> For those who contacting me regarding the statues, thank you, I posted some photos today of some of the statues in different sizes:

> I'm leafing through Arnaldi's "Richerce Storico-Epigrafiche sul Culto de 'Neptunus' Nell'Italia Romana' and Neptunus the god of water, lakes, rivers, running waters, especially important to farmers.
> He's an inland deity, and an agricultural deity.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:04 PM, rory12001 wrote:
> >
> >[excision]
> > class; it's called the 'Peerless' and the point is that there can be no
> > contract without the 'meeting of minds'
> > http://www.lawnix.com/cases/raffles-wichelhaus.html it's a lot of fun. And
> > you can read the Harvard Law Review note from 1910 on this case free online
> > [excision]
>
> Hmmm, I guess my business law professor missed this one on the way to
> his PhD from the Fletcher School. (Got an 'A' in that class, BTW.)
>
> I have always thought that "shall" is an imperative, rather than a suggestion.
>
> Silly me.
>
> Venator
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> -Maior Aureliano Albucioque spd;
> I'm leafing through Arnaldi's "Richerce Storico-Epigrafiche sul Culto de 'Neptunus' Nell'Italia Romana' and Neptunus the god of water, lakes, rivers, running waters, especially important to farmers.
> He's an inland deity, and an agricultural deity.
>
> According to Arnaldi (who presents the epigraphic evidence) He never received the the Latin epithets 'deum terram movens, frugifera, equester' that applied to Greek Poseidon. Consus was identified with Poseidon Hippios.[Dumezil pl 149, 241-2, 250] p. 226
> As to Neptune and oceans I need to read a bit more. She says at the end of the book, that the hypothesis is that at the time of the Republic, when the Romans were adventuring on the sea, that devotion to Neptune as the patron of sailors, fishermen and others occured..p213
> optime vale
> Maior
> >
> >
> > Aurelianus Albucio sal.
> >
> >
> >
> > I cannot speak specifically to the Gaulish Celts* having a sea god but it is well-known among any who have studied the Irish and Brythonic Cycles that the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Manx, and Bretons had not one but two major sea gods.  The older is called Lir or Llyr and the second is his son Mananan mac Lir.  Both of these are very prominent in many of the stories that have come down to us. 
> >
> >
> >
> > *Also, there is a fragment of an altar that I read about while in graduate school that was found in northwest Gaul and was credited to the Veneti which mentions Lir.  I will have to work to find that particular reference since it may be in a book at either the MTSU or UofM libraries.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: publiusalbucius <albucius_aoe@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sun, Aug 30, 2009 6:38 pm
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Neptune and Poseidon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Catoni s.d.
> >
> > I have not much time right now, but one of the key sources corpus is the prolific Dumézil, wherein you will find other linked sources and who comes back on the Neptunalia, on Neptunus etymology (avestic Napta: moist, humid ; same family than Latin nebula (cloud), see also modern German nebel (cloud) etc.), etc..
> >
> > Other authors, that I have not in mind here (but an internet search could help you) have also showed that the Etruscan Nethuns had more common characters with the Greek Poseidon (which was worshipped at the Etruscan golden age south20of Latium in all the Italian areas under Greek influence), than with the Latin Neptune. It seems that the Etrusci have rather been influenced by Greeks than having a same genuine geographical source, that Romans and Latins would not have shared.
> >
> > These two ways (Greek to say it quick and Roman) of conceiving the role of Neptune are close, but we see some interesting differences.
> >
> > One last element, in order to have things a bit more complex: usually, we find common elements between Greeks and Gauls in various fields: mythology etc.. But on Poseidon-Neptune, there is no clear equivalent. Gauls had various gods and goddesses who protected rivers, sources, according they were boiling ones or not, etc.. But the authors have not found yet a real equivalent of Poseidon or Neptunus in Gaul and ancient Ireland: Nodens-Nuada has some common characters like covering angling and fishing, but not the whole wealth of a Poseidon or the complexity of a Neptunus.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Albucius
