the start of some discussions amongst our
religious officials perhaps?

Some interesting thoughts you present.

>
> Valete,
> M Umbrius Ursus

F. Galerius Aurelianus P. Minucia Tiberia. Salve.

The cult of Hercules was very widespread from the mid-Republic through the
Late Empire. As well as being a patron of gladiators, hunters, athletes, et
cetera, he was extensively known as being a patron of businessmen due to a number
of deals he conducted during his 12 Labors. His cult enjoyed the support of
a number of emperors. Hercules' cult was very popular and it is recorded that
the Pontifices attended his rites but it may have been more due to the God's
popularity than from any deep tradition since Hercules was not one of the
indigenous Italic gods but a Greek import from the south of Italy; much like Venus
Eryx.

The Materfamilias role is very important to me personally since the head of
the Galeri is Helena Galeria Aureliana, who is also the sacerdoes prima of the
Province of America Austrorientalis.

Vale.


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

Salve Scriba Quinte Cassi Calve,

Thank you; appointment changes are all corrected and in good order in
Canada Occidentalis.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@c...> wrote:

>
> Salvete,
>
> I have finished making all the changes that I received concerning
> Nova Roma's provincial government appointees.
>
> It is now 12:15 AM my time, so things may have gotten a
> little "fuzzy" near the end of the process. Being human I may have
> made a mistake here and there.
>
> Please take the time to go to Nova Roma's provincial page
> http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/provinciae and take a peak at your
> province to see if I have your province's staff correct. Please
> note that "special titles" such as Militarium Prafectus and such do
> not show up on the provincial page. On a couple of them I had to
> make a best guess on the approximate standard title (ie Scriba
> Propraetoris, Legate, ect).
>
> If your province still needs changes to be made let me know using
> the following format:
>
> For removals (REMOVE: Namicus Nemo Here)
>
> To add: (ADD: Namicus Nemo Here, Title (ie Legate, Scribe, ect)
>
> For those "special titles" that I guessed wrong let me know what
> the "standard title" (ie legate, scribe, ect) that you wished to
> have ascribed to that special title.
>
> Valete,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus
> Scriba Censoris adCommunicationes Primus
> for Censor Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

Salvte omnes,

I agree with Pompeia that Nova Roma needs a creative solution to the Pontificum question.

First, when the Pontificum was established, women were admitted to it. Stripping someone of everything they worked hard to earn will be a bitter pill to swallow for anyone. If no-one was certain how far to go with reconstructing the Pontificum and if women could serve they should never have been admitted in the first place. If the Religio wishes to abolish women as Flamines and in the Pontificum then these women should at least be given another priestly role in compensation for the loss of their time and research efforts. Although, as I check the online listing of priests it appears that women have already been culled from their ranks so this is more a matter of rewording all of the online information of priesthood and preventing any other women from joining.

Second, the Religio was linked to politics and the state in a way that most modern governments now forbid. This means that many pontifices and flamines were appointed because they were prominent men in other arenas. If you want to be completely religiously conservative then socity as a whole must lock step you can't have female politicians and no female pontifices. I don't think any of us want that level of conservatism. The ancient Romans were highly creative and legalistic in the way they did made changes to the Religio. And while they were religiously conservative they probably did make small occasional changes when old documents were lost or burned or the one priest who had everything committed to memory was trampled accidentally. To assume their conservatism prevented all change is naive. All societies make changes even if they are very small changes. Anthopologists learned this lesson the hard way by assuming culture was unchanging and then coming upon previously studied groups and finding significant changes in all aspects of a society. But the point is change must be made in a manner consistent with Roman ideals and values or it simply won't be Roman.

Unfortunately, if you were to re-create the whole Roman State as it was in antiquity, then women would not only be excluded from the Pontificum but they would be excluded from politics and all poitical discussion. Essentially women would be able to read the cooking list and For the Muses and that is pretty much it. They would be forbidden from all military lists, anything to with trade or commerce and all Materfamilas would be forced to have a Paterfamilas over them and they would not be allowed to start a Gens. As Pompeia points out they would be unable to practice Religio Romana at all, unless their husbands were absent or ill for long periods. Limiting modern women to these social roles could estrange a large number of Nova Romans who now contribute their time, effort and energy to this organization. Not to mention their tax dollars.

For example, I am the one in my family with the greatest interest in Nova Roma and the Religio. My husband is not as energetic as I am and I joined Nova Roma first and did the research which led to the foundation of Gens Valeria Secunda which my husband then joined. If I had not joined Nova Roma my husband probably would not have either. And I would not be cooking for military re-enactments or studying philosophy or social history or writing poetry to the Roman Gods.

And religious conservatism opens up another ugly can of worms, that of slavery. One of the priests of a particular temple of Diana was a slave that received his position from killing the previous priest. That would not only be barbaric and cruel these days but it would run us into trouble with the law in all counties. The problem is that we need to re-create enough of the ancient religion that it can be distinguished as Roman in nature and not merely a modern creation, but not be so hide bound and pendantic that we bar half of our citizens from meaningful participation, nor demand horrible, illegal acts of our citizens in the name of religion.

That is a very delicate balance to maintain and it must be done carefully. unfortunately, because of the current state of social affairs in modern societies and the length of time seperating us from Ancient Rome we will NEVER be able to perfectly re-create the Religio. But that does not mean that we should throw the baby away with the bath water and not try to re-create what we can do properly. Within the bounds of civil law and reason.


Bene vale,

Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaaria
Materfmilias of Gens Valeria Secunda

----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_minucia_tiberia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Digest Number 1649



---P. Minucia Tiberia M. Umbrio Urso S.P.D.

Some comments below:


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Pat <p-mclaughlin@c...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Our PM, Marcus Cassius Julianus, writes:
>
> >The conservative faction (the Boni) believe that the will of the
Gods is
> >unchanging, and that the ancient Mos Maiorum is the only possible
> >expression of
> >their will. Therefore, if it was decided that the Gods had
decreed something
> >in ancient times, it has been decreed *for all time.* We are
powerless to
> >question it, consider other options, or change it.

Pompeia: Well, to this I would say that if the will of the Gods was
so irrespective of times, places, situations, then there would be no
need to take auguries, would there? I think we have to be careful
in being too fundamentalist in our conclusions regarding higher
powers and their will concerning us.
>
> and
>
> >These two world views encompass a larger situation than this one
issue. Is
> >the Religio Romana a 'static' religion that cannot change in any
way, or
> >is it
> >a 'living' religion that can adapt to new situations if there is
a rational
> >and reasonable need?

Pompeia: My view is the latter. If the Romans adopted such an
amish (no disrespect) and strictly fundamentalist outlook, they
would, to me, not have met with the successes they did. They were a
clever lot, striking a balance between assimilating themselves with
other cultures and belief systems, yet not giving up those things
which were sacred to them. Ahh, that NR could learn such a
balance.....we would increase our membership 10 fold, our treasury
would burst, and people would be banging on her doors to become a
part of her.

The comments of M. Ursus Umbrius:
>
> Are we avoiding the obvious?
>
> The Gods decreed that proper worship required the participation of
the
> king. This was utterly necessary. And this was probably the
biggest
> problem for the nascent republic--other, of course, than
neighboring
> hostile Etruscan kingdoms with an interest in what went on in Ruma
and how
> those upstart Patricians might given their own aristocrats
ideas....
>
> The staggering Roman solution was to create a king who was NOT
king. The
> office of the rex sacrorum is as serious (and fine) a step as
anything
> that's been suggested for our current problem. Hey guys, the
pontifices
> say we can't set up without a king, because the Gods require one.
So who
> are we going to make the new royal family? What? We can't agree
on whom
> to let be the new legal tyrant? But the Gods require a king!
>
> It's an exquisite--and ruthlessly legalistic solution. It's
almost
> Jacksonian (apologies to those cives not familiar with that US
President's
> statements and actions). The pontifices and Gods require a king?
Fine,
> let them have one of their own. Here. Here's a rex for the
sacrorum and
> we'll keep the politics the way we have them.

Pompeia: That is interesting, and my comments herein will touch on
your subsequent paragraph below mine. So, if I understand you
correctly, the ancient republic's 'remedy' to lack of King, an
element mandated by the Gods, was to appoint a Rex Sacrorum. This
does appear to be a rather legalistic measure, which they undertook,
seemingly out of necessity; they needed to escape a kingly tyranny
yet didn't wish to lose divine favour by breaking their bridge to
the Gods.

In fact, after a while the Romans didn't take this office very
seriously, as the appointments of Rex Sacrorum were very
inconsistent and eventually unheard of. What *I* glean from this,
is that, since the ancients felt confident that the presence of a
republic was divinely 'ok', there was no need to keep providing the
Gods with a 'pretend king' (they didnt receive any major
repercussions due to conversion to a republic). They were confident
at that point that they knew the will of the Gods concerning the
republic. It doesn't suggest to me, mind you, that they were pleased
with everything all of the time, but the general concept of republic
vs. kingship *seemed* to be acceptable.


>
> <gasp>
>
> The Gods appear to have been satisfied with that decision, and
well
> satisfied.
>
> And yet, it implies that there's a strong element of flexibility
to the
> absolute requirements -- if absolute they be -- of the Immortals.
Just as
> with the sacred goat conundrum, the Gods appear to appreciate a
clever
> solution, even if it's strictly legalistic and only just stays
within the
> bounds.

Pompeia: Agreed. And I venture to say that the most important
element is that the will of the Gods was entertained to the extent
that they were placated to begin with. The Romans had a passionate
interest in keeping the bridge between themselves and the Gods open
(the role of the King) by providing a Rex Sacrorum who would serve
as a figurehead. Is it that the people were right or wrong, or was
it the fact that they sought divine favour that was the key
element? I venture to say that they were 'right', given the length
of time the republic existed. And,you've got it, the solution of
appointing a Rex Sacrorum is a tad legalistic per se, but
the 'intent' behind it, on the part of the people to maintain the
Pax was hardly legalistic, to me, which I'd think is the more
important element of their actions.

So....... why do we demand more of ourselves here in NR than the
people of Ancient Rome did...do we think that more is divinely
expected of us?
>
> We could create a parallel to the pontifices and decree them the
equal of
> the pontifices--but not being pontifices, not obliged to attend
rites which
> their gender forbids them to attend.
>
> We could permit female pontifices, but oblige them to step down
from their
> offices immediately prior to the rites that they are forbidden to
attend
> and participate in... with the arrangement (purely legalistic...)
that the
> resignation be subject to <something> within <X> time. Upon that
not
> occurring, they would return to their posts. Perhaps "something"
could be
> "acceptance" by the Chief Vestal. This would tend to make the CV
a
> particularly significant post, in essence making her the holder of
the
> terms of all female pontifices....
>
> I'm not proposing any particular solution. I'm simply pointing
out that
> there are solution_s_ in the plural that are possible. And
pointing out
> further that there are things in the Religio Romana that are
precedential.
>
> Could priestesses who are pontifices be made "vir sacrorum"? I
suppose
> that's possible. If a king who's not a king can be king enough to
please
> the Gods, then a vir who's not a vir could be. But that seems
like
> unnecessary baiting of the Gods.
>
> I know that the Romans were creative. IF we can't be... we're
doomed.

Pompeia: The Romans were very resourceful...and ...so are you :). I
wonder if your ideas could be the basis for some entertainable
solutions....atleast the start of some discussions amongst our
religious officials perhaps?

Some interesting thoughts you present.

