Ave,

> Not to stir up that argument again but if they got to be patrician just for marrying I would be totally bugged.

But confarreationes are not the one way to be married.

In NR we seems to chose as marriage ceremony one of the most archaic with coemptio, which was patrician, when other ways of marriage was more modern in ancient Rome too, for example weddings sine manu. Making confarreatio as NR wedding, that is the same making the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana representative of the common XXth century marriages.

I think current marriages as ceremony with shared love, foreign priest other than Paterfamilias, and with christian, biblical and other practices has nothing to do with ancient Roman marriages.

So, because in our times with our modern attitudes within marriage love is more important than ancient motives, I just think instead of parodying ancient confarreationes with powder of a christian ceremony, to create NR true wedding ceremonies in accordance with Juno, Venus and Eros.

Vale optime.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve,
I was speaking within context to my disagreement with the patrician/plebian
rules in NR.
I'm a long way from marriage, so there is time to perfect the ceremony before it
concerns me.
DTIC
Nero



________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 2:50:10 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gay marriage in NR


Ave,

> Not to stir up that argument again but if they got to be patrician just for
>marrying I would be totally bugged.
>

But confarreationes are not the one way to be married.

In NR we seems to chose as marriage ceremony one of the most archaic with
coemptio, which was patrician, when other ways of marriage was more modern in
ancient Rome too, for example weddings sine manu. Making confarreatio as NR
wedding, that is the same making the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana
representative of the common XXth century marriages.


I think current marriages as ceremony with shared love, foreign priest other
than Paterfamilias, and with christian, biblical and other practices has nothing
to do with ancient Roman marriages.

So, because in our times with our modern attitudes within marriage love is more
important than ancient motives, I just think instead of parodying ancient
confarreationes with powder of a christian ceremony, to create NR true wedding
ceremonies in accordance with Juno, Venus and Eros.

Vale optime.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.







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

Salve L. Livia Plauta,

> I, L. Livia Plauta, as a Lictrix of Nova Roma, hereby witness the
> appointment of Gnaeus Equitius Marinus as Magister Populi et Dictor of
> Nova

Oh no. Your 'witnessing' is invalid since there is nothing yet to witness.
Marinus actually has to say something before you can be a witnes.

Just another example of people holding an office and not knowing anything
about it. Seems to be a sickness here.

Vale,
Diana Octavia

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Maiores vestri omnum magnarum rerum et principia exoris a Dis sunt et finem statuerunt.

Hodie est die pristine Kalendas Sextilias; haec dies comitialis est:

Felices natalis Kaeso Fabi maior! Today is the (real) birthday of our most esteemed Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quintillianus, Consul, Princeps Senatus, Senator Censorius, Flamen Palatualis, and Lictor.


The Birds of Augury

"According to Appius Claudius, oscines are those birdes who give an augury by their songs, such as the the raven, the crow, and the night owl. The alites are those birds instead who give auguries through their flight, such as the the buteo vulture, osprey, the eagle, and the immature vulture. The woodpecker (picus) either of Mars or Feronius, and the parra owl as well are among both the alites and the oscines." ~ Festus 197a


The Buteo Vulture.

"We find no less than sixteen kinds of hawks mentioned; among these are the ægithus, which is lame of one leg, and is looked upon as the most favourable omen for the augurs on the occasion of a marriage, or in matters connected with property in the shape of cattle: the triorchis also, so called from the number of its testicles, and to which Phemonoë has assigned the first rank in augury. This last is by the Romans known as the "buteo;" indeed there is a family that has taken its surname from it, from the circumstance of this bird having given a favourable omen by settling upon the ship of one of them when he held a command. The Greeks call one kind "epileus;" the only one, indeed, that is seen at all seasons of the year, the others taking their departure in the winter.

"The various kinds are distinguished by the avidity with which they seize their prey; for while some will only pounce on a bird while on the ground, others will only seize it while hovering round the trees, others, again, while it is perched aloft, and others while it is flying in mid air. Hence it is that pigeons, on seeing them, are aware of the nature of the danger to which they are exposed, and either settle on the ground or else fly upwards, instinctively protecting themselves by taking due precautions against their natural propensities. The hawks of the whole of Massæsylia, breed in Cerne, an island of Africa, lying in the ocean; and none of the kinds that are accustomed to those parts will breed anywhere else." ~ C. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 10.9


The Woodpecker of Mars

"Why do the Latins revere the woodpecker and all strictly abstain from (eating) it? Is it because, as they tell the tale, Picus, transformed by his wife's magic drugs, became a woodpecker and in that form gives oracles and prophecies to those who consult him? Or is this wholly incredible and monstrous, and is that other tale more credible which relates that when Romulus and Remus were exposed, not only did a she-wolf suckle them, but also a certain woodpecker came continually to visit them and bring them scraps of food? For generally, even to this day, in foot-hills and thickly wooded places where the woodpecker is found, there also is found the wolf, as Nigidius records. Or is it rather because they regard this bird as sacred to Mars, even as other birds to other Gods? For it is a courgeous and spirited bird and has a beak so strong that it can overturn oaks by pecking them until it has reached the innermost part of the tree." ~ Plutarch, Roman Questions 21


"There are some small birds also, which have hooked talons; the wood-pecker, for example, surnamed "of Mars," of considerable importance in the auspices. To this kind belong the birds which make holes in trees, and climb stealthily up them, like cats; mounting with the head upwards, they tap against the bark, and learn by the sound whether or not their food lies beneath; they are the only birds that hatch their young in the hollows of trees. It is a common belief, that if a shepherd drives a wedge into their holes, they apply a certain kind of herb,1 immediately upon which it falls out. Trebius informs us that if a nail or wedge is driven with ever so much force into a tree in which these birds have made their nest, it will instantly fly out, the tree making a loud cracking noise the moment that the bird has lighted upon the nail or wedge.

"These birds have held the first rank in auguries, in Latium, since the time of the king (Picus) who has given them their name. One of the presages that was given by them, I cannot pass over in silence. A woodpecker came and lighted upon the head of Ælius Tubero, the City prator, when sitting on his tribunal dispensing justice in the Forum, and showed such tameness as to allow itself to be taken with the hand; upon which the augurs declared that if it was let go, the state was menaced with danger, but if killed, disaster would befall the prætor; in an instant he tore the bird to pieces, and before long the omen was fulfilled." ~ G. Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis 10.20

"As (Praetor Aelius Tubero) was sitting in judgement, a woodpecker settled on his head. The soothsayers affirmed that if the bird was allowed to live, the fate of his own house would be very happy but that of the commonwealth very miserable; if it was killed, both predictions would be reversed. Aelius immediately killed the woodpecker with a bite before the Senate's eyes. The Aelian family lost seventeen exceptionally brave men in the battle of Cannae; the commonwealth as the time went on rose to the topmost pinnacle of empire." ~ Valerius Maximus 5.6.4


Today's thought is from Demophilus, Pythagorean Sentences 38:

"Since the roots of our nature are established in Divinity, from which also we are produced, we should tenaciously adhere to our root; for streams also of water, and other offspring of the earth, when their roots are cut off, become rotten and dry."

C. Petronius Neroni s.p.d.,

> I was speaking within context to my disagreement with the patrician/plebian rules in NR.

I think the first citizens of Nova Roma, called early citizens, wanted to have this title.
Here the Nova Romans patrician gentes:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Early_Citizens_%28Nova_Roma%29

> I'm a long way from marriage, so there is time to perfect the ceremony before it concerns me.

Are not you at the beginning of this gay marriage thread?

Vale optime.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

C. Petronius omnibus sal.,

> Felices natalis Kaeso Fabi maior! Today is the (real) birthday of our most esteemed Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quintillianus, Consul, Princeps Senatus, Senator Censorius, Flamen Palatualis, and Lictor.

Faustum natalem tibi K. Fabio Quintiliano!

Optime vale.

CPD.

M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus s. p. d.

Ancient Romans had different forms of marriage. The one generally used had both families come together and involved the transfer of the bride from her father's authority and from her mother to come under the authority of her husband's pater familias. The pater familias would act as auspex to consider whether the Gods favored the marriage. The bride and groom married one another in front of witnesses, exchanging symbols of their roles in the marriage and sharing a meal. Sometimes witnessing the marriage even went to the point that the marriage bed was set in the atrium of the front of the house and first night was spent there while the festivities of the families continued. However, the marriage was not consumated until the following night, after the bride had been conducted through ceremonies by the women of the groom's family. How elaborate or simple a ceremony might be depended on the wealth and status of the families, but these were not formal affairs as we might hold today.

An exception is the special ceremony called a confarreatio. It was essentially the same kind of ceremony between two families, but a little more elaborate in certain features. The bride and groom married each other. Sacerdotes were there to guide them in the ceremony and witness it, but basically the bride and groom performed the marriage ritual. Special words were said at the time when the bride and groom shared their meal. Among the ten witnesses required for a marriage in a confarreatio these had to include the pontifex maximus, flamen Dialis and the flamenica Dialis. This form of marriage was not restricted to patricians alone. We know that before the XII Tabulae that patricians and plebeians intermarried and used such ceremonies, and that later with the decline of the number of patrician gentes, confarreationes became more common rather than less.

Divorce was readily available to Romans. How one divorced depended on the kind of marriage one had. There was even a ceremony of divorce, supposedly performed in some reversal of the wedding ceremony. However, no divorce was allowed from a confarreatio. That was one of the features of a confarreatio that differed from other Roman marriages.


For Nova Roma, the religio Romana has been legally recognized in the United States as a religious tradition. Communities and temples have been incorporated, court rulings have recognized the religio Romana in cases involving marriages and child custody. We cultores Deorum Populi Romani actually have more rights in the US than Gays and Lesbians in most states.

The natural step is now to be recognized in another country. Canada is our most likely choice. They have a process for doing so. One requirement is that we provide the provincial authorites with a marriage ceremony that we use. And of course what we submit will have to conform to both Canadian law and our own traditions. What we submit does not have to be a confarreatio, and I am thinking that we might submit two marriage ceremonies as recognized by our tradition.

As in the US where the laws vary from state to state, marriage laws vary between Canadian provinces. Our main problem in Canada for us is that there are so few cultores Deorum, but that won't necessarily harm our opportunity to be recognized in Canada. We would choose a province in which same-sex marriages are legal. We would then become one of the few religious organizations providing marriage ceremonies for Gays and Lesbians. The process of being recognized in Canada takes five years, so with our lack of cultores there, providing this service for a select community beyond our own is a consideration to improve our chances of attaining recognition. Once we were, then we would be an international religious organization and might be able to gain recognition in other countries as well. It is a very difficult process.

My personal views on same-sex marriage is that I approve of it on moral and legal grounds. I cannot buy the argument, made by my neighbor along with others, that allowing Gays to marry will somehow threaten my marriage. My second marriage will celebrate its thirty-seventh anniversary next Wednesday (yes, I was married once before, for some months when I was seventeen before my wife and child died.) I would rather have young Gays living next door to me than those Born Again Christians I got now as neighbors, and whose idea of marriage is that a woman should be submissive to her husband. That attitude is more repulsive to me than any consensual acts between adults. I didn't marry to have a sex slave, and I wouldn't be married to the same woman for so long if that was all our relationship was based on. There is no morality in depriving Gays and Lesbians from sharing in loving relationship and companionship. And as far as treating anyone as second class citizens with fewer legal rights than others, I am strongly opposed to legislation that outlaws same-sex marriages.

There is some mention of same-sex marriages having taken place in ancient Rome. They were not legally recognized. They were not approved socially in most cases. Homosexual sex was approved, under certain circumstances, as it was considered to be natural and one always had to abide with one's nature. But homosexual preference was thought unnatural and not generally approved. Roman men were expected to exhibit virility, in the Roman sense of the meaning, even if they did have homosexual preferences. Effeminate heterosexuals would be looked down upon moreso than a 'virile' homosexual. You might look at transvestites in India today to see how they are treated and get some idea of how Romans would have thought, too.

For women, we know so little really. Lesbianism would probably have been considered natural. Nothing would be thought wrong of a woman being serviced in her desires by someone of a lower class, whether a man or woman. It wouldn't even be considered unfaithfulness to her husband to have a slave provide sexual pleasure to her, just a master demanding her privileges. Only between social peers might a woman be faulted for having sex with a man. But I doubt whether Romans would think much of women engaging in lesbian sex between social peers, or maintaining a lesbian relationship over many years. Roman social norms would never permit women to "marry" and thus move out from under some man's authority. Thus same-sex marriage for either Gays or Lesbians would not be traditional in the religio Romana.

However, I would hope we as individuals and as a community have grown to respect one another more over these many centuries. What does it mean to be married? Well, obviously I am not going to accept some biblical idea on which the laws of most of Western Civilization is based today. Women subservient to men for the sole purpose of procreation and in order to keep them under control. Sorry, I find the notion of "barefoot in the winter and pregnant in the summer" to be very offensive.

