EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI


L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.


This is the 4th day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, Magna Mater!

Welcome to the Satura game, Day 4 questions follow the info!

SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.

TOPIC:
Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!

RULES:
1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.
To catch up you can find the other questions here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC

2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.

THE WINNER

The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!

DEADLINE
QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
Please send your submissions to
luciaiuliaaquila@...
PRIVATELY!

DAY 4 QUESTIONS

6) A) Who were the priests who organized public banquets and feasts?
B) What is the sacred bowl they used called?
Bonus: describe the unique feature of the bowl
(6 pt)

7) A) Where would a guest in a Roman household be served a formal meal?
B) What position would a guest take upon a dining couch?
C) How would the ancient Roman's refer to a drinking party?
Bonus: where did the room get its name?
(8 pts)



Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

L. Iulia Aquila

Lol, welcome indeed.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

> Salvete omnes,
>
> Many thanks for the warm welcomes. This is a very informative list, and
> certainly, erm, active. I have no doubt my eyebrows will grow back in
> time :)
>
> Valete,
>
> M. Licinius
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

<<--- On Wed, 4/7/10, windward_mark_1 <star_dreamr@...> wrote:

Salvete omnes,

Many thanks for the warm welcomes. This is a very informative list, and certainly, erm, active. I have no doubt my eyebrows will grow back in time :) >>
 
 
ROFL
Mine did. Yours will, too.
Welcome to Nova Roma!
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Sacerdos Vestalis




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

Salve,

Trust us, they'll grow back.. Also sending a greeting of welcome!

Vale,
Aeternia

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
> <<--- On Wed, 4/7/10, windward_mark_1 <star_dreamr@...<star_dreamr%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> Many thanks for the warm welcomes. This is a very informative list, and
> certainly, erm, active. I have no doubt my eyebrows will grow back in time
> :) >>
>
>
> ROFL
> Mine did. Yours will, too.
> Welcome to Nova Roma!
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Sacerdos Vestalis
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salvete omnes,

in this days I voted and voted NO. I think that this election is very important. Please, vote!

Tutor

Caeca Catoni omnibusque sal,

Actually, Cato, I completely and unreservedly agree with this, and would consider separating the BoD from the Senate, although, naturally, some of the same individuals would have to be involved in both.

Cura ut valeas,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Salve, Sex. Lucili!


Thank you! You did well! I voted "NO", too, but the really important is that everyone votes.

It is our sacred duty as citizens!


Valete!

CN LENTVLVS
PONTIFEX

--- Mer 7/4/10, phorus@... <phorus@...> ha scritto:








 









Salvete omnes,



in this days I voted and voted NO. I think that this election is very important. Please, vote!



Tutor

























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

Salve,

All well and good, and indeed that is how things were originally set up
back when Nova Roma was originally founded.

However, a situation soon arose wherein the board of directors and the
Consuls and Senate were at implacable odds. Part of the untying of that
particular Gordian Knot involved making the Senate the board, and the
consuls the presidents of the corporation, to prevent a repeat of the
scenario where the corporation says one thing, the government says
another thing, and nobody knows what the heck is going on.

So yes, it's very easy to do. But easy to actually live with? Experience
says not so much. Your theory, I'm afraid, conflicts with past experience.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Cato wrote:

> Cato Marco Licinio sal.
>
> ahhh...well, this is where my other favorite theme comes up. Our by-laws. Since we are incorporated in the United States, I have been pushing - oh so hard - to have our by-laws separated from the Constitution. Almost no-one has listened yet (perhaps because, as Audens and Maximus have pointed out, I am so roundly disliked), but as the British say, "while there's tea there's hope."
>
> Separating our legal by-laws (as a corporation) from our tabularium (as a republic) is VERY EASY TO DO. And it would solve a whole heap of these problems. The by-laws can refer to specific details being explained in our tabularium. External framework (by-laws), internal procedures (tabularium).
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "windward_mark_1" <star_dreamr@...> wrote:
>
>> M. Licinius Catoni Sal,
>>
>> Whether you call it a constitution or Twelve Tables, this idea is exactly what is needed, a set of core rules that are well-understood and difficult to change. Such matters as the purpose of the organization, membership policies, the number, titles, and core duties of officers, voting policies, etc. belong here, along with NR-specific issues such as the establishment of religion. Changes to this document should be by public referendum, and it should be tough.
>>
>> A second tier document, sort of a compendium of leges, analogous to the US CFR, would suffice for all other operating policies.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> M. Licinius
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
>>
>>> Cato Caecae sal.
>>>
>>> Well...what if - and this is just a wild idea - what if we instead adopted something like a Nova Roman Twelve Tables? Instead of a supreme Constitution, we'd have something that at least hearkened back to the ancients; we could adapt the Twelve Tables to fit our own circumstances.
>>>
>>> Before we get any screaming from the peanut gallery, just consider it. Twelve laws that are absolutely immutable; clear, one-line declarative statements that lay down the very basic framework under which we are all accountable and by which all subsequent actions and laws are measured.
>>>
>>> We could create a lex Duodecem Tabularum Novae Romae...something like:
>>>
>>> I. The only official religion of Nova Roma is the worship of the Roman Gods in the sacra publica; the sacra publica shall be practiced by the magistrates under the advice of the Sacred Colleges.
>>>
>>> II. No citizen may be banished without a public trial.
>>>
>>> III. No citizen may be denied the right to speak in the official fora of the Republic without a public trial.
>>>
>>> IV. No citizen may be denied the right to appeal the decision of any magistrate that causes harm to that citizen.
>>>
>>> etc. (these are just vague examples)...
>>>
>>> Vale,
>>>
>>> Cato
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Salve C.Maria Caeca!

I am going to Stockholm to meet my Consular Colleague during Saturday
and Sunday so I have a lot of preparations to do, both personal and
for the meeting. WE wil have a intense and though weekend and our
agend a is very full. I hope we will acheive a lot. But if we do I
fear I will not be able to find time to take part in many discussons,
This one is however very important and we might see it again before
the sumer.

I am afraid that I will not be able to follow through with a
discussion about this, but still I can't help myself, I have to warn
about such a development. I am sure tthat I will not cover all
aspects, but hopefully that can be done at a later time though-

I must warn for any development that allows a division between the
senate and board (and in a wider perspective differnt aspects of Nova
Roma). Nova Roma and its activities must be undivided and stay a Res
Pubica.

I feel that we who already see a lot of infighting about power in
this tiny organisation will see an increased infighting when there
will be two arenas (the Board and the Senate) to fight over. We will
attract a new cathegory of people, not Roman, but those who love
"culture". The parallell isn't exact, but we might see a split that
will look like the one in Spain and Italy beteen people who love the
Roman culturea, split in two factions, those for whom Nova Roma is a
game/hobby and those for which Nova Roma is a Res Publica and more
than just a hobby (I might be totally wrong about the Spanish and
italian parallell, but I think You see wher i am going). There will be
an incresed fight between the Board and the Senate or between the
"new" cutural faction and the "old" Roman faction. I see no advantages
with such a division and if it will be done, I will probably become
very passive and more and more uninstrested as the "ccultural" faction
take over, which I think they will.

I never try to use the Religio politically, but I do fear that if this
spit is executed the Religio will more and more loose its homeland and
the Roman state that we have now. The Religio will certainly loose
with such a split, newcomers will come for the culture and they will
have no understanding or sympathy for the position of the Religio in
Nova Roma.

Remember that I am a very culturally active person in Nova Roma, I am
the founder or co-founder of the Magna Mater project, the Academia
Thules, the Conventii and Roman Times. I love the Roman culture but
Nova Roma isn't justt about culture for me.
'
I am for a more culturally active Nova Roma, but then all advantages
from such must be given to the Res Publica and not to some "soft" half-
Roman cultural organization with the name "Nova Roma". If we keep Nova
Roma as a Res Publica, then I could see an advanage to found a
cultural orgainazion to reach out the Academic world and to peope who
not immediartly want to join a Res Publica, but who want to work for
the Roman culture. It is about how You do such a thing, one way may
be the death of Nova Roma in the long run and the other will give Nova
Roma a wider network and wider contacts, with possibilities to recruit
in te future.

***********

7 apr 2010 kl. 22.31 skrev C.Maria Caeca:

Caeca Catoni omnibusque sal,

Actually, Cato, I completely and unreservedly agree with this, and
would consider separating the BoD from the Senate, although,
naturally, some of the same individuals would have to be involved in
both.

Cura ut valeas,
C. Maria Caeca

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Salve Quintilianus consul, and thank you. I do see and understand your concerns ...and I would absolutely *not* want to see the Res Publica endangered or hampered in any way, whatsoever. However, I *also* strongly believe in the separation of powers, as a check and balance system ...and I *think* we could construct the structure of the BoD in such a way that we can guard against what sounds, from your description, like a form of hostile takeover (and *that* I would fight, tooth and claw, BTW). Besides, I was merely speculating, not proposing *anything*. I don't have the experience, nor the time served in the Res Publica to do that, although I do reserve the right to ask questions and throw out ideas to see if they have merit. Best of luck to both of you in Stockholm!

Most Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

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

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the Visual Arts Contest!


LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)

Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.



TOPIC:

Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.





RULES:

1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
(just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)



2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.



3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)



4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.



Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
citizens.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
published.

DEADLINE

The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time

Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...





PRIVATELY!

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and proudly open the FIRST Theatrical Comedy Sketch Writing Contest!


ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH):

These sketches or plays are to be composed in the spirit of friendship and
camaraderie and above all with a sense of humor. They are to make us laugh -
at ourselves and each other in a good natured fashion setting aside all
loathing and dislike. Laughter of well written parodies and comedies bring
people together



TOPIC:

Contestants will submit a script for a short comedy or parody sketch
suitable to be performed on a stage in the spirit of the plays performed in
ancient Rome on the Megalenses.

The plays were usually pastoral in nature but we will leave that optional.
However they must be set in a Roman setting, for example: the forum, the
country side, a domus where a Megalesia party is occurring or even the
baths.



RULES:

1) Limit of 1000 words.



2) They must be written in sketch or play form for example:

Cato: I'm the Aedile

Julia: No, I'm the Aedile

Cato: Give me that Aedile stick!

Julia: You'll have to catch me first!

If you choose to include a pastoral scene then you can include short
descriptions between "actors" dialogue.



3) The purpose of each submission is to make us laugh out loud, that rolling
on the floor, tears of laughter kind. No mean, hurtful or malevolent words.
Work that contains rude, offensive, evil or hurtful elements will be
excluded from the competition.

Remember: the purpose of the game is writing intelligent, stylish, amusing,
witty and radiant comedies and parodies, NOT ridiculing others.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of people of knowledgeable of
literature. The best submissions will be published.

DEADLINE submissions must be received no later than April 9, and will be
presented very soon after the games have been concluded.



Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...

PRIVATELY!

Salvete omnes,

It seems that some individuals seem to feel the need to re-open the
debates on the necessity of a constitution for Nova Roma every time the
fact that we have a constitution is even mentioned. Like the tedious
return of an unwelcome season, these crows inevitably squawk loudly
about how "ancient Rome didn't have a constitution, so Nova Roma
shouldn't have one, either", using one turn of phrase or another.

Contrary to the opinions of some, the decision to create a written and
somewhat precise constitution for Nova Roma was not one that was made
lightly, nor was it made because it is the norm for modern nations, nor
"just to have one". It was done, as most things were at the beginning,
entirely on purpose and for good reasons and after a lot of thought and
debate. Unfortunately, the passage of time means that those thought
processes and those reasons are often lost, and relative newcomers are
left to wonder what the hell us old geezers were thinking.

Allow me to shed some light.

The constitution was originally intended to make up for the one thing
that the ancient Rome of the Republican period had that Nova Roma, by
its very nature, could not have; centuries of history and tradition upon
which to build. There was a mos maiorum that was well-known to every
Roman, and any deviations from it were made with an innate understanding
of it, and at least an implicit understanding of the consequences of
bending or altering what had gone before. Witness the enormous struggles
and upheavals that accompanied major changes to the governmental
structure of the Republic; the secession of the Plebs leading to the
institution of the Tribunes of the Plebs, the reforms of Sulla, the
institution of the Emperor following the civil wars, etc.

The government of Nova Roma is based, obviously, on that of the Roman
Republic. But which period? Without some sort of guideline that can only
be changed with relative difficulty, we would open ourselves up to utter
and complete chaos. What if one year, the consuls decided they wished
the government to more closely model the Roman republic following the
reforms of Sulla, and the next year the new consuls decided it should be
as it was prior to the installation of the tribunes? And the next year
they decided that the government should be a parliamentary democracy?
(Don't laugh-- people have seriously suggested doing just that, to make
things "more fair".)

The constitution of Nova Roma is there as a break on the potential for
too-rapid change based on either a lack of understanding of ancient
Roman government, or honest disagreements about what exact era or
elements from different eras would be most optimal from Nova Roma's
point of view. We picked a hybrid of several periods, and it seems to be
working given our circumstances.