>
> Valete,
> M Umbrius Ursus




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]

G. Equitius Cato L. Valeriae Secundae Ianuariae P. Minuciae Tiberiae
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

I agree wholeheartedly with what both of these ladies have said.
When it comes down to it, quirites, it is once again the very
simple, very basic question of what direction we the citizens choose
to take in re-establishing Roman life.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I do believe that we should
use the ancients as a template for every facet of the existence of
the res publica. A template. Not a pre-fabricated society in which
our roles are simply to stick tab "A" into slot "B", but as a guide
to the revivification of true romanitas. We should try to either
become or remain as close to the ancients as possible. The
dichotomy is that we should become like them not merely in form,
which truly is role playing, but in thought and act; this includes
their pragmatic syncretic thought.

There are so many ways in which we have already moved from the
ancient Roman way: the existence of a written constitution, the
powers excercized by the College of Pontiffs, the collegial spirit
of the tribunes' intercessio, the existence of materfamiliae,
allowing pontiffs and flamines to live outside the boundaries of the
City of Rome (just to name a very few) --- all these have been
adopted contrary to history either for us to exist reasonably within
the framework of the modern age in which we live or to protect the
religious foundation of the res publica. Yet those who cry "havoc!"
and would let loose the dogs of despair are not clamoring to see all
these restored in accordance to ancient practices.

Constantinus Serapio commented on the appearance of inconsistency
regarding allowing gender-specific priesthoods yet also allowing
women pontifices. I would respectfully remind my fellow-citizens
that there is a deep difference: namely, that the pontiffs, unlike
sacerdotes, can vote and therefore excercize crucial influence over
the direction of the religio, which in turn affects the res publica
as a whole. This is an important distinction.

We have created a res publica in which, for the sake of
strengthening and protecting the religio, has given unhistoric
political power to the religious establishment. This being so, the
decision to ban women from holding voting power in the same
religious establishment based solely on historical social bias is
itself contradictory.

It is patently absurd to use unhistoric authority as a basis for
demanding that we uphold historic authenticity. If the College of
Pontiffs wishes to continue to excercize its unhistoric power, then
it must also accept that certain *other* unhistoric elements will be
found in our res publica.

If we are bound to obey absolutely the dictates of the religious
past, the pontiffs and flamines might start looking at real estate
prices within the boundaries of the *ancient* City of Rome...

Valete,

Cato

CN·SALIX·QVIRITIBVS·S·P·D

Now that the Saturnalia are approaching, what present would be better
for your friends and loved ones than an authentic Roman calendar for
the new year? That's what we thought in Hispania, and that is why we
decided to prepare a complete Roman calendar for you all to enjoy!

Each page of the calendar presents one Roman month, and each day is
named under both the modern vernacular usage (e.g., January the 1st,
January the 2nd,...) and the traditional Roman dating system (e.g.,
a.d. III Non. Februarii). Religious festivities and days of
observance (dies fasti, nefasti, comitiales etc...) are duly
indicated. And all this for a very reasonable price (8 euros for
Spain, 10 euros for the rest of Europe, 12 euros for North America).

These calendars are solely sold to fund the activities of our
province during the next year, so you will be contributing to further
expand Nova Roma's activities in Hispania as well as acquiring a
unique tool to further expand the knowledge about Roman culture. You
can order your calendars and see photographs of them from the
following web site:

http://www.armillum.com/calendarios.html

Thank you very much for your attention, and I hope that you like the
calendars!

BENE·VALETE·VOS·VOSTRIQVE·OMNES

CN·SALIX·T·F·A·NEP·OVF·ASTVR

Salve. A few comments on your post...

> I am still open to the close examination of the fact that given the
> prevailing social convention of the day, in Rome, outside

Rome,...in

> most of the 'civilized' world, womens' opportunities were rather
> limited...this was everywhere, not just in Rome. In fact, I'd
> venture to say that when you compare the rights of women to Greece
> in some areas, and other cultures, that Roman women had it pretty
> good. But nonetheless, I'm sure that the age old belief that women
> were less competent had great influence over the Roman ancients, as
> it did everyone, however erroneous this obviously is,
> right....*right*??? (grin)

Actually, it varied considerably depending on what time period (and
certainly, the culture and locality) you lived in. You might have
noticed that most of the familial Roman names are feminine in form.
This is likely because in archaic Rome, as it has been found
elsewhere in the world through archeological evidence, women once
held much higher power and/or prestige in the prehistoric societies
of the ancients. Anytime you find a feminine form for a family name
in a mostly patriarchial society, it's an anthropologically
significant find, as this is usually what it indicates. There was a
dramatic shift early on though in political and familial power to
males (presumably around the time Romans started venturing out of
their own backyards.. in search of both material goods... and Sabine
wives).

Also, we do have historical textual evidence extent where women who
were sacerdotes indeed held quite a bit of power in Roman society,
primarily among the cults of Diana and Magna Mater, which were
extremely popular among the entire Roman populace at times.

> I am prepared to respect the fact that some women would 'chose' not
> to be Pontifex, having personal misgivings about assuming this

role,

> being a women. But to proactively and officially forbid it, based

on

> the academic arguments we have seen to date, to me, would be
> unsubstantiated.

This issue will likely not be decided through academic study and/or
argument, as much of it is fruitless one way or the other. If we
refer back to the archeological and textual evidence, whichever way
one might try to interpret it, it will always go towards the side of
women not being pontifices. And arguments on the main list, as you've
seen, are largely circular in character, and consist mainly of people
bringing their own personal opinions into the arena. And this should
have absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand, as we are not
discussing the "rights" of women. Certainly, if females were banned
from the role of pontifex, it would limit the ways in which they are
able to serve the Di Immortales, and they would have no voting power
in the Collegium. As much as I would like to see logic being used in
these discussions instead of empassioned people relying on their
philosophical and ethical backgrounds to try to prove a given point,
even logic will not decide the outcome of this issue. Ultimately, it
will likely be given over to an augury, as it is not the
Constitution, the present world atmosphere, or even womens' rights
that has anything to do with the issue. It relies solely upon what
the will of the gods is, and there are few ways of determining that
aside from divination, prophecy, and oracular texts.

> Valete
> P. Minucia
> Concerned Citizen of the Religio Publicus
> Nova Roma

Excuse my ignorance, Pompeiia Minucia, I certainly don't mean to
split hairs.. But how exactly are you a "citizen of the Religio
Publicus" if as a Christian you take no part in the Religio?


Vale bene,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
wrote:

> If we are bound to obey absolutely the dictates of the religious
> past, the pontiffs and flamines might start looking at real estate
> prices within the boundaries of the *ancient* City of Rome...

Salve, Cato

A fine point. Nova Roma has already created many of its own
traditions that do not quite fit into the descriptions left to us by
our ancient fathers. The first and foremost in my mind is the fact
that we are primarily and online community. Have we considered the
Gods feelings about this? Should we return to wax tablets until we
know for sure, or should we give the Gods credit for the *potential*
for the same evolution that we mortals have undergone?

vale bene,
Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia

Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Modi,

Lucius Modius Kaelus writes:
[citing Pompeia's message]

> Excuse my ignorance, Pompeiia Minucia, I certainly don't mean to
> split hairs.. But how exactly are you a "citizen of the Religio
> Publicus" if as a Christian you take no part in the Religio?

All citizens of Nova Roma participate in the Religio Publica. Voting is
a religious ritual of the Religio Publica, and certainly holding a
magisterial office has religious significance. So while Pompeia's
religio privata may not involve a lararium and pictures of her
ancestors, within Nova Roma her Religio Publica is the same as that of
the rest of us.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

In response to the honourable materfamilias of Valeria Secunda; salve.

> I agree with Pompeia that Nova Roma needs a creative solution to

the Pontificum question.

KAELUS: As do I. I would support a viable counterpart to the
pontificum for women, if that is also the gods' will. I think it may
be something that might actually have some viable logic behind it.

> First, when the Pontificum was established, women were admitted to

it. Stripping someone of everything they worked hard to earn will be
a bitter pill to swallow for anyone. If no-one was certain how far to
go with reconstructing the Pontificum and if women could serve they
should never have been admitted in the first place.

KAELUS: If this was indeed a mistake, it is one of many mistakes Nova
Roma has made, and it has (slowly) been trying to correct many of the
errors made in haste. The founders were only mortals, after all.

>If the Religio wishes to abolish women as Flamines and in the

Pontificum then these women should at least be given another priestly
role in compensation for the loss of their time and research efforts.
Although, as I check the online listing of priests it appears that
women have already been culled from their ranks so this is more a
matter of rewording all of the online information of priesthood and
preventing any other women from joining.

KAELUS: I hesitated mentioning this, as I am neither qualified nor
fully versed in augury, but I've already taken an augury combined
with two other forms of divination, and recorded oracular utterance
on this matter. The result of all three forms of divination gave me a
resounding "no" to women pontifices, and the oracular trance which I
entered into provided nothing discernable on the matter at hand.
However, I remind all quirites that I am by no means an augur, and
any ruling as a result of this or other divination I used is by not
authortitative. This was undertaken out of personal curiousity, as
this discussion has made me wary of my pro-active stance FOR women
pontifices. I also conducted two other forms of divination (not
including augury), and the result for female flamines was, to my
surprise after the first readings, a resounding "yes". Usually, in
conducting several simulatenous forms of divination, they do not give
the same repeated result. This has given me pause, if nothing else.
However, the gods, if I were to venture a guess, might be appeased by
the proposed equivalent to pontifices for women. Metellus
Posthumianius is currently undertaking an augury as well to confirm
the validity of my findings, and I hope that our official augurs will
also take an augury at the appropriate time, as their findings will
be the only ones I authoratively recognise. Think of these
divinations as nothing more than an "exit poll" at an election. It
gives an indication as to the will of the gods, but that is all.


Also, I would like to point out that women are very much able to hold
priesthood positions, Ianuuaria. They are currently able to hold (to
my knowledge) both sacerdotal positions and those of a flaminate.
Secondly, compensation is a non-issue here, as we are not trying to
appease mortals, but gods. This should not be a motivating factor for
any decision within Nova Roma on this issue. I would like to assume
that people in the religio undertake research and reconstruction for
their love of the Di Immortales, and not for personal gain.

> Second, the Religio was linked to politics and the state in a way

that most modern governments now forbid. This means that many
pontifices and flamines were appointed because they were prominent
men in other arenas. If you want to be completely religiously
conservative then socity as a whole must lock step you can't have
female politicians and no female pontifices.

KAELUS: This is untrue. First, we have many examples in Roma Antiqua
of many people from various backgrounds branching out from their
previous sacerdotal position(s). Also, I see only circular logic in
your second statement. That is not at all the case. And, someone
please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that those positions of
a more political nature (as well as the Materfamilias issue) which
were previously alluded to had all legitimately become part of the
Mos Maiorum. I've seen no official documentation on this matter, but
I've heard some authoritatively speak on the issue as if there was
some confirmation on this.

>I don't think any of us want that level of conservatism. The ancient

Romans were highly creative and legalistic in the way they did made
changes to the Religio. And while they were religiously conservative
they probably did make small occasional changes when old documents
were lost or burned or the one priest who had everything committed
to memory was trampled accidentally.

KAELUS: Absolutely. After the prized Sibylline Oracles were lost, the
Romans set about finding replacement oracles (not to be confused with
the pseudo-Sybills who were used as propaganda to further
Christianity). This is a very Roman solution to a problem, within
certain limits, of course. But that is the most extreme solution of
that type that comes to my mind.

>To assume their conservatism prevented all change is naive. All

societies make changes even if they are very small changes.
Anthopologists learned this lesson the hard way by assuming culture
was unchanging and then coming upon previously studied groups and
finding significant changes in all aspects of a society. But the
point is change must be made in a manner consistent with Roman ideals
and values or it simply won't be Roman.

