Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

Salve.

And you certainly have that right in your own mind because that is how you have settled things for your world view, and I do not mean that condescendingly at all. I have done the same thing to a great degree, although I have made a concerted effort to understand the Religio Romana by virtue of having been here. I would only note one major difference based on your thought.

Indo-European polytheism is a description, not a definition, if you see what I mean; it is based on geography and a very general theological understanding.

Christianity has a definition: it has self-identified itself over the course of history as being *not* certain things: Montanist, ultra-Montanist, Donatist, Gnostic, Arian, etc. - the whole laundry list of heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy. That some may not agree with that definition is really beside the point; a cow can think it is a duck and it can go on living life perfectly happily as a duck but may be surprised, in the event, to find itself less than buoyant (I don't actually know how buoyant cows are, but you get the picture).

If you notice, Piscinus himself made sure that he identified himself as a *specific* type of Indo-European polytheist - a definitive one, if you will - in spite of his willingness to lump Christians into one big gooey mess.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Caelius Catoni s.p.d.
>
>
> >P.S. - "ultra-Montanists, Donatists, Valentians, and Gnostics, etc."
> are not -
> >and were not - Christians. They were heretics anathematized
> by the Church. GEC
>
> When I was Orthodox, I would have said the same thing about the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, the Anglicans, etc. And I now lump all groups who define their beliefs from coming from Christ (even tangentially; this includes Mormons, for example) as Christians. I see the differences from outside, but it's all still a big mass of Christians. Think of the Muslims. Shia vs. Sunni doesn't matter; they're still Muslims.
>
> Of course, I lump religio Romana, the Greek cults, Hinduism, Celtic traditions, Baltic traditions, etc. all under "Indo-European polytheism". I don't dislike or eschew my brothers just because they call their god Zeus or Dyaus Piter and I call him Iupiter. To do so seems insane. Hence the "they're all Christians" mentality, at least in my mind.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Salve,

Well, the definition depends on which Christian sect you ask. Protestants will include "not-papist," for example, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially neo-Arians.

> Christianity has a definition: it has self-identified itself over the >course of history as being *not* certain things: Montanist, ultra-Montanist, Donatist, Gnostic, Arian, etc. - the whole laundry list of >heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy. That some may not >agree with that definition is really beside the point; a cow can think >it is a duck and it can go on living life perfectly happily as a duck >but may be surprised, in the event, to find itself less than buoyant >(I don't actually know how buoyant cows are, but you get the picture).

Vale,

Gualterus

Hortensia Maior Annaeo Regulo;
a bit of a confusion, I didn't say modern pagans are responsible for the acts of past past pagans but that we accept it and don't hair-split or pretend.
As for today, I think it's perfectly normal to say that pagans take responsability for their acts; no pagan hierarch tells us what to do, think or absolves us of personal respsonsability.
Maior

>
>
> Salve,
>
> Well, the definition depends on which Christian sect you ask. Protestants will include "not-papist," for example, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially neo-Arians.
>
> > Christianity has a definition: it has self-identified itself over the >course of history as being *not* certain things: Montanist, ultra-Montanist, Donatist, Gnostic, Arian, etc. - the whole laundry list of >heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy. That some may not >agree with that definition is really beside the point; a cow can think >it is a duck and it can go on living life perfectly happily as a duck >but may be surprised, in the event, to find itself less than buoyant >(I don't actually know how buoyant cows are, but you get the picture).
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>

Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

Salve.


moo...

.

.

.

.


splash!



Vale.

Cato :)

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> I'm sorry for the off-topic reply, but:
>
> >how buoyant cows are
>
> New band name. :-P
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Salvete,   Actually, gladiators were fed barley because it did help build muscle. The stronger the gladiator, the better he could perform in the arena. Their training was similar to those of soldiers and they were well taken care of, with each ludus having its own physican and the gladiators even received massages. The goal was not just to stay alive, but to become an efficient killing machine. Of course, not all gladiators were, but with the possibility of perhaps winning their freedom in time, most did try; some were just better than others. I have a friend who has been working on a historical novel set in ancient Rome and she has shared lots of information from her research with me about the lives of gladiators. I hope this helps.   Valete bene in pace Deorum,   Maxima Valeria Messallina   --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> wrote: From: Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: (unknown) To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 1:19 PM Salve, Gladiator ate a lot of barley because it packed on the fat, which would add better padding in case they were cut. Meat on the other hand would help build muscle which wouldnt be a good thing. They were looking to stay alive. Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant GAIVS JVNIVS NERO --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@ ...> wrote: > > Caelius Corvae s.p.d. > > Without garum, there is no Roman food. It would be like talking about American food without salt and pepper. Apicius' recipes are also for the upper classes, mostly. As for meat, it was not only expensive, but eating a lot of it was considered decadent and/or barbaric. I read somewhere recently that meat almost always came from sacrifices, and so it was rare, blessed, and expensive; it was considered crude to eat meat that hadn't been sacrificed (I probably saw this on a website; does anyone else have a reference?) > > -- > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis > http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > From: Chantal Gaudiano <aerdensrw@. ..> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:43:58 AM > Subject: [Nova-Roma] (unknown) > > > P. Corva Liviae Plautae s.p.d. > > I would love to see some discussion of Roman food here--as long as it's not garum--or stuffed dormice, or eels. > > They had some tasty dishes, but the only ones you ever hear about, usually, are the ones which sound really unappetizing to me. > > I did hear something recently from the History Channel that asserted that the gladiators' diet consisted mostly of barley and beans, that a nickname for them was 'barley crunchers.' I found that surprising; I'd have expected them to have more meat in their diet. Still, beans and barley were probably a lot cheaper than meat. >

Salve,
I did some resaerch of my own and you were right but I was still half right (yay:))
Barley did help build muscle but it also built a layer of fat on the arteries to help stop bleeding.
1000 apologies for my first wrong post.
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
GAIVS IVNIVS NERO

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
>  
> Actually, gladiators were fed barley because it did help build muscle. The stronger the gladiator, the better he could perform in the arena. Their training was similar to those of soldiers and they were well taken care of, with each ludus having its own physican and the gladiators even received massages. The goal was not just to stay alive, but to become an efficient killing machine. Of course, not all gladiators were, but with the possibility of perhaps winning their freedom in time, most did try; some were just better than others.
> I have a friend who has been working on a historical novel set in ancient Rome and she has shared lots of information from her research with me about the lives of gladiators.
> I hope this helps.
>  
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>  
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>
>
> --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> From: Vaughn <rikudemyx@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: (unknown)
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 1:19 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve,
> Gladiator ate a lot of barley because it packed on the fat, which would add better padding in case they were cut.
> Meat on the other hand would help build muscle which wouldnt be a good thing.
> They were looking to stay alive.
> Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
> GAIVS JVNIVS NERO
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Caelius Corvae s.p.d.
> >
> > Without garum, there is no Roman food. It would be like talking about American food without salt and pepper. Apicius' recipes are also for the upper classes, mostly. As for meat, it was not only expensive, but eating a lot of it was considered decadent and/or barbaric. I read somewhere recently that meat almost always came from sacrifices, and so it was rare, blessed, and expensive; it was considered crude to eat meat that hadn't been sacrificed (I probably saw this on a website; does anyone else have a reference?)
> >
> > --
> > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> > http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Chantal Gaudiano <aerdensrw@ ..>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:43:58 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] (unknown)
> >
> >
> > P. Corva Liviae Plautae s.p.d.
> >
> > I would love to see some discussion of Roman food here--as long as it's not garum--or stuffed dormice, or eels.
> >
> > They had some tasty dishes, but the only ones you ever hear about, usually, are the ones which sound really unappetizing to me.
> >
> > I did hear something recently from the History Channel that asserted that the gladiators' diet consisted mostly of barley and beans, that a nickname for them was 'barley crunchers.' I found that surprising; I'd have expected them to have more meat in their diet. Still, beans and barley were probably a lot cheaper than meat.
> >
>

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus, cultores Deorum, et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Deos ego omnis ut fortunas sint precor

Hodie est die Pristini Eidus Martias; haec dies nefastus publica est: Equirria; Mamuralia

"Behold, a shield fell, trembling in the light breeze. The sound of the crowd's shouting reached the stars. The king first sacrificed a heifer that had never known the yoke, then raised the gift from the ground, and called it ancile, because it was cut away all round, and there wasn't a single angle to note. Then, remembering the empire's fate was involved, he thought of a very cunning idea. He ordered many shields cut in the same shape, in order to confuse the eyes of any traitor. Mamurius carried out the task: whether he was superior in his craft or his character it would be hard to say. Gracious Numa said to him: 'Ask a reward for your work, you'll not ask in vain of one known for honesty.' He'd already given weapons to the Salii, named from their leaping dance, and words to be sung to a certain tune. Mamurius replied: 'Give me glory as my prize, and let my name be sounded at the song's end.' So the priests grant the reward promised for his Ancient work, and now call out 'Mamurius'." ~ Ovidius Naso, Fasti 3.373-392


The day prior to the Ides of March was dedicated to the memory of Mamurius. Servius Honorius said that in his honor the Salii beat
skins in the fashion of a smith beating metal into shape (Ad Aeneis 7.188). Minucius Felix likewise mentioned the Salii beating hides
(Octavius 24.3). This ritual would seem to have involved driving our disease and other ills just before the beginning of the New Year on the Ides. It can be compared to rites in villages the world over, where cultures employ dance and drums to drive away evil spirits.

In the sixth century CE Laurentius Lydus of Apamea wrote De Mensibus (3.29 and 4.36) in which he said that on the Ides of March a man dressed in animal skins was driven with long wands, peeled of their bark, and that the crowd called "Mamurius" after him. However no mention of such a ritual is given by Ovid in his account of the Fasti, nor is it mentioned by Servius, Varro, Verrius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, nor by Plutarch. It does not make sense that such authors would have overlooked such an aspect of the ritual if driving a man from the City were actually part of the day's festivities. While modern speculations accepted that such a rite existed, it is easier to understand, and more parallels exist, that drumming was used rather than some scapegoat.


Equirria

"When he who, with his swift chariot, brings bright day Has raised his disc six times, and immersed it again, You will see horse races again on the Campus, That grassy plain that Tiber's winding waters wash. But if by chance it's flooded by overflowing waves, The dusty Caelian Hill will accept the horses." ~ Ovidius Naso, Fasti 3.517-522

"Today the circus holds all of Rome" (Juvenal 11.197), as two-horse chariot races were also held on this day, the Equirria, in honor of Mars.

"Mars, whether thou reclinest on cloud-capped Haemus, or frost-white Rhodope holdeth thee, or Athos, severed to give passage to the
Persian fleet, or Pangaeus, gloomy with dark holm-oaks, gird thyself at my side and de thine own land of Thrace. If victory smile on us, thy meed shall be an oak stump adorned with spoils."

