Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Apl 5-7, 2003

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9334 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9335 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9336 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Imperial Roman History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9337 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Imperial Roman History
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9338 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Veto (WAS: Re: Political Statements)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9339 From: casca@post.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: That Aedilian Declaration
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9340 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: To the Tribunes, Veto
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9341 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Respect (WAS: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9342 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9343 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9344 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9345 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9346 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9347 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9348 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9349 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9350 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9351 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9352 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9353 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9354 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9355 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9356 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9357 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Book on Ludi
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9358 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Books on Hellenistic Music
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9359 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9360 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9361 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9362 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9363 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9364 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9365 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9366 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9367 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9368 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9369 From: Jim Lancaster Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9370 From: Fortunatus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Praetores (was Greek fonts on Yahoo)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9371 From: Fortunatus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia affair
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9372 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9373 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9374 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9375 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia affair
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9376 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: _[Nova-Roma]_Nova_Roman_Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9377 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9378 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9379 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9380 From: Marcus Iulius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: The temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine (long note)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9381 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Neutrality and a Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9382 From: Alejandro Carneiro Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: MEGALESIA RACES (quarters)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9383 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9384 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine (long note)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9385 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9386 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9387 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Praetores (was Greek fonts on Yahoo)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9388 From: asseri@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: a book of sorts RE: Racial prejudice in Rome - scattered thoughts
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9389 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: The project of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9390 From: Marcus Iulius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Age of Empires-Rise of Rome Video Game match
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9391 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The project of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9392 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9393 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9394 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9395 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re:_[Nova-Roma]_Nova_Roman_Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9396 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Moderation Announce
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9397 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9398 From: curiobritannicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Ludi Cerealia Chariot Races
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9399 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9400 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9401 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9402 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9403 From: Daniel O. Villanueva Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9404 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9405 From: Daniel O. Villanueva Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Congratulatios to the two blues
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9406 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Congratulatios to the two blues
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9407 From: nathan guiboche Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9408 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9409 From: Alejandro Carneiro Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9410 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9411 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9412 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9413 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9414 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9415 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9416 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9417 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9418 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9419 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9420 From: deciusiunius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9421 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9422 From: deciusiunius Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9423 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9424 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9425 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Moderation Announce
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9426 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9427 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9428 From: rexmarciusnr Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9429 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9430 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9431 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9432 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Gladiatorial Link
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9433 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Moderation Announce
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9434 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: A short history of NR games
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9435 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9436 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9437 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9438 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9439 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9440 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9441 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9442 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9443 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9444 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9445 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9446 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9447 From: jlasalle Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9448 From: Lucius Equitius Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9449 From: jlasalle Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: j-j-j-jayhawks
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9450 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9451 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9452 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9453 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9454 From: A. Hirtius Helveticus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9455 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9456 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9457 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9458 From: Krysialtemus@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9459 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9460 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9461 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9462 From: A. Hirtius Helveticus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9463 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9464 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Electoral reform (and the Census)
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9465 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9466 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9467 From: Jim Lancaster Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9468 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9469 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: correction and resignation
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9470 From: Decimus Iunius Silanus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9471 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Multiple Runoffs
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9472 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9473 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: CERELIA LITERARY CONTEST - RULES
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9474 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9475 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9476 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9477 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9478 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Multiple Runoffs
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9479 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Fw: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9480 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: A short history of NR games
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9481 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9482 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9483 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9484 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9334 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

I would like to clarify a few points in this matter of the Megalesia Ludi.

First, I do not believe for the moment that the curule aediles or
their cohors have sought to curry favor with those citizens who oppose
the war in Iraq. I am myself an American who is deeply opposed to my
country's invasion of Iraq; indeed, sufficiently opposed to have spent
much of this past morning standing with a sign in my hands in front of
the Federal Building in my city, demanding an end to the war. And I
was one who questioned the decision to "sanitize" the Ludi.

Second, I believe that the curule aediles and their cohors acted in
good faith in hope of alleviating any possible discomfort on the part
of their fellow Quirites. I have not long been a civis novaromanus,
but I have read the archives here and I see no reason in that history
to question their motives or integrity.