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Albucio omnibusque in foro SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete!
> > >
> > > Albucius, this brings up a question I've always wondered about; please bear in mind that I ask simply because I'm interested, not as an argument. It is constantly said that Neptune is not identical to Poseidon. How have you come to that conclusion? Are there primary sources who indicate that the Romans did *not* think they were the same Being? What do you base this idea on?
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > 0A
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Antoniae sal.
>  
>  
> YES, we do have. It is why it's totally creasy to fight AGAINST each other in Nova Roma, when we rather should have to fight FOR what we want.
>  
>  
> VALE!
> CN LENTVLVS
>  
> --- Lun 31/8/09, fauxrari <drivergirl@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: fauxrari <drivergirl@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Together in Nova Roma
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Lunedì 31 agosto 2009, 21:21
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Salve!
> Wery well spoken. Deep down, we all have the same passion... no?
> Vale,
> L. Antonia Auriga
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <dis_pensible@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > "Gods of Nova Roma who are the Gods of Rome! Gods Immortal, mighty, powerful!
> > Make Nova Roma glorious, and make the Nova Romans proud of their spiritual
> > fatherland, Nova Roma, so that we may find the friend even in those fellow
> > citizens whom we dislike, and make us feel the joys of togetherness with fellow
> > Romans, make us better persons, who want to give our best and do not expect
> > anything else except the gladness of giving in exchange. Give us happiness, make
> > Nova Roma a happy community so that we can adore you before your altars with
> > incense!"
> >
> > Cura ut valeas,
> > Julia
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus pontifex et sacerdos Concordiae Quiritibus Novis Romanis s. d.
> > >
> > >
> > > You just realize one day: there is no Romanity without the other Roman, and there is no Nova Roma without your fellow Nova Roman. He or she is your other side, your dark side or your lighter side.
> > >
> > > To be complete means to be together, inside in your psyche and outside with other people, here with the other Nova Romans.
> > >
> > > You are worthless in Nova Roma if you can't "be together" with Nova Romans.
> > >
> > > We are here to find our friends, not to find enemies.
> > >
> > > We are here to find our virtues, not to find others's faults.
> > >
> > > We are here to add something to Nova Roma, not to ask something from Her.
> > >
> > > We are here to MAKE NOVA ROMA GLORIOUS, and not to criticize, not to destruct, not to strangulate Her.
> > >
> > > Make Nova Roma glorious, through finding your friends in your supposed enemies, through finding your virtues when others are in fault, through adding your best to our community, instead of expecting it from others, and by BEING PROUD OF NOVA ROMA, because it's our work, it is our child, Nova Roma is us - not by looking at its mistakes and weaknesses.
> > >
> > > If you like what I am saying and you agree with it, please pray with me this short prayer:
> > >
> > > "Gods of Nova Roma who are the Gods of Rome! Gods Immortal, mighty, powerful! Make Nova Roma glorious, and make the Nova Romans proud of their spiritual fatherland, Nova Roma, so that we may find the friend even in those fellow citizens whom we dislike, and make us feel the joys of togetherness with fellow Romans, make us better persons, who want to give our best and do not expect anything else except the gladness of giving in exchange. Give us happiness, make Nova Roma a hapy community so that we can adore you before your altars with incense!"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CURATE, UTI VALEATIS!
> > >
> > > CN. LENTULUS
> > >
> >
>

