Salve Flavia Lucilla Merula

The phrase "honor" has many definitions including
"to show respect to" and "to show a courteous regard for"

I have taken the Nova Roman oath six times and I hope to
take it again as Consul-elect. I can and have "shown respect to"
and "a courteous regard for" the religious traditions of Nova Roma.

I will continue to do so. I hope it is enough.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Mea gloria fideles


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

Salvete omnes,

Honor has quite a few definitions but to some it means to show
respect for. As an analogy "I" believe that Mohammed is perhaps one
of the false prophets the New Testament warns about. Nevertheless,
over a billion people, some of which I must deal with believe he is
the last word from God. I honor, that is, show respect for the
religion and its people. I take of my shoes when entering a mosque,
don't bring in micro miniskirted girls to my home at the same time a
conservative Islamic family is visiting, never serve pork or use
utensils that cook it and (my choice),I replace my fine art nude
pictures with an abstract painting if an Islamic family is visiting.
and don't hug the women or shake hands with some sects. I do not
bring up conversations that run down their religion or prophet. When
they pray I step aside and leave them to it.

On the other hand, I do not proclaim that there is one God Allah and
Mohammed is his prophet, I pray not toward Mecca 5 times a day nor
make the pilgrimage to Mecca nor participate in Ramadan nor follow
particular rituals.

That is more or less my concept of honoring.


Regards,

QSP










--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Kirsteen Wright"
<kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:

>
> On 10/27/06, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Merula,
> >
> >
> > I think you are treading on very dangerous ground here. Nova

Roma has

> > always
> > held that what matters is orthopraxis, and that what people

believe in

> > their
> > own hearts is their own business. M. Tullius Cicero, the great

orator,

> > made
> > no secret of the fact that he didn't believe in the gods and

thought it

> > was
> > all a lot of children's stories, but he was also an augur who

wrote De

> > Divinatio and when he was consul he conducted his rituals in

exact

> > propriety.
> >
> > Belief does not matter in the Religio. Only actions matter.
>
>
> I totally agree with you. It's orthopraxy that matters, not

orthodoxy.

> However, if someone has already made clear that they have problems

with the

> practice but claim they are 'honouring' the gods, I'm just curious

to know

> what they mean by 'honouring' and who they feel they're honouring.
>
> Of course, if someone, does not believe but is still willing to

follow the

> practice, as was Cicero's case, I have no problem at all with

that. I just,

> personally, don't think you can have it both ways.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>
> --
> > Chaos, confusion, disorder - my work here is done
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
the issue is auspices and what was done in Republican
Rome. So why did you vote against it's restoration? Why don't you
want the Collegium Pontificium to return to its Republican form?
It's very important if we wish to be Nova Roma.
'Honor' has nothing to do with this discussion, rather
being & doing things that define us as Roman.
M. Moravius Piscinus who is running for Consul, is clear
& explained what an augury involves & how one can appoint someone to
take the auspices. L. Arminius Faustus also running for Consul
approves of this return to Republican practice.
So why don't you? or Fl. Vedius
Marca Hortensia Maior

> The phrase "honor" has many definitions including
> "to show respect to" and "to show a courteous regard for"
>
> I have taken the Nova Roman oath six times and I hope to
> take it again as Consul-elect. I can and have "shown respect to"
> and "a courteous regard for" the religious traditions of Nova

Roma.

>
> I will continue to do so. I hope it is enough.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Hortensia Catoni spd;
the point Cato, is please don't explain Christian doctrine.
There are so many! Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, Gnostic,
Monophysite,Arian...it makes absolutely no difference to me. And there
were many more varieties in Roma Antiqua.
The point is acting Roman. I am equally not interested in
your or the devout Atheist's strong & personal beliefs- whether
Epicurean, Heraclitan, etc : they are equally valid. And both would be
expected to behave according to Roman ways. The Roman mos is paramount.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior
PS: I would also add you should do some research about Christianity
in Rome before Theodosius as they were all kinds of accomodation, not
what you are repeating & this is what being Roman is about.

>
>Christianity is an *exclusive* religion - it
> has no room for other gods or prophets or things of that nature; all
> the latitude that a polytheist is afforded is absent from

Christianity.

>

Salve Marca Hortensia Maior who said in part

"'Honor' has nothing to do with this discussion"

Honor is an integral part of EVERYTHING WE DO!
At least it is with me.

You may have noticed, before you deleted it,
but this was addressed to Flavia Lucilla Merula
in response to a post on HONORING that she made.

You are free to comment on any post you like but
how about answering some of the questions I asked
you in a few recent posts.

Nova Roma has established it own traditions and one of
them is allowing magistrates who are non-practitioners the
use of proxies.

Tribune M Moravius Piscinus has even said, in terms of the
proposed reforms that

"A provision allowing the use of proxies would be perfectly
acceptable, from the stand point of Roman ritual"

And as I have said but you have refuse to READ,
the first vote in the Senate was advisory in nature.

I know it has been stated that these reforms will not now be presented for a vote.

If they are presented later for a vote and

If the proposal is rewritten and incorporates reforms that are
historically accurate and reflects solid historical research ,
includes a clear stipulation that use of proxies by magistrates is acceptable,
is clearly the product of the entire Collegium Pontificium,
has the public support of the Postfix Maximus and
receives a positive recommendation from a numerical
majority of the Collegium Pontificium,

I will vote for it.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Mea gloria fideles










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

M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
I brought this back up as honor is a sidetrack. There are
many Roman virtues. Right now just being Roman is the issue!

Actually Nova Roma in the beginning got it wrong; the College of
Augurs didn't perform augury. That's not Mos that's just ignorance.
What's happening is with more informed cives we're returning to real
Republican practice & having someone perform the augury -praesens
would be fine.

Returning to real republican Roman practice is the answer & the
development of our mos.

I read everything you write very carefully. And you say you would
vote for CP reform IF...:

Well there are a number of your old Boni friends on the CP who don't
want this reform & will never vote for it, which you well know. They
don't vote & don't do anything. Right now only Pontiffs Modianus,
Metellus & Astur are active.

So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform.

Marca Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
producer "Vox Romana" podcast
1st vowed online temple to Fortuna Publica
at the NRWiki - in progress

> Nova Roma has established it own traditions and one of
> them is allowing magistrates who are non-practitioners the
> use of proxies.
>
> Tribune M Moravius Piscinus has even said, in terms of the
> proposed reforms that
>
> "A provision allowing the use of proxies would be perfectly
> acceptable, from the stand point of Roman ritual"
>
> magistrates is acceptable,
> is clearly the product of the entire Collegium Pontificium,
> has the public support of the Postfix Maximus and
> receives a positive recommendation from a numerical
> majority of the Collegium Pontificium,
>
> I will vote for it.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Marca Hortensia Maior

I said I would vote for it if ....

you said

"So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform."

I will trust my word over yours any day.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium (was Honor)


M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
I brought this back up as honor is a sidetrack. There are
many Roman virtues. Right now just being Roman is the issue!

Actually Nova Roma in the beginning got it wrong; the College of
Augurs didn't perform augury. That's not Mos that's just ignorance.
What's happening is with more informed cives we're returning to real
Republican practice & having someone perform the augury -praesens
would be fine.

Returning to real republican Roman practice is the answer & the
development of our mos.

I read everything you write very carefully. And you say you would
vote for CP reform IF...:

Well there are a number of your old Boni friends on the CP who don't
want this reform & will never vote for it, which you well know. They
don't vote & don't do anything. Right now only Pontiffs Modianus,
Metellus & Astur are active.

So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform.

Marca Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
producer "Vox Romana" podcast
1st vowed online temple to Fortuna Publica
at the NRWiki - in progress

> Nova Roma has established it own traditions and one of
> them is allowing magistrates who are non-practitioners the
> use of proxies.
>
> Tribune M Moravius Piscinus has even said, in terms of the
> proposed reforms that
>
> "A provision allowing the use of proxies would be perfectly
> acceptable, from the stand point of Roman ritual"
>
> magistrates is acceptable,
> is clearly the product of the entire Collegium Pontificium,
> has the public support of the Postfix Maximus and
> receives a positive recommendation from a numerical
> majority of the Collegium Pontificium,
>
> I will vote for it.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

Salve,

Maior wrote:

>M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio spd;
> the issue is auspices and what was done in Republican
>Rome. So why did you vote against it's restoration? Why don't you
>want the Collegium Pontificium to return to its Republican form?
>It's very important if we wish to be Nova Roma.
> 'Honor' has nothing to do with this discussion, rather
>being & doing things that define us as Roman.
> M. Moravius Piscinus who is running for Consul, is clear
>& explained what an augury involves & how one can appoint someone to
>take the auspices. L. Arminius Faustus also running for Consul
>approves of this return to Republican practice.
> So why don't you? or Fl. Vedius
>

I don't? That's news to me.

I fully support any practice that brings the Religio into further
alignment with what was done in Roma Antiqua, as regards the Religio or
anything else.

To imply otherwise is simply absurd. Whenever there has been a debate on
historicity versus modernity, I have always been on the side of
historicity. The arguments I have engaged in with folks such as Piscinus
(before he left Nova Roma to help found a competing organization when he
realized he had lost the modernist-vs-historist debate*), are proof of
that. I find it singularly incredible that you would hold him up as a
symbol of dedication to historicity within Nova Roma, when in the past
he has steadfastly stood for the introduction of modern Political
Correctness. Not I. I am fully aware that the historical Roman model we
seek to emulate, in all its glory and magnificence, is not going to be
very popular with the modern "Progressive Left" precisely because of its
uncompromising attitudes. My record is clear; I stand on the side of
historical accuracy.

What I have _not_ always been on the side of is undue haste, or
impracticality. Some here in Nova Roma are simply impatient. They see
"flaws" and rant and rail against them, insisting that they be fixed NOW
NOW NOW, rather than taking the patient and long-term view. Sometimes
these are because Nova Roma has erred in not being sufficiently "true"
to ancient Rome, sometimes it's because we are not sufficient chanpions
of modern ideals of "social justice" and soforth. Such people tend to
post quite a bit, perhaps hoping to wear down the rest of us or convince
the uncommitted with their unrelenting stream of chatter.

Others, including but certainly not only myself, realize that moving
slowly but surely towards the goal, rather than running full-speed
towards it, is more likely to produce effective and viable results. We
began from a very overly-simplified starting point, with some known
(and, granted, some unknown) ahistoricial elements. But always-- and
this cannot be stressed enough-- always with the intention that each
successive year would see us moving closer, ever closer, to the dream of
a full and complete restoration of the Republic as it was, including
most especially the Religio, "as far as practical and acceptable," to
coin a phrase.

Historicity has no greater champion within Nova Roma than myself. At the
same time, practicality has no greater champion, either. I do not see
these things as mutually exclusive. It grieves me that some do.

As far as the particular bill that was put before the Senate (and which
I voted against), the issue is moot. Our good Consul has already stated
that it will not be presented in that state again, and is apparently in
negotiations with our honored Pontifex Maximus to achieve something more
palatable. When the full text of such a revised measure is ready and
presented for a vote, I shall comment. Of course, should those parties
currently involved in discussing it request my input, I am at their
disposal.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Consular
Senator

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_(Election_MMDCCLIX)

* = Obviously, I am in no position to criticise Piscinus for leaving
Nova Roma. However, in my own defense, I will point out that I never
went on to form an organization which was formed specifically for
disaffected Nova Romans, and which was originally set up as a rival
organization. Piscinus can make no such claim, for that is precisely
what he did, and indeed continues to serve as its Pontifex Maximus and
has been its Consul twice!

Salvete
and now the news from Templi Mercurius

Dateline Pompeii!

Ancient Roman Brothel Reopens in Pompeii

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225884,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/pompeiis-erotic-lair-reopens-its-doors/2006/10/27/1161749314674.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/27/content_5257273.htm

vale

Salvete,

I confess when I made my report on the status of the Sacrifice Fund, I
never expected it to spark the debate which it apparently has. Perhaps
it is because I have not done so in some time, or perhaps it is because
of the political season which is now upon us, but I am very
(pleasantly!) suprised to see this debate, and especially the level of
discussion concerning the Religio in general.

Some, during the current discussion, have called for the Collegium
Pontificum to lay down some specific guidelines, so that the issue of
animal sacrifice within Nova Roma in general, and the Religio Romana in
particular, is made plain to all. I must counter that such guidelines,
in the form of a Decretum on Sacrifices
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/pontifices/2004-04-24.html), has
already been made. It states, in part (and I give the link above so that
all readers may judge the context of these quotes for themselves and
make sure I'm not taking anything out of its proper context):

> Until such a time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that

circumstances

> are appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio

Publica...

The implication here is clear. The circumstances may not currently be
appropriate for the "full restoration" of the Religio Publica, but when
they are, animal sacrifice (the subject of the entire decretum) must
surely be a part of such a full restoration.

> ...the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice in

the caerimoniae

> of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the Religio Romana,

including sacerdotes

> conducting the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica, may conduct or

refrain from

> animal sacrifice in accordance with their conscience and circumstances.

And here we have the absolutely salient point. Animal sacrifice is,
indeed allowed. It is not required. It is not banned. It may be
conducted at the discretion of the individual priest, subject to certain
limitations (it must be humane, macronationally legal, and so forth).

In regards the funding of such sacrifices, since the purchase of animals
for ritual is not an inexpensive thing:

> The Collegium does not intend to request appropriation of public

funds by the

> Senate for animal sacrifice until and unless a final decision on the

full restoration

> of the ancient cultus has been made

Thus, no monies from the public treasury ("your tax sestercii at work")
will be used to support such activities. If they happen, they're going
to be paid for privately, either by the priest in question, or through
private donations. That is precisely the reason for the existence of the
Sacrifice Fund. So that those priests who are so inclined, and agree
with those practitioners of the Religio that animal sacrifice as a part
of the Religio Publica, on behalf of the Res Publica as a whole, is
indeed a necessary thing, are not required to bear the entire burden of
such expenses on their own shoulders.