Third, I disagree with the decision of the curule aediles because I
believe that deviating from the mos maiorum in any matter involving
the religio romana except for the gravest of reasons is contrary to
the principles on which Nova Roma was founded and on which it recruits
citizens.

Fourth, I respectfully request that the curule aediles consult the
pontifices and augures before they implement their decision so as to
avoid any possible, UNINTENTIONAL impietas in the matter of the
Megalesia Ludi.

Fifth, I beseech my fellow civites to recall their dignitas and say
nothing in the heat of the moment that they may regret on calmer
reflection. Our magistrates and their cohortes are not hostes; their
contributions to Nova Roma are worthy of our deep respect.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9335 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

I am grateful for the suggestions on Greek fonts. I have nearly a
dozen of them that I can use locally, but I have been unable to
determine if Unicode UTF-8 is available for a Mac running OS 9.1. I
know that OS X is Unicode-compliant, but I'd like to avoid having to
install a system upgrade just to use Greek characters in the
occasional email. Any suggestions?

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9336 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Imperial Roman History
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia
of Roman Emperors" website:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/

This is one of the best historical websites I have ever seen and it is
supervised by a very distinguished editorial board consisting of some
of the foremost experts on imperial history. It includes biographies
of the emperors with extensive bibliographies, prosopographical
studies of imperial dynasties, accounts and maps of imperial battles,
a virtual catalogue of Roman coins, translations of primary sources,
and a plethora of links to other sites dealing with imperial history.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9337 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Imperial Roman History
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia
of Roman Emperors" website:

http://www.roman-emperors.org/

This is one of the best historical websites I have ever seen and it is
supervised by a very distinguished editorial board consisting of some
of the foremost experts on imperial history. It includes biographies
of the emperors with extensive bibliographies, prosopographical
studies of imperial dynasties, accounts and maps of imperial battles,
a virtual catalogue of Roman coins, translations of primary sources,
and a plethora of links to other sites dealing with imperial history.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9338 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Veto (WAS: Re: Political Statements)
In a message dated 4/5/03 8:20:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, sceptia@...
writes:


> As in Title IV, Section A, chapter 5.a, Aediles can "Issue those
> edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of public games and
> other festivals and gatherings";
>

Salvete Tribunes
No, there is no danger to the Constitution, so you vetoing the declaration
simply because you disagree with it would be impossible. However, since the
statement also changes Nova Roma's stance from one of neutrality, to one of
the Peace nations, even though the Aediles claim that was not their
intentions, goes against Consules and the Senate's and by inference the
People's will.
Therefore it is a statement of perduellio against the stated wishes of the
Nova Roman
government. And that would give you grounds for the intercessio.
However, I hope that the Curule Aedile will withdraw the statement of his own
accord now that he understands the seriousness of the situation.

FABIVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9339 From: casca@post.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: That Aedilian Declaration
Salve, Cives

I fully agree with the spirit that Manius Constantinus Serapio gave in his message, a portion of which, which reflects my own attitude, I shall leave in.

I am an American who who served twenty+ years in the Army on active duty, but I cannot feel the same for this conflict as I did the years I spent in SouthEast Asia.

I think this stems from the fact that this time it is not me who is involved, but a son in the Air Force, a son-in-law in the Army, and - by extension - my daughter who is married to that son-in-law.

I pray that this is over quickly, with as little loss of life to any side as possible. I've seen people hurt and killed. Ladies and Gentlemen, believe me, war sucks.

Valete,

Gaius Ursus Casca
Roman Citizen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manius Constantinus Serapio" <mcserapio@...>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 11:18:24 -0000
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] That Aedilian Declaration

>In Nova Roma there are American, Australian, British, French,
> Spanish, Italian and German citizens. In my opinion this declaration
> is meant not to hurt any of these citizens which are in some way
> involved.
>
> So, please, if a person tell you he wants peace, don't think
> immediatly he's making a political statement.
>
> BENE VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Qvaestor> >
>

--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9340 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: To the Tribunes, Veto
In a message dated 4/5/03 8:20:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, sceptia@...
writes:
Salvete et Salve L·DIDI·GEMINE·SCEPTI