The traditional role of a woman in a Roman household was that of Domina. She was every bit equal to her husband, superior to him even in some sense while in the house, where he was the master outdoors, but she could still wield authority on the family's estate. In fact the State depended on strong, independent women to maintain the farms and estates when men were off to war. The Domina tended to all of the family's cultus Deorum within the household itself. Thus she was primarily responsible for the cultus for the Penates, Vesta, and other domestic Gods and Goddesses, including the cultus for the family Lares. She was the one who protected the family, through her relationship with the Gods, anointing the house, placing charms at the windows and doors to keep out disease, ill-rumors, and evil. She was primarily the one who cared for the sick, or saw that they were cared for, often by invoking the Gods or by visiting the temples, where she might also acquire herbal medicines for her household. The Domina began each morning with the household gathered for religious ceremonies, the husband performed them at the main meal of the day. She was the last to bed, tending to all things, and most specifically to the family's hearth at the end of each day. It is this role as the center of the family's religious life that certain features of Roman marriage ceremonies take place. No husband could bless his own house, because he was necessarily too involved in public affairs. He needed a wife to intervene on his behalf with the Gods in special ways that most men were thought unable to do. Most men, but not all.

It is well known that men were prohibited from entering the templum of the Bona Dea. Most men, that is. However, Ovid does says that some men, "chosen by the Goddess Herself," were permitted to enter. Who? Eunuchs? I doubt the Romans would mean that; eunuchs were foreign and not thought of as men. Homosexuals or effeminate heterosexuals? Possibly, as that could be the meaning of having been "chosen" as such men are thought to be in other cultures. Priests, shamans, and the like are generally dressed in a costume that resembles that of women, since women are often taken to be closer to the Gods than men, and those men who are close to the Gods are therefore designated in this way as apart from other men.

In any marriage, I think it is more a matter of a partnership where each have their individual roles to play, but where both must be able to exchange roles when needed. It doesn't really matter today whether it is the man or the woman, or either partner in a Lesbian or Gay relationship, that takes on which roles. Both must be fulfilling their parts in the relationship and fulfilling each other. And it is nobody else's business. As long as one or both partners take on the role of Domina and preserve a cultus Deorum for their household, i can approve of marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

For us, I think we should leave the matter to the local communities we create to decide whether they will perform same-sex marriages, in accordance with local laws. We are not going to force communities to perform such ceremonies, as they are not traditionally Roman anyway, but neither should we permit narrow-mindedness to prohibit such ceremonies from our modern community of cultores Deorum.

For some perspective, I recommend all cultores Deorum to read "Lover's Legends: The Gay Greek Myths," by Andrew Calimach, 2002. I was one of those asked by the author to offer a review of his book, and I have been recommending ever since. As a heterosexual male I found the book fascinating and I thought Andrew had handled his topic extremely well. It is not a "gay" book as such, but sought to restore the myths to a perspective on homosexuality more in keeping with the ancient Greeks than with the Victorians who alterred the stories for Christian tastes. It may help some here begin to move away from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective that infects society with its prejudices, and develop a new perspective based more on the ancient cultures that our ancestors knew.


Christina, there are two cultures known to practice polygamy where one woman marries multiple men. One is in southern India where she marries a group of brothers, and it is practiced so that the family land is not divided up between sons. It is not a good arrangement for women. One husband is bad enough; divorce doesn't exist so the brothers basicly gangbang her to death when they want a young woman. Polygamy with more than one woman married to a man is accepted in some cultures, again for the benefit of men. I suppose I wouldn't object if the women were old enough to actually choose to enter such a marriage, were not coerced in anyway, and it was legal under local law. But that has rarely been the case. Paraguay, after the Great Paraguan War, was given special papal dispensation to allow men to marry two women in an effort to restore that country's population. In that case women controlled their situation. Polygamy is practiced today alongside with coerced marriage of young girls as sex slaves, not really as wives. That is not to say there are not healthy polygamous marriages or that polygamy is naturally exploitive. Any form of marriage can be abused and exploitive. So while I might be open to the possibility, I know the reality does not meet with my approval.

The general rule for us is to abide with local custom. Just as with same-sex marriage, if it is locally legal, then our cultores can legally participate in such marriages. Missouri does not have legal polygamous marriage. Try moving to Malasia, Indonesia, or Uganda.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christina Moseley" <cheetahgirl5@...> wrote:
>
> What about polyamorous relationships? Me and my boyfriend are getting
> married in the Roman marriage first, then in the state marriage. However,
> my boyfriend was sure that we can fit another person in there but in
> Missouri there is a law against bigamy.
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:35:20 -0500, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > If we already have the ancient ceremony of the actual Roman
> > confarreatio, why does Piscinus need to "work" on it? Wouldn't it be
> > more appropriate to use it instead of making something up?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Salve Nero;
> >> I'm gay and I can tell you the PM Piscinus is absolutely fine with gay
> >> marriage. So absolutely, of course you don't need a priest for Roman
> >> marriage at all. Mostly marriage in Rome was by cohabitation. Usus.In
> >> ancient Rome when C. Livia married G. Titinius she was still C. Livia,
> >> the 2 partners kept their respective names. The children took
> >> the father's name.
> >>
> >> In the CP Piscinus is just working on confarreatio, a special kind of
> >> marriage ceremony it's for all those couples who desire it. I hope
> >> this is helpful, I'm sure the PM will be happy to discuss this. Me too,
> >> as Flaminica Carmentalis I have a deep interest in seeing the next
> >> generation of Roman children! adoption was a
> >> normative part of Roman family life!
> >> di tibi faveant
> >> M. Hortensia Maior
> >> Flaminica Carmentalis
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaea Livia Ocella" <lbciddio@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salve, Nero,
> >> >
> >> > I was just thinking about this a few days ago while reading Juvenal's
> >> second satire. He seems to have taken a decidedly negative view of the
> >> possibility of gay marriage, but I must not be alone in hoping that
> >> Nova Romans are a bit more accommodating and accepting... though the
> >> tweaking of an ancient form of marriage dictated by very traditional
> >> religious regulations may be a more serious matter.
> >> >
> >> > I am eager to hear the answers to Nero's questions from someone with
> >> more knowledge of the Religio and the marriage rites than I. My own
> >> knowledge of Roman marriage is limited to the leges put in place during
> >> Augustus' time.
> >> >
> >> > Vale, et valete,
> >> > Livia Ocella
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nero" <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Salvete Omnes,
> >> > > With the talk about the Confarreationes in August, I was curious
> >> about gay marriages in our community. I doubt that I'm the only gay
> >> citizen and so I'm sure that the topic must flit through some minds.
> >> Would a priest sanction a gay union? Which of the two would gain the
> >> other's titles? Would the religio's ceremony stay the same or would
> >> some tweaking have to be done?
> >> > > DVIC
> >> > > Nero
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>

C. Petronius Pompeiae s.p.d.,

> And you are the lone Tribune who has appreciated the illegalities of this recent Senate call and has formally removed himself of this agenda.

I am living an odd experience, being alone between two sides. But I am following the advice of Socrates in Gorgias. "I prefer be alone against all, but in concordance with myself."

I realize that, for the moment, I am as T. Pomponius Atticus was during the civil war. I only follow my reading of the Constitution and I respect my oath of office.

Vale optime.

C. Petronius Dexter
Tribunus Plebis Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salvete Quirites,

It had been my intention to spend a year away from our forum when I
left office at the end of last year. As things have transpired, my
vacation from the forum has been cut a bit short.

As most of you know, my name was put forward in the Senate a bit over
a week ago as a possible dictator. The proposal came from Senator
Perusianus of Italia, and was backed by a large number of other
senators. There followed a vote of the Senate in which a clear
majority of the senators voted to place me into this extraordinary
office, but several senators withdrew themselves -- including some who
had initially voted for me -- due to questions concerning the legality
of the emergency session of the senate then in progress which had been
called by the Tribunes.

I have since taken the position of representing the interests of those
senators who voted to invest me with the imperium maior, but I am NOT
taking any oath of office until such time as the full Senate shall be
properly called by both Consuls to vote on the question. (Reading
that last sentence, I should also make clear that I require a proper
majority vote of the Senate before I will take office.)

For those among you who wonder if we need to take this step, I say
yes, we do. For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.

I hope these few paragraphs have clarified the situation for you. I
will not be staying in the forum for now, but I will return as
necessary to keep you informed. Please ask the Consuls to provide us
all with a properly called session of the Senate to address the
question that hangs over us all.

Valete,

CN-EQVIT-MARINVS

I am the one who started it, I was curious. I still protested the anti gay
marriage law in Cali even though I wasn't getting married then either



________________________________
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 4:55:50 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gay marriage in NR


C. Petronius Neroni s.p.d.,

> I was speaking within context to my disagreement with the patrician/plebian
>rules in NR.

I think the first citizens of Nova Roma, called early citizens, wanted to have
this title.

Here the Nova Romans patrician gentes:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Early_Citizens_%28Nova_Roma%29

> I'm a long way from marriage, so there is time to perfect the ceremony before
>it concerns me.

Are not you at the beginning of this gay marriage thread?

Vale optime.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Kalendas Sextiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.







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

Salve,
Wow long post :) There is one thing I'd like to respectfully question from your
post. I'm not trying to argue and would hate to turn this into a war thread but
what you said goes in conflict with what I am.
You said "As long as one or both partners take on the role of Domina and
preserve a cultus Deorum for their household, i can approve of marriage between
Gays and Lesbians."
I know there are gay men out there who would not mind being called domina, there
is a very large portion of our community that uses the hey girlfriend stereotype
that people see on t.v., however there are those of us(me for example) who
doesn't like it whatsoever. I am a man, true I like other men but I am a man
nonetheless and I'm proud of it. I would not let anyone call me girlfriend, or
queen, or domina. I can still uphold the religio in my house while being a man,
and when I pray every night I do not feel like Vesta or the Lares have abandoned
my hearth because there is no woman tending the fire. It was under my
understanding that men were the traditional keepers of the altar and the Gods
except for Vesta. It was the paterfamilias who made the prayers and sacrificed.
Don't get me wrong in the modern world women should have as much rights to tend
to them and keep the altar it's just I feel saying that someone in a gay
relationship has to be the domina is to me offensive. Of course I'm 150% sure
you did not mean it that way of course I'm just letting you know how I as a gay
man feels about being "domina."
I am dominus, I am a man.
Thank you for your post, it's so very hard to find anything on Roman marriages
on the internet, whenever I try I always end up getting married life, or the
political reasons for marriage.
Di Te Incolumem Custodiant,
Nero



________________________________
From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 8:00:09 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Marriage and divorce in NR


M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus s. p. d.

Ancient Romans had different forms of marriage. The one generally used had both
families come together and involved the transfer of the bride from her father's
authority and from her mother to come under the authority of her husband's pater
familias. The pater familias would act as auspex to consider whether the Gods
favored the marriage. The bride and groom married one another in front of
witnesses, exchanging symbols of their roles in the marriage and sharing a meal.
Sometimes witnessing the marriage even went to the point that the marriage bed
was set in the atrium of the front of the house and first night was spent there
while the festivities of the families continued. However, the marriage was not
consumated until the following night, after the bride had been conducted through
ceremonies by the women of the groom's family. How elaborate or simple a
ceremony might be depended on the wealth and status of the families, but these
were not formal affairs as we might hold today.

An exception is the special ceremony called a confarreatio. It was essentially
the same kind of ceremony between two families, but a little more elaborate in
certain features. The bride and groom married each other. Sacerdotes were
there to guide them in the ceremony and witness it, but basically the bride and
groom performed the marriage ritual. Special words were said at the time when
the bride and groom shared their meal. Among the ten witnesses required for a
marriage in a confarreatio these had to include the pontifex maximus, flamen
Dialis and the flamenica Dialis. This form of marriage was not restricted to
patricians alone. We know that before the XII Tabulae that patricians and
plebeians intermarried and used such ceremonies, and that later with the decline
of the number of patrician gentes, confarreationes became more common rather
than less.

Divorce was readily available to Romans. How one divorced depended on the kind
of marriage one had. There was even a ceremony of divorce, supposedly performed
in some reversal of the wedding ceremony. However, no divorce was allowed from
a confarreatio. That was one of the features of a confarreatio that differed
from other Roman marriages.


For Nova Roma, the religio Romana has been legally recognized in the United
States as a religious tradition. Communities and temples have been incorporated,
court rulings have recognized the religio Romana in cases involving marriages
and child custody. We cultores Deorum Populi Romani actually have more rights in
the US than Gays and Lesbians in most states.


The natural step is now to be recognized in another country. Canada is our most
likely choice. They have a process for doing so. One requirement is that we
provide the provincial authorites with a marriage ceremony that we use. And of
course what we submit will have to conform to both Canadian law and our own
traditions. What we submit does not have to be a confarreatio, and I am thinking
that we might submit two marriage ceremonies as recognized by our tradition.


As in the US where the laws vary from state to state, marriage laws vary between
Canadian provinces. Our main problem in Canada for us is that there are so few
cultores Deorum, but that won't necessarily harm our opportunity to be
recognized in Canada. We would choose a province in which same-sex marriages
are legal. We would then become one of the few religious organizations providing
marriage ceremonies for Gays and Lesbians. The process of being recognized in
Canada takes five years, so with our lack of cultores there, providing this
service for a select community beyond our own is a consideration to improve our
chances of attaining recognition. Once we were, then we would be an
international religious organization and might be able to gain recognition in
other countries as well. It is a very difficult process.