Some people attempt to make the point that having a written constitution
such as we have now makes it much more difficult to make changes to our
system of government, when in ancient Rome such changes were effected
with the passage of a lex (or, I might point out, with even less effort
than that!). However, these arguments fail on two points. First, the
system *can* be changed. There is simply a high bar to doing so; a
supermajority in the Senate and the approval of the comitia. Second, it
is unfair to say that changing the government of ancient Rome was indeed
as simple as those espousing this argument might have us believe. Those
revolutionary leges weren't passed without a lot of bloodshed or
upheaval. The present system avoids the blood, but still makes it
difficult to affect such fundamental changes (as the current vote in
progress demonstrates).

Another argument in favor of having a written constitution, and one that
doubles as the legal bylaws of the corporation under U.S. law, is
enforcement. As we have been recently reminded by our good consul, Nova
Roma has no legions. No Praetorian Guard. No Tarpeian Rock from which to
hurl those who would endanger the state by self-serving or
ill-considered actions. Theoretically (and it is only theoretically at
this point), a cabal of magistrates could simply refuse to follow the
law. Vetoes from tribunes could be ignored. The Religio itself could be
banned, or brought down to the level of superstitions such as
Christianity, on the basis of majoritarian impulses. Any madness is
possible where compliance consists of control of a website domain and a
couple of email lists. And what recourse would the people have? There
are no streets to take to, unless one counts the Back Alley.
Unfortunately, our status is such that the threat of civil action in
U.S. courts, that could theoretically coerce the corporation into
behaving as its bylaws (i.e., the constitution) dictates, is a necessary
requirement until such time as we have more of a real-world presence
that gives the actions of the magistrates more real-world consequences.

I think that Nova Roma should not *need* to have a written constitution.
Perhaps in a few generations, if there are enough Nova Romans having
kids and raising them up to be Nova Romans, versed in the theory and
practice of our system and our particular sub-culture, it might be
possible to do away with it, since the then-current group of citizens
(and magistrates) would treat the existing system as if it *were*
written down, and treat it with the respect it deserves.

But for now, unfortunately, our current citizens are too illiterate both
in the political history of ancient Rome and Nova Roma, and our elected
magistrates too given to undertaking fundamental changes (rather than
simply accepting what *is* and working to make it grow and prosper) to
enable us to have the luxury of doing away with the foundational document.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

In a message dated 4/7/2010 1:31:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
c.mariacaeca@... writes:

Cato, I completely and unreservedly agree with this, and would consider
separating the BoD from the Senate, although, naturally, some of the same
individuals would have to be involved in both.




Lady, No! No! No!

You think things are bad now? A separate BoD composed of let's say
professionals like myself against college students would have an even greater
division on NR.
You were not around for the Constitutional War (1999) which basically
pitted the "do it now" faction who were influenced by the the instantanious
gratification of the internet, vrs the "do it on Greek Kalends" which were in
favor of a slow and steady approach to the problem of the three Comitas.
The resulting conflict of words, threats, and demonstrations caused a three
way rift in NR, caused the website to be closed down after Censor Marcus
Cassius was threatened with prosecution for "not doing his utmost" to solve
the problem.

The two factions split into three warring camps. Members left, death
threats were issued, I and Cornelius were blamed, (we were not even involved,
that came later,) and the Senate in desperation appointed a dictator.
(Which was very Roman). Since there was three NRs, this could have been the end
of our fledging Republic. However, the right man was chosen for the job.
He fixed the holes in the Constitution that allowed the sorry mess to
develop in the first place, declared that the early Consulship was illegal,
dismissed one Consul, reappointed the second, and held elections to elect a
new Consul, recalled exiles back to NR with the promise of clemency, and NR
was made whole once more under an improved Constitution.

I would hate for us to go through again.

Q. Fabius Maximus

Sent from my BlackBerry




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

Ah. And thus, I show my ignorance and inexperience. I shall be silent, and learn. C. Maria Caeca

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

Cato Caecae sal.

Actually, that's not necessary. the important thing is separating the Constitution from the by-laws. The Senate, the magistrates can all keep their relationships between the corporation and the republic without any problems whatsoever.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Caeca Catoni omnibusque sal,
>
> Actually, Cato, I completely and unreservedly agree with this, and would consider separating the BoD from the Senate, although, naturally, some of the same individuals would have to be involved in both.
>
> Cura ut valeas,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Vedio omnibusque in foro SPD

All this is very well and good, but practically and legally speaking there is absolutely *no* need for the Constitution to *be the by-laws* of the corporation.

The by-laws, like the Constitution, require a two-thirds majority vote of the members for change, which is that "break" against "too rapid change" that seems to strike such fear into the hearts of some (this fear is nonsense, in other words).

Having simple straightforward by-laws that are independent of the tabularium serves the purpose of being our corporate statement to the United States. It also gives us the freedom to adapt our Respublica as we see fit within the very bare bones of the corporate structure; as long as we do not violate United States law, we are basically free to do whatever we want with our own internal rules.

Again, the very simplest way to think of this is as having an external framework (the by-laws) complemented by internal details (the tabularium).

Vale,

Cato

Greetings,
 I am new here and I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this.

 I was wondering about making some offerings of red wine to the Dieties. I was wondering if there was any of Them that would oblect to this offering?

Thank you for your time and patience.

 Quintus




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

Salve Quintus;

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Quintus scripsit:

>
> Greetings,
>  I am new here and I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this.
>
>  I was wondering about making some offerings of red wine to the Dieties. I was wondering if there was any of Them that would oblect to this offering?
>
> Thank you for your time and patience.
>
>  Quintus
>

The Main List is the place for all question, so fire away!

In my experience, the Holy Ones will accept an offering, which is as
of as good quality as you can give. I have found that something,
which is a personal sacrifice (a $20 bottle, rather than a $5 meaning
you'll have to give up some pleasurable spending for a week. However,
if the $5 bottle is what you can afford the Deities will see that and
smile on the offering.

Intention and joy of the moment, right frame of mind,...these are as
important in my view as is proper form.

Read up on the how, wanting (as you expressed) supplies you with the why...

=====================================
In amicitia et fide
Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.
Religio Septentrionalis - Poeta

So says the man who daily mocks the Gods, and would love to see Them
tossed aside in favor of his own superstition.

Thank you, no. You keep the change.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Cato wrote:

> The by-laws, like the Constitution, require a two-thirds majority vote of the members for change, which is that "break" against "too rapid change" that seems to strike such fear into the hearts of some (this fear is nonsense, in other words).

None that I know of. Offer away.
 
Vale bene,
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 


<<--- On Thu, 4/8/10, John Kent <hjkent1@...> wrote:

Greetings,
 I am new here and I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this.

 I was wondering about making some offerings of red wine to the Dieties. I was wondering if there was any of Them that would oblect to this offering?

Thank you for your time and patience.

 Quintus>>




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

Cato Vedio sal.

"Daily mocks the Gods"? Liar.

You have gone from being a founding father into a petty little man desperate to get the spotlight back using dishonesty and fear as a catalyst, and it is pitiful to see.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
>
> So says the man who daily mocks the Gods, and would love to see Them
> tossed aside in favor of his own superstition.
>
> Thank you, no. You keep the change.
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> Cato wrote:
> > The by-laws, like the Constitution, require a two-thirds majority vote of the members for change, which is that "break" against "too rapid change" that seems to strike such fear into the hearts of some (this fear is nonsense, in other words).
>

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Iubeo bono animo esse.

Hodie est ante diem VI Eidus Apriles; haec dies nefastus est: Ludi Megalesiaci; natalis Castoris Pollucis.

"Another method, too, of preventing caterpillars is to make a woman with her monthly courses on her go round each tree, barefooted and ungirth." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 17.47


Natalis Castoris Pollucis

Originally the Temple of Castor (aedes Castoris) was vowed in 499 BCE by the dictator Postumius during the Battle of Lake Regillus and dedicated by his son on 27 January 484 BCE, or 15 July according to Livy. The temple was restored in 117 BCE, and completely rebuilt by Tiberius in 6 CE and rededicated in his name and that of his brother Drusus. Changes were made under Caligula and Claudius, and its last recorded restoration came under Domitian where it became the Temple of Castor and Minerva (Notitia, Reg. VIII). The date of this rededication is unknown. However, beginning in the early first century calendars record that the natalis of Castor and Pollux were celebrated with twenty-four chariot races on 8 April. This indicates that the temple was rededicated on this date, or that some other temple might have been dedicated. Most likely, though, it was the temple in the Forum. We can conjecture that because of the chariot races.

Under the Republic the Temple of Castor had often served as a meeting place for the Senate. With its steps leading down into the Forum, its portico served as a second Rostrum. Under Tiberius the temple became closely identified with the emperor and elections of magistrates were transferred from the comitia to the senate, giving the Temple of Castor more significance. Under Caligula the temple was actually incorporated into his palace, serving as his vestibule. Claudius alterred this but it was still closely identified with the emperor. Secondly, Augustus had previously limited the number of gladiatorial contests to two per year, and limited who could sponsor ludi. The limitations did not apply to the emperor himself or to his family. Chariot races became the sole perogative of the emperor, and served a very important political function in the City.

And emperor needed the support of three segments of society. The army may have been the most important at times, the senate was the second pillar on which his power rested. The third was the urban plebs of Rome. And emperor was never emperor until he received the acclamation of the urban masses. Chariot races served a political purpose in that so many would attend, upward of a quarter million people, to give their acclamation to the emperor. Such acclamations served to reinforce the position of the emperor and at the same time invested the urban plebs of Rome with political power. It was during such acclamations, praising the emperor with his many titles, that the people reminded an emperor how he was to serve in office. It was also an occasion when the people could petition the emperor. Such events had a tradition that an emperor grant any petition made by the crowd. And any emperor who did not throw enough ludi or who would dare not to attend such events soon found his power removed from beneath him. For these reasons, too, the emperors did not allow anyone other than themselves to sponsor chariot races, lest someone else receive the acclamations of the crowd and be elevated to the imperial throne. On one occasion, when the legions made an acclamatio to Caracalla as "augustus" while his father still lived, the prefects asked Severus to execute Caracalla as a threat. Severus declined, but it is an example of the importance of such acclamations and why emperors kept close control over occasions when such acclamations might be given. The only ones who might sponsor chariot races, therefore, were members of the imperial family who were selected to succeed an emperor. In that case it even served to endear a future emperor to the masses.

Therefore, the annotation that chariot races celebrated the natalis Castoris specifically relates this celebration to an emperor, and therefore most likely to the Temple of Castor that was most identified with the emperors of the first century. This may point to the date when Domitian, a likely candidate, rededicated the temple following his renovations.


AUC 970 / 217 CE: Death of Caracalla

"During this time, on the eighth day before the Ides (6 April), the feast of the Megalensia and his own birthday (4 April), while on a journey to Carrhae to do honour to the God Lunus (Sin), he stepped aside to satisfy the needs of nature and was thereupon assassinated by the treachery of Macrinus the praetorian prefect, who after his death seized the imperial power. The accomplices in the murder were Nemesianus, his brother Apollinaris, and Triccianus, who was serving as prefect of the Second Legion, the Parthian, and commanded the irregular cavalry. Marcus Agrippa, too, the commander of the fleet, was privy to it, as well as many members of his staff acting on the instigation of Martialis." ~ Aelius Spartianus, Historia Augusta: Antoninus Caracalla 6.6

"(Macrinus) secured the services of two tribunes assigned to the pretorian guard, Nemesianus and Apollinaris, brothers belonging to the gens Aurelia, and of Julius Martialis, who was enrolled among the evocati and had a private grudge against Antoninus for not having given him the post of centurion when he asked for it, and so formed his plot against Antoninus. It was carried out thus. On the eighth of April, when the emperor had set out from Edessa for Carrhae and had dismounted from his horse to ease himself, Martialis approached as though desiring to say something to him and struck him with a small dagger. Martialis immediately fled and would have escaped detection, had he thrown away his sword; but, as it was, the weapon led to his being recognized by one of the Scythians in attendance upon Antoninus, and he was struck down with a javelin. As for Antoninus (Caracalla), the tribunes, pretending to come to his rescue, slew him." ~ Dio Cassius 79.5

It is interesting that in the Historia Augusta it says that when Caracalla appeared before the senate following his murder of his brother Greta that "the senate received his speech with little favour (2.9)." This was an occasion on which the senate would normally have given him acclamation as sole emperor, and although they probably went through the formality, their coldness towards Caraclla was notable. The Historia Augusta says that afterward "from the senate he betook himself to the praetorians and spent the night in the Camp (3.1)," and later states how "He often delivered insolent invectives against the senate and against the people, issuing proclamations and publishing harangues, and he even declared that he would be a second Sulla (4.10)." This is another indication that he was not receiving the normal acclamations from the public or the senate. He therefore left the City, causing havoc in the civil administration of provinces in which he visited, by continuing with his rather murderous manner, and then campaigning with the army, to which he devoted large sums of money. In the end he lost the support of the army as well, especially those closest to him.

Having been rumored to have expedited his father's death, having murdered his brother Greta as he cradled his mother, then marrying Greta's mother, his own step mother, and murdering everyone who was ever close to his father, his brother, and even advisors to himself, and anyone else who might become a rival for the imperial throne (such as Helvius Pertinax, the son of an emperor), Caracalla was described as an "emperor, the most cruel of men, and, to include all in a single phrase, a fratricide and committer of incest, the foe of his father, mother, and brother (Hist. Aug. 11.5)."