> But in this case, I ask again: Is it possible to use a veto against a
> Will Declaration (And I mean a FREEDOM FOR SPEECH case)??
>

Tribune,
We are not suppressing freedom of speech here. The Aedile is entitled to his
beliefs.
I agree with his personal stance BTW.
However, when he changes the very nature of the games to express this belief,
he has let his
personal opinion become a political statement. There is no longer any
individuality involved. He bends all of Nova Roma to his will, by changing
the games' nature, even their
very purpose, to something he wants to do.
We elect officials to handle things for us, since we personally do not wish
to do them for various reasons. By electing him, we assume he will carry
things out in the time honored tradition. He has not. Therefore we are
requesting that he be forced to do so.

FABIVS



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9341 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Respect (WAS: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration)
A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
citizens & peregrines, greetings.

> > Senator Sinicius Drusus suggested that respect
> must be
> > earned by one's actions.
>
> Actually, that was me.

My apologies. I seem to have a habit of confusing one
person with another if the one's nomen has the same
initial as the other's cognomen - I believe I did it
once with Senators Cassius Iulianus and Iunius
Palladius.

> And I agree completely - but that degree of respect
> (at least in my
> opinion) is not something that can be gratuitously
> leveraged to silence
> opposing opinion.

Quite so, and I hope I am correct in reading the
Aediles' appeal for respect to mean not that they wish
on that account to avoid criticism, but that the
criticism itself be respectful, as I am sad to say it
has not altogether been, though I don't think you are
among those who have crossed that pomerium, and it
seems in any case that decorum now prevails on all
sides.

> I would have to disagree here. Showing respect to
> someone who does not
> deserve it is something that I consider deeply
> dishonest, and alien to
> my concept of dignity. I note that the above is
> often stated as an
> example of a proper way *for others* to behave, but
> I cannot say that
> I've ever seen it practiced in reality.

I can well understand this feeling, and indeed I
agree; however, since I am not persuaded that there is
any person who does not deserve respect, it brings me
back to my belief that to show respect to all is quite
consonant with dignity. This is not, of course, to say
that it is not appropriate to respect different people
to different degrees; merely that I do not feel it
appropriate to show disrespect to any.

As for the practice of one's own preaching, I take
your point, and I hope that if anyone catches me
straying from my own precepts they will tell me so -
respectfully, of course!

> I must strongly disagree with this. Respect does not
> equal duty; I am no
> more able to give my respect where I do not feel it
> than to pull the
> moon down from the sky. Likewise, I am just as
> unable to withhold it
> when I do feel it. There are laws that I must obey
> and forms that I must
> follow when I'm dealing with an elected official in
> an official context;
> this does not mean that they have my respect.

Well, naturally I would not seek to tell anyone that
he must feel what he does not feel, though I am of the
view that to observe forms of behaviour which do not
accord with one's own feelings is not hypocrisy
provided that it is done in the hope of transforming
one's inner state by means of one's outer actions; or
to put it less vaguely, one may shake the hand of a
man to whom one is well-disposed, but one may also
shake the hand of one to whom one is ill-disposed in
the hope that by shaking his hand one may come to feel
better disposed toward him.

There is an apsect of my argument which I think I did
not put across very well, which is this: here is our
nation, and here are the people, who are sovereign. We
respect the nation; this is the same as saying that we
respect the people. The will of the people is the
force on which the nation is based, and by which law
is made and officers elected. Thus we respect the will
of the people. This is exemplified by the fact that in
the ancient republic a veto could not be employed
against a legislative proposal once the polls had
opened and the voting had begun, because once the
voting had begun the people had begun to express its
will, which was superior to the force of any
magisterial veto - the swarming mass of voters heading
for the urns was like Zeus as he nodded, in that
famous passage of the Iliad whose chapter and verse I
forget.

So the law and the magistrates are effectively
expressions of the will of the people, and in that
capacity are to be respected as the people are to be
respected, and as indeed the republic itself is to be
respected. If, say, one of our Consuls went to meet
the diplomatic representative of another nation, we
would regard any disrespect shown to him as an act of
disrespect to our nation and ourselves; but he is no
less a representative of the nation at home that
abroad, and it is appropriate that we should show him
the same respect that we would expect from a foreign
ambassador.

