Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72379 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: My thanks and congratulations |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72380 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Kal. Dec. |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72381 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: My thanks and congratulations |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72382 |
From: Deandrea Boyle |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Thank You! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72383 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: My thanks and congratulations |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72384 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: KALENDAE DECEMBRES: Neptunus, Salacia, Pietas, Venus, and Cupid |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72385 |
From: Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Election results |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72386 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: Election results |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72387 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72388 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72389 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Election Results: Congratulations to All! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72390 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: Classic Poetry, Prose, Proems, Literature Excerpts |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72391 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: Videos about Ancient Rome |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72392 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: the Saturnalia thread |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72393 |
From: deciusiunius |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: Results for Comitia Centuriata |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72394 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: Results for Comitia Centuriata |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72395 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Just a calendar reminder |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72396 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: the Saturnalia thread |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72397 |
From: L. Livia Plauta |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: My thanks and congratulations |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72398 |
From: L. Livia Plauta |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72399 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72400 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72401 |
From: luciaiuliaaquila |
Date: 2009-12-01 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72402 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Thank You |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72403 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: INVITATION TO A Nova Roman Saturnalia Party (19th Dec.) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72404 |
From: Deandrea Boyle |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Results for Comitia Centuriata |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72405 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: a. d. IV Nonas Decembris: The sortition of Petillius in the Ligurian |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72406 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72407 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Kitty of the Year |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72408 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72409 |
From: L. Livia Plauta |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Kitty of the Year |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72410 |
From: Diana Aventina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72411 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72412 |
From: iulius sabinus |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72413 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72414 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72415 |
From: Steve_geo1 |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Why did Romans name their children by numbers? |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72416 |
From: Jennifer Harris |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72417 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72418 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Kitty of the Year |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72419 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72420 |
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: Why did Romans name their children by numbers? |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72421 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72422 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-02 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72423 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Election results |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72424 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: OT: adding to the fun ... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72425 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: OT: adding to the fun ... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72426 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72427 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: a. d. III Nonas Decembris: Women's rite of the Bona Dea |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72428 |
From: Teleri |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72429 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Why did Romans name their children by numbers? |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72430 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72431 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72432 |
From: Colin Brodd |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72433 |
From: L. Livia Plauta |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72434 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72435 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72436 |
From: Charlie Collins |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72437 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72438 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72439 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: OT: adding to the fun ... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72440 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72441 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72442 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72443 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun... |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72444 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72445 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72446 |
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Witnessing the appointments of new Curule Magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72447 |
From: Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Witness of new magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72448 |
From: marcus.lucretius |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Why did Romans name their children by numbers? |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72449 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Why did Romans name their children by numbers? |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72450 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72451 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72452 |
From: Titus Arminius Genialis |
Date: 2009-12-03 |
Subject: CURULE MAGISTRATES APPOINTMENT WITNESS STATEMENT |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72453 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: OT: (well, sort of) PC to PC calling hep |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72454 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: Re: OT: (well, sort of) PC to PC calling hep |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72455 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: Re: A little fun and some Latin ;-) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72456 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: Pridie Nonas Decembris: The Clodius Affair |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72457 |
From: M Arminius Maior |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: CURULE MAGISTRATES WITNESS STATEMENT |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72458 |
From: Lyn Dowling |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72459 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: Invitation to a Saturnalia party organized by Nova Roma |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72460 |
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Invitation to a Saturnalia party organized by Nova Ro |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72461 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-04 |
Subject: OT: one more question about Google Talk |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72462 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-05 |
Subject: Give me joy! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72463 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-05 |
Subject: NONAE DECEMBRAE: Faunalia Rustica |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72464 |
From: Art |
Date: 2009-12-05 |
Subject: Witness of magistrates |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72465 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: a. d. VIII Eidus Decembres: Stoic argument in defence of divination |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72470 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72472 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72473 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: urgent help needed |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72474 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72475 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: urgent help needed |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72476 |
From: Aqvillivs |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Dec 6 -Santa Claus-St.- Nicolas-Saturnalia etc. |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72477 |
From: Steve_geo1 |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Salve. Sic Vales, Est Bene. Valeo |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72478 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Amicus tancum est, alter idem |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72479 |
From: John Citron |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: Salve. Sic Vales, Est Bene. Valeo |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72480 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72481 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: urgent help needed |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72482 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72483 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-06 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72484 |
From: Jennifer Harris |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72485 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72486 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: a. d. VII Eidus Decembres: Death of Cicero, Battle of Beneventum |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72487 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72488 |
From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Posting rules in this Forum, 12/7/2009, 11:45 pm |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72489 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72490 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: OT, but need help, please |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72491 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: Re: OT, but need help, please |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72492 |
From: Marcus Pontius Sejanus |
Date: 2009-12-07 |
Subject: OT, but need help, please |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72493 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-08 |
Subject: apoloties to the forum |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72494 |
From: C. Curius Saturninus |
Date: 2009-12-08 |
Subject: Calendars shipped, time to order if you haven't already done so! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72495 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-08 |
Subject: a. d. VI Eidus Decembres: Birth of Horace, Vestal Taracina |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72496 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-08 |
Subject: Re: Auspices and Attitudes |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72497 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-08 |
Subject: Re: apoloties to the forum |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72498 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-09 |
Subject: Re: apoloties to the forum |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72499 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-09 |
Subject: a. d. V Eidus Decembres: Optalia; Mesonyctium |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72500 |
From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator |
Date: 2009-12-09 |
Subject: Re: Amicus tancum est, alter idem |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72501 |
From: Gaius Petronius Dexter |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Oath of Office. Tribunus Plebis. C. Petronius Dexter |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72502 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office. Tribunus Plebis. C. Petronius Dexter |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72503 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: a. d. IV Eidus Decembres:Tribuni plebis magistratum ineunt |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72504 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Spiraling lights |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72505 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Re: Spiraling lights |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72506 |
From: Titus Flavius Aquila |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re:Report of the Tribunes of the last Senate session |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72507 |
From: C. Curius Saturninus |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: oath of office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72508 |
From: Robert Levee |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Oath of Office! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72509 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Oath of Office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72510 |
From: Lyn |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Re: Invitation to a Saturnalia party organized by Nova Roma |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72511 |
From: Aqvillivs Rota |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72512 |
From: mcorvvs |
Date: 2009-12-10 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72513 |
From: Chantal Gaudiano |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Re: [NRComitiaCuriata] Digest Number 35 |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72514 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office. Tribunus Plebis. C. Petronius Dexter |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72515 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: a. d. III Eidus Decembres: Agnalia Indigeti; and the Septimontia |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72516 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Lex Curiata de Imperio MMDCCLXII |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72517 |
From: M.C.C. |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72518 |
From: publiusalbucius |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office. |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72519 |
From: mcorvvs |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72520 |
From: Gaius Petronius Dexter |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Oath of Office. Tribunus Plebis. C. Petronius Dexter |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72521 |
From: Robert Levee |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Oath of Office! |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72522 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: OT - HAPPY HANNUKAH |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72523 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-11 |
Subject: Re: hasmoneans and hellenization [ was OT - HAPPY Hannukah] |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72524 |
From: Aqvillivs Rota |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Oath of Office |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72525 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72526 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72527 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72528 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72529 |
From: rory12001 |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72530 |
From: marcus.lucretius |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Modern scholarship. Was: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72531 |
From: marcus.lucretius |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72532 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Modern scholarship. Was: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72533 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72534 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-12 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72535 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72536 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72537 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72538 |
From: petronius_dexter |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72539 |
From: John Citron |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72540 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72541 |
From: gualterus_graecus |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72542 |
From: marcus.lucretius |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72543 |
From: mcorvvs |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Ides ritual performed by Sacerdos Iovis M.Octavius Corvus |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72544 |
From: John Citron |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72545 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: IDUS DECEMBRES: Lectisternium of Tellus and Ceres |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72546 |
From: marcus.lucretius |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72547 |
From: Ass.Pomerium |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Iscrizioni 2010 all'associazione Pomerium |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72548 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72549 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72550 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: Idibus Decembribus |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72551 |
From: C.Maria Caeca |
Date: 2009-12-13 |
Subject: new project |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72552 |
From: John Citron |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72553 |
From: C. Curius Saturninus |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: oath of office (again) |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72554 |
From: A. Tullia Scholastica |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Re: new project |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72555 |
From: marcushoratius |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: a. d. XIX Kalendas Ianuarias: Time pieces |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72556 |
From: Cato |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Re: Pridie Eidus Decembres: CONSUALIA |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72557 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Re: new project |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72558 |
From: Maxima Valeria Messallina |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Re: OT: Cute Video |
|
Group: Nova-Roma |
Message: 72559 |
From: Titus Flavius Aquila |
Date: 2009-12-14 |
Subject: Tribuni Plebis: Report of the last Senate session ? |
|
Cato omnibus in foro SPD
Hodie est Kalendis Decembribus; haec dies nefastus est.