Our thought for today is a short story told by Seneca, On Anger 2.32:

"Once when Marcus Cato was in the public bath, a certain man, not knowing him, struck him unwittingly; for who would knowingly have done injury to that great man? Later, when the man was making apology, Cato said, 'I do not recall that I received a blow.' It was better, he thought, to ignore the incident than to resent it. 'Then the fellow,' you ask, 'got no punishment for such an act of rudeness?' No, but much good - he began to know Cato. Only a great soul can be superior to injury; the most humiliating kind of revenge is to have it appear that the man was not worth taking revenge upon. Many have taken slight injuries too deeply to heart in the act of revenging them. He is a great and noble man who acts as does the lordly wild beast that listens unconcernedly to the baying of tiny dogs."

Salve bene Quinte

According to the religious laws of Numa Pompilius, no wine made from the grapes of an unpruned vine may be offered to the Gods [ex imputata uite libari uina diis nefas (Numa) statuit (Plin., N.H., 14, 12, 88 ; Cf. Plut., Numa, 14)]. Not a problem, though, since all commercial wineries would keep their vines pruned.

In general, wine should only be offered to celestial Gods and to one's own Lares. As a general rule wine should not be offered to any Goddess, except to Venus. There are also occasions on which some Goddesses may be offered wine.

Wine may not be offered to the dead at a funeral, but may be offered later when the first meal is shared with the deceased. Another ancient law of Numa was that wine is not to be poured over the bones of the cremated dead [VINO ROGUM NE RESPARGITO (Plin., N.H., 14, 12, 88 ; Cf. XII Tab., 10, 6a)].

Any deity associated with Romulus, or before him, is not offered wine. This would include Jupiter Feretrius, Jupiter Inventor, and Jupiter Stator, Janus Geminus, and Fides. Also certain deities associated with Titus Tatius should not be offered wine, but rather milk. Most of these are terrestrial deities anyway. For example, Terminus of the Capitoline Hill is not to be sacrificed any animals or wine. Carmentis should be offered milk, and blood sacrifices are absolutely forbidden in her cultus, among others. Wine is sometimes used as a substitute for a blood sacrifice, and thus in certain cultus Deorum it is prohibited. Likewise, with most of the Gods and Goddesses associated with Numa libations of wine would normally be improper and milk offered instead.

Priapus should not be offered wine, with certain exceptions, which can also be said of Fauna, Faunus, and the Manes. The Manes should be offered milk at Feralia, at the Lemuria next month, and on similar festivals. The only time Manes would be offered wine is for a rite of devotio or for a fixiatio, neither of which a new practitioner should be doing.

Wine mixed with water could be offered to Juno, but She, too, is more often offered milk. Ceres is offered wine in a small amount when mixed in milk (which curdles the milk). Venus, as a Goddess of wine and pleasure, is always offered wine, as are some other minor goddesses like Voluptia. In most aspects Minerva would not be offered wine, except when invoked as a war Goddess. The Bona Dea is not offered wine except once a year, and then only if it is referred to as a mixture of milk and honey.

The lesser gods or goddesses of agriculture are not offered wine, and are never invoked while indoors. The one exception is Silvanus. When invoked as a God who protects cattle he is offered a mixture of wine in spelt, lard, and palp (the fleshy parts of acorns or other nuts rather than 'meat' as it is usually translated). Since the Romans trained grape vines to grow on trees for support, Silvanus, as the God of the Forest who provided the trees, was offered libations of wine, poured on the roots of the vines - a practice my grandfather performed twice a year for his vines.

Well, that's just off the top of my head. You can find more details from the information provided by Pontifex Graecus at http:www.novaroma.org/nr/How_to_sacrifice

Vale optime et vade in pace Deorum

M. Moravius Piscinus
Pontifex Maximus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:
>
> None that I know of. Offer away.
>  
> Vale bene,
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>
>
> <<--- On Thu, 4/8/10, John Kent <hjkent1@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>  I am new here and I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this.
>
>  I was wondering about making some offerings of red wine to the Dieties. I was wondering if there was any of Them that would oblect to this offering?
>
> Thank you for your time and patience.
>
>  Quintus>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Well, there you go. Learn something new everyday.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...> wrote:


From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Red Wine Offerings
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 6:35 AM


 



Salve bene Quinte

According to the religious laws of Numa Pompilius, no wine made from the grapes of an unpruned vine may be offered to the Gods [ex imputata uite libari uina diis nefas (Numa) statuit (Plin., N.H., 14, 12, 88 ; Cf. Plut., Numa, 14)]. Not a problem, though, since all commercial wineries would keep their vines pruned.

In general, wine should only be offered to celestial Gods and to one's own Lares. As a general rule wine should not be offered to any Goddess, except to Venus. There are also occasions on which some Goddesses may be offered wine.

Wine may not be offered to the dead at a funeral, but may be offered later when the first meal is shared with the deceased. Another ancient law of Numa was that wine is not to be poured over the bones of the cremated dead [VINO ROGUM NE RESPARGITO (Plin., N.H., 14, 12, 88 ; Cf. XII Tab., 10, 6a)].

Any deity associated with Romulus, or before him, is not offered wine. This would include Jupiter Feretrius, Jupiter Inventor, and Jupiter Stator, Janus Geminus, and Fides. Also certain deities associated with Titus Tatius should not be offered wine, but rather milk. Most of these are terrestrial deities anyway. For example, Terminus of the Capitoline Hill is not to be sacrificed any animals or wine. Carmentis should be offered milk, and blood sacrifices are absolutely forbidden in her cultus, among others. Wine is sometimes used as a substitute for a blood sacrifice, and thus in certain cultus Deorum it is prohibited. Likewise, with most of the Gods and Goddesses associated with Numa libations of wine would normally be improper and milk offered instead.

Priapus should not be offered wine, with certain exceptions, which can also be said of Fauna, Faunus, and the Manes. The Manes should be offered milk at Feralia, at the Lemuria next month, and on similar festivals. The only time Manes would be offered wine is for a rite of devotio or for a fixiatio, neither of which a new practitioner should be doing.

Wine mixed with water could be offered to Juno, but She, too, is more often offered milk. Ceres is offered wine in a small amount when mixed in milk (which curdles the milk). Venus, as a Goddess of wine and pleasure, is always offered wine, as are some other minor goddesses like Voluptia. In most aspects Minerva would not be offered wine, except when invoked as a war Goddess. The Bona Dea is not offered wine except once a year, and then only if it is referred to as a mixture of milk and honey.

The lesser gods or goddesses of agriculture are not offered wine, and are never invoked while indoors. The one exception is Silvanus. When invoked as a God who protects cattle he is offered a mixture of wine in spelt, lard, and palp (the fleshy parts of acorns or other nuts rather than 'meat' as it is usually translated). Since the Romans trained grape vines to grow on trees for support, Silvanus, as the God of the Forest who provided the trees, was offered libations of wine, poured on the roots of the vines - a practice my grandfather performed twice a year for his vines.

Well, that's just off the top of my head. You can find more details from the information provided by Pontifex Graecus at http:www.novaroma. org/nr/How_ to_sacrifice

Vale optime et vade in pace Deorum

M. Moravius Piscinus
Pontifex Maximus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Maxima Valeria Messallina <maximavaleriamessa llina@... > wrote:
>
> None that I know of. Offer away.
>  
> Vale bene,
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
>  
>
>
> <<--- On Thu, 4/8/10, John Kent <hjkent1@... > wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>  I am new here and I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask this.
>
>  I was wondering about making some offerings of red wine to the Dieties. I was wondering if there was any of Them that would oblect to this offering?
>
> Thank you for your time and patience.
>
>  Quintus>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>











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

Salve Gualtere,
thanks a lot!
Please, remember to publicize this after the current voting is over, so that
there's a better chance it doesn't get drowned in the flood of posts.

Optime vale.
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:40 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Scriptorium


Salvete,

Seeing that JSTOR access has still not materialized for NR I have decided to
implement an idea I voiced last year which is a mailing list where NR
citizens can join and request electronic copies of articles. Come to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Scriptorium_Scholasticum/ !

On the one hand, this will be more limited than JSTOR since you will have to
know ahead of time what article you're looking for, but on the other hand,
people such as I who have access to a variety of journal databases will be
able to provide material beyond what JSTOR offers. I would even be willing
to scan limited pages from books.

So, if you've ever been reading a book on http://books.google.com and
suddenly found that a crucial 2 pages are missing, you can come to this list
and request them! Or, if while reading, you find that a cited article would
really be useful, then come and request it! Join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Scriptorium_Scholasticum/ !

Valete,

M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus

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

The following ballots were cast with invalid voter codes not recognized by
the system:

Ballot #10040482 (Tue Apr 6 19:15:48 2010) GMT
(already mentioned in a previous post)

Ballot #10040496 (Wed Apr 7 14:52:28 2010) GMT

Ballot #10040508 (Thu Apr 8 14:31:36 2010) GMT

The people who recognize temselves in these ballot numbers and times of
voting should vote again, this time making sure they log in into their Album
Civium page first, and follow the "vote here ..." link.

Optime valete,
L. Livia Plauta

Salve Pontifex Maximus,

Off the top of your head? Unreal knowledge. Very interesting. As i have returned to the ML, one of the few things I enjoy reading are your daily missifs.

Thanks!

The once and future,
C. Popillius Laenas

> >
>

Bene Tutor,
if we want Nova Roma to be a nation, to have a state cultus deorum.
Please VOTE NO! VOTE 5 NO's and send a message!!
vale
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, phorus@... wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> in this days I voted and voted NO. I think that this election is very important. Please, vote!
>
> Tutor
>

Salve Pisicnus...

I'll just echo M Valeria on this and add that my observations are
always offered from a "rustic's" point of view ,-)

Vale - Venator

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and remind you that submissions are still open for the Visual Arts
Contest!


LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)

Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.



TOPIC:

Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.





RULES:

1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
(just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)



2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.



3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)



4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.



Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
citizens.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
published.

DEADLINE

The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time

Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...





PRIVATELY!

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI




C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.

Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
you, and remind you that submissions are still being accepted for the FIRST
Theatrical Comedy Sketch Writing Contest!


ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH):

These sketches or plays are to be composed in the spirit of friendship and
camaraderie and above all with a sense of humor. They are to make us laugh -
at ourselves and each other in a good natured fashion setting aside all
loathing and dislike. Laughter of well written parodies and comedies bring
people together



TOPIC:

Contestants will submit a script for a short comedy or parody sketch
suitable to be performed on a stage in the spirit of the plays performed in
ancient Rome on the Megalenses.

The plays were usually pastoral in nature but we will leave that optional.
However they must be set in a Roman setting, for example: the forum, the
country side, a domus where a Megalesia party is occurring or even the
baths.



RULES:

1) Limit of 1000 words.



2) They must be written in sketch or play form for example:

Cato: I'm the Aedile

Julia: No, I'm the Aedile

Cato: Give me that Aedile stick!

Julia: You'll have to catch me first!

If you choose to include a pastoral scene then you can include short
descriptions between "actors" dialogue.



3) The purpose of each submission is to make us laugh out loud, that rolling
on the floor, tears of laughter kind. No mean, hurtful or malevolent words.
Work that contains rude, offensive, evil or hurtful elements will be
excluded from the competition.

Remember: the purpose of the game is writing intelligent, stylish, amusing,
witty and radiant comedies and parodies, NOT ridiculing others.


THE WINNER

The winner will be selected by a jury composed of people of knowledgeable of
literature. The best submissions will be published.

DEADLINE submissions must be received no later than April 9, and will be
presented very soon after the games have been concluded.



Please send your submissions to:



luciaiuliaaquila@...

PRIVATELY!

Omnes;

Here we go with the name-calling again. Do you really think that such
is necessary and meets the idea of the speaker as a stable mature
adult??? Consider what you do to anyone when you label them as such.
I assure you that you do much damage to the individual and considering
the subject is it necessary to continue such antics. Neither is it
necessary to goad another into the use of such language by wording
designed not for disagreement, but rather to extract a comment
damaging to both the speaker as well as the topic, and insulting both
opinions. We all have the right to our views, and up until the
unsuitable comments erupted, the explanation for and against the NR
Constitution, was, in my view, quite interesting. Now that I see the
following language, the interest has waned significantly.

If you must use that kind of language can you not use it off-line so
that it is not shared with those on this list, I would suppose a
majority, who do not wish to listen to it????

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Vedio sal.
>
> "Daily mocks the Gods"? Liar.
>
> You have gone from being a founding father into a petty little man
> desperate to get the spotlight back using dishonesty and fear as a
> catalyst, and it is pitiful to see.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Omnes;

It seems to me that, deleting for a moment the inflammatory language,
between two individuals, that the argument for the Constitution makes
a lot of sense, particularly based on the creation of a document that,
as Citizen / Founder Vedius has indicated, takes the place of the
barriers put in the way of government disruption in ancient Rome. It
is that document which I feel allows me to remain in Nova Roma, a
Christian believer, and not be thrown out on my ear by those who place
my and others removal at a very high priority, based on past comments
by several here.