I can see no need for any further clarification on the issue. It is
clear as crystal.

It is a matter of choice.

For those priests who choose not to practice animal sacrifice, their
position is clear. The decretum as it stands does not require them to do
so. No harm there.

For those priests who do choose to practice animal sacrifice, their
position is also clear. The decretum as it stands does not prohibit them
from doing so. They just have to pay for it themselves, or find someone
(or several someones) to help with the cost. No harm there.

For those individual Citizens who object to the idea of animal
sacrifice, their position is clear. The decretum as it stands mandates
that none of their hard-earned tax money will be spent supporting it.
(Compare modern pacifists, whose tax dollars in the United States are
still used to fund the military, against their clear wishes.) They are
fully free _not_ to contribute to the Sacrifice Fund, which is entirely
private, and entirely voluntary (and which currently stands at US$325 as
of this writing). No harm there.

And, finally, for those individual Citizens who support the idea of
animal sacrifice, their position is also clear. The decretum as it
stands does not ban the use of private funds to support animal
sacrifice. And indeed that is the purpose of the Sacrifice Fund. To give
those people who wish to support such activity over and above the taxes
which they have already paid to the Republic a place to do so. It is
entirely voluntary and composed completely of private donations. No harm
there.

Indeed, the only "harm" that anyone can possibly be voiced is by those
individuals who object to animal sacrifice as a practice under any
circumstances. It's "barbaric", or "anachronistic", or "inhumane", or
"unnecessary", and so forth. It is people like that who, doubtless with
the best of intentions, wish to stifle the free religious expression of
those of us who _do_ wish to support and/or engage in the practice on
behalf of the Religio Publica (or privata, for that matter). With all
due respect, I say that is not their right. They are free not to engage
in the practice, and free not to support it. They are NOT free to
prevent those of us who disagree from engaging or supporting it.

I stand for the historicity of animal sacrifice as an integral part of
the Religio Publica (as recognized by the Collegium Pontificum in its
decretum). I also stand for the freedom of choice; those who do not wish
to participate in or support animal sacrifice are free not to. Your
freedom to choose "no" does not mean I cannot choose "yes."

I cannot see any more equitable solution for our current situation than
that.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Consular
Senator

<http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_%28Election_MMDCCLIX%29>http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_(Election_MMDCCLIX) <http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_%28Election_MMDCCLIX%29>

Salve ,SPD.In the beginning there was no College of Augers in the early republic.That is just plain ignoranceVale,.Appiuus Galerius Aurelianus.

Maior <rory12001@...> wrote: M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
I brought this back up as honor is a sidetrack. There are
many Roman virtues. Right now just being Roman is the issue!

Actually Nova Roma in the beginning got it wrong; the College of
Augurs didn't perform augury. That's not Mos that's just ignorance.
What's happening is with more informed cives we're returning to real
Republican practice & having someone perform the augury -praesens
would be fine.

Returning to real republican Roman practice is the answer & the
development of our mos.

I read everything you write very carefully. And you say you would
vote for CP reform IF...:

Well there are a number of your old Boni friends on the CP who don't
want this reform & will never vote for it, which you well know. They
don't vote & don't do anything. Right now only Pontiffs Modianus,
Metellus & Astur are active.

So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform.

Marca Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
producer "Vox Romana" podcast
1st vowed online temple to Fortuna Publica
at the NRWiki - in progress

> Nova Roma has established it own traditions and one of
> them is allowing magistrates who are non-practitioners the
> use of proxies.
>
> Tribune M Moravius Piscinus has even said, in terms of the
> proposed reforms that
>
> "A provision allowing the use of proxies would be perfectly
> acceptable, from the stand point of Roman ritual"
>
> magistrates is acceptable,
> is clearly the product of the entire Collegium Pontificium,
> has the public support of the Postfix Maximus and
> receives a positive recommendation from a numerical
> majority of the Collegium Pontificium,
>
> I will vote for it.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Mea gloria fideles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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

Agricola Aureliano sal

To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the attitudes of
modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).

What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more citizens
here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.

optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Maior,
>
> The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula that
is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
Chuan are not even in the same category.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rory12001@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum
July 29th, 2006]
>
>
> M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ? So
> why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or agnostic
> or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the last
> 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to resemble
> Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>
>
> > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception for
> those
> > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own auspices?
> >
> > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the Religio
> > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for omens,
> > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and so
> > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> >
> > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in the new
> > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful conscience.
> >
> > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame to
> lose
> > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> >
> > a couple as
> >
> > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve!

That made my day, and it made my first blog on myspace. Thanks!

Vale!


Di te mihi semper servent!
Marcus Traianus Valerius



----- Original Message ----
From: wuffa2001 <magewuffa@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:50:05 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] news


Salvete
and now the news from Templi Mercurius

Dateline Pompeii!

Ancient Roman Brothel Reopens in Pompeii

http://www.foxnews. com/story/ 0,2933,225884, 00.html

http://www.theage. com.au/news/ world/pompeiis- erotic-lair- reopens-its- doors/2006/ 10/27/1161749314 674.html

http://news. xinhuanet. com/english/ 2006-10/27/ content_5257273. htm

vale






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

Gaius Fabius Buteo M. Hortensiae salutem dicit

Agreed. There was more diversity in the period of the early Church than
there is today, at least some scholars would think so. Take a look at the
apologetics of Irenaeus, for example. He was attacking other Christians for
believing differently than he did. One Christian sect attacking another
Christian sect. Also, its important to understand that Constantine didn't
legalize Christianity, he legalized one specific brand of Christianity.
This is why someone felt it necessary to hide 13 codices... which later
became the Nag Hammadi collection.

Vale:

Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus

On 10/27/06, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Catoni spd;
> the point Cato, is please don't explain Christian doctrine.
> There are so many! Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical, Gnostic,
> Monophysite,Arian...it makes absolutely no difference to me. And there
> were many more varieties in Roma Antiqua.
> The point is acting Roman. I am equally not interested in
> your or the devout Atheist's strong & personal beliefs- whether
> Epicurean, Heraclitan, etc : they are equally valid. And both would be
> expected to behave according to Roman ways. The Roman mos is paramount.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior
> PS: I would also add you should do some research about Christianity
> in Rome before Theodosius as they were all kinds of accomodation, not
> what you are repeating & this is what being Roman is about.
>


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

Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.

"M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
Agricola Aureliano sal

To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the attitudes of
modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).

What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more citizens
here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.

optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Maior,
>
> The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula that
is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
Chuan are not even in the same category.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rory12001@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum
July 29th, 2006]
>
>
> M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ? So
> why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or agnostic
> or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the last
> 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to resemble
> Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>
>
> > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception for
> those
> > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own auspices?
> >
> > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the Religio
> > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for omens,
> > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and so
> > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> >
> > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in the new
> > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful conscience.
> >
> > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame to
> lose
> > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> >
> > a couple as
> >
> > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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

Agricola Aureliano sal

I am no person to ask, but you address your letter in the singular
(salve) so perhaps you expect me to answer.

I have heard that derivation put forth as a possibility, but there is
dispute and it does not seem to be the strongest theory. Wikipedia has
this, for example: "The derivation of the word augur is uncertain;
ancient authors believed that it contained the words avi and gero
--Latin for 'directing the birds'--but historical-linguistic evidence
points instead to the root aug-, 'to increase, to prosper.'"

optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, flavius leviticus <centorious@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
> Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>
> "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> Agricola Aureliano sal
>
> To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the attitudes of
> modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).
>
> What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more citizens
> here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.
>
> optime vale
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >
> > Maior,
> >
> > The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
> unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula that
> is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
> would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
> Chuan are not even in the same category.
> >
> > F. Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rory12001@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum
> July 29th, 2006]
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> > I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> > reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ? So
> > why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or agnostic
> > or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the last
> > 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to resemble
> > Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> > bene vale
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception for
> > those
> > > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own auspices?
> > >
> > > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the Religio
> > > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for omens,
> > > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and so
> > > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> > >
> > > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in the new
> > > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful conscience.
> > >
> > > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame to
> > lose
> > > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> > >
> > > a couple as
> > >
> > > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
> across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and

get things done faster.

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

Salvete,I would also like to ask .Is it not the case that each time we eat meat are we not slaughtering an animal by proxy?After the sacrifice was read in the gall bladder and liver were not these and some meat burned on the alter and the rest served up as a feast?
Valete,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.

flavius leviticus <centorious@...> wrote:
Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.

"M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
Agricola Aureliano sal

To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the attitudes of
modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).

What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more citizens
here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.

optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Maior,
>
> The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula that
is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
Chuan are not even in the same category.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rory12001@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum
July 29th, 2006]
>
>
> M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ? So
> why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or agnostic
> or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the last
> 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to resemble
> Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> bene vale
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>
>
> > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception for
> those
> > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own auspices?
> >
> > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the Religio
> > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for omens,
> > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and so
> > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> >
> > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in the new
> > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful conscience.
> >
> > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame to
> lose
> > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> >
> > a couple as
> >
> > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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






---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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

---


Salve Galerius et Salvete Omnes:

The procedure of divination by examining the internal 'guts'
innerds :), organs, whatever of a sacrificial animal is called an
Extispicium. I don't know what the proper title of the one
performing this task would be...Extispicior? Good question for
Scholastica...I don't know for sure.

An Augury is divination through the observation of birds...the types
of birds, their direction in flight, etc. A very basic
explanation. I defer to the Augurs for a more complete description.

Valete
Pompeia Minucia Strabo
Consul

An Augur is one who divines by observation of birds.

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, flavius leviticus <centorious@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
> Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>
> "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> Agricola Aureliano sal
>
> To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the

attitudes of

> modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).
>
> What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more

citizens

> here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.
>
> optime vale
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >
> > Maior,
> >
> > The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
> unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula

that

> is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
> would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
> Chuan are not even in the same category.
> >
> > F. Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rory12001@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa

Pontificum

> July 29th, 2006]
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> > I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> > reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ?

So

> > why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or

agnostic

> > or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the

last

> > 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to

resemble

> > Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> > bene vale
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception

for

> > those
> > > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own

auspices?

> > >
> > > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the

Religio

> > > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for

omens,

> > > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and

so

> > > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> > >
> > > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in

the new

> > > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful

conscience.

> > >
> > > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame

to

> > lose
> > > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> > >
> > > a couple as
> > >
> > > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
> across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and

get things done faster.

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

Salve Levitice,

flavius leviticus wrote:

> Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?

No, you're thinking of haruspex.

Augurs originally studied the flights of birds in order to determine the
will of the gods, especially Iuppiter.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Marinus,I stand corrected.Vale Appius Galerius Aurelianus.

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote: Salve Levitice,

flavius leviticus wrote:

> Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?

No, you're thinking of haruspex.

Augurs originally studied the flights of birds in order to determine the
will of the gods, especially Iuppiter.

Vale,

-- Marinus





---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

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

SALVE !

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

> The procedure of divination by examining the internal 'guts'
> innerds :), organs, whatever of a sacrificial animal is called an
> Extispicium. I don't know what the proper title of the one
> performing this task would be...Extispicior? >>>

Extispieces.

VALE BENE,
IVL SABINVS

SALVE FLAVI LEVITICE !

For me that articles from Temple of Religio Romana are useful :
http://www.religioromana.net/augury.htm
http://www.religioromana.net/haruspicy.htm

First represent the work of our candidate for Consul, Marcus
Horatianus Piscinus.

VALE BENE,
IVL SABINVS


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, flavius leviticus <centorious@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve Marinus,I stand corrected.Vale Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote: Salve Levitice,
>
> flavius leviticus wrote:
>
> > Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
>
> No, you're thinking of haruspex.
>
> Augurs originally studied the flights of birds in order to

determine the

> will of the gods, especially Iuppiter.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small

Business.

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

M. Hortensia Fl. Vedio Germanico spd;
you & the Pontifex Maximus were Consul & Pontiff Modianus's
accensus, to expressly help him with the historical reform of the
Collegium Pontificum

1. So what was your input into this Constitutional reform of the
Collegium Pontificum?
2. Why if you were his accensus did you vote against it?

Please be specific. M. Moravius Piscinus was very specific about
augury. If you wish to be Consul you must explain how you can assist
the present one & then vote against his very reform!
Marca Hortensia Maior

>
> As far as the particular bill that was put before the Senate (and

which

> I voted against), the issue is moot. Our good Consul has already

stated

> that it will not be presented in that state again, and is

apparently in

> negotiations with our honored Pontifex Maximus to achieve

something more

> palatable. When the full text of such a revised measure is ready

and

> presented for a vote, I shall comment. Of course, should those

parties

> currently involved in discussing it request my input, I am at

their

> disposal.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
> Consular
> Senator
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Flavius_Vedius_Germanicus_

(Election_MMDCCLIX)

>
> * = Obviously, I am in no position to criticise Piscinus for

leaving

> Nova Roma. However, in my own defense, I will point out that I

never

> went on to form an organization which was formed specifically for
> disaffected Nova Romans, and which was originally set up as a

rival

> organization. Piscinus can make no such claim, for that is

precisely

> what he did, and indeed continues to serve as its Pontifex Maximus

and

> has been its Consul twice!
>

M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
I am trying to clarify the situation.

Did you know the Pontifex Maximus Julianus was Consul & Pontiff
Modianus's accensus? He was supposed to help with the reform.