"Night surprised them while they were lamenting over their situation
rather than consulting how to meet it. The different temperaments of
the men came out; some exclaimed: "Let us break through the
barricades, scale the mountain slopes, force our way through the
forest, try every way where we can carry arms. Only let us get at the
enemy whom we have beaten for now nearly thirty years; all places will
be smooth and easy to a Roman fighting against the perfidious
Samnite." Others answered: "Where are we to go? How are we to get
there? Are we preparing to move the mountains from their seat? How
will you get at the enemy as long as these peaks hang over us? Armed
and unarmed, brave and cowardly we are all alike trapped and
conquered. The enemy will not even offer us the chance of an
honourable death by the sword, he will finish the war without moving
from his seat." Indifferent to food, unable to sleep, they talked in
this way through the night. Even the Samnites were unable to make up
their minds what to do under such fortunate circumstances. It was
unanimously agreed to write to Herennius, the captain-general's
father, and ask his advice. He was now advanced in years and had given
up all public business, civil as well as military, but though his
physical powers were failing his intellect was as sound and clear as
ever. He had already heard that the Roman armies were hemmed in
between the two passes at the Caudine Forks, and when his son's
courier asked for his advice he gave it as his opinion that the whole
force ought to be at once allowed to depart uninjured. This advice was
rejected and the courier was sent back to consult him again. He now
advised that they should every one be put to death. On receiving these
replies, contradicting each other like the ambiguous utterances of an
oracle, his son's first impression was that his father's mental powers
had become impaired through his physical weakness. However, he yielded
to the unanimous wish and invited his father to the council of war.
The old man, we are told, at once complied and was conveyed in a wagon
to the camp. After taking his seat in the council, it became clear
from what he said that he had not changed his mind, but he explained
his reasons for the advice he gave. He believed that by taking the
course he first proposed, which he considered the best, he was
establishing a durable peace and friendship with a most powerful
people in treating them with such exceptional kindness; by adopting
the second he was postponing war for many generations, for it would
take that time for Rome to recover her strength painfully and slowly
after the loss of two armies. There was no third course. When his son
and the other chiefs went on to ask him what would happen if a middle
course were taken, and they were dismissed unhurt but under such
conditions as by the rights of war are imposed on the vanquished, he
replied: 'That is just the policy which neither procures friends nor
rids us of enemies. Once let men whom you have exasperated by
ignominious treatment live and you will find out your mistake. The
Romans are a nation who know not how to remain quiet under defeat.
Whatever disgrace this present extremity burns into their souls will
rankle there for ever, and will allow them no rest till they have made
you pay for it many times over.'" - Livy, History of Rome 9.3
"I begin to sing about Poseidon, the great god, mover of the earth and
fruitless sea, god of the deep who is also lord of Helicon and wide
Aegae. A two-fold office the gods allotted you, O Shaker of the Earth,
to be a tamer of horses and a saviour of ships!" - Homeric Hymn to
Poseidon II.1-5
"Neptuno has ago gratias meo patrono, qui salsis locis incolit
piscolentis, quom me ex suis locis pulchre ornatum expedivit, reducem
et tempulis, plurima praeda onustum salute horiae." (Thanks be to
Neptune my patron, who dwells in the fish-teeming salt sea, for
speeding me homeward from his sacred abode, well laden and in a good
hour) - Plautus, Rodens 906-910
"Hear, Poseidon, ruler of the sea profound, whose liquid grasp begirds
the solid ground; who, at the bottom of the stormy main, dark and
deep-bosomed holdest they watery reign. Thy awful hand the brazen
trident bears, and sea's utmost bound thy will reveres. Thee I invoke,
whose steeds the foam divide, from whose dark locks the briny waters
glide; shoe voice, loud sounding through the roaring deep, drives all
its billows in a raging heap; when fiercely riding through the boiling
sea, thy hoarse command the trembling waves obey. Earth-shaking,
dark-haired God, the liquid plains, the third division, fate to thee
ordains. `Tis thine, cerulean daimon, to survey, well-pleased, the
monsters of the ocean play. Confirm earth's basis, and with prosperous
gales waft ships along, and swell the spacious sails; add gentle
peace, and fair-haired health beside, and pour abundance in a
blameless tide." - Orphic Hymn 17 to Poseidon
Today is held in honor of the god Neptune, known to the Greeks as
Poseidon. Neptune is the second-born son of Cronus, ruler of the race
of gods known as The Titans, and his wife, the Titan-goddess of
fertility, Rhea. Fearing that he would be dethroned by one of his
offspring just as he had overthrown his own father Ouranos, Cronus
imprisoned each of his own offspring in Tartarus, the darkest section
of Hades, the Olympian underworld, as soon as he or she was born.
Appalled, the children's mother Rhea gave birth to Zeus without
Cronus's knowledge and gave him to the primeval Earth goddess Gaea to
be raised in secret. The adult Zeus freed his siblings and led them in
a successful revolt against Cronus and the Titans.
While it is believed that Neptune was among the offspring of Cronus
and Rhea imprisoned in Tartarus until later adulthood, Neptune, like
Zeus, had actually escaped this fate when his mother Rhea gave birth
to him in Mantineia, Arcadia (in the land known now as Greece). Rhea
hid Neptune who was then raised by other gods on the island of Rhodes
who taught him how to wield his mystical powers just as the Cyclopes
taught Zeus how to wield his own. Approached by the adult Zeus,
Neptune helped him free their other siblings and gather allies against
Cronus and the other Titans. The war against the Titans lasted for a
full decade ending with Zeus and his faction emerging victorious.
After Zeus became ruler of the pocket dimension of Olympus and of the
race of Olympian gods, he forged covenants with his elder brothers
Neptune and Pluto. Pluto, while still subject to Zeus's edicts, was
allowed to become the king of the Olympian underworld without any
interference from Zeus concerning the internal affairs of his kingdom.
Likewise, Neptune was allowed free reign over the vast oceans and the
various water-gods occupying the then ancient Grecian sphere of
influence. As a symbol of his station as the prime sea-god Neptune
carries an enchanted trident of various properties.
Neptune took as his wife the goddess Amphitrite, a daughter of the
elder water deities Nereus and Doris. He and Amphitrite had two
daughters Rhode and Benthiscya and a son Triton whose godly power
enabled him to assume the form of a merman. However, Neptune was
similar to his younger brother Zeus in that he had several affairs
with both mortal Earth women and Olympian goddesses and thus fathered
numerous offspring. Like Zeus, his children were sometimes born as
mortals or immortals. By his union with the Gorgon Medusa he fathered
the warrior Chrysaor and the magical flying horse, Pegasus. Akin to
Zeus who transformed himself into Amphitryon of Troezen to mate with
his wife Alcmena who became the mother of the demigod Hercules,
Neptune once disguised himself as the husband of the mortal woman
Aethra and fathered the Athenian hero Theseus. Other various offspring
of Neptune's include: Eumolpus, the Giant Sinis, the Cyclopes
Polyphemus, Orion, King Amycus, the shape-shifting god Proteus,
Agenor, Belus, Pelias, and Busiris who once became the King of Egypt.
Poseidon also had two twin giant sons, Otus and Ephialtes, who once
attempted to storm Olympus and overthrow Zeus and the Olympians before
meeting their deaths at each other's own hands in a hunting accident.
One of the most infamous affairs of Neptune involves his sister,
Demeter, Olympian goddess of the harvest. Neptune pursued Demeter who,
although first resisted his advances, eventually submitted to him. The
pair united, Demeter in the form of a mare and Neptune in the form of
a horse, and became the parents of Arion, the god of horses and
Despoena, the goddess of fruit.
Neptune was known to quarrel with his fellow Olympians to act as the
patron of particular Greek cities. For example, the sea-god was once
involved in a competition between himself and his niece, the goddess
of war Athena, for the city of Athens. To convince the people to name
the city after him and make him their patron god, Neptune used his
magical trident to produce a flowing spring. However, Athena won as a
result of giving the Athenians the far more useful olive tree (the
flowing spring was salt water). Neptune could also be a very moody
sea-god and at times used his powers to create earthquakes, floods and
storms to inflict fear and/or punishment on people as revenge. Though
difficult at times, Neptune could be cooperative as it was he who
aided the Greeks during the Trojan War before Zeus forbade the
Olympians from participating in it. After the Trojan War ended,
Neptune became angered against the hero Odysseus also known as
Ulysses, when he blinded the sea-god's son, the Cyclopes Polyphemus.
In his rage against this act Neptune saw to it that Odysseus's journey
back to Ithaca was full of trials and difficulties. Indeed it took
Odysseus 10 years to reach Ithaca after he and his men had departed
from Troy.