>And now, THE GAME.

[...]

>- valere (to be well), habere (to have), delere (to delete),

>Use this format:

>I...
>You...
>He/She...

>We...
>You...
>They...

OK: "Valere"

I'm well = Valeo
You're well = Vales
He's/She's well = Valet
We're well = Valemus
You're well (plural) = Valetis
They're well = Valent

"Audere" [isn't there a similar verb which means "to hear"  which goes audio, audis?]

I dare = Audeo
You dare = Audes
He/She dares = Audet
We dare = Audemus
You dare (plural) = Audetis
we dare = Audent

Optime vale,
P. Annæus Constantinus Placidus

>>> Salve, Lentule! Your Latin game is getting better and better. <<<<

>>> OK: "Valere"

>>> "Audere" [isn't there a similar verb which means "to hear"  which goes audio, audis?] <<<<

>>> I dare = Audeo

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
<snipped>
>
>
> I've noticed lately a lot of arguments over interpretations and specific
> meanings of words, mostly getting quite heated. I'm aware that
> macronationally citizens of the USA have a written constitution which can be
> referred to in arguments. Here, in the UK, we've never had that. Laws are
> written as occasion demands and, if there is a legal quibble over the
> meaning of certain words, then the courts decide the meaning. It can be
> thrashed through right up to the House of Lords and at the end of the day,
> whether you agree with them or not, you're stuck with it.
>
> Does Nova Roma not have something similar. Some appointed body that could
> thrash out meanings in different circumstances and then we all live with it
> and move on. i appreciate this may not be very Roman but unless we can stop
> quibbling over the meaning of every word, we're never going to be able to
> move on and 'do' anything Roman
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Livia Plauta Catoni sal.
> Unfortunately the people who are willing and competent to be part of the CP are already in there. Ergo, if new members were appointed they would be unwilling or incompetent, or both.
>
> East Germany no longer exists, but you could probably have a career as a policeman in Singapore (I'm told there too they fine pedestrans crossing with red lights).
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
>
> >
> > Cato Liviae Plautae sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Livia Plauta, creating a Constitutionally-valid College of Pontiffs is a slightly larger concern than your East German policeman. And that's not even dealing with the fact that a law is valid *even if no-one is around to witness it in action*.
> >
> > You don't have to explain to me the problems with the Constitution; I've been talking about it for three or four years now.
> >
> > I know exactly what the College of Pontiffs does (it's in the Constitution) and I know what is necessary to make it valid (that's in the Constitution, too).
> >
> > It is important to me because it is just one more in a long line of convenience-based decisions about our law.
> >
> > It is sad that everyone who has reacted regarding appointments immediately assumes that the only people out there are incompetent and unwilling to serve in priestly offices - or that the consuls would be "forced" to appoint the unwilling or the incompetent.
> >
> > If the religio is in such a miserable state in the Respublica, that would concern me the most.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@...> wrote:
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
>
> The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
>
> No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
>
> The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
>
> A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

The problems of respect and accountability go hand in hand; when a consul is suspected of creating an alter-ego simply to trash those who disagree with him;

Speaking of this, I believe we were told the Senate was going to investigate this after it's last session. Since that session is long over and reported on, I take it the Senate is currently investigating this. When can we expect a report on it?

when the government simply ignores a decision made by the tribunes of the plebs; when breaking the law is declared to be a "Roman" attitude; when the excuse for continuing to break the law is 'we've always done it that way"; when questions brought up about the law result in those who do so being attacked as "traitors", "cancers", "abominations"; these all add up to a level of distrust that makes respect more and more difficult to give.

How do we change this?

A Guy Fawkes?  <VBG>

Third, we must cease assuming that if someone disagrees with us about something, we should attack their person and not their idea.  The current style seems to be that if you ask a question, you are placing yourself at the mercy of self-styled "experts" and subjecting yourself to ridicule.  

Yes, I've noticed this and complained about it. It puts people of asking questions and if we can't ask questions how do we learn.

Fourth, absolute transparency in government: all Lists "owned" by magistrates holding imperium open; debates in the Senate open.  The College of Pontiffs open.  The only List that should be closed is the Senate in Executive Session acting as the Board of Directors of the corporation, and this should be restricted.

That makes sense. It does appear that there is an awful lot of work to be done. It would be lovely to think that we might have magistrates willing to do it.

Meanwhile, I await the Senate's report on the "sockpuppet" issue.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a particular spot in the house at which a lararium should be placed? Can it be outdoors? Should it be against a north wall? Thanks.
>  
> Quintus Marius Silvanus
>
> --- On Sat, 8/29/09, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A call for priests
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 2:55 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> -M.Hortensia Q. Mario spd;
> that's fine news. What you can do while you wait for your 6 months to pass is do research on the Roman cultus of Mars
> http://www.novaroma .org/nr/Mars and update the wiki,
>
> Do you have a lararium? If not, get one and start daily rites. Also, I live right near you in Chapel Hill, I'd be happy to get together with you and discuss the religio and conducting ritual.
> bene vale in pacem deorum
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Flaminica Carmentalis
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, william horan <teach_mentor@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been in NR since June and speak only elementary Latin, but I have studied and lived the Roman way for most of my life and have developed a personal relationship with the great Mars in many of his forms. I meditate on this diety daily and am able to invoke his spirit at his pleasure. I am no expert, but have learned much about how to commune & pay respect to this diety and about many of the forms, traditions and holidays involved. If there is no one more worthy or willing, I will be honored to assume some minor post as a lower priest to him in order to help Romans or anyone understand how to ebhance their interaction with this diety. I know I have to be in NR for 6 months before I can even be considered for any position. Beleive me, I'm not out for some dilusional power trip. I merely want to give joy to Mars, who has been largely ignored for so many centuries.
> > >  
> > > Quintus Marius Silvanus
> > >
> >
>