Now, I, like others here have created Constitutions of other
organizations to which I belong in accordance with the laws of the
state whose registration we use. It is not difficult to do. In the
beginning, these organizations have no long history of violence as
Citizen / Founder Vedius and Senator Maximus have mentioned, so the
Constitution as written was very short and to the point as Senator
Cato has mentioned could be done. Following the creation of a short
and brief Constitution, a set of by-laws were created which discussed
the internal rules and procedures for the operation of the
organization, with the mere mention of these by-laws in the
Constitution as a means of operating the group. That is how a
Constitution and By-Laws are normally created, and in that respect
Senator Cato is quite right.

The concern, however, as Citizen / Founder Vedius has indicated, this
Constitution does far more that simply provide the basics and he gives
his reasons, which sound pretty good to me. I was also around when
the "wars" that Senator Maximus describes occurred, and like he, I do
not wish to go through that again. I do not like the idea of a
dictator, however, I must agree that things were so bad that I
actually welcomed the idea in the end, at that time.

Considering that we have a group (faction) of Senators who wish to rid
NR of all whose belief structure do not appeal to them is scary,
considering the statement in the Constitution welcoming all to come to
NR. Then there is the faction (buried deep) who have the need to
place themselves into some high office within NR, (even at the expense
of others) and we also have a group who cannot recognize another's
opinion as just as valid as theirs without insulting language or
attacking these other beliefs and / or opinions. This seems to me to
be very like the current terrorists who cut off the heads of those who
disagree with them!!!

Perhaps, eventually, in the hands of those who have proven to have the
maturity to do so, the Constitution, item by item can be reduced in
size and strongly worded by-laws made and passed to take their place.
However, until that time arrives, I believe that we should hang on to
the Old Constitution battered, insulted and band-aided though it may
be, because it does the job, perhaps not as well as a shiny new Lex,
but well enough to get NR to a place where the opinions of others are
respected, and the belief structures of all are not mauled by insult.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Vedio sal.
>
> "Daily mocks the Gods"? Liar.
>
> You have gone from being a founding father into a petty little man
> desperate to get the spotlight back using dishonesty and fear as a
> catalyst, and it is pitiful to see.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
> >
> > So says the man who daily mocks the Gods, and would love to see Them
> > tossed aside in favor of his own superstition.
> >
> > Thank you, no. You keep the change.
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> >
> > Cato wrote:
> > > The by-laws, like the Constitution, require a two-thirds
> majority vote of the members for change, which is that "break"
> against "too rapid change" that seems to strike such fear into the
> hearts of some (this fear is nonsense, in other words).
> >
>
>
>



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

Salvete omnes!!!!

I encourage all my fellow citizens to join in the Lustratio Romae! It does not have to be original art, it can be a photo of a J.W. Waterhouse classical theme that inspires you, an image an ancient statue, a Dore woodcut or an architectural rendering of Palladio! A photo from your Grandparent's homeland or one you snapped yourself, or even one you found online!
Honor the Great Mother by participating in her games!

Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
>
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
> you, and remind you that submissions are still open for the Visual Arts
> Contest!
>
>
> LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)
>
> Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
> community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
> of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
> further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.
>
>
>
> TOPIC:
>
> Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.
>
>
>
>
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
> (just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)
>
>
>
> 2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
> ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.
>
>
>
> 3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
> and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)
>
>
>
> 4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
> and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.
>
>
>
> Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
> citizens.
>
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
> artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
> published.
>
> DEADLINE
>
> The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
>
> Please send your submissions to:
>
>
>
> luciaiuliaaquila@...
>
>
>
>
>
> PRIVATELY!
>

P.S. The Ludi webpage is at:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
>
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
> you, and remind you that submissions are still open for the Visual Arts
> Contest!
>
>
> LUSTRATIO ROMAE (VIEW OF ROME OR ROME THROUGH YOUR EYES)
>
> Visual Arts reflect how different individuals view our organization, or
> community, or "nation" The range of views submitted will reflect the nature
> of our Nova Roma will foster new meanings and a new strength impacting
> further understanding of each other as fellow citizens.
>
>
>
> TOPIC:
>
> Visual Arts that reflect various aspects of Roman and Nova Roman life.
>
>
>
>
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) Photographs - your own or from other media such as books and the internet
> (just make sure you have the rights and permissions to use them)
>
>
>
> 2) Photographs of Original Artwork or Sculpture in the media you desire from
> ink to paint to mosaic tiles to clay and marble.
>
>
>
> 3) Photographs of Artwork or Sculpture (just make sure you have the rights
> and permissions to use them, most artwork over 100 years old is safe)
>
>
>
> 4) Please remember that while nudity is ok in classical depictions of Gods
> and ancient Romans, no lewd acts or overt sexual content allowed.
>
>
>
> Remember: the purpose of the game is to inspire each of us, your fellow
> citizens.
>
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner will be selected by a jury composed of your peers who include
> artists and citizens with good taste! The best submissions will be
> published.
>
> DEADLINE
>
> The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
>
> Please send your submissions to:
>
>
>
> luciaiuliaaquila@...
>
>
>
>
>
> PRIVATELY!
>

Salvete Rory et Tutor,
I Appius Galerius Aurelianus have voted NO

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:


From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: I voted NO
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 3:52 PM


 



Bene Tutor,
if we want Nova Roma to be a nation, to have a state cultus deorum.
Please VOTE NO! VOTE 5 NO's and send a message!!
vale
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, phorus@... wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> in this days I voted and voted NO. I think that this election is very important. Please, vote!
>
> Tutor
>











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

Salvete omnes!!!!

I encourage our wittiest and funniest minds and tongues to submit an entry to the ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH)! All work and no play is not good for the spirit – and the show must go on! So please come all ye modern counterparts of Plautus, Terence, Petronius and Apuleius join in the games and pay honor to the Great Mother!

Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia

P.S. The Ludi webpage is at:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
>
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
> Citizens, in the name of aedilis P. Annaeus Constantinus Placidus I salute
> you, and remind you that submissions are still being accepted for the FIRST
> Theatrical Comedy Sketch Writing Contest!
>
>
> ADUMBRATIO COMOEDIA (THEATRICAL COMEDY SKETCH):
>
> These sketches or plays are to be composed in the spirit of friendship and
> camaraderie and above all with a sense of humor. They are to make us laugh -
> at ourselves and each other in a good natured fashion setting aside all
> loathing and dislike. Laughter of well written parodies and comedies bring
> people together
>
>
>
> TOPIC:
>
> Contestants will submit a script for a short comedy or parody sketch
> suitable to be performed on a stage in the spirit of the plays performed in
> ancient Rome on the Megalenses.
>
> The plays were usually pastoral in nature but we will leave that optional.
> However they must be set in a Roman setting, for example: the forum, the
> country side, a domus where a Megalesia party is occurring or even the
> baths.
>
>
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) Limit of 1000 words.
>
>
>
> 2) They must be written in sketch or play form for example:
>
> Cato: I'm the Aedile
>
> Julia: No, I'm the Aedile
>
> Cato: Give me that Aedile stick!
>
> Julia: You'll have to catch me first!
>
> If you choose to include a pastoral scene then you can include short
> descriptions between "actors" dialogue.
>
>
>
> 3) The purpose of each submission is to make us laugh out loud, that rolling
> on the floor, tears of laughter kind. No mean, hurtful or malevolent words.
> Work that contains rude, offensive, evil or hurtful elements will be
> excluded from the competition.
>
> Remember: the purpose of the game is writing intelligent, stylish, amusing,
> witty and radiant comedies and parodies, NOT ridiculing others.
>
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner will be selected by a jury composed of people of knowledgeable of
> literature. The best submissions will be published.
>
> DEADLINE submissions must be received no later than April 9, and will be
> presented very soon after the games have been concluded.
>
>
>
> Please send your submissions to:
>
>
>
> luciaiuliaaquila@...
>
> PRIVATELY!
>

Salvete Rory et Tutor,
 
I,Appius Galerius Aurelianus ,have voted NO on all five items and am glad to hear you have as well.These are just five dire threats to our Res Publica and the nationhood of which we and the founders seek.Besides the despicable attempt to cast away our identity as Romans it is a direct affront to the Religeo Romana.This will not be an end to this battle by a long shot.I for one wish to openly engage the so called opposition in their decietful display  of concern for the best interests of Nova Roma.I shall make my opinions known as the battle continues.
 
Vale bene.
For The New Roman Republic!
Appius Galerius Aurelianus

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:


From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: I voted NO
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 3:52 PM


 



Bene Tutor,
if we want Nova Roma to be a nation, to have a state cultus deorum.
Please VOTE NO! VOTE 5 NO's and send a message!!
vale
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, phorus@... wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> in this days I voted and voted NO. I think that this election is very important. Please, vote!
>
> Tutor
>











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

EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI

Ludi Megalenses

L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.


This is the 5th day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, Magna Mater!

Welcome to the Satura game, Day 5 questions follow the info!

SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.

TOPIC:
Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!

RULES:
1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.
To catch up you can find the other questions here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC

2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.

THE WINNER

The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!

DEADLINE
QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
Please send your submissions to
luciaiuliaaquila@...
PRIVATELY!

DAY 5 QUESTIONS

8) What is the Latin term for:
A) Roman Bedroom
B) Private Study
C) The portico around the garden
D) Toilet
(8 pt)

9) What are the venues called in Latin where an ancient Roman would go to:
A) Hear music and poetry
B) For Races and Gladiatorial games such as the Colosseum
C) To watch plays, pantomimes, choral events, and listen to orations
(6 pt)


Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

L. Iulia Aquila

Salvete omnes,

I may be misreading his intent, but it seems to me that Marcus Audens
has made a veiled reference to my use of the term "superstition" in
reference to Christianity, implying that it is somehow "inflammatory",
or "name-calling" on the level that we were treated to by Cato this
morning in the discussion about the need for Nova Roma to have a written
and specific constitution. I feel that some elucidation on my part in
regards to the use of the term is necessary, as my intent was not to be
inflammatory, but merely to point out the obviousness of Cato's
intention to bring the Religio Romana down to the same level as
Christianity when it comes to the protections of the law in Nova Roma
(as witnessed by his support of the current assault on the Religio
embodied in the changes to the constitution currently being voted on). I
am not among those to whom Marcus Audens makes reference who would see
all Christians expelled from Nova Roma, but at the same time I must say
that there are Christians, and there are Christians.

According to the Roman model, the Religio Romana is, well, "religio",
and Christianity is "superstitio". Two different terms used for two very
different sorts of beliefs, from the Roman point of view.

The term "superstitio" can rightly be translated into English as
"superstition", in the sense of unreasonable ideas about religion. It
is, admittedly, a term with negative connotations, even in the original
Latin sense. However, it does not carry with it the modern baggage of
rabbit's feet and walking under ladders, and rather refers to "throwing
(ones self) into the servitude of deities conceived as tyrants" (OCD,
"superstitio").

The term was specifically applied to Christianity in the Annales of
Tacitus (book XV, ch 44), where it was called "the deadly superstition"
and "evil". Pliny, too, makes use of it in reference to Christianity in
his famous letter to the Emperor Trajan. So I daresay I am in good
company in using it in reference to Christianity.

Specifically, the use of the term sets apart the Religio Romana from
other faiths and cults (again, a term with modern connotations lacking
from the original term "cultus"), including Christianity. It must be
remembered that, at least for now, the Religio Romana holds a special
and honored place within Nova Roma. It is the raison d'etre of Nova Roma
itself. It alone holds the place of honor in our society, and thus
deserves the use of the term "religio". Those Mediterranean cults which
were officially brought into the city under the auspices of the
Collegium Pontificum or some other authority would also fall under that
category. Christianity, on the other hand, lacks that special status. It
is a "mere" superstitio, and as such does not enjoy the favored status
that the Religio possesses.

I hope this makes the matter of the terminology more plain, and I
further hope that matters of policy, philosophy, and religion can indeed
be discussed without the descent into the gutter of name-calling and
personal attacks that we have recently seen.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Over the last several days, we hare head a fair amount of discussion
concerning the checks and balances that make our Republic work. However,
there is 1 which has not been mentioned, at least not directly, and it,
perhaps, the most important. We have The elected officials who administer
the Government of our spiritual nation. We have the Senate, which provides
advice on proposed laws, and, among many other crucial things, administers
the disbursement of our fiscal resources ...and we have the People of Nova
Roma, who, in order to fulfill their responsibilities *must* exercise their
greatest privilege and power ...their right and obligation to vote. Others
may propose legislation, but it the people who enact it, through their
votes, or reject it, through their votes.

I will not presume to say that I have no interest in the results of this
election, I do, and have made that clear, so, were we sitting companionably
in a taberna or in the private domus of a friend, I would urge our, with
considerable gusto and (hopefully) irresistible rhetoric, to vote no,
especially on item 5. However, my greatest concern at the moment is not
*how* you vote, but *that* you vote. It is time for us, the citizens of
Nova Roma, to do our duty, and by doing so, support our Res Publica.

Respectfully,
C. Maria Caeca

Iulia Marci Audenti omnibusque S.P.D.

Audens [...]We all have the right to our views, and up until the

> unsuitable comments erupted, the explanation for and against the NR
> Constitution, was, in my view, quite interesting.