"Hearing his prayer, Father Mars arose from the snow-topped crag of Mount Haemus exhorting His swift ministers: "Bellona, bring my helmet; attend me, Pavor, fasten the wheels upon my war chariot; Formido, bridle my swift horses in harness. Hastily press forward on your work. See, (he) makes ready himself for war; Stilicho whose habit it is to load me with rich trophies and hang upon the oak the plumed helmets of his enemies. For us together the trumpets ever sound the call to battle; yoking my chariot I follow wheresoever he pitches his camp." ~ Claudius Claudianus, In Rufino 1.334-48


AUC 975 / 222 CE: Alexander Severus acceded to the titles of Augustus, Pater Patria, and Pontifex Maximus

He was also given proconsular command, and the privilege of making five proposals at each session of the Senate. His proposals would have precedent before all others and five was the maximum given to any emperor, although some had fewer. He refused the honorific name Antoninus since he was not an Antonine, but was counted among the good emperors from the beginning of his reign.

"He forbade men to call him Lord, and he gave orders that people should write to him as they would to a commoner, retaining only the title Imperator. He removed from the imperial footwear and garments all the jewels that had been used by Elagabalus, and he wore a plain white robe without any gold, just as he is always depicted, and ordinary cloaks and togas. He associated with his friends on such familiar terms that he would sit with them as equals, attend their banquets, have some of them as his own daily guests, even when they were not formally summoned, and hold a morning levee like any senator with open curtains and without the presence of ushers, or, at least, with none but those who acted as attendants at the doors, whereas previously it was not possible for people to pay their respects to the emperor for the reason that he could not see them." ~ Historia Augusta, Life of Alexander Severus 4.1-3


Today's thought is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.5:

"Whatever may happen to thee, it was being prepared for thee from all eternity; and the matrix of causes was from eternity spinning the thread of thy being, and the incidence of this particular happening."

Cn. Lentulus pontifex consulibus, praetoribus, senatui populoque Novo Romano s. p. d. Salvete Quirites et Commilitones! Today is the Second Equirria, and Mars Pater is celebrated. Currently there is no Flamen Martialis, so traditionally his duty is undertaken by one of pontifices. As pontifex, I conducted the First Equirria Sacrificial Ceremony in February, I conduct the second one, too, today, before my home altar. We honour all soldiers and retired soldiers among us, who do serve and served in any of the world's armed forces, and we ask Father Mars, the Father of the Roman people, that he bless them and their families and their lives. We honour all Nova Roman legionary reenactors among us again, who continue the symbolic traditions of the Roman Army as a honour guard and as a demonstrative and educational military, and we ask Father Mars to support them and to give them success in their efforts. Nova Roma was born in the first day of the month of Father Mars, so Nova Roma is under the protection of Mars, we can placate him with our offerings and prayers, and finally we will triumph! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------- SECOND EQUIRRIA RITUAL TO MARS FOR THE QUIRITIAN PEOPLE OF NOVA ROMA 1) PRAEFATIO "Mars Pater, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, consulibus, praetoribus, praesidibus provinciarum, omnibus militibus veris et propriis atque omnibus militibus legionum reconstructivarum, collegio pontificum, mihi, domo, familiae!" [Father Mars, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers so that you may be benevolent and propitious to the Quiritian Senate and People of Nova Roma, to the consuls, praetors and provincial governors, to every real soldier serving in armies, as well as to every soldier in the reenactor legions, to the college of the pontiffs, to me, to my household and to my family.] - I placed incense in the focus of the altar. "Mars Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum, eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto" [Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense I have well prayed good prayers, for the very same reason be thou blessed by this sacrificial wine.] - I poured a libation on the altar. 2) SACRIFICIUM I "Mars pater, quod tibi fieri oportet culignam vini dapi, eius rei ergo macte hac illace dape pullucenda esto!" [Father Mars, to you it is proper for a cup of wine to be given, for the sake of this thing therefore may you be blessed by this feast offering]. - I poured a libation on the altar and added laurel for Mars. 3) PRECATIO "Mars Pater, qui currui temporis equos citos iungis ut mensem Martium adducas, te precor, venerorque, quaeso, obtestorque, uti fortitudinem constantiamque, vim ac virtutem gravitatemque, imperium magnum maiestatemque, auctoritatem severitatemque, victoriam valetudinemque populo Novo Romano Quiritibus, Reique Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium semper tribuas; utique milites Novos Romanos veros et proprios custodias; militesque legionum reconstructivarum ipsasque legiones adiuves; utique sies volens propitius Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, consulibus, praetoribus, praesidibus provinciarum, omnibus militibus veris et propriis atque omnibus militibus legionum reconstructivarum, legatis, tribunis, centurionibus, collegio pontificum, mihi, domo, familiae!" [Father Mars, who hitch your swift horses to the chariot of time to bring on the month of March, I ask and revere you, I pray and beseech you so that you may grant fortitude and constancy, strength, virtue and gravity, great power and majesty, initiative and seriousness, victory and safety to the Quiritian people of Nova Roma, to the Republic of the Quiritian people of Nova Roma; so that you may take care of every soldier in Nova Roma serving in armies; and may support every soldier in the reenactor legions and their legions; so that you may be benevolent and propitious to the Quiritian Senate and People of Nova Roma, to the consuls, praetors and provincial governors, to every real soldier serving in armies, as well as to every soldier in the reenactor legions, to the legates, tribunes and centurions, to the college of the pontiffs, to me, to my household and to my family.] 4) SACRIFICIUM II "Quarum rerum ergo macte hoc libo libando, hoc vino libando, huc thure obmovendo esto fito volens propitius Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, consulibus, praetoribus, praesidibus provinciarum, omnibus militibus veris et propriis atque omnibus militibus legionum reconstructivarum, legatis, tribunis, centurionibus, collegio pontificum, mihi, domo, familiae!" [For all these reasons, thou blessed by offering this libum, by offering this wine, by offering this incense be benevolent and propitious to the Quiritian Senate and People of Nova Roma, to the consuls, praetors and provincial governors, to every real soldier serving in armies, as well as to every soldier in the reenactor legions, to the legates, tribunes and centurions, to the college of the pontiffs, to me, to my household and to my family.] - Libum, wine and incense were sacrificed. 5) REDDITIO "Mars Pater, qui in campo tuo certamen Equirriae semper prospicis, macte istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto" [Father Mars, who always observe from afar the race of the Equirria on your own field, may you be blessed by this feast offering, may you be blessed by the sacrificial wine.]" - I offered Mars Pater laurel, cakes and wine on the altar. "Illicet!" [It is permitted to go.] - End of the ceremony. 6) PIACULUM "Iane, Mars Pater, Iuppiter Optime Maxmime, Iuno, Minerva, Concordia, Omnes Di Immortales quocumque nomine: si quidquam vonis in hac caerimonia displicuit, hoc ture veniam peto et vitium meum expio." [Ianus, Father Mars, Iuppiter, The Best and Greatest, Iuno, Minerva, Concordia, All Gods Immortal by whathever name I may call you: if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you, with this incense and wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.] - I offered incense on the altar and poured a libation on the altar. MARS NOS PROTEGE! MARS NOS CONSERVA!! MARS NOS GLORIFICA!!! Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, P O N T I F E X SACERDOS CONCORDIAE ------------------------------------------ Legatus Pro Praetore Provinciae Pannoniae Sacerdos Provinciae Pannoniae Interpres Linguae Hungaricae Accensus Consulum M. Curiatii Complutensis et M. Iulii Severi Scriba Praetoris P. Memmii Albucii Scriba Censorum Ti. Galerii Paulini et C. Popillii Laenatis Scriba Aedilis Curulis Cn. Iulii Caesaris Scriba Rogatricis A. Tulliae Scholasticae Scriba Interpretis Linguae Latinae A. Tulliae Scholasticae ------------------------------------------- Magister Sodalitatis Latinitatis Dominus Factionis Russatae

Oh, sorry! I did not mean to imply that it did not add a protective layer of fat, too. Hey, anything that helped one survive the arena!   M. Valeria Messallina --- On Sat, 3/14/09, Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> wrote: From: Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: (unknown) To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 3:03 AM Salve, I did some resaerch of my own and you were right but I was still half right (yay:)) Barley did help build muscle but it also built a layer of fat on the arteries to help stop bleeding. 1000 apologies for my first wrong post. Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant GAIVS IVNIVS NERO --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <violetphearsen@ ...> wrote: > > Salvete, >   > Actually, gladiators were fed barley because it did help build muscle. The stronger the gladiator, the better he could perform in the arena. Their training was similar to those of soldiers and they were well taken care of, with each ludus having its own physican and the gladiators even received massages. The goal was not just to stay alive, but to become an efficient killing machine. Of course, not all gladiators were, but with the possibility of perhaps winning their freedom in time, most did try; some were just better than others. > I have a friend who has been working on a historical novel set in ancient Rome and she has shared lots of information from her research with me about the lives of gladiators. > I hope this helps. >   > Valete bene in pace Deorum, >   > Maxima Valeria Messallina >   > > > --- On Fri, 3/13/09, Vaughn <rikudemyx@. ..> wrote: > > From: Vaughn <rikudemyx@. ..> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: (unknown) > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 1:19 PM > > > > > > > Salve, > Gladiator ate a lot of barley because it packed on the fat, which would add better padding in case they were cut. > Meat on the other hand would help build muscle which wouldnt be a good thing. > They were looking to stay alive. > Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant > GAIVS JVNIVS NERO > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@ ...> wrote: > > > > Caelius Corvae s.p.d. > > > > Without garum, there is no Roman food. It would be like talking about American food without salt and pepper. Apicius' recipes are also for the upper classes, mostly. As for meat, it was not only expensive, but eating a lot of it was considered decadent and/or barbaric. I read somewhere recently that meat almost always came from sacrifices, and so it was rare, blessed, and expensive; it was considered crude to eat meat that hadn't been sacrificed (I probably saw this on a website; does anyone else have a reference?) > > > > -- > > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus > > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis > > http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > > From: Chantal Gaudiano <aerdensrw@ ..> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:43:58 AM > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] (unknown) > > > > > > P. Corva Liviae Plautae s.p.d. > > > > I would love to see some discussion of Roman food here--as long as it's not garum--or stuffed dormice, or eels. > > > > They had some tasty dishes, but the only ones you ever hear about, usually, are the ones which sound really unappetizing to me. > > > > I did hear something recently from the History Channel that asserted that the gladiators' diet consisted mostly of barley and beans, that a nickname for them was 'barley crunchers.' I found that surprising; I'd have expected them to have more meat in their diet. Still, beans and barley were probably a lot cheaper than meat. > > >

C. Petronius Dexter omnibus s.p.d.,

> VIVAT NOVA ROMA ANNORUM XI !

In the Roman way of counting we are into the year XII.

Here the Roman way of counting years:

I = 2751 (1998)
II = 2752 (1999)
III = 2753 (2000)
IV = 2754 (2001)
V = 2755 (2002)
VI = 2756 (2003)
VII = 2757 (2004)
VIII = 2758 (2005)
IX = 2759 (2006)
X = 2760 (2007)
XI = 2761 (2008)
XII = 2762(2009)

In fact, at the kalends of March we celebrate the 11th birthday of Nova Roma and the "introitus" into the 12th year.

Nunc, post kalendas Martias, est duodecimus annus Novae Romae.
Now, after the kalends of March, it is the 12th year of Nova Roma.

Optime valete.
C. Petronius Dexter

 Hodie est die Pristini Eidus Martias;  est: Equirria

 

Quntius Fabius Maximus, Pontiff Says:

 

QFM:  This morning I bathed, doned my Toga and with
head covered in my back yard I approach my altar of white marble.
The Sky is Clear.  Deep Blue.

 

Raising my arms up I begin the praefatio.