Today is also dedicated to the goddess Pietas. Pietas is usually
translated as "duty" or "devotion," and it simultaneously suggests
duty to the gods and duty to family - which is expanded to duty to the
community and duty to the state thanks to the analogy between the
family and the state, conventional in the ancient world. Vergil's hero
Aeneas embodies this virtue, and is particularly emblematic of it in
book II of the Aeneid when he flees burning Troy bearing his father on
his back and carrying his household gods. Pietas' symbol is the stork.
Valete bene!
Cato
|
|
Palladio sen. s.d.
Thanks for your words, Censori! Your appreciation does honor me, especially being associated with Hon. Iunia, dignified representative of a much esteemed gens.
Vale sincerely,
P. Memmius Albucius
praetor, cos. el.
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete cives,
>
> My heartfelt congratulations to all the winners of this year's elections. May I especially offer my congratulations to our senior consul-elect, P. Memmius Albucius, and praetor-elect Equestria Iunia Laeca. I am glad to see you both in the positions you have justly earned.
>
> Valete,
>
> Palladius
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M.C.C." <complutensis@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis Consul, M. Iulio Severo Consuli collegae,
> > Praetoribus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus, Civibusque Novae Romae S.P.D.
> >
> > Diribitor M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus has forwarded the final
> > election results for Comitia Centuriata which are copypasted in this
> > message:
> >
> >
> > /PRAEFATIO/ - PREFACE TO THE PRAYER
> > /
> > "Iuppiter Optime Maxime,
> > te hoc ture commovendo
> > bonas preces precor,
> > uti sis volens propitius
> > nobis custodibus diribitoribusque,/
> >
> > /magistratibus candidatis,/
> >
> > /consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,/
> >
> > /tribuno C. Vipsanio et plebi Novae Romanae,/
> >
> > /Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus,
> > mihi, domo, familiae!/"
> >
> > Jupiter, Best and Greatest,
> > by offering you this incense
> > I pray good prayers so
> > that you be benevolent and propitious
> > to us, the Custodes and Diribitores,
> >
> > to the candidates for magistracies,
> >
> > to the Presiding Consul M. Curiatius and to the Republic of the Nova
> > Roman People of Quirites,
> >
> > to the Presiding Tribune, C. Vipsanius and to the Nova Roman Plebs,
> >
> > to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites,
> > to me, to my household and to my family.
> >
> > (Incense is placed in the focus of the altar.)
> >
> >
> > /"Iuppiter Optime Maxime,
> > uti te ture commovendo
> > bonas preces precatus sum,
> > eiusdem rei ergo
> > macte vino inferio esto!"/
> >
> > Jupiter, Best and Greatest,
> > as by offering incense
> > I have prayed good prayers,
> > for the very same reason
> > be thou blessed by this wine.
> >
> > (Libation of wine is made.)
> > /
> > PRECATIO/ - THE PRAYER
> > /
> > "Iuppiter Optime Maxime,
> > te precor, quaesoque:
> > uti suffragia tu custodias/
> >
> > /utique suffriagia incerta voluntate tua decernas,/
> >
> > /cum sestertio Novo Romano sortem faciam;/
> >
> > /utique sies volens propitius/
> >
> > /nobis custodibus diribitoribusque,/
> >
> > /magistratibus candidatis,/
> >
> > /consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,/
> >
> > /tribuno C. Vipsanio et plebi Novae Romanae/
> >
> > /Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus,
> > mihi, domo, familiae!/"
> >
> > Jupiter, Best and Greatest,
> > I pray and ask you so
> > that you watch over our elections,
> >
> > and you decide the tie votes according to your will
> > when I will draw the lots by tossing a Nova Roman sesterce;
> > and that you be benevolent and propitious
> > to us, the Custodes and Diribitores,
> >
> > to the candidates for magistracies,
> >
> > to the Presiding Consul M. Curiatius and to the Republic of the Nova
> > Roman People of Quirites,
> >
> > to the Presiding Tribune, C. Vipsanius and to the Nova Roman Plebs,
> >
> > to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites,
> > to me, to my household and to my family.
> >
> >
> > /SACRIFICIUM/ - THE SACRIFICE
> >
> > /"Cuius rei ergo macte
> > hoc vino libando,
> > hoc ture ommovendo
> > esto fito volens propitius
> > nobis custodibus diribitoribusque,/
> >
> > /magistratibus candidatis,/
> >
> > /consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium,/
> >
> > /tribuno C. Vipsanio et plebi Novae Romanae,/
> >
> > /Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus,
> > mihi, domo, familiae!/"
> >
> > For this reason, thou blessed
> > by offering this wine,
> > by offering this incense
> > be benevolent and propitious
> > to us, the Custodes and Diribitores,
> >
> > to the candidates for magistracies,
> >
> > to the Presiding Consul M. Curiatius and to the Republic of the Nova
> > Roman People of Quirites,
> >
> > to the Presiding Tribune, C. Vipsanius and to the Nova Roman Plebs,
> >
> > to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites,
> > to me, to my household and to my family.
> >
> >
> > (Libation is made and incense is sacrificed.)
> >
> >
> >
> > *AFTER THIS the ties were ceremonially broken by lot.*
> >
> > *See the report below.*
> >
> >
> >
> > FINAL RESULTS OF THE CONSULAR ELECTION IN THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
> >
> >
> >
> > - Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum:
> > /
> > "In the first round, the first (number one) preferences of the centuries
> > are compared. If at this stage any candidate is the first preference of
> > more than fifty per cent of the centuries (not including any 'void'
> > centuries - centuries in which no 'yes' votes were cast), that candidate
> > is elected. If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes,
> > then the candidate who is the number one choice of fewest centuries
> > (ties being decided by lot) is eliminated. The election or elimination
> > of a candidate ends the first round."
> >
> > "If at the end of any round the number of candidates is equal to the
> > number of vacancies and all the candidates have the same number of
> > centuries, the tie is decided by lot, but rather than eliminate the
> > loser, the winner is elected, and the round ends."/
> >
> >
> >
> > *_1st round (48 centuriae voted, 25 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> >
> >
> > P. Memmius Albucius - 16 centuriae
> >
> > K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus - 15 centuriae
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus - 9 centuriae
> > C. Equtius Cato - 8 centuria
> >
> > *No one is elected in the first round of counting.
> > C. Equtius Cato is eliminated because he is the candidate who is the
> > number one choice of fewest centuries.
> > *
> >
> > - Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum:
> > /
> > "If there still are vacancies to be filled, there is a second round in
> > which each century which voted for the elected or eliminated candidate
> > as its first choice is given to its second choice candidate. If any such
> > century has no second choice, that century becomes 'void'. As before, if
> > any candidate now has a majority of the centuries (not including any
> > 'void' centuries), he or she is elected. If not, the candidate with the
> > fewest centuries is eliminated. This concludes the second round." /
> >
> > *_2nd round (47 centuriae counted, 24 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > P. Memmius Albucius - 18 centuriae
> > K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus - 15 centuriae
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus - 14 centuriae
> >
> > *No one is elected in the second round of counting.
> > Ti. Galerius Paulinus is eliminated in the second round.
> > *
> > - Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum:
> > /
> > "If there are still vacancies to be filled, each century held by the
> > candidate who was elected or eliminated in the previous round is given
> > to its second choice candidate or, if that candidate has been elected or
> > eliminated, to its third choice candidate. Any century having no
> > candidate as its next choice becomes 'void'. Any candidate who now has a
> > majority of centuries (not including 'void' centuries) is elected, and
> > if no candidate has a majority then the candidate with the fewest
> > centuries is eliminated, ending the third round."
> >
> > "This procedure is repeated until all the vacancies are filled."/
> >
> >
> >
> > *_3rd round (39 centuriae counted, 20 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > P. Memmius Albucius - 21 centuriae
> > K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus - 18 centuriae
> >
> >
> > *P. Memmius Albucius is elected** in the third round. Eliminated from
> > further counting.*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *_4th round (38 centuriae counted, 19 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus - 38 centuriae
> >
> > *K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus* *is elected in the fourth round.*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > *SUMMARY:*
> >
> > *CONSULES ELECTED BY THE CENTURIES ARE:*
> >
> > *P. Memmius Albucius and K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > II. FINAL RESULTS OF THE PRAETORIAL ELECTION IN THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
> >
> >
> >
> > *_1st round (48 centuriae voted, 25 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > Equestria Iunia Laeca - 17 centuriae
> > M. Hortensia Maior -- 12 centuriae
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar - 11 centuriae
> > Q. Fabius Maximus -- 8 centuriae
> >
> >
> > *No one is elected in the first round of counting.
> > Q. Fabius Maximus is eliminated because he is the candidate who is the
> > number one choice of the fewest centuries.*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *_2nd round (47 centuriae counted, 24 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > Equestria Iunia Laeca -- 16 centuriae
> > M. Hortensia Maior -- 16 centuriae
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar -- 15 centuriae
> >
> > *No one is elected in the second round of counting.