My personal views on same-sex marriage is that I approve of it on moral and
legal grounds. I cannot buy the argument, made by my neighbor along with others,
that allowing Gays to marry will somehow threaten my marriage. My second
marriage will celebrate its thirty-seventh anniversary next Wednesday (yes, I
was married once before, for some months when I was seventeen before my wife and
child died.) I would rather have young Gays living next door to me than those
Born Again Christians I got now as neighbors, and whose idea of marriage is that
a woman should be submissive to her husband. That attitude is more repulsive to
me than any consensual acts between adults. I didn't marry to have a sex slave,
and I wouldn't be married to the same woman for so long if that was all our
relationship was based on. There is no morality in depriving Gays and Lesbians
from sharing in loving relationship and companionship. And as far as treating
anyone as second class citizens with fewer legal rights than others, I am
strongly opposed to legislation that outlaws same-sex marriages.

There is some mention of same-sex marriages having taken place in ancient Rome.
They were not legally recognized. They were not approved socially in most
cases. Homosexual sex was approved, under certain circumstances, as it was
considered to be natural and one always had to abide with one's nature. But
homosexual preference was thought unnatural and not generally approved. Roman
men were expected to exhibit virility, in the Roman sense of the meaning, even
if they did have homosexual preferences. Effeminate heterosexuals would be
looked down upon moreso than a 'virile' homosexual. You might look at
transvestites in India today to see how they are treated and get some idea of
how Romans would have thought, too.


For women, we know so little really. Lesbianism would probably have been
considered natural. Nothing would be thought wrong of a woman being serviced in
her desires by someone of a lower class, whether a man or woman. It wouldn't
even be considered unfaithfulness to her husband to have a slave provide sexual
pleasure to her, just a master demanding her privileges. Only between social
peers might a woman be faulted for having sex with a man. But I doubt whether
Romans would think much of women engaging in lesbian sex between social peers,
or maintaining a lesbian relationship over many years. Roman social norms would
never permit women to "marry" and thus move out from under some man's authority.
Thus same-sex marriage for either Gays or Lesbians would not be traditional in
the religio Romana.

However, I would hope we as individuals and as a community have grown to respect
one another more over these many centuries. What does it mean to be married?
Well, obviously I am not going to accept some biblical idea on which the laws of
most of Western Civilization is based today. Women subservient to men for the
sole purpose of procreation and in order to keep them under control. Sorry, I
find the notion of "barefoot in the winter and pregnant in the summer" to be
very offensive.

The traditional role of a woman in a Roman household was that of Domina. She
was every bit equal to her husband, superior to him even in some sense while in
the house, where he was the master outdoors, but she could still wield authority
on the family's estate. In fact the State depended on strong, independent women
to maintain the farms and estates when men were off to war. The Domina tended to
all of the family's cultus Deorum within the household itself. Thus she was
primarily responsible for the cultus for the Penates, Vesta, and other domestic
Gods and Goddesses, including the cultus for the family Lares. She was the one
who protected the family, through her relationship with the Gods, anointing the
house, placing charms at the windows and doors to keep out disease, ill-rumors,
and evil. She was primarily the one who cared for the sick, or saw that they
were cared for, often by invoking the Gods or by visiting the temples, where she
might also acquire herbal medicines for her household. The Domina began each
morning with the household gathered for religious ceremonies, the husband
performed them at the main meal of the day. She was the last to bed, tending to
all things, and most specifically to the family's hearth at the end of each day.
It is this role as the center of the family's religious life that certain
features of Roman marriage ceremonies take place. No husband could bless his
own house, because he was necessarily too involved in public affairs. He needed
a wife to intervene on his behalf with the Gods in special ways that most men
were thought unable to do. Most men, but not all.

It is well known that men were prohibited from entering the templum of the Bona
Dea. Most men, that is. However, Ovid does says that some men, "chosen by the
Goddess Herself," were permitted to enter. Who? Eunuchs? I doubt the Romans
would mean that; eunuchs were foreign and not thought of as men. Homosexuals or
effeminate heterosexuals? Possibly, as that could be the meaning of having been
"chosen" as such men are thought to be in other cultures. Priests, shamans, and
the like are generally dressed in a costume that resembles that of women, since
women are often taken to be closer to the Gods than men, and those men who are
close to the Gods are therefore designated in this way as apart from other men.

In any marriage, I think it is more a matter of a partnership where each have
their individual roles to play, but where both must be able to exchange roles
when needed. It doesn't really matter today whether it is the man or the woman,
or either partner in a Lesbian or Gay relationship, that takes on which roles.
Both must be fulfilling their parts in the relationship and fulfilling each
other. And it is nobody else's business. As long as one or both partners take
on the role of Domina and preserve a cultus Deorum for their household, i can
approve of marriage between Gays and Lesbians.

For us, I think we should leave the matter to the local communities we create to
decide whether they will perform same-sex marriages, in accordance with local
laws. We are not going to force communities to perform such ceremonies, as they
are not traditionally Roman anyway, but neither should we permit
narrow-mindedness to prohibit such ceremonies from our modern community of
cultores Deorum.

For some perspective, I recommend all cultores Deorum to read "Lover's Legends:
The Gay Greek Myths," by Andrew Calimach, 2002. I was one of those asked by the
author to offer a review of his book, and I have been recommending ever since.
As a heterosexual male I found the book fascinating and I thought Andrew had
handled his topic extremely well. It is not a "gay" book as such, but sought to
restore the myths to a perspective on homosexuality more in keeping with the
ancient Greeks than with the Victorians who alterred the stories for Christian
tastes. It may help some here begin to move away from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim
perspective that infects society with its prejudices, and develop a new
perspective based more on the ancient cultures that our ancestors knew.


Christina, there are two cultures known to practice polygamy where one woman
marries multiple men. One is in southern India where she marries a group of
brothers, and it is practiced so that the family land is not divided up between
sons. It is not a good arrangement for women. One husband is bad enough;
divorce doesn't exist so the brothers basicly gangbang her to death when they
want a young woman. Polygamy with more than one woman married to a man is
accepted in some cultures, again for the benefit of men. I suppose I wouldn't
object if the women were old enough to actually choose to enter such a marriage,
were not coerced in anyway, and it was legal under local law. But that has
rarely been the case. Paraguay, after the Great Paraguan War, was given special
papal dispensation to allow men to marry two women in an effort to restore that
country's population. In that case women controlled their situation. Polygamy
is practiced today alongside with coerced marriage of young girls as sex slaves,
not really as wives. That is not to say there are not healthy polygamous
marriages or that polygamy is naturally exploitive. Any form of marriage can be
abused and exploitive. So while I might be open to the possibility, I know the
reality does not meet with my approval.

The general rule for us is to abide with local custom. Just as with same-sex
marriage, if it is locally legal, then our cultores can legally participate in
such marriages. Missouri does not have legal polygamous marriage. Try moving to
Malasia, Indonesia, or Uganda.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christina Moseley" <cheetahgirl5@...> wrote:
>
> What about polyamorous relationships? Me and my boyfriend are getting
> married in the Roman marriage first, then in the state marriage. However,
> my boyfriend was sure that we can fit another person in there but in
> Missouri there is a law against bigamy.
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:35:20 -0500, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > If we already have the ancient ceremony of the actual Roman
> > confarreatio, why does Piscinus need to "work" on it? Wouldn't it be
> > more appropriate to use it instead of making something up?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Salve Nero;
> >> I'm gay and I can tell you the PM Piscinus is absolutely fine with gay
> >> marriage. So absolutely, of course you don't need a priest for Roman
> >> marriage at all. Mostly marriage in Rome was by cohabitation. Usus.In
> >> ancient Rome when C. Livia married G. Titinius she was still C. Livia,
> >> the 2 partners kept their respective names. The children took
> >> the father's name.
> >>
> >> In the CP Piscinus is just working on confarreatio, a special kind of
> >> marriage ceremony it's for all those couples who desire it. I hope
> >> this is helpful, I'm sure the PM will be happy to discuss this. Me too,
> >> as Flaminica Carmentalis I have a deep interest in seeing the next
> >> generation of Roman children! adoption was a
> >> normative part of Roman family life!
> >> di tibi faveant
> >> M. Hortensia Maior
> >> Flaminica Carmentalis
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaea Livia Ocella" <lbciddio@>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Salve, Nero,
> >> >
> >> > I was just thinking about this a few days ago while reading Juvenal's
> >> second satire. He seems to have taken a decidedly negative view of the
> >> possibility of gay marriage, but I must not be alone in hoping that
> >> Nova Romans are a bit more accommodating and accepting... though the
> >> tweaking of an ancient form of marriage dictated by very traditional
> >> religious regulations may be a more serious matter.
> >> >
> >> > I am eager to hear the answers to Nero's questions from someone with
> >> more knowledge of the Religio and the marriage rites than I. My own
> >> knowledge of Roman marriage is limited to the leges put in place during
> >> Augustus' time.
> >> >
> >> > Vale, et valete,
> >> > Livia Ocella
> >> >
> >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nero" <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Salvete Omnes,
> >> > > With the talk about the Confarreationes in August, I was curious
> >> about gay marriages in our community. I doubt that I'm the only gay
> >> citizen and so I'm sure that the topic must flit through some minds.
> >> Would a priest sanction a gay union? Which of the two would gain the
> >> other's titles? Would the religio's ceremony stay the same or would
> >> some tweaking have to be done?
> >> > > DVIC
> >> > > Nero
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>







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

Aeternia Valeriano sal!

Thank you, I really like my new name... nope you're not alone anymore
lol...


Vale,
Aeternia

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Aeternia,
>
> Congratulations on the name change! And you're a "Cornelia Valeriana" now -
> I'm no longer the only Nova Roman with a "Valerianus/a" name! I like it!
>
> Vale,
> ~ Valerianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salve Nero;
I think Piscinus meant the duties of domina, not the female role at all.
really duties are sex neutral in Roman religio the only ones I could find are the Vestals, the night mysteries of Bona Dea; only men may sacrifice at Ara Maxima of Hercules.
vale
M. Hortensia Maior Fabiana