No argument intended, but I am curious.. I'm an anthropology student
and I have never heard of any anthropologists making that assumption,
even the "archaic" anthropologists of the former part of the last
century, and I've read some of their ethnologies (some more
outlandish than others, usually depending on the mode of research). I
would very much like to see some documentation you have to provide.
Something to discuss with PhD's with tenure I know, at least. :-)

> Unfortunately, if you were to re-create the whole Roman State as it

was in antiquity, then women would not only be excluded from the
Pontificum but they would be excluded from politics and all poitical
discussion. Essentially women would be able to read the cooking list
and For the Muses and that is pretty much it.

KAELUS: One again, I refer you to my previous rebuttals. This is not
the case at all. Women WERE allowed to hold priesthoods, and even
officiate the mystery religions. Women also ran businesses, were
poets (as you supported), among various other things. But yes, their
options were extremely limited, given their legal status. But no one
is preposing this AT ALL. I don't see what this has to do with the
argument aside from trying to stir up emotions.

>They would be forbidden from all military lists, anything to with

trade or commerce and all Materfamilas would be forced to have a
Paterfamilas over them and they would not be allowed to start a Gens.
As Pompeia points out they would be unable to practice Religio Romana
at all, unless their husbands were absent or ill for long periods.
Limiting modern women to these social roles could estrange a large
number of Nova Romans who now contribute their time, effort and
energy to this organization. Not to mention their tax dollars.

KAELUS: Once again, no. There is the Religio Privita, and
the "ordinary" priestesses. But once again, no one is suggesting this
by any stretch of the imagination.

> For example, I am the one in my family with the greatest interest

in Nova Roma and the Religio. My husband is not as energetic as I am
and I joined Nova Roma first and did the research which led to the
foundation of Gens Valeria Secunda which my husband then joined. If I
had not joined Nova Roma my husband probably would not have either.
And I would not be cooking for military re-enactments or studying
philosophy or social history or writing poetry to the Roman Gods.

KAELUS: Yes, I've spoken to your husband (a pleasant man to talk to),
and Valeria Secunda is an honourable familia. I've seen your
participation in various Roman related events such as re-enactments,
and have extolled such active participation within our province of
Lacus Magni and abroad. I think very highly of you, and I would be
honoured to get to know you ever better.

As a side note though, education, such as it was in Rome (I refer you
to Juvenal on that matter), was open to women. And Roman women did
write poetry in honour of the Di Immortales, although it was rarer in
Roman society than in Ancient Greece. Granted, these were priviledges
and past-times afforded to women of status from wealthy families,
usually.

> And religious conservatism opens up another ugly can of worms, that

of slavery. One of the priests of a particular temple of Diana was a
slave that received his position from killing the previous priest.
That would not only be barbaric and cruel these days but it would run
us into trouble with the law in all counties. The problem is that we
need to re-create enough of the ancient religion that it can be
distinguished as Roman in nature and not merely a modern creation,
but not be so hide bound and pendantic that we bar half of our
citizens from meaningful participation, nor demand horrible, illegal
acts of our citizens in the name of religion.

KAELUS: No one is suggesting this, and certainly no one would propose
reinstituting slave labour, which would be a logisitic impossibility
almost in Nova Roma anyway given the nature of most of our contact. ;-
) The political marytr in me does want to cry out to quirites that
slavery is, unfortunately, not a dead institution in the world,
including in the United States, but is rather a thriving industry
continually gaining momentum. Though most of it is in character even
far more reprehensible than the variety of which was found in the
ancient world, slave labour was probably used to produced the orange
juice that many poured for themselves this morning, whatever country
you might live in.

> That is a very delicate balance to maintain and it must be done

carefully. unfortunately, because of the current state of social
affairs in modern societies and the length of time seperating us from
Ancient Rome we will NEVER be able to perfectly re-create the
Religio. But that does not mean that we should throw the baby away
with the bath water and not try to re-create what we can do properly.
Within the bounds of civil law and reason.

KAELUS: Agreed, wholeheartedly. Well said.

Vale optimus,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

Salvete omnibus, et salve Marini,

Noted, Marinus. That's what I thought she meant, and yes, by her
former office and her participation in voting, she would be a
participant in the Religio Publica. But there is still a marked
different between a participant and a practitioner. And while I
welcome and encourage discussion on this issue among all Quirites, I
do wonder why non-pracitioners would suppose that they should shape
the ritual and practice of the Religio Publica when that has no
direct bearing on them. I understand concern and involvement in
regards to the res publica, and that they would have an invested
interest as to how the religious aspects of our Res Publica were to
take shape, but I do not understand why some feel that they should be
able to dictate to practitioners "how things should be" in our
religion. I know this is one area, and probably the only area on
which of us disagree, as you proposed once all the cives vote for
priests, which would include a large number of people who either
don't even believe in the existence of the Di Immortales and/or some
who have hatred towards what they represent.

I do truly welcome anyone to share their views, opinions, comments
and thoughts about ANY aspect of the religio publica, but I am wary
when a non-practitioner elevates themselves on a soapbox, such as was
the case in the (now decided) issue of animal sacrifice. I did not
think anything of the sort in Pompeia's case, but other citizens who
have commented on this issue have taken that stance and gone on the
offensive.


Valete,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <xkaelusx@y...> wrote:

>
> Salve Lucius Modius, et Salvete Omnes:

(your interesting and welltaken comments snipped for brevity)

And I am glad you asked me this, Luci Modi:

>
> Excuse my ignorance, Pompeiia Minucia, I certainly don't mean to
> split hairs.. But how exactly are you a "citizen of the Religio
> Publicus" if as a Christian you take no part in the Religio?

This is actually a very good question. Every citizen of Roma
Antiqua and every citizen in Nova Roma, is a member of the Religio
Publica. St. Paul of Tarsus was a member of the Religio Publica.
You could be a Christian, Druid, Judiastic, Astru, Atheist, etc.
etc...and you are a member of the Religio Publica, regardless of
your private spiritual pursuit. If you are not attempting to upend
the state religio, then this is perfectly ok by Roman standards.
Romans were very flexible in their outreach to others, yet kept and
defended their sacred principles.

The Religio *Privata*, is one's pursuit of the Religio from a
private perspective. I do not engage in this, but I do have some
beliefs (wonderments?)which differ a bit I'm sure from a staunchly
fundamentalist Christian, but they do not interfere with my own
convictions, nor override the core teachings of my faith. I can
appreciate where someone from a stricter sect of conservative
Christianity might have a hard time here in NR, with the various
discussions about other Gods, etc. Not always though...because it
is difficult to stereotype 'religious beliefs'.

I will not call myself a Religio Practitioner, aside from being in
the Religio Publica. Because I am not, and I feel to do so does a
disservice to those who own a lararium, offer to the Gods via
ritual, hold religious positions, etc. etc. I personally (and this
is *me*) define 'Religio Practitioner" by this criteria.

I am keenly interested in the current discussions regarding the
selection of Pontifices, the reconstruction of the Religio, etc. as
it effects all of us rather profoundly. Public rituals are held for
the benefit of 'all' citizens, being in the Religio Publica, the
decisions of the CP otherwise affect 'all' of us (usually), and for
me to be uninterested would be an act of apathy on my part, given
that I am keenly interested in other aspects of Nova Roma. And,
also, failure to be interested in the Religio and wish the holistic
best in this regard would be to suggest that I haven't much
understanding of how the Roman spirituality permeated their
culture. They were not so much 'rule' happy, but their actions and
their culture had deep spiritual roots.

I hope this explains my position, without it sounding like I am
an 'authority' on the Religio, or that I am stereotyping every
practitioner.... I know there are differences in approaches to the
Religio in this community and in others. I have no desire to do
this; I know I appreciate it when people recognize the variations
within my faith and do not judge hastily by a template of
preconceived notions which does not necessarily fit.

Again, I'm glad you asked me this.

Valete
Po

>
>
> Vale bene,
> Lucius Modius Kaelus

---Salve Consul Marinus et Salvete Omnes:

Wow...you took the words out of my mouth......I think we were likely
typing at the same time :)

Pompeia




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

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Modi,
>
> Lucius Modius Kaelus writes:
> [citing Pompeia's message]
> > Excuse my ignorance, Pompeiia Minucia, I certainly don't mean to
> > split hairs.. But how exactly are you a "citizen of the Religio
> > Publicus" if as a Christian you take no part in the Religio?
>
> All citizens of Nova Roma participate in the Religio Publica.

Voting is

> a religious ritual of the Religio Publica, and certainly holding a
> magisterial office has religious significance. So while Pompeia's
> religio privata may not involve a lararium and pictures of her
> ancestors, within Nova Roma her Religio Publica is the same as

that of

> the rest of us.
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus

Ph. Flavius Conservatus Maior omnibus salutem dicit.


Dear fellow citizens, now we are debating here a year about this topic, without a mutual consent to have really found.
I would like to begin first with a listing of facts, before I point out my thoughts.


1) So far us primary sources report, no female Pontifex is recorded

2) There are Gods, which are called exclusively by female priests

3) The attempt to establish the Religio Romana again by
Flavius Claudius Iulianus (Apostata) *December 361 to +26 June 363 failed,
since at this time the knowledge (and temple abilities) was hardly present already.
(how much we have knowledge then only, 1640 years later?)

4) the world changes itself, as the Gods created it.


Now to my thoughts:
Today we stand before a larger problem, than Flavius Claudius Iulianus (Apostata) to its time.
Our sources are more limited, than the his were. In addition it comes that everything is subjected to the change.
The position of the woman in the society changed, and some from the Antique is not opened for us no more.
Despite everything a woman was always an important element of the society.
If one considers,we'll know the woman's right to vote is not so old still at all and it lasted eternities.
One should not expect to be able to solve things in few weeks.

There is no exclution Mrs. Pontifex will be able anytime.
Only one restriction is present in the time interval.
Everyone talks here only about the place of a Pontifex and does not surveys the fact that many tasks,
which can be dressed only by women are not occupied.
I therefore think that we establish the ReRo firmly and fill the vacant places, before we come to the social changes.
Hey, a child will not arise after 6 years, hu?
It considers, please, that already much changed, which was not present in this way in the ancient time.
Materfamilias, female government posts, women's rights to vote etc.
Those are quite all adjustments to a changed society.
But please, do we need to get all at once, in the first minutes?

That mankind changed, as everyone knows.
If the immortals would not agree with it, then they would not have given us so much decision possibilities.
But like that, as one does not only build the roof, but the foundation,
then one cannot call simply after a female Pontifex if the basis is missing.
I am quite for it, a female Pontifx, but please, let us first pour in the foundation,
so we can build up everything else also and it does not break down some day!
A development needs time. as a materfamilias also takes the role of the family priest,
and there're no complaints of the Gods were, point us out up to now that also a female Pontifex can be possible.
But before the joy the Gods still set the sweat.

I suggest therefore the following:
Let us begin to strengthen the ReRo and to inform.
As long as we do not have a common basis, we do not even need to think of changes.
The CP should precede there with bright model and help materfamlias to carry out rites correctly.
To strengthen women in this practice, then you will not be accused to be misogynicness!

Changes, step by step and not force.
Maybe it will be possible to create such a thing like society-body,
consists out of Pontifex and dignitaries, in order to discuss changes.
I am convinced that we will get a female Pontifex someday.
But please, do we need to get all at once, in the first minutes?
Let us nevertheless select the center,please.
Only the extremely conservative or neoliberal way, all will lose.


Valete
Conservatus Maior


P.S. No native speaker, please inquire friendly when there's an ambiguity, thanks.
Any abusive language will be answered in Latin only.
________________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt neu bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021193

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

>
> Salve Scriba Quinte Cassi Calve,
>
> Thank you; appointment changes are all corrected and in good order

in

> Canada Occidentalis.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>

Salve,

Thanks. At least I managed to do one province right. <G>

Vale

Calvus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Modi Kaele,

Lucius Modius Kaelus writes:

> Noted, Marinus. That's what I thought she meant, and yes, by her
> former office and her participation in voting, she would be a
> participant in the Religio Publica. But there is still a marked
> different between a participant and a practitioner.