1.What did Julianus do? Why did he vote against it..
2.why do you support him?

You have not given one clear specific example. Unlike Senator M.
Moravius Piscinus who explained augury and how there would be the
ability to appoint praeses.

And please let's avoid ad hominem arguments; there are only 3 active
pontiffs on the Collegium Pontificum: Consul Modianus, Senator Astur
and Metellus:

the point is to return to its republican historical roots so the
Religio can once again be active. Right now as Cordus pointed out,
it is paralyzed by an unhistorical structure.

If wish to be Consul & you are going to frustrate the historical
reform of the religio, I wish to know precisely why.

Marca Hortensia Maior

>
> you said
>
> "So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform."
>
> I will trust my word over yours any day.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Maior<mailto:rory12001@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:41 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium (was Honor)
>
>
> M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
> I brought this back up as honor is a sidetrack. There are
> many Roman virtues. Right now just being Roman is the issue!
>
> Actually Nova Roma in the beginning got it wrong; the College of
> Augurs didn't perform augury. That's not Mos that's just

ignorance.

> What's happening is with more informed cives we're returning to

real

> Republican practice & having someone perform the augury -

praesens

> would be fine.
>
> Returning to real republican Roman practice is the answer & the
> development of our mos.
>
> I read everything you write very carefully. And you say you

would

> vote for CP reform IF...:
>
> Well there are a number of your old Boni friends on the CP who

don't

> want this reform & will never vote for it, which you well know.

They

> don't vote & don't do anything. Right now only Pontiffs

Modianus,

> Metellus & Astur are active.
>
> So You as Consul will never support or vote for this reform.
>
> Marca Hortensia Maior, aedilis plebis
> producer "Vox Romana" podcast
> 1st vowed online temple to Fortuna Publica
> at the NRWiki - in progress
>
> > Nova Roma has established it own traditions and one of
> > them is allowing magistrates who are non-practitioners the
> > use of proxies.
> >
> > Tribune M Moravius Piscinus has even said, in terms of the
> > proposed reforms that
> >
> > "A provision allowing the use of proxies would be perfectly
> > acceptable, from the stand point of Roman ritual"
> >
> > magistrates is acceptable,
> > is clearly the product of the entire Collegium Pontificium,
> > has the public support of the Postfix Maximus and
> > receives a positive recommendation from a numerical
> > majority of the Collegium Pontificium,
> >
> > I will vote for it.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Mea gloria fideles
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> A. Tullia Scholastica Consuli Pompeiae Minuciae Straboni quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Salve Galerius et Salvete Omnes:
>
> The procedure of divination by examining the internal 'guts'
> innerds :), organs, whatever of a sacrificial animal is called an
> Extispicium. I don't know what the proper title of the one
> performing this task would be...Extispicior? Good question for
> Scholastica...I don't know for sure.
>
> ATS: As Censor Marinus noted in a subsequent post, the person who
> performs an extispicium is usually called a haruspex, but the term extispex
> also exists. The ­spex is related to the word specto, spectare, look at, but
> comes more directly from spicio, inspect, and is an agent noun suffix (one
> who...). -Spicium, too, has the same origin, but there doesn¹t seem to be a
> corresponding verb in classical Latin (no *extispicio, and no *haruspicio).
> Haruspices also dealt with the interpretation of lightning and prodigies, or
> so saith the OLD; this method of divination is Etruscan in origin.
>
> An Augury is divination through the observation of birds...the types
> of birds, their direction in flight, etc. A very basic
> explanation.
>
> ATS: And there is a corresponding Latin verb for this, auguro/auguror,
> augurare/augurari; it occurs both as a normal verb and as a deponent.
>
> I defer to the Augurs for a more complete description.
>
> Valete
> Pompeia Minucia Strabo
> Consul
>
> Vale, et valete,
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica
>
> An Augur is one who divines by observation of birds.
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , flavius
> leviticus <centorious@...>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
>> > Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>> >
>> > "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
>> > Agricola Aureliano sal
>> >
>> > To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the
> attitudes of
>> > modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).
>> >
>> > What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more
> citizens
>> > here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.
>> >
>> > optime vale
>> >
>> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
>> PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Maior,
>>> > >
>>> > > The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
>> > unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula
> that
>> > is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
>> > would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
>> > Chuan are not even in the same category.
>>> > >
>>> > > F. Galerius Aurelianus
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: rory12001@
>>> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> > > Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
>>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa
> Pontificum
>> > July 29th, 2006]
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
>>> > > I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
>>> > > reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ?
> So
>>> > > why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or
> agnostic
>>> > > or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the
> last
>>> > > 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to
> resemble
>>> > > Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
>>> > > bene vale
>>> > > Marca Hortensia Maior
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>> > > > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception
> for
>>> > > those
>>>> > > > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own
> auspices?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the
> Religio
>>>> > > > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for
> omens,
>>>> > > > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and
> so
>>>> > > > forth) is a part of my faithway.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in
> the new
>>>> > > > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful
> conscience.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame
> to
>>> > > lose
>>>> > > > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > a couple as
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
>>>> > > >
>>> > >
>> >
>

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

I wouldn't know, being a vegetarian these last 30 years or so.

optime vale

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, flavius leviticus <centorious@...>
wrote:

>
> Salvete,I would also like to ask .Is it not the case that each time

we eat meat are we not slaughtering an animal by proxy?After the
sacrifice was read in the gall bladder and liver were not these and
some meat burned on the alter and the rest served up as a feast?

> Valete,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>
> flavius leviticus <centorious@...> wrote:
> Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader

of guts?

> Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
>
> "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> Agricola Aureliano sal
>
> To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the attitudes of
> modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).
>
> What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more citizens
> here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.
>
> optime vale
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >
> > Maior,
> >
> > The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
> unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula that
> is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
> would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
> Chuan are not even in the same category.
> >
> > F. Galerius Aurelianus
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rory12001@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum
> July 29th, 2006]
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> > I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> > reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ? So
> > why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or agnostic
> > or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the last
> > 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to resemble
> > Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> > bene vale
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> > > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception for
> > those
> > > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own auspices?
> > >
> > > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the Religio
> > > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for omens,
> > > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and so
> > > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> > >
> > > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in the new
> > > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful conscience.
> > >
> > > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame to
> > lose
> > > what they could bring to better governance within our republic.
> > >
> > > a couple as
> > >
> > > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
> across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and

get things done faster.

>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and

get things done faster.

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

Caesar Maiori sal

> M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
> I am trying to clarify the situation.

Really? The Gods help us if you ever try to obfusticate it.

> Did you know the Pontifex Maximus Julianus was Consul & Pontiff
> Modianus's accensus? He was supposed to help with the reform.

I think his appointment is a matter of public record.

> 1.What did Julianus do? Why did he vote against it..

I suppose if Galerius Paulinus declines to answer on the simple
grounds of not being a mind reader, you will scold him for not being
telepathic?

> 2.why do you support him?

I think he explained that already.

This seems to happen every year Maior. You latch onto a candidate you
want to support and focus on those that you don't like/agree with. By
about halfway through the campaign your favoured candidate's platform
has suffered severe damage through the fusilade of shots that you
have discharged through it, and your own feet.

Any sensible candidate who you offered your services to would bar
his/her door and hide under a bed, until you went away.

Maior wrote:

> You and the Pontifex Maximus were Consul and Pontiff Modianus's
> accensus, to expressly help him with the historical reform of the
> Collegium Pontificum

Salve, Marca Hortensia Maior.

I see we share some of the same concerns. I'm sorry I didn't notice your
reply before sending my own, I did not mean to ignore your part in the
exchange.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> [B]efore [Piscinus] left Nova Roma [...]

Said the pot to the kettle on his own third period of citizenship.
Please don't take cheap shots, especially when they can so easily be
turned back on you. He left once, when a group of his friends left, but
has stayed active in Roman organisations and at last returned to us. You
left twice, the last time taking the old main list with you. You have
abandoned the office of Consul once and the office of Censor twice.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> I stand on the side of historical accuracy. [...] We began from a
> very overly-simplified starting point, with some known (and, granted,
> some unknown) ahistoricial elements. But always [...] with the
> intention that each successive year would see us moving closer [...]
> to the dream of a full and complete restoration of the Republic as it
> was[.]

The only way I can see it would make sense to introduce known
ahistorical elements is to gain citizens and goodwill under false
pretenses. If this was your grand plan, you have twice abandoned it.
Nova Roma has grown in its own direction, usually towards a more
historical stance, without you.

Since you say "full and complete", I will take the opportunity to
mention a couple of strawmen that generally are inapplicable, but in
this case should work nicely. What's your take on slavery and female
emancipation?

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> As far as the particular bill that was put before the Senate (and
> which I voted against), the issue is moot.

As far as I recall, you work as an Accensus of Consul Modianus, who
presented the bill to the senate. Did you give him your input during its
conception and advise him that you could not support the bill?

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

Q. Caecilius Metellus Fl. Vedio candidato Quiritibusque salutem.

Salvete, Omnes.

I just want to say, in response to what our consular candidate Flavius
Vedius has posted, that this is the first time in more than four years
in Nova Roma that I have so fully agreed with something which has been
posted in this Forum.

There is no reasonable argument to the effect that the rights of
anyone are being violated in the issue at hand, and I would go so far
as to argue that, in fact, the Collegium Pontificum is bending over
itself backwards for the simple preservation of concordia when it
would be just as easy (and preferable, in my opinion) to make a
controversial decision one way or another on the issue.

And that, Quirites, is more of your officials working to keep the peace.

Di ab omnibus nobis colantur!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Pontifex
Candidate for Quaestor

M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio spd;
please do not engage in ad hominem attacks. I am not
running for Consul nor will I be in a position to block an important
reform.
This is a serious matter for all Nova Romans who wish to
return to the mos of the Republic.
Marca Hortensia Maior,aedilis plebis
Producer "Vox Romana" podcast

>
> Caesar Maiori sal
>
> > M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
> > I am trying to clarify the situation.
>
> Really? The Gods help us if you ever try to obfusticate it.
>
> > Did you know the Pontifex Maximus Julianus was Consul & Pontiff
> > Modianus's accensus? He was supposed to help with the reform.
>
> I think his appointment is a matter of public record.
>
> > 1.What did Julianus do? Why did he vote against it..
>
> I suppose if Galerius Paulinus declines to answer on the simple
> grounds of not being a mind reader, you will scold him for not

being

> telepathic?
>
> > 2.why do you support him?
>
> I think he explained that already.
>
> This seems to happen every year Maior. You latch onto a candidate

you

> want to support and focus on those that you don't like/agree with.

By

> about halfway through the campaign your favoured candidate's

platform

> has suffered severe damage through the fusilade of shots that you
> have discharged through it, and your own feet.
>
> Any sensible candidate who you offered your services to would bar
> his/her door and hide under a bed, until you went away.
>

--- In ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Arminius Maior"
<m_arminius@...> wrote:

Tribunus Plebis Marcus Arminius Maior Omnibus SPD



The Comitia Plebis Tributa is hereby convened to elect the Plebeian
magistates for the year 2760 auc (2007 CE).

The Contio will begin at 12h01, Time of Rome, on 27 Oct, and will last
until 12h01 (Roma time) on 30 Oct.
Voting will then begin immediately and will last until 05 Nov., 18h00.

[ NOTE: The official time of Nova Roma is the Central European Time,
the Rome time.
To see the time in other parts of the world:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock ]


The schedule for the contio and vote is as follows:

27 Oct, contio begins at 12:01;
30 Oct, contio ends, voting begins at 12:01;
04 Nov, voting ends at 18h00.


The magistracies to be filled, and the candidates for these
magistracies are:

TRIBUNUS PLEBIS (5 open positions)
-------------------------------------------
Gaius Arminius Reccanellus
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Gaius_Arminius_Reccanellus_%28Nova_Roma%29
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=7658

Marcus Curiatus Complutensis
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Marcus_Curiatius_Complutensis_%28Nova_Roma%
29
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=6159

Marcus Pontius Sejanus
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=1854

Quintus Servilius Priscus
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Quintus_Servilius_Priscus_%28Nova_Roma%29
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=2369


AEDILIS PLEBIS (2 open positions)
-------------------------------------------------
Caius Curius Saturninus
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Caius_Curius_Saturninus_%28Nova_Roma%29
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album?id=1337



Valete bene
Marcus Arminius Maior
Tribunus Plebis

--- End forwarded message ---

Caesar Maiori sal

Those were factual observations, not an ad hominem attack, based on
your approach to asking questions and the outcome of your
increasingly frantic tone. There is a pattern to this Maior, in
elections, legislative change debates and major issues. It is a
matter of historical record, which can be found in your previous
messages posted in this forum.

Now, as to this matter. Surely you understand that Vedius and
Paulinus are not going to be hedged into a corner by you and provide
a blank cheque of support for this now defunct proposal? They
obviously had concerns with the original version and in the event
that a new proposal surfaces, based on their replies, they will
evaluate it and decide accordingly.

I believe both of them gave an explanation as to why they had
concerns with the original model. I appreciate that you want to keep
hammering away at them because you aren't satisfied, but it must be
equally clear that this approach isn't working.

Given the comments from the Senate report and in this forum by some
of the proposal's supporters, this had far more to do with breaking
the voting deadlock in the Collegium Pontificum than it did with
a "return to the mos of the Republic". This was principally political
in nature.

A more productive approach would be to wait to see what shape the
proposal takes, as it was reported as being ammended (prior to it
being taken off the agenda for the contio), wait and see who gets
elected as Consuls and then raise the matter.