it's just I feel saying that someone in a gay

> relationship has to be the domina is to me offensive. Of course I'm 150% sure
> you did not mean it that way of course I'm just letting you know how I as a gay
> man feels about being "domina."
> I am dominus, I am a man.
> Thank you for your post, it's so very hard to find anything on Roman marriages
> on the internet, whenever I try I always end up getting married life, or the
> political reasons for marriage.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant,
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, July 31, 2010 8:00:09 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Marriage and divorce in NR
>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus s. p. d.
>
> Ancient Romans had different forms of marriage. The one generally used had both
> families come together and involved the transfer of the bride from her father's
> authority and from her mother to come under the authority of her husband's pater
> familias. The pater familias would act as auspex to consider whether the Gods
> favored the marriage. The bride and groom married one another in front of
> witnesses, exchanging symbols of their roles in the marriage and sharing a meal.
> Sometimes witnessing the marriage even went to the point that the marriage bed
> was set in the atrium of the front of the house and first night was spent there
> while the festivities of the families continued. However, the marriage was not
> consumated until the following night, after the bride had been conducted through
> ceremonies by the women of the groom's family. How elaborate or simple a
> ceremony might be depended on the wealth and status of the families, but these
> were not formal affairs as we might hold today.
>
> An exception is the special ceremony called a confarreatio. It was essentially
> the same kind of ceremony between two families, but a little more elaborate in
> certain features. The bride and groom married each other. Sacerdotes were
> there to guide them in the ceremony and witness it, but basically the bride and
> groom performed the marriage ritual. Special words were said at the time when
> the bride and groom shared their meal. Among the ten witnesses required for a
> marriage in a confarreatio these had to include the pontifex maximus, flamen
> Dialis and the flamenica Dialis. This form of marriage was not restricted to
> patricians alone. We know that before the XII Tabulae that patricians and
> plebeians intermarried and used such ceremonies, and that later with the decline
> of the number of patrician gentes, confarreationes became more common rather
> than less.
>
> Divorce was readily available to Romans. How one divorced depended on the kind
> of marriage one had. There was even a ceremony of divorce, supposedly performed
> in some reversal of the wedding ceremony. However, no divorce was allowed from
> a confarreatio. That was one of the features of a confarreatio that differed
> from other Roman marriages.
>
>
> For Nova Roma, the religio Romana has been legally recognized in the United
> States as a religious tradition. Communities and temples have been incorporated,
> court rulings have recognized the religio Romana in cases involving marriages
> and child custody. We cultores Deorum Populi Romani actually have more rights in
> the US than Gays and Lesbians in most states.
>
>
> The natural step is now to be recognized in another country. Canada is our most
> likely choice. They have a process for doing so. One requirement is that we
> provide the provincial authorites with a marriage ceremony that we use. And of
> course what we submit will have to conform to both Canadian law and our own
> traditions. What we submit does not have to be a confarreatio, and I am thinking
> that we might submit two marriage ceremonies as recognized by our tradition.
>
>
> As in the US where the laws vary from state to state, marriage laws vary between
> Canadian provinces. Our main problem in Canada for us is that there are so few
> cultores Deorum, but that won't necessarily harm our opportunity to be
> recognized in Canada. We would choose a province in which same-sex marriages
> are legal. We would then become one of the few religious organizations providing
> marriage ceremonies for Gays and Lesbians. The process of being recognized in
> Canada takes five years, so with our lack of cultores there, providing this
> service for a select community beyond our own is a consideration to improve our
> chances of attaining recognition. Once we were, then we would be an
> international religious organization and might be able to gain recognition in
> other countries as well. It is a very difficult process.
>
> My personal views on same-sex marriage is that I approve of it on moral and
> legal grounds. I cannot buy the argument, made by my neighbor along with others,
> that allowing Gays to marry will somehow threaten my marriage. My second
> marriage will celebrate its thirty-seventh anniversary next Wednesday (yes, I
> was married once before, for some months when I was seventeen before my wife and
> child died.) I would rather have young Gays living next door to me than those
> Born Again Christians I got now as neighbors, and whose idea of marriage is that
> a woman should be submissive to her husband. That attitude is more repulsive to
> me than any consensual acts between adults. I didn't marry to have a sex slave,
> and I wouldn't be married to the same woman for so long if that was all our
> relationship was based on. There is no morality in depriving Gays and Lesbians
> from sharing in loving relationship and companionship. And as far as treating
> anyone as second class citizens with fewer legal rights than others, I am
> strongly opposed to legislation that outlaws same-sex marriages.
>
> There is some mention of same-sex marriages having taken place in ancient Rome.
> They were not legally recognized. They were not approved socially in most
> cases. Homosexual sex was approved, under certain circumstances, as it was
> considered to be natural and one always had to abide with one's nature. But
> homosexual preference was thought unnatural and not generally approved. Roman
> men were expected to exhibit virility, in the Roman sense of the meaning, even
> if they did have homosexual preferences. Effeminate heterosexuals would be
> looked down upon moreso than a 'virile' homosexual. You might look at
> transvestites in India today to see how they are treated and get some idea of
> how Romans would have thought, too.
>
>
> For women, we know so little really. Lesbianism would probably have been
> considered natural. Nothing would be thought wrong of a woman being serviced in
> her desires by someone of a lower class, whether a man or woman. It wouldn't
> even be considered unfaithfulness to her husband to have a slave provide sexual
> pleasure to her, just a master demanding her privileges. Only between social
> peers might a woman be faulted for having sex with a man. But I doubt whether
> Romans would think much of women engaging in lesbian sex between social peers,
> or maintaining a lesbian relationship over many years. Roman social norms would
> never permit women to "marry" and thus move out from under some man's authority.
> Thus same-sex marriage for either Gays or Lesbians would not be traditional in
> the religio Romana.
>
> However, I would hope we as individuals and as a community have grown to respect
> one another more over these many centuries. What does it mean to be married?
> Well, obviously I am not going to accept some biblical idea on which the laws of
> most of Western Civilization is based today. Women subservient to men for the
> sole purpose of procreation and in order to keep them under control. Sorry, I
> find the notion of "barefoot in the winter and pregnant in the summer" to be
> very offensive.
>
> The traditional role of a woman in a Roman household was that of Domina. She
> was every bit equal to her husband, superior to him even in some sense while in
> the house, where he was the master outdoors, but she could still wield authority
> on the family's estate. In fact the State depended on strong, independent women
> to maintain the farms and estates when men were off to war. The Domina tended to
> all of the family's cultus Deorum within the household itself. Thus she was
> primarily responsible for the cultus for the Penates, Vesta, and other domestic
> Gods and Goddesses, including the cultus for the family Lares. She was the one
> who protected the family, through her relationship with the Gods, anointing the
> house, placing charms at the windows and doors to keep out disease, ill-rumors,
> and evil. She was primarily the one who cared for the sick, or saw that they
> were cared for, often by invoking the Gods or by visiting the temples, where she
> might also acquire herbal medicines for her household. The Domina began each
> morning with the household gathered for religious ceremonies, the husband
> performed them at the main meal of the day. She was the last to bed, tending to
> all things, and most specifically to the family's hearth at the end of each day.
> It is this role as the center of the family's religious life that certain
> features of Roman marriage ceremonies take place. No husband could bless his
> own house, because he was necessarily too involved in public affairs. He needed
> a wife to intervene on his behalf with the Gods in special ways that most men
> were thought unable to do. Most men, but not all.
>
> It is well known that men were prohibited from entering the templum of the Bona
> Dea. Most men, that is. However, Ovid does says that some men, "chosen by the
> Goddess Herself," were permitted to enter. Who? Eunuchs? I doubt the Romans
> would mean that; eunuchs were foreign and not thought of as men. Homosexuals or
> effeminate heterosexuals? Possibly, as that could be the meaning of having been
> "chosen" as such men are thought to be in other cultures. Priests, shamans, and
> the like are generally dressed in a costume that resembles that of women, since
> women are often taken to be closer to the Gods than men, and those men who are
> close to the Gods are therefore designated in this way as apart from other men.
>
> In any marriage, I think it is more a matter of a partnership where each have
> their individual roles to play, but where both must be able to exchange roles
> when needed. It doesn't really matter today whether it is the man or the woman,
> or either partner in a Lesbian or Gay relationship, that takes on which roles.
> Both must be fulfilling their parts in the relationship and fulfilling each
> other. And it is nobody else's business. As long as one or both partners take
> on the role of Domina and preserve a cultus Deorum for their household, i can
> approve of marriage between Gays and Lesbians.
>
> For us, I think we should leave the matter to the local communities we create to
> decide whether they will perform same-sex marriages, in accordance with local
> laws. We are not going to force communities to perform such ceremonies, as they
> are not traditionally Roman anyway, but neither should we permit
> narrow-mindedness to prohibit such ceremonies from our modern community of
> cultores Deorum.
>
> For some perspective, I recommend all cultores Deorum to read "Lover's Legends:
> The Gay Greek Myths," by Andrew Calimach, 2002. I was one of those asked by the
> author to offer a review of his book, and I have been recommending ever since.
> As a heterosexual male I found the book fascinating and I thought Andrew had
> handled his topic extremely well. It is not a "gay" book as such, but sought to
> restore the myths to a perspective on homosexuality more in keeping with the
> ancient Greeks than with the Victorians who alterred the stories for Christian
> tastes. It may help some here begin to move away from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim
> perspective that infects society with its prejudices, and develop a new
> perspective based more on the ancient cultures that our ancestors knew.
>
>
> Christina, there are two cultures known to practice polygamy where one woman
> marries multiple men. One is in southern India where she marries a group of
> brothers, and it is practiced so that the family land is not divided up between
> sons. It is not a good arrangement for women. One husband is bad enough;
> divorce doesn't exist so the brothers basicly gangbang her to death when they
> want a young woman. Polygamy with more than one woman married to a man is
> accepted in some cultures, again for the benefit of men. I suppose I wouldn't
> object if the women were old enough to actually choose to enter such a marriage,
> were not coerced in anyway, and it was legal under local law. But that has
> rarely been the case. Paraguay, after the Great Paraguan War, was given special
> papal dispensation to allow men to marry two women in an effort to restore that
> country's population. In that case women controlled their situation. Polygamy
> is practiced today alongside with coerced marriage of young girls as sex slaves,
> not really as wives. That is not to say there are not healthy polygamous
> marriages or that polygamy is naturally exploitive. Any form of marriage can be
> abused and exploitive. So while I might be open to the possibility, I know the
> reality does not meet with my approval.
>
> The general rule for us is to abide with local custom. Just as with same-sex
> marriage, if it is locally legal, then our cultores can legally participate in
> such marriages. Missouri does not have legal polygamous marriage. Try moving to
> Malasia, Indonesia, or Uganda.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Christina Moseley" <cheetahgirl5@> wrote:
> >
> > What about polyamorous relationships? Me and my boyfriend are getting
> > married in the Roman marriage first, then in the state marriage. However,
> > my boyfriend was sure that we can fit another person in there but in
> > Missouri there is a law against bigamy.
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:35:20 -0500, Cato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > If we already have the ancient ceremony of the actual Roman
> > > confarreatio, why does Piscinus need to "work" on it? Wouldn't it be
> > > more appropriate to use it instead of making something up?
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Salve Nero;
> > >> I'm gay and I can tell you the PM Piscinus is absolutely fine with gay
> > >> marriage. So absolutely, of course you don't need a priest for Roman
> > >> marriage at all. Mostly marriage in Rome was by cohabitation. Usus.In
> > >> ancient Rome when C. Livia married G. Titinius she was still C. Livia,
> > >> the 2 partners kept their respective names. The children took
> > >> the father's name.
> > >>
> > >> In the CP Piscinus is just working on confarreatio, a special kind of
> > >> marriage ceremony it's for all those couples who desire it. I hope
> > >> this is helpful, I'm sure the PM will be happy to discuss this. Me too,
> > >> as Flaminica Carmentalis I have a deep interest in seeing the next
> > >> generation of Roman children! adoption was a
> > >> normative part of Roman family life!
> > >> di tibi faveant
> > >> M. Hortensia Maior
> > >> Flaminica Carmentalis
> > >>
> > >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaea Livia Ocella" <lbciddio@>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Salve, Nero,
> > >> >
> > >> > I was just thinking about this a few days ago while reading Juvenal's
> > >> second satire. He seems to have taken a decidedly negative view of the
> > >> possibility of gay marriage, but I must not be alone in hoping that
> > >> Nova Romans are a bit more accommodating and accepting... though the
> > >> tweaking of an ancient form of marriage dictated by very traditional
> > >> religious regulations may be a more serious matter.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am eager to hear the answers to Nero's questions from someone with
> > >> more knowledge of the Religio and the marriage rites than I. My own
> > >> knowledge of Roman marriage is limited to the leges put in place during
> > >> Augustus' time.
> > >> >
> > >> > Vale, et valete,
> > >> > Livia Ocella
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Nero" <rikudemyx@> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Salvete Omnes,
> > >> > > With the talk about the Confarreationes in August, I was curious
> > >> about gay marriages in our community. I doubt that I'm the only gay
> > >> citizen and so I'm sure that the topic must flit through some minds.
> > >> Would a priest sanction a gay union? Which of the two would gain the
> > >> other's titles? Would the religio's ceremony stay the same or would
> > >> some tweaking have to be done?
> > >> > > DVIC
> > >> > > Nero
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Tribunis Plebis omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

In reading your post, Tribune, I find myself considering a possibility, so, though I am expert in nothing, especially in the Sacra Romana ...I present it for consideration.

I'm not suggesting that we replace any ancient marriage Ceremonia or customs. they are precious to us, and we (I think) should do our best to accurately reconstruct them as best we can, in our modern society. However, might it not be of some value to examine the less formal marriage customs and rites, and create our own, modern but firmly rooted in Ancient practice, NR ceremony that citizens could use as an option? Yes, it would be modern, and particularly Nova Roman ...and the purists among us will decry my departure from ancient practice, and vilify me, I am sure ...but to me, if we are to be a vibrant and viable community, we must reconstruct the Ancient, *and* recreate, and sometimes create, our own forms, rites and customs. So long as we do this with great care, and so long as we use what our ancient ancestors did as not just inspiration but foundation, I think we can be both respectful to our heritage, and find ways to meet our own, more modern needs in ways that our spiritual ancestors may have even approved.

Respectfully,
Vale et valete Bene,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Reminder from:		Nova-Roma Yahoo! Group
Title:		Kalends
Date:		Sunday August 1, 2010
Time:		All Day
Repeats:		This event repeats every month.
Notes:		Every Kalends is sacred to Juno "Be well, Queen Juno, look down and preserve us. Accept this offering of incense and look kindly and favorably upon me and the Senate and people of Nova Roma." (Incense is placed in focus) "Queen Juno, in addition to my virtuous offering of incense, be honored by this offering of wine that I pour in libation. May you look kindly and favorably upon the Senate and people of Nova Roma." (Libation is poured for the Goddess)
Get reminders on your mobile, Yahoo! Messenger, and email. Edit reminder options

Copyright © 2010  Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Salve Caeca;
confarreatio is one form of Roman marriage. There are others based on usus; cohabitation. I meant to discuss this with the PM as I'm personally interested in an usus-based ceremony.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Tribunis Plebis omnibusque in foro S. P. D.
>
> In reading your post, Tribune, I find myself considering a possibility, so, though I am expert in nothing, especially in the Sacra Romana ...I present it for consideration.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we replace any ancient marriage Ceremonia or customs. they are precious to us, and we (I think) should do our best to accurately reconstruct them as best we can, in our modern society. However, might it not be of some value to examine the less formal marriage customs and rites, and create our own, modern but firmly rooted in Ancient practice, NR ceremony that citizens could use as an option? Yes, it would be modern, and particularly Nova Roman ...and the purists among us will decry my departure from ancient practice, and vilify me, I am sure ...but to me, if we are to be a vibrant and viable community, we must reconstruct the Ancient, *and* recreate, and sometimes create, our own forms, rites and customs. So long as we do this with great care, and so long as we use what our ancient ancestors did as not just inspiration but foundation, I think we can be both respectful to our heritage, and find ways to meet our own, more modern needs in ways that our spiritual ancestors may have even approved.
>
> Respectfully,
> Vale et valete Bene,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

EDICTVM CENSORIVM DE ADLEGENDIS SENATORIBVS

Ex Officio

Censores Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Titus Iulius Sabinus salutem plurimam
quiritibus dicunt.