Ambassadors and heads of state can, however, disagree
extensively, as we have seen in the last few months of
international events (and while I am sad to say that
there has been shameful disrespect shown in many of
these encounters, most people would regard this as
aberrant rather than proper, and rightly so).
Similarly there is no reason why we cannot both
respect and disagree with our own representatives.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9342 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator & Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla and to all citizens & peregrines,
greetings.

> I tend to keep the past two previous replies in my
> post to help maintain the flow of the conversation.

Since you raise this question (or perhaps it was
Minucius Scaevola who raised it in the first instance,
I forget), I hope you don't mind my saying that while
it is helpful to be able to refer back in a
conversation, I personally find it more helpful when
the relevant parts of previous messages are integrated
into the body of the message, as indeed you yourself
often do, rather than simply reproduced at the bottom.
Indeed I often don't notice when they are reproduced
at the bottom, as I generally assume when I reach a
signature that the message has ended, and so I stop
reading.

Of course I leave myself open to the objection that as
a student I can spend time editing and integrating
other people's messages in my replies which working
people cannot spare! But I thought since there was a
question as to what people find more helpful, I'd
chime in to state my own preferences.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9343 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
citizens & peregrines, greetings.

> (1) A person shall not assemble, develop,
> manufacture, possess, deliver,
> offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful
> telecommunications access
> device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> deliver, offer to
> deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device
> intending to use those
> devices or to allow the devices to be used to do
> any of the following or
> knowing or having reason to know that the devices
> are intended to be used
> to do any of the following:
>
> (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or
> destination of any
> telecommunications service.
>
> (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit,
> retransmit, acquire,
> intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption,
> decryption,
> transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or
> interception of any
> telecommunications service without the express
> authority or actual consent
> of the telecommunications service provider.

This does sound worrying, but I'm having trouble
penetrating the jargon - I don't know whether it's
legal jargon or telecommunications jargon. Who are you
suggesting might be considered to be a "person [who
might] assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" a
telecommunications device? And what would constitute a
fulfilment of clauses a) or b)? I can't see any
mention anywhere of a person not being permitted to
*use* a telecommunications device which would do a) or
b), so which bit of this makes it illegal to cast an
anonymous vote?

Apologies for being so slow on the up-take.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9344 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Unicode UTF-8 for Macs running OS 9.1
Ave, G. Iulius Scaurus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 07:31:53AM -0000, Gregory Rose wrote:
>
> I am grateful for the suggestions on Greek fonts. I have nearly a
> dozen of them that I can use locally, but I have been unable to
> determine if Unicode UTF-8 is available for a Mac running OS 9.1. I
> know that OS X is Unicode-compliant, but I'd like to avoid having to
> install a system upgrade just to use Greek characters in the
> occasional email. Any suggestions?

Since you have the fonts installed, I believe that simply setting your
browser to UTF-8 as the character encoding should do it. The Greek list
(Anamathetes) that I'm currently participating in has a number of people
using Macs; if the above setting doesn't handle the problem, I'm willing
to post your question there if you ask.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat.
All of them wound, the last one kills.
-- In reference to the hours; old inscription found on clocks
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9345 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Salve, A. Apollonius Cordus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 07:51:35PM +0100, A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:
> A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
> citizens & peregrines, greetings.
>
> > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop,
> > manufacture, possess, deliver,
> > offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful
> > telecommunications access
> > device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> > deliver, offer to
> > deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device
> > intending to use those
> > devices or to allow the devices to be used to do
> > any of the following or
> > knowing or having reason to know that the devices
> > are intended to be used
> > to do any of the following:
> >
> > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or
> > destination of any
> > telecommunications service.
> >
> > (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit,
> > retransmit, acquire,
> > intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption,
> > decryption,
> > transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or
> > interception of any
> > telecommunications service without the express
> > authority or actual consent
> > of the telecommunications service provider.
>
> This does sound worrying, but I'm having trouble
> penetrating the jargon - I don't know whether it's
> legal jargon or telecommunications jargon.