> Salvete,
>  
> Below is a link to a beautiful Macedonian song that, tradition has it, dates back to the great alexander. Perhaps some distant version od it may have been enjoyed by some Romans.
>  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOo6LvU4jVA&feature=related
>  
> Quintus Marius Silvanus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Julia,
>
> > For those who contacting me regarding the statues, thank you, I posted some photos today of some of the statues in different sizes:
>
> I do not appreciate statues of naked gods male with fig leaf, that is so kitch.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
>
> What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
>
> The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> >
> > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> >
> > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> >
> > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> >
> > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 1:11 PM, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The problems of respect and accountability go hand in hand; when a consul
> > is suspected of creating an alter-ego simply to trash those who disagree
> > with him;
>
>
> Speaking of this, I believe we were told the Senate was going to investigate
> this after it's last session. Since that session is long over and reported
> on, I take it the Senate is currently investigating this. When can we expect
> a report on it?
>
>
> when the government simply ignores a decision made by the tribunes of the
> > plebs; when breaking the law is declared to be a "Roman" attitude; when the
> > excuse for continuing to break the law is 'we've always done it that way";
> > when questions brought up about the law result in those who do so being
> > attacked as "traitors", "cancers", "abominations"; these all add up to a
> > level of distrust that makes respect more and more difficult to give.
> >
> > How do we change this?
> >
>
> A Guy Fawkes? <VBG>
>
>
>
> > Third, we must cease assuming that if someone disagrees with us about
> > something, we should attack their person and not their idea. The current
> > style seems to be that if you ask a question, you are placing yourself at
> > the mercy of self-styled "experts" and subjecting yourself to ridicule.
>
>
> Yes, I've noticed this and complained about it. It puts people of asking
> questions and if we can't ask questions how do we learn.
>
> >
> >
> > Fourth, absolute transparency in government: all Lists "owned" by
> > magistrates holding imperium open; debates in the Senate open. The College
> > of Pontiffs open. The only List that should be closed is the Senate in
> > Executive Session acting as the Board of Directors of the corporation, and
> > this should be restricted.
> >
>
> That makes sense. It does appear that there is an awful lot of work to be
> done. It would be lovely to think that we might have magistrates willing to
> do it.
>
> Meanwhile, I await the Senate's report on the "sockpuppet" issue.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete, Novi Romani!
>
>
> I give you another set of verbs, but now seriously, please, you inflect ONLY _one or two_ of them, because if you inflect all, the others will not have chance to practice.
>
> - movere (to move), manere (to remain), gaudere (to be glad), carere (to lack), egere (to need), patere (to be open)
>  
>
>
>
>
> VALETE!
> LENTULUS
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Peter J. Orvetti" <peterjorvetti@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> I have rejoined the list after a hiatus. My NR name is Marcus Cassius
> Petreius.
>
> I know NR is not a reenactor group, but I also know there is some crossover
> between the communities. Does anyone know of Roman fairs/festivals held in
> the Washington, D.C., area?
>

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Peter J. Orvetti <peterjorvetti@...> wrote:

 

Salve,

 

I have rejoined the list after a hiatus.  My NR name is Marcus Cassius Petreius.

 

I know NR is not a reenactor group, but I also know there is some crossover between the communities.  Does anyone know of Roman fairs/festivals held in the Washington, D.C., area?

>
> He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
> >
> > What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
> >
> > The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> > >
> > > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> > >
> > > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> > >
> > > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Salvete,
>  
> Below is a link to a beautiful Macedonian song that, tradition has it, dates back to the great alexander. Perhaps some distant version od it may have been enjoyed by some Romans.
>  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOo6LvU4jVA&feature=related
>  
> Quintus Marius Silvanus
>

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

 

Aurelianus to Senator Winesack.  Hello.

 

I heard you were in the hospital but apparently the prayers which some of our citizens offered must have had a positive effect.  Oh well. 

 

Is your house safe?  Is your cat in good health?  Your computer must be in good shape for you to write so quickly.

 

Vale.

-----Original Message-----
From: l_cornelius_sulla <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 10:31 am
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio, politics

 

He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
>
> What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
>
> The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> >
> > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> >
> > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> >
> > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> >
> > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
>

 A. Tullia Scholastica M. Cassio Petreio omnibusque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

    Welcome back!
 

Salve,
 
I have rejoined the list after a hiatus.  My NR name is Marcus Cassius Petreius.
 