 

(Praefatio)

 

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor,
uti sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae.

 

Iuppiter Best and Greatest, by offering this incense to you I pray
good prayers, so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the
Senate and People of Nova Roma.

 

I place incense in the focus of the altar.

 

"Iuno Dea, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitia mihi et Senatui Populoque Novae Romae.

 

Goddess Iuno, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
sothat you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and
People of Nova Roma.

 

I place more incense in the focus of the altar.

 

I wash my hands from the brass bowl

 

(Precatio)

 

"Mars Pater, te precor uti fortitudine et peritia horum equitum
Equirriae Senatus Populusque Norvorum Romanorum Quiritum iniciantur et
sies volens propitius mihi et Senatui Populoque Novorum Romanorum
Quiritum. Mars Pater, qui currui temporis equos citos suos iungit ut
mensem Martii adduucat, tibi fieri oportet culignam vini dapi, eius
rei ergo hac illace dape pullucenda esto."

 

Father Mars, I pray you that the Senate and People of the Nova
Romans, the Quirites, may be inspired by the courage and skill of
these horsemen of the Equirria and that you may be propitious to the
Senate and People of the Nova Romans, the Quirites. Father Mars, who
hitches his swift horses to the chariot of time to bring on the month
of March, to you it is proper for a cup of wine to be given, for the
sake of this thing therefore may you be honored by this feast
offering."

 

I take the bottle of Merlot, open it and pour a libation on the altar.  I add a
sprig of Laurel for Mars.

 

Again I wash my hands from the brass bowl.

 

(Redditio)

 

"Mars Pater, qui in campo suo certamen Equirriae semper prospicit,
macte istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio esto.

 

Father Mars, who always observes from afar the race of the Equirria
on his own field, may you be honoured by this feast offering, may
you be honoured by the humble wine.

 

I offer Father Mars the laurel sprig and wine on the altar.

 

"Mars Pater, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto.

 

Father Mars, as by offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were
well prayed, for the sake of this be honored by this humble wine.

 

I pour a second libation on the altar.

 

"Vesta Dea, custos ignis sacri, macte vino inferio esto."

 

Goddess Vesta, guardian of the sacred fire, be honoured by this
humble wine.

 

I pour a third libation on the altar.

 

"Illicet"
is done

 

I wash my hands from the brass bowl.

 

(Piaculum)

 

I offer a piaculum to Mars Pater if anything in this caerimonia
should offend him :

 

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc ture
veniam peto et vitium meum expio."

 

Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you,
with this incense I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.

 

I place incense on the altar.

 

"Mars Pater, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia displicet, hoc vino
inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio."

 

Father Mars, if anything in this ceremony is displeasing to you,
with this humble wine I ask forgiveness and expiate my fault.

 

I pour a fourth libation on the altar.

 

"Factum est!

 

I turn and Depart

In a message dated 3/13/2009 1:51:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rikudemyx@... writes:

Gladiator ate a lot of barley because it packed on the fat, which would add better padding in case they were cut.

 

Romans believed that barley thickened blood,  it had nothing to do with fat.  If one looks at most representations of gladiators we have from the various periods, unless they used the Gaulic fighting style, for the most part they were lean and cut, especially the Secutors.

 

This makes sense, gladiators had to be nimble.  the Gladius was a cut and thrust weapon, and manicas and greaves only protected the extremities.  Being fat and slow ensured that the fighter would be cut to pieces by a faster opponent.

 

Q. Fabius Maximus    

 

  

 

 

L. Livia Plauta omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.

I'm finally back in Budapest after some days of travel, so I'm a bit late with this, but I want to publicly thank L. Quirinus Vesta for his long and informative post about the pagan victims of christian persecutions.

I was outraged, but unfortunately now too much surprised, by the accompanying comment by Cn. Equitius Marinus, and the veiled threat implied in the posting immediately afterwards of a reminder about Contumelia Pietatis.

Our Praetor is otherwise a very rational man, but unfortunately he reacts like a maniac every time this topic is touched.

I find it a very bad sign that each and every time someone dares to mention persecutions done by Christians there are disproportionate reactions and threats of censorship.

Telling the truth does not constitute either libel or incitement to hatred.

On the other hand deliberate suppression of all mentions of the hundreds or thousands of victims of religious intolerance amounts to a crime on the same level as holocaust negationism.

The Jews who were slaughtered by the Nazis have the right to be remembered, and, much for the same reasons, so do all those who have been slaughtered in other historical periods because of religious or racial intolerance.

They have the right to be remembered because of their human dignity, in order not to add the outrage of oblivion to the annihilation they already suffered.

They have to be remembered, and reminded to all future generations, in the hope that nobody else in the will have to suffer what they had to suffer.

Those Christians who suffered persecution are already remembered by means of hundreds of churches, chapels, beautiful paintings. There is no danger of the world ever forgetting them.

But the victims of christian persecution, those who were arrested, killed, burned alive because they believed in the gods of their ancestors are not celebrated in splendid buildings or in beautiful paintings.

Who will remember them? Who will light them a candle or an oil lamp, if not we?

We may not be able to build them temples and commission paintings portraying them, but we can remember and remind, and this is what at least some of us will do, despite all the veiled, or non-veiled threats.

Optime valete,
L. Livia Plauta

L. Julia Aquila L. Liviae Plautae Omnibusque S.P.D.

I pray your trip to Ventimiglia went well and you are well settled at home. Amica, I just want to address a couple of concerns that you have and maybe I can put your mind at ease.

LLP:>I was outraged, but unfortunately now too much surprised, by the accompanying

>comment by Cn. Equitius Marinus, and the veiled threat implied in the posting
>immediately afterwards of a reminder about Contumelia Pietatis

This was a reminder of potential consequences for behaviors outside our cultural and societal standards as outlined in the Lex Salicia Poenalis: the Contumelia Pietate. Absolutely nothing veiled about it, just plain simple facts according to the Laws of Nova Roma.

LLP> Our Praetor is otherwise a very rational man, but unfortunately he reacts like a

>maniac every time this topic is touched.

As a member of the Praetore staff and a main list moderator decisions are made in an analytical, logical and disciplined fashion, oft times they are discussed amongst us as a team effort. These decisions are based on past behaviors, social factors and even trends. They are not arbitrary or subject to the whim of one personality or another. Our Praetore, Cn. Equitius Marinus is rational, and also extremely disciplined, methodical, analytical and logical and not given to histrionics and rash behaviors.
That Vesta's thread was posted is a testament to the faith the Praetores have in the potential of Nova Roma's citizens to have a historical conversation without offences against piety.

For this I am grateful because it was very informative.

I, too, thank L. Quirinus Vesta for his informative post. I also thank the citizens of Nova Roma for continuing in the spirit of Concordia extending the peace and unity of the Concordialia and the dignity of our 11th birthday.

Cúrá ut valéas atque di vos incolumes custodiant

L. Julia Aquila

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> L. Livia Plauta omnibus quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I'm finally back in Budapest after some days of travel, so I'm a bit late with this, but I want to publicly thank L. Quirinus Vesta for his long and informative post about the pagan victims of christian persecutions.
>
> I was outraged, but unfortunately now too much surprised, by the accompanying comment by Cn. Equitius Marinus, and the veiled threat implied in the posting immediately afterwards of a reminder about Contumelia Pietatis.
>
> Our Praetor is otherwise a very rational man, but unfortunately he reacts like a maniac every time this topic is touched.
>
> I find it a very bad sign that each and every time someone dares to mention persecutions done by Christians there are disproportionate reactions and threats of censorship.
>
> Telling the truth does not constitute either libel or incitement to hatred.
>
> On the other hand deliberate suppression of all mentions of the hundreds or thousands of victims of religious intolerance amounts to a crime on the same level as holocaust negationism.
>
> The Jews who were slaughtered by the Nazis have the right to be remembered, and, much for the same reasons, so do all those who have been slaughtered in other historical periods because of religious or racial intolerance.
>
> They have the right to be remembered because of their human dignity, in order not to add the outrage of oblivion to the annihilation they already suffered.
>
> They have to be remembered, and reminded to all future generations, in the hope that nobody else in the will have to suffer what they had to suffer.
>
> Those Christians who suffered persecution are already remembered by means of hundreds of churches, chapels, beautiful paintings. There is no danger of the world ever forgetting them.
>
> But the victims of christian persecution, those who were arrested, killed, burned alive because they believed in the gods of their ancestors are not celebrated in splendid buildings or in beautiful paintings.
>
> Who will remember them? Who will light them a candle or an oil lamp, if not we?
>
> We may not be able to build them temples and commission paintings portraying them, but we can remember and remind, and this is what at least some of us will do, despite all the veiled, or non-veiled threats.
>
> Optime valete,
> L. Livia Plauta
>

L. Livia Plauta L. Juliae Aquilae S.P.D.

>
> I pray your trip to Ventimiglia went well and you are well settled at home.

LLP: ??? I never went to Ventimiglia: I'm home in Budapest now.

>
> This was a reminder of potential consequences for behaviors outside our cultural and societal standards as outlined in the Lex Salicia Poenalis: the Contumelia Pietate. Absolutely nothing veiled about it, just plain simple facts according to the Laws of Nova Roma.
>

LLP: A masterpiece of hypocrisy from our Julia Aquila? Weird.
You know very well that mentioning "facts" in a precise context has a meaning.

> As a member of the Praetore staff and a main list moderator decisions are made in an analytical, logical and disciplined fashion, oft times they are discussed amongst us as a team effort. These decisions are based on past behaviors, social factors and even trends.

LLP: I can imagine very well the kind of reasoning behind this sort of moderation decision, but I'm afraid it testifies cowardice, and not rationality.
The fact that in the past the mere mention of victims of christian persecution has started flame wars does not automatically imply that such mentions have to be discouraged, but rather that our community has to be educated to accept this without improper reaction. This seems to have already happened, so excessive moderation activity is superfluous, suspicious and ominous.

>Our Praetore, Cn. Equitius Marinus is rational, and also extremely disciplined, methodical, analytical and logical and not given to histrionics and rash behaviors.

LLP: I know. Just not in cases like this.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't just let the matter drop. It's important to establish the right of every citizen to commemorate persecution victims without being intimidated by moderators or having to fear flame wars.

The way to reach concordia is moderating one's reaction to opposing opinions, not advocating censorship with veiled threats of trials in order to intimidate one faction.

Optime vale,
Livia

M. Hortensia L. Liviae L. Juliae spd:
I agree entirely in this matter with Livia Plauta. Facts are facts and should not have resulted in a posting of a law. Not only presumptious to free speech, but Contumelia Pietate is so ridiculously broad that it is useless. And that's Cordus' opinion not mine.