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar is eliminated because he is the candidate who is the
> > number one choice of the fewest centuries.*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *_3rd round (38 centuriae counted, 20 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > Equestria Iunia Laeca -- 20 centuriae
> > M. Hortensia Maior -- 18 centuriae
> >
> >
> >
> > *Equestria Iunia Laeca is elected in the second round. Eliminated from
> > further counting.*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *_4th round (32 centuriae counted, 17 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > M. Hortensia Maior -- 32 centuriae
> >
> >
> >
> > *M. Hortensia Maior* *is elected in the second round.*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > *SUMMARY:*
> >
> > *PRAETRICES ELECTED BY THE CENTURIES ARE:*
> >
> > *Equestria Iunia Laeca and M. Hortensia Maior*
> >
> > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> >
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > III. FINAL RESULTS OF THE CENSORIAL ELECTION IN THE COMITIA CENTURIATA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus withdrew his candidacy before the
> > beginning of the elections, he is not counted. He received the votes of
> > 1 century.
> >
> >
> >
> > *_1st round (44 centuriae voted, 23 centuriae needed to win)_*
> >
> > T. Iulius Sabinus -- 43 centuriae
> > Invalid vote - 1 centuria
> >
> >
> > *T. Iulius Sabinus is elected in the first round of counting.
> > *
> >
> > * *
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > *SUMMARY:*
> >
> > *CENSOR ELECTED BY THE FIRST CLASS CENTURIES IS:*
> >
> > *T. Iulius Sabinus*
> >
> > *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
>
|
|
Salve Gualtere
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Actually, I didn't cite Taylor. I cited Rosenstein. As regards the ritual space of sortition, yes, indeed, it was a templum, but all public religious activity was in a templum, so simply because something takes place in a templum doesn't automatically make it augury.
MMPH: First, I have not used the term augury or augurium. Sortition is a form of auspicium, and there is a difference between augurium and auspicium. Auguria may be taken only by certain people, in specified places, to address certain, specified questions related to the entire City. Auspicia refers to any type of consultation with the Gods. A sortitio is a form of auspicium.
One particular example of a sortition as a form of auspicium is when Fortuna Primigenia was consulted at Praeneste. In one case, when Lutatius Cerco sought to consult the lots at Praeneste, he was forbidden to do so by the Senate; "for they judged that public business should be conducted under national auspices and not foreign ones." (Val Max. 1.3.2: auspiciis enim patriis, non alienigenis rem publicam administrari iudicabant oportere.)
Further, in addition to Plautus in 'Casina' and Verrius Flaccus in 'Argonautica' or with Valerius Maximus above, there is Festus' own comment, "Sors also means the response of a deity, and what falls to each person by allotment." 'Sors . . . et deis responsum, et quod cuique accident in sortiento.'
>But, when actions do take place in a templum they are potentially subject to augural supervision. So Linderski states (2193 n. 173): "It was the augurs who inaugurated the templa, and consequently it was their prerogative to decide the question of the ritual validity of all public acts which took place in a templum." Rosenstein follows Linderski ("Sorting out the lot", 58): "Casting the lots in a templum (and possibly auspicato) merely placed them on the same footing vis-a-vis the gods as public meetings, sessions of the Senate and voting assemblies."
>
MMPH: Merely? Isn't that the whole point? The Gods are present and give response through the sortition, sors deis responsum. Auspices were taken in erecting the templum, and as Rosenstein says here, auspices were possibly taken before and as part of setting up the sitella, but he fails to see that the sortition is itself a form of auspicium.
> The above addresses the situation in Livy 41.18.7-8 where a "vitii factum" was found because, apparently, Valerius wasn't inside the templum when the sortition took place. I say apparently because 41.18.8 is actually textually corrupt and the exact meaning is unclear. Nevertheless, what would have been the consequence if, let us say, the Senate decided to meet outside of a templum (Gellius 14.7.8: nisi in loco per augures constituto, quod templum appellaretur, senatus consultum factum esset, iustum id non fuisse)? It, too, would have been a vitii factum. This doesn't mean that a Senate meeting or its legislative actions are acts of augury.
>
MMPH: If you think that then you miss the whole point of holding comitia inside a templum, conducting proper ritual, including the sortition to determine the order of voting, and so forth, because Romans did consider the result of a comitia vote to be sanctum since it was indeed regarded as an expression of the will of the Gods. As C. Aelius Gallus put it, "If what specifically makes temples sacrum is present, then the same can be said of laws and institutions put forward by the ancestors as sanctum, in order that they cannot be violated without punishment (GRF Aelius 18)."
> Likewise, if a signum ex diriis had been observed during a Senate session then everything would stop, but it doesn't mean the Senate session itself is an act of augury. Such oblative signs can occur in any context where augurs are present for observatio, which explains Livy 9.38.15, where the curia Faucia was drawn and declared a "triste omen". Faucia had become just such a signum not because of anything dealing with sortition, but because it was associated with two disasters, as Livy explains. This also sheds light on what is meant by the praerogativa being an "omen iustorum comitiorum" in Cicero De Div. 1.103: the drawing of the praerogativa was a particular moment at which augurs were on the look out for auspicia oblativa
>
MMPH: On the contrary, "First the allotment was a solicited sign, auspicia impetrativa, subject to augural strictures in its ritual (Stewart p. 42)." There are five classes of signs recognized by the augures, of which one is auspicia oblativa ex diris. The selection of curia Fauca was an auspicium impetrativa as it came in response to a sacrifice and was solicited - in effect the question was which curia should vote first. That it was curia Fauca, and through past experience it was maybe judged auspicia oblativa as well does not detract from the fact that an auspicium was solicited in the first place through a sortition.
> (Rosentein, "Sorting out the lot", 61, overtly argues that divine connexions with the result of the praerogative were mostly in the realm of popular superstitio).
>
MMPH: And here Rosenstein reveals his own prejudices and nothing on what ancient Romans thought. To impart modern skepticism against all religion on ancient cultores, as though they practiced superstition rather than religion, is intellectual masturbation. How self gratifying to say those old Romans were superstitious, and that he, Rosenstein, knew better what Romans thought than they did themselves. This is an argument from attitudes, modern attitudes that are suspicious of all religion. It is an insult not only to my own religion, the beliefs and practices of all cultores Romani, but also an insult to the faith and beliefs of our Christian citizens, and Jewish citizens, our one Hindu (I believe) and a few Muslims who also visit our lists. Our discussion is on what ancient Romans practiced out of belief. Insulting their beliefs or ours does not change facts that sortition, as employed in comitia, was regarded and is regarded as a form of auspicium.
> Unfortunately, I don't have Taylor (was checked out at the library) but Linderski thinks she was on the wrong track (2194 n. 173) and Rosenstein's paper begins with a head-on attack on Taylor's interpretation, pointing out that Taylor never collated all of the evidence for sortition and its relationship with the pax deorum. Now, Stewart (_Public Office_ (1998) 38-51) does want to argue that sortition was a type of auspices, but for the above reasons I disagree.
>
MMPH: LOL So you disagree with Stewart and I agree with her. Rosenstein wrote in 1995. Stewart's "Public Office in early Rome; Ritual Procedure and Political Practice" was published in 1997 as a "head-on attack" to Rosensteins' misperception. And apparently my view of their relative positions is shared by others. You can read the entire the Bryn Mawr Review of Stewart's book at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-11-23.html
"S.'s work thus asserts e silentio that the prosopographical method is too narrow and too shallow. That approach tended to treat religion as insignificant in the historical course of events, and it has resulted in negative and often cynical attitudes on this subject. For example, Rosenstein holds that we look in vain for religiosity in Roman public sortition. S.'s method, directly in Taylor's tradition, is to clarify key events by the light of ritual, procedure, and terminology. It could be described in A.D. Momigliano's terms as a reintegration of antiquarianism qua sociology into the proper study of ancient history."
As the reviewer says, and I agree, "(Stewart) vigorously explodes
Rosenstein's argument."
Such ideas as expressed by Rosenstein contribute little to the study of Roma antiqua because it takes such a cynical view of Roman attitudes towards religion. It does not consider how Romans actually perceived such things themselves. It dismisses such comments as Valerius Maximus made that "Among our ancestors, no affair was undertaken, either in public or private, before taking the auspices (2.1.1)." At times they dismiss religious expression as insincere, or simply ignore that the Romans had any religious beliefs. I recall one woman telling me once how she couldn't imagine Julius Caesar, being such a pragmatic military commander, would perform religious rites, ignoring such facts as his being the pontifex maximus, that he would stop in mid-campaign to perform lustrationes of his army, that before entering a carriage he always went through a private ritual to call upon the Gods for protection while he travelled. It is just a blindness to think this way.