Until new proposals and new consuls emerge this is practically
speaking a dead issue.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio spd;
> please do not engage in ad hominem attacks. I am not
> running for Consul nor will I be in a position to block an
important
> reform.
> This is a serious matter for all Nova Romans who wish to
> return to the mos of the Republic.
> Marca Hortensia Maior,aedilis plebis
> Producer "Vox Romana" podcast
>

OSD C. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes!

Hodie est ante diem V Kalendas Novembris; haec dies comitialis est.

"The battle took place near the base of Mount Vesuvius, where the road
led to Veseris. Before leading out their armies to battle the consuls
offered sacrifice. The haruspex, whose duty it was to inspect the
different organs in the victims, pointed out to Decius a prophetic
intimation of his death, in all other respects the signs were
favourable. Manlius' sacrifice was entirely satisfactory. "It is
well," said Decius, "if my colleague has obtained favourable signs."
They moved forward to battle in the formation I have already
described, Manlius in command of the right division, Decius of the
left. At first both armies fought with equal strength and equal
determination. After a time the Roman hastati on the left, unable to
withstand the insistency of the Latins, retired behind the principes.
During the temporary confusion created by this movement, Decius
exclaimed in a loud voice to M. Valerius: "Valerius, we need the help
of the gods! Let the Pontifex Maximus dictate to me the words in which
I am to devote myself for the legions." The Pontifex bade him veil his
head in his toga praetexta, and rest his hand, covered with the toga,
against his chin, then standing upon a spear to say these words:
"Janus, Jupiter, Father Mars, Quirinus, Bellona, Lares, ye Novensiles
and Indigetes, deities to whom belongs the power over us and over our
foes, and ye, too, Divine Manes, I pray to you, I do you reverence, I
crave your grace and favour that you will bless the Roman People, the
Quirites, with power and victory, and visit the enemies of the Roman
People, the Quirites, with fear and dread and death. In like manner as
I have uttered this prayer so do I now on behalf of the commonwealth
of the Quirites, on behalf of the army, the legions, the auxiliaries
of the Roman People, the Quirites, devote the legions and auxiliaries
of the enemy, together with myself to the Divine Manes and to Earth."
After this prayer he ordered the lictors to go to T. Manlius and at
once announce to his colleague that he had devoted himself on behalf
of the army. He then girded himself with the Gabinian cincture, and in
full armour leaped upon his horse and dashed into the middle of the
enemy. To those who watched him in both armies, he appeared something
awful and superhuman, as though sent from heaven to expiate and
appease all the anger of the gods and to avert destruction from his
people and bring it on their enemies. All the dread and terror which
he carried with him threw the front ranks of the Latins into confusion
which soon spread throughout the entire army. This was most evident,
for wherever his horse carried him they were paralysed as though
struck by some death-dealing star; but when he fell, overwhelmed with
darts, the Latin cohorts, in a state of perfect consternation, fled
from the spot and left a large space clear. The Romans, on the other
hand, freed from all religious fears, pressed forward as though the
signal was then first given and commenced a great battle. Even the
rorarii rushed forward between the companies of antepilani and added
strength to the hastati and principes, whilst the triarii, kneeling on
their right knee, waited for the consul's signal to rise." - Livy,
History of Rome 8.9


"First, the tresses of her [Isis'] hair were long and thick, and
streamed down softly, flowing and curling about her divine neck. On
her head she wore as a crown many garlands of flowers, and in the
middle of her forehead shone white and glowing a round disc like a
mirror, or rather like the moon; on its right and left it was bound
about with the furrowed coils of rising vipers, and above it were
stalks of grain. Her tunic was of many colours, woven of the finest
linen, now gleaming with snowy whiteness, now yellow like the crocus,
now rosy-red like a flame. But what dazzled my eyes more than anything
else was her cloak, for it was a deep black, glistening with sable
sheen; it was cast about her, passing under her right arm and brought
together on her left shoulder. Part of it hung down like a shield and
drooped in many a fold, the whole reaching to the lower edge of her
garment with tasseled fringe." - Apuleius, "Metamorphoses" XI.3

In ancient Egypt, today was celebrated in honor of the Goddess Isis.
Isis belongs to the Ennead of Heliopolis, and according to the
Heliopolitan genealogy is a daughter of Seb and Nut, sister and wife
of Osiris. Possibly she was originally the personification of the
throne (her name is written with the hieroglyph for throne), and as
such she was an important source of the pharaoh's power. In the
Hellenistic time Isis was the protrectress of sailors. In the Osiris
myths she searched for her husband's body, who was killed by her
brother Seth. She retrieved and reassembled the body, and in this
connection she took on the role of a goddess of the dead and of the
funeral rights. Isis impregnated herself from the Osiris' body and
gave birth to Horus in the swamps of Khemnis in the Nile Delta. Here
she raised her son in secret and kept him far away from Seth. Horus
later defeated Seth and became the first ruler of a united Egypt.
Isis, as mother of Horus, was by extension regarded as the mother and
protectress of the pharaoh's. She was worshipped as the divine
mother-goddess, faithful consort of Osiris, and dedicated mother of Horus.

Isis was a vital link between the gods and mankind. The pharaoh was
her son, as the living Horus. In the Pyramid Texts the pharaoh suckles
as Isis' divine breasts. There are numerous statues and imagery of
Isis holding the young Horus in her lap. Often the images of the
queen-mother and current pharaoh were styled in the same way. Isis
protected Horus during his childhood from his uncle Seth who wished to
murder him. It was her hole that he might one day grow up to avenge
his father's murder. In the Book of the Dead, Isis is regarded as the
giver of life and food to the dead. She may also be one of the judges
of the dead. Another of her roles was to protect Imsety, one of the
four sons of Horus, as he guarded over the liver of the deceased.

Isis was a great magician and is famous for the use of her magical
skills. For example, she created the first cobra and used it's
venomous bite to coerce Re into revealing his secret name. From the
beginning of Egypt's history to the end, Isis was the greatest goddess
of Egypt. She was the beneficial goddess and mother whose love
encompassed every living creature. Isis was also the purest example of
the loving wife and mother and it was in this capacity that the
Egyptian people loved her the most.

Her worship spread well beyond the borders of Egypt, as far away as
England. The works of the classical writers identified her with
Persephone, Tethys, Athene, etc, just as Osiris was associated with
Hades, Dionysos and other foreign gods. Isis was depicted as a woman
with the solar disk between the cow horns on her head (an analogy with
the goddess Hathor) or crowned with a thrown, but also with the child
Horus sitting on her lap. A vulture was sometimes seen incorporated in
her crown. Also she was sometimes depicted as a kite above the
mummified body of Osiris. Isis' popularity lasted far into the Roman
era. She had her own priests and many temples were erected in her
honor. On the island of Philae in the Nile delta her largest temple
was situated (it was transferred to the island Agilkia in 1975-1980).




"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus
fortunately met near Mediolanum [Milan], and were considering
everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we
thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of
many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity
ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the
Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which
each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the
heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are
placed under our rule..." - from the Edict of Milan as quoted by
Lactantius, "De Mortibus Persecutiones" ch. 48


On this day in A.D. 312, the co-Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius
met for their final, bitter clash in the culmination of a rivalry for
power that had begun with the death of Constantine's father,
Constantius Chlorus, and he forced abdication of Maxentius' father,
Maximian. In 308, Maxentius had been declared "senior" co-Emperor
with Galerius as his partner; Constantine was declared "Caesar", or
"junior" Emperor. Galerius died in 311, leaving the road to hostility
between Constantine and Maxentius free of even technical obstacles.

During the summer of 312, Constantine gathered his forces and decided
to settle the dispute by force. He easily overran northern Italy, and
stood less than 10 miles from Rome when Maxentius chose to make his
stand in front of the Milvian Bridge, a stone bridge (a successor of
which stands today at the same site, by the Italian name Ponte Milvio
or sometimes Ponte Molle) which carries the Via Flaminia road across
the Tiber River into Rome. Holding it was crucial if Maxentius was to
keep his rival out of Rome, where the Senate would surely favor
whoever held the city. Constantine, after arriving, realized he had
made a miscalculation and that Maxentius had many more soldiers
available than he did. Some sources say the advantage was ten to one
in Maxentius' favor, but it was probably more like four to one. In any
case, Constantine had a tough challenge ahead of him.

It is commonly stated that on the evening of October 27, with the
armies preparing for battle, Constantine, alone, just as he had
publicly announced he saw Apollo two years before, reportedly had a
vision as he looked toward the setting sun; although Eusebius of
Caesarea records the event as occurring when Maxentius' army was still
in Northern Italy. At any rate, a cross appeared emblazoned on the
sun, and maybe the Greek letters XP ("Chi Rho", the first two letters
of "Christ") intertwined with it; and Constantine either saw or heard
the Greek phrase often rendered in Latin as "In hoc signo vinces" —--
"With this sign, you shall conquer". Constantine, who was a pagan at
the time, is said to have put the symbol (the labarum) on his solders'
shields.

The next day, the two armies clashed, and Constantine emerged
victorious. Already known as a skillful general, Constantine began to
push Maxentius' army back toward the Tiber, and Maxentius decided to
retreat and make another stand at Rome itself. But there was only one
escape route, via the bridge, and Constantine's men inflicted heavy
losses on the retreating army. Finally, a bridge of boats set up
alongside the Milvian Bridge, over which many of the troops were
escaping, collapsed, and those men stranded on the north bank of the
Tiber were either taken prisoner or killed, with Maxentius numbered
among the dead.

Constantine entered Rome not long afterwards and was acclaimed as sole
Western Roman Augustus. He was still co-ruler with Eastern Roman
Emperors Maximinus and Licinius. He credited his victory at the
Milvian Bridge to the God of the Christians, and ordered the end of
any religious persecution within his realm, a step he had already
taken in Britain and Gaul in 306. With the emperor as a patron,
Christianity grew in popularity and power --- leading to the Edict of
Milan in 313, which declared that the Roman Empire would be neutral
with regard to religious worship, officially ending all
government-sanctioned persecution.

Valete bene!

Cato



SOURCES

Livy, (http://www.egyptianmyths.net/isis.htm), and
(http://www.pantheon.org/articles/i/isis.html), Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church, Wikipedia

Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano sal.

Consul, you wrote:

"Also, its important to understand that Constantine didn't legalize
Christianity, he legalized one specific brand of Christianity."

Actually, you are quite incorrect. Read the actual text of the Edict
of Milan issued by St. Constantine I the Great and his co-emperor
Licinius in AD 313:

"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus
fortunately met near Mediolanurn [Milan], and were considering
everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we
thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of
many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity
ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the
Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which
each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the
heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are
placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most
upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should
be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the
Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for
himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield
our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence."

No evil conspiracy here. Simply religious toleration for "any
Divinity" for "Christians and others". Too much Dan Brown, consul.

Vale,

Cato

Cato M. Hortensiae Maiori sal.

Salve Marca Hortensia.

You wrote:

"the point is to return to its republican historical roots so the
Religio can once again be active. Right now as Cordus pointed out,
it is paralyzed by an unhistorical structure. If wish to be Consul &
you are going to frustrate the historical reform of the religio, I
wish to know precisely why."


Marca Hortensia, *you* still have not supplied a single source for
your belief that the College of Pontiffs did *not* make laws regarding
the religio. How can you possibly support an amendment to the lex
Constitutiva which directly contradicts an ancient source? You are
championing a proposed "reform" to the religio that is contrary to the
historical record, and I wish to know precisely why.

Just in case you've forgotten, here's the ancient source I'm basing my
opinion on:

"The last branch of the ordinances of Numa related to the sacred
offices allotted to those who held the higher priesthoods and the
greatest power among the Romans. These, from one of the duties they
perform, namely, the repairing of the wooden bridge, are in their own
language called pontifices; but they have jurisdiction over the most
weighty matters. For they are the judges in all religious causes
wherein private citizens, magistrates or the ministers of the gods are
concerned; they make laws for the observance of any religious rites,
not established by written law or custom, which may seem to them
worthy of receiving the sanction of law and custom; they inquire into
the conduct of all magistrates to whom the performance of any
sacrifice or other religious duty is committed, and also into that of
all the priests; they take care that their servants and ministers whom
they employ in religious rites commit no error in the matter of the
sacred laws; to the laymen who are unacquainted with such matters they
are the expounder stone interpreters of everything relating to the
worship of the gods and genii; and if they find that any disobey their
orders, they inflict punishment upon them with due regard to every
offence; moreover, they are not liable to any prosecution or
punishment, nor are they accountable to the senate or to the people,
at least concerning religious matters." - Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
The Roman Antiquities 73.1-3

AND a modern source:

"They had the judicial decision in all matters of religion, whether
private persons, magistrates, or priests were concerned, and in cases
where the existing laws or customs were found defective or
insufficient, they made new laws and regulations (decreta pontificum)
in which they always followed their own judgment as to what was
consistent with the existing customs and usages...The pontiffs
themselves were not subject to any court of law or punishment, and
were not responsible either to the senate or to the people." - Smith's
Dictionary, "Pontiffs"

Vale bene,

Cato

M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD

Does anyone have photos of this reconstruction of a Roman ship in
Pannonia?

http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/roman_galley/

gratias ago

optime valete

Cato,

I have never looked that up before. Interesting. Thank you for the information.



Di te mihi semper servent!
Marcus Traianus Valerius



----- Original Message ----
From: gequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:21:16 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa Pontificum July 29th, 2006]

Cato G. Fabio Buteoni Modiano sal.