According to Paragraph IV. A. 1. d. of the Constitution of Nova Roma and Lex
Popillia senatoria, the censores have the powers of maintaining the Album
Senatorium,

Accordingly:

Gaius Popillius Laenas is appointed to the senate, and shall be counted
amongst the list of active senatores.
*---*
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
Titus Iulius Sabinus
Censores, Novae Romae


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

Livia Catoni sal.

Sorry, but I'm not about to post a message after each of my posts saying
that the previous post was made of my own free will. It would be a bit
redundant, wouldn't it?

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cato" <catoinnyc@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:29 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Witness Statement from L. Livia Plauta


Cato Liviae Plautae sal.

Do you do so fully of your own free will, knowingly and purposefully,
understanding that the Senate actions which have brought you to this point
are considered illegal and vacated, contrary to the Constitution of the
Respublica?

I just want to make absolutely sure, and I'd like to see it in writing, from
you.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
wrote:
>
> I, L. Livia Plauta, as a Lictrix of Nova Roma, hereby witness the
> appointment of Gnaeus Equitius Marinus as Magister Populi et Dictor of
> Nova
> Roma. As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish him good fortune in his
> office and in his work on behalf of the Religio Romana.
>
>
>
> Ego, L. Livia Plauta, lictrix curiata Novae Romae testificor Cn. Equitium
> Marinum Magistrum Populi et Dictatorem Novae Romae creari. Lictrix
> Comitiorum Curiatorum ei opto ut pro religione Romana felicissime officio
> munereque suo fungatur.
>

C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I have hesitated to address the issues confronting this Republic not because
I don't care but, perhaps, because I care too much. I did not want to
simply post what would be, essentially an inarticulate wail of distress and
pain, so, though some may call me coy ...and other coward, I have waited
until now ...and now I am as ready as I will ever be.

Every instinct in my being says that, while I think this Republic is at a
crossroads, and may soon go beyond the point of no return, we do not need a
dictator ...and yet, even I can make a case for one, and will, though I am
not happy about it.

However, what distresses me, even to the point of tears is what I am seeing
enacted I am seeing our highest magistrates hurling edicta, insults, and
vitriol like lightning bolts, seemingly regardless of the fact that their
power struggles (and that is what I think is going on), is making it
impossible for us to conduct our business. The consuls veto one another.
The Pontifex maximus and chief Augur hurls decreta, and things seem so
tangled that no one can accomplish anything.

I am seeing massive amounts of pure rhetoric on both sides of the "aisle".
Some if this rhetoric is honest, heart felt statements of position, but much
of it is not. I have seen tempers out of control by people who should know
better. I have seen some goading anyone they can find, just for the fun of
it. I have also seen, and this alone gives me hope, people seeking reason
and something approaching an attempt at a clear, unbiased assessment of our
situation.

I am a Plebeian ...no more. I am a minor magistrate, no more. I am not one
of the original members here ...hence I am held in little, if any esteem,
and I understand that; but *if* and, frankly, I think there are better
ways, we appoint a dictator, it will be for the reason that our current
elected and appointed magistrates have lost all sight of their *duties*, and
are doing battle with one another to ensure that their personal agenda
predominate ...and for that, shame on you ...all of you. Perhaps, if our
duly elected consuls are going to act like war lords fighting over a scrap
of land, and our highest Religeous official is behaving more like a Di
Medici or a Borgia than a priest of Nova Roma, we may need a dictator to
simply stop all this, clear the "road" of all traffic, and get us back on
track. I have read that our situation is not as dire as in 1999, and, as I
have no way of judging that, I can only say that, the one thing you did not
have, I think, was the political intervention of the highest religious
officials in the Res Publica, and not unbiased intervention, at that.

I am now going to interject some very personal, very subjective, and, yes,
rather emotional, comments, not because I think they are of intrinsic value,
but because other relatively new citizens may be enmeshed in similar
internal struggles, and what I have to say, may, possibly, assist them in
their process. Besides, this will provide amusement for some here for a
whole minutes or so, I suspect.

I have found this last week the most difficult in my stay here. I have
found myself confused, angry, disgusted, and, finally, deeply wounded, and
that not by any of the political machinations I have witnessed, but by a
throw away comment on another list made by a non citizen, and not even aimed
at me ...or at a particular Vestal, but at all Vestals. And no, I am not
being presumptuous. I am merely a Camilla, and I am more aware of that than
anyone ...but I serve great Vesta with all my heart, and, if, as I think
likely, I am expelled from the Camille program for this post, I will
continue to serve here, just not here.

That comment brought me, weeping, to my knees, and nearly sent me from this
place. It was not intended as a personal insult, and I know that, but I
will never forget what was said, ever.

I have found this week wrenching in other ways, as well. I think every new
citizen who reads carefully, as I try to do, chooses, if only in their own
minds, those who they feel they can trust ...and it is to those people they
turn when they have questions. I certainly have, and some of those people
have become dear friends. Others, though, I trust because of what I have
seen in their public conduct, and they may never have heard from me, or know
me at all. However, when In doubt about something, I tend to rely on their
opinions, sometimes in specific areas, sometimes in general terms.

I have had to question my choices recently, in some cases, because of what I
have seen here ...and that process is difficult. Of course, disillusion
often is ...and my personal problem, but it does remind me of the need for
constant reevaluation of all things, and the necessity of never becoming
complacent, in any area of life, but especially as a responsible citizen of
this, or any other nation.

I will also say, though, that I was entirely justified in some of my
assessments ...and those in whom I feel I can still, safely, place trust are
now even more dear to me. It is because of these few that I am still among
you, and that I was able to refrain from humiliating myself in public with
what would have been a monumental and unbecoming tantrum.

I, who can approve nothing, would only approve and condone the inauguration
of a Dictator under the following conditions and constraints. If the
Senate, in legal session, were to elect a Dictator, I would want it to also
charge that person with one task, and one task only, and then require his
agreement to resign upon completion of that 1 task. All of our other issues
are problems which can be dealt with using our current Governmental tools,
especially the spending of money, which should be done by the Senate of NR,
and never by one individual, no matter how trustworthy or well intentioned.

this task would be to create and appoint a Decemvirate. (this wasn't my
idea, actually, but that of Sta. Cornelia Aeternia ...although I had just
begun to think along these lines, also, so I was especially receptive to
it.). this Decemvirate (which might well consist of fewer than 10 members,
considering our own small number of active and/or qualified citizens would
include:

1. At least 2 very long term members of NR, primarily for the sake of
perspective.

2. At least 1 pater Patriae.
3. at least 2 members of the Senate, preferably those with expertise in NR
law and related matters.

representatives from the Censors' office (not necessarily the Censors), and
Praetora(not necessarily Praetors).

at least one representative of the CP, but *not* the Pontifex Maximus, for
several reasons.

representatives of the citizenry who have demonstrated, by their actions,
conduct and service that they are willing to serve the Res Publica in good
faith, and with honor, to the best of their ability, and

1 new citizen who has demonstrated, clearly, intelligence, reason, some
understanding of our Governmental structures and traditions, who may be
either there as an observer, or able to discuss but not vote.

I would absolutely *NOT* include:
1. Either consul, because both have demonstrated, at least to me, that they
would obstruct any productive debate or action.

The Pontifex Maximus, for the same reasons.

When the Decemviri have come to their determinations, and have produced an
action plan that would allow us to repair or reconstruct those elements in
our Nation that are inhibiting our progress, I would want them to make their
findings known to the full Senate, called into a legal session, or, if that
is impossible because neither the Consuls nor the Pontifex Maximus and chief
Augur will permit it, then to the populace in the main forum. I would hope
that the Senate could then debate and vote to adopt these findings, and see
to it that work on them begins, expeditiously. If, alternatively, we place
the operations of the NR Government into the hands of the Decemvirate
(which, I believe, would be historically accurate), then after presentation
(and at least essential acceptance of) their findings, they should initiate
the work to be done, and see it through to the point that it will continue
regardless of the political agendas of any parties.

Because events are so unkind as to keep occurring without giving me a chance
to post my commentary, there is one more thing I find I must add. I am made
*extremely* uncomfortable by vague comments, especially when those comments
appear to have a threatening sub text, and most especially when the person
who makes these unspecific comments about "some people" etc. may be placed
in a position in which they can, arbitrarily remove what they consider to be
threatening to that person or to his regime, without specifying either the
nature of the threats, or, until the action has been completed the
identities of the ones threatening the Res Publica. I, therefore, would
like to see far more specific language concerning the following quote from
the message posted earlier today by Senator and proposed Dictator Cn.
Marinus.

For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.

this is the most difficult post that I have ever felt the need to write, and
I devoutly pray that I never have to approach more difficult issues,
especially since I have criticized the actions of the highest Magistrates
and religious officials in our Res Publica (a thing I do *NOT* do lightly,
I am torn, frankly, between my respect for some of the people about whom I
have spoken, more harshly than I usually speak, and my loyalty to nova Roma
...and I find that my loyalty to my spiritual home must take priority over
any personal preferences or feelings. If I seem hesitant, I am, because, in
speaking so plainly, and at such length, I am not at all sure whether I am
reflecting my evolution as a Nova Roman citizen, or being unforgivably
presumptuous.

With deepest respect,

Valete,
C. Maria Caeca, cives

Cn. Lentulus pontifex omnibus Quiritibus sal.


I am in the midst of many preparations, including making Roman clothes, writing the ceremony and organizing the trip, phone calls, etc... but I must address this issue as a pontifex, as a well-known advocate of reconstructionism, and as the celebrant of the wedding ceremony.

1. On Roman and Nova Roman marriages

As both Hortensia and Piscinus, and others as well, pointed out, many types of Roman marriages existed, and all these kind of marriages exist in NR exactly. Nowhere is it written in our laws. In fact, as our brilliant Cordus would say, it must not be written in laws. It must be written in our hearts, in our intentions. We are going to restore Rome: that's our most sacred law; so everything that existed in Rome and acceptable for modern humanitarian point of view, is de facto existing in NR as well.

There are four types of Roman marriages:

- cum manu usus,
- cum manu coemptio,
- cum manu conferratio, and
- sine manu free marriage.

Some scholars speculated that one of them, the confarreatio was only for patricians. But there is no evidence for that. I repeat what I wrote erlier in the Collegium: The book "The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity" by Karen K. Hersch states that "No ancient author recorded that confarreatio was a ceremony restricted to patricians."
We already have evidences that plebeian women were allowed to marry to
flamines maiores by confarreatio, except the flamen Dialis: so we have
historic evidence about plebeian women wedded by confarreatio, and
these are flamen-marriages, so these were the ones more strictly
regulated. Civil marriages were less strictly regulated, and some
scholars suggest that also after the prohibition to marry between
plebeians and patrician was eliminated, plebeians could marry with
confarreatio."The scholar
Taglialatela Scafati in his article "Cinna e la confarreatio" explains
that confarreatio was open to plebeians, too, and the book "Matrimonio
romano promitivo" by another scholar, Laura Sancho Rocher,
concludes that "el único probable ritual matrimonial arcaico es la
confarreatio" , and it was originally practiced by both plebeians and
patricians. Joseph Daniel Unwin (in: "Sex and culture") argues that the
number of plebeian confarreationes could not have been small, for, if
only a small number of plebeians had wedded by confarreatio, there
would have hardly been place for passing the lex Ogulnia.

No Roman source, no historical evidence exist saying the confarreatio was only for patricians, but exist some evidence that suggest that it was for everyone who wanted. In the first times, many wanted it. And later as Rome became less pious and less religious, people wanted more practical ways of marriages instead of the cumbersome confarreatio, and lastly it became practiced by only a few senatorial families at the end of the republic. During the imperial period, even fewer used it.

We are at the beginning of our New Rome, so naturally, our marriages should be in greater number confarreationes than in the late republic. At the biginning of the NR history we must support the idea of confarreatio to
create a more spiritual "married community". The confarreatio is the
most religious marriage, and we are right now trying to establish a strong
basis for a New Roman religion. At the foundations, our bases must be
filled with most sacred things, not by the most relaxed and simplified,
profane things. Later it will be unavoidably more profane: so why to
start at the beginning with the profane, only to make it even more
profane later? I think a 10% of the people could use this kind of marriage, the ones most dedicated to the sacra.

2. On a newly invented form of marriage

There is absolutely no need for it and I admonish everyone that we already have 4 types of Roman marriages: why to invent a fifth new one? The Roman marriage system is the most perfect and most elaborate system: everybody can find his or her preferred marital status.
For example, confarreatio is there for the most conservative ones, and especially for patricians, and for devoted and most pious religious familes, coemptio is good for the elite. Usus is there for the less conservative people with more freedom. And we have sine manu marriages, that is just like having a girlfriend or boyfriend. No need for parodies, as Dexter said. I agree that we have to be serious reconstructionists.

3. On gay marriage

I think that all gay couples should have the right to have the same legal status as straight couples, that is of utmost importance! But I am against calling it "marriage". It should be called cohabitation, legal/official relationship, or by some other name. A good and honorable name should be found to describe it, but in my view a marriage is the special unity and community of two (or more) people of different genders, different sex. That word was reserved to this meaning. A new thing, a new idea, the concept of homosexuals living together in a legal, officialized and registered relationship ("marriage" between man and man, woman and woman), should have its own *new* name, its own identification. BUT THE ROMANS ALREADY GAVE THE SOLUTION ! Fortunately, we have 4 kinds of marriage, and I think that usus or sine manu marriage could wonderfully cover the concept of what I called homosexual "cohabitation" or "officialized relationship" between the same
genders.