> In short, augural jurisdiction doesn't make everything "augury". Indeed, it would be peculiar if the results of sortition were actually considered auspices themselves, since how would you account for examples where the results were ignored? Take, for instance, the story in Livy 26.29 where Marcellus and Laevinus swap provinces after they had been assigned by lot. Are the augurs called in? No. Does Livy consider it contra auspicium? No.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
The term that Livy uses is comparatio for this swap of provinces, a term that Stewart covers. As with the selection of curia Faucia, the Siciliones obviously saw provincia Sicilia falling to Marcellus as a dire omen, which Livy covers. Livy also makes clear that the senate would not pass a senatus consultus to order a change of which provincia the consuls should take. They would not contravene the sortition consulting the Gods. An arrangement by comparatio had been used before this time, and resorted to here as a means to get around the sortition without contravening it. The exception does not prove your point by rather confirms the senate's view of the sortes as divinely given.
The Tenitae were so named, according to Festus, because what they provided was binding. That is, these minor goddesses, thought to be within the lots, provided the numina through which the higher Gods lent Their opinion by acting on the lots. How do you reconcile the presence of the Tenitae in lots if they are merely lottery balls, or why Jupiter Arcus protected the container in which they were stored, if the lots and the act of drawing them had no religious significance? And if you accept that sortition did hold some religious significance, then what else was it but a form of auspicium when the Gods were called upon to oversee which lot fell to who?
Vale
Piscinus
|
|
Salve,
> MMPH: First, I have not used the term augury or augurium. Sortition is a form of auspicium, and there is a difference between augurium and auspicium. Auguria may be taken only by certain people, in specified places, to address certain, specified questions related to the entire City. Auspicia refers to any type of consultation with the Gods. A sortitio is a form of auspicium.
This is a late Republican and Imperial expansion of the term "auspicium", equivalent to "fortune telling", and actually undermines your argument for augural jurisdiction; it certainly does not imply anything about the pax deorum. And actually, the sort of distinction you're trying to draw is very late indeed, 4th century CE, from Servius Aen. 3.20. Servius also makes other distinctions, such as limiting impetrative signs to auspicies and oblative ones to augury (which probably reflects the decreasing public role of augurs during the Imperial period) but this simply cannot be maintained for Republican usage, since we also find both terms often being used interchangeably.
So, if you want to make the argument that sortition is something that necessarily falls under the jurisdiction of augurs and you want to avoid sloppy late Republic and especially Imperial usage, you should stick to "augury". Incidentally, I consider Stewart's usage of "asuspicium" sloppy. She offers definitions for it twice, on pp. 22 and 117, where she defines it according to its strict etymological origins, that is, looking for signs from birds. But, her desire to define sortition as "auspicium" indicates her usage of the term moves wide of her definition; in practice, she goes with a late, broad, sense of "auspicium" where it can mean just about any form of fortune-telling, but then tries to conceptual link this specifically with a strict sense of public augury.
> One particular example of a sortition as a form of auspicium is when Fortuna Primigenia was consulted at Praeneste. In one case, when Lutatius Cerco sought to consult the lots at Praeneste, he was forbidden to do so by the Senate; "for they judged that public business should be conducted under national auspices and not foreign ones." (Val Max. 1.3.2: auspiciis enim patriis, non alienigenis rem publicam administrari iudicabant oportere.)
Praeneste was, strictly speaking, a non-Roman site and was considered as an oracle, yes, but this also has no bearing on what Romans thought about their own lot-taking in public contexts. This late passage simply reveals the expanded "fortune-telling" usage of the term auspicium; see above.
>
> Further, in addition to Plautus in 'Casina' and Verrius Flaccus in 'Argonautica' or with Valerius Maximus above, there is Festus' own comment, "Sors also means the response of a deity, and what falls to each person by allotment." 'Sors . . . et deis responsum, et quod cuique accident in sortiento.'
You need to start giving citations so I can check your sources. As for Plautus, you have to recognize, first and foremost, that it is a comedy and it is playing on popular sentiments in the audience and not necessarily any official augural conception. Popular religious sentiment could and often did associate lots with divine will, not only at Rome, but elsewhere. But, popular religion can have many elements that never formally entered the conceptual framework of the sacra publica. Now, I *did* look up Festus (it was easy enough just searching for "sors" since his work is a lexicon), and this is the full text: (380.36) Sors et <patrimonium signifi>cat, unde con<sortes --- dicimus> et dei[s] resp<onsum, et quod cuique> accidit in so<rtiendo. First of all, it is clear the text is fragmentary. Secondly, if we accept the reconstruction, what is he saying? He is listing three different usages for "sors": inheritance, a response from gods, and the result of casting lots. The last clause is separate from the second, so while indicating that sors can mean a divine response, he also recognizes it can mean the mundane random result of drawing lots. I do not deny that sors *can* mean a divine response, as it does in certain foreign cultic sites (or attested magical practices for that matter), but does it mean that in the context of public lots for office? You can't merely assume the second meaning whenever Livy says sortition was employed in a public context.
> MMPH: Merely? Isn't that the whole point? The Gods are present and give response through the sortition, sors deis responsum. Auspices were taken in erecting the templum, and as Rosenstein says here, auspices were possibly taken before and as part of setting up the sitella, but he fails to see that the sortition is itself a form of auspicium.
Yes, merely, because the point is that augury only covers what the augur is immediately doing; it doesn't carry implications for the pax deorum for every action and event that flows afterwards. Sors is only "auspicium" in a diluted late usage; see beginning of post for discussion.
>
>
> MMPH: If you think that then you miss the whole point of holding comitia inside a templum, conducting proper ritual, including the sortition to determine the order of voting, and so forth, because Romans did consider the result of a comitia vote to be sanctum since it was indeed regarded as an expression of the will of the Gods. As C. Aelius Gallus put it, "If what specifically makes temples sacrum is present, then the same can be said of laws and institutions put forward by the ancestors as sanctum, in order that they cannot be violated without punishment (GRF Aelius 18)."
First of all, "sacrum" refers to anything that has been dedicated to the gods, whether it be walls of a city, or money or anything else (Aelius in Festus 424.13). It is a status of objects. In fact, Aelius, makes the specific differences in meanings clear in Festus 348.33ff: Inter sacrum autem, et sanctum, et religiosum differentias bellissime refert: sacrum aedificium, consecratum deo; sanctum murum, qui sit circum oppidum; religiosum sepulcrum, ubi mortuus sepultus aut humatus sit, satis constare ait. He goes on to say, however, that the usages have gotten blurred (sed ita + portione + quadam, et temporibus eadem videri posse).
But here is the line you invoked (Festus 350.4): Siquidem quod sacrum est, idem lege aut instituto maiorum sanctum esse puta[n]t, <ut> violari id sine poena non possit.
You've misunderstood the Latin. It says: "Indeed, insofar as it is sacrum, also by law and the institutions of the ancestors they reckon it to be sanctum, so that one cannot violate it without punishment." He isn't saying that the laws and institutions are sanctum, but that what is sacrum is confirmed as sanctum BY the laws and institutions, thereby assigning punishment for anyone who violates them. So, your whole understanding on this point was informed be a misreading of the Latin. The laws and institutions--in short, the results of the comitia in a templum--are NOT sancta, but they declare OTHER things to be sancta, in this case things that are sacra already.
> MMPH: On the contrary, "First the allotment was a solicited sign, auspicia impetrativa, subject to augural strictures in its ritual (Stewart p. 42)." There are five classes of signs recognized by the augures, of which one is auspicia oblativa ex diris. The selection of curia Fauca was an auspicium impetrativa as it came in response to a sacrifice and was solicited - in effect the question was which curia should vote first. That it was curia Fauca, and through past experience it was maybe judged auspicia oblativa as well does not detract from the fact that an auspicium was solicited in the first place through a sortition.
Yes, Stewart calls it "auspicia impetrative", but that is, first of all, her own categorization. It is "auspicia" only in a late and loose sense that is not strictly linked to augury (as already mentioned above); her usage is therefore sloppy. If you're going to stick to the five categories of signs given by Festus, then the curia Fauca MUST be a sigum ex diris, and ex diris signs were not impetrative; to consider it as such one would have to argue that the augurs had explicitly requested a negative sign (since all ex diris signs are by definition negative); is that what you're arguing? Stewart calling the result "auspicia impetrative", or auspicia at all for that matter, just begs her own question.
>
> > (Rosentein, "Sorting out the lot", 61, overtly argues that divine connexions with the result of the praerogative were mostly in the realm of popular superstitio).
> >
>
> MMPH: And here Rosenstein reveals his own prejudices and nothing on what ancient Romans thought. To impart modern skepticism against all religion on ancient cultores, as though they practiced superstition rather than religion, is intellectual masturbation...