How so? You seem to be making a distinction here that the Romans of
antiquity would never have made.

> And while I
> welcome and encourage discussion on this issue among all Quirites, I
> do wonder why non-pracitioners would suppose that they should shape
> the ritual and practice of the Religio Publica when that has no
> direct bearing on them.

But it *does* have direct bearing on them Kaelus. The Religio Publica
isn't some Religious Sodality, content to go off to its own mailing list
and keep its affairs separate from the central business of Nova Roma.
No, the Religio Publica is deeply entwined in the whole of Nova Roma,
and it permeates everything we do. Thus all citizens participate in the
Religio Publica and have to be aware of the actions of those who direct
the Religio Publica.

> I understand concern and involvement in
> regards to the res publica, and that they would have an invested
> interest as to how the religious aspects of our Res Publica were to
> take shape, but I do not understand why some feel that they should be
> able to dictate to practitioners "how things should be" in our
> religion.

How can it be otherwise? The Religio Publica is central to Nova Roma.
It is not the exclusive domain of those particularly pious citizens who
maintain lararia in their homes and choose to make the gentilic
religious practices of Latium their religio privata. It is the whole
set of public rites we all participate in by our participation in Nova Roma.

> I know this is one area, and probably the only area on
> which of us disagree, as you proposed once all the cives vote for
> priests,

Not quite. What I proposed was that we *consider* adopting a process
similar to that provided in the Lex Domitia of antiquity, wherein half
of the tribes are chosen by lot to vote for two finalists put forth by
the Collegium Pontificum, whenever there is a vacancy in the CP.

> which would include a large number of people who either
> don't even believe in the existence of the Di Immortales and/or some
> who have hatred towards what they represent.

I'll accept that some (perhaps many) of our citizens don't believe in
the existence of the Dii Immortales. But I have yet to find even one
citizen who hates what they represent. I think the idea of such hatred
is a strawman put forth by people who have issues with the way
Christianity is practiced in their immediate vicinity, and would
transfer those attitudes to the Christian citizens of NR.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve,
This fantastic! I just ordered one(13.92 EUR to Wichita, KS).

Vale,
Quintus Servilius Fidenas

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:

>CN·SALIX·QVIRITIBVS·S·P·D
>
>Now that the Saturnalia are approaching, what present would be better
>for your friends and loved ones than an authentic Roman calendar for
>the new year? That's what we thought in Hispania, and that is why we
>decided to prepare a complete Roman calendar for you all to enjoy!
>
>Each page of the calendar presents one Roman month, and each day is
>named under both the modern vernacular usage (e.g., January the 1st,
>January the 2nd,...) and the traditional Roman dating system (e.g.,
>a.d. III Non. Februarii). Religious festivities and days of
>observance (dies fasti, nefasti, comitiales etc...) are duly
>indicated. And all this for a very reasonable price (8 euros for
>Spain, 10 euros for the rest of Europe, 12 euros for North America).
>
>These calendars are solely sold to fund the activities of our
>province during the next year, so you will be contributing to further
>expand Nova Roma's activities in Hispania as well as acquiring a
>unique tool to further expand the knowledge about Roman culture. You
>can order your calendars and see photographs of them from the
>following web site:
>
>http://www.armillum.com/calendarios.html
>
>Thank you very much for your attention, and I hope that you like the
>calendars!
>
>BENE·VALETE·VOS·VOSTRIQVE·OMNES
>
>CN·SALIX·T·F·A·NEP·OVF·ASTVR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <xkaelusx@y...> wrote:

>

Salve, Luci Modi Kaele, salve, Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo, et salvete, quirites
peregrini, sociique Novae Romae!

Commentarii mei infra, intertexti.

My comments are below, interleaved.

> Salve. A few comments on your post...
>
>
> > I am still open to the close examination of the fact that given the
> > prevailing social convention of the day, in Rome, outside
> Rome,...in
> > most of the 'civilized' world, womens' opportunities were rather
> > limited...this was everywhere, not just in Rome. In fact, I'd
> > venture to say that when you compare the rights of women to Greece
> > in some areas, and other cultures, that Roman women had it pretty
> > good. But nonetheless, I'm sure that the age old belief that women
> > were less competent had great influence over the Roman ancients, as
> > it did everyone, however erroneous this obviously is,
> > right....*right*??? (grin)
>
> Actually, it varied considerably depending on what time period (and
> certainly, the culture and locality) you lived in. You might have
> noticed that most of the familial Roman names are feminine in form.
> This is likely because in archaic Rome, as it has been found
> elsewhere in the world through archeological evidence, women once
> held much higher power and/or prestige in the prehistoric societies
> of the ancients. Anytime you find a feminine form for a family name
> in a mostly patriarchial society, it's an anthropologically
> significant find, as this is usually what it indicates.

Fortasse, sed re vera, nomina "gens" et "familia" generis feminini sunt, et 'adiectiva
substantivorum suorum casum, genus, numerum sequuntur.' Nomina gentium adiectiva
sunt, quod forma [-ia] demonstrat. Hic grammatica Linguae Latinae, non instituta societatis
Romanae, agitur.


[Perhaps, but in reality, the nouns "gens" {clan, 'house,' group of families} and "familia"
{family} are of the feminine gender, and 'adjectives follow the case, gender, {and} number
of their substantives.' The names of the gentes are adjectives, as their form {-ia} shows.
Here the grammar of the Latin language, not the customs of Roman society, is at issue].


There was a

> dramatic shift early on though in political and familial power to
> males (presumably around the time Romans started venturing out of
> their own backyards.. in search of both material goods... and Sabine
> wives).
>

> Also, we do have historical textual evidence extent where women who
> were sacerdotes indeed held quite a bit of power in Roman society,
> primarily among the cults of Diana and Magna Mater, which were
> extremely popular among the entire Roman populace at times.
>
>
> > I am prepared to respect the fact that some women would 'chose' not
> > to be Pontifex, having personal misgivings about assuming this
> role,
> > being a women. But to proactively and officially forbid it, based
> on
> > the academic arguments we have seen to date, to me, would be
> > unsubstantiated.
>
> This issue will likely not be decided through academic study and/or
> argument, as much of it is fruitless one way or the other. If we
> refer back to the archeological and textual evidence, whichever way
> one might try to interpret it, it will always go towards the side of
> women not being pontifices. And arguments on the main list, as you've
> seen, are largely circular in character, and consist mainly of people
> bringing their own personal opinions into the arena. And this should
> have absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand, as we are not
> discussing the "rights" of women. Certainly, if females were banned
> from the role of pontifex, it would limit the ways in which they are
> able to serve the Di Immortales, and they would have no voting power
> in the Collegium. As much as I would like to see logic being used in
> these discussions instead of empassioned people relying on their
> philosophical and ethical backgrounds to try to prove a given point,
> even logic will not decide the outcome of this issue. Ultimately, it
> will likely be given over to an augury, as it is not the
> Constitution, the present world atmosphere, or even womens' rights
> that has anything to do with the issue. It relies solely upon what
> the will of the gods is, and there are few ways of determining that
> aside from divination, prophecy, and oracular texts.
>
> > Valete
> > P. Minucia
> > Concerned Citizen of the Religio Publicus

Nomen "religio" quoque generis feminini est. . .ergo "Religio Publica"

The noun "religio" is also feminine gender . . .therefore [it should be] "Religio Publica."

> > Nova Roma


>
> Excuse my ignorance, Pompeiia Minucia, I certainly don't mean to
> split hairs.. But how exactly are you a "citizen of the Religio
> Publicus" if as a Christian you take no part in the Religio?
>
>
> Vale bene,
> Lucius Modius Kaelus

Vale, et valete,

Flavia Scholastica
Accensa Latinitati Consuli Gnaeo Equitio Marino
Moderatrix Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Latinista et Hellenista Sodalitatis Musarum

In a message dated 11/27/04 12:07:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

> Let me make one thing absolutely clear: I do believe that we should
> use the ancients as a template for every facet of the existence of
> the res publica. A template. Not a pre-fabricated society in which
> our roles are simply to stick tab "A" into slot "B", but as a guide
> to the revivification of true romanitas. We should try to either
> become or remain as close to the ancients as possible. The
> dichotomy is that we should become like them not merely in form,
> which truly is role playing, but in thought and act; this includes
> their pragmatic syncretic thought.
>
> There are so many ways in which we have already moved from the
> ancient Roman way: the existence of a written constitution, the
> powers excercized by the College of Pontiffs, the collegial spirit
> of the tribunes' intercessio, the existence of materfamiliae,
> allowing pontiffs and flamines to live outside the boundaries of the
> City of Rome (just to name a very few) --- all these have been
> adopted contrary to history either for us to exist reasonably within
> the framework of the modern age in which we live or to protect the
> religious foundation of the res publica. Yet those who cry "havoc!"
> and would let loose the dogs of despair are not clamoring to see all
> these restored in accordance to ancient practices.
>
>

And this is why we fail. And continue to fail. So what's the point?
Here's an idea, why don't you go start New Byzantium?
QFM


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

Salvete Quirites et Marini.

Amice, let me respond to what you have said. I would rather private
discussion on this, if you're willing.

> > Noted, Marinus. That's what I thought she meant, and yes, by her
> > former office and her participation in voting, she would be a
> > participant in the Religio Publica. But there is still a marked
> > different between a participant and a practitioner.
>
> How so? You seem to be making a distinction here that the Romans

of

> antiquity would never have made.

As many are so often fond of pointing out, we are not the Romans of
antiquity. This will never be so, and I for one would never wish it
to be so. This is a sober, cold reality check for some.

Cato is right in saying we are founding a new society, a NEW Rome,
however limited it may be at the moment. Nova Roma is also an
outward, public expression of a deeply personal faith for many. And
there are many who we count among our numbers who do not have a such
a similar shared religious experience. There are no misgivings about
this; we unite in our love for Rome, and our reconstruction of this
Res Publica.

As expressive as the english language is, it fails to convey the
connotations indicitive in "practitioner". I hope to live in a
society, in one place at least, one day, where a person may use the
plural of God and not see the eyes around them widen in disbelief.
For now, Nova Roma is that safe haven, but many still feel that their
religion is compromised by people "role-playing" the religio publica
as magistrates and citizens... and giving lip-service invocations of
gods they don't even believe in.

The foundations we lay now will serve to be the building blocks in a
much wider scope one day, or we can only hope. I want to promote
understanding, and awareness, as you put it, among all the citizens
of Rome. I don't want others to feel excluded in any way, and I WANT
citizens to raise their voices, but realise what effect those voices
or their votes have on others. There is a fine line that you seem to
leave out, especially in these delicate beginnings, that is a reality
within Nova Roma.

> > And while I
> > welcome and encourage discussion on this issue among all

Quirites, I

> > do wonder why non-pracitioners would suppose that they should

shape

> > the ritual and practice of the Religio Publica when that has no
> > direct bearing on them.
>
> But it *does* have direct bearing on them Kaelus. The Religio

Publica

> isn't some Religious Sodality, content to go off to its own mailing

list

> and keep its affairs separate from the central business of Nova

Roma.

> No, the Religio Publica is deeply entwined in the whole of Nova

Roma,

> and it permeates everything we do. Thus all citizens participate

in the

> Religio Publica and have to be aware of the actions of those who

direct

> the Religio Publica.

I sense a slightly sarcastic, mocking tone in your first few
statments made in this paragraph. Of course, the two are so deeply
entertwined as to be inseperable, and this is why I feel moved to
reply as I do. The decisions that Quirites make dictate the public
expression of my faith, and the faith that I shall teach my children,
and their children, in years to come. I do not take this so lightly
as to allow others to make decisions for me, or take a morally high
road based in a secular or religious philosophy that is sometimes at
odds with the religion in which these issues are being decided.