All legal, from what I can see, although the terms come from the telecom
and security domains.

> Who are you
> suggesting might be considered to be a "person [who
> might] assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
> deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" a
> telecommunications device?

To strip it down to the essentials, there are several important effects:
under 1(b), any programmer who writes, e.g., a piece of software which
anonymizes an address - and voting software definitely fits that
description - is guilty of violating that law. Nova Roma, by possessing
that piece of software, would also be in violation. Further, anyone who
runs a firewall, router, address translator (NAT/Masquerade), or shares
their connection with other machines is also in violation. (BTW, a piece
of software is a "device" in the legal meaning; see the PGP/Zimmerman
case where it's defined as a "munition" as well.)

There's lots of discussion on these issues on RISKS, Bugtraq (security
forum), EFF.org, and many other sites concerned with privacy and
security.

> And what would constitute a
> fulfilment of clauses a) or b)? I can't see any
> mention anywhere of a person not being permitted to
> *use* a telecommunications device which would do a) or
> b), so which bit of this makes it illegal to cast an
> anonymous vote?

This would mostly reflect on Nova Roma receiving such communications.
Unless you yourself run a router... which you may, unknowingly.
Earthlink, for example, has been including firewall/NAT functionality in
their "home networking" package for a few years now; I wonder how
they're coping with this suddenly-created exposure. If you're an
Earthlink customer, note that you're exposed as well; if you use the NAT
feature and live in one of the affected states, you're definitely in
violation.

> Apologies for being so slow on the up-take.

Not at all. It's a highly complex issue, one that requires a good
understanding of technology and legal issues involved in it. The effect,
however, is as real as a hammer.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Imperium et libertas.
Empire and liberty.
-- Benjamin Disraeli; from Cicero and Tacitus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9346 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
-----Original Message-----
From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
>
>
>“Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
>it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.“
>
>You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
>
I think they would be insulted by reference to 'the race card'.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9347 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
-----Original Message-----
From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
>
>
>“Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
>it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.“
>
>You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
>
I think they would be insulted by reference to 'playing the race card'.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9348 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:23:57PM +0100, me-in-@... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
> >
> >
> >?Norman Schwartzcopf would currently occupy Colin Powell's position if
> >it hadn't been for the Darkskins playing the race card.?
> >
> >You don't think anyone would be insulted by that either, right?
> >
> I think they would be insulted by reference to 'playing the race card'.

<mildly> Exactly who are "they", pray tell?


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dulce bellum inexpertis.
War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it.
-- Pindaros
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9349 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
-----Original Message-----
From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
>
>Yes - except that the racist in his case was not a random entity as in
>the above paragraph but a group described by the dismissive term
>“Pinkskins“. That implication - “pink skin == racist“ - was precisely
>what I found offensive.
>
The reference, if you need it spelt out in its entirety was that Romans like most ancient cultures were more dismissive according to cultural difference than to physical appearance and would discriminate according to behaviour whereas the mark of a racist would be [for example] to accept the reality of different-hued persons in high position while continuing to deny them equal access to the same facilities, as was the case in South Africa and in parts of the USA when world-renowned highly payed entertainers such as Sammy Davis Jr. found themselves debarred from staying or even drinking in the same hotel paying them a fortune to entertain. In the common situation it has been those with brown skins debarred from sharing with those of pink skin, though one might make a case for Papa Doc's Haiti or present Zimbabwe as a case of the reverse. As I have never seen anyone with white skin even on a slab with a Formaldhyde drip attached, nor of black skin outside of certain Indian demons and gods and those inaccurate terminologies are overloaded with prejudicial baggage, it seemed appropriate to use the more accurate neologisms Pinkskin, Brownskin and Goldskin as a generality.

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9350 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Nova Roman Controversy
Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

I too have read the joint declaration of the Aediles that has caused much more controversy than I think is truly necessary, and in reaction to the endless posts that keep showing themselves in this forum, I feel that I must put in my thoughts on the situation.