Well, you're here deviating from the historical and textual discussion into something different. You won't suck me into your exclamations of pious indignation.
> MMPH: LOL So you disagree with Stewart and I agree with her. Rosenstein wrote in 1995. Stewart's "Public Office in early Rome; Ritual Procedure and Political Practice" was published in 1997 as a "head-on attack" to Rosensteins' misperception. And apparently my view of their relative positions is shared by others. You can read the entire the Bryn Mawr Review of Stewart's book at http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-11-23.html
But, actually, Stewart's argument doesn't directly address Rosenstein, even if she wants to pretend it does (12 n. 1). Her entire argument comes down to: Augurs were present and used augural terminology, so therefore sortition is a form of taking auspices (see last sentence on 37-38). She never addresses the point that unless the sortition resulted in a signum ex diris, the results could be ignored and changed without any criticism from augurs. Citing a review of her book doesn't get your argument anywhere, unless you just want this to descend into a big argument from appeal to authority.
>
> The term that Livy uses is comparatio for this swap of provinces, a term that Stewart covers. As with the selection of curia Faucia, the Siciliones obviously saw provincia Sicilia falling to Marcellus as a dire omen, which Livy covers. Livy also makes clear that the senate would not pass a senatus consultus to order a change of which provincia the consuls should take. They would not contravene the sortition consulting the Gods. An arrangement by comparatio had been used before this time, and resorted to here as a means to get around the sortition without contravening it. The exception does not prove your point by rather confirms the senate's view of the sortes as divinely given.
Livy never says they considered it an "omen" or "dire", and he certainly never implies that the Senate's decision had anything to do with religious scruples; you're reading *all* of that into the text. What Livy does say is that Marcellus did not want the Senate formally swap the provinces because it would be embarrassing to him and his colleague. This implies exactly the opposite of what you want it to say, that is, that the Senate may well have been inclined to contravene the results of the sortition just like it had avoided the sortes altogether under a previous occasion. Look at Stewart's discussion on p. 147. She tries to get around the issue in footnote 22 by citing pseudo-Asconius to the effect that the results of a lot are not binding until they are formally accepted.
But, if that is the case, how does that compare with auspices? Are the results of auspices generally only binding if they are accepted? And what implications does this have for the pax deorum? At the very least it means that the results of sortition are irrelevant for the pax deorum unless one agrees with them. I would go further and suggest this contradicts the typical nature of impetrative augural signs. There is a fundamental disconnect here, then, between the conceptual framework behind public sortition in the Republic and "normal" auspication. What Stewart has unwittingly done in her sloppy application of the term "auspicium" is to arrive back at Rosentein's thesis, that the lots were primarily subject to political manipulation and their results were not in themselves religiously binding.
> The Tenitae were so named, according to Festus, because what they provided was binding. That is, these minor goddesses, thought to be within the lots, provided the numina through which the higher Gods lent Their opinion by acting on the lots. How do you reconcile the presence of the Tenitae in lots if they are merely lottery balls, or why Jupiter Arcus protected the container in which they were stored, if the lots and the act of drawing them had no religious significance? And if you accept that sortition did hold some religious significance, then what else was it but a form of auspicium when the Gods were called upon to oversee which lot fell to who?
>
I consider the Tenitae a late imperial divine abstraction in popular superstitio. They are not even directly preserved in Festus, but in the epitome of Festus by Paulus Diaconus from the 8th century. On such thin evidence one would be hard-pressed to argue that they were considered to exist in the Republican mind. I hold that sortition had the same religious significance that anything else has that occurs within a templum, which is, essentially, action in a sacred space where one welcomes the gods to provide signa oblativa when they see things going contrary to their will, but every *human* action that takes place in a templum is not auspicium.
As argued earlier with regard to law and results of the comitia in general (re Festus 350.4), they are not religiously binding. Even Stewart contradicts you on this point in 147.22. I understand that in an innocent reading of her book, especially in light of her pretense in the first footnote on p. 12, one would think she is arguing that sortition is auspicium in a normal sense, but she is not and it is not. I think a big part of our disagreement is due to a sloppy use of the term "auspicium" in Stewart.
Vale,
Gualterus
|
|
Salvete Horati,
Gualtere
These posts/discussions
really are wonderful. Your scholarship -- and that of so many others in Nova
Roma -- is so well appreciated.
Optime
valete,
L. Aemilia
Mamerca
Salve Gualtere
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com,
"gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@... > wrote: > > >
Salve, > > Actually, I didn't cite Taylor. I cited Rosenstein. As
regards the ritual space of sortition, yes, indeed, it was a templum, but all
public religious activity was in a templum, so simply because something takes
place in a templum doesn't automatically make it augury.
MMPH: First,
I have not used the term augury or augurium. Sortition is a form of auspicium,
and there is a difference between augurium and auspicium. Auguria may be taken
only by certain people, in specified places, to address certain, specified
questions related to the entire City. Auspicia refers to any type of
consultation with the Gods. A sortitio is a form of auspicium.
One
particular example of a sortition as a form of auspicium is when Fortuna
Primigenia was consulted at Praeneste. In one case, when Lutatius Cerco sought
to consult the lots at Praeneste, he was forbidden to do so by the Senate;
"for they judged that public business should be conducted under national
auspices and not foreign ones." (Val Max. 1.3.2: auspiciis enim patriis, non
alienigenis rem publicam administrari iudicabant oportere.)
Further, in
addition to Plautus in 'Casina' and Verrius Flaccus in 'Argonautica' or with
Valerius Maximus above, there is Festus' own comment, "Sors also means the
response of a deity, and what falls to each person by allotment." 'Sors . . .
et deis responsum, et quod cuique accident in sortiento.'
>But,
when actions do take place in a templum they are potentially subject to
augural supervision. So Linderski states (2193 n. 173): "It was the augurs who
inaugurated the templa, and consequently it was their prerogative to decide
the question of the ritual validity of all public acts which took place in a
templum." Rosenstein follows Linderski ("Sorting out the lot", 58): "Casting
the lots in a templum (and possibly auspicato) merely placed them on the same
footing vis-a-vis the gods as public meetings, sessions of the Senate and
voting assemblies." >
MMPH: Merely? Isn't that the whole point?
The Gods are present and give response through the sortition, sors deis
responsum. Auspices were taken in erecting the templum, and as Rosenstein says
here, auspices were possibly taken before and as part of setting up the
sitella, but he fails to see that the sortition is itself a form of
auspicium.
> The above addresses the situation in Livy 41.18.7-8
where a "vitii factum" was found because, apparently, Valerius wasn't inside
the templum when the sortition took place. I say apparently because 41.18.8 is
actually textually corrupt and the exact meaning is unclear. Nevertheless,
what would have been the consequence if, let us say, the Senate decided to
meet outside of a templum (Gellius 14.7.8: nisi in loco per augures
constituto, quod templum appellaretur, senatus consultum factum esset, iustum
id non fuisse)? It, too, would have been a vitii factum. This doesn't mean
that a Senate meeting or its legislative actions are acts of augury.
>
MMPH: If you think that then you miss the whole point of
holding comitia inside a templum, conducting proper ritual, including the
sortition to determine the order of voting, and so forth, because Romans did
consider the result of a comitia vote to be sanctum since it was indeed
regarded as an expression of the will of the Gods. As C. Aelius Gallus put it,
"If what specifically makes temples sacrum is present, then the same can be
said of laws and institutions put forward by the ancestors as sanctum, in
order that they cannot be violated without punishment (GRF Aelius 18)."
> Likewise, if a signum ex diriis had been observed during a Senate
session then everything would stop, but it doesn't mean the Senate session
itself is an act of augury. Such oblative signs can occur in any context where
augurs are present for observatio, which explains Livy 9.38.15, where the
curia Faucia was drawn and declared a "triste omen". Faucia had become just
such a signum not because of anything dealing with sortition, but because it
was associated with two disasters, as Livy explains. This also sheds light on
what is meant by the praerogativa being an "omen iustorum comitiorum" in
Cicero De Div. 1.103: the drawing of the praerogativa was a particular moment
at which augurs were on the look out for auspicia
oblativa >
MMPH: On the contrary, "First the allotment was a
solicited sign, auspicia impetrativa, subject to augural strictures in its
ritual (Stewart p. 42)." There are five classes of signs recognized by the
augures, of which one is auspicia oblativa ex diris. The selection of curia
Fauca was an auspicium impetrativa as it came in response to a sacrifice and
was solicited - in effect the question was which curia should vote first. That
it was curia Fauca, and through past experience it was maybe judged auspicia
oblativa as well does not detract from the fact that an auspicium was
solicited in the first place through a sortition.