> > I understand concern and involvement in
> > regards to the res publica, and that they would have an invested
> > interest as to how the religious aspects of our Res Publica were

to

> > take shape, but I do not understand why some feel that they

should be

> > able to dictate to practitioners "how things should be" in our
> > religion.
>
> How can it be otherwise? The Religio Publica is central to Nova

Roma.

> It is not the exclusive domain of those particularly pious citizens

who

> maintain lararia in their homes and choose to make the gentilic
> religious practices of Latium their religio privata. It is the

whole

> set of public rites we all participate in by our participation in

Nova Roma.

Central to Nova Roma, and a aspect of the lives of everyone who
partakes in the effort to restore Roma. Agreed. We all may
participate in the religio publica in one way or another, but it is
the religio privita in the form of the traditional religion of the
Romans that forms the basis for all of these practices, that sets the
mould in which we are to shape this entire venture. Understand that
the "gentilic religious practices of Latium" are more than words upon
a paper, or simply keeping a lararium in one's home, and making
prayers to the gods.

It is a deeply felt, genuine desire to be connected to the Di
Immortales, and many feel communion with these gods throughout the
whole of their lives, through sickness, childbirth, and death. The
Religio Publica must reflect this is as well. Yes, it is orthopraxic
in nature, but it is all we have, Marinus. For many, the religio
publica is more than just one facet of Nova Roma, or an experiement
in reconstruction. It is our faith, our religion, and a hope looming
over the horizon that one day we won't have to hide this faith any
more from family members, co-workers, and our friends. We want to see
that it is done correctly, so that we may both appease the gods and
create an authentic vessel for future generations to carry out their
faith and make sacrifices to the gods in temples with "SPQR" upon
their cornerstone.

> > I know this is one area, and probably the only area on
> > which of us disagree, as you proposed once all the cives vote for
> > priests,
>
> Not quite. What I proposed was that we *consider* adopting a

process

> similar to that provided in the Lex Domitia of antiquity, wherein

half

> of the tribes are chosen by lot to vote for two finalists put forth

by

> the Collegium Pontificum, whenever there is a vacancy in the CP.

Which was the final result after discussing it with practitioners on
the PeaceNR list. The original idea was not quite so generous, as I
remember. And it is a reasonable idea, but the practice was discarded
just a short time after it was adopted in Roma Antiqua. Does this not
tell you something?

> > which would include a large number of people who either
> > don't even believe in the existence of the Di Immortales and/or

some

> > who have hatred towards what they represent.

> I'll accept that some (perhaps many) of our citizens don't believe

in

> the existence of the Dii Immortales. But I have yet to find even

one

> citizen who hates what they represent. I think the idea of such

hatred

> is a strawman put forth by people who have issues with the way
> Christianity is practiced in their immediate vicinity, and would
> transfer those attitudes to the Christian citizens of NR.

I have no ill-will towards Christians or any other religious group
present in our republic. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was a devout
Christian convert for several years, and if Christian theology is
correct, then I still have a Spirit in me crying out "Abba" every
day. It is a beautiful faith, and even though I do have issues with
those Chrisitans who have thrown stones at me (both figuratively and
literally, to be honest), I do not reflect those feelings on those
who practice Christianity and are a part of Nova Roma. They would not
partake in this project if they did not possess a modicum of
tolerance. I am not Drusus, and I will not cry "foul" where it is not
justified. You need not remind me of it's unofficial status, but you
need look no further than the annals of the Back Alley to see
citizens of Nova Roma who are ambivalent, disdainful, and a few who
are even hateful towards the Religio. This reason alone is enough to
give one pause before putting any important issue concerning the
religio that affects practitioners to a vote. I do not consider this
a point for any serious concern, though. They are a non-vocal
minority within the Res Publica who spill their thoughts on the BA or
in private in order to avoid a blasphemy charge. What DOES concern me
is people altering the fundamental practices of a religion, and
limiting my ability to express it within Nova Roma, out of the
goodness of their heart and their geunine desire to see things
done 'correctly' based on their own personal, ethical values.

To borrow a famous line from a popular film, "What we do now...
echoes in eternity." The Collegium may today be stagnant, and Nova
Roma has more kinks than one can imagine. But, I invite you to
reflect closely upon what I have said. I have never been so outwardly
vocal in respects to my faith, and I can only hope that some Quirites
will take notice and listen. I want to see a living, thriving Nova
Roma that will grow one day beyond the scope of my dreams and yours.
Let's hope the gods grant this to be so.

Valete,
Kaelus

G. Equitius Cato Kaelo S.P.D.

Salve, Kaelus.

I undestand if you'd like to continue this discussion privately with
the Consul, but I'd like to remark on one particular aspect of your
letter:

"As expressive as the english language is, it fails to convey the
connotations indicitive in "practitioner". I hope to live in a
society, in one place at least, one day, where a person may use the
plural of God and not see the eyes around them widen in disbelief.
For now, Nova Roma is that safe haven, but many still feel that their
religion is compromised by people "role-playing" the religio publica
as magistrates and citizens... and giving lip-service invocations of
gods they don't even believe in.

The foundations we lay now will serve to be the building blocks in a
much wider scope one day, or we can only hope. I want to promote
understanding, and awareness, as you put it, among all the citizens
of Rome. I don't want others to feel excluded in any way, and I WANT
citizens to raise their voices, but realise what effect those voices
or their votes have on others. There is a fine line that you seem to
leave out, especially in these delicate beginnings, that is a reality
within Nova Roma."

This is an obviously heartfelt and sincere expression of your ideals,
Kaelus, and it is to be commended. I might add two points:

1. You already are in a community (albeit a virtual one) in which you
can speak of the "Gods" and we all know, respect, and understand what
you are talking about. We raise no eyebrows, and no eyes are widened
in disbelief. Of that you should be sure, whether practitioner or
no, you are at home in Nova Roma in your belief in and worship of the
Di Immortales.

2. Such belief, however, is absolutely unnecessary in the true Roman
scheme of things. I remind you, respectfully, that under no
circumstances was belief a necessary or even important part of the
religio romana. It is simply orthopraxy; correct actions at correct
times. Even if you believed with every fiber of your being, if you
made a mistake, according to the religio you were required to begin
all over again. "Faith", as we understand it, simply plays no part
in the religio.

So while your faith in the Di Immortales is commendable, it is not a
necessary part of Nova Roma. This is precisely why a citizen who
does not practice the religio privata can still be fully immersed in
the religio publica. The perfect example from the ancients is, of
course, Cicero. He was an augur, and though he performed auguries
was quite blunt about the fact that he personally thought the whole
business was nonsense:

"De Divinatione", Book II, iii.8-12.
Cicero begins his reply to Quintus by stating bluntly that he does
not believe in divination. He argues that, in the most important
areas and activities of life such as philosophy, medicine, politics,
navigation, to call on divination would be not merely foolish but, in
some circumstances, would be dangerous.

xii.28-xvii.41.
In public Cicero supports divination in the interests of the state
religion but in private he can be more frank. Cicero discusses
divination by inspection of the entails of sacrificed animals. While
He concedes that there is an interconnectedness between elements and
events in the natural world, he denies that their can be any credible
connection between the internal organs and the kind of predictions
which are often made, e.g., the finding of a treasure. He scoffs at
Stoic assertions that this is brought about by divine good-will and
providence.

So we have the example of one of the greatest of the ancients
themselves. The scare tactics of the likes of Fabius Maximus are
exactly that, and have no foundation in the ancients themselves.
Those who would force the citizens of Nova Roma into some sort
of "belief" are running directly contrary to the position of our
ancient forebears.

I believe with all my heart that our res publica is strong enough to
enjoy the raising of voices by her citizens; if she is not, she does
not deserve to survive.

Vale bene,

Cato

Salvete omnes,

In order to make room for new positions for citizens entering the
province of Canada Occidentalis, while happily retaining Gnaeus
Iulius Caesar as Legatus, I am removing him from the office
of "scribe", an office which he has served very well. This edict is
effective immediately.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve,

Our Propraetor is in absentia.

In the provincial page of Hispania there are the following mistakes:

REMOVE : Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus as Legate

Our Provincial Web site is: WWW.NRHISPANIA.ORG

Thanks




M·ADR·COMPLVTENSIS
LEGATVS·HISP·PROV·N·R·
AEDILIS·OP·COMPLVTVM

VERBA VOLANT

PROV.HISPANIA NOVAE ROMAE
LEGIO VIIII HISPANA
NOVA ROMA
















---------------------------------



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

Excellent! I have just ordered one and look forward to its arrival!

---
cura ut valeas,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factio Praesina
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/factiopraesina/

Well said, amice.
I did not indicate, or at least I hope I did not, that belief was at
all necessary for participation in the ritual aspects of the religio
publica. I know full well the beliefs of Cicero, as he is the most
marked and extant example of this. I simply said it is a vessel
through which our faith (of those who practice the religio privita)
may be expressed in a public manner; i.e. it is the outward
expression of our faith. As long as the state ritual is done
correctly, no.. it does not matter who conducts it. This is part of
the Mos Maiorum, and it is indeed thoroughly orthopraxic in nature.
Belief or orthodoxy plays no part in it. I can think of a few times
where I have botched my lararium ritual (especially the first few
times I had done it), and had to start over again. But this has
nothing at all to do with those personal thoughts I expressed, nor
the matter at hand. This is simply distracting from it... a device
found in oratory, whether you realised you were employing it or
not. ;-)

On another note, Cato.. the Constitution is not part of Mos Maiorum.
If there is anything that contradicts the will of the gods in it, and
we follow it, then we are not upholding the Mos Maiorum at all.
Without it, we are like Jews without a Torah. And Jews without a
Torah are not even Jews at all, even if they have the rest of the
Tenach. If we do not honour the will of the gods, but of men, my
faith is useless. Although Scarus lacks piety in what he says, and
his threats to leave Nova Roma, I understand and sympathise with his
frustration. Several practitioners are infuriated by this discussion
(though most of them are choosing to not raise their voice on this
issue for obvious reasons). I welcome discussion, but someone who
does not believe in the Gods should not try to dictate our practices
to us. It would be much like Muslims in the Byzantine Empire ruling
that the veneration of icons was wrong, based on their own religious
beliefs, and banning it by majority opinion. Can you imagine how
would you would feel, friend, if that were the case? We may not be
a "church", as you said, that does not make our beliefs and practices
any more trivial than yours.

Vale,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

G. Equitius Cato L. Modio Kaelo S.P.D.

Salve, Modius Kaelus --- and forgive my earlier too-familiar
greeting --- I'd forgotten your full name and was writing fast :-)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <xkaelusx@y...> wrote:
> As long as the state ritual is done
> correctly, no.. it does not matter who conducts it. This is part
>of the Mos Maiorum, and it is indeed thoroughly orthopraxic in
>nature. Belief or orthodoxy plays no part in it.

CATO: You and I agree entirely. Where I take a further step is in
that I do not believe that even gender should be a consideration
when discussing "who conducts it".



> On another note, Cato.. the Constitution is not part of Mos
>Maiorum.

CATO: And here's the rub, Modius Kaelus. We, as *Nova* Romans,
have begun to develope our *own* mos maiorum --- and female
pontifices are part of it. Our Constitution and Declaration are
part of our own history --- our own mos --- and we must begin to
work with that. Where were the cries of horror when the first
female took the office of pontiff? Where were the shouts
of "impiety!" If we had enshrined gender discrimination in our
religious existence from the beginning, I would understand he
current vitriol; but we did not, and in fact we denied its
compatibility with our res publica.






>Several practitioners are infuriated by this discussion
> (though most of them are choosing to not raise their voice on this
> issue for obvious reasons). I welcome discussion, but someone who
> does not believe in the Gods should not try to dictate our
>practices to us. We may not be a "church", as you said, that does
>not make our beliefs and practices any more trivial than yours.