Thank you for this very astute post and this reminder. It is imperative that we listen to one another and remain amiable to change and compromise to create a strong Nova Roma. It will not occur overnight, it will take time and intense negotiations. No one should ever resort to intimidation tactics such as insults and name calling to stop opposing opinions.
Opposing opinions encourage change and growth, challenge encourages progress.
I am listening. I am listening because I have much to learn, not just about the mechanics of our law system but also I am learning what resides in the hearts and minds of the very citizens who share this Nova Roma with me and so I listen so I can serve Nova Roma to the best of my ability.

Audens: [Â…]> Perhaps, eventually, in the hands of those who have proven to have the

> maturity to do so, the Constitution, item by item can be reduced in
> size and strongly worded by-laws made and passed to take their place.
> However, until that time arrives, I believe that we should hang on to
> the Old Constitution battered, insulted and band-aided though it may
> be, because it does the job, perhaps not as well as a shiny new Lex,
> but well enough to get NR to a place where the opinions of others are
> respected, and the belief structures of all are not mauled by insult.

The leges and the constitution both have problems that need to be worked out; the reactions on this ML are powerful indicators of this.
This will not happen overnight, it will be a long process that will require the cooperation of everyone.
We have to move forward but this does not mean we do not revisit the problems the leges and constitution have caused in the past because that history ia also a strong indicator of what needs to be changed but we have to do so with a focused analytic objective mind while protecting the respublica, without leaving her vulnerable.
Do I have a solution? It is not up to me, but to all of us to work as a team towards a solution or solutions.

Simul triumphamus!

Valete optime,

Julia

P.S. I apologize for snipping Audens post, it is certainly worth a read in its entirety.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
>
> Omnes;
>
> Here we go with the name-calling again. Do you really think that such
> is necessary and meets the idea of the speaker as a stable mature
> adult??? Consider what you do to anyone when you label them as such.
> I assure you that you do much damage to the individual and considering
> the subject is it necessary to continue such antics. Neither is it
> necessary to goad another into the use of such language by wording
> designed not for disagreement, but rather to extract a comment
> damaging to both the speaker as well as the topic, and insulting both
> opinions. We all have the right to our views, and up until the
> unsuitable comments erupted, the explanation for and against the NR
> Constitution, was, in my view, quite interesting. Now that I see the
> following language, the interest has waned significantly.
>
> If you must use that kind of language can you not use it off-line so
> that it is not shared with those on this list, I would suppose a
> majority, who do not wish to listen to it????
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Audens
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Cato wrote:
>
> > Cato Vedio sal.
> >
> > "Daily mocks the Gods"? Liar.
> >
> > You have gone from being a founding father into a petty little man
> > desperate to get the spotlight back using dishonesty and fear as a
> > catalyst, and it is pitiful to see.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete omnes!!!!

Here I am once again encouraging everyone to try their hand at our Certamen Historicum – surely it is not too hard and our current contestants are doing well and maybe even finding it challenging:) It might require a bit of research, but the answers are all within your reach and you can catch up until the deadline! Please honor the Ludi and the Great Mother! Give it your best shot!!! Si Placet...

Valete et habete fortunam bonam!

Julia

P.S. The Ludi webpage is at:
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "luciaiuliaaquila" <luciaiuliaaquila@...> wrote:
>
> EX OFFICIO AEDILIS P. ANNAEI
>
> Ludi Megalenses
>
> L. Iulia Aquila Quiritibus s. p. d.
>
>
> This is the 5th day of the Megalesia, the feria devoted to the Mother of the gods, Magna Mater!
>
> Welcome to the Satura game, Day 5 questions follow the info!
>
> SATURA (MIXED BAG of ROMAN LIFE)
> The game is a series of 12 different questions with 1 – 4 parts including bonus questions regarding various aspects of basic Roman life that every ancient Roman would know. 1 – 2 will be offered each day. It is designed to be fun and educational.
>
> TOPIC:
> Various aspects of everyday Ancient Roman life which include numerals, Latin terms – a mixed bag!
>
> RULES:
> 1) Everyday during the Ludi one or two questions will be posted. You may answer them as they are posted or when you have time as long as they are answered by the Deadline as indicated below. Some are easy, some not so.
> To catch up you can find the other questions here:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2763_AUC
>
> 2) 12 questions, some with multiple answers earn 2 – 16 points including bonus questions for a total of 100 points.
>
> THE WINNER
>
> The winner is the citizen who earns the most points!
>
> DEADLINE
> QQS 1 – 11 The 9th of April, 24:00 – Rome Time
> Q 12 - The 10th of April, 24:00 - Rome Time
> Results will be posted within a few days of the close of the Ludi
> Please send your submissions to
> luciaiuliaaquila@...
> PRIVATELY!
>
> DAY 5 QUESTIONS
>
> 8) What is the Latin term for:
> A) Roman Bedroom
> B) Private Study
> C) The portico around the garden
> D) Toilet
> (8 pt)
>
> 9) What are the venues called in Latin where an ancient Roman would go to:
> A) Hear music and poetry
> B) For Races and Gladiatorial games such as the Colosseum
> C) To watch plays, pantomimes, choral events, and listen to orations
> (6 pt)
>
>
> Valete et habete fortunam bonam!
>
> L. Iulia Aquila
>

Vedius, Patre Patriae
Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Esteemed Sir;

Although I enjoyed your recent treatise, I believe that you have erred
in my intention, Such was not my idea at all. I am quite aware of
how Christianity is viewed here in some quarters and as I have said
earlier and often, each of us is entitled to our own view, Further, I
do not understand the Religio nearly as well as I perceive your
understanding of Christianity, and I believe that is also fine with
me. I think that my past Oaths and Senate votes have made it clear
that I respect other beliefs, and such a criticism as you have
questioned was not the focus of my response. The focus was supposedly
maturity in speech, adult views in personal relations, and my personal
views in regard to the NR Constitution, and it's strengths and
weaknesses, as I see them.

I am also well aware if a man or woman ever called me a "liar" to my
face, they probably would have difficulty ever repeating that anytime
soon. So, when this kind of language is used on the internet by those
who will probably never meet, as Marcus Aurelius has indicated, the
revelation about the speaker is that those kind of comments brand
him / her as the person who is lacking and not the target of the
mproper comments.

So, I have no concern with either you or your beliefs as they are
yours and you have a right to them just as I have a right to mine. I
will, to the best of my ability, listen to another's view, if it is
expressed in a civil way (name-calling makes it very difficult to
consider any point seriously) and if I find that I am in error I shall
gladly admit as much.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding that we might have had.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Vedius wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
>
> I may be misreading his intent, but it seems to me that Marcus Audens
> has made a veiled reference to my use of the term "superstition" in
> reference to Christianity, implying that it is somehow "inflammatory",
> or "name-calling" on the level that we were treated to by Cato this
> morning in the discussion about the need for Nova Roma to have a
> written
> and specific constitution. I feel that some elucidation on my part in
> regards to the use of the term is necessary, as my intent was not to
> be
> inflammatory, but merely to point out the obviousness of Cato's
> intention to bring the Religio Romana down to the same level as
> Christianity when it comes to the protections of the law in Nova Roma
> (as witnessed by his support of the current assault on the Religio
> embodied in the changes to the constitution currently being voted
> on). I
> am not among those to whom Marcus Audens makes reference who would see
> all Christians expelled from Nova Roma, but at the same time I must
> say
> that there are Christians, and there are Christians.
>
> According to the Roman model, the Religio Romana is, well, "religio",
> and Christianity is "superstitio". Two different terms used for two
> very
> different sorts of beliefs, from the Roman point of view.
>
> The term "superstitio" can rightly be translated into English as
> "superstition", in the sense of unreasonable ideas about religion. It
> is, admittedly, a term with negative connotations, even in the
> original
> Latin sense. However, it does not carry with it the modern baggage of
> rabbit's feet and walking under ladders, and rather refers to
> "throwing
> (ones self) into the servitude of deities conceived as tyrants" (OCD,
> "superstitio").
>
> The term was specifically applied to Christianity in the Annales of
> Tacitus (book XV, ch 44), where it was called "the deadly
> superstition"
> and "evil". Pliny, too, makes use of it in reference to Christianity
> in
> his famous letter to the Emperor Trajan. So I daresay I am in good
> company in using it in reference to Christianity.
>
> Specifically, the use of the term sets apart the Religio Romana from
> other faiths and cults (again, a term with modern connotations lacking
> from the original term "cultus"), including Christianity. It must be
> remembered that, at least for now, the Religio Romana holds a special
> and honored place within Nova Roma. It is the raison d'etre of Nova
> Roma
> itself. It alone holds the place of honor in our society, and thus
> deserves the use of the term "religio". Those Mediterranean cults
> which
> were officially brought into the city under the auspices of the
> Collegium Pontificum or some other authority would also fall under
> that
> category. Christianity, on the other hand, lacks that special
> status. It
> is a "mere" superstitio, and as such does not enjoy the favored status
> that the Religio possesses.
>
> I hope this makes the matter of the terminology more plain, and I
> further hope that matters of policy, philosophy, and religion can
> indeed
> be discussed without the descent into the gutter of name-calling and
> personal attacks that we have recently seen.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
>



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

Mistress Julia;

I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
that!!!!!!

Respectfully;
Marcus Audens




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

Senator Audens,

Hold on to that play!!!!! One never knows what the next literary contest may be ...and you may well find an excellent use for it. Besides, I will want to read it (smile).

Vale bene,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Omnes,

In relation to my last message; however, If I cannot submit my new
play for competition, I can and have put in on my blog, All are
invited to view it and let me know your blogs if you have any. My
blog is:

http://RomanStudies.blogspot.com

I should also like to hear, if you think the play worthwhile. I have
a tendency to be soft on my own work (Grin!!!!!).

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

http://LivingHistoryMilitaryEngineer.blogspot.com

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, James Mathews wrote:

> Mistress Julia;
>
> I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
> rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> that!!!!!!
>
> Respectfully;
> Marcus Audens
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



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

Salve Audens!

That was wonderful! I truly enjoyed reading it; you certainly have skill at breathing life into your characters!

It would be a wonderful addition to the ML!

Thank you for taking the time to write that.

Vale bene,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
>
> Omnes,
>
> In relation to my last message; however, If I cannot submit my new
> play for competition, I can and have put in on my blog, All are
> invited to view it and let me know your blogs if you have any. My
> blog is:
>
> http://RomanStudies.blogspot.com
>
> I should also like to hear, if you think the play worthwhile. I have
> a tendency to be soft on my own work (Grin!!!!!).
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Audens
>
> http://LivingHistoryMilitaryEngineer.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, James Mathews wrote:
>
> > Mistress Julia;
> >
> > I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> > not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
> > rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> > perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> > reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> > neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> > that!!!!!!
> >
> > Respectfully;
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salve Audens,

You still have two days to write a comedy... and we all know the ML gives us plenty of raw material. However, if it suits you, you can post it on the ML as a play for the Meglesia! We should have had some play posted by now anyway, even a comedy by Terence, however I do not think anyone would object to your play as well written as it is!

Cura ut valeas,

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
>
> Mistress Julia;
>
> I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
> rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> that!!!!!!
>
> Respectfully;
> Marcus Audens
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

M. Hortensia M. Audenti spd;
hold on to that play and submit it for the Ludi Apollinares!
the praetrices would be more than happy to have such a terrific submission.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
>
> Omnes,
>
> In relation to my last message; however, If I cannot submit my new
> play for competition, I can and have put in on my blog, All are
> invited to view it and let me know your blogs if you have any. My
> blog is:
>
> http://RomanStudies.blogspot.com
>
> I should also like to hear, if you think the play worthwhile. I have
> a tendency to be soft on my own work (Grin!!!!!).
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Audens
>
> http://LivingHistoryMilitaryEngineer.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, James Mathews wrote:
>
> > Mistress Julia;
> >
> > I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> > not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
> > rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> > perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> > reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> > neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> > that!!!!!!
> >
> > Respectfully;
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete, amicae, amici omnibusque!

Today's offering is an inspiring poem about Rome from the French Renaissance by Joachim Du Bellay, a humanist:

Les Antiquitez de Rome XXVII

You who, beholding Rome with awestruck eye,
Gaze at what once she was – those temples, those
Palaces, arches, baths, those hills that rose,
Arrogantly against the very sky

Judge, as you view them, how naught can defy
Time and the cruel destruction that it sows,
Mourning like craftsman who, though zealous, knows
One day his work in rubble too will lie.

Then look again, and judge how, each day, Rome,
Delving within what was her ancient home,
Rebuilds herself in glorious opulence;

How Rome's soul, at fates urging, takes great pains
To raise from the dust her crumbled, dead remains,
And breathe to life her past magnificence.


Toi qui de Rome émerveillé contemples
L'antique orgueil, qui menaçait les cieux,
Ces vieux palais, ces monts audacieux,
Ces murs, ces arcs, ces thermes et ces temples,

Juge, en voyant ces ruines si amples,
Ce qu'a rongé le temps injurieux,
Puisqu'aux ouvriers les plus industrieux
Ces vieux fragments encor servent d'exemples.

Regarde après, comme de jour en jour
Rome, fouillant son antique séjour,
Se rebâtit de tant d'oeuvres divines :

Tu jugeras que le démon romain
S'efforce encor d'une fatale main
Ressusciter ces poudreuses ruines.