I find it silly that so far only pagans, myself and the last poster have had this law used against them, by Marinus. The sheer irony...
M.Hortensia Maior

>
> L. Livia Plauta L. Juliae Aquilae S.P.D.
>
> >
> > I pray your trip to Ventimiglia went well and you are well settled at home.
>
> LLP: ??? I never went to Ventimiglia: I'm home in Budapest now.
>
> >
> > This was a reminder of potential consequences for behaviors outside our cultural and societal standards as outlined in the Lex Salicia Poenalis: the Contumelia Pietate. Absolutely nothing veiled about it, just plain simple facts according to the Laws of Nova Roma.
> >
>
> LLP: A masterpiece of hypocrisy from our Julia Aquila? Weird.
> You know very well that mentioning "facts" in a precise context has a meaning.
>
>
> > As a member of the Praetore staff and a main list moderator decisions are made in an analytical, logical and disciplined fashion, oft times they are discussed amongst us as a team effort. These decisions are based on past behaviors, social factors and even trends.
>
> LLP: I can imagine very well the kind of reasoning behind this sort of moderation decision, but I'm afraid it testifies cowardice, and not rationality.
> The fact that in the past the mere mention of victims of christian persecution has started flame wars does not automatically imply that such mentions have to be discouraged, but rather that our community has to be educated to accept this without improper reaction. This seems to have already happened, so excessive moderation activity is superfluous, suspicious and ominous.
>
> >Our Praetore, Cn. Equitius Marinus is rational, and also extremely disciplined, methodical, analytical and logical and not given to histrionics and rash behaviors.
>
> LLP: I know. Just not in cases like this.
>
> I'm sorry, but I couldn't just let the matter drop. It's important to establish the right of every citizen to commemorate persecution victims without being intimidated by moderators or having to fear flame wars.
>
> The way to reach concordia is moderating one's reaction to opposing opinions, not advocating censorship with veiled threats of trials in order to intimidate one faction.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com

Salve,   Its not very Stoic. A Stoic would not moderate their reactions but would have cultivated an inner freedom to be free of such reactions -- almost Buddhist, especially after Poseidonis.   Vale, A. Sempronius Regulus --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote: From: Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Remembering the victims of religious intolerance To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 12:12 AM Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus L. Liviae Plautae s.p.d. >The way to reach concordia is moderating one's reaction to opposing opinions       I'm going to translate this into Latin and put "Seneca" or "Marcus Aurelius" after it. Very stoic, and very Roman. I agree wholeheartedly. -- Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

Several scholars of Christian Origins would argue against your claim of Orthodoxy.  Orthodox belief was simply one group of Christians imposing their values upon all the other groups of Christians.  The same is true of expressions of Jewish identity within the ancient world - Judaism wasn't as monolithic then as it might be now (and it is hardly monolithic now -- although much more so than Christianity).  The opening words of Karen King's book "The Secret Revelation of John" states:

"At the beginning of Christianity, nothing of what would later define it existed:  no fixed canon, creed, or ritual, no established institutions or hierarchy of bishops and laity, no church buildings or sacred art.  The story of Christian origins is the story of the formation of these ideas and institutions.  It is a story fraught with conflict and controversy.  Early Christians hotly debated the meaning of Jesus' teachings and his violent death; they experimented with ways of organizing their communities and determining who should be in charge; they disagreed about the roles of women and slaves; and they constructed boundaries between themselves and others in different ways, especially with regard to Judaism and Roman power.  They developed distinct ways of contesting orthodoxy and heresy, and in so doing they created discourses of identity and difference that would pervade the West for millennia to come."

The development of orthodoxy was the result of politics, and one faction exerting power and influence over the other.  Pelagius and his battles with Augustine are a case in point.  Many doctrines were a result of one person disagreeing with another and the result was a doctrine that asserted the point of one person or that person's faction.  The development of doctrine was one group's power-play over another.  The rich history of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) is a history often times lacking in compromise.  The beauty of orthopraxic faiths (keep in mind this term is a modern invention) like Judaism for example, is that right action is valued over belief and belief (i.e., doctrine) can be fluid as long as the praxis remains intact.

The argument that orthodox doctrine existed at the time of Jesus, in the early Church, is simply not true.  It developed over a period of time, often through violence and intrigue, and early Christianity was not monolithic.

There are several good books out about Christian origins that affirm this position.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

Salve.

And you certainly have that right in your own mind because that is how you have settled things for your world view, and I do not mean that condescendingly at all. I have done the same thing to a great degree, although I have made a concerted effort to understand the Religio Romana by virtue of having been here. I would only note one major difference based on your thought.

Indo-European polytheism is a description, not a definition, if you see what I mean; it is based on geography and a very general theological understanding.

Christianity has a definition: it has self-identified itself over the course of history as being *not* certain things: Montanist, ultra-Montanist, Donatist, Gnostic, Arian, etc. - the whole laundry list of heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy. That some may not agree with that definition is really beside the point; a cow can think it is a duck and it can go on living life perfectly happily as a duck but may be surprised, in the event, to find itself less than buoyant (I don't actually know how buoyant cows are, but you get the picture).

If you notice, Piscinus himself made sure that he identified himself as a *specific* type of Indo-European polytheist - a definitive one, if you will - in spite of his willingness to lump Christians into one big gooey mess.

Vale,

Cato

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualterio salutem dicit

It depends on which Protestant sect.  Most mainline Protestants will not consider LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses Christian because they are non-Trinitarian and therefore they do not recognize their respective baptisms as valid; however, most mainline (if not all) will recognize Catholics and Orthodox as Christian -- they might not agree with them, but they will not claim they are unChristian.  By mainline Protestants I mean (but not limited to) Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, et al.  This is in contrast to the "Evangelical" Protestant denominations who might not consider Catholics Christian (these include some types of Baptist, Pentacostal, etc..).

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> wrote:

Salve,

Well, the definition depends on which Christian sect you ask. Protestants will include "not-papist," for example, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially neo-Arians.

> Christianity has a definition: it has self-identified itself over the >course of history as being *not* certain things: Montanist, ultra-Montanist, Donatist, Gnostic, Arian, etc. - the whole laundry list of >heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy. That some may not >agree with that definition is really beside the point; a cow can think >it is a duck and it can go on living life perfectly happily as a duck >but may be surprised, in the event, to find itself less than buoyant >(I don't actually know how buoyant cows are, but you get the picture).

Vale,

Gualterus

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Annaeus Regulus" <t.annaevsregvlvs@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Vedius,
>
> This does not mention any resignation of citizenship. Am I correct to assume that you are merely resigning from the Senate and BoD and not your citizenship in Nova Roma?
>
> Vale,
> Titus Annaeus Regulus
>


That is correct. My statement was quite precisely worded in that regard.

Vale,

Vedius

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

At least some people are trying to make ancient Rome relevant today:

http://home.comcast.net/~fuuchan/aeneidonfacebookfinal.png

;-)

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com

Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Salve.

I agree with you absolutely that victims of any kind of persecution are exactly that: victims. No one religious belief has the gold medal in being persecuted, and all religious beliefs have acted with extreme intolerance. It is a no-win situation, as the persecutors are undoubtedly violating the tenets of their own religious beliefs as well.

I would question one part of a sentence:

"We may not be able to build them temples and commission paintings portraying them, ..."

Why not? Why can they not be commemorated in painting and sculpture and honored in the lararia of practitioners? Is it not a pagan practice to do so, or is there another constraint which bars this possibility?

Vale,

Cato

Cato Fabius Modianus sal.

Salve.

Regarding the vast majority of your post, if you read my post carefully you would have seen the statement:

"...the whole laundry list of heretical sects that were suppressed by orthodoxy." I used the word "suppressed" very specifically. Someone, from the beginning, was doing the suppressing. Which brings us to...


You wrote:

"The argument that orthodox doctrine existed at the time of Jesus, in the early Church, is simply not true...There are several good books out about Christian origins that affirm this position."

That is an opinion. It is not the opinion of the Church. It is not the opinion of thousands of scholars over the past two thousand years. And there are tens of thousands of documents, books, epistles, apologia, etc., that would affirm *this* position.

I have to admit that I think that the fact that Ms. King's book is entitled "The Secret [anything]" is kind of a giveaway. Are the Templars in there anywhere? It's not really a worthwhile secret unless the Templars are involved somehow.

Vale,

Cato

Salvete,

>
> "The argument that orthodox doctrine existed at the time of Jesus, in the early Church, is simply not true...There are several good books out about Christian origins that affirm this position."
>
> That is an opinion. It is not the opinion of the Church. It is not the opinion of thousands of scholars over the past two thousand years. And there are tens of thousands of documents, books, epistles, apologia, etc., that would affirm *this* position.
>

Well, the standard scholarly position today is that orthodoxy was not present in the first century, but a gradual development from the second through the fifth centuries (although, it depends on *which* orthodoxy one subscribes to in terms of which ecumenical councils one's church accepts). This doesn't necessarily negate its validity, but reflects the fact that orthodoxy was the result of various debates and clarifications on trinitarian and christological positions that took place over a long time.

I see two unsustainable arguments being implied here as if they define the scope of the issue. One is that because "orthodoxy" was not present in the first century then it is somehow invalid. There was certainly a great deal of theological range in the first century and calling anything in it "orthodox" is pretty problematic, but this doesn't mean that the deductions that happened afterwards were not logical and valid.

The other argument I see implied is that orthodoxy was certainly present in the first century and that any denial of this is irrational and unhistorical, but examination of the sources really cannot sustain this position.

I don't like falling into the trend of making unsubstantiated generalities, so I would like to recommend the series of essays in the classic _Unity and Diversity in the New Testament_ ed. Dunn (London: 1977), but especially Pelikan's _The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)_ (Chicago: 1971), which is a masterful treatment (and Pelikan is personally quite orthodox).

Christianity developed over time like all other religions, and this doesn't necessarily make it any less true.

As a disclaimer, I am not a Christian but a Mithraist, but my area of academic study includes early Christianity.

Valete,

Gualterus Graecus

Hard to imagine any gladiator getting fat as they were trained to the point of exhaustion. Actually, they were taught never to worry about being cut. Gladiators, like soldiers, knew that cuts were seldom fatal (unless you cut someone's throat). One had to stab deep to be effective. Never heard of barley thickening the blood, but that would make further sense for a gladiator as I think that would make them bleed less or more slowly, as the case may be. Like I said, anything that helped them survive the arena.   Valete bene,   M. Valeria Messallina     --- On Sat, 3/14/09, QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote: From: QFabiusMaxmi@... <QFabiusMaxmi@...> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gladitoral diet. To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 12:39 PM In a message dated 3/13/2009 1:51:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rikudemyx@yahoo. com writes: Gladiator ate a lot of barley because it packed on the fat, which would add better padding in case they were cut.   Romans believed that barley thickened blood,  it had nothing to do with fat.  If one looks at most representations of gladiators we have from the various periods, unless they used the Gaulic fighting style, for the most part they were lean and cut, especially the Secutors.   This makes sense, gladiators had to be nimble.  the Gladius was a cut and thrust weapon, and manicas and greaves only protected the extremities.  Being fat and slow ensured that the fighter would be cut to pieces by a faster opponent.   Q. Fabius Maximus              Need a job? Find employment help in your area.

In a message dated 3/15/2009 1:41:13 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, violetphearsen@... writes:

Hard to imagine any gladiator getting fat as they were trained to the point of exhaustion.

 

 

Not always.  It depended on the gladiator, his lanista, and the patron that the pair(s) were fighting for.  

Actually, they were taught never to worry about being cut. Gladiators, like soldiers, knew that cuts were seldom fatal (unless you cut someone's throat). One had to stab deep to be effective.

 

Hmm, tell that the secutor that just lost a calf tendon to a Thrak's sica.    Dimachaeri' also depended on shallow cuts to bleed and sap their opponet's strength.   