> (Rosentein,
"Sorting out the lot", 61, overtly argues that divine connexions with the
result of the praerogative were mostly in the realm of popular
superstitio) . >
MMPH: And here Rosenstein reveals his own
prejudices and nothing on what ancient Romans thought. To impart modern
skepticism against all religion on ancient cultores, as though they practiced
superstition rather than religion, is intellectual masturbation. How self
gratifying to say those old Romans were superstitious, and that he,
Rosenstein, knew better what Romans thought than they did themselves. This is
an argument from attitudes, modern attitudes that are suspicious of all
religion. It is an insult not only to my own religion, the beliefs and
practices of all cultores Romani, but also an insult to the faith and beliefs
of our Christian citizens, and Jewish citizens, our one Hindu (I believe) and
a few Muslims who also visit our lists. Our discussion is on what ancient
Romans practiced out of belief. Insulting their beliefs or ours does not
change facts that sortition, as employed in comitia, was regarded and is
regarded as a form of auspicium.
> Unfortunately, I don't have
Taylor (was checked out at the library) but Linderski thinks she was on the
wrong track (2194 n. 173) and Rosenstein's paper begins with a head-on attack
on Taylor's interpretation, pointing out that Taylor never collated all of the
evidence for sortition and its relationship with the pax deorum. Now, Stewart
(_Public Office_ (1998) 38-51) does want to argue that sortition was a type of
auspices, but for the above reasons I disagree. >
MMPH: LOL So
you disagree with Stewart and I agree with her. Rosenstein wrote in 1995.
Stewart's "Public Office in early Rome; Ritual Procedure and Political
Practice" was published in 1997 as a "head-on attack" to Rosensteins'
misperception. And apparently my view of their relative positions is shared by
others. You can read the entire the Bryn Mawr Review of Stewart's book at http://bmcr. brynmawr. edu/1999/ 1999-11-23. html
"S.'s work thus asserts e silentio that the prosopographical method is
too narrow and too shallow. That approach tended to treat religion as
insignificant in the historical course of events, and it has resulted in
negative and often cynical attitudes on this subject. For example, Rosenstein
holds that we look in vain for religiosity in Roman public sortition. S.'s
method, directly in Taylor's tradition, is to clarify key events by the light
of ritual, procedure, and terminology. It could be described in A.D.
Momigliano's terms as a reintegration of antiquarianism qua sociology into the
proper study of ancient history."
As the reviewer says, and I agree,
"(Stewart) vigorously explodes Rosenstein's argument."
Such ideas as
expressed by Rosenstein contribute little to the study of Roma antiqua because
it takes such a cynical view of Roman attitudes towards religion. It does not
consider how Romans actually perceived such things themselves. It dismisses
such comments as Valerius Maximus made that "Among our ancestors, no affair
was undertaken, either in public or private, before taking the auspices
(2.1.1)." At times they dismiss religious expression as insincere, or simply
ignore that the Romans had any religious beliefs. I recall one woman telling
me once how she couldn't imagine Julius Caesar, being such a pragmatic
military commander, would perform religious rites, ignoring such facts as his
being the pontifex maximus, that he would stop in mid-campaign to perform
lustrationes of his army, that before entering a carriage he always went
through a private ritual to call upon the Gods for protection while he
travelled. It is just a blindness to think this way.
> In short,
augural jurisdiction doesn't make everything "augury". Indeed, it would be
peculiar if the results of sortition were actually considered auspices
themselves, since how would you account for examples where the results were
ignored? Take, for instance, the story in Livy 26.29 where Marcellus and
Laevinus swap provinces after they had been assigned by lot. Are the augurs
called in? No. Does Livy consider it contra auspicium? No. > >
Vale, > > Gualterus >
The term that Livy uses is
comparatio for this swap of provinces, a term that Stewart covers. As with the
selection of curia Faucia, the Siciliones obviously saw provincia Sicilia
falling to Marcellus as a dire omen, which Livy covers. Livy also makes clear
that the senate would not pass a senatus consultus to order a change of which
provincia the consuls should take. They would not contravene the sortition
consulting the Gods. An arrangement by comparatio had been used before this
time, and resorted to here as a means to get around the sortition without
contravening it. The exception does not prove your point by rather confirms
the senate's view of the sortes as divinely given.
The Tenitae were so
named, according to Festus, because what they provided was binding. That is,
these minor goddesses, thought to be within the lots, provided the numina
through which the higher Gods lent Their opinion by acting on the lots. How do
you reconcile the presence of the Tenitae in lots if they are merely lottery
balls, or why Jupiter Arcus protected the container in which they were stored,
if the lots and the act of drawing them had no religious significance? And if
you accept that sortition did hold some religious significance, then what else
was it but a form of auspicium when the Gods were called upon to oversee which
lot fell to who?
Vale Piscinus
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked
by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.93/2544 -
Release Date: 12/04/09 02:32:00
|
|
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Iuno Covella vos porrigat opitula.
Hodie est Nonae Decembrae; haec dies fastus est: Faunalia Rustica
The Nones of the Month
"The disappearance and concealment of the moon they call Kalendae, for everything concealed or secret is calm, and 'to be concealed' is celari. The first appearance of the moon they call the Nones, the most accurate since it it the new moon: for their word 'new' and 'novel' is the same as [Greek]." ~ Plutarch, Roman Quaetions 24
Formerly the religious life of the Romans followed the monthly progress of the moon. Most important was the regular rites performed in each household. Even when the family was away, the wife of an estate's caretaker was to maintain the rites of the household.
"Daily must she (vicila) sweep clear around the hearth fire, and also the dining area before supper. At the Kalends, and whenever in each month the Nones, and the Ides shall come, a wreath she shall place in the hearth, and on these same days she gives thanks to the family's Lares for granting abundance and wealth, caring for the family's nourishment, and caring that the family is well considered." ~ M. Porcius Cato, De Re Agrilutura 142.2
On another level, the religious life of the State was also regulated by the Kalends, Nones, and Ides, even when these day of the month no longer coincided with the phases of the moon. For the Nones of each month, the Regina Sacrorum offers a sacrifice to Juno Covella and the Rex Sacrorum to Janus. The Pontifices would then announce the festivals of the remainder of the month. Before Augustus, no festivals were to fall between the Kalends and Nones. Rites were performed to Janus and Juno on each Kalends, with vows to make sacrifice on the following Nones so that the entire period remained under the same auspices.
The Kalends of each month was dedicated to Juno, and to Janus. The Ides of every month celebrated a festival of Jupiter. It is not clear what deity, if any, was associated with the Nones. On the Nones of December alone is there mention of the Faunalia Rustica. Then modern scholars look to Probus, commenting on Virgil's Georgic 1.10, where he wrote, "In Italy, whatever they celebrate with an annual sacrifice, also they celebrate monthly." We have no indication that Faunus was celebrated in the State religion each month, but we can be fairly assured that regular rites to Faunus would have been made in the religious life of rural households. And thus Faunus may have been the God associated with the Nones, the semidivus Faunus depicted as half beast, found in the half seen quarter moon.
Faunalia Rustica
For the Faunalia rustica the traditional offerings of a kid, wine, and garden flowers are presented to Faunus, and dancing, too, in triple time, for a blessing of herds.
"Amorous Faunus, from whom the Nymphs flee, step lightly, lightly, across my boundaries and sunny fields, and soon depart, leaving your blessing on my young lambs and kids, and leveled tender shoots.
"If gentle, at year's end a plumb kid I'll offer, with wine libations liberally poured from the cups of Venus' devotees, and many sweet, fragrant herbs I'll burn on your ancient altar.
"When returns the Nones of December, the cattle play over all the grassy field, and the sleepy village joins with steers to keep a festive holy day." ~ Horace Carmen 3.18
AUC 558 / 195 BCE: Temple of Faunus on Tiber Isle vowed.
"The Roman Games were celebrated with great splendour and repeated on three different days. The plebeian aediles, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and C. Scribonius Curio, brought several farmers of State lands before the popular tribunal; three of these were convicted, and out of the fines imposed they built a temple to Faunus on the Island. The Plebeian Games lasted two days and there was the usual banquet." ~ Titus Livius 33.42
The Fanum
In early Rome the sacred precincts consisted of no more than an altar. They were probably set off by markers, perhaps even by linen at festivals. The markers were made of wood, painted white, and these were later said to have been the first images of the Gods, the "Shining Ones." The early altars came to take the shape of a squared `U' as are seen today at Lavinium and as the altar discovered beneath the Lapis Niger. Eventually retaining walls of stone marked there boundaries and a column was set up to represent the deity. Still later a statue of the God or Goddess would be placed atop the column. This then was how a fanum evolved. Even after temple structures began to be built, the original Capitolium being one of the first, the open-aired district, or fanum, was the common form for a Roman place of worship.
Antiquarians of the Late Republic looked back to that earlier time, speculating on the history of the religio Romana and how it developed. "According to Cincius and Cassius, from the place where Evander went to speak with the God Faunus, and from this the sacred temples were at first called fauna, and afterward fana. From this, too, those who chant spells in order to seek out the future are said to be inspired, frenzied (fanaticos) (Servius Danica, Geor. 1. 10)."