So, I think nothing can stop the gay couples among our citizens, to start to register themselves among the censores as living in a sine manu official relationship, or, perhaps, in usus!

I think, however, that confarreatio can only be made between woman and man, that's 100%.



Curate, uti beati valeatis!















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

*Military defeats, casualties of war and the success of Rome*
by *Turner, Brian David* <javascript:void(0);>, Ph.D., The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010 , 263 pages; AAT 3402401
Abstract (Summary)

This dissertation examines how ancient Romans dealt with the innumerable
military losses that the expansion and maintenance of their empire demanded.
It considers the prose writers from *Polybius* (c. 150 B.C.E.) through Dio
Cassius (c. 230 C.E.), as well as many items from the material record,
including triumphal arches, the columns of Trajan and Marcus, and other
epigraphic and material evidence from Rome and throughout the empire. By
analyzing just how much (or how little) the Romans focused on their military
defeats and casualties of war in their cultural record, I argue that the
various and specific ways that the Romans dealt with these losses form a
necessary part of any attempt to explain the military success of Rome.

The discussion is organized into five chapters. The first chapter describes
the treatment and burial of the war dead. Chapter two considers the effect
war losses had on the morale of Roman soldiers and generals. The third
chapter compares the response at Rome to news of a defeat in both the
republican and imperial periods. Chapter four examines the memory and
commemoration of Roman war losses. Finally, the fifth chapter analyzes the
inclusion of casualty figures in the sources, and pays particular attention
to the Roman idea of winning a bloodless victory.

Underpinning the analysis is the explanatory model developed by military
historian John Lynn in his book, *Battle: A History of Combat and
Culture *(2003). The model argues that the discourse of war, which
encompasses all
the cultural depictions of war (including monuments, texts, and ideologies),
necessarily influences the reality of battle. While this discourse can never
perfectly match that reality, it is, nevertheless, constantly evolving to
mirror better how war was actually fought. This model helps explain why the
Romans responded to military losses the way that they did, and why these
responses were so fundamental to the success of Rome.


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

*The Republican soldier: Historiographical representations and human
realities*
by *Milne, Kathryn H.* <javascript:void(0);>, Ph.D., University of
Pennsylvania, 2009 , 222 pages; AAT 3405387
Abstract (Summary)

My dissertation addresses two related questions about the soldier of the
Roman Republic: how writers who treated the Republic interpreted the figure
of the soldier, and what that soldier's real experience was like. The
dissertation shows how the soldier figure was wound into the overall
objectives of the writers *Polybius*, Livy, and Sallust, who made the figure
of the Roman soldier essential to their conceptions of Roman national
character, and used the soldier to demonstrate their perceptions of the
ascension, stability, and then decline of Roman society. I conclude that the
soldier figure has a privileged role to play in Roman self-identity and
representation.

I then address how we can access the soldier's real experience, and use the
*Bellum Hispaniense * , the work of a low ranking soldier, to demonstrate
that the soldier's major concern is for information. Success in warfare and
the cohesion of an army depend on the soldier's mentality, rather than his
physical body. I explore this by creating a methodology for
interdisciplinary research involving modern history and psychology. I argue
that unusual or seemingly incongruous incidents, instead of being labeled as
romantic or legendary discourse, can be usefully reframed in terms of the
study of human behavior. I show similarities between recorded behaviors of
Roman soldiers and documented cases of modern soldiers who have developed
dependency on their leaders. I also address the Roman army more broadly, and
argue that the rules and regulations in the Roman army bear strong
resemblances to those employed in the German *Wehrmacht * and the Iraqi army
to encourage "victory or death" style soldiering. I conclude that this
historiographical trope was deliberately enforced using psychologically
manipulative methods.


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

*ROMAN FUNERAL RITES (POLYB. 6.53F.), LUCIUS AEMILIUS PAULLUS' LAUDATIO
FUNEBRIS, AND THE PROCESSION OF ROMANS IN VIRGIL, AENEID 6*
*Mary Frances Williams* <javascript:void(0);>. *Scholia: Studies in
Classical Antiquity<http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=88204&TS=1280618455&clientId=13118&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD>
*. Dunedin: 2007<http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?RQT=572&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD&pmid=88204&pcid=51810861&SrchMode=3>.
Vol. 16 pg. 69, 24 pgs
Abstract (Summary)

Virgil's procession of heroes in Aeneid 6 is based upon Roman funeral
rituals and orations as described in *Polybius*. Furthermore, Anchises'
lament for Marcellus is similar to L. Aemilius Paullus' laudatio funebris
("funeral oration") for his sons. The death of Marcellus is a warning to
Aeneas and to Rome about the dangers of excessive pride: Rome must learn to
rule the world with mercy, ever mindful of changes of Fortune. [PUBLICATION
ABSTRACT]


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

*Holding a wolf by the ears: Mutiny and unrest in the Roman military, 44
B.C.--A.D. 68*
by *Brice, Lee L.* <javascript:void(0);>, Ph.D., The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003 , 508 pages; AAT 3086502
Abstract (Summary)

Contrary to the traditional, idealistic view, the Roman army of the
Principate experienced a continuum of internal difficulties to which it was
institutionally predisposed, and which threatened imperial stability. This
dissertation provides a corrective to the traditional view of Roman military
discipline by focusing on the Julio-Claudian dynasty to demonstrate that
military unrest was much more of a problem than has previously been thought.

Every member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty faced outbreaks of unrest,
ranging from individual acts of insubordination to large-scale mutinies
affecting more than ten legions. Manifestations of unrest in the Roman army
can be classified in two groups: unrest initiated by officers, alone or in
small groups, including insubordination, military conspiracy, and revolt; or
unrest by regular soldiers, usually collective, including mutiny,
expressions of grievances, and indiscipline. Surprisingly, there is
virtually no historiography of unrest in the Roman military, despite the
numerous incidents. The reasons for this omission include an historical
over-reliance on *Polybius*' evaluation of Roman discipline and a lack of
analysis devoted to the internal society of the military.

When modern studies have treated Roman military unrest at all, it has been
in strictly military terms and has often been limited to assigning blame to
ambitious commanders. More than simply cataloguing the quantity, scale, and
types of unrest, this examination draws on military sociology and social
psychology to provide an analytical framework that reveals the complex
nature of unrest. Such a methodology demonstrates that: the military is
structurally conducive to collective unrest; that unrest events were a
social phenomenon; and that not merely grievances but also an opportunity to
act, is the prerequisite for an outbreak to occur.

After an introductory chapter discussing historiography, sociology,
methodology, and sources, chapter two focuses on unrest faced by Octavian
during the Triumvirate. Chapter three discusses the mutinies of A.D. 14.
Unrest by soldiers is the subject of the fourth chapter, while chapters five
and six examine unrest initiated by officers. The Roman empire was
established and maintained in large part by its armies, but adequate
understanding of the military that established it must include an analysis
of military instability.


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

*Amicitia in Roman social and international relations, (350--146 B.C.)*
by *Burton, Paul James* <javascript:void(0);>, Ph.D., University of Maryland
College Park, 2000 , 718 pages; AAT 9970506
Abstract (Summary)

Friendship (Latin *amicitia * ) was perhaps the most important informal
means of organizing and mediating relations not only between individuals but
also between states in the ancient world. However, Roman friendship is
seldom discretely studied as a mode of social interaction or a method of
mediating international relations, and the parallels between interpersonal
and international friendship, in terms of attitudes, expectations and
behaviors, have never been adequately explored. This study attempts to make
those parallels explicit by first developing a model of friendship
interaction (based on modern studies of friendship in the fields of
anthropology, psychology and sociology) that allows us to examine any given
friendship processually over its life course, and then integrating the
ancient Roman evidence for amicitia into that model. The method adopted is
comparative and textual: the evidence for the period under consideration
(the Middle Republic, ca. 350-146 B.C.) is compared to the findings of
modern studies of friendship, and to the evidence for ancient Greek
friendship, while the evidence of the Late Republican period (chiefly
Cicero's *De Amicitia * ) is compared to that of the earlier period (chiefly
Plautus and *Polybius*) (Part I). Part II examines (in addition to modern
imperialism theory) friendship in Roman international relations, suggesting
that the use of *amicitia * in the international sphere contributed to Roman
imperial behavior.

I conclude that the attitudes, expectations and behaviors associated with
interpersonal *amicitia * were precisely the same as those associated with
international *amicitia * . Moreover, because * amicitia * was in essence a
power relationship between unequals (that is, it mediated status differences
between individuals or states), and because Roman society was constrained to
rely heavily on informal mechanisms such as friendship to mediate social and
international relations, international * amicitia * (and not foreign *clientela
* , as Ernst Badian suggests) facilitated the construction of an informal
Roman empire during the fourth through second centuries B.C.


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

*The image of the tribunate in Livy*
by *Clapp, Douglas C.* <javascript:void(0);>, Ph.D., The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2000 , 148 pages; AAT 9993292
Abstract (Summary)

Livy portrays the tribunate as a disruptive force that undermines the
stability of the Roman state. It has no redeeming qualities. This depiction
emerges from the assumptions established by the narrative in Book 2 before
the tribunate has been created. The negative characterization of the
tribunes reaches its greatest extent in Books 3-6 as Livy narrates the
conflicts between plebeians and patricians. Beginning with Book 7, the
number of references to tribunes drops sharply. Despite the limited amount
of attention paid to the tribunate in the rest of extant Livy, the initial,
unflattering image persists.

This portrait differs from that offered by the Greek historians *Polybius*,
Diodorus Siculus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. All three value the
tribunate as an integral part of the Roman state that defends the freedom of
the people. Livy's distrust demonstrates the conservative attitude he
absorbed from his milieu amid the turmoil of the Late Republic. His
perspective, however, does not simply mimic what he found in his sources;
the consistency of his negative depiction across his narrative precludes
that. Nor does Livy's opinion of the tribunate parallel Cicero's or
Sallust's. Cicero acknowledges the difficulties caused by tribunes but
nonetheless considers them essential to the state, while Sallust implicates
both the tribunes and the senate in the moral degradation of Rome. Livy's
negative depiction of the tribunes shows, first, that his narrative provides
a coherent interpretation of Roman history. Livy has thought about what he
is writing. Second, the shift in the quantity but not the quality of
references to the tribunate after Book 6 raises questions about the
periodization of Roman history. Typically, tribunician agitation is said to
persist until the *lex Hortensia * in 287, when the tribunes were integrated
into the mechanisms of the state. Livy, however, reduces his attention to
the tribunes after the Licinio-Sextian legislation of 367, yet his tribunes
continue to act disruptively after 287. Finally, Livy's understanding of the
tribunes coincides with the implications of Augustus' actions. The people
need a defender, but the tribunate has failed. Augustus' adoption of
*tribunicia potestas
* solves the dilemma and redeems the tribunate.


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

Sta. Corneliae Aeternia C. Mariae Caecae Omnibus S.P.D.

That was a very powerful and moving post done by our Sacerdos Vestae, and it
is words we should hear and take into consideration. Thank you Caeca for
your steadfastness in your service to Nova Roma, for I pity the person who
thinks you are merely sweet and naive, you are truly Sagacious and extremely
wise and we could all benefit from your advice.

You know its weird seeing my name mentioned and I guess one could say my
idea was brought up, I had no intention of posting my feelings towards this
situation. Well for starters unless you're Cato, Sulla, Piscinus, Maior,
and the rest of the heroes and supposed villains, its hard to speak and
actually be truly "heard" sometimes. There's so many voices, its like ashes
being struck against a very strong wind, well I am compelled to speak and at
great length (apologies given upfront and sincerely guys) so may this wind
bear my words directly, right towards the Senate better known as the Board
of Directors.


Quirites, we are facing some strange Tides as of recently, and we as Caeca
said are at the Crossroads whether we stand or fall its truly up to us,
so whats it going to be? I for one after 11 years of being here, and when I
first arrived on the scene it was right after the first Civil War, and let
me tell you it was a very interesting predictament to be in to put it
mildly, so there's no way would I support the need and appointment of a
Dictator unless it was the very last and I mean very last choice.


So let me say again, I do not support this need or outcry for a Dictator,
and it is not because I find Marinus a bad evil person, he has always
treated me incredibly civil. But it is the manner how this all came about
and if I were Marinus, I'd question the reasons and the motives of what my
future adminstration were really planning when they Behooved me such a
request. My apologies I give you to Marinus, but I will not bend the knee,
I am unable to acquiesce to calling you my Liege, Lord, and Master.


In other words I cannot call you "Caesar".

Before anyone says "Well do you have a better idea Aeternia?" Yes I do
actually. My original idea was to propose to the Senate they create a
special position of Project Manager, a politically unbiased individual whose
sole purpose would be to keep the Senate on task and oh yeah all the insipid
infighting. That was shot down, ignored, not paid attention to as usual.
Then further along hey why not a Decimvirate based notion, get 5-10
individuals basically the movers and shakers of NR, appoint an Overseer, and
get the job done.