I know NR is not a reenactor group, but I also know there is some crossover between the communities.  Does anyone know of Roman fairs/festivals held in the Washington, D.C., area?

    ATS:  Well, yes, I do.  One does not have to live there to be aware of such things.  I am an associate of a reenactment legion in Maryland, which normally conducts a very large and well-known reenactment there every year.  This had been held at the Marietta Mansion in Maryland, but the person with whom we had been working retired, and her replacement seems to detest reenactment, and barely tolerates those events which are strictly American.  Romans she does not allow, at least not for these public events.  Thus we lost our site.  Last year, however, we found an alternate site at a university in N. Virginia, but they were unwilling to accommodate us at the date we had set as there was another event on that weekend, so we lost the site this year, and the Roman Days reenactment was cancelled.  Perhaps we can find a new location for next year, but this is difficult as some want to camp onsite, whereas some sites do not allow this, and some prospective attendees have a limited geographical range and will not exceed that, etc.  The reenactors, however, come all the way from Canada and New England, inter alia.  It is also difficult to get a date which suits most of the reenactors as they have multiple events.  However, there is a mailing list for this event if you are interested, and several of us citizens are on it; the people in that area are trying to obtain a new site, and we hope they will succeed.  

Vale, et valete.  
  
    

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> It has a nice melody, although, I doubt the melody dates to before the Slavic migrations, and even more likely is a medieval or later creation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Salvete,
> >  
> > Below is a link to a beautiful Macedonian song that, tradition has it, dates back to the great alexander. Perhaps some distant version od it may have been enjoyed by some Romans.
> >  
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOo6LvU4jVA&feature=related
> >  
> > Quintus Marius Silvanus
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rikudemyx" <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> It may be an ancient poem, but the music is more modern, I can hear bowed instruments which neither the greeks, nor Romans had at least to the best of my knowledge.
> DVIC
> Nero
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > It has a nice melody, although, I doubt the melody dates to before the Slavic migrations, and even more likely is a medieval or later creation.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gualterus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >  
> > > Below is a link to a beautiful Macedonian song that, tradition has it, dates back to the great alexander. Perhaps some distant version od it may have been enjoyed by some Romans.
> > >  
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOo6LvU4jVA&feature=related
> > >  
> > > Quintus Marius Silvanus
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
> Aurelianus to Senator Winesack.? Hello.
>
>
>
> I heard you were in the hospital but apparently the prayers which some of our citizens offered must have had a positive?effect.? Oh well.?
>
>
>
> Is your house safe?? Is your cat in good health?? Your computer must be in good shape for you to write so quickly.
>
>
>
> Vale.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: l_cornelius_sulla <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 10:31 am
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio, politics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
> >
> > What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
> >
> > The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> > >
> > > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> > >
> > > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> > >
> > > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
> >
>

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, l_cornelius_sulla <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

 

Ah Senator Salad Tosser.

What's happening dude?

Yep I was in the hosptial. Almost had to have surgery but I was able to avoid it. I got better with the antibiotics.

And, as you know, being a member of the back alley, I had my iPhone and was able to post from the hospital via email function. Handy little phone device.

Yes I am in good shape and I am already back to work. Was able to work about 3/4 of the day just out of the hospital not even 24 hours ago.

Oh and good job upsetting Tink. You do realize her cats are staying with me as well. You do realize that Tink's belongings are also in my house. Your implied hope that something bad would happen would ALSO affect another Nova Roman Citizen, do you not? Very bad form on your part, but what could you expect from a salad tosser.

Anyway, Yes, I am doing much better now. Thank you to everyone for the positive thoughts and prayers.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
> Aurelianus to Senator Winesack.? Hello.
>
>
>
> I heard you were in the hospital but apparently the prayers which some of our citizens offered must have had a positive?effect.? Oh well.?
>
>
>
> Is your house safe?? Is your cat in good health?? Your computer must be in good shape for you to write so quickly.
>
>
>
> Vale.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----

