| Subject: |
[novaroma] Group Subscriptions |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:49:29 -0800 |
|
Oppius Flaccus Severus Quiritibus S.P.D.
With all the new citizens that have joined recently, I wanted
to take the opportunity to mention the Religio Romana list.
If any of you have a serious, or even a minor interest
in the Religio Romana I'd encourage you to join the
'ReligioRomana@--------' list. As you know, new priests
and Flamens have been recently appointed and as our
numbers grow, so too shall our mighty Religio.
This list has been traditionally 'bursty' in activity, but
will be heating up more as it were in the coming months. Don't
miss your opportunity to see our great Religio take shape!
The ReligioRomana list is the perfect place to ask questions
about the Religio, reconstruction efforts, religious calendars,
deity worship, etc.
That being said, this list like other specialty lists in Nova Roma
is not for everyone and some of the topics discussed here,
especially those dealing with the reconstruction of the Religio
could be considered controversial.
So again; if you're interested, please join us!
Bene vale in Pace Deorum,
Oppius Flaccus Severus
Sacerdos Neptunus
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
| Subject: |
Whose arrogance? (was Re: [novaroma] Gratias Ago (a statement)) |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:41:46 +0100 |
|
Salve Praetor Maxime,
> In a message dated 2/4/2001 10:20:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bvm3@--------
> writes:
>
> << Having taken my oath of office as Plebeian Aedile, I wish to thank
> all of those plebeians who supported me, and by implication the
> ideals for which I intend to work as expressed in the ...... of which I
am a
> signatory.
> >>
> You know, your supreme arrogance baffles the Hades out of me. Why could
you
> not say: "Having taken my oath of office as Plebeian Aedile, I wish to
thank
> all of those plebeians who supported me?"
Disregarding whatever your opinion may be on political correctness, I think
you're about the last person to complain about supposed arrogance, quia
umquam dixisti:
<<.... Besides Roman slavery is should be looked on as indentured servitude.
A slave could be freed through ransom, the master's kindness, and could even
buy his own freedom, (if the price wasn't so dear.) You, BVM as a slave
would be some Patrician's pedagogue. You'd tutor his children in Latin and
Greek, teach them manners, almost baby-sit them. In return you'd be allowed
the run of the city, have 3 squares a day, and have the respect of your
Peers, and perhaps even other Patricians.>>
Don't get me wrong, this is not about the mention of slavery I'm quoting
this, but because you think that it is an obvious truth my paterfamilias
would have been a pedagogos for a patrician. I'm sure there are interesting
psychological motives behind this statement, but that's not my terrain. I
merely quoted this to point out: °this° is arrogance.
Et quoque dixisti hoc:
<< Q. Fabius Maximus: NEGAT He has much to still learn about respecting the
offices of the Magistrates. He can dislike the people who are in them, but
he should respect the office itself. >>
The much debated senate vote on the approval of me assuming the office of
Aedilis Plebis. You made a comment with your vote without even knowing me.
Your comments seemed very much a nice echo of Sulla's, with an added twist o
f generalization. I'm not angry over this anymore, it would be a waste of
energy btw, but this, I also find arrogance.
> That's all that was needed. No, you have to make political statement as
> well.
> I am willing to bet a denarii that the reason you were elected was on the
> strength of, what we call in the business, "Q" factor or name recognition.
> Your voluminous postings have made your name easily recognized on a
ballot,
> your political leanings
> are pretty much irrelevant. Recall that VI tribes had voting problems. Who
> knows what the final outcome would have been had they not? Continue to
> remember this, and get some humility.
And why did people vote for °you° in last elections? Perhaps the "Q" factor
might be taken litterally in your case.
Vale,
Sextus Apollonius Draco
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Question Regarding Rivial of the Religio Romano |
| From: |
"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:01:31 -0000 |
|
Salvte!
I have a question regarding current practices of the Religio Romano.