Never heard of barley thickening the blood, but that would make further sense for a gladiator as I think that would make them bleed less or more slowly, as the case may be. Like I said, anything that helped them survive the arena.

The Romans believed it. If it's true I have no idea.

 

Q. Fabius Maximus 

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

That would be Dr. Karen King, and she is a scholar of early Christianity at Harvard.  The book "The Secret Revelation of John" is referring to one of the Nag Hammadi codices of the same name (also known as "The Secret Book or John" or "The Apocryphon of John") which was found written in Coptic (likely originally written in Greek).  In her book "The Secret Revelation of John" we have her own translation from the Coptic to English and an extensive commentary on the text and the climate of early Christianity that produced the text and allowed it to thrive.

The material available to us now (ie., the Nag Hammadi codices et al.) make scholarship today very important in the area of Christian origins and also early Jewish identity.  Your claim that Orthodoxy existed at the time of Jesus, doctrines and all, is absurd.  Please, by all means, share your sources -- and we can evaluate their legitimacy.  Are your sources current, or long dead?  Where do they stand within the American Academy of Religion or the Society of Biblical Literature?

Your comment that "And there are tens of thousands of documents, books, epistles, apologia, etc., that would affirm *this* position." doesn't hold up.  You can find scientific manuals from medieval scholars making scientific claims that are clearly false by the science of today.  You can also read documents by ancient and medieval historians that are biased; therefore, example of yours doesn't hold.  What does contemporary scholarship have to say?  Scholarship, methodology, critical analysis are all parts of contemporary studies in religion and biblical studies.

What was the last journal article you read on the subject of Christian origins?  What was the last book you read on the subject?  This seems to be a field you claim to know so much about, I would expect you to be well read on it.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus 

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

I have to admit that I think that the fact that Ms. King's book is entitled "The Secret [anything]" is kind of a giveaway. Are the Templars in there anywhere? It's not really a worthwhile secret unless the Templars are involved somehow.

Vale,

Cato

Saluete, Quirites Nouae Romae.

Hodie, Idus Martii, apotheosis diui Iulii est.

Salue, Caesar, diui Iulii, Pater Patriae, Dictator Perpetue, Conditor Imperii Senati Populique Romani, Galliae uictor.

Salus atque honor in saecula saeculorum tibi!

Valete omnes.

Q·Val·Celer

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gualtero Graeco salutem dicit

I would agree with everything you've written below.  Just because something developed, doesn't mean it isn't valid.  The point that I have been trying to make here (and over the past several years with Cato) is that early Christianity was very diverse and not some monolithic entity with a few small heretical groups going against an established mainstream.  It simply was not like that.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:52 AM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> wrote:

Well, the standard scholarly position today is that orthodoxy was not present in the first century, but a gradual development from the second through the fifth centuries (although, it depends on *which* orthodoxy one subscribes to in terms of which ecumenical councils one's church accepts). This doesn't necessarily negate its validity, but reflects the fact that orthodoxy was the result of various debates and clarifications on trinitarian and christological positions that took place over a long time.

I see two unsustainable arguments being implied here as if they define the scope of the issue. One is that because "orthodoxy" was not present in the first century then it is somehow invalid. There was certainly a great deal of theological range in the first century and calling anything in it "orthodox" is pretty problematic, but this doesn't mean that the deductions that happened afterwards were not logical and valid.

The other argument I see implied is that orthodoxy was certainly present in the first century and that any denial of this is irrational and unhistorical, but examination of the sources really cannot sustain this position.

I don't like falling into the trend of making unsubstantiated generalities, so I would like to recommend the series of essays in the classic _Unity and Diversity in the New Testament_ ed. Dunn (London: 1977), but especially Pelikan's _The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)_ (Chicago: 1971), which is a masterful treatment (and Pelikan is personally quite orthodox).

Christianity developed over time like all other religions, and this doesn't necessarily make it any less true.

As a disclaimer, I am not a Christian but a Mithraist, but my area of academic study includes early Christianity.

Valete,

Gualterus Graecus

Saluete, Quirites.

Hodie, Idus Martii, apotheosis diui Iulii est.

Salue tibi, Caesar, diui Iulii, Pater Pateriae, Dictator Perpetue, Galliae Victor, Conditor Imperii Senati Populique Romani.

Salus, honor gloriaque tibi, oh Pater diui Augusti!

Valete omnes.

Q·Val·Celer

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus, cultores Deorum, et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Salvete, vosque bona Iuppiter auctet ope.

Hodie est Eidus Martiae; haec dies nefastus piaculum est: Feriae Iovi; feriae Annae Perennae Via Flaminia ad lapidem primum.

"On the Ides the happy feast of Anna Perenna is held, not far from your banks, far flowing river, Tiber. The plebeians stream out of the City, scattered onto the verdant grass, there to drink, and every man reclines with his girl. Some endure the open sky beneath Jupiter, a few pitch tents, and some make shelters of fronds and boughs, while others set reeds up, as stakes on which to hang their outspread robes. But they grow warmed with sun and wine, and they pray for as many years as the number of cups of wine they drink." ~ P. Ovidius Naso, Fasti 3.523-532

During the Regal Period the Terra Regis was that the tract of land outside Rome that lay beside the River Tiber. The people jointly
worked the king's land (Servius Honorius, Ad Aeneis 2.272). But with the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, the king's land became ager publici and was renamed Campus Martius. The celebration of the plebeian may go back to such a time as those days on which they jointly worked the kings land would have been festive. There is also a story connected to this celebration. When the plebeians seceded from the City to the Sacred Mountain in 494 BCE they soon ran short of food. Anna of Bovilla, an old and poor widow baked bread each day and brought it to the plebeians. She was then related to the annual circuit of the moon, the perennial moon, as Anna Perenna. She came to represent the flow of years and was celebrated on the first full moon of the New Year; the Ides of March.

Still another story, told by Ovid, is that Mars wished to marry Minerva and went to Anna for help. She told him that she would
arrange everything, so Mars returned to his home and prepared the nuptial couch. A veiled bride duly arrived, but when Mars went to
kiss His bride, unveiled, she was revealed as old Anna. The other Gods laughed as once more Mars became the fool to love. This tale,
too, seems to have come from the popular religion, one of folk tales rather than high poetry.

The State religion began as a reflection of the domestic cultus of the king's family, or so it is thought. But the religio populi
Romani that Cicero so named consisted of much more than just the sacra publici of the State. With the celebration of Anna Perenna at
what is a New Year's celebration, we have an example of a festival that was not part of the State religion, not on any fasti, but was
celebrated by the plebeians exclusively. There are other distinctly plebeian culti Deorum, just as there were distinctly patrician culti
Deorum. This celebration of the Ides with the plebeians streaming from the City, came at the same time that magistrates were conducting rites inside the City; it was at this time that the Consules announced the date of the feriae Latinae. This points to a time when the plebeian culti Deorum were separate from the State religion. The change seems to have begun in 300 BCE with the passage of the lex Olgunia that made plebeian pontifices and augures, after the decemviri sacris faciudis had already been opened to plebeians, as had all of the magisterial offices. Then, during the Hannibalic War, the introduction of the Magna Mater shows that a distinction still remained between a patrician cultus and a plebeian cultus, but that the State religion was quickly fusing under the pressure of the war.


Procession of the Palms

During the imperial era Rome witnessed the cannophori of Attis streaming from the City in search of His sacred pine. As they did so, they would carry strands of palms, waving them in the air. The canophori, or "tree-bearers," went into the nearby hills to gather pines. Smaller pines would be brought into individual homes. Initially these were left undecorated, but later in the festival, with the Resurrection of Attis, the pine trees would be decorated with red candles, fruits, and images of the Gods. But the quest of today's procession was to find the one particularly tall pine that would be carried back to the City, buried in the Forum for three days, mourned for the death of Attis, before it was then raised from its tomb, victorious over death at the beginning of spring, in the joyous celebration of the Hilaria.


AUC 544 / 209 BCE: Appointment of C. Valerius Flaccus as Flamen Dialis

"P. Licinius, the Pontifex Maximus, compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to be consecrated, against his will, a Flamen of Jupiter. C. Laetorius was appointed one of the Keepers of the Sacred Books in place of Q. Mucius Scaevola, deceased. Had not the bad repute into which Valerius had fallen given place to a good and honourable character, I should have preferred to keep silence as to the cause of his forcible consecration. It was in consequence of his careless and dissolute life as a young man, which had estranged his own brother Lucius and his other relations, that the Pontifex Maximus made him a Flamen. When his thoughts became wholly occupied with the performance of his sacred duties he threw off his former character so completely that amongst all the young men in Rome, none held a higher place in the esteem and approbation of the leading patricians, whether personal friends or strangers to him. Encouraged by this general feeling he gained sufficient self-confidence to revive a custom which, owing to the low character of former Flamens, had long fallen into disuse; he took his seat in the senate. As soon as he appeared L. Licinius the praetor had him removed. He claimed it as the ancient privilege of the priesthood and pleaded that it was conferred together with the toga praetexta and curule chair as belonging to the Flamen's office. The praetor refused to rest the question upon obsolete precedents drawn from the annalists and appealed to recent usage. No Flamen of Jupiter, he argued, had exercised that right within the memory of their fathers or their grandfathers. The tribunes, when appealed to, gave it as their opinion that as it was through the supineness and negligence of individual Flamens that the practice had fallen into abeyance, the priesthood ought not to be deprived of its rights. They led the Flamen into the senate amid the warm approval of the House and without any opposition even from the praetor, though every one felt that Flaccus had gained his seat more through the purity and integrity of his life than through any right inherent in his office." ~ Titus Livius 2.8


Today's thought is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 5.37:

"'There was a time once when I would meet with luck at every turn.' But luck is the good fortune that you determine for yourself: and
good fortune is found in the good disposition of the soul, good impulses of the emotions, and the good of right actions."

Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
valete
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> Salvete,
>
> An excellent idea. Although if some of us lack the artistic ability to craft such things, at the very least they could be discussed here on this list in posts similar to the post on Hypatia of Alexandria. If the interest was there, days could be set aside to honour various notable victims or practitioners, similar to the Saint's days of Catholicism. I think it is the remembrance itself that is most important. When the day comes that Nova Roma builds its first temple, let the windows depict the victims, or alcoves hold their sculpted likenesses, but for now I think it would be perhaps a worthwhile initiative to simply begin identifying those who were victims and honouring them within our community through words and perhaps added to the religious ceremonies for that day. As was said earlier, religious intolerance is a nasty thing, present in all religions, but still unacceptable for all that. Those who were steadfast enough to hold their beliefs and died as a result deserve to be remembered. How this would fit with the practices and beliefs of the cultus Deorum I don't know, so I will ask:
>
> Would this be of any value?
>
> Valete,
> T. Annaeus Regulus
>
>
> From: Gaius Equitius Cato
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:50 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Remembering the victims of religious intolerance
>
>
> Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> I agree with you absolutely that victims of any kind of persecution are exactly that: victims. No one religious belief has the gold medal in being persecuted, and all religious beliefs have acted with extreme intolerance. It is a no-win situation, as the persecutors are undoubtedly violating the tenets of their own religious beliefs as well.
>
> I would question one part of a sentence:
>
> "We may not be able to build them temples and commission paintings portraying them, ..."
>
> Why not? Why can they not be commemorated in painting and sculpture and honored in the lararia of practitioners? Is it not a pagan practice to do so, or is there another constraint which bars this possibility?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

Aquila  Maior Plautae Omnibusque S.P.D

 

This is the reaction to a statement that holds no personal opinion or motivations.