Joachim Du Bellay, 1525-1560.

Vale optime,

Julia

Iulia Maiori Audenti sal,

Or at the Ludi Cereales beginning on April 12th...

Vale

Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia M. Audenti spd;
> hold on to that play and submit it for the Ludi Apollinares!
> the praetrices would be more than happy to have such a terrific submission.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@> wrote:
> >
> > Omnes,
> >
> > In relation to my last message; however, If I cannot submit my new
> > play for competition, I can and have put in on my blog, All are
> > invited to view it and let me know your blogs if you have any. My
> > blog is:
> >
> > http://RomanStudies.blogspot.com
> >
> > I should also like to hear, if you think the play worthwhile. I have
> > a tendency to be soft on my own work (Grin!!!!!).
> >
> > Respectfully;
> >
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> > http://LivingHistoryMilitaryEngineer.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, James Mathews wrote:
> >
> > > Mistress Julia;
> > >
> > > I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> > > not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama, but
> > > rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> > > perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> > > reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> > > neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> > > that!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Respectfully;
> > > Marcus Audens
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Juliae Aquilae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Thank you for this...it¹s quite lovely! Now, can anyone guess what lasted
> longer than those Roman monuments? What did the Romans create that is still
> in pretty good shape...and in use?
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
> Salvete, amicae, amici omnibusque!
>
> Today's offering is an inspiring poem about Rome from the French Renaissance
> by Joachim Du Bellay, a humanist:
>
> Les Antiquitez de Rome XXVII
>
> You who, beholding Rome with awestruck eye,
> Gaze at what once she was – those temples, those
> Palaces, arches, baths, those hills that rose,
> Arrogantly against the very sky
>
> Judge, as you view them, how naught can defy
> Time and the cruel destruction that it sows,
> Mourning like craftsman who, though zealous, knows
> One day his work in rubble too will lie.
>
> Then look again, and judge how, each day, Rome,
> Delving within what was her ancient home,
> Rebuilds herself in glorious opulence;
>
> How Rome's soul, at fates urging, takes great pains
> To raise from the dust her crumbled, dead remains,
> And breathe to life her past magnificence.
>
> Toi qui de Rome émerveillé contemples
> L'antique orgueil, qui menaçait les cieux,
> Ces vieux palais, ces monts audacieux,
> Ces murs, ces arcs, ces thermes et ces temples,
>
> Juge, en voyant ces ruines si amples,
> Ce qu'a rongé le temps injurieux,
> Puisqu'aux ouvriers les plus industrieux
> Ces vieux fragments encor servent d'exemples.
>
> Regarde après, comme de jour en jour
> Rome, fouillant son antique séjour,
> Se rebâtit de tant d'oeuvres divines :
>
> Tu jugeras que le démon romain
> S'efforce encor d'une fatale main
> Ressusciter ces poudreuses ruines.
>
> Joachim Du Bellay, 1525-1560.
>
> Vale optime,
>
> Julia
>
>
>

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

Cato Marco Audenti sal.

Noble sentiments, and in a perfect world they would be highly applicable.

Yet...when someone lies about you to make themselves look better, it is very easy to call them a liar. Because that is what they are doing.

Pretending to be all very noble and above it all is fine, but if someone is lying, they are lying, and there's really not a pretty way to say it. Nor should there necessarily be a pretty way, because lying is an ugly act.

I do not call Vedius a liar as a vague and tawdry insult. He said something which he knows to be false. He lied. Whether he would physically harm me if I were standing in front of him - as you suggest might happen in your case - is of no consequence to me; if he lied about me to my face I would still call him a liar.

Now, it may be the "high road" to simply ignore it. But ignoring it makes it easier and easier for that person to lie again and again because they are not called on it.

Vale,

Cato

Cn. Lentulus Mariae Caecae omnibusque in hóc foro s. d.

I join with my letter to the call of the always very reasonable and amazingly kind Maria Caeca, and I urge my fellow citizens to vote, make your voice be heard, and let the magistrates know WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT in Nova Roma, with and about Nova Roma.

It is not only our sacred Roman right to vote in the Comitia, but also our patriotic duty to exercise this right.

I can't but repeat Maria's humble words confessing that I, as every passionate Nova Roman, do have interest in the results of this election, and I do urge my fellow Nova Romans to vote NO, especially on the proposed new preamble. But my greatest concern is not *how* you vote, but that you *vote*. Demonstrate what you want.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Cista

You can only do it until tomorrow.


--- Ven 9/4/10, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...> ha scritto:







 









Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.



Over the last several days, we hare head a fair amount of discussion

concerning the checks and balances that make our Republic work. However,

there is 1 which has not been mentioned, at least not directly, and it,

perhaps, the most important. We have The elected officials who administer

the Government of our spiritual nation. We have the Senate, which provides

advice on proposed laws, and, among many other crucial things, administers

the disbursement of our fiscal resources ...and we have the People of Nova

Roma, who, in order to fulfill their responsibilities *must* exercise their

greatest privilege and power ...their right and obligation to vote. Others

may propose legislation, but it the people who enact it, through their

votes, or reject it, through their votes.



I will not presume to say that I have no interest in the results of this

election, I do, and have made that clear, so, were we sitting companionably

in a taberna or in the private domus of a friend, I would urge our, with

considerable gusto and (hopefully) irresistible rhetoric, to vote no,

especially on item 5. However, my greatest concern at the moment is not

*how* you vote, but *that* you vote. It is time for us, the citizens of

Nova Roma, to do our duty, and by doing so, support our Res Publica.



Respectfully,

C. Maria Caeca

























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

Si fa seguito alla convocazione dei comitia urbis alla quale sono state apportate le seguenti modifiche:
 I comitia sono convocati sabato 17 alle ore 11 presso la sede della Federalberghi, corso Italia, 19.
L'o.d.g. rimane invariato.
  Marcus Quirinus Sulla
  Lucius Fabricius Maro
  Aediles urbis.




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

Cato Vedio sal.

However, according to the model set up by your own Constitution, Nova Roma reflects Roman culture until the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate House in AD 394, quite a while after Christianity was not only recognized but in fact *became* the State cult, so it is improper to refer to it as a superstitio.

Vale,

Cato

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Quiritibus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Optime vos omnes.

Hodie est ante diem V Eidus Apriles; haec dies nefastus est: Ludi Megalesiaci.

"Nurturing Idean Mother of the Gods, for whom Dindymus is dear, you who love turreted cities and bridled lions, lead me now into battle, and rightly fulfill the omens. Come with your favoring step, O Goddess, lead and we Phrygians will follow." ~ P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneid 10.252-55

Numa and Egeria

"There was a grove through the midst of which a perennial stream flowed, issuing from a dark cave. Here Numa frequently retired unattended as if to meet the goddess, and he consecrated the grove to the Camaenae, because it was there that their meetings with his wife Egeria took place." ~ Titus Livius 1.21

"Numa, forsaking the ways of city folk, determined to live for the most part in country places, and to wander there alone, passing his days in groves of the Gods, sacred meadows, and solitudes. This, more than anything else, gave rise to the story about his Goddess. It was not, so the story ran, from any distress or aberration of spirit that he forsook the ways of men, but he had tasted the joy of more august companionship and had been honoured with a celestial marriage; the Goddess Egeria loved him and bestowed Herself upon him, and it was his communion with Her that gave him a life of blessedness and a wisdom more than human. However, that this story resembles many of the very ancient tales which the Phrygians have received and cherished concerning Attis, the Bithynians concerning Herodotus, the Arcadians concerning Endymion, and other peoples concerning other mortals who were thought to have achieved a life of blessedness in the love of the Gods, is quite evident. And there is some reason in supposing that a Deity, Who is not a lover of horses or birds, but a lover of men, should be willing to consort with men of superlative goodness, and should not dislike or disdain the company of a wise and holy man." ~ Plutarch, Life of Numa Pompilius 4.1-3

Laws of Numa

Certain religious laws were said to have been handed down by Rex Numa from the beginning of the religio Romana, or at least were attributed to him at a later time. One of these bans particular sacrifices.

"Numa ordained that fish without scales should not be served up at the Festivals of the Gods lest they pollute the sacrifice." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 32.2 (20)

This would refer to eels, shell fish of every kind, as well as cuttle fish, squids and octopi, and other sea creatures we might consider. This is similar to dietary proscriptions found in other religious traditions of the Mediterranean region. However, Numa's concern is not with how an individual may act, or what he might eat. The concern and focus of the religio Romana is on relationships within the Roman community, especially those relationships between the Gods and the rest of Roman society. It is interesting, for example, that were a son to strike his parent, religious law demands that he offer sacrifice to his Lares, or if a daughter-in-law commit such an offense that she offer sacrifice to the Lares of her husband. Whatever else might be approved by society as proper punishment for an offense, the religio Romana deems such social offenses as threatening the concord between the human community of Rome and its divine benefactor Jupiter. This is perhaps better seen in two of Numa's other laws.

"In the laws of Numa is a caution, that if one imprudently kills another man, for the life he has taken may he offer public sacrifice of a ram." ~ Servius Honorus, Verg. ecl., 4.43; Cf. Serv. in Verg. georg., 3.387

"If anyone offers sacrifice different (from what is vowed, or what is prescribed), may he be consecrated himself as a sacrifice to Jupiter." ~ Festus, P. 6: SI QUISQUAM ALIUTA FAXIT, IPSOS IOVI SACER ESTO

In the law on manslaughter we see, as with the previous familial laws, that whatever else civil law might demand, religious law concerns itself with maintaining the Pax Deorum by having the offender make public sacrifice to the Gods. This is because his careless act, which caused the death, breached the compact of the entire public with the Gods. Thus must the offender serve on behalf of the entire public to make things right again with the Gods.

All vows to erect temples, to hold games, or to offer some specific sacrifices in the future is a contract between the individual who makes the vow and the God or Goddess to Whom the vow was made. This is the do ut das formula, "I give, so that You might give." The Pax Deorum is a contract with the Gods that all vows, even private vows, shall be fulfilled to the letter. If therefore anyone were to perform a sacrifice different from what was vowed, or different from what is prescribed in a lex temple where the sacrifice was made, then it becomes a breach of contract that threatens to severe the Pax Deorum. As Jupiter is the Guardian and Guarantor of all contracts, the offense is primarily made against Him, and thus does the offender become dedicated to Jupiter as though his life were then designated as a sacrifice and he a sacrificial victim. He is in sacro. Not stated above, but elsewhere is that all of the offender's property would also be assigned over to Ceres, returned to Mother Earth as it were, as the earth is the source of all property. The Pax Deorum provided for the greatness of Rome, and therefore anything that threatened that contract with the Gods was considered a very serious offense against the Roman people and their State.


946 / 193 CE: Septimus Severus attained rank of Augustus


Today's thought is from Epictetus, Enchiridion 35:

"When you do anything from a clear judgment that it ought to be done, never shrink from being seen to do it, even though the world should misunderstand it; for if you are not acting rightly, shun the action itself; if you are, why fear those who wrongly censure you?"

Salve optime Popilli

Thank you. It is very good to see one of your quality and personal integrity return to our community. I have enjoyed our brief conversations in the past and look forward to you becoming active once more to benefit our Res Publica.

In amicitia vale

Piscinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiuspopilliuslaenas" <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Pontifex Maximus,
>
> Off the top of your head? Unreal knowledge. Very interesting. As i have returned to the ML, one of the few things I enjoy reading are your daily missifs.
>
> Thanks!
>
> The once and future,
> C. Popillius Laenas
>
> > >
> >
>

Salvete Patres. Conscripti et Quirites!!

I have spent this week doing a lot of things for my job as a teacher
and preparing for the meeting with Consul Albucius. I will fly there
tomorrow. We have a very ambitious program/agaenda and I expect us to
have about 17 hours during these two days for about 9 main items and 3
hours for about 10 - 20 other items,. We hope to be able to agree on
the main items faster than planned and to have more time for the other
items. I really hope that we will be able to get sall things done that
we have as a goal. We will spend Saturday and Sunday at Scandic Hotel
in Upplands Vasby north of Stockholm.

We will certainly do our best to build some kind of platform for the
rest of the year

*****************
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae

On Apr 9, 2010, at 12:22 AM, luciaiuliaaquila wrote:

> Salve Audens,
>
> You still have two days to write a comedy... and we all know the ML
> gives us plenty of raw material. However, if it suits you, you can
> post it on the ML as a play for the Meglesia! We should have had
> some play posted by now anyway, even a comedy by Terence, however I
> do not think anyone would object to your play as well written as it
> is!
>
> Cura ut valeas,
>
> Julia
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mistress Julia;
> >
> > I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> > not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not drama,
> but
> > rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh well,
> > perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> > reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> > neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> > that!!!!!!
> >
> > Respectfully;
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>

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

Salvete Quirites,

I fully support Consul Quintilianus call. Vote No on Item 5!

Valete,
 
M•IVL•SEVERVS

SENATOR
PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI




________________________________
From: Christer Edling <christer.edling@...>
To: Nova Roma - Main list <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Comitia Centuriata <NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 4:14:50 AM
Subject: [Conclavus_Preparatio] VOTE NO TO THE PREAMBLE (Item 5)

 
Salvete Quirites!