Consul, you wrote:

"Also, its important to understand that Constantine didn't legalize
Christianity, he legalized one specific brand of Christianity. "

Actually, you are quite incorrect. Read the actual text of the Edict
of Milan issued by St. Constantine I the Great and his co-emperor
Licinius in AD 313:

"When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus
fortunately met near Mediolanurn [Milan], and were considering
everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we
thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of
many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity
ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the
Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which
each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the
heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are
placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most
upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should
be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the
Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for
himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield
our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. "

No evil conspiracy here. Simply religious toleration for "any
Divinity" for "Christians and others". Too much Dan Brown, consul.

Vale,

Cato






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

Salve Marca Hortensia Maior

You asked

Did you know the Pontifex Maximus Julianus was Consul & Pontiff
Modianus' Accensus?

TGP I am not sure that I did but I am also not sure what difference
it would have made if I had. I have already explained that I voted
against the reform, based on the Pontifex Maximus statement on the
Senate list.

While you have criticized a few people who voted against the reform
did you ever ask the proponents what they did between July and
October to insure its passage?

You also said that the Pontifex Maximus ..."He was supposed to help
with the reform."

TGP Was he?

What did Julianus do?

TGP I have no idea

Why did he vote against it..

TGP You will have to ask him. But the Tribunes Senate report, that I
am sure you have read, Had this

MCJ ] Antiquo
I'll explain my vote for Consul Modianus and
others. This proposal would remove a huge amount of
power from the Collegium Pontificum. While it would
probably solve some serious problems in the short
term, I feel it would probably be detrimental in the
long term. Solving current problems in the CP cannot
guarantee equal or more serious problems coming from a
future Senate that might not be supportive of the
Religio.

Why do you support him?

TGP Almost no one spoke for or against it during debate and only a
few voiced an opinion during voting. The fact that only 3 members of
the CP had voted at all did not indicate to me that it had much
support in the CP. The Pontifex Maximus had some reservations.

MHM And please let's avoid ad hominem arguments;

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too
argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking
the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the
argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."

I have not to my knowledge used any personal attack during this
discussion. Whither there are or are not only three "active" pontiffs
in the Collegium Pontificum would seem to me to be in the eye of the
beholder.

MHM:" The point is to return to its republican historical roots so
the Religio can once again be active. Right now as Cordus pointed
out, it is paralyzed by an unhistorical structure.

TGP Cato has pointed out some problems with this reform from a
historical source and you have dissmissed it out of hand.

As I have said before I asked Cordus his opinion and it came to late
( because he is busy) for me to consider .

Further unless all of the religious leaders of he republic are under
house arrest and unable to venture into the would outside of their
computers they are free to perform rites, write instructions for the
members of the Religio, video tape ceremonies, build temples and do
any and every thing to bring about the restoration of the Religio
Romanum.

If the only thing they can say is Pontiff xxx is not playing nice I
say

GROW UP


" If wish to be Consul & you are going to frustrate the historical
reform of the Religio, I wish to know precisely why.

As a student and teacher of history and as a citizen who has taken
the oath of office six times I have no interest in frustrating
the "historical reform of the Religio"

Seven Senators did not vote. Of the twenty-nine Senators who did,
three abstained for various reasons, fourteen (not 15 as the Tribunes
reported ) voted for the reform and twelve ( not eleven as the
Tribunes reported) voted against.

Not exactly an overwhelming show of support for this reform.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Hortensia Maior,

Unless you are privy to the CP list, you do not know who is active so I
would suggest that you do not make statements that you have neither the knowledge
of nor the authority to say who is active. I can tell you this because I am
privy to the CP list and I can tell you that you are wrong about who the
active pontiffs are at this time.

F. Galerius Aurelianus,
Flamen Cerialis


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

F. Galerius Aurelianus Fl Cer S.P.D.

I agree with Flavius Vedius Germanicus' overall theme on the subject of
animal sacrifice. We have historical documentation that indicates it was part of
the Sacra et Religio Romana yet we also have documentation that animal
sacrifice was not originally part of the offerings to the Gods. It came into
practice just as the use of votive images came into use; over time and from both
Italian and foreign sources.

As a private citizen, the Flamen Cerialis and Propraetor Austrorientalis, I
have participated in the rites of the provincial Lupercalia, the Parentalia,
Saturnalia, the Cerialia, the Floralia, and the Vinalia Prioria as well as my
private devotions and the purification, consecration, and dedication of the
Templum of Neptunus during the Neptunalia. During all of these rites and
caerimoniae, I have offered wine, incense, fars, mola salsa, milk, honey, first
fruits, salt, beans & bacon casserole, shrimp, bread & cheese, and votive
images as sacrifices. I recognize that animal sacrifice is a legitimate part of
the Sacra and Religio but have not yet found it necessary to offer up a
chicken, sheep, goat, dog, pig, or pregnant sow. However, that does not preclude
the possibility that I would do so when and where appropriate. If I were
the principal celebrant of a fasti in which a pig or goat was the traditional
offering, I might request funds from the Sacrifice Fund or private
subscription. I would recruit the necessary victimarii and proceed with the sacrifice
according to Roman tradition and the most humane forms of killing. The Gods
would receive the exti [sic] and whatever else is Their portion, the rest would
be profaned for the consumption of the citizens. Nothing would be wasted if
it could be avoided.

Vadite in pace Cereris.


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

Yes. The reader of guts is actually a haruspex.

FGA


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

There is nothing in the practice of Augury that is incompatible with the
basic belief structure of Christianity as described in the Gospels. It is not a
magical practice such as chanting harmful songs as is forbidden in the 12
Tablets nor is it comparable to astrology or haruspexy. It could be used by a
Christian to determine if an action is favorable or unfavorable to a
Christian's concept of God.
It is a moderately complex system of establishing a celestial temple in the
sky and determining what signs from the heavens, the flights of certain
birds, the sounds of certain birds, and the sight and sounds of certain animals
represent favorable and unfavorable signs. I took the auspices as auspex for
the establishment of the Templum of Neptunus and published the methods and
results on several lists around July 24 of this year.

F. Galerius Aurelianus



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

Salvete

I am saying the following as the Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis
House Priest Patrician Gens Cornelia .

Any Noveromai who finds them self on the road this upcomeing thankgiving
in Provincia America Boreoccidentalis who need a nice home cooked dinner
you have space at my home , just let me know 4 hours to 3 days before
and you all are welcome. as I am the NR priest of a God of travelers I
have a Duty to do this . I do ask if anyone is going to be on the road
fay away from home this upcomeing thanks that you give a call=-out and
Civii that could feed you call out to help again I ask as Sacerdos
Templi Mercurius that the Civii do some more helping our people who
find thems selfs on the road..

valete I am
Marcus Cornelius Felix
Sacerdos Templi Mercurius
Sacerdotus Provincia America Boreoccidentalis

Agricola,

You do realize that certain philosophers of the Epicurean school were looked
upon with suspicion by Roman citizens because of the Epicurean diet of
bread, vegetables, and (sometimes) a little cheese? Many Romans felt that not to
eat meat or fish, especially from a sacrifice, was somehow threatening to the
social norm.

F. Galerius Aurelianus

P.S. Just poking a little historical fun here, cousin. Nothing serious.


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

Salve Populus,
Not sure if this is the proper venue ot post this, but I'd
like to know if there is any other citizens in Billings or in Montana.
Pretty lonely in this far flung outpost of the empire.
Vale,
Gaius Pompeius Marcellus

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

I'm going to try to cover in this message one of the two separate but related discussions about reform of the sacra publica: one strand concerns the participation of magistrates in auspication, and the other concerns the legislative powers of the priestly colleges. This message concerns the latter.

It's nice to see some discussion of ancient sources going on. C. Equiti amice, you've referred to Dionysius. M. Lucretius has mentioned some risks associated with using Dionysius, but there are risks associated with most ancient sources, and Dionysius is often very useful. The problem here is, I suspect, a linguistic one.

The phrase you rely on is "they make laws for the observance of any religious rites". What are "laws"? English is in some ways a very subtle and powerful language, but in the area of law it tends to be a blunt instrument. English has a single word, "law", which covers a large number of entirely distinct concepts. It puts English-speakers into quite the wrong frame of mind for Roman "law".

The Romans talked about "jus". "Jus" is whatever is right and proper. It could, thus, be used to refer to the whole body of rules, customs, agreements, and conventions which people followed in deciding what was the right thing to do in a certain case. Some of those rules just evolved in various ways and were understood but never codified. Others were created from nothing by specific processes. Yet others evolved naturally but were clarified or fixed by specific processes. There were leges (statutes enacted by the comitia), edicta (statements of policy by magistrates), senatus consulta (advice of the senate), responsa pontificum (replies by the pontifices to questions about religious protocol), and so on. All these things can legitimately be called "laws" in English, not because they really have anything in common but because the English word "law" is so flabby as to be almost meaningless.

Dionysius knew Romans and spoke Latin. He understood what all these things were. But he wrote in Greek, and Greek has an entirely different vocabulary. So it may or may not be possible by looking at the Greek text to work out which of various Roman legal concepts he had in mind. Then, of course, what you're quoting is not the Greek but the English. So when we look at the phrase "they make laws for the observance of any religious rites", this is not a fact, nor is it what Dionysius thought was a fact, but what a modern English translator thinks Dionysius thought was a fact. There is a lot of room in there for distortion.

I don't have to hand a copy of the Greek text of Dionysius, so I don't know what Greek word or words he used which have been translated as "laws". Nor would it help me if I did, because I can't speak Greek and so I would be unable to tell which Roman concept, if any, his Greek relates to. For all I know, he may well have said, and meant to say, that the pontifices could make leges. All I can say, and I can say this with absolute certainty, is that the English passage you've quoted could mean virtually anything. In English it looks very much like the statement "they make laws for the observance of any religious rites" is in total contradiction to my statement that the pontifices did not make law. But in reality is suspect that those two statements are entirely compatible. They just look incompatible because the English word "law" is so imprecise that something can quite easily be "law" and "not law" at the same time.

But I'll try to be a little more helpful than that: I'll try to guess what Dionysius might have been talking about. What the pontifices did was to make statements about sacral "law". They knew, and stated, what the gods expected, demanded, found acceptable, found unacceptable. This was not "law" in that it was not enforced by the courts or by any human agency. The rules which they stated are like the rules in the Bible: they tell you what the divine power or powers wish you to do, but they are not "law" in any but the very broadest and most metaphorical sense.

I've said that the pontifices *stated* sacral "law". This is safer than saying that they *made* it. Let me explain by using a more modern example of the difference. Until the twentieth century, judges in England always insisted that they did not create the common law. The common law was simply there. It had always existed, and it continued to exist. What judges did was to do a lot of research and a lot of deep thinking and do their best to work out what the law was. Once they had formed an opinion about what the law was, they then applied it to the case before them. Nowadays this view is very unfashionable and is dismissed by most people as a pretence or a fiction. Maybe this is true. Certainly it *looks* a lot like judges make law: nobody knows what the law is, and then the judge speaks and states the law, and suddenly there's the law. Where there was nothing, now there is something, and the only detectable event between then and now is that the judge has spoken. So maybe he did, in a sense, make the law.

Well, it is exactly like this with the pontifices. They did not claim to create the rules which they stated: how could they? These were rules about what the gods found acceptable and unacceptable. The gods would obviously not decide what to accept and what not to accept based solely on what the pontifices said. It had to be the other way around: the gods decided, and then the pontifices explained what the gods had decided. But the pontifices did not pretend to have a direct mystical connexion to the gods or to be able to read their minds. They, just like the English judges, made statements based on research, logic, and maybe a little intuition. They stated what they believed the rules were. Sometimes they got it wrong, and when they discovered they'd got it wrong they said so. This didn't mean that the rules had changed: the rules had always been the same, but the pontifices had been mistaken about what they were. Of course in the ordinary, every-day world, as far as the man in the street was concerned, the pontifices had effectively changed the rules, hadn't they? But in strict theology they hadn't: they had just changed their opinion about what the rules were.

So if we are, like many modern historians, determined to look at things in practical terms and to find out what happened not in theory but in "reality", we might be quite happy to say that the pontifices "made" these rules. We would be especially happy to say that if, like most modern historians, we don't believe that the gods ever existed at all. If that's true, then of course the pontifices were making the rules, even if they pretended or even believed they weren't.

Dionysius was a practical historian in the tradition of Polybius. He wanted to describe what was "really" going on, not what the technical theological or legal view was. I would not be at all surprised if he had said that the pontifices could "make" sacral rules. In a sense they could. And if you want to regard those rules as "laws", well, that's fine, you and I can disagree about the meaning of the word "law". It's all totally unimportant. What is important is that the powers which the priestly colleges have under out current lex constitutiva go far, far beyond any powers the ancient colleges had. The proposed drafts reflect much more accurately those ancient powers. If we get into a detailed argument about whether the statement "they make laws" is true or false we will achieve very little. All the evidence I have seen is that the colleges did not have what I would call legislative powers. It may be that Dionysius regarded the powers of the ancient colleges as having a legislative character. If so, fine. I'm not concerned to make sure that our priestly colleges have no legislative power at all, all I want is for them to have exactly the same amount of legislative power as the ancient equivalents. Whether that amount is "some" or "none" is unimportant, as long as it is "the same". So the question is, can you find any evidence which shows that the ancient priestly colleges had greater legislative power than they would have under these proposals?


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve,Lucretious Agricola,SPD.
See if this is what you are looking for.Caboodle.hu.com(the Hungarian portal) Vale,Appius Galerius Aurlianus.

"M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD

Does anyone have photos of this reconstruction of a Roman ship in
Pannonia?

http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/roman_galley/

gratias ago

optime valete






---------------------------------
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

---------------------------------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

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

Salvete from the Sacerdos Templi Mercurius

I have here some links for Resources for Roman Archaeology, something
everone here should like?