> From: l_cornelius_sulla <l_cornelius_sulla@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 10:31 am
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio, politics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
> >
> > What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
> >
> > The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> > >
> > > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> > >
> > > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> > >
> > > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> > >
> > > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>  
> Salve, Cato!
>
> Not exactly, this one wasn't successful.
>  
> You have tu cut down the infinitive ending "-re" before you attach the o, s, t, mus, tis, nt personal endings. So from "manere" ("to remain") not "manero" but "maneo".
>  
>  
> Vale!
> Cn. Lentulus
>  
> --- Mar 1/9/09, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...>
> Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Play with a Latin verb!
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Martedì 1 settembre 2009, 18:48
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Salve Lentule!
>
> manero maneres maneret maneremus maneretis manerent?
>
> Vale!
>
> cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete, Novi Romani!
> >
> >
> > I give you another set of verbs, but now seriously, please, you inflect ONLY _one or two_ of them, because if you inflect all, the others will not have chance to practice.
> >
> > - movere (to move), manere (to remain), gaudere (to be glad), carere (to lack), egere (to need), patere (to be open)
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > VALETE!
> > LENTULUS
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> You and Cato show a real lack of respect for the pontifex maximus, the collegium pontificum, the religious officials. You don't observe the religious calendar in the Senate.
>
> . You are both non cultores and constantly interfere with the religio and it's institutions. It seems to me you just want to degrade and destroy all the wonderful progress we have made..
>
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Flaminica Carmentalis
>
>
>
> <l_cornelius_sulla@> wrote:
> >
> > He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
> > >
> > > What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
> > >
> > > The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> > > >
> > > > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> > > >
> > > > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> > > >
> > > > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@... wrote:
>
>
> Aurelianus Pontifex M. Hortensi sal.
>
>
>
> I do not believe that it is completely true that Lucius Cornelius and Gaius Equitius are completely free of some practice of the Religio Romana, at least in regard to honoring the Dii Indigetes.? From the sounds they make and the way that they promote fertility, it is obvious that they enjoy the mutual patronage of Mefitis and Sterquilinus.? Wouldn't you agree, priestess?

>Your implied
>hope that something bad would happen would ALSO affect another Nova >Roman Citizen, do you not?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "l_cornelius_sulla" <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> Ah Senator Salad Tosser.
>
> What's happening dude?
>
> Yep I was in the hosptial. Almost had to have surgery but I was able to avoid it. I got better with the antibiotics.
>
> And, as you know, being a member of the back alley, I had my iPhone and was able to post from the hospital via email function. Handy little phone device.
>
> Yes I am in good shape and I am already back to work. Was able to work about 3/4 of the day just out of the hospital not even 24 hours ago.
>
> Oh and good job upsetting Tink. You do realize her cats are staying with me as well. You do realize that Tink's belongings are also in my house. Your implied hope that something bad would happen would ALSO affect another Nova Roman Citizen, do you not? Very bad form on your part, but what could you expect from a salad tosser.
>
> Anyway, Yes, I am doing much better now. Thank you to everyone for the positive thoughts and prayers.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aurelianus to Senator Winesack.? Hello.
> >
> >
> >
> > I heard you were in the hospital but apparently the prayers which some of our citizens offered must have had a positive?effect.? Oh well.?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is your house safe?? Is your cat in good health?? Your computer must be in good shape for you to write so quickly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: l_cornelius_sulla <l_cornelius_sulla@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 10:31 am
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio, politics
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He doesn't have the balls to charge. Far easier to issue invective than to actually put his money where is mouth is.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gequitiuscato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > That's all excellent but has little or nothing to do with our law. Instead of continuing to orate on what ancient Roman law may or may not have said, you should be focusing on what *our* law says. Our law says that the Senate can give the consuls the authority to suspend the Constitution to deal with a specific issue by senatus consultum ultimum. I have explained how this can be done.
> > >
> > > What I want, pontiff, is for us to obey the law and do this correctly; this can only *strengthen* the religio, not weaken it, and to claim otherwise is foolish and self-serving. I want a religio publica that is on firm, unshakeable Constitutional ground.
> > >
> > > The language is starting to pop up again lately - "attack against the religio", "deprived of salt and fire", "challenge the authority" (although this last is certainly not actionable as I am a free citizen and have the right to do so if I please) etc. - as I said in the Senate, either charge me with blasphemy and try to throw me out or face the fact that I'm not going anywhere.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus : C. Equitio Catoni, Civitibus Novis Romanis, Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnes : s. p. d.
> > > >
> > > > The only office that we know had such authority in Roma antiqua to appoint sacerdotes, even to compel individuals to accept sacerdotal offices, was the pontifex maximus. As I am sure you would know, Cato, the one example we have is where pont. max. P. Licinius Crassus compelled C. Valerius Flaccus to become flamen Dialis (Livy 27.8.4-7).
> > > >
> > > > No consul, no dictator, could appoint sacerdotes. Marius and Cinna could not remove a flamen Dialis, and the dictator Sylla could neither compel Caesar to divorce his wife, nor could he name another as flamen Dialis designatus. Even with the pontifex maximus, he could only appoint certain sacerdotes that were under the administration of the Collegium Pontificum. He could not appoint augures for example.
> > > >
> > > > The Collegium Pontificum has not given the pontifex maximus such powers. I don't think the Senate really has the authority to give the pontifex maximus such authority. Without the Collegium agreeing, you would probably need another constitutional amendment to grant such powers to that office. The Centuriata alone has authority to amend the Constitution and I doubt that it would agree that there is such a need to grant such powers to any one individual.
> > > >
> > > > A pontifex maximus is not a pope, or a patriarch. We do not follow your Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition. We do not need your outside notions obstructing our progress. Changes to our religious institutions must be taken internally, through considered deliberation, which is what the Collegium Pontificum has been doing these past two years. Your interference in what is our religious tradition, not yours, is not welcomed. I regard your claim that the Collegium Pontificum is not now legitimate, and has not been for these past ten and a half years, to be a serious challenge against the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, and as such it is an attack against the religio Romana remaining as the State religion of Nova Roma.
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, william horan <teach_mentor@...> wrote:
>
> I would be quite happy to see Mars "in his full glory" wearing armor ready for war. Luckily, I'm packing enough "full glory"  without having to rechisle statues.
>