That is not a question.

I don't participate in discussions of this type because there are those who design their words to provoke responses with use of words such as cowardice and hypocrisy (or other ad hominem attacks) to which you Livia used. I often think we need much tighter moderation rules, but there is nothing anyone can do about fervent opinions formed from differing perceptions and life experiences that, combined with emotions, become a volatile cocktail threatening to explode on the message boards.

I will defend another's right to speech but if that individual becomes emotional, abusive, accusing, paranoid, intolerant and/or creates discord then that's an argument that person will have to defend on his/her own. I will not back that person or anyone else who behaves in that manner or in any manner that tramples the rights of others.

Nor will I engage in it.

 

LLP> The way to reach concordia is moderating one's reaction to opposing opinions,

>not advocating censorship with veiled threats of trials in order to intimidate
>one faction.

This could also be viewed as a pretty superfluous, suspicious and ominous statement.

 

LLP>It's important to establish

>the right of every citizen to commemorate persecution victims without being
>intimidated by moderators or having to fear flame wars.

It was posted for such commemoration with every individual's right in mind.

 

MHM>but Contumelia Pietate is so ridiculously broad that it is useless.

As a Senator you know the steps that must be taken to affect change of any Lex so you are in a good position to contribute to such change.

 

MHM> I find it silly that so far only pagans, myself and the last poster have had
this law used against them

I do not know I have not been here long enough to see for myself. I refer you to my last statement.

 

ASR: A Stoic would not moderate their reactions but would have cultivated an inner freedom to be free of such reactions.

 

Cúráte ut valéatis atque di vos incolumes custodiant.

 Julia Aquila

Salve;

That's an idea.  Perhaps we should deify Hypatia. 

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
valete
M. Hortensia Maior

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

You wrote:

"Your claim that Orthodoxy existed at the time of Jesus, doctrines and all, is absurd."

Again, notice that in my post I wrote "orthodox", not "Orthodoxy". Now I'm not sure what you mean by "doctrines and all", but certainly the core beliefs - that Christ is God, etc. - did. That is what I mean by orthodox.

I certainly agree that there was a process of winnowing out heresies that culminated in Orthodoxy; but the Pauline Epistles are written precisely to keep the Church mindful of the already-existing orthodox beliefs that the Apostles received directly from Christ and that they themselves passed on.

I'm trying to think of a more substantial way of expressing this.

Maybe take mathematics. The "orthodoxy" of addition states that when you combine two numbers the result is a sum. "2 + 2 = 4" is a statement of how that orthodoxy of addition applies in a concrete way to specific numbers. That statement would be Orthodoxy.

LOL I should have Googled Karen King :)

But the point is that she (and other avowedly feminist theorists) have based their work on the idea that the writings of the suppressed heresies are finally being given their voice. This may be true *for us today*, but they were certainly around long enough to be written - and translated in to other languages - at the time of the early Church. They were not "secret" in the first century; they simply lost to the authority of orthodox thinking. Just because *we* didn't know about their specific writings doesn't mean no-one ever did - that they were actively suppressed - and had to be squirreled away - indicates quite the opposite.

I believe that you are a Gnostic bishop, Modianus, so there may be an inherent desire on your part to somehow validate that Gnosticism in its identification with Christianity. But if the Christian Church has anathematized Gnosticism (which it has) why is there such a need to identify it with the very organ which has cast it out? If Christ is not Who He says He is, then why would you care? He's just another itinerant preacher who met an untimely end.

There was no great secret conspiracy to silence dissent or stifle the endless permutations of Christianity that sprung up like weeds - the suppression was right out in the open for everyone to see. It wasn't like there has been some Awesome Mystical Truth out there flying under the radar of history and known only to a select few; the Church went and stomped on heresies publicly and loudly because it believed that it already had the truth and the rest were useless distractions from the Gospel. *Even if it is wrong* the end result is the same. It is fruitless to champion an historic heresy as Christianity because it simply is not.

You should celebrate your Gnosticism for its own inherent values rather than attempt to equate it with something that neither wants nor accepts it.

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - I read what I can when I can. I don't have the luxury of being a student :) GEC

Cato omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete.

Well, the Senate did in ancient Rome, but would it be the purvue of the Collegium Pontificum under our law?

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> That's an idea. Perhaps we should deify Hypatia.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> > Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
> > it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for
> > terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying
> > heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of
> > Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
> > valete
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Maior Modiano Catoni omnibusque spd:
really just put Hypatia in your lararium and worship her, it can be as simple as that. but I really like the idea

>
> Cato omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> Well, the Senate did in ancient Rome, but would it be the purvue of the Collegium Pontificum under our law?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> >
> > That's an idea. Perhaps we should deify Hypatia.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > > Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
> > > it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for
> > > terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying
> > > heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of
> > > Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
> > > valete
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Cato Maiori Modianusque SPD

Salvete.

Wouldn't the Senate or CP have to "officially" recognize her in order to make it part of the State cult? Private devotions wouldn't be inhibited before that, of course.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Modiano Catoni omnibusque spd:
> really just put Hypatia in your lararium and worship her, it can be as simple as that. but I really like the idea
> >
> > Cato omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > Well, the Senate did in ancient Rome, but would it be the purvue of the Collegium Pontificum under our law?
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > >
> > > That's an idea. Perhaps we should deify Hypatia.
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
> > > > it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for
> > > > terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying
> > > > heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of
> > > > Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
> > > > valete
> > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Cato omnibusque in for SPD

Salvete!

"Beware the ides of March." - William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
(Soothsayer at I.ii)

"A certain seer warned Caesar to be on his guard against a great peril
on the day of the month of March which the Romans call the Ides; and
when the day had come and Caesar was on his way to the senate-house,
he greeted the seer with a jest and said: 'Well, the Ides of March are
come,' and the seer said to him softly: 'Ay, they are come, but they
are not gone.' Moreover, on the day before, when Marcus Lepidus was
entertaining him at supper, Caesar chanced to be signing letters, as
his custom was, while reclining at table, and the discourse turned
suddenly upon the question what sort of death was the best; before any
one could answer Caesar cried out: "That which is unexpected." After
this, while he was sleeping as usual by the side of his wife, all the
windows and doors of the chamber flew open at once, and Caesar,
confounded by the noise and the light of the moon shining down upon
him, noticed that Calpurnia was in a deep slumber, but was uttering
indistinct words and inarticulate groans in her sleep; for she
dreamed, as it proved, that she was holding her murdered husband in
her arms and bewailing him...

It was Casca who gave him the first blow with his dagger, in the neck,
not a mortal would, nor even a deep one, for which he was too much
confused, as was natural at the beginning of a deed of great daring;
so that Caesar turned about, grasped the knife, and held it fast. At
almost the same instant both cried out, the smitten man in Latin:
"Accursed Casca, what does thou?" and the smiter, in Greek, to his
brother: "Brother, help!"

So the affair began, and those who were not privy to the plot were
filled with consternation and horror at what was going on; they dared
not fly, nor go to Caesar's help, nay, nor even utter a word. But
those who had prepared themselves for the murder bared each of them
his dagger, and Caesar, hemmed in on all sides, whichever way he
turned confronting blows of weapons aimed at his face and eyes, driven
hither and thither like a wild beast, was entangled in the hands of
all; for all had to take part in the sacrifice and taste of the
slaughter. Therefore Brutus also gave him one blow in the groin. And
it is said by some writers that although Caesar defended himself
against the rest and darted this way and that and cried aloud, when he
saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he pulled his toga down over his
head and sank, either by chance or because pushed there by his
murderers, against the pedestal on which the statue of Pompey stood.
And the pedestal was drenched with his blood, so that one might have
thought that Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance upon his
enemy, who now lay prostrate at his feet, quivering from a multitude
of wounds. For it is said that he received twenty-three; and many of
the conspirators were wounded by one another, as they struggled to
plant all those blows in one body." - Plutarch, Lives, "Caesar"
63.5-9, 66.7-14

"The Senate rose in respect for his position when they saw him
entering. Those who were to have part in the plot stood near him.
Right next to him went Tillius Cimber, whose brother had been exiled
by Caesar. Under pretext of a humble request on behalf of this
brother, Cimber approached and grasped the mantle of his toga, seeming
to want to make a more positive move with his hands upon Caesar.
Caesar wanted to get up and use his hands, but was prevented by Cimber
and became exceedingly annoyed. That was the moment for the men to
set to work. All quickly unsheathed their daggers and rushed at him.
First Servilius Casca struck him with the point of the blade on the
left shoulder a little above the collar-bone. He had been aiming for
that, but in the excitement he missed. Caesar rose to defend himself,
and in the uproar Casca shouted out in Greek to his brother. The
latter heard him and drove his sword into the ribs. After a moment,
Cassius made a slash at his face, and Decimus Brutus pierced him in
the side. While Cassius Longinus was trying to give him another blow
he missed and struck Marcus Brutus on the hand. Minucius also hit out
at Caesar and hit Rubrius in the thigh. They were just like men doing
battle against him. Under the mass of wounds, he fell at the foot of
Pompey's statue. Everyone wanted to seem to have had some part in the
murder, and there was not one of them who failed to strike his body as
it lay there, until, wounded thirty-five times, he breathed his last."
- Nicholas of Damascus, "The Assassination of Caesar"

Today is, of course, the day in 44 B.C. when Gaius Iulius
Caesar was murdered outside the Senate House under the statue of
Pompeius Magnus.

Valete bene!

Cato

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

I do, however, have the luxury of being a graduate student in theology.  I pay a lot of money to take courses, taught by professional scholars, in the area of Christian origins, development of theology, etc...  The problem you and I have in our discourse is that I've read contemporary scholarship on the subject.  I'm educated on the issues.  You, on the other hand, are not.  You dismiss the scholarship of experts in their fields simply because you consider them "a feminist" or whatever polemic you wish to pull out.  You are not adequately equipped to discuss religious studies, theology, and other subjects.  You stick to the same patterns and refuse to evolve academically.  It would seem that your perspective is somewhat "fundamentalist."  Not very conducive to reasonable discussion. 

Such stagnant discourse is useless.  If we both read the same material and made different conclusions such would be one thing, but you are well read in the area of Christian origins.  Unfortunate.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

You should celebrate your Gnosticism for its own inherent values rather than attempt to equate it with something that neither wants nor accepts it.

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - I read what I can when I can. I don't have the luxury of being a student :) GEC

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

It would certainly be necessary for the CP to recognize a new cult for it be a part of the state cult; however, any individual can honor whatever or whomever they wish in their private practice (as both you and Maior attest).

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Maiori Modianusque SPD

Salvete.

Wouldn't the Senate or CP have to "officially" recognize her in order to make it part of the State cult? Private devotions wouldn't be inhibited before that, of course.

Valete,

Cato

L. Livia Cn. Caelio sal.

Very funny!