Although the Good Madam Caeca, has refined the idea a bit. Here is my 2.0
version..

We have 10 individuals, from all the predominate aspects of NR villains and
heroes (yes Marinus you can be part of it) , including also Senators, they
take on a "problem" area of the Republic, form commitee's if they have to,
the sole purpose is to fix NR and they don't stop until the job is complete,
this will include the IT problem, Old Laws needing to be re -written,
Sodalitas' being revived, AT being resurrected, the Religio and its huge
malfunctions, building better Commnunity Relations, every single nook and
cranny thats being a "problem child" it will be the sole responsibility of
the Decimvirate to fix and repair.

Also agreeing with Caeca, I would not include the Pontifex Maximus for he
often on many numerous occasions fails to remain a Neutral Party.
I would disagree with Caeca just a tad and would include both Consuls to
Oversee such a tremendous project, this to me is the type of bridge building
we need. I believe this would bring Amicitia and Pax to the wounds our
beloved Nova Roma has suffered, and it is something that can represent
people from all political spectrums to come together and actually get the
job done.

So before we scream and throw our Laurels for a Dictator, and I don't care
if this about the bad guys getting the money or personal vendettas. Place
the hatred aside for once, act like responsible adults, and put effort for
something that we have all come to love.

I apologize for such a long post and if anyone feels incredibly slighted or
offended by my words..

Vale Optime,
Statia Cornelia Aeternia

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:,

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I have hesitated to address the issues confronting this Republic not
> because
> I don't care but, perhaps, because I care too much. I did not want to
> simply post what would be, essentially an inarticulate wail of distress and
>
> pain, so, though some may call me coy ...and other coward, I have waited
> until now ...and now I am as ready as I will ever be.
>
> Every instinct in my being says that, while I think this Republic is at a
> crossroads, and may soon go beyond the point of no return, we do not need a
>
> dictator ...and yet, even I can make a case for one, and will, though I am
> not happy about it.
>
> However, what distresses me, even to the point of tears is what I am seeing
>
> enacted I am seeing our highest magistrates hurling edicta, insults, and
> vitriol like lightning bolts, seemingly regardless of the fact that their
> power struggles (and that is what I think is going on), is making it
> impossible for us to conduct our business. The consuls veto one another.
> The Pontifex maximus and chief Augur hurls decreta, and things seem so
> tangled that no one can accomplish anything.
>
> I am seeing massive amounts of pure rhetoric on both sides of the "aisle".
> Some if this rhetoric is honest, heart felt statements of position, but
> much
> of it is not. I have seen tempers out of control by people who should know
> better. I have seen some goading anyone they can find, just for the fun of
> it. I have also seen, and this alone gives me hope, people seeking reason
> and something approaching an attempt at a clear, unbiased assessment of our
>
> situation.
>
> I am a Plebeian ...no more. I am a minor magistrate, no more. I am not one
> of the original members here ...hence I am held in little, if any esteem,
> and I understand that; but *if* and, frankly, I think there are better
> ways, we appoint a dictator, it will be for the reason that our current
> elected and appointed magistrates have lost all sight of their *duties*,
> and
> are doing battle with one another to ensure that their personal agenda
> predominate ...and for that, shame on you ...all of you. Perhaps, if our
> duly elected consuls are going to act like war lords fighting over a scrap
> of land, and our highest Religeous official is behaving more like a Di
> Medici or a Borgia than a priest of Nova Roma, we may need a dictator to
> simply stop all this, clear the "road" of all traffic, and get us back on
> track. I have read that our situation is not as dire as in 1999, and, as I
> have no way of judging that, I can only say that, the one thing you did not
>
> have, I think, was the political intervention of the highest religious
> officials in the Res Publica, and not unbiased intervention, at that.
>
> I am now going to interject some very personal, very subjective, and, yes,
> rather emotional, comments, not because I think they are of intrinsic
> value,
> but because other relatively new citizens may be enmeshed in similar
> internal struggles, and what I have to say, may, possibly, assist them in
> their process. Besides, this will provide amusement for some here for a
> whole minutes or so, I suspect.
>
> I have found this last week the most difficult in my stay here. I have
> found myself confused, angry, disgusted, and, finally, deeply wounded, and
> that not by any of the political machinations I have witnessed, but by a
> throw away comment on another list made by a non citizen, and not even
> aimed
> at me ...or at a particular Vestal, but at all Vestals. And no, I am not
> being presumptuous. I am merely a Camilla, and I am more aware of that than
>
> anyone ...but I serve great Vesta with all my heart, and, if, as I think
> likely, I am expelled from the Camille program for this post, I will
> continue to serve here, just not here.
>
> That comment brought me, weeping, to my knees, and nearly sent me from this
>
> place. It was not intended as a personal insult, and I know that, but I
> will never forget what was said, ever.
>
> I have found this week wrenching in other ways, as well. I think every new
> citizen who reads carefully, as I try to do, chooses, if only in their own
> minds, those who they feel they can trust ...and it is to those people they
>
> turn when they have questions. I certainly have, and some of those people
> have become dear friends. Others, though, I trust because of what I have
> seen in their public conduct, and they may never have heard from me, or
> know
> me at all. However, when In doubt about something, I tend to rely on their
> opinions, sometimes in specific areas, sometimes in general terms.
>
> I have had to question my choices recently, in some cases, because of what
> I
> have seen here ...and that process is difficult. Of course, disillusion
> often is ...and my personal problem, but it does remind me of the need for
> constant reevaluation of all things, and the necessity of never becoming
> complacent, in any area of life, but especially as a responsible citizen of
>
> this, or any other nation.
>
> I will also say, though, that I was entirely justified in some of my
> assessments ...and those in whom I feel I can still, safely, place trust
> are
> now even more dear to me. It is because of these few that I am still among
> you, and that I was able to refrain from humiliating myself in public with
> what would have been a monumental and unbecoming tantrum.
>
> I, who can approve nothing, would only approve and condone the inauguration
>
> of a Dictator under the following conditions and constraints. If the
> Senate, in legal session, were to elect a Dictator, I would want it to also
>
> charge that person with one task, and one task only, and then require his
> agreement to resign upon completion of that 1 task. All of our other issues
>
> are problems which can be dealt with using our current Governmental tools,
> especially the spending of money, which should be done by the Senate of NR,
>
> and never by one individual, no matter how trustworthy or well intentioned.
>
> this task would be to create and appoint a Decemvirate. (this wasn't my
> idea, actually, but that of Sta. Cornelia Aeternia ...although I had just
> begun to think along these lines, also, so I was especially receptive to
> it.). this Decemvirate (which might well consist of fewer than 10 members,
> considering our own small number of active and/or qualified citizens would
> include:
>
> 1. At least 2 very long term members of NR, primarily for the sake of
> perspective.
>
> 2. At least 1 pater Patriae.
> 3. at least 2 members of the Senate, preferably those with expertise in NR
> law and related matters.
>
> representatives from the Censors' office (not necessarily the Censors), and
>
> Praetora(not necessarily Praetors).
>
> at least one representative of the CP, but *not* the Pontifex Maximus, for
> several reasons.
>
> representatives of the citizenry who have demonstrated, by their actions,
> conduct and service that they are willing to serve the Res Publica in good
> faith, and with honor, to the best of their ability, and
>
> 1 new citizen who has demonstrated, clearly, intelligence, reason, some
> understanding of our Governmental structures and traditions, who may be
> either there as an observer, or able to discuss but not vote.
>
> I would absolutely *NOT* include:
> 1. Either consul, because both have demonstrated, at least to me, that they
>
> would obstruct any productive debate or action.
>
> The Pontifex Maximus, for the same reasons.
>
> When the Decemviri have come to their determinations, and have produced an
> action plan that would allow us to repair or reconstruct those elements in
> our Nation that are inhibiting our progress, I would want them to make
> their
> findings known to the full Senate, called into a legal session, or, if that
>
> is impossible because neither the Consuls nor the Pontifex Maximus and
> chief
> Augur will permit it, then to the populace in the main forum. I would hope
> that the Senate could then debate and vote to adopt these findings, and see
>
> to it that work on them begins, expeditiously. If, alternatively, we place
> the operations of the NR Government into the hands of the Decemvirate
> (which, I believe, would be historically accurate), then after presentation
>
> (and at least essential acceptance of) their findings, they should initiate
>
> the work to be done, and see it through to the point that it will continue
> regardless of the political agendas of any parties.
>
> Because events are so unkind as to keep occurring without giving me a
> chance
> to post my commentary, there is one more thing I find I must add. I am made
>
> *extremely* uncomfortable by vague comments, especially when those comments
>
> appear to have a threatening sub text, and most especially when the person
> who makes these unspecific comments about "some people" etc. may be placed
> in a position in which they can, arbitrarily remove what they consider to
> be
> threatening to that person or to his regime, without specifying either the
> nature of the threats, or, until the action has been completed the
> identities of the ones threatening the Res Publica. I, therefore, would
> like to see far more specific language concerning the following quote from
> the message posted earlier today by Senator and proposed Dictator Cn.
> Marinus.
>
> For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
> the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
> people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
> government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
> and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
> to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
> this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
> Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
> Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
> people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.
>
> this is the most difficult post that I have ever felt the need to write,
> and
> I devoutly pray that I never have to approach more difficult issues,
> especially since I have criticized the actions of the highest Magistrates
> and religious officials in our Res Publica (a thing I do *NOT* do lightly,
> I am torn, frankly, between my respect for some of the people about whom I
> have spoken, more harshly than I usually speak, and my loyalty to nova Roma
>
> ...and I find that my loyalty to my spiritual home must take priority over
> any personal preferences or feelings. If I seem hesitant, I am, because, in
>
> speaking so plainly, and at such length, I am not at all sure whether I am
> reflecting my evolution as a Nova Roman citizen, or being unforgivably
> presumptuous.
>
> With deepest respect,
>
> Valete,
> C. Maria Caeca, cives
>
>
>

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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Cn. Equitio Marino quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> My comments follow your letter.
>
>
> Salvete Quirites,
>
> It had been my intention to spend a year away from our forum when I
> left office at the end of last year. As things have transpired, my
> vacation from the forum has been cut a bit short.
>
> As most of you know, my name was put forward in the Senate a bit over
> a week ago as a possible dictator. The proposal came from Senator
> Perusianus of Italia, and was backed by a large number of other
> senators. There followed a vote of the Senate in which a clear
> majority of the senators voted to place me into this extraordinary
> office, but several senators withdrew themselves -- including some who
> had initially voted for me -- due to questions concerning the legality
> of the emergency session of the senate then in progress which had been
> called by the Tribunes.
>
> I have since taken the position of representing the interests of those
> senators who voted to invest me with the imperium maior, but I am NOT
> taking any oath of office until such time as the full Senate shall be
> properly called by both Consuls to vote on the question. (Reading
> that last sentence, I should also make clear that I require a proper
> majority vote of the Senate before I will take office.)
>
> For those among you who wonder if we need to take this step, I say
> yes, we do. For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
> the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
> people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
> government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
> and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
> to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
> this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
> Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
> Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
> people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.
>
> I hope these few paragraphs have clarified the situation for you. I
> will not be staying in the forum for now, but I will return as
> necessary to keep you informed. Please ask the Consuls to provide us
> all with a properly called session of the Senate to address the
> question that hangs over us all.
>
> ATS: As you are well aware, Marine, several of us have called for a
> proper meeting of the Senate in chambers. We must deal with a number of
> urgent matters, including the entry date of the tribunes into office, the IT
> issue, the appointment of praetores or some other means of filling this and
> other offices, the means of voting in our next main election, and, yes, the
> dictatura. I more or less echo part of C. Maria Caeca¹s take on this; power
> struggles are impeding the working of our government. It seems that we cannot
> hold an election or a Senate session without someone somehow vetoing another¹s
> actions, and that, too, possibly out of spite. Currently Nova Roma bears less
> resemblance to a proper government and more to a farrago of episodes from the
> Three Stooges (if you don¹t know who these were, google them; perhaps there
> are uTube videos). Curly, Larry, and Moe seem to be in charge, with maybe
> Shemp for good measure. The organs of governance are indeed in place, as they
> apparently were not prior to Vedius¹ dictatorship, but it seems that some of
> those organs are Klingon, and others are Bajoran, while there is little if any
> influence from a sensible Vulcan strain. The body politic is suffering from
> some form of organ rejection. Clearly some of our leaders appear to be
> working at cross purposes to the detriment of our Res Publica.
>
> Please, let us have an unclouded Senate session with no vetoes and no
> botched auspices. Forget about vacations; we have work to do.
>
>
> Valete,
>
> CN-EQVIT-MARINVS
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>

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

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus: Consulibus, Censoribus, Civibus Novae Romae Quiritibus et omnibus: salutem plurimam dicit:


QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QUIRITIBVS

The Collegium Pontificum having met in order to consider proposals offered by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus in regard to wedding ceremonies planned for die pristine Nonas Sextilias (4 August) to be performed in Oppidium Plotava, it has been determined that:

"The Collegium Pontificum allows Pontifex Cn.Cornelius Lentulus to stand in for and represent the Pontifex Maximus in the confarreatio wedding ceremony of these couples: T. Iunius Brutus and C. Lucilia Severa; Ap. Furius Lupus and L. Cassia Dives; M. Octavius Corvus and Ap. Flavia Gemella."