To my understanding, animal sacrifice was an vital part of the Roman
State Religion. Obviously such practices hardly fit in well with
modern sensibilities. Has an acceptable 'substitute' been found? I
know that the Romans were somewhat obsessive about ensuring that
traditional rituals were followed exactly, and that they believed the
slightest deviation would invalidate the prayer/ritual/etc. Roman
belief was less about Pietas (moral responsibility/ethics) and more
of a buisness contract between the worhsipper and the god/goddess (if
I give you this, what will you do for me?). If the
gods/goddesses/numina on occasion demanded blood sacrifice from the
ancient romans, it would seem reasonable that they would demand
noless from modern worhsippers. I guess what I'm really wondering,
is have you been able to comfortably reconcile the inability (or
unwillingness) to perform a key aspect of the Religio Romano (animal
sacrifice) with the (historical) requirement of rigid & absolute
ahderence to established rituals/rites/ceremonies?
Please understand I'm not being critical or judgemental of the
revival Relgio Romano, I'm simply curious on how it has been changed,
and how it's adherents feel about those changes... Well I hope my
question(s) made sense! :p
Valete!
C. Minucius Hadrianus
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] What role is there for women in NR? My wife wants to know |
| From: |
atheleas@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:33:03 EST |
|
In a message dated 2/3/01 5:11:15 PM Central Standard Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:
<< But I think you're asking more about real-world meetings (possibly because
I've had such on my mind lately), and here we are really exploring new
territory. >>
Okay, here's my question. I am a newish citizen and all the FAQ's seemed to
deal with BECOMING a member of Nova ROma. Is there a "so now you're a
citizen" page that I missed somewhere? Also, is Nova Roma going to become a
SCA-type of group that meets in the "real world", or is it just a cyber
nation? Also, I live in Illinois, is anyone here organizing real-world
events in my state?
Arria Rutilia Emapanda
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Humbling Thought |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:34:01 -0000 |
|
Salutem
Dixit Q. Fabius:
>I am willing to bet a denarii that the reason you were elected was on the
>strength of, what we call in the business, "Q" factor or name recognition.
>Your voluminous postings have made your name easily recognized on a ballot
Bene'st. Praetor Q. Fabius speaks the truth about the importance of the 'Q
Factor' in elections. This being the case, it seems to me that if only
certain citizens had refrained from posting voluminous replies to M.
Apollonius' voluminous postings, AND from appending his voluminous postings
to their own, M. Apollonius' "Q Factor" would arguably have been much
reduced...
...so perhaps M. Apollonius' success in winning the vote is due more to his
opponents than to his supporters?
Now there's a humbling thought, nonne, Formosane?
Vado.
<< Having taken my oath of office as Plebeian Aedile, I wish to thank
all of those plebeians who supported me, and by implication the
ideals for which I intend to work as expressed in the ...... of which I am
a
signatory.
>>
>You know, your supreme arrogance baffles the Hades out of me. Why could
you
>not say: "Having taken my oath of office as Plebeian Aedile, I wish to
thank
>all of those plebeians who supported me?"
>That's all that was needed. No, you have to make political statement as
>well.
>I am willing to bet a denarii that the reason you were elected was on the
>strength of, what we call in the business, "Q" factor or name recognition.
>Your voluminous postings have made your name easily recognized on a ballot,
>your political leanings
>are pretty much irrelevant. Recall that VI tribes had voting problems. Who
>knows what the final outcome would have been had they not? Continue to
>remember this, and get some humility.
>Q. Fabius Maximus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Edictum Propraetoris Britanniae |
| From: |
"Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:48:19 -0000 |
|
EDICTUM EX DOMO PROPRAETORIS BRITANNIAE
Nicolaus Moravius Civibus Britanniae plurimam salutem dat
Sciant praesentes et futuri quod Natalia Moravia pia et fidelis Legatus Regionis Britanniae Media per hoc edictum designata est. Etiam iubeo quod hodie felix dies natalis suis sit.
Nicolaus Moravius to the Citizens of Britannia gives many greetings
Be it known to all present and to come that the faithful and dutiful Natalia Moravia is by this edictum appointed Legate of Britannia Media. And today I wish her also a happy birthday.