Vale,
Livia

>
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> At least some people are trying to make ancient Rome relevant today:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~fuuchan/aeneidonfacebookfinal.png
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Salve,
Has anyone calculated how close to the modern date of March 15, that Gaius Julius Caesar was murdered in the senate house? Think all are agreed ti was in 44 b.c.e. 1988 years and 8 days before my birth.
Vale,
Gaius Pompeius Marcellus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <warrior44_us@...> wrote:

>
> Salve,
> Has anyone calculated how close to the modern date of March 15, that Gaius Julius Caesar was murdered in the senate house? Think all are agreed ti was in 44 b.c.e. 1988 years and 8 days before my birth.
> Vale,
> Gaius Pompeius Marcellus
>

In addition to this earlier post.. is there any written record of the funeral speech given by Marcus Antonius, besides the one in Shakespeare?????

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?... For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength...

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.'" - I Corinthians 1:19-20, 27, 3:18-20


:)


Vale,

Cato

Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.

I almost sent this last night, but decided to sleep on it. Yet, seeing the conversations continue today (with increased vigor, it seems), I'll just be forward:

Why, on two mailing lists of Nova Roma (Nova-Roma and ReligioRomana), are we discussing Christians and Christianity? Might I suggest that, in both cases, such discussion is "off-topic"? I don't necessarily mind discussing Christianity---I was a Christian for many years---but I like things in their proper places. I don't feel Nova Roma is the proper place for general discussion about Christianity. Relating it to "rei Romae" is fine (talking about Hypatia did that), but now things are off-topic, I believe.

Optime valete!

--
Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com

Cato Caelio Ahenobarbo sal.

Salve.

You are right. Modianus and I can continue this particular discussion in another place at another time or something. We ain't ever gonna agree anyways, so it's mostly two peacocks waving their colored tails. His, apparently, is more edumacated :)

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - I'm not even on the Religio List so that one's not my fault! GEC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> wrote:
>
>
> Cn. Caelius Ahenobarbus omnibus s.p.d.
>
> I almost sent this last night, but decided to sleep on it. Yet, seeing the conversations continue today (with increased vigor, it seems), I'll just be forward:
>
> Why, on two mailing lists of Nova Roma (Nova-Roma and ReligioRomana), are we discussing Christians and Christianity? Might I suggest that, in both cases, such discussion is "off-topic"? I don't necessarily mind discussing Christianity---I was a Christian for many years---but I like things in their proper places. I don't feel Nova Roma is the proper place for general discussion about Christianity. Relating it to "rei Romae" is fine (talking about Hypatia did that), but now things are off-topic, I believe.
>
> Optime valete!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Ave;

Because we have Cives who are Christian and this forum is the place
for public discourse?

vale - Venii

Cato Pompeio Marcello omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete!

Check this out:

http://www.rh3.it/iom/

About the calendar date...well, as of 45 BC with Iulius Caesar's adjustment of the calendar the lengths of the months became the ones we have now. After Pope Gregory XIII's further adjustment in AD 1582, the months should have slid back into their generally proper place, so I'd bet that we're pretty close to the actual date.

Gnaeus Marinus might be able to give more accurate information, being an astronomer.

About the funeral oration, here's Appian of Alexandria, from his "History of the Civil Wars":

"When [Caesar's father-in-law] Piso brought Caesar's body into the Forum, a huge number of armed men gathered to guard it. It was laid with lavish pomp and cries of mourning on the rostra, whereupon wailing and lamentation arose again for a long time, and the armed men clashed their weapons, and very soon people began to change their minds about the amnesty. Then Marc Antony, seeing their state of mind, did not give up hope. He had been chosen to deliver the funeral oration as a consul for a consul, a friend for a friend, and a kinsman for a kinsman (being related to Caesar through his mother), and so he again pursued his tactic and spoke as follows.


'It is not right, my fellow-citizens, for the funeral oration in praise of so great a man to be delivered by me, a single individual, instead of by his whole country. The honors that all of you alike, first Senate and then People, decreed for him in admiration of his qualities when he was still alive, these I shall read aloud and regard my voice as being not mine, but yours.'

He then read them out with a proud and thunderous expression on his face, emphasizing each with his voice and stressing particularly the terms with which they had sanctified him, calling him 'sacrosanct', 'inviolate', 'father of his country', 'benefactor', or 'leader', as they had done in no other case. As he came to each of these Antony turned and made a gesture with his hand towards the body of Caesar, comparing the deed with the word.

He also made a few brief comments on each, with a mixture of pity and indignation. Where the decree said 'Father of his country', he commented 'This is a proof of his mercy', and where it said 'Sacrosanct and inviolate' and 'Whoever shall take refuge with him shall also be unharmed', he said 'The victim is not some other person seeking refuge with him, but the sacrosanct and inviolate Caesar himself, who did not snatch these honors by force like a despot, indeed did not even ask for them. Evidently we are the most unfree of people because we give such things unasked to those who do not deserve them. But you, my loyal citizens, by showing him such honor at this moment, although he is no more, are defending us against the accusation of having lost our freedom.'

And again he read out the oaths, by which they all undertook to protect Caesar and Caesar's person with all their might, and if anyone should conspire against him, those who failed to defend him were to be accursed. At this point he raised his voice very loud, stretched his hand out towards the Capitol, and said, 'O Jupiter, god of our ancestors, and ye other gods, for my own part I am prepared to defend Caesar according to my oath and the terms of the curse I called down on myself, but since it is the view of my equals that what we have decided will be for the best, I pray that it is for the best.'

Noises of protest came from the Senate at this remark, which was very plainly directed at them. Antony calmed them down, saying by way of retractation, 'It seems, fellow-citizens, that what has happened is the work not of any man, but of some spirit. We must attend to the present instead of the past, because our future, and indeed our present, is poised on a knife-edge above great dangers and we risk being dragged back into our previous state of civil war, with the complete extinction of our city's remaining noble families. Let us then conduct this sacrosanct person to join the blest, and sing over him the customary hymn and dirge.'

So saying he hitched up his clothing like a man possessed, and girded himself so that he could easily use his hands. He then stood close to the bier as though he were on stage, bending over it and straightening up again, and first of all chanted praise to Caesar as a heavenly deity, raising his hands in witness of Caesar's divine birth and at the same tune rapidly reciting his campaigns and battles and victories, and the peoples he had brought under his country's rule, and the spoils he had sent home. He presented each as a marvel and constantly cried 'This man alone emerged victorious over all those who did battle with him.'

'And you', he said, 'were also the only man to avenge the violence offered to your country 300 years ago, by bringing to their knees the savage peoples who were the only ones ever to break in to Rome and set fire to it.'

In this inspired frenzy he said much else, altering his voice from clarion-clear to dirge-like, grieving for Caesar as for a friend who had suffered injustice, weeping, and vowing that he desired to give his life for Caesar's. Then, swept very easily on to passionate emotion, he stripped the clothes from Caesar's body, raised them on a pole and waved them about, rent as they were by the stabs and befouled with the dictator's blood. At this the people, like a chorus, joined him in the most sorrowful lamentation and after this expression of emotion were again filled with anger.

After the speech, other dirges accompanied by singing were chanted over the dead by choirs in the customary Roman manner, and they again recited his achievements and his fate. Somewhere in the lament Caesar himself was supposed to mention by name those of his enemies he had helped, and referring to his murderers said as if in wonder, 'To think that I actually saved the lives of these men who were to kill me.'

Then the people could stand it no longer. They considered it monstrous that all the murderers, who with the sole exception of Decimus [Junius Brutus] had been taken prisoner as partisans of Pompey, had formed the conspiracy when instead of being punished they had been promoted to magistracies, provincial governorships, and military commands, and that Decimus had even been thought worthy of adoption as Caesar's son.

When the crowd were in this state, and near to violence, someone raised above the bier a wax effigy of Caesar - the body itself, lying on its back on the bier, not being visible. The effigy was turned in every direction, by a mechanical device, and twenty-three wounds could be seen, savagely inflicted on every part of the body and on the face. This sight seemed so pitiful to the people that they could bear it no longer. Howling and lamenting, they surrounded the senate-house, where Caesar had been killed, and burnt it down, and hurried about hunting for the murderers, who had slipped away some time previously."

Valete,

Cato

Cato Ullerio Venatori sal.

Salve.

I totally agree, but barring the appearance of the god Mars in my living room or Jesus in his, I doubt either of us will be changing our ways. He will always tout the modern, "cutting-edge", "this just in" writings of academics (apparently "new" = "better" in every case), and I will always return to the authoritative teaching of the Orthodox Church.

Vale,

Cato





-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
> Ave;
>
> Because we have Cives who are Christian and this forum is the place
> for public discourse?
>
> vale - Venii
>

Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus <cn.caelius@...> writes:

> I know we lack some information about the Kingdom and Republic
> eras. Is that the main reason for the focus on later times? Or is
> there something else that draws us to those later times?

An awful lot of people who came to Nova Roma in the early years did so
because they'd read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series of
novels, which begin in 110 BCE with G. Marius and go through the death
of Caesar and the rise of his heir Octavianus. That accounts for at
least some of the interest in that time period.

Beyond that, I think the availability of literature from that time
period means a lot of people study it. There's Caesar's own writing,
and Cicero's, and several other well known authors too.

Vale,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

Salve,

>Might I suggest that, in both cases, such discussion is "off-topic"? I >don't necessarily mind discussing Christianity---I was a Christian for >many years---but I like things in their proper places. I don't feel >Nova Roma is the proper place for general discussion about >Christianity. Relating it to "rei Romae" is fine (talking about >Hypatia did that), but now things are off-topic, I believe.

I fail to see how it is off-topic on the main list. Christianity qua Christianity is certainly within the scope of legitimate Roman subjects since the NR restoration effort explicitly includes cultural developments that cut well into the fourth century. Celsus, Porphyry, emperor Julian and others had no problem in discussing Christianity on its own terms.

Whether the particular discussion that was developing here was productive and worthy of continuation is another matter, but I don't think it failed in being on-topic.

Vale,

Gualterus

>
> Optime valete!
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Maior Anneio spd;
please read what Modianus and I, both members of the Collegium Pontificorum wrote and think on it. Romans don't commemorate suffering! Virtues, yes, heroism yes. Think of Horatius at the bridge, Arria :

When her husband Caecina Paetus was ordered by the emperor to commit suicide for his part in a rebellion but was not capable of forcing himself to do so. Arria wrenched the dagger from him and stabbed herself, then returned it to her husband, telling him ("Non dolet, Paete!"). 'It doesn not hurt Paetus 'Her story was recorded in the letters of Pliny the Younger.


Hypatia was a philosopher, a woman of widsom, I would put her in my lararium as a heroine for those qualities, if the CP deified her it would be for her positive acts and wisdom.

I suggest you read Beard and North "Religions of Rome" so you have a cultural understanding of Republican Rome. your suggestion, though entirely well-meaning, has nothing to do with Republican Roman values.
optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior

>
> That is essentially my thought as well. An 'official' recognition by the new cultus Deorum of those who suffered for their adherence to the first. Even individual recognition would be excellent, it just lacks the formality and solidarity of State recognition.
>
> T. Annaeus Regulus
>
>
> From: Gaius Equitius Cato
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:03 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Remembering the victims of religious intolerance
>
>
> Cato Maiori Modianusque SPD
>
> Salvete.
>
> Wouldn't the Senate or CP have to "officially" recognize her in order to make it part of the State cult? Private devotions wouldn't be inhibited before that, of course.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Modiano Catoni omnibusque spd:
> > really just put Hypatia in your lararium and worship her, it can be as simple as that. but I really like the idea
> > >
> > > Cato omnibusque in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete.
> > >
> > > Well, the Senate did in ancient Rome, but would it be the purvue of the Collegium Pontificum under our law?
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve;
> > > >
> > > > That's an idea. Perhaps we should deify Hypatia.
> > > >
> > > > Vale;
> > > >
> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
> > > > > it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for
> > > > > terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying
> > > > > heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of
> > > > > Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
> > > > > valete
> > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Livia omnibus sal.