It is with a heavy heart I publicly go against a proposal from a
colleague, it is not the way I think you get the Roman system to be
creative, but I feel forced to do so.

I haven't had any idea that he had a proposal for a preamble until
about the call for the Comitia. We talked about tabling the proposal,
but my Colleague didn't want that.

For about two days I have been talking to Consul Albucius about a
compromise on _his_ proposal for a Preamble. As usual in such a
situation I have tried to find ways for a normal compromise. I thought
the work went reasonable well and I had reason to believe that it
would result in a compromise, but after sitting at the computer for
most of two nights, I received a decision from Consul Albucius this
morning that he wasn't prepared to make _any_ compromise.

The keywords that we couldn't agree on are: "Nova Roman Nation", "we
stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of ancient
Rome" and "The Religio Romana has its natural home in Nova Roma, which
constitutes its worldly focus". To me these points are fundamental, I
wasn't the one who closed down the discussions this morning.

My Colleague and I have planned to meet in Stockholm the next weekend
and I hope that we will be able to find ways to to continue to
cooperate, our private contacts by phone (me calling) and by e-mail
has been cordial and I hope to find a new base for our work together
in Stockholm.

The proposal for the Lex on the Preamble is at the Comitia Centuriata
page in the Cista where we vote.

I now recommend everybody to vote _no_ to the proposed Lex, Item 5,
the "Preamble".

Let the People decide!

************ *****
Vale

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************ ********* ********* ********* *********
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************ ********* ********* ********* *********
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************ ********* ********* ********* *********
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae







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

Salve L. Iuliae Aquilae et salvete omnes,

Although I don't fully agree with the arguments regarding your appointment, I undestand your decision and I must agree with Ti. Galerius Paulinus, something that doesn't frequently happen: yours is a truly Roman act!
I admire you now more than ever.

Vale, et valete.
 
M•IVL•SEVERVS

SENATOR
PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI




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

Mistress Scholastica;

Two Bridges used for Automobile traffic, One in Rhonda, Spain, and the
second is the Tagus River Bridge In Spain or Portugal. I have driven
over both of them. There are also two foot bridges in Portugal, and
one in France, all three were originally intended for military
traffic. I have pictures of these three.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:59 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica wrote:

> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica L. Juliae Aquilae quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque
> > bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
> >
> > Thank you for this...it�s quite lovely! Now, can anyone guess what
> lasted
> > longer than those Roman monuments? What did the Romans create that
> is still
> > in pretty good shape...and in use?
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> > Salvete, amicae, amici omnibusque!
> >
> > Today's offering is an inspiring poem about Rome from the French
> Renaissance
> > by Joachim Du Bellay, a humanist:
> >
> > Les Antiquitez de Rome XXVII
> >
> > You who, beholding Rome with awestruck eye,
> > Gaze at what once she was � those temples, those
> > Palaces, arches, baths, those hills that rose,
> > Arrogantly against the very sky
> >
> > Judge, as you view them, how naught can defy
> > Time and the cruel destruction that it sows,
> > Mourning like craftsman who, though zealous, knows
> > One day his work in rubble too will lie.
> >
> > Then look again, and judge how, each day, Rome,
> > Delving within what was her ancient home,
> > Rebuilds herself in glorious opulence;
> >
> > How Rome's soul, at fates urging, takes great pains
> > To raise from the dust her crumbled, dead remains,
> > And breathe to life her past magnificence.
> >
> > Toi qui de Rome �merveill� contemples
> > L'antique orgueil, qui mena�ait les cieux,
> > Ces vieux palais, ces monts audacieux,
> > Ces murs, ces arcs, ces thermes et ces temples,
> >
> > Juge, en voyant ces ruines si amples,
> > Ce qu'a rong� le temps injurieux,
> > Puisqu'aux ouvriers les plus industrieux
> > Ces vieux fragments encor servent d'exemples.
> >
> > Regarde apr�s, comme de jour en jour
> > Rome, fouillant son antique s�jour,
> > Se reb�tit de tant d'oeuvres divines :
> >
> > Tu jugeras que le d�mon romain
> > S'efforce encor d'une fatale main
> > Ressusciter ces poudreuses ruines.
> >
> > Joachim Du Bellay, 1525-1560.
> >
> > Vale optime,
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



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

Senator Cato;

I do not dispute with you that a person who fails to tell the truth is
not a person to trust, However, in my world there are reasons which
that particular word should not be used. Some the reasons are listed
below:

--Different references between opposing ideas;

--Different views of the same material;

--Injury to an individual that could and probably would lead to his/
her leaving NR, unless held here by a very strong reason;
--Honest error on the part of an individual.

Now I have dealt with Master Vedius in the past. We have not always
agreed, but we have agreed to disagree, which to me is a step in the
right direction. However, I have never known him to deliberately tell
an untruth over the many tears that I have been in NR, nor have I ever
found a reason to suspect he has manipulated the truth in any way, so
I have no suspicions in that area.

Lastly the term "Liar" is very like a brand, something once said you
cannot take back if you find yourself in the wrong, Secondly, it
should be a term used in private conversation and certainly not spread
over a list which contains a number of people who may not know either
of you or care about your argument. You are absolutely correct when
you say that such a term is not "Noble." Neither is it polite,
proper, correct to use in a large group, and it is dangerous as I have
said for it's probable results to the one branded with it. A person
who uses such a term likely could simply brush it off if used against
him / or her, however few people have that ability to shed insults
lightly.

Marcus Aurelius indicates that those who use that kind of language
brand themselves as well as the receiver as to their character.
Lastly, I really don't think that most on this list have joined it to
hear a constant rain of accusations, and rough extended argument
between two or three people. Once all have made their determinations
it is very unlikely that insulting someone will change their minds, so
if it is absolutely necessary to continue the argument aud nauseum, it
should be taken off-list. This is my view. I have only recently
returned to this list after being away for just that reason.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Marco Audenti sal.
>
> Noble sentiments, and in a perfect world they would be highly
> applicable.
>
> Yet...when someone lies about you to make themselves look better, it
> is very easy to call them a liar. Because that is what they are doing.
>
> Pretending to be all very noble and above it all is fine, but if
> someone is lying, they are lying, and there's really not a pretty
> way to say it. Nor should there necessarily be a pretty way, because
> lying is an ugly act.
>
> I do not call Vedius a liar as a vague and tawdry insult. He said
> something which he knows to be false. He lied. Whether he would
> physically harm me if I were standing in front of him - as you
> suggest might happen in your case - is of no consequence to me; if
> he lied about me to my face I would still call him a liar.
>
> Now, it may be the "high road" to simply ignore it. But ignoring it
> makes it easier and easier for that person to lie again and again
> because they are not called on it.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>



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

Omnes:

Yes, this is something that I have wondered about as well. There is
much ado about Nova Roma being the only refuge for the Roman Religio,
however as Cato has indicated, Christianity was the state religion
before the "removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate House. In
that case, it seems to me that Christianity has just as much right to
be protected, and honored as does the Religio and Christians as much
right to be here as anyone. Now, I understand that over the years
there has been a movement in NR to stay pretty much with the Republic
because it is with that organization we can govern in a way that does
not depend upon the whims of an emperor. I guess that I don't mind
that little jog in the road because I have as much imagination as the
next guy. But the constant cry of," Nova Roma is a place only for the
Religio," gets a little tiresome as do the comments of those who do
not like a belief structure other than the Religio, and attempt to
belittle it in some way. Such is obviously in violation of the
Constitution,

Now I am sure that there are those who will blast me for bringing this
up, but if you do, would you kindly explain why with the Constitution
as it is, there are those who openly oppose Christianity. I am aware
that there are some here who personally hate it, there are probably
some here who have been disappointed in it. It is not an easy belief
system to live with, and a few of those who sometimes preach it, are
impossible to deal with. Such was my experience. However, those are
personal concerns and not public ones. The Constitution is what Nova
Roma is run by and her by-laws, so let's pay a little more attention
to the Constitution and less to trying to rid NR of those that some
dislike and believe to be improper because of their beliefs.

Respectfully'

Marcus Audens.

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Vedio sal.
>
> However, according to the model set up by your own Constitution,
> Nova Roma reflects Roman culture until the removal of the Altar of
> Victory from the Senate House in AD 394, quite a while after
> Christianity was not only recognized but in fact *became* the State
> cult, so it is improper to refer to it as a superstitio.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>



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

Salvete omnes,
I got an Amazon reccommendation for this book
http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Gods-Religion-Transformation-Classical/dp/0520259866/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

Does anyone know anything about it?

Optime valete,
Livia

L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.

From the preliminary results of voting it looks as if none of consul
Albucius' proposed laws will pass.

I am disappointed that it seems to be so hard to introduce even a few
rationalizations in the structure of NR, like for example a reduction of the
number of magistrates.

But I'm even more disappointed that his proposed law to change the preamble
of our constitution is not likely to pass and it seems that NR will be tied
forever to this idea of a "nation" or a "state".

Now, the problem is that this whole conception is what has prevented the
success of NR, not only from the point of view of academic connections, but
also in the restoration of Religio itself.
The pretence to be a "state" and to recreate a "state religion" is what
makes us pariahs in the eyes of all serious pagan organizations and it is
the main reason why we haven't been officially invited to the convention of
ethnic religions that will be held in Bologna at the end of August. Most
cultores, specially in Italy, take it very badly when a foreign organization
wants to "appropriate" the cultus deorum by declaring to be a "state", and
thus implicitly declaring that its cult is the only "official" one.

My main goal is the restoration of Religio in Italy, but I don't think this
will be ever be accomplished without the help of the other organizations.
Ever since I learned how huge a handicap it is for us to be purporting to be
a "state" I have tried to circumvent the problem, while hoping that sooner
or later it could be overcome. But if even the hope that sooner or later NR
will stop claiming to be a "state" vanishes, then so does the hope that it
will ever be useful in restoring Religio in Italy.

It's ironic, isn't it? The very thing that according to some "cultores" here
is necessary to restore the Religio (being a "state") is exactly what will
always prevent Nova Roma from actually restoring the Religio.

I'ts becoming increasingly clear to me that this aim of mine cannot be
reached through NR, but it instead requires either joining one of the
existing organizations of cultores deorum (the problem for an expat like me
is that they are all locally based in Italy) or creating a new organization
that doesn't accept monotheists, with just one well-defined goal: the
restoration of Religio.

My other main goal is the creation of a Roman colony, and for this it became
clear to me even earlier that if the colony ever gets founded it cannot have
anything to do with Nova Roma, even only for administrative reasons. Any
colony would need to be incorporated in the country where it is created, and
cannot depend on a foreign entity, specially not on one where the
decision-making process is as slow and cumbersome as in Nova Roma.

I have thus reached the conclusion that being in Nova Roma, while it does
help me meet people who have similar goals to mine, in itself doesn't get me
even one inch nearer to reaching them.

Now, this is the point where other people usually hand in their resignation
and disappear. But don't worry: I'm not a drama queen, I'm not a quitter and
I'm not going anywhere.

I'm also a magistrate bound by an oath of office, and, as my friends know,
once I gave my word I keep it.

But after this year is over I'm certainly going to re-evaluate my role in
Nova Roma, measure the effort I'm giving to it against what I'm getting in
return, and probably I will decide to play a less active part.

Optime valete,
Livia

PS: Just a pre-emptive answer to Vedius, or whoever will ask: "Why did you
join, if you didn't like the idea of NR being a state?"
When I joined I could see the positive aspects of NR, which was also the
only place where I was able to meet other cultores: I had no idea that the
micronational conception would prove to be so damaging and so hard to get
rid of.

Cato Marco Audenti sal.

I empathize with the concern I read under your words; I will only - and I promise this will be the last regarding this particular issue - say that I quoted a specific statement that is provably, demonstrably false. It was not an honest error or a misinterpretation.