Connecting the first fana to Evander had a special significance. To set up a fanum, they say, is to found a city, as it signifies a locus that will constitute the future oppidium of fana; although, according to what Antistius Labeo said in Liber XV of his commentary De iure pontificio, to place fana is to hold lectistrania at a certain locus and (thereby) to have Gods (GRF 4 [17]; Fest. P. 351a, 4). Evander was believed to have established the first fanum just as he was thought to have founded the first town atop the Palatine Hill. Rome was first founded when Romulus established the first templum, consisting of an altar before an oak tree on the Capitoline Hill (Livy 1.10.5-7). Evander's mother was none other than Carmentis and it was in Her locus that Numa Pompilius came to meet with Egeria, who told Numa how to meet with Faunus. Thus Numa Pompilius came to learn what rites the Gods preferred through the aid of Egeria and Faunus, to establish the religio Romana. To set up a fanum, that is, to establish a permanent place of worship, is to establish a city, as it binds mortal humans and immortal Gods together in a form of covenent that determines their relationship together as one society. That is, a civitas is defined only by this contract between its citizens, where its citizens are understood to be both Gods and humans, forming a pax Deorum based on mutual good faith. The origin of the religio Romana, and its core, ever remained based in the family. As certain families grew, the great houses developed, and their villas became the religious centers for gentes. Even later, when these gathered to form towns and then the City of Rome, the basic structure of a Roman temple like the Capitolium was modelled after these earlier great houses facing onto a courtyard, surrounded by a wall, in which the family hearth was outdoors and served as the main altar for the gens. The first sacred precincts, the fana, evolved from and symbolized these original hearths of the family and gens. Mythologically, Romulus (Quirinus), the son of Mars, who was the son of Jupiter, represented the core family, together with his retainers to form the gens, to which others were attached to form the City he first founded. By establishing the first fanum on the Capitoline Hill, in essence a shrine dedicated to his grandfather (Jupiter), it was as though he established his family there, on its estate, around which the City of Romulus would come to grow.
Our thought for today is from Epictetus' Enchiridion 42
"When any person does ill by you, or speaks ill of you, remember that he acts or speaks from an impression that it is right for him to do so. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but only what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from false appearances, he is the person hurt; since he too is the person deceived. For if any one takes a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but only the man is deceived. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear with a person who reviles you; for you will say upon every occasion, 'It seemed so to him.'"
|
|
M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Deus Consus vos porrigat.
Hodie est die pristini Eidus Decembris; haec dies endotercisus est: feriae Conso in Aventino sacrificium. Equi et muli floribus coronantur quod in eius tutula sunt itaque rex equo vectus
Endotercisus Days
Eight days in the calendar year are noted as endotercisus (cut into parts), today being one, and all of them coming on the day before a festival or the Ides. "The intercisi dies are those on which legal business is nefas in the morning hours (mane) and in the evening hours (vesperi), but are fastus between the slaying of the sacrificial victim and the offering of the vital organs, as they are stretched over the altars. (Varro, L. L. 6.31)."
Romulus and the Religious Foundation of Rome
"[Romulus] understood that the good government of cities was due to certain causes which all statesmen speak but few succeed in making effective: first, the favour of the Gods, the enjoyment of which gives success to men's every enterprise; next, moderation and justice, as a result of which the citizens, being less disposed to injure one another, are more harmonious, and make honour, rather than the most shameful pleasures, the measure of their happiness; and, lastly, bravery in war, which renders the other virtues also useful to their possessors. And he thought that none of these advantages is the effect of chance, but recognized that good laws and the emulation of worthy pursuits render a State pious, temperate, devoted to justice, and brave in war. He took great care, therefore, to encourage these, beginning with the worship of the Gods and genii. He established temples, sacred precincts and altars, arranged for the setting up of statues, determined the representations and symbols of the Gods, and declared Their powers, the beneficial gifts which they have given to mankind, the particular festivals that should be celebrated in honour of each God or genius, the sacrifices with which They delight to be honoured by men, as well as the holidays, festal assemblies, days of rest, and everything alike of that nature, in all of which he followed the best customs in use among the Greeks. But he rejected all the traditional myths concerning the Gods that contain blasphemies or calumnies against Them, looking upon these as wicked, useless and indecent, and unworthy, not only of the Gods, but even of good men; and he accustomed people both to think and to speak the best of the Gods and to attribute to Them no conduct unworthy of Their blessed nature. . . . And not alone for his wisdom in these matters does Romulus deserve praise, but also for the frugality of the sacrifices that he appointed for the honouring of the Gods, the greatest part of which, if not all, remained to my day, being still performed in the ancient manner. At any rate, I myself have seen in the sacred edifices repasts set before the Gods upon ancient wooden tables, in baskets and small earthen plates, consisting of barley bread, cakes and spelt, with the first-offerings of some fruits, and other things of like nature, simple, cheap, and devoid of all vulgar display. I have seen also the libation wines that had been mixed, not in silver and gold vessels, but in little earthen cups and jugs, and I have greatly admired these men for adhering to the customs of their ancestors and not degenerating from their ancient rites into a boastful magnificence." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.18; 2.23
The Aventine Feriae of Consus
"(They) instituted the festival called by the Arcadians Hippocrateia and by the Romans Consualia, during which it is customary among the latter for the horses and mules to rest from work and to have their heads crowned with flowers. They also consecrated many other precincts, altars and images of the Gods and instituted purifications and sacrifices according to the customs of their own country, which continued to be performed down to my day in the same manner." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.33
The Consualia occurs twice in the year, the first on 21 August and the second on 12 December. The one occurring in August is thought to have been the original and is famed for the legend of the Rape of the Sabine Women. The second Consualia celebrated the dedication of a Temple of Consus on the Aventine at some time around 273 BCE. Although the Consualia of August is the more famous, or imfamous, references to the celebrations held at Consualia are generally about the Consualia of December.
"And the Romans even to my day continued to celebrate the festival then instituted by Romulus, calling it the Consualia, in the course of which a subterranean altar, erected near the Circus Maximus, is uncovered by the removal of the soil round about it and honoured with sacrifices and burnt-offerings of first-fruits and a course is run both by horses yoked to chariots and by single horses. The God to whom these honours are paid is called Consus by the Romans, being the same, according to some who render the name into our tongue, as Poseidon Seisichthon or the "Earth-shaker"; and they say that this God was honoured with a subterranean altar because he holds the earth. I know also from hearsay another tradition, to the effect that the festival is indeed celebrated in honour of Neptune and the horse-races are held in His honour, but that the subterranean altar was erected later to a certain divinity whose name may not be uttered, who presides over and is the guardian of hidden counsels; for a secret altar has never been erected to Neptune, they say, in any part of the world by either Greeks or barbarians. But it is hard to say what the truth of the matter is." ~ Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.31
The altar of Consus was located in an underground chamber beneath the Circus Maximus "at the first marker" in the district of the Aventine. It was surrounded, in a later period, by images of His indigitementa: Seia for sown seeds of grain in the ground; Segetia for the grain as it ripens above ground; Messor as the grain is reaped, and then Tutilina for grain as it is stored. Sacrifices were offered in this chamber by the flamen Quirinalis in the presence of the Vestales Virgines. They would begin in the morning, then the celebrations and horses were conducted, and the sacrifices then completed in the evening. Thus the division of the day into three parts. The Flamen Quirinalis stands in for Romulus, who first instituted the festival.
The simplicity of the festival, known from Dionysius and Festus, is based in the agricultural past. For example the nature of the sacrifices"
"Pollucere Merces: The foodthat it is allowed to offer to all the Gods are pure flour, flour dried in the fire, wine, leavened bread, the sun-baked figs, bacon, beef, the sheep, cheese, meat sheep, wheat, sesame, and olive oil, fish that have scales, except for the scar fish. As for Hercules, we can offer anything that is (normally) eaten or that is drunk." ~ Festus s. v.
By this time of year fall plowing was completed and horses and mules were allowed to rest. They therefore were garland and included in the celebrations as well.
"Why is it that at festival of the Consualia they place garlands on both the horses and the asses and allow them to rest? Is it because they celebrate this festival in honour of Poseidon, God of horses, and the ass enjoys a share in the horse's exemption? Or is it that since navigation and transport by sea have been discovered, pack animals have come to enjoy a certain measure of ease and rest?" ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 48
An annotation mentions that a Rex rides on one of these horses crowned with wreathes of flowers. Perhaps he too represented Romulus, or perhaps the King of the festival was more like that seen at Saturnalia next week.
Our thought for today is from Stobaeus, Ethical Sentences 17:
"Neither is it possible to conceal fire in a garment, nor, in time, a base deviation from rectitude."
|
|