Yes, I'm afraid being a victim doesn't qualify people for deification. The idea of "martyrdom" is specifically christian and extraneous to gentile mentality.

I was thinking of commemorating victims from a civilian, not from a religious point of view.
I mean, it would be very un-roman to build them temples or dedicate them paintings and statues in a religious context. But they could be portrayed in paintings and sculptures with historical subjects.
Art with civilian subjects was very common in Rome, after all.

I just think at the moment we don't have the money to do that. However, we do have one person in Rome specialized in encaust paintings, who is prepared to paint all the walls of the building for only the price of materials used, the moment we have a temple, or a reception building, or any other kind of roman-themed building in Rome.

Valete,
Livia

>
> Maior Anneio spd;
> please read what Modianus and I, both members of the Collegium Pontificorum wrote and think on it. Romans don't commemorate suffering! Virtues, yes, heroism yes. Think of Horatius at the bridge, Arria :
>
> When her husband Caecina Paetus was ordered by the emperor to commit suicide for his part in a rebellion but was not capable of forcing himself to do so. Arria wrenched the dagger from him and stabbed herself, then returned it to her husband, telling him ("Non dolet, Paete!"). 'It doesn not hurt Paetus 'Her story was recorded in the letters of Pliny the Younger.
>
>
> Hypatia was a philosopher, a woman of widsom, I would put her in my lararium as a heroine for those qualities, if the CP deified her it would be for her positive acts and wisdom.
>
> I suggest you read Beard and North "Religions of Rome" so you have a cultural understanding of Republican Rome. your suggestion, though entirely well-meaning, has nothing to do with Republican Roman values.
> optime vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> > That is essentially my thought as well. An 'official' recognition by the new cultus Deorum of those who suffered for their adherence to the first. Even individual recognition would be excellent, it just lacks the formality and solidarity of State recognition.
> >
> > T. Annaeus Regulus
> >
> >
> > From: Gaius Equitius Cato
> > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:03 PM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Remembering the victims of religious intolerance
> >
> >
> > Cato Maiori Modianusque SPD
> >
> > Salvete.
> >
> > Wouldn't the Senate or CP have to "officially" recognize her in order to make it part of the State cult? Private devotions wouldn't be inhibited before that, of course.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maior Modiano Catoni omnibusque spd:
> > > really just put Hypatia in your lararium and worship her, it can be as simple as that. but I really like the idea
> > > >
> > > > Cato omnibusque in foro SPD
> > > >
> > > > Salvete.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the Senate did in ancient Rome, but would it be the purvue of the Collegium Pontificum under our law?
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve;
> > > > >
> > > > > That's an idea. Perhaps we should deify Hypatia.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale;
> > > > >
> > > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maior Annaeo quiritibusque spd
> > > > > > it doesn't sound very Roman to me at all. Romans would have black days for
> > > > > > terrible events like military defeats, but no one enjoyed them. Deifying
> > > > > > heroes is more the ticket. I suggest you read Beard & North "Religions of
> > > > > > Rome' it will give you excellent insight into republican Roman culture...
> > > > > > valete
> > > > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Plauta Caelio sal.

I don't think he's a Nova Roman cives. His name is Michele Paternuosto: he has a small shop near the Colosseum where he sells his stuff. He is the only living person who knows how to make encaust paintings on walls.

His art can be seen here: http://www.morenart.it/

The english verion is a bit poor. To have a look at his art see the "galleria" section in the italian version of the website.

The guy is looking for apprentices.

Vale,
Livia

>
> Caelius Plautae s.p.d.
>
> We have a painter? Who is it? We need more painters, sculptors, etc. Maybe there are some in the Sodalitas Musarum.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus
> Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis
> http://becomingnewthroughtheold.blogspot.com
>

Ghosts of the past!, I thought Encause was the philosopher who traded with the ghosts manifested at seances attended by the Society of Psychical Research! I think my memory is haunted. Excuse, please. Time to discern the little monks and little sisters I think my visiting Swiss cousins may have brought to our home. Bis spater, ASR --- On Sun, 3/15/09, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote: From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Encause (was: Re: Remembering the victims of religious intolerance) To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 11:09 PM Plauta Caelio sal. I don't think he's a Nova Roman cives. His name is Michele Paternuosto: he has a small shop near the Colosseum where he sells his stuff. He is the only living person who knows how to make encaust paintings on walls. His art can be seen here: http://www.morenart .it/ The english verion is a bit poor. To have a look at his art see the "galleria" section in the italian version of the website. The guy is looking for apprentices. Vale, Livia > > Caelius Plautae s.p.d. > > We have a painter? Who is it? We need more painters, sculptors, etc. Maybe there are some in the Sodalitas Musarum. > > -- > Gnaeus Caelius Ahenobarbus > Lictor Curiatus, Accensus Consulum, et Scriba Aedilis Curulis > http://becomingnewt hroughtheold. blogspot. com >

Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Salve.

You wrote:

"Yes, I'm afraid being a victim doesn't qualify people for deification. The idea of "martyrdom" is specifically christian and extraneous to gentile mentality."

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Jews, Muslims, Baha'i, and Sikhs all have very strong martyrologies. Buddhism does as well. And just for the record, Christians *are* Gentiles.

Vale,

Cato

I was wondering if there is anyone here know anything about the religion of Antinous?
If so could you share the info with me.


Joseph

Cato Annaeo Regulo omnibusque in foro SPD

Salve et salvete!

Regulus, I think you might be being a little too sensitive. The PC police have not reared their ugly heads in here yet. *Everything* has the *potential* to offend somebody somewhere, and there is a point at which trying to tiptoe around on eggshells worrying about it becomes an excercize in absurdity.

To everyone else, this is precisely the kind of atmosphere we do *not* want here, which is why I get frightened when people talk about "more" moderation. How much more moderation do people want?

Vale.

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Annaeus Regulus" <t.annaevsregvlvs@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to strike off my last sentence if I may. Sometimes idioms will pop out without thought, but I had no intention of using potentially offensive language. Thanks for the understanding.
>
> Vale,
> T. Annaeus Regulus
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

Let me introduce you to the concept of fallacies.  Especially this one:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

:)

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

"For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?... For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength...

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.'" - I Corinthians 1:19-20, 27, 3:18-20

:)

Vale,

Cato

Salvete:

Exactly.  The discussion of Christian and Jewish identity within the Roman period of history is just as much a subject for our discussion as Roman food.  It is certainly contentious; however, it doesn't need to be.  The academic study of religion is not something that need be contentious.  It is when people make dogmatic assumptions and expect others to accept them that feathers start being ruffled.

Valete;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:42 PM, gualterus_graecus <waltms1@...> wrote:

Salve,

>Might I suggest that, in both cases, such discussion is "off-topic"? I >don't necessarily mind discussing Christianity---I was a Christian for >many years---but I like things in their proper places. I don't feel >Nova Roma is the proper place for general discussion about >Christianity. Relating it to "rei Romae" is fine (talking about >Hypatia did that), but now things are off-topic, I believe.

I fail to see how it is off-topic on the main list. Christianity qua Christianity is certainly within the scope of legitimate Roman subjects since the NR restoration effort explicitly includes cultural developments that cut well into the fourth century. Celsus, Porphyry, emperor Julian and others had no problem in discussing Christianity on its own terms.

Whether the particular discussion that was developing here was productive and worthy of continuation is another matter, but I don't think it failed in being on-topic.

Vale,

Gualterus

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve!

You wretch! :)

The exposure of fallacies is one of *my* favorite things!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Let me introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Especially this one:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
>
> :)
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

Salve:

It would seem that the Jamaicans who became Rastafarians also had a similar disposition.  They could not take it upon themselves to worship a man who died suffering upon a cross, and instead decided to deify the emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie who was the leader of the only state in Africa that didn't succumb to colonialism (with only a short period of Italian rule in the early to mid 20th century).  Their whole religious system revolves around empowerment instead of acceptance of suffering, and definitly not honoring a god who allowed himself to be crucified. 

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Maior Anneio spd;
please read what Modianus and I, both members of the Collegium Pontificorum wrote and think on it. Romans don't commemorate suffering! Virtues, yes, heroism yes. Think of Horatius at the bridge, Arria :

When her husband Caecina Paetus was ordered by the emperor to commit suicide for his part in a rebellion but was not capable of forcing himself to do so. Arria wrenched the dagger from him and stabbed herself, then returned it to her husband, telling him ("Non dolet, Paete!"). 'It doesn not hurt Paetus 'Her story was recorded in the letters of Pliny the Younger.

Hypatia was a philosopher, a woman of widsom, I would put her in my lararium as a heroine for those qualities, if the CP deified her it would be for her positive acts and wisdom.

I suggest you read Beard and North "Religions of Rome" so you have a cultural understanding of Republican Rome. your suggestion, though entirely well-meaning, has nothing to do with Republican Roman values.
optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

You should know them well.  You use them often enough :)

Vale;

Modianus

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve!

You wretch! :)

The exposure of fallacies is one of *my* favorite things!

Vale,

Cato

Cato Fabio Modiano sal.

Salve.

You do know, of course the most obvious response to that:

"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." - I Corinthians 1:22-24

Vale,

Cato

P.S. - "Collegium Pontificorum"? Is this a new branch of the power structure of the religio? GEC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salve:
>
> It would seem that the Jamaicans who became Rastafarians also had a similar
> disposition. They could not take it upon themselves to worship a man who
> died suffering upon a cross, and instead decided to deify the emperor of
> Ethiopia Haile Selassie who was the leader of the only state in Africa that
> didn't succumb to colonialism (with only a short period of Italian rule in
> the early to mid 20th century). Their whole religious system revolves
> around empowerment instead of acceptance of suffering, and definitly not
> honoring a god who allowed himself to be crucified.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> > Maior Anneio spd;
> > please read what Modianus and I, both members of the Collegium Pontificorum
> > wrote and think on it. Romans don't commemorate suffering! Virtues, yes,
> > heroism yes. Think of Horatius at the bridge, Arria :
> >
> > When her husband Caecina Paetus was ordered by the emperor to commit
> > suicide for his part in a rebellion but was not capable of forcing himself
> > to do so. Arria wrenched the dagger from him and stabbed herself, then
> > returned it to her husband, telling him ("Non dolet, Paete!"). 'It doesn not
> > hurt Paetus 'Her story was recorded in the letters of Pliny the Younger.
> >
> > Hypatia was a philosopher, a woman of widsom, I would put her in my
> > lararium as a heroine for those qualities, if the CP deified her it would be
> > for her positive acts and wisdom.
> >
> > I suggest you read Beard and North "Religions of Rome" so you have a
> > cultural understanding of Republican Rome. your suggestion, though entirely
> > well-meaning, has nothing to do with Republican Roman values.
> > optime vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
>