CATO: Zoinks! Where to begin?

If there are practitioners "infuriated" by this discussion, let them
speak. I cannot answer their fears (aside from the vague "don't
mess with my religion") unless I know what they are. I assure you
there are also many many female citizens outraged by this action who
have also chosen to remain silent (publicly) out of frustration.

I have publicly and consistently supported the central role of the
religio publica; I ave founded a group dedicated to the attempt to
subsidize the sacerdotes of the religio both publica and privata; I
have requested a set of actions that would attempt to repair any
breach of the pax doerum in support of the religio publica (and
against my own religio privata, for that matter); I have written
both publicly and privately to practitioners regarding aspects of
the religio, and received responses from some and was ignored by
others.

I have no intention of involving myself in the "faith" of the
religio. But as a citizen, and member of the religio publica, I
have the right --- even the duty --- to speak out if I think
something is wrong. If the College of Pontiffs (or anyone for that
matter) wishes to keep alive the unhistoric powers vested in that
College, then they must also accept the unhistoric accountability
and responsibility for the actions of what, in its current state,
amounts to a virtual additional branch of the government of the res
publica, with the power to pronounce edicta and decreta that are not
only binding upon all the citizens, practitioner and non-
practitioner alike, but can punish, even banish citizens. You cannot
take on the mantle of the power of government without accepting the
duties to the governed found therein. All citizens, practitioner
and non-practitioner, are affected by the direction the religio
publica takes; all citizens, practitioner and non-practitioner, have
the right to voice their opinions, support, or objections.

From John Scheid "Introduction to Roman Religion" p.28

"A Religion Ruled By The Ideal of Liberty":

"The principle by which it was ruled, in the historical period at
least, was a civic rationality that guaranteed the liberty and
dignity of its members both human and divine. That article
of 'faith', virtually the only one know to Roman religion, was
constantly affirmed and defended by authorities and thinkers alike.
The traditional religion guaranteed the established order and ruled
out any power founded upon fear. Relations with the gods were
conducted under the sign of reason, not that of the irrational, in
the same way as they were conducted between one citizen and
another.... In the name of that same principle, people could all
honour the gods and practise whatever cults they chose, providing
they respected the public cult and its pre-eminence, public order,
and the liberty of others."

Where does Fabius Maximus' and Gaius Scaurus' idea that non-
practitioners are a blight and hindrance and should be encouraged
(if not forced) to leave fit in to the ancient Roman ideas of
religious tolerance and liberty? Nowhere. It runs directly
contrary to that idea and should be rejected by every citizen.

Where does Fabius Maximus' and Gaius Scaurus' intransigience fit in
to the actual historical response of the ancients to a similiar
problem --- the Lex Ogulnia? Nowhere. It runs directly contrary to
the ancients' response and should be rejected by every citizen.

Where does Fabius Maximus' and Gaius Scaurus inability to accept
that societies evolve and adapt fit in to the ancients' desire to
gather the most reasonable and effectual ideas from every culture
they came in contact with and create a syncretic society? Nowhere.
It runs directly contrary to the ancients' desire to become greater
in spirit and should be rejected by every citizen.

And I'm not even going to start on how explicitly this action
violates our Constitution and Declaration...yet :-)

Vale bene,

Cato

--- Salvete Quirites;
May I say in the spirit of Concordia that A. Apollonius Cordus's
solution re- printed below is in the best Roman tradition pragmatic
and looking to an historical solution.
Finally may I have the past speak for me? The following is from
the discussion concerning passing the Lex Ogulnia (300 B.C), allowing
the plebians access to the colleges of the priests and augurs. Appius
Claudius was against the measure P. Decius was for the lex:

"And for me, are you afraid that the gods will not listen
to my prayers as they do to those of Appius Claudius? Does
he perform his private devotions with a purer mind or worship
the gods in a more religious spirit thant I do?
Livy, The History of Rome book 10. 7


bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ




A. Apollónius Cordus M. Cassió Júliánó p.p. omnibusque
sal.

Thank you for letting us see the text of this report.

I don't think I have anything to contribute to the
discussion of female pontificés beyond the little
constructive suggestion I made a while ago (the idea
of creating new priesthoods for women which would not
be pontificates but would hold votes in the collégium,
on the analogy of the léx Ogulnia - has the collégium
discussed this idea?); but there's a deeper issue here
which I hope the collégium will consider.

|

Salvete Quirites, et salve Kaele,

Dan wrote:

>
> Salvete Quirites et Marini.
>
> Amice, let me respond to what you have said. I would rather private
> discussion on this, if you're willing.

Conversation taken to private e-mail, as requested.

Valete,

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete omnes.

For general information, I am posting here an excerpt from
Livy's "History of Rome", Book X, 6-8. This deals with the Lex
Ogulnia (c. 299/300 B.C.), passed when the Plebs refused to accept
not being allowed to assume positions of authority in the religio
publica:

"10.6...But the co-optation of the additional priests from the plebs
created almost as much indignation amongst the patricians as when
they saw the consulship made open. They pretended that the matter
concerned the gods more than it concerned them; as for their own
sacred functions they would see for themselves that these were not
polluted; they only hoped and prayed that no disaster might befall
the republic. Their opposition, however, was not so keen, because
they had become habituated to defeat in these political contests,
and they saw that their opponents in striving for the highest
honours were not, as formerly, aiming at what they had little hopes
of winning; everything for which they had striven, though with
doubtful hopes of success, they had hitherto gained - numberless
consulships, censorships, triumphs.

[10.7]Appius Claudius and P. Decius are said to have been the
leaders in this controversy, the former as the opponent, the latter
as the supporter of the proposed measure. The arguments they
advanced were practically the same as those employed for and against
the Licinian Laws when the demand was made for the consulship to be
thrown open to the plebeians. After going over much of the old
ground, Decius made a final appeal on behalf of the proposals. He
began by recalling the scene which many of those present had
witnessed, when the elder Decius, his father, vested in the Gabine
cincture and standing upon a spear, solemnly devoted himself on
behalf of the legions and people of Rome. He proceeded, "The
offering which the consul Decius made on that occasion was in the
eyes of the immortal gods as pure and holy as that of his colleague,
T. Manlius, would have been if he had devoted himself. Could not
that Decius also have been fitly chosen to exercise priestly
functions on behalf of the Roman people? And for me, are you afraid
that the gods will not listen to my prayers as they do to those of
Appius Claudius? Does he perform his private devotions with a purer
mind or worship the gods in a more religious spirit than I do? Who
has ever had occasion to regret the vows which have been made on
behalf of the commonwealth by so many plebeian consuls, so many
plebeian Dictators, when they were going to take command of their
armies, or when they were actually engaged in battle? Count up the
commanders in all the years since war was for the first time waged
under the leadership and auspices of plebeians, you will find as
many triumphs as commanders. The plebeians, too, have their nobility
and have no cause to be dissatisfied with them. You may be quite
certain that, if a war were suddenly to break out now, the senate
and people of Rome would not put more confidence in a general
because he was a patrician than in one who happened to be a
plebeian. Now, if this is the case, who in heaven or earth could
regard it as an indignity that the men whom you have honoured with
curule chairs, with the toga praetexta, the tunica palmata, and the
toga picta, with the triumphal crown and the laurel wreath, the men
upon whose houses you have conferred special distinction by affixing
to them the spoils taken from the enemy - that these men, I say,
should have in addition to their other marks of rank the insignia of
the pontiffs and the augurs? A triumphing general drives through the
City in a gilded chariot, apparelled in the splendid vestments of
Jupiter Optimus Maximus. After this he goes up to the Capitol; is he
not to be seen there with capis and lituus? Is it to be regarded as
an indignity, if he with veiled head slay a victim, or from his
place on the citadel take an augury? And if in the inscription on
his bust the words 'consulship,' 'censorship,' 'triumph' are read
without arousing any indignation, in what mood will the reader
regard the words which you are going to add, 'augurship'
and 'pontificate'? I do indeed hope, please heaven, that, thanks to
the good will of the Roman people, we now possess sufficient dignity
to be capable of conferring as much honour on the priesthood as we
shall receive. For the sake of the gods as much as for ourselves let
us insist that as we worship them now as private individuals so we
may worship them for the future as officials of the State.

[10.8]"But why have I so far been assuming that the question of the
patricians and the priesthood is still an open one, and that we are
not yet in possession of the highest of all offices? We see
plebeians amongst the ten keepers of the Sacred Books, acting as
interpreters of the Sibyl's runes and the Fates of this people; we
see them, too, presiding over the sacrifices and other rites
connected with Apollo. No injustice was inflicted on the patricians
when an addition was made to the number of the keepers of the Sacred
Books on the demand of the plebeians. None has been inflicted now,
when a strong and capable tribune has created five more posts for
augurs and four more for priests which are to be filled by
plebeians, not, Appius, with the design of ousting you patricians
from your places, but in order that the plebs may assist you in the
conduct of divine matters as they do to the utmost of their power in
the administration of human affairs. "Do not blush, Appius, to have
as your colleague in the priesthood a man whom you might have had as
colleague in the censorship or in the consulship, who might be
Dictator with you as his Master of Horse, just as much as you might
be Dictator with him for your Master of the Horse. A Sabine
immigrant Attius Clausus, or if you prefer it, Appius Claudius, the
founder of your noble house, was admitted by those old patricians
into their number; do not think it beneath you to admit us into the
number of the priests. We bring with us many distinctions, all
those, in fact, which have made you so proud. L. Sextius was the
first plebeian to be elected consul, C. Licinius Stolo was the first
plebeian Master of the Horse, C. Marcius Rutilus the first plebeian
who was both Dictator and censor, Q. Publilius Philo was the first
praetor. We have always heard the same objection raised - that the
auspices were solely in your hands, that you alone enjoy the
privileges and prerogatives of noble birth, that you alone can
legitimately hold sovereign command and take the auspices either in
peace or war. Have you never heard the remark that it was not men
sent down from heaven who were originally created patricians, but
those who could cite a father, which is nothing more than saying
that they were freeborn. I can now cite a consul as my father, and
my son will be able to cite him as his grandfather. It simply comes
to this, Quirites, that we can get nothing without a struggle. It is
only a quarrel that the patricians are seeking, they do not care in
the least about the result. I for my part support this measure,
which I believe will be for your good and happiness and a blessing
to the State, and I hold that you ought to pass it.

10.9]The Assembly was on the point of ordering the voting to
proceed, and it was evident that the measure would be adopted, when,
on the intervention of some of the tribunes, all further business
was adjourned for the day. On the morrow, the dissentient tribunes
having given way, the law was passed amid great enthusiasm. The co-
opted pontiffs were P. Decius Mus, the supporter of the measure, P.
Sempronius Sophus, C. Marcius Rutilus, and M. Livius Denter. The
five augurs who were also taken from the plebs were C. Genucius, P.
Aelius Paetus, M. Minucius Faesus, C. Marcius, and T. Publilius. So
the number of the pontiffs was raised to eight and that of the
augurs to nine."

- TEXT: "Everyman's Library", Author: Titus Livius
Copyright (c) 1996 by Bruce J. Butterfield.
No copy restrictions apply for non-commercial use


Sounds eerily familiar: the invocation of will of the gods, the
ability to hold public political office but not religious office,
etc. And it ends, most appropriately, not in an edict or decree
from some governmental agency, but in a vote of the people --- and
the mos maiorum of the ancients was changed.

Valete,

Cato

- I would also Like at least one if you can pass my info on to him.
thanks - Octavianus

> Yes it is; I let Mike Carrol who makes them know that there will be
> orders continuing off and on in future. It is indeed a beauty,

heavy,

> great quality and detail. I received mine in 2 weeks after my

order.