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ekondrat/rome.html#indexes

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/pubs/roman.html

http://www.archaeolink.com/roman_archaeology.htm

http://dekart.f.bg.ac.yu/~nmrdjic/links2.htm

Valete i am Marcus Cornelius Felix

A. Apollonius C. Equitio sal.

You asked me a couple of specific questions.

> Did the priestly colleges in ancient Rome actually issue edicta or

decreta? If so, what kind of legal standing did they have?
<

We sometimes get a little confused because we use Latin words like "edictum" and "decretum" exclusively as technical terms with technical meanings, whereas for ancient Romans (and modern Latin-speakers) these were (and are) just words. An edictum is, yes, a certain type of document issued in a certain way and having a certain legal effect, but it is also simply anything which a person "speaks forth" ("ex" - outwards or away - and "dico" - I say something). A decretum is an official statement made by a public official or body which may have certain legal effects, but it is also simply anything which a person decides, concludes, believes, or announces (from "decerno" - I settle, decide, announce, &c.).

As far as I know there is no Roman source which talks about the priestly colleges issuing edicta. This is probably because "edictum", even in its technical sense, carries an implication of the physical act of speaking, and a group of people cannot make a single act of speech. The sources do sometimes talk about the priestly colleges making "decreta", and they also use this word to refer to decisions of the senate (more properly called "senatus consulta"), of individual magistrates (more properly called "edicta"), and even of the assembly (more properly called "leges"). So clearly this is not a very technical word: the "decretum" of the senate is something very different from the "decretum" of the assembly or the "decretum" of a magistrate. I think the best way to understand this word is simply that it refers to some statement of opinion or some announcement by the person or body concerned.

The most common word for what the priestly colleges issued is "responsum". This, too, is not exclusively a technical term: it simply means a response or reply. It was particularly appropriate for the statements of the priestly colleges because they were, it seems, only ever given in response to a specific inquiry. The colleges did not issue responsa on their own initiative (though in practice they would usually be able to persuade someone or other to ask them the question to which they wanted to reply).

The status of these responsa was as I explained in my last message: they stated what the college (or the individual priest, since individual priests could also make responsa) believed was the desire or view of the gods. They were always formulated in a general and conditional way. For example, the responsum which the pontifices gave to Cicero about his house was that "if the person claiming to have dedicated [the house] had not been appointed by name either by order of the people or by a plebiscitum, and if he had not been commanded to do so by an order of the people of plebiscitum, then it appeared that that part of the site might be restored to [Cicero] without sacrilege" (translated by Watson, "The State, Law And Religion" p. 7).

In a sense this was a statement of law, but only very indirectly. It stated that, in the opinion of the college, it would not be sacrilegious for Cicero to reoccupy his house if Clodius had not been specifically authorized and ordered by a lex or plebiscitum to consecrate the house. It was for the senate to decide whether Clodius had in fact been authorized and ordered to consecrate the house. And in any case it did not say whether or not it would be legal for Cicero to reoccupy the house. So in point of law the responsum was of no real legal value at all.

> If I am understanding you correctly, the Religio in the Republic would

actually be "protected" by the fact that the priestly colleges are
simply doing what they should be doing (historically speaking) - that
the simple practice of the Religio regularly as an underlying current
to the daily life of the Republic would re-inforce (and even
strengthen) its existence?
<

I'm hesitant to say "yes" because I'm not sure what you mean by "protected" (and perhaps you're not sure either, since you put it in quotation-marks). I certainly agree that it would be good for the sacra publica. By spelling out the duties of the various priests, it would make it significantly more likely that those duties would actually get done. It is obviously beneficial for those duties to get done for three reasons: first, because they preserve the pax deorum and ensure the continuing support of the gods for the republic; secondly, because they make the republic more Roman; thirdly (and I think this is the one you're getting at), because the citizens, both believers and non-believers, are more likely to value, support, and preserve the traditional rites of the sacra publica if they get used to seeing them done frequently. One of the things we really miss in our largely internet-based community with its very small funds is the experience which, perhaps even more than any theological belief in the gods, made ancient Romans love and value the sacra publica: the simply fact that since they were born they saw the colourful processions, they took part in the sacred feasts, they went to the games, and in general they experienced the sacra publica going on all around them.






___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

---Salve A. Tullia Scholastica et Salvete Omnes:

Thank you very much for your clarification.

Vale
Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...>
wrote:

>
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Consuli Pompeiae Minuciae Straboni

quiritibus, sociis,

> > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Salve Galerius et Salvete Omnes:
> >
> > The procedure of divination by examining the internal 'guts'
> > innerds :), organs, whatever of a sacrificial animal is called an
> > Extispicium. I don't know what the proper title of the one
> > performing this task would be...Extispicior? Good question for
> > Scholastica...I don't know for sure.
> >
> > ATS: As Censor Marinus noted in a subsequent post, the person who
> > performs an extispicium is usually called a haruspex, but the term

extispex

> > also exists. The ­spex is related to the word specto, spectare,

look at, but

> > comes more directly from spicio, inspect, and is an agent noun

suffix (one

> > who...). -Spicium, too, has the same origin, but there doesn¹t

seem to be a

> > corresponding verb in classical Latin (no *extispicio, and no

*haruspicio).

> > Haruspices also dealt with the interpretation of lightning and

prodigies, or

> > so saith the OLD; this method of divination is Etruscan in origin.
> >
> > An Augury is divination through the observation of birds...the types
> > of birds, their direction in flight, etc. A very basic
> > explanation.
> >
> > ATS: And there is a corresponding Latin verb for this,

auguro/auguror,

> > augurare/augurari; it occurs both as a normal verb and as a deponent.
> >
> > I defer to the Augurs for a more complete description.
> >
> > Valete
> > Pompeia Minucia Strabo
> > Consul
> >
> > Vale, et valete,
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica
> >
> > An Augur is one who divines by observation of birds.
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>

, flavius

> > leviticus <centorious@>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salve,Is not the original defination of Auger,the reader of guts?
> >> > Vale,Appius Galerius Aurelianus.
> >> >
> >> > "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@> wrote:
> >> > Agricola Aureliano sal
> >> >
> >> > To an ancient Roman, yes, but Maior was talking about the
> > attitudes of
> >> > modern Christians (or other moderns with similar scruples).
> >> >
> >> > What you said is quite true, and I personally hope that more
> > citizens
> >> > here could adopt the attitude of which you speak.
> >> >
> >> > optime vale
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,

> >> PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Maior,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The auspices are used to determine if an action is favorable,
> >> > unfavorable, or neutral to the Gods. It uses a specific formula
> > that
> >> > is considerably different from astrology which a Republican Roman
> >> > would place in the same category as haruspexy. Yoga and T'ai Chi
> >> > Chuan are not even in the same category.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > F. Galerius Aurelianus
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > > From: rory12001@
> >>> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

<mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>

> >>> > > Sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:47 PM
> >>> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Ius Auspicium [was Fwd: Responsa
> > Pontificum
> >> > July 29th, 2006]
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > M. Hortensia omnibus spd;
> >>> > > I'm confused why would taking an auspicy differ to
> >>> > > reading or taking a horoscope, performing yoga or T'ai Ch'i? ?
> > So
> >>> > > why would a Christian object, say more than an atheist or
> > agnostic
> >>> > > or Epicurean or Peripatetic? And we have many followers of the
> > last
> >>> > > 4 in Nova Roma. The point is to reform the Constitution to
> > resemble
> >>> > > Republican Rome; surely a laudable aim.
> >>> > > bene vale
> >>> > > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > Could we not, in the interests of justice, have an exception
> > for
> >>> > > those
> >>>> > > > who can not, due to religious scruple, perform their own
> > auspices?
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I am not a follower of the Cultus Deorum, but rather, the
> > Religio
> >>>> > > > Septentrionalis. Taking auspices (rune casting, looking for
> > omens,
> >>>> > > > Utsita [meditative trance looking for Godly inspiration], and
> > so
> >>>> > > > forth) is a part of my faithway.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > So, I would have no problem seeking Auspices.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > On the other hand, I have friends and acquaintences here in
> > the new
> >>>> > > > city who would, due to the dictates of their faithful
> > conscience.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > These are men and women of great abilty. It would be a shame
> > to
> >>> > > lose
> >>>> > > > what they could bring to better governance within our

republic.

> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > a couple as
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > In amicus sub fidelis - Venator
> >>>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

---Salve:

Yes, this is quite true...but Extispicium is the type of Haruspicium,
specifically dealing with the examination of 'innerds'. Haruspices
are also related to the behaviour of chickens if I am not mistaken,
and M. Tullius Cicero of old was a Haruspex.

A Google will provide more details.

Valete
Pompeia


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

>
> Yes. The reader of guts is actually a haruspex.
>
> FGA
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

This message concerns the second strand of the recent discussions about the sacra publica. It has been suggested that the proposals (now shelved) would make it impossible for some Christians and other non-worshippers of the Roman gods to be magistrates. I do not think this is the case.

The worry, as I understand it, hangs on two parts of the proposal. The first is that magistrates "shall be required... to perform the public religious rites and ceremonies established by the law". What does this mean? It is perhaps not as tightly drafted as it could be. It could, if one read it pedantically, mean that every single magistrate must perform every single public religious rite and ceremony which is established by law. In other words, if there were a lex saying "every Tuesday a sacrifice of an apple shall be made to Pluto", then every single magistrate would be required to perform that ritual, because it would be "established by law". I do not think this can possibly be the intention, and I do not think any reasonable person would interpret it in this way.

What I think it means is that a magistrate would be required to perform any public ritual or ceremony which the law said he was required to perform. The mere fact that the law required the ritual to be done would not oblige the magistrate to perform it: he would only be required to perform it if the law specified that magistrate as the one who had to perform it.

This is really a very innocuous statement. It is simply and inevitably true. It says that if the law tells a magistrate to do something, he must do it. That is surely unarguable: law is, by definition, something which magistrates must obey. This clause would not actually oblige any magistrates to take part in any rituals. In fact the only objection to it is that it is redundant, because it simply states something which is already true and cannot fail to be true. If, tomorrow, a lex were enacted saying that the consules must sacrifice an apple every Tuesday to Pluto, then the consules would be required by law to sacrifice an apple every Tuesday to Pluto. So what difference would it make to anything to have a clause in the lex constitutiva saying that?

This is, I think, where the second bit comes in. Attention has been drawn to the following part of the proposal: "The Collegium Augurum shall have the following duties and responsibilities: ... To oversee and advise the magistrate (auspex) with jus auspicium when he takes the auguries upon calling a comitia to assemble, upon taking office as a magistrate, at the erection of a temple, and on other occasions, seeing that the rite was done correctly and that nothing might invalidate it. They shall not take the auspices themselves, nor determine how the signs should finally be read."

This, some people think, amounts to a requirement that magistrates must take the auspices in person. Again I do not think that is the proper interpretation. It simply says that the augures are obliged to advise magistrates when they take the auspices. Poland is part of the European Union, of which I am a citizen. When I travel to Poland by train, the Polish authorities are obliged to let me enter. This does not mean that I am obliged to travel to Poland by train. When magistrates take the auspices, the augures are obliged to advise them. This does not mean that magistrates are obliged to take the auspices.

So, unless I have missed something, this is really a lot of fuss about nothing. The proposal says:

1. Magistrates will be obliged to participate in rituals if there is any law saying that they must do so (which at the moment there is not);

2. The augures must advise magistrates when magistrates take the auspices (which they are not obliged to do).

Having said all that, I must say that I personally do think magistrates should be obliged to carry out whatever religious functions they were obliged to carry out in the ancient republic. I do not know exactly what religious functions they were obliged to carry out in those days. I had the impression that they were obliged to take the auspices in person, but M. Moravius says that they were not and he knows more about it than I do, so I'll take his word for it. But if they were obliged to take the auspices in person, then I think our magistrates should have the same obligation.

I can't say whether this would cause some Christians to exclude themselves from office. Certainly it would not exclude Christians from office: there is nothing in Roman law which prevents Christians from taking the auspices, so if a Christian wants to take the auspices then as far as I'm concerned he can do so. If he doesn't want to, then evidently the job is not for him. This is not excluding Christians, this is Christians excluding themselves.

But I don't even see why Christians should want to exclude themselves on this basis. Perhaps not everyone knows what is actually involved in taking the auspices. The most common types are from the feeding of birds and from the flight of birds. For the first kind, you say a few words (which are dictated to you by the augur) invoking some god or other, and then you throw some bird-seed to some birds and see whether and they eat it. If they eat it then the auspices are okay, and if not then they are not. Of course some people might feel that doing this would be getting involved with an activity of a generally pagan kind, but I don't imagine that those people would be in Nova Roma in the first place, because joining Nova Roma is undoubtedly getting involved in an activity of a generally pagan kind! Others might find that their faith specifically prohibits them from engaging in divination, but then surely if they don't believe in the gods then they don't believe that this is in fact divination? Actually, if what is meant by "divination" is "finding out what is destined to happen in the future", then taking the auspices is not divination at all. It's simply finding out whether the gods are feeling favourable to your enterprise. It's finding out not about the future but about the present. I would be mildly surprised if a Christian felt himself unable to throw bird-seed at birds with the objective of discovering the opinion of some non-existent entities. But religious faith is a strange thing, and perhaps there are people who feel this way.