"The Collegium Pontificum also authorizes Sacerdos Iovis, M. Octavius Corvus, to stand in for the vacant office of Flamen Dialis in the same confarreatio ceremonies."


By this Decretum Pontificum de Sacerdotem Confarreationum Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Pontifex et Sacerdos Concordiae and M. Octavius Corvus Sacerdos Iovis shall serve as temporary sacerdotes confarreationum during the Sarmatian wedding ceremonies and shall represent to Collegium Pontificum to extend our blessings on these marriages of cultores Deorum Populi Novae Romae.

Gratulamur T. Iuni Brute et C. Lucilia Severa, Ap. Furi Lupe et L. Cassia Dives, M. Octavi Corve et Ap. Flavia Gemella, et optimam Fortunam vobis exoptamus.


Datum est die pristini Kalendas Sextilias in anno P. Memmio K. Fabio Buteone ccs MMDCCLXIII A. U. C.

Salvete Omnes,

Now that things have settled a bit in regards to the (currently)
abortive plan to install a Dictator, I feel it my right and duty to
comment. Once again, I do not address myself to the legality of the vote
that took place, as that seems to have been put to rest for the time
being. But the prospect of another vote is looming before us, and thus
it is incumbent upon us to weigh just what is happening to our Res
Publica, why it is happening, and what the ramifications of these
actions really are.

Bear in mind that the Constitution only allows for the appointment of a
Dictator in times of "emergency". What, precisely, is the emergency that
the Res Publica currently faces?

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus recently presented his own thoughts on the
matter. They are especially germane, of course, as he is the Dictator
Presumptive. It provides an insight into the true motives behind this
attempt, which are apparently much different than those that have been
mentioned hitherto.

Up until today, we were told that the problems that required a
Dictator's attention were all to do with the voting. The voting system
is broken, we can't hold elections, we need the website to be changed,
etc. etc. etc. But now we are told that it has nothing, it seems, to do
with any problem with the voting system! I quote the Dictator
Presumptive's own words on the subject:

> For those among you who wonder if we need to take this step, I say
> yes, we do. For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
> the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
> people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
> government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
> and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
> to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
> this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
> Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
> Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
> people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.

Read that paragraph carefully, Quirites. "People operating at cross
purposes." People "truly inimical to our Republic" who "keep us from
desperately needed Constitutional reforms", who don't want to "make Nova
Roma a place that people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of."

Does that last bit ring a bell? It should. Hearken back to Aprilis, my
friends, and the vote to change the Constitution, removing our status as
a sovereign nation. What else could that (deliberately?) vague reference
to "desperately needed Constitutional reforms" mean? That is the only
major effort that the faction behind this enterprise has recently
attempted and been thwarted in. And the people behind that effort are--
by purest coincidence, no doubt-- behind this effort as well.

Who among us doesn't want us to "ever get anywhere"? That's a straw man
argument beneath the dignity of such an august personage as Gnaeus
Equitius Marinus. What he really means to say is that there are people
who disagree with him (and the other members of his faction) on just
where it is we want to go, and how to get there. Many of us want us to
"get to" the point where we have a calendar stuffed with local meetings
every week. Many of us want to "get to" a place where practitioners of
the Religio get timely advice and answers to questions on how to set up
their own familial rites. Many of us want to "get to" a place where we
honor the Gods as a nation, and as individuals, we reach out to find
others who want to do the same, and we have the infrastructure that
encourages us to do so.

That is the true emergency, here, in their minds. The people disagree
with them, and that in and of itself constitutes an "emergency". How
dare we poor benighted fools stand up for what Nova Roma actually *is*?
They know ever so much better than we, and if they can't ram their
"desperately needed Constitutional reforms" down our throats with what
they had hoped would be a rubber-stamp vote, they're going to go around
the back end and force the issue through by appointing a dictator. I
warned against a back-door attempt to see this agenda done, and here it
is. Plus with the added bonus of the opportunity to toss out anyone with
whom they have a grudge!

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus states the case himself so very eloquently.
There are some people here who are "truly inimical to our Republic".
They stand in the way of the faction's agenda. How dare they defy the
Powers That Be! Since those who disagree can't be beaten in the cista,
then the only option is to cast them out. Not in line with the regime's
agenda? You are to be exiled. Proscriptions are the worst sort of legacy
that the institution of the Dictator leaves us from Roma Antiqua, and
here it is, reinstated in all its ignominy.

Is a difference of vision, a disagreement on matters of policy, truly an
"emergency" requiring a Dictator? NO!

We have the Dictator Presumptive's own words on the subject. I say he
cannot be more wrong. Dissent is *not* an emergency, holding opinions
contrary to a few in power is *not* grounds for summary dismissal, and
we do *not* need a Dictator.

What we need are Consuls and Senators who are up to the task of doing
their jobs. Not a Dictator who will remove all opposition to his
faction's plan to remake Nova Roma in their own twisted image.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

C. Maria Caeca Sta. Corneliae Aeterniae omnibusque in foro S. P. D.

thank you Aeternia, for your thoughtful (in many senses of that word)
comments, and most especially for refining and improving my ideas!

Vale et valete quam optime,
C. Maria Caeca

Well said, Pater patriae!

C. Maria Caeca

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

Actually, I tend to believe it has to do with the abortive attempt of
extortion by Piscinus to Cato and I because Piscinus felt we were the key
proponents that blocked the "religious reforms" of the constitution. That
failure forced Piscinus to resort to extortion, which failed to. And now
they have sunk so low to manufacture this tempest in a tea cup.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Now that things have settled a bit in regards to the (currently)
> abortive plan to install a Dictator, I feel it my right and duty to
> comment. Once again, I do not address myself to the legality of the vote
> that took place, as that seems to have been put to rest for the time
> being. But the prospect of another vote is looming before us, and thus
> it is incumbent upon us to weigh just what is happening to our Res
> Publica, why it is happening, and what the ramifications of these
> actions really are.
>
> Bear in mind that the Constitution only allows for the appointment of a
> Dictator in times of "emergency". What, precisely, is the emergency that
> the Res Publica currently faces?
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus recently presented his own thoughts on the
> matter. They are especially germane, of course, as he is the Dictator
> Presumptive. It provides an insight into the true motives behind this
> attempt, which are apparently much different than those that have been
> mentioned hitherto.
>
> Up until today, we were told that the problems that required a
> Dictator's attention were all to do with the voting. The voting system
> is broken, we can't hold elections, we need the website to be changed,
> etc. etc. etc. But now we are told that it has nothing, it seems, to do
> with any problem with the voting system! I quote the Dictator
> Presumptive's own words on the subject:
>
> > For those among you who wonder if we need to take this step, I say
> > yes, we do. For several years now our Republic has been sundered by
> > the efforts of people operating at cross purposes. Some of those
> > people are well-intentioned, and their voices will be welcome in any
> > government I might lead. Others are truly inimical to our Republic,
> > and their actions over the years clearly indicate that they seek only
> > to prevent us from ever getting anywhere. But the effect of having
> > this combination has been to keep us from desperately needed
> > Constitutional reforms, from sober and deliberative meetings of our
> > Board of Directors, and from being able to make Nova Roma a place that
> > people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of.
>
> Read that paragraph carefully, Quirites. "People operating at cross
> purposes." People "truly inimical to our Republic" who "keep us from
> desperately needed Constitutional reforms", who don't want to "make Nova
> Roma a place that people interested in Roma Antiqua want to be a part of."
>
> Does that last bit ring a bell? It should. Hearken back to Aprilis, my
> friends, and the vote to change the Constitution, removing our status as
> a sovereign nation. What else could that (deliberately?) vague reference
> to "desperately needed Constitutional reforms" mean? That is the only
> major effort that the faction behind this enterprise has recently
> attempted and been thwarted in. And the people behind that effort are--
> by purest coincidence, no doubt-- behind this effort as well.
>
> Who among us doesn't want us to "ever get anywhere"? That's a straw man
> argument beneath the dignity of such an august personage as Gnaeus
> Equitius Marinus. What he really means to say is that there are people
> who disagree with him (and the other members of his faction) on just
> where it is we want to go, and how to get there. Many of us want us to
> "get to" the point where we have a calendar stuffed with local meetings
> every week. Many of us want to "get to" a place where practitioners of
> the Religio get timely advice and answers to questions on how to set up
> their own familial rites. Many of us want to "get to" a place where we
> honor the Gods as a nation, and as individuals, we reach out to find
> others who want to do the same, and we have the infrastructure that
> encourages us to do so.
>
> That is the true emergency, here, in their minds. The people disagree
> with them, and that in and of itself constitutes an "emergency". How
> dare we poor benighted fools stand up for what Nova Roma actually *is*?
> They know ever so much better than we, and if they can't ram their
> "desperately needed Constitutional reforms" down our throats with what
> they had hoped would be a rubber-stamp vote, they're going to go around
> the back end and force the issue through by appointing a dictator. I
> warned against a back-door attempt to see this agenda done, and here it
> is. Plus with the added bonus of the opportunity to toss out anyone with
> whom they have a grudge!
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus states the case himself so very eloquently.
> There are some people here who are "truly inimical to our Republic".
> They stand in the way of the faction's agenda. How dare they defy the
> Powers That Be! Since those who disagree can't be beaten in the cista,
> then the only option is to cast them out. Not in line with the regime's
> agenda? You are to be exiled. Proscriptions are the worst sort of legacy
> that the institution of the Dictator leaves us from Roma Antiqua, and
> here it is, reinstated in all its ignominy.
>
> Is a difference of vision, a disagreement on matters of policy, truly an
> "emergency" requiring a Dictator? NO!
>
> We have the Dictator Presumptive's own words on the subject. I say he
> cannot be more wrong. Dissent is *not* an emergency, holding opinions
> contrary to a few in power is *not* grounds for summary dismissal, and
> we do *not* need a Dictator.
>
> What we need are Consuls and Senators who are up to the task of doing
> their jobs. Not a Dictator who will remove all opposition to his
> faction's plan to remake Nova Roma in their own twisted image.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
>


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

Salve et Salvete Omnes,

As an added thought, its been contemplated by myself who I feel is truly
capable of being in this Decimviri and being able to be just, fair, and able
to accomplish such a feat are the following individuals.


Cn. Iulius Caesar, Cn. Equitius Marinus, C.. Equitius Cato, T. Iulius
Sabinus, C. Poppilius Laenas, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, M. Cornelius Gualterus
Graecus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, and A. Tullia Scholastica, and M. Lucretius
Agricola.


More thoughts for on the table.


Vale,
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia


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

C. Maria Caeca Sta. Corneliae Aeterniae omnibusque S. P. D.

Well, Aeternia, some of the names on our list are the same, but I decided not to include a list of people I would like to see included, because it would be based entirely on what I think and have observed, and I feel there should be a broader perspective involved when choosing people for such a crucial mission.

Vale et valete bene,
C. Maria Caeca

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

Salve,

The date on which tribunes take office is an "urgent matter"? It will
somehow prevent the business of the Res Publica from functioning, if our
tribunes assume their offices on one day, as opposed to another? I would
ask you to please expand on this statement. How does this rise to the
level of a matter that requires the extraordinary step of appointing a
Dictator to rectify it? Can the Res Publica function without this
"vital" matter being addressed? Is it an "emergency"?

You mention "the IT issue". Can you please define what, exactly, you
mean by this? The expenditure of $10,000 on web infrastructure
development? Surely a Consul, with the backing of the Senate, can do so
without an extraordinarius being appointed. Perhaps the problem is that
we have Consuls who have not made the case persuasively enough (in which
case it must be asked, is it the case itself that is lacking?). Again,
what about this needs a Dictator? Surely a competent Consul can do this,
if it indeed needs doing (which is a point to which I do not accede, and
which doesn't seem to have been sufficiently discussed prior to being
abortively rammed through the process). If it's a good idea, the Consuls
can do it. If it's a bad idea, it won't get any better for having been
done by a Dictator.

Appointing praetores and other magistrates? What is wrong with holding
good, old-fashioned elections!? Again, I must ask; will the functioning
of the Res Publica come to a grinding halt without a Praetor in office?
Where are these appointees to come from? If they are willing, why don't
they just run for the office? If they are not, why would we possibly
want them to be appointed in the first place? Appointment by a dictator
is not objectively "better" than even an unopposed election. Why do we
need a Dictator to do this?

I don't think it's an unreasonable request to ask for a detailed
explanation of why, exactly, we need a Dictator to be appointed now,
with particular attention raised to what problems a Dictator can solve
that the regular process cannot at the present time.

"Get rid of obstructionist citizens who keep us from implementing our
agenda" is not, of course, a valid reason (although I'm sure there are
some on that side of the argument who might think otherwise, and indeed
the chief among them has already stated so publicly).

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae

A. Tullia Scholastica wrote:

>> ATS: As you are well aware, Marine, several of us have called for a
>> proper meeting of the Senate in chambers. We must deal with a number of
>> urgent matters, including the entry date of the tribunes into office, the IT
>> issue, the appointment of praetores or some other means of filling this and
>> other offices, the means of voting in our next main election, and, yes, the
>> dictatura.