> The silver version costs $167.00 US plus about $7.00 for shipping;

my

> ring is 12.5. The highest you'd pay is $900.00 US for 18K gold.
>
> Unfortunately I'm working out in the Northern British Columbia
> wilderness right now and cannot access my outlook files from here.

I

> am hoping Tribune Paulinus will be able to repost the address. You
> can also check our archives since I posted the SPQR information 3
> weeks ago.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Reif" <FrBryanReif@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete:
> >
> > I was wondering if the SPQR ring was still available, and how

much

> > it would cost for a size 12?
> >
> > Quintus Bianchius Rufinus

Salve Romans on the SPQR Ring

FYI


Mike Carroll
United States Eagle Rings
http://www.eaglerings.com
or - http://www.carrollcollection.com
16144 Port Clinton Rd.
Prairie View, IL 60069
847-821-1333
mike@...


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Johnn Costell
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:43 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: SPQR ring. Is it still available? (Attention Tribune Tiberius)



- I would also Like at least one if you can pass my info on to him.
thanks - Octavianus
> Yes it is; I let Mike Carrol who makes them know that there will be
> orders continuing off and on in future. It is indeed a beauty,
heavy,
> great quality and detail. I received mine in 2 weeks after my
order.
> The silver version costs $167.00 US plus about $7.00 for shipping;
my
> ring is 12.5. The highest you'd pay is $900.00 US for 18K gold.
>
> Unfortunately I'm working out in the Northern British Columbia
> wilderness right now and cannot access my outlook files from here.
I
> am hoping Tribune Paulinus will be able to repost the address. You
> can also check our archives since I posted the SPQR information 3
> weeks ago.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Reif" <FrBryanReif@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete:
> >
> > I was wondering if the SPQR ring was still available, and how
much
> > it would cost for a size 12?
> >
> > Quintus Bianchius Rufinus




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada




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

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

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

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



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

Salvete quirites, et Cati.
A response to the reply of Cato, by Lucius Modius.

> CATO: You and I agree entirely. Where I take a further step is in
> that I do not believe that even gender should be a consideration
> when discussing "who conducts it".
>

As we usually do. And gender is not a consideration, nor is sex (I
had to make the distinction). In the religio privita, I offer my
prayers to Vesta, and would gladly serves as a Vestal.. if I were
able. However, that would be a breach of the Mos Maiorum, even if
Nova Roma allowed it. There would be little point in serving in THAT
capacity if it was against the will of the gods. That is why gender
is a non-issue for us, but we know that in some areas, such as that
of the Vestals, the Gods have reasons for the established practice.

> CATO: And here's the rub, Modius Kaelus. We, as *Nova* Romans,
> have begun to develope our *own* mos maiorum --- and female
> pontifices are part of it. Our Constitution and Declaration are
> part of our own history --- our own mos --- and we must begin to
> work with that. Where were the cries of horror when the first
> female took the office of pontiff? Where were the shouts
> of "impiety!" If we had enshrined gender discrimination in our
> religious existence from the beginning, I would understand he
> current vitriol; but we did not, and in fact we denied its
> compatibility with our res publica.
>

You seem to misunderstand the concept of the Mos Maiorum. The Maoirum
is established, and we are not buidling a new one. We are expected to
conform to it, and re-negotiate those parts of it which can be
changed, by the will of the gods. I have nothing against female
pontifices, as I have often stated. It is my own personal desire to
see this happen. But I will not break the Mos Maiorum if the gods do
not approve of it. This has NOTHING to do with gender discrimination,
though that may be the OUTWARD appearance. It has to do with
upholding the Mos and re-establishing the Pax Deorum.. and as much as
many would like to believe that the gods will ultimately be appeased
by almost anything we do, especially those things we in our minds
reason to be "right", that is not the case. At all. Sometimes the
gods will be in agreement with us, sometimes they will wish the pact
to remain the same. This applies even to logistic difficulties, not
just issues like this one. We have to navigate a narrow path.

The gods allowed pedagoguery in Greece. And encouraged it even.
Though the myths are not to be taken literally, do you honestly think
Immortal beings would see things the way we do? While they may have
similar attributes, we operate on different planes of existence. No
more can we wrap our minds around the gods than you can your God.

> >Several practitioners are infuriated by this discussion
> > (though most of them are choosing to not raise their voice on

this

> > issue for obvious reasons). I welcome discussion, but someone who
> > does not believe in the Gods should not try to dictate our
> >practices to us. We may not be a "church", as you said, that does
> >not make our beliefs and practices any more trivial than yours.
>
> CATO: Zoinks! Where to begin?
>
> If there are practitioners "infuriated" by this discussion, let

them

> speak. I cannot answer their fears (aside from the vague "don't
> mess with my religion") unless I know what they are. I assure you
> there are also many many female citizens outraged by this action

who

> have also chosen to remain silent (publicly) out of frustration.

As have I. And I apologise for the tone of that latter statement.
THAT statement infuriated me. As much as you publicly support the
Religio, you make statements that contradict your actions indirectly,
that underscore

> I have publicly and consistently supported the central role of the
> religio publica; I ave founded a group dedicated to the attempt to
> subsidize the sacerdotes of the religio both publica and privata; I
> have requested a set of actions that would attempt to repair any
> breach of the pax doerum in support of the religio publica (and
> against my own religio privata, for that matter); I have written
> both publicly and privately to practitioners regarding aspects of
> the religio, and received responses from some and was ignored by
> others.
>
> I have no intention of involving myself in the "faith" of the
> religio. But as a citizen, and member of the religio publica, I
> have the right --- even the duty --- to speak out if I think
> something is wrong. If the College of Pontiffs (or anyone for that
> matter) wishes to keep alive the unhistoric powers vested in that
> College, then they must also accept the unhistoric accountability
> and responsibility for the actions of what, in its current state,
> amounts to a virtual additional branch of the government of the res
> publica, with the power to pronounce edicta and decreta that are

not

> only binding upon all the citizens, practitioner and non-
> practitioner alike, but can punish, even banish citizens. You

cannot

> take on the mantle of the power of government without accepting the
> duties to the governed found therein. All citizens, practitioner
> and non-practitioner, are affected by the direction the religio
> publica takes; all citizens, practitioner and non-practitioner,

have

> the right to voice their opinions, support, or objections.
>

I agree. I have never said that any should be silent. And I have
never said that changes should not be made. But you're going about it
in a way that does not uphold the Religio Romana, which ironically is
the issue we are debating.

*Citation of John Sheid snipped for brevity*



*Comments and rhetorical questions relating to Fabius Maximus and
Scaurus snipped for brevity; this post is already too long as it is*

> Where does Fabius Maximus' and Gaius Scaurus inability to accept
> that societies evolve and adapt fit in to the ancients' desire to
> gather the most reasonable and effectual ideas from every culture
> they came in contact with and create a syncretic society?

Nowhere.

> It runs directly contrary to the ancients' desire to become greater
> in spirit and should be rejected by every citizen.

You know I don't agree with the stances taken by Maximus and Scaurus.
I can sympathise with their frustration on certain issues, but still
disagree with their views. They are some of the most learned men in
Nova Roma, but that does not necessarily always equate to wisdom. Of
course societies change over time. And yes, for as much as has stayed
the same since Roma Antiqua, an equal amount has changed. Human
beings are always fundamentally the same, but everything else
changes.. we know this, and this, once again, has nothing to do with
the issue at hand. What you say indicates you have absorbed little of
what I said. This has to do with the gods, not man. Not the dislikes,
likes.. or the equality or discrimination of anyone, or anything else
relating to the world of mortals, aside from holding up our end of
the bargain, as it were. We HAVE changed. That does not necessarily
mean the gods have also changed their minds about what THEY want. As
I said, unless asked, the gods habitually stay out of mortal affairs
and do not take an interest unless they have something invested in
it. Today, at this time, they do. Do you still think this has
anything to do with what I or anyone else wants? Yes, there are
people debating these issues out of their own personal desires on
this list. This is all a non-issue. I honestly think that the act of
taking auguries has been delayed, and the order not officially
given.. because people are afraid the gods will give an answer, and
either way, some will not be at all pleased with it. How human is
that? We're afraid things won't go the way we want it to, so we
pretend like we're actually discussing an issue that can't be decided
among mortals.

> And I'm not even going to start on how explicitly this action
> violates our Constitution and Declaration...yet :-)

And as for this, I agree. But as I said ealier, which you did not
seem to understand, we are not creating our own Mos Maiorum. That's
absolutely non-sense. The Mos is an ideal that stretches across ages
and into our age, today. We are building, reconstructing, and re-
negotiating the SAME ancient pact. Although Nova Roma is the chosen
vessel, and it's citizens have taken up the cause to restore the Mos
Maiorum, it is the same institution, Cato. This is what has
infuriated myself and others, not the issue of female pontifices.
Most of us are in agreement with your views.. Why would we even be
discussing the Mos Maiorum if it is not the same Mos as in antiquity?
Whatever changes have been made (and not everything listed on the
website constitutes a change in the Mos; only those actions that
receive the sanction of the gods are approved). That is why the
Constitution means, excuse my language, shit.. if it does not uphold
whatever terms are agreed upon between the Immortals and mortals.
Otherwise, it is simply the charter of terms submitted to the
government outlining our coroporation so that they may provide us
with tax-exempt status. And the work of many who have written and
altered it over time. And something that unpious citizens adhere to,
because if it does not uphold the Mos Maiorum, it is simply a
constitution for an online organisation, and not the foundation for a
res publica, in any sense of the term. The Gods dictate the Mos
Maiorum, and no one else.

I say.. let the auguries be taken so that these issues may finally be
decided. I see this going nowhere, and misunderstanding abounding all
throughout the mainlist. I hope it will come out on the side of
female pontifices, but whatever the outcome, I will maintain Pietas
and either find another way the gods accept.. or maintain the status
quo that the gods want for the time being, if that is not an option.
This is all we are called to do as Nova Romans, and something we all
must do.

Valete,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

>
>
> A. Apollónius Cordus M. Cassió Júliánó p.p. omnibusque
> sal.
>
> Thank you for letting us see the text of this report.
>
> I don't think I have anything to contribute to the
> discussion of female pontificés beyond the little
> constructive suggestion I made a while ago (the idea
> of creating new priesthoods for women which would not
> be pontificates but would hold votes in the collégium,
> on the analogy of the léx Ogulnia - has the collégium
> discussed this idea?); but there's a deeper issue here
> which I hope the collégium will consider.
>

KAELUS: An idea I thoroughly support. The analogy is a quite shakey,
but I see why you posted it.

Unfortunately, the reason why I reply to this is because, as I have
been told many times, by pontifices no less, the Collegium is more or
less always on life support. If you can actually convince the
Pontifex Maximus to convene the Collegium, which is a rarity in
itself, then I suggest you set about doing so. I do suggest that
auguries be taken first, to see if this option should even be
discussed at all.

Vale,
Lucius Modius Kaelus Iulianius

G. Equitius Cato L. Modio Kaelo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Modius Kaelus et salvete omnes.

With all due respect, Modius Kaelus, you cannot seem to get out of
the rut in which Nova Roma is a "church", and that we are not
citizens but parishioners. Every point you bring up involves itself
not with the organization of a government, but with the "faith" of
the people and the "will of the Gods", past or present.

The magistrates of Nova Roma are sworn to uphold the Constitution of
the res publica. Whatever your personal views are, whatever the
personal views of any citizen, unless or until the Constitution is
changed/annulled, it remains in place. It is more important than
the religio. It is more important than any edict or decree. And it
has that authority because we, as citizens, GIVE it that authority
voluntarily when we become citizens. If the Constitution disagrees
with the mos maiorum of the ancients, the the Constitution
prevails. Our mos maiorum, that of *Nova* Roma, adapts itself to
the reality of the new res publica in which we have our citizenship.