It seems to me that requiring magistrates to perform the rituals which they were required to perform in ancient times is exactly the right way to preserve a proper balance between protecting the sacra publica from erosion and allowing unbelievers to continue to participate in public life. It will screen out those on the more extreme end of the Abrahamic spectrum who do not wish to be associated with "pagan" activities at all - and these are exactly the sort of people we want to screen out because they are exactly the sort of people who are likely to wish to undermine the sacra publica. At the same time, it will allow full participation by those more moderate Abrahamists who are happy to participate in a generally "pagan" community as long as it allows them to speak, believe, and privately worship in their own way - and these are exactly the sort of people, like C. Equitius, whom we want to keep and to encourage to participate in public life. In fact I remember discussing this very issue with Cato outside a little cafe in Rome one warm August night, and I recall being very pleased when he said that he would, if required, be willing to participate in public rituals (short of blood-sacrifice) if that's what magistrates were obliged to do. I remember thinking to myself, and perhaps even saying aloud, that I was very glad about that because it showed that such a requirement would not exclude the sort of people we want to include.

I'd just like to make a final point about this. Perhaps not everyone realizes that, according to our current rules, Christians are not *allowed* to take the auspices even if they want to. Indeed, even atheists, Hindus, Shintoists, Norse heathens, and so on are not allowed to take the auspices. Whatever we think about obliging them to do so, surely we must all agree that the current position is intolerable and un-Roman. Cn. Equitius has mentioned that Cicero, who quite possibly did not believe in the gods or at least did not believe that the gods participated in human affairs, was allowed not only to take the auspices but to be an augur himself. The Romans did not require magistrates to believe in the gods, only to perform various physical acts which were designed to win the sympathy of the gods. It is absolutely appalling that, in total defiance of Roman tradition, our current rules prevent some magistrates from taking the auspices even if they are willing to do so. Before we talk about *requiring* Christians to take the auspices, let's at least *allow* them to do so. Perhaps then we can see how many of them are willing: we might find that those Christians who want to be magistrates are perfectly happy to take the auspices and that this whole discussion is entirely redundant!



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete Apolloni Corde et omnes,

Thanks for your clear and informative point of view on the auspices.
Pratically speaking, until we ar a community all living together in
one area, how are we to ever know that any magistrates are really
taking the auspices anyway? Prove it!

I take our priests at there word and I know Scaurus keeps chickens,
the Pontifex Maximus lives in a semi-rural setting and can do the
same and I never doubt Pontifex Modianus' credibility on this. Many
of the magistrates now and before live in urban settings and have no
access to birds so what can they do? Feed pigeons in the parks or
downtown and judge from that? Christianity aside, I do could not see
magistrates doing their own auspices as practical and though I do
not dispute the historical end of it, I think it is better for us to
leave auspices in the hands of our pontiffs or appointed augurs.

Regards,

QSP











--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:

>
>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> This message concerns the second strand of the recent discussions

about the sacra publica. It has been suggested that the proposals
(now shelved) would make it impossible for some Christians and other
non-worshippers of the Roman gods to be magistrates. I do not think
this is the case.

>
> The worry, as I understand it, hangs on two parts of the

proposal. The first is that magistrates "shall be required... to
perform the public religious rites and ceremonies established by the
law". What does this mean? It is perhaps not as tightly drafted as
it could be. It could, if one read it pedantically, mean that every
single magistrate must perform every single public religious rite
and ceremony which is established by law. In other words, if there
were a lex saying "every Tuesday a sacrifice of an apple shall be
made to Pluto", then every single magistrate would be required to
perform that ritual, because it would be "established by law". I do
not think this can possibly be the intention, and I do not think any
reasonable person would interpret it in this way.

>
> What I think it means is that a magistrate would be required to

perform any public ritual or ceremony which the law said he was
required to perform. The mere fact that the law required the ritual
to be done would not oblige the magistrate to perform it: he would
only be required to perform it if the law specified that magistrate
as the one who had to perform it.

>
> This is really a very innocuous statement. It is simply and

inevitably true. It says that if the law tells a magistrate to do
something, he must do it. That is surely unarguable: law is, by
definition, something which magistrates must obey. This clause
would not actually oblige any magistrates to take part in any
rituals. In fact the only objection to it is that it is redundant,
because it simply states something which is already true and cannot
fail to be true. If, tomorrow, a lex were enacted saying that the
consules must sacrifice an apple every Tuesday to Pluto, then the
consules would be required by law to sacrifice an apple every
Tuesday to Pluto. So what difference would it make to anything to
have a clause in the lex constitutiva saying that?

>
> This is, I think, where the second bit comes in. Attention has

been drawn to the following part of the proposal: "The Collegium
Augurum shall have the following duties and responsibilities: ... To
oversee and advise the magistrate (auspex) with jus auspicium when
he takes the auguries upon calling a comitia to assemble, upon
taking office as a magistrate, at the erection of a temple, and on
other occasions, seeing that the rite was done correctly and that
nothing might invalidate it. They shall not take the auspices
themselves, nor determine how the signs should finally be read."

>
> This, some people think, amounts to a requirement that magistrates

must take the auspices in person. Again I do not think that is the
proper interpretation. It simply says that the augures are obliged
to advise magistrates when they take the auspices. Poland is part
of the European Union, of which I am a citizen. When I travel to
Poland by train, the Polish authorities are obliged to let me
enter. This does not mean that I am obliged to travel to Poland by
train. When magistrates take the auspices, the augures are obliged
to advise them. This does not mean that magistrates are obliged to
take the auspices.

>
> So, unless I have missed something, this is really a lot of fuss

about nothing. The proposal says:

>
> 1. Magistrates will be obliged to participate in rituals if there

is any law saying that they must do so (which at the moment there is
not);

>
> 2. The augures must advise magistrates when magistrates take the

auspices (which they are not obliged to do).

>
> Having said all that, I must say that I personally do think

magistrates should be obliged to carry out whatever religious
functions they were obliged to carry out in the ancient republic. I
do not know exactly what religious functions they were obliged to
carry out in those days. I had the impression that they were
obliged to take the auspices in person, but M. Moravius says that
they were not and he knows more about it than I do, so I'll take his
word for it. But if they were obliged to take the auspices in
person, then I think our magistrates should have the same obligation.

>
> I can't say whether this would cause some Christians to exclude

themselves from office. Certainly it would not exclude Christians
from office: there is nothing in Roman law which prevents Christians
from taking the auspices, so if a Christian wants to take the
auspices then as far as I'm concerned he can do so. If he doesn't
want to, then evidently the job is not for him. This is not
excluding Christians, this is Christians excluding themselves.

>
> But I don't even see why Christians should want to exclude

themselves on this basis. Perhaps not everyone knows what is
actually involved in taking the auspices. The most common types are
from the feeding of birds and from the flight of birds. For the
first kind, you say a few words (which are dictated to you by the
augur) invoking some god or other, and then you throw some bird-seed
to some birds and see whether and they eat it. If they eat it then
the auspices are okay, and if not then they are not. Of course some
people might feel that doing this would be getting involved with an
activity of a generally pagan kind, but I don't imagine that those
people would be in Nova Roma in the first place, because joining
Nova Roma is undoubtedly getting involved in an activity of a
generally pagan kind! Others might find that their faith
specifically prohibits them from engaging in divination, but then
surely if they don't believe in the gods then they don't believe
that this is in fact divination? Actually, if what is meant
by "divination" is "finding out what is destined to happen in the
future", then taking the auspices is not divination at all. It's
simply finding out whether the gods are feeling favourable to your
enterprise. It's finding out not about the future but about the
present. I would be mildly surprised if a Christian felt himself
unable to throw bird-seed at birds with the objective of discovering
the opinion of some non-existent entities. But religious faith is a
strange thing, and perhaps there are people who feel this way.

>
> It seems to me that requiring magistrates to perform the rituals

which they were required to perform in ancient times is exactly the
right way to preserve a proper balance between protecting the sacra
publica from erosion and allowing unbelievers to continue to
participate in public life. It will screen out those on the more
extreme end of the Abrahamic spectrum who do not wish to be
associated with "pagan" activities at all - and these are exactly
the sort of people we want to screen out because they are exactly
the sort of people who are likely to wish to undermine the sacra
publica. At the same time, it will allow full participation by
those more moderate Abrahamists who are happy to participate in a
generally "pagan" community as long as it allows them to speak,
believe, and privately worship in their own way - and these are
exactly the sort of people, like C. Equitius, whom we want to keep
and to encourage to participate in public life. In fact I remember
discussing this very issue with Cato outside a little cafe in Rome
one warm August night, and I recall being very pleased when he said
that he would, if required, be willing to participate in public
rituals (short of blood-sacrifice) if that's what magistrates were
obliged to do. I remember thinking to myself, and perhaps even
saying aloud, that I was very glad about that because it showed that
such a requirement would not exclude the sort of people we want to
include.

>
> I'd just like to make a final point about this. Perhaps not

everyone realizes that, according to our current rules, Christians
are not *allowed* to take the auspices even if they want to.
Indeed, even atheists, Hindus, Shintoists, Norse heathens, and so on
are not allowed to take the auspices. Whatever we think about
obliging them to do so, surely we must all agree that the current
position is intolerable and un-Roman. Cn. Equitius has mentioned
that Cicero, who quite possibly did not believe in the gods or at
least did not believe that the gods participated in human affairs,
was allowed not only to take the auspices but to be an augur
himself. The Romans did not require magistrates to believe in the
gods, only to perform various physical acts which were designed to
win the sympathy of the gods. It is absolutely appalling that, in
total defiance of Roman tradition, our current rules prevent some
magistrates from taking the auspices even if they are willing to do
so. Before we talk about *requiring* Christians to take the
auspices, let's at least *allow* them to do so. Perhaps then we can
see how many of them are willing: we might find that those
Christians who want to be magistrates are perfectly happy to take
the auspices and that this whole discussion is entirely redundant!

>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends

http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

>

Cn. Iulius A. Apollonio sal.

The priestly colleges issued responsa to questions asked of them, in
the form of decreta. So much is clear. Would it be correct to say
that:

a) decreta had the authority, but not the force, of law
b) decreta were not enforced by pontiffs, but by magistrates

To take the often cited case of Cicero's house, the question was
asked of the pontiffs, they replied, but the Senate enforced the
consequences of their decision - i.e. the question of restitution.

Would you agree with the above amice?

-----------------
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:

>
>
> A. Apollonius C. Equitio sal.
>
> You asked me a couple of specific questions.

Salve Quinte Suetoni,

Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

> Many
> of the magistrates now and before live in urban settings and have no
> access to birds so what can they do?

I used to go down to the local duck pond and feed the ducks as a way of
taking auspicia when I was consul. I checked this with Pontifex Scaurus
before doing it, to make sure it was a valid way to do things. I just
had to be very careful to keep away from geese. (Since I know someone
is going to wonder, geese are sacred to Juno and impose a vitium when
trying to discern the will of Jupiter.)

I've also used the flights of birds as "yes/no" indicators. Establish a
templum in the sky facing east, and wait for the first bird to fly into
it. A bird from the north is a yes, one from the south a no.

I realize that's not something that a person living in a very dense
urban neighborhood might be able to do, but it should be possible in
suburbia, and even in cities with city parks.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Cn. Iulius A. Apollonio sal.

I believe, though I could be wrong, that the glitch lies in the fact
that:

1. the magistrate (auspex) with jus auspicium when he takes the
auguries upon calling a comitia to assemble, upon taking office as a
magistrate, at the erection of a temple, and on other occasions.

2. They shall not take the auspices themselves, nor determine how the
signs should finally be read.

The purpose of taking the auspices is to determine the will of the
Gods. Not God (singular) - Gods - Roman Gods. I think the possible
problem lies in a Christian feeling that his faith does not permit
him to inquire into the will of the Gods (plural) which his/her God
holds to be false, and dire consequences can be visited on him/her
and then his/her soul. A devout Christian cannot of course believe
that they exist, for if he does he/she cannot be Christian, but for
them bad things happen even if they ask things of Gods that they hold
don't exist.

If that Christian then substitutes inquiring into the will of his
God, he is not inquiring into the will of the Roman Gods. Then the
auspices will be pointless, from a Nova Roman perspective since he
will have inquired into the will of a foreign God. Simply put - we
can't have our cake and eat it, any of us.

If this part of the proposed change passes in its current form, any
devout Christian so minded may as well not stand for office for
he/she will face that quandry on day one, since under the highest
legal authority in Nova Roma will say that he/she "takes the
auguries...upon taking office as a magistrate". This imposes a duty.
It doesn't say "if he/she wants". He/she has to take the auspices.
Even if you diagree with the fact it imposes a rquirement on day one,
at the point he/she has to call a comitia the same crisis of faith
will be encountered.

From my understanding of that faith, Christians won't have to be the
rabid frothing type, just simply devout enough to follow the tenets
of their faith, instead of making up whatever they want to circumvent
the more annoying aspects - a feature of many people who will declare
themselves as either lapsed Catholics etc., or progresive Christians
etc. etc. Those won't be affected. Others, it is contended, will.

If they cannot substitute the duty, as they can now, it is contended
that they are going to be excluded from magistracies that carry the
jus auspicium or render the whole process of taking the auspices
invalid if they proceed and ask their God what he thinks.

I think that about captures the issue. Over to you amice :)

----------------------------------------------
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:

>
>
> A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
>
> This message concerns the second strand of the recent discussions

about the sacra publica. It has been suggested that the proposals
(now shelved) would make it impossible for some Christians and other
non-worshippers of the Roman gods to be magistrates. I do not think
this is the case.

A. Apollonius Cn. Equitio sal.

If it should chance to happen at a time when my wallet is full and my diary empty, I'd be delighted to come.

Incidentally, you and the other organizers may find it of some help to consult people who have organized past European conventus. Of course many local circumstances are different, and you must find your own way to do things, but it may be that some of the lessons learned in Europe can help. C. Moravius Laureatus and C. Flavia Aureliana are the people to talk to from this year's conventus, and I think M'. Constantinus Serapio was the main man last year; the year before that seemed to be something of a group effort, but Cn. Salvius Astur was certainly involved in making the arrangements.