Vado Propraetor et coetera.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Salvete Rogatores! |
| From: |
Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:08:06 -0500 |
|
Salvete!
Most invalid votes result from people submitting invalid voter codes. Since
these don't tell us what Tribe is involved, there's no way (apart from
citizens telling the list) of ascertaining how these relate to the number
of Tribes that did not vote.
Surprisingly few identifiable typos and consquent re-votes after our
announcements occurred. Quite a lot of the voter codes submitted were
totally implausible, which implies to me that a number of non-citizens who
were visiting the Web page "tried it on" by submitting votes.
The problem of ties has already been discussed pretty exhaustively. It is
more acute when (as in this election) you have low total numbers voting.
The relatively low turnout is probably the explanation for complete silence
from some Tribes.
As to why there were low numbers voting in this election, I guess the
explanation has three elements:
(a) voter fatigue after a heavy campaign in the run-up to the main
elections
(b) confusion caused by the to-and-fro over the legislation the
Tribunes originally put on the ballot
and
(c) the policy decision taken to replenish the ranks of the
Patricians when original Patricians drop out (which IMO is problematic)
means that quite a lot of our most active cives were and are disqualified
from voting in C. Plebis.
Valete,
M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
>
>> Six tribes (1, 5, 22, 23, 24, and 27) failed to cast a valid vote, five
>>tribes (2, 7, 9, 11, and 19) tied, and one tribe (35) specifically
>>abstained.>>
>Explain if you would what caused in your opinion the invalid voting so we
can
>fix this problem.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximius
Praetor Urbanus
<
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Question Regarding Rivial of the Religio Romano |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:29:44 -0800 |
|
Salvete C. Minuci et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Gunn [mailto:shinjikun@--------]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:02 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Question Regarding Rivial of the Religio Romano
Salvte!
I have a question regarding current practices of the Religio Romano.
To my understanding, animal sacrifice was an vital part of the Roman
State Religion. Obviously such practices hardly fit in well with
modern sensibilities. Has an acceptable 'substitute' been found? I
know that the Romans were somewhat obsessive about ensuring that
traditional rituals were followed exactly, and that they believed the
slightest deviation would invalidate the prayer/ritual/etc. Roman
belief was less about Pietas (moral responsibility/ethics) and more
of a buisness contract between the worhsipper and the god/goddess (if
I give you this, what will you do for me?). If the
gods/goddesses/numina on occasion demanded blood sacrifice from the
ancient romans, it would seem reasonable that they would demand
noless from modern worhsippers. I guess what I'm really wondering,
is have you been able to comfortably reconcile the inability (or
unwillingness) to perform a key aspect of the Religio Romano (animal
sacrifice) with the (historical) requirement of rigid & absolute
ahderence to established rituals/rites/ceremonies?
OFS: I'll just answer quickly here. The short answer to these
questions is 'depends on who you ask.' There are several issues
at stake: The 'official' policy of the current religio, the
legalities and related issues surround animal sacrifice at the
macronational level and last but not least; how we as individuals
interact with the gods in an appropriate and personal way. Sacrifice
is a subject that is raised every so often. In fact, there has just
been another recent thread started on the Religio list.
I'd strongly urge you to post issues and questions of this
nature to the 'ReligioRomana@--------' mail list.
There are a number of cives subscribed there that are experts
on the Religio and whom do *not* subscribe to the main
Nova Roma list.
That being said I've taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of
your post to the Religio list for further comment and discussion.
The list is public so you should be able to join right away.
Look forward to seeing you there!
Please understand I'm not being critical or judgemental of the
revival Relgio Romano, I'm simply curious on how it has been changed,
and how it's adherents feel about those changes... Well I hope my
question(s) made sense! :p
OFS: They absolutely do! See you on the Religio list!
Bene vale in Pace Deorum,
Oppius Flaccus Severus
Sacerdos Neptunus
Valete!
C. Minucius Hadrianus
|