The mos maiorum of the ancients changed (see Livy 10.6-9, posted
earlier) by the will of the People voting in the Assembly. This
occurred over and over again in the history of the ancient Roman
Republic. To imagine the ancient mos maiorum as some kind of over-
arching set of rules and regulations, unchanged and unchanging since
they were --- what? Handed down on a mountain like the Law of the
Jews? --- this is as un-Roman a concept as you can possibly create.
You seem to be trying to support some kind of autocratic theocentric
form of government, not a res publica. History itself, as attested
to by the ancients for whom you have such estimable respect, prove
exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The mos maiorum is not
engraved in stone, handed down from generation to generation; it is
the collectively-accepted way of understanding how the ancients
(however old) did things, combined with the collectively-accepted
way of adapting those things to whatever necessities may arise. It
is not an "all-or-nothing" deal.

You are beating a well-worn drum, one that proved futile in the
ancient Republic as well: "They pretended that the matter concerned
the gods more than it concerned them ... they only hoped and prayed
that no disaster might befall the republic." (Livy, "History of
Rome", 10.6)

You ascribe to the ancients a kind of awe and submissiveness that
simply did not exist: "Catonis admodum scitum est, qui mirare se
aiebat quod non rideret haruspex haruspicem vidisset." - "What
astonishes me, is that when two diviners meet, they can keep from
laughing at one another." (Cicero, "On Divination")

In your religio privata, you are absolutely and undeniably free to
worship as you see fit, to create your own patterns of submission
and acceptance, to ascribe to the Gods whatever motives and
personalities you like. I may disagree, but I would without
question support your right to do so. But that does not mean that
your faith is (or should be) in any way affective upon the religio
publica, any more than the faith of my religio privata means that
the worship of a single, Triune God is (or should be).

The ancients did not force a single religious view upon themselves;
they argued directly against such a practice --- and unswervingly
rejected it.

The ancients did not force a single unbending concept of the mos
maiorum upon themselves; they changed their own mos at will, by
either simple practice over time or instantly by vote.

I have already shown some of the numerous ways in which Nova Roma
has already adapted the understood mos of the ancients to fit the
perceived needs of the age in which we live. Again, the mos maiorum
is not an "all-or-nothing" deal. The ancients did not believe so,
nor should we be shackled with such an un-Roman idea.

Think carefully about what such an idea would mean to Nova Roma,
Modius Kaelus. No powers of the College of Pontiffs except to
advise the Consuls, for one. No religious edicta binding all the
People. Adlection to the Senate basically simply by means of
Patrician "birth" (although that might be interesting --- for the
Patricians). Disenfranchisement of women completely. Absolute power
(including life or death) of the paterfamilii over those under their
iurisdiction. No materfamiliae. Absolute power of individual
tribunes to bring their intercessio unchallenged. The required
physical presence of the pontifices and flamines within the pomerium
of the *ancient* City...

Vale et valete,

Cato

P.S. - I do agree (as I've stated before) that inaugurations should
commence as soon as is practicable. So we have some ground in
common from which to work :-)

Salve Cato,

I do not contend that Nova Roma is a church, but it is by nature a
partially religious organisation. The Mos Maiorum also forms the
basis for the state religio, as well as nearly every other
institution present in Nova Roma. It HAS been modified. Terms have
been re-negotiated, and will continue to be. I never said that the
Mos Maiorum was unchanging. It is by nature a changing institution.
And I am not contending that faith plays any part in the way it is
adhered to, and in the way it is integrated into the state. I am
saying that the Mos Maiorum, even though individuals were always free
to have their own religio privita, ASSUMES belief in the gods, even
in a scenario, for example, where none of the quirites might believe
in the Dii Immortales. It is still the assumed basis for the
foundation of the state and the religio publica, and must be
approached in that manner. I am not advocating vast, sweeping changes
to the constitution, or any other document. I am CERTAINLY not
suggesting we revert back to practices of Roma Antiqua, which you are
so fond of using as a rhetorical device. Nothing of the sort. I am
simply saying that the Mos Maiorum is the same basic Mos Maiorum of
the ancients, and changes have been made according to the times. But
all of this requires some approval or given acceptance by the gods.
The entire basis of the Mos IS appeasement of the Dii Immortales.
However one may conceive of the gods, and certainly.. even
practitioners vary in this regard, we must approach it as a divine
institution, a pact made between mortals and gods, which is its very
definition. I welcome change, but I oppose change in the religio
publica which is not consented to by the Immortals. This is where we
have erred. Some of the institutions have been re-negotiated and
approved, some of them have not. I just believe we should re-evaluate
the various facets of Nova Roma with this in mind. And, as you
suggested, and has been suggested by others before, contrition should
be made in conjunction with that.


The Constitution and the leges, once again, form the basis for our
organisation. But they do not form the basis for the Mos Maiorum.
Simply look at the discussions on the matter, paying careful
attention to what the practitioners and the scholars of our
organisation say. Whatever Scarus' personal views may be, that is why
he is upset.

The Constitution shall always prevail, as you have said, as it is the
enshrined basis for our organisation, whether it agrees with the Mos
Maiorum or not. But we cannot rebuild the Res Publica without
adhering to the Mos Maiorum, however it has been, is, and will
continue to be altered over time.

Vale,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

P.S. And please, perceive nothing I say as any sort of a personal
attack on you. I respect you immensely, as do many others. I just
simply wished to set the record straight on this matter. This
conversation has gone beyond the simple explaination I intended, and
has resulted in you putting words in my mouth by interpreting
analogies not intended to be read so much into. They were intended
for clarification on only a few points. My faith matters not in the
Religio Publica; it reflects the overall pluralism of Roman society.
But the Mos has its roots in a little village on the Palatine hill,
and is acknowledged as an agreement between divinity and the Romans.
Belief in this is not necessary, but it must be approached this way,
even by our standards today, as the Religio Romana is the official
state religion of Nova Roma, and the Mos Maiorum and the Religio
Romana are so entertwined as to also be inseperable. I would will
that we would continue this conversation privately, preferrably over
IM, as I find e-mail to often create more confusion than is necessary
due to the receiving and response time.

A. Apollónius Cordus Arnamentiae Moráviae Auréliae
omnibusque sal.

> > Is not the will of the Gods more important that
> the will of mortals?
>
> I'm afraid I have lost track of who originally asked
> this question. I
> have avoided joining in until now out of a desire to
> stay absent from
> a discussion that has, at times, run around in
> circles. However, I
> have a question that I do not believe has been
> asked.
>
> Of course the will of the gods is more important
> than that of the
> mortals. I do not think that anyone is disputing
> that. My question
> is: Is anyone asking the Gods what their will is?

This seems an obvious thing to do, but the problem, as
I understand it, is that there is no proper way to do
it.

Auspices and other methods of divination were used in
the ancient réligió only to discover the gods' answer
to the question "should I do this specific thing
now?"; they were not used to ask "should this type of
thing be done ever?".

When long-term changes in the public cult were
contemplated, the usual procedure was to consult the
pontifical books, particularly books of prophecy like
the Sibylline books. These books of lore are lost to
the modern world, however. The nearest thing the
pontificés can do, I suppose, is to try to deduce the
will of the gods from reading the historical evidence.
This is what Július Scaurus has tried to do, but,
regrettably, his conclusion seems to be that the
historical evidence simply can't give a reliable
answer either way (and so he recommends the more
cautious course of keeping things as they were). But
I'm sure he would be the first to say that this is a
ling way from "asking the gods what their will is".

So, unless there's some precedent I've missed, the
fact is that there is simply no way anyone *can* ask
the gods a question like the one we're talking about.
All we can do is to come up with a solution which
seems good to us, and try it, hoping and expecting
that the gods will make their feelings known. For
instance, if the collégium were to appoint a female
pontifex (or create a new priesthood specially for
women on the analogy of the léx Ogulnia), she would
need to be inaugurated (there seems to be general
support for the revival of inauguration, which has not
been done in Nova Róma hitherto); that would provide
them with an opportunity to show their opinion. Of
course if the augury were unfavourable it would
impossible to say for certain that it was her sex and
not some other quality which was the reason, but if
several successive female candidates were rejected in
this way, a pattern might be discerned.

Sorry to be gloomy; I speak in a spirit of
helpfulness, even if what I say sometimes turns out
not to be very helpful at all!



___________________________________________________________
Moving house? Beach bar in Thailand? New Wardrobe? Win £10k with Yahoo! Mail to make your dream a reality.
Get Yahoo! Mail www.yahoo.co.uk/10k

Well friends, I hope all is well witrh everyone. After a forced
sabbatical and MASSIVE trauma in my personal life, I am now able to
return to Nova Roma.

I hope to hear from you soon, so I can re-enter life here at Nova
Roma.

I no longer live in Georgia, but I am now a graduate student in
Latrobe, PA at St. Vincent College. If anyone is close by, please
feel free to e-mail me to set up a meet, that would be great to find
out what's happening in my new home!

Thanks for everything, and I hope to be able to serve Roma.

Publius Tarquitius Rufus

wlr107@... OR william.Rogers@...

A. Apollónius Cordus L. Modió Kaeló omnibusque sal.

I know you've taken your conversation with Marínus to
a private channel, but I hope you don't mind me making
one thing clear for the public record:

> > Not quite. What I proposed was that we *consider*
> adopting a
> process
> > similar to that provided in the Lex Domitia of
> antiquity, wherein
> half
> > of the tribes are chosen by lot to vote for two
> finalists put forth
> by
> > the Collegium Pontificum, whenever there is a
> vacancy in the CP.
>
> Which was the final result after discussing it with
> practitioners on
> the PeaceNR list. The original idea was not quite so
> generous, as I
> remember.

My understanding at the time was that from the very
beginning the discussion was about reviving the
provisions of the léx Domitia. The léx Domitia created
a system under which half the tribes, chosen by lot,
formed a miniature comitia which elected new
pontificés from a shortlist proposed by the collégium.
It's true that the precise details - the involvement
of only half the tribes, and the collégium's control
of the shortlist - were not clear at the very
beginning of the discussion and emerged later, but
this was not the result of compromise; these details
simply emerged as further research revealed the
precise workings of the Domitian system. The idea
remained consistent throughout - to revive the
Domitian system; all that changed was our
understanding of what the Domitian system actually
was. That, at any rate, was my understanding at the
time.

And while I'm here, may I make a comment or two?

> ... And it is a reasonable idea, but the
> practice was discarded
> just a short time after it was adopted in Roma
> Antiqua. Does this not
> tell you something?

This argument raises some difficult methodological
questions. Why was it discarded? It was discarded by
Sulla as part of his general policy of removing power
from the assemblies and returning it to aristocratic,
self-selecting bodies like the senate and the
collégium. Sulla had won the power to make these
reforms by force. Are we going to infer that the gods
caused Sulla to enact this reform by planting it in
his mind? But it is perfectly in line with his other
reforms. Did they support all his reforms, including
the removal from the tribúní plébis of powers which
they had held for centuries (with no visible divine
objections)? And, moreover, did they aid him in his
armed coup so that he could enact those reforms? If
so, we are looking at a rather depressing scenario in
which the gods brought about a civil war and the
overthrow of the Roman constitution.

And then again, if we draw some conclusion from the
fact that Sulla reversed the Domitian reform, surely
we must draw some other conclusion from the fact that
the Domitian system was reinstated soon after that,
and this time by elected officers of the populus. Were
the gods very indecisive? Which was the aberration:
Domitius, or Sulla?

Remember that I have never been, and still am not,
fully won over by the idea of the Domitian system; but
I think there are better arguments against it to be
found without having to try to detect the hand of the
gods in the policies of particular late-republican politicians.





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