Best of luck with a long-overdue project! :)



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

M.Hortensia Gn. Equitio spd;
I used to live in New York City & I assure you that in
the middle of Manhattan flights of birds are clearly visible! There
are hawks wheeling in the sky & nesting in Wall St & apartment
houses. Of course one can also enter Central Park. All big urban
centers have parks or heights to go up to eg; Brooklyn Heights, an
apartment roof or skyscraper. No problem.
Now I live in a suburban area. I still see migrating
flocks of birds, there are various hawks indigenous to North
Carolina as well as the local park if I need more room.
All Romans are able to take auspices, with the new reform;
which is a great thing & a return to Romanitas.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior

> Salve Quinte Suetoni,
>
> Quintus Suetonius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> > Many
> > of the magistrates now and before live in urban settings and

have no

> > access to birds so what can they do?
>
> I used to go down to the local duck pond and feed the ducks as a

way of

> taking auspicia when I was consul. I checked this with Pontifex

Scaurus

> before doing it, to make sure it was a valid way to do things. I

just

> had to be very careful to keep away from geese. (Since I know

someone

> is going to wonder, geese are sacred to Juno and impose a vitium

when

> trying to discern the will of Jupiter.)
>
> I've also used the flights of birds as "yes/no" indicators.

Establish a

> templum in the sky facing east, and wait for the first bird to fly

into

> it. A bird from the north is a yes, one from the south a no.
>
> I realize that's not something that a person living in a very

dense

> urban neighborhood might be able to do, but it should be possible

in

> suburbia, and even in cities with city parks.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>

M. Hortensia Fl. Galerio spd;
are you confusing Epicureans with Pythagoreans? It seems so
to me, as I am a follower of the Pythagorean School & firm vegetarian.

If I may correct you follwers of superstitio were considered a threat
to social order; some examples were the Bacchanalia, Isiacs etc.
Philosophy was not considered a superstitio & thus did not ban you
from a career viz; Cicero who was a peripatetic.

Beard & North "The Religions of Rome" Vol. 1 Is a very good source for
discussing what was transgressive in Rome. I highly recommend it.

Pythagoreans in Rome such as Nigidius Figulus and Publius Vatinius
wore the toga pulla (dark) to show their allegiance to this school &
were seen as outre, because of their supposed interest in theurgy.

But this did not interfere in their careers or respect: Nigidius
Figulus was from an ancient Etruscan family & respected as an
antiquariant of relgious practices. Publius Vatinius was tribune of
the plebs.
Cicero did savage Vatinius in an oration (In Vatinium) but then
did the opposite in another one (Pro Vatinium), when it suited him,
painting Pythagoreans as virtuous.

So though Agricola's philosophy is unknown to me; if you see him in a
toga pulla you will know for sure.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior

> You do realize that certain philosophers of the Epicurean school

were looked

> upon with suspicion by Roman citizens because of the Epicurean diet

of

> bread, vegetables, and (sometimes) a little cheese? Many Romans

felt that not to

> eat meat or fish, especially from a sacrifice, was somehow

threatening to the

> social norm.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus
>
> P.S. Just poking a little historical fun here, cousin. Nothing

serious.

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

M. Hortensia F. Galerio spd;
showing up for an important vote is a good gauge of activity.
That's what Pontifices traditionally do - advise on religious law.
But it is thanks to Ponftiffs Modianus & Metellus for publishing
this & informing everybody.
bene vale
Marca Hortensia Maior

> Hortensia Maior,
>
> Unless you are privy to the CP list, you do not know who is active

so I

> would suggest that you do not make statements that you have

neither the knowledge

> of nor the authority to say who is active. I can tell you this

because I am

> privy to the CP list and I can tell you that you are wrong about

who the

> active pontiffs are at this time.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus,
> Flamen Cerialis
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Q. Caecilius Metellus Cn. Iulio Quiritibusque salutem.

I'm certain that most of what I am about to say will not be among the
most popular statements made in this forum, but, in my opinion, need to
be said, and so I will say them. But as a preface to it, I would like
to point out the fact that it is always easy to know how you feel, and
to speculate on what is reasonable or not. Only each individual can
determine what is reasonable for him-/herself, and this is especially
true in the case of religious faith and practice.

First, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong in requiring our officials
to perform the series of sacred duties which were attendant to their
office. In fact, we should have been doing so from the first day. As
my friend Aulus Cordus states, "This is not excluding Christians, this
is Christians excluding themselves." We are actually creating a
situation, on this issue, that is as close as we can come to the
situtation which existed in the period after which we are to be modeling
ourselves.

I don't say that persons of other faiths are not welcome, and certainly
persons of any faith ought to be (and are) welcome to become citizens
and to participate in all the activities we conduct to the extent which
their conscience will allow, but if one's conscience requires stopping
short of holding any (or even (a) certain) public office(s), then
obviously it just isn't for that person to hold that position.

> If they cannot substitute the duty, as they can now, it is contended
> that they are going to be excluded from magistracies that carry the
> jus auspicium or render the whole process of taking the auspices
> invalid if they proceed and ask their God what he thinks.

Ut dixi, if their conscience prohibits them from taking the auspices,
then perhaps it is better that such a person not hold the office, in my
opinion.

Di Omnibus Nobis Colantur!

A. Apollonius omnibus sal.

Perhaps it went unnoticed a couple of weeks ago that I omitted to give M. Moravius my public congratulations on his elevation (proper Latin word "lectio" or "sublectio", not "adlectio") to the senate. I do congratulate him. He has deserved it well, and will I'm sure be an excellent senator.

However, I must speak against the manner of his elevation. The lectio senatus - the revision of the list of senatores - is something which happens once every census-time. No changes should be made at any other time. The lectio senatus was carried out at the end of last year. There should have been no further additions to or subtractions from the list until the next census.

I thought that this was clear from the text of the lex Popillia senatoria. If it was not, then it should at any rate have been clear from the extensive debate which was given to that lex when it was put before the senate, and from the several explanations of the lex which have been given here in the forum. Nonetheless, I have been assured by the censores that it was, for some reason, not clear to them. I take them at their word and accept that they acted in good faith. I can even accept that, if one reads the lex Popillia without any reference to ancient Roman practice, one can even consider that they acted lawfully. Nonetheless in my view they acted wrongly.

The lex Popillia says that the list of senatores is to be revised after every census, and not before. From this alone it would, I think, have been clear to a neutral English-speaking person that it was an event which should occur only once between each census. Even if this is not the only possible interpretation, however, it is at any rate the only interpretation which accords with ancient republican practice.

It is, I think, now universally accepted in Nova Roma that where our written law is silent, unclear, or in need of interpretation, it should be interpreted in the light of ancient republican law. This means that, where two or more plausible interpretations of a lex are available, the correct one is the one which is closest to ancient republican law and custom. It is not for the relevant magistrate to choose whichever interpretation he prefers. This is true of all leges, but it must surely be true most especially of a lex, like the lex Popillia, which is explicitly said (by its proposer in debate and indeed by the lex itself in its own preamble) to be intended to restore ancient republican rules. The censores, though in good faith, failed to take any account of ancient law when they interpreted the lex Popillia, and consequently they acted at least improperly and at most unlawfully.

This does not invalidate M. Moravius' membership of the senate. As has often been said before, an unlawful act is not necessarily an invalid act. But I want to make this very clear so that no future censores can possibly use this wrongful precedent to justify any similar act in future. Let it be clearly understood that the album senatorum can only lawfully be revised once between each census, and that any further revision is contrary to the mos majorum and to the lex Popillia. Let no future censores make this same mistake and then claim ignorance.

But this takes me to a more general, and perhaps more important, point. We have in Nova Roma developed a tendency to use legislation to force magistrates to behave in a proper Roman way. This is, in part, a sign of a failure on the part of some past magistrates to behave in this way of their own accord. But, whosever fault it is, it has had unfortunate consequences.

The first is that it has resulted in very extensive, voluminous, and complex legislation. Such legislation must necessarily be extensive, voluminous, and complex, because the mos majorum was extensive, voluminous, and complex. Its basic principles are actually rather simple, but when one tries to write it all down one creates large and elaborate documents because, although easy to learn, it is very hard to explain. So we end up with lots of complex legislation which we really should not need in the first place, to force us to do things which we ought to be doing of our own accord.

The second is that many magistrates have got used to relying on this legislation as their sole source of information about how to do their jobs. They assume that if there is no legislation forcing them to behave in a Roman way then they are not obliged to behave in a Roman way and are free to behave however they like. They are not solely responsible for this attitude. We, too, have reinforced this idea, because we have persistently criticised magistrates for breaking the written law but have repeatedly let them get away with breaking the mos majorum.

It is time for us all, magistrates and citizens, to reverse this vicious spiral. Magistrates should no longer imagine that the written law tells them everything they need to know about how to do their jobs. It tells them only a tiny portion of what they need to know. The written law is of very little help to a magistrate who does not know and is not willing or able to find out how things were done in ancient Rome. The majority of a magistrate's job is not covered by legislation at all, and even where there is some relevant legislation it usually contains at least one ambiguity which can only be properly interpreted in light of a knowledge of the mos majorum. A magistrate who knows none of Nova Roma's written law but a lot of ancient custom will have no trouble looking up any legislation he may need; but a magistrate who knows all the legislation but none of the mos majorum is almost bound to go wrong, however well-meaning he is.

Likewise, we citizens must demand more of our magistrates and public figures. We must demand not merely that they refrain from breaking the written law but that they adhere to the Roman way. If a consul ignores a cry of provocatio, we must not allow him to excuse himself by saying that the letter of the law does not require him to heed it: the mos majorum demands that he heed it. If a candidate runs for consul without being praetor, we must not allow him to excuse himself by saying that the written law allows him to do it: the mos majorum forbids him to do it. If a senator abstains from voting in the senate, we must not allow him to excuse himself by saying that some senatus consultum permits it: the mos majorum requires him to make up his mind one way or the other.

If magistrates can do this, and if citizens can do this, then we can expect to bid a swift farewell to the days of endless, tedious arguments about the meaning of such a clause of such a lex: these debates will be redundant, because it will enough simply to ask "what did the Romans do?", and the answer will settle the argument. If we can do this, we will soon be able to repeal whole swathes of legislation: there will be no need for legislation to tell magistrates to do what they do voluntarily in obedience to ancient custom. Don't let people say that it's not that simple: it is that simple. Don't let them say they didn't know how the Romans did it: ask why they didn't find out. Don't let them say that it's too early, too difficult, too impractical, too inconvenient, too complicated to do things the Roman way: demand it now, and tomorrow, and every day. The Romans always believed that they could do anything which they demanded of themselves. They were right. They didn't always succeed at the first attempt, but they tried, and they accepted no excuse for not trying. Accept no excuse for not trying. If we try, we will succeed. But we must demand it of ourselves, and each other. I demand it of you all, and I want you to demand it of me. Now.





___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Salve Corde,

"A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...> writes:

> A. Apollonius Cn. Equitio sal.
>
> If it should chance to happen at a time when my wallet is full and my diary
> empty, I'd be delighted to come.

And I'd be delighted to meet you. Let's hope it can happen some day, on one
side of the Atlantic or the other.

I've forwarded your post to the NovaRomaCon mailing list, the better to save
your helpful advice.

Vale,

CN•EQVIT•MARINVS

Cn. Iulius Q. Caecilio sal.

It maybe not popular but at least you are honest.

Nova Roma is a disparate community and a fragile one at that, bound
together most of the time by a thin thread. We better be quite clear
that if we go down this road, and we have a choice to do so, that the
end result could see a considerable amount of resentment, such that
the thread frays even closer to breaking point.

Understand, it won't affect me if we do, so I have nothing to gain if
we do not, but frequently in Nova Roma we blunder and stumble into
issues and they are mismanaged and they become a "crisis". Looking
before we leap is not always a maxim we follow as a community.

You are essentially asking people to possibly disenfranchise friends,
familia, gens members and associates from these offices, who they may
have known for a long time. As long as that is made quite clear and
not fuddled and fudged, then at least the people will understand the
consequences and will not be surprised, shocked or dismayed at the
result.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<sapientissimi@...> wrote:

>
> Q. Caecilius Metellus Cn. Iulio Quiritibusque salutem.
>
> I'm certain that most of what I am about to say will not be among

the

> most popular statements made in this forum, but, in my opinion,

need to

eheu! socially outcast in all ages...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
> Agricola,
>
> You do realize that certain philosophers of the Epicurean school
were looked
> upon with suspicion by Roman citizens because of the Epicurean diet of
> bread, vegetables, and (sometimes) a little cheese? Many Romans
felt that not to
> eat meat or fish, especially from a sacrifice, was somehow
threatening to the
> social norm.
>
> F. Galerius Aurelianus
>
> P.S. Just poking a little historical fun here, cousin. Nothing
serious.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sorry I wasn't clear. I am wondering if anyone saw it in person and
took their own snaps. I would then ask for permission to use one of
the snaps in the wiki.

optime vale

Agricola

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, flavius leviticus <centorious@...>
wrote:

>
> Salve,Lucretious Agricola,SPD.
> See if this is what you are looking for.Caboodle.hu.com(the

Hungarian portal) Vale,Appius Galerius Aurlianus.

>
> "M. Lucretius Agricola" <wm_hogue@...> wrote:
> M. Lucretius Agricola Omnibus SPD
>
> Does anyone have photos of this reconstruction of a Roman ship in
> Pannonia?
>
>

http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/roman_galley/

>
> gratias ago
>
> optime valete
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to

Yahoo! Groups.

>
> ---------------------------------
> Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>