A. Tullia Scholastica magistra sodalitatis Latinitatis Cn. Cornelio Lentulo C. Equitio Catoni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 
 

Lentulus Catoni sal.
 
Salve, Cato!

Not exactly, this one wasn't successful.
 
You have tu cut down the infinitive ending "-re" before you attach the o, s, t, mus, tis, nt personal endings. So from "manere" ("to remain") not "manero" but "maneo".

    ATS:  On the other hand, Cato ALMOST got the imperfect subjunctive right.  If he had only said manerem instead of manero, we’d be in business there.  As you noted, the present infinitive marker, -re, must be amputated BEFORE adding the personal endings in order to produce anything in the present indicative system (present, imperfect, future).  
 
 
Vale!
Cn. Lentulus

Valete!


 
--- Mar 1/9/09, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:

Da: gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...>
Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Play with a Latin verb!
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 1 settembre 2009, 18:48

  Salve Lentule!

manero maneres maneret maneremus maneretis manerent?

Vale!

cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com <http://it.mc238.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
>
> Salvete, Novi Romani!
>
>
> I give you another set of verbs, but now seriously, please, you inflect ONLY _one or two_ of them, because if you inflect all, the others will not have chance to practice.
>
> - movere (to move), manere (to remain), gaudere (to be glad), carere (to lack), egere (to need), patere (to be open)
>  
>
>
>
>
> VALETE!
> LENTULUS
>

 
  
    

 Scholastica magistra Catoni quondam collegae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
 

Salve Lentule!

    ATS:  O Cato, Lentulus is not the only one here who knows Latin...we have several excellent Latinists here.  I have had LOTS of practice in correcting crimes against Latin...

So...

maneo manes manet manemus manetis manent?

    ATS:  Bingo!  You get the prize this time!

Vale!

Cato

Vale, et valete.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> , "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>  
> Salve, Cato!
>
> Not exactly, this one wasn't successful.
>  
> You have tu cut down the infinitive ending "-re" before you attach the o, s, t, mus, tis, nt personal endings. So from "manere" ("to remain") not "manero" but "maneo".
>  
>  
> Vale!
> Cn. Lentulus
>  
> --- Mar 1/9/09, gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: gequitiuscato <catoinnyc@...>
> Oggetto: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Play with a Latin verb!
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Data: Martedì 1 settembre 2009, 18:48
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Salve Lentule!
>
> manero maneres maneret maneremus maneretis manerent?
>
> Vale!
>
> cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete, Novi Romani!
> >
> >
> > I give you another set of verbs, but now seriously, please, you inflect ONLY _one or two_ of them, because if you inflect all, the others will not have chance to practice.
> >
> > - movere (to move), manere (to remain), gaudere (to be glad), carere (to lack), egere (to need), patere (to be open)
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > VALETE!
> > LENTULUS
> >
>