I too have been relatively unsettled by Vedius' recent vitriol against me, as I have never - to my knowledge - said or done anything to him that would warrant such an attack.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
>
> Senator Cato;
>
> I do not dispute with you that a person who fails to tell the truth is
> not a person to trust, However, in my world there are reasons which
> that particular word should not be used. Some the reasons are listed
> below:
>
> --Different references between opposing ideas;
>
> --Different views of the same material;
>
> --Injury to an individual that could and probably would lead to his/
> her leaving NR, unless held here by a very strong reason;
> --Honest error on the part of an individual.
>
> Now I have dealt with Master Vedius in the past. We have not always
> agreed, but we have agreed to disagree, which to me is a step in the
> right direction. However, I have never known him to deliberately tell
> an untruth over the many tears that I have been in NR, nor have I ever
> found a reason to suspect he has manipulated the truth in any way, so
> I have no suspicions in that area.
>
> Lastly the term "Liar" is very like a brand, something once said you
> cannot take back if you find yourself in the wrong, Secondly, it
> should be a term used in private conversation and certainly not spread
> over a list which contains a number of people who may not know either
> of you or care about your argument. You are absolutely correct when
> you say that such a term is not "Noble." Neither is it polite,
> proper, correct to use in a large group, and it is dangerous as I have
> said for it's probable results to the one branded with it. A person
> who uses such a term likely could simply brush it off if used against
> him / or her, however few people have that ability to shed insults
> lightly.
>
> Marcus Aurelius indicates that those who use that kind of language
> brand themselves as well as the receiver as to their character.
> Lastly, I really don't think that most on this list have joined it to
> hear a constant rain of accusations, and rough extended argument
> between two or three people. Once all have made their determinations
> it is very unlikely that insulting someone will change their minds, so
> if it is absolutely necessary to continue the argument aud nauseum, it
> should be taken off-list. This is my view. I have only recently
> returned to this list after being away for just that reason.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Audens
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Cato wrote:
>
> > Cato Marco Audenti sal.
> >
> > Noble sentiments, and in a perfect world they would be highly
> > applicable.
> >
> > Yet...when someone lies about you to make themselves look better, it
> > is very easy to call them a liar. Because that is what they are doing.
> >
> > Pretending to be all very noble and above it all is fine, but if
> > someone is lying, they are lying, and there's really not a pretty
> > way to say it. Nor should there necessarily be a pretty way, because
> > lying is an ugly act.
> >
> > I do not call Vedius a liar as a vague and tawdry insult. He said
> > something which he knows to be false. He lied. Whether he would
> > physically harm me if I were standing in front of him - as you
> > suggest might happen in your case - is of no consequence to me; if
> > he lied about me to my face I would still call him a liar.
> >
> > Now, it may be the "high road" to simply ignore it. But ignoring it
> > makes it easier and easier for that person to lie again and again
> > because they are not called on it.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Senator Cato;

Then this message will also be my last comment on this issue. I think
that you have made your position quite clear as you understand it, and
that is certainly your privilege. I in turn have made my views,
hopefully, as clear as you have. It is obvious that we do not agree
totally, however, as I have said, each of us has the right to our
opinion. It is my hope that we will simply agree to disagree and move
on.

Your message in regard to the Constitution, the length of extension of
the NR historical period, and during that period Christianity coming
to the fore as the state religion was very interesting. I should like
to pursue that idea in regard to the group within NR who believe that
all Christians should leave and who believe that Christianity is no
better than a superstition. If we are to support the Religio with
protection and honor from anyone who would smear it in any way, it
would only be fair to raise Christianity in NR to the same level
because of it's status also as a state religion in our recognized
period.

I don't think it will be necessary to establish a Christian College of
Pontiffs however, since that has already been pretty well taken care
of in other areas outside of NR.

My thanks again for bringing that point to the fore. I have not be
giving the Constitution that much attention of late and perhaps I
should. It may be a good idea to print it out and give it a really
good read some evening.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Cato wrote:

> Cato Marco Audenti sal.
>
> I empathize with the concern I read under your words; I will only -
> and I promise this will be the last regarding this particular issue
> - say that I quoted a specific statement that is provably,
> demonstrably false. It was not an honest error or a misinterpretation.
>
> I too have been relatively unsettled by Vedius' recent vitriol
> against me, as I have never - to my knowledge - said or done
> anything to him that would warrant such an attack.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
> >
> > Senator Cato;
> >
> > I do not dispute with you that a person who fails to tell the
> truth is
> > not a person to trust, However, in my world there are reasons which
> > that particular word should not be used. Some the reasons are listed
> > below:
> >
> > --Different references between opposing ideas;
> >
> > --Different views of the same material;
> >
> > --Injury to an individual that could and probably would lead to his/
> > her leaving NR, unless held here by a very strong reason;
> > --Honest error on the part of an individual.
> >
> > Now I have dealt with Master Vedius in the past. We have not always
> > agreed, but we have agreed to disagree, which to me is a step in the
> > right direction. However, I have never known him to deliberately
> tell
> > an untruth over the many tears that I have been in NR, nor have I
> ever
> > found a reason to suspect he has manipulated the truth in any way,
> so
> > I have no suspicions in that area.
> >
> > Lastly the term "Liar" is very like a brand, something once said you
> > cannot take back if you find yourself in the wrong, Secondly, it
> > should be a term used in private conversation and certainly not
> spread
> > over a list which contains a number of people who may not know
> either
> > of you or care about your argument. You are absolutely correct when
> > you say that such a term is not "Noble." Neither is it polite,
> > proper, correct to use in a large group, and it is dangerous as I
> have
> > said for it's probable results to the one branded with it. A person
> > who uses such a term likely could simply brush it off if used
> against
> > him / or her, however few people have that ability to shed insults
> > lightly.
> >
> > Marcus Aurelius indicates that those who use that kind of language
> > brand themselves as well as the receiver as to their character.
> > Lastly, I really don't think that most on this list have joined it
> to
> > hear a constant rain of accusations, and rough extended argument
> > between two or three people. Once all have made their determinations
> > it is very unlikely that insulting someone will change their
> minds, so
> > if it is absolutely necessary to continue the argument aud
> nauseum, it
> > should be taken off-list. This is my view. I have only recently
> > returned to this list after being away for just that reason.
> >
> > Respectfully;
> >
> > Marcus Audens
> > On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Cato wrote:
> >
> > > Cato Marco Audenti sal.
> > >
> > > Noble sentiments, and in a perfect world they would be highly
> > > applicable.
> > >
> > > Yet...when someone lies about you to make themselves look
> better, it
> > > is very easy to call them a liar. Because that is what they are
> doing.
> > >
> > > Pretending to be all very noble and above it all is fine, but if
> > > someone is lying, they are lying, and there's really not a pretty
> > > way to say it. Nor should there necessarily be a pretty way,
> because
> > > lying is an ugly act.
> > >
> > > I do not call Vedius a liar as a vague and tawdry insult. He said
> > > something which he knows to be false. He lied. Whether he would
> > > physically harm me if I were standing in front of him - as you
> > > suggest might happen in your case - is of no consequence to me; if
> > > he lied about me to my face I would still call him a liar.
> > >
> > > Now, it may be the "high road" to simply ignore it. But ignoring
> it
> > > makes it easier and easier for that person to lie again and again
> > > because they are not called on it.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



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

Salve!

I confess I've not heard of this book before, but it does look
interesting, and has dutifully been added to my shopping cart, against
my next payday, when I can once again fill the coffers of those in
Seattle as I have so often in the past.

Many thanks for the heads-up!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

L. Livia Plauta wrote:

> Salvete omnes,
> I got an Amazon reccommendation for this book
> http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Gods-Religion-Transformation-Classical/dp/0520259866/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
>
> Does anyone know anything about it?
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: ReligioRomana@onelist.com
> Subscribe: ReligioRomana-subscribe@onelist.com
> Unsubscribe: ReligioRomana-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> List owner: ReligioRomana-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
> http://www.onelist.com/community/ReligioRomanaYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Mistress Plauta;

I was interested in reading your last message. The reason for my
interest is that Senator Maximus and others have been trying to tell
Nova Roma the same thing for years. At first for me it was merely an
interesting aspect, and then I found that most people with whom I
reenact have left NR or believe it to be so bad that they will not
join. Now before anyone gets excited about that, I have been involved
in Roman Reenactment for several years now and there has been
absolutely no involvement between the creation or cooperation of a
reenactment unit to my knowledge except for one or two units being
sponsored by the Senate at the recommendation of the Militarium.
However, that does not play into the administrative or social aspects
of NR in any way.

I also noticed that when I visited Roman Ruins in Spain and Portugal
recently and wrote about them in the publications that I edit, there
was absolutely no extended interest in what had been accomplished or
what contacts had been made.

Others who were recognized scholars who were with us for a short time,
but who were put off by unsuitable comments directed at them, had said
the same thing. Not only was the pagan community in general disgusted
with NR, but there was little interest in the classical history
community around the country that we have contacted as a part of the
Nova Britannia Provincial efforts. I think that to be unfortunate,
perhaps not for myself, but rather for those in NR who truly wanted to
find what they were looking for. I am fortunate as I have finally
found my niche after a long search, but I am aware of how difficult
that path can be.

It would appear that you have been very good for NR in many ways, and
I believe it would be unfortunate to lose your skills and knowledge,
but on the other hand I have some small idea of he eagerness to find a
place where you can be whole and satisfied in your needs. I wish you
all the success in the world.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:41 PM, L. Livia Plauta wrote:

> L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.
>
> From the preliminary results of voting it looks as if none of consul
> Albucius' proposed laws will pass.
>
> I am disappointed that it seems to be so hard to introduce even a few
> rationalizations in the structure of NR, like for example a
> reduction of the
> number of magistrates.
>
> But I'm even more disappointed that his proposed law to change the
> preamble
> of our constitution is not likely to pass and it seems that NR will
> be tied
> forever to this idea of a "nation" or a "state".
>
> Now, the problem is that this whole conception is what has prevented
> the
> success of NR, not only from the point of view of academic
> connections, but
> also in the restoration of Religio itself.
> The pretence to be a "state" and to recreate a "state religion" is
> what
> makes us pariahs in the eyes of all serious pagan organizations and
> it is
> the main reason why we haven't been officially invited to the
> convention of
> ethnic religions that will be held in Bologna at the end of August.
> Most
> cultores, specially in Italy, take it very badly when a foreign
> organization
> wants to "appropriate" the cultus deorum by declaring to be a
> "state", and
> thus implicitly declaring that its cult is the only "official" one.
>
> My main goal is the restoration of Religio in Italy, but I don't
> think this
> will be ever be accomplished without the help of the other
> organizations.
> Ever since I learned how huge a handicap it is for us to be
> purporting to be
> a "state" I have tried to circumvent the problem, while hoping that
> sooner
> or later it could be overcome. But if even the hope that sooner or
> later NR
> will stop claiming to be a "state" vanishes, then so does the hope
> that it
> will ever be useful in restoring Religio in Italy.
>
> It's ironic, isn't it? The very thing that according to some
> "cultores" here
> is necessary to restore the Religio (being a "state") is exactly
> what will
> always prevent Nova Roma from actually restoring the Religio.
>
> I'ts becoming increasingly clear to me that this aim of mine cannot be
> reached through NR, but it instead requires either joining one of the
> existing organizations of cultores deorum (the problem for an expat
> like me
> is that they are all locally based in Italy) or creating a new
> organization
> that doesn't accept monotheists, with just one well-defined goal: the
> restoration of Religio.
>
> My other main goal is the creation of a Roman colony, and for this
> it became
> clear to me even earlier that if the colony ever gets founded it
> cannot have
> anything to do with Nova Roma, even only for administrative reasons.
> Any
> colony would need to be incorporated in the country where it is
> created, and
> cannot depend on a foreign entity, specially not on one where the
> decision-making process is as slow and cumbersome as in Nova Roma.
>
> I have thus reached the conclusion that being in Nova Roma, while it
> does
> help me meet people who have similar goals to mine, in itself
> doesn't get me
> even one inch nearer to reaching them.
>
> Now, this is the point where other people usually hand in their
> resignation
> and disappear. But don't worry: I'm not a drama queen, I'm not a
> quitter and
> I'm not going anywhere.
>
> I'm also a magistrate bound by an oath of office, and, as my friends
> know,
> once I gave my word I keep it.
>
> But after this year is over I'm certainly going to re-evaluate my
> role in
> Nova Roma, measure the effort I'm giving to it against what I'm
> getting in
> return, and probably I will decide to play a less active part.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
> PS: Just a pre-emptive answer to Vedius, or whoever will ask: "Why
> did you
> join, if you didn't like the idea of NR being a state?"
> When I joined I could see the positive aspects of NR, which was also
> the
> only place where I was able to meet other cultores: I had no idea
> that the
> micronational conception would prove to be so damaging and so hard
> to get
> rid of.
>
>
>



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

Senator Hortensia Maior.

My thanks for your very kind words. I will in fact hold the play over
for a follow-up contest. Since you, Mistress Julia and Mistress Caeca
have had such kind words for those few poor efforts, it has been in my
mind to work on two more acts to the same play. The story goes on and
gets better as all the scenes play out, I am just glad that I would
not have to design the sets to support the story (Grin). To all three
ladies, my thanks for your support and kind words.

Respectfully;

Marcus Audens

On Apr 9, 2010, at 12:47 AM, rory12001 wrote:

> M. Hortensia M. Audenti spd;
> hold on to that play and submit it for the Ludi Apollinares!
> the praetrices would be more than happy to have such a terrific
> submission.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, James Mathews <JLMTopog@...> wrote:
> >
> > Omnes,
> >
> > In relation to my last message; however, If I cannot submit my new
> > play for competition, I can and have put in on my blog, All are
> > invited to view it and let me know your blogs if you have any. My
> > blog is:
> >
> > http://RomanStudies.blogspot.com
> >
> > I should also like to hear, if you think the play worthwhile. I have
> > a tendency to be soft on my own work (Grin!!!!!).
> >
> > Respectfully;
> >
> > Marcus Audens
> >
> > http://LivingHistoryMilitaryEngineer.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:22 PM, James Mathews wrote:
> >
> > > Mistress Julia;
> > >
> > > I am really mad at myself. I just spent three hours writing a play
> > > not realizing that the purpose of the play contest was not
> drama, but
> > > rather laughter. My fault entirely, but I am disappointed. Oh
> well,
> > > perhaps next year. The play was based on my own serial story and
> > > reading it, I got so involved about it's possibilities that I
> > > neglected to see the whole rule set of the contest. Sorry about
> > > that!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Respectfully;
> > > Marcus Audens
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



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