First of all, I think Aedile Marcus Scribonius made the best point I have seen on this subject so far when he said, "Can't we all just enjoy the Ludi?" I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if that is of concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of the involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our esteemed magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were elected by the populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly, rather than being forced to accept their positions.

Secondly, I would like to point out that we are all here of our own free will. If you see something going that badly within *our* Republic, what are you going to do to rectify the situation? Step into the forum and merely complain that you dislike the current status quo? What does that do? If something is that wrong, when the time comes, put your toga on, step into the forum, and put yourself up for election. The people will voice their opinion, and if it is not in your favor, step back into your place and let the elected magistrates do their jobs. They were elected for a reason, let them serve as best they can.

Third, I have to ask: Must we always publicly criticize every action of a magistrate we disagree with? Honestly, Quirites, I have to say that this is unnecessary. I think we all have good enough command of language to take up our disagreements privately, and offer subsequent suggestions for better actions. But what I am curious to know is whether we have the maturity and the restraint to do so. But only time will show me whether or not we have this.

In any case, such is my stance.

Valete,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"In domo maiorum vivimus."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9351 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
> (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
> offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access
> device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to
> deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those
> devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or
> knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used
> to do any of the following:

> (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
> telecommunications service.

They've just described every router and every host connected to the
Internet that runs a relatively recent operating system. Every
Cisco router has NAT; every Windows machine has it (which means that
Microsoft violates this law several thousand times daily).

This is a monumentally stupid law.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9352 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)
Ave!

I do understand. Personally what I do not find helpful are long sig lines and sig lines that are longer than the post. As I noted to C. Municius. Posts are far more important than sig lines (espeically if you already know who you are responding too, and it is clearly identified for other readers.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Snipping (WAS: Greek fonts on Yahoo)


A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator & Consular L.
Cornelius Sulla and to all citizens & peregrines,
greetings.

> I tend to keep the past two previous replies in my
> post to help maintain the flow of the conversation.

Since you raise this question (or perhaps it was
Minucius Scaevola who raised it in the first instance,
I forget), I hope you don't mind my saying that while
it is helpful to be able to refer back in a
conversation, I personally find it more helpful when
the relevant parts of previous messages are integrated
into the body of the message, as indeed you yourself
often do, rather than simply reproduced at the bottom.
Indeed I often don't notice when they are reproduced
at the bottom, as I generally assume when I reach a
signature that the message has ended, and so I stop
reading.

Of course I leave myself open to the objection that as
a student I can spend time editing and integrating
other people's messages in my replies which working
people cannot spare! But I thought since there was a
question as to what people find more helpful, I'd
chime in to state my own preferences.

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9353 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Ave, Sp. Postimus,

I do not think you truly understand the issue here. Its not about the Ludi,
its about the Religio. Which is the official Religion in Nova Roma. When
it is tampered with, those citizens who actively believe and perform the
duties of the Religio take it with utmost seriousness. One simply cannot
change areas they do not believe about the Religio to suit their own needs.
This does not happen with Judiasm (the Religion I practice). It should not
happen to the practice of the Religio Romana. The Religio Romana should be
practiced in its pure form as it was practiced in the time of the ancients.
Of course this is just my opinion, but by reading your post, you did not
seem to understand the big picture here and the big picture is that the
Religio Romana is why Nova Roma was founded in the first place.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@...>
To: "Main List" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy


> Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Salvete,
>
> I too have read the joint declaration of the Aediles that has caused much
more controversy than I think is truly necessary, and in reaction to the
endless posts that keep showing themselves in this forum, I feel that I must
put in my thoughts on the situation.
>
> First of all, I think Aedile Marcus Scribonius made the best point I have
seen on this subject so far when he said, "Can't we all just enjoy the
Ludi?" I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if that
is of concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of the
involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our esteemed
magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were elected by the
populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly, rather than
being forced to accept their positions.
>
> Secondly, I would like to point out that we are all here of our own free
will. If you see something going that badly within *our* Republic, what are
you going to do to rectify the situation? Step into the forum and merely
complain that you dislike the current status quo? What does that do? If
something is that wrong, when the time comes, put your toga on, step into
the forum, and put yourself up for election. The people will voice their
opinion, and if it is not in your favor, step back into your place and let
the elected magistrates do their jobs. They were elected for a reason, let
them serve as best they can.
>
> Third, I have to ask: Must we always publicly criticize every action of a
magistrate we disagree with? Honestly, Quirites, I have to say that this is
unnecessary. I think we all have good enough command of language to take up
our disagreements privately, and offer subsequent suggestions for better
actions. But what I am curious to know is whether we have the maturity and
the restraint to do so. But only time will show me whether or not we have
this.
>
> In any case, such is my stance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>
> "In domo maiorum vivimus."
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9354 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salve Senator Sulla,

Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed understand the issue. I myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with the Ludi, but I also cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to respect the opinions of some of the citizens. But I don't think you understand what I tried to say. I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's actions, why not first take it up in private before bringing things into the public forum. While I cannot say that this course of action was not taken, I just want to make the point that the course of action would have most likely been more effective if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there is that much of a problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not take it, after bringing it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the Collegium Pontificium. The Religio is their responsibility.

Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think, was trying to please everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I think he tried to respect some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those who were not pleased, and move on.

Vale,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

"In domo maiorum vivimus."
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9355 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Ave, Sp. Postumius,

The problem is how can a man tamper and corrupt the Religio. I am
activately waiting for our Pontifex Maximus to return from his trip to
comment on this considering that our only Augur has asked for a veto, and
another Pontiff has voiced strong displeasure. I hope that the Magistrates
who are entitled to veto this "declaration" might for the sake of the
Religio veto this measure before the CP are summoned, but if not I will wait
for the Pontifex Maximus to intervene, and ask him privately via email to
intervene.

This attempt to dilute the Religo's practices and rituals is a corruption of
the offical Religion of Nova Roma, in my opinion. And as I have spoken out
when I have felt that members of Xtianity have been criticised, I am now
speaking out just as vehmently when I see the Official Religion in Nova Roma
being corrupted by men who do not have the knowledge, authority or
relationship with the Gods.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy


> Salve Senator Sulla,
>
> Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed understand the issue. I
myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with the Ludi, but I also
cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to respect the opinions of
some of the citizens. But I don't think you understand what I tried to say.
I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's actions, why not first
take it up in private before bringing things into the public forum. While I
cannot say that this course of action was not taken, I just want to make the
point that the course of action would have most likely been more effective
if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there is that much of a
problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not take it, after bringing
it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the Collegium Pontificium. The
Religio is their responsibility.
>
> Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think, was trying to please
everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I think he tried to respect
some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those who were not pleased,
and move on.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sp. Postumius Tubertus
>
> "In domo maiorum vivimus."
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9356 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Em Sáb, 2003-04-05 às 19:55, Marcus Octavius Germanicus escreveu:
> > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
> > offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access
> > device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to
> > deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those
> > devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or
> > knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used
> > to do any of the following:
>
> > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
> > telecommunications service.
>
> They've just described every router and every host connected to the
> Internet that runs a relatively recent operating system. Every
> Cisco router has NAT; every Windows machine has it (which means that
> Microsoft violates this law several thousand times daily).
>
> This is a monumentally stupid law.
>

I was just writing the exact same thing in another window. I don't think
there is a single operating system (post-98) without NAT possibility.

The Yahoo polls also fall 7under that law: voting is anonymous.

Manius Villius Limitanus



--
Michel Loos <loos@...>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9357 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Book on Ludi
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites:

Here is a review of Anne Mahoney's new book on ludi from the Bryn Mawr
Classical Review:

(From BMCR 2003.04.07)

Anne Mahoney, Roman Sports and Spectacles. Newburyport, MA: Focus,
2001. Pp. xiv, 119. ISBN 1-58510-009-9. $14.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Peter Aronoff, Marymount School
(Peter_Aronoff@...)
Word count: 1221 words
-------------------------------

Anne Mahoney presents a solid sourcebook on Roman entertainment, which
will prove helpful to teachers and to students. After a brief
introduction and overview, M. divides the material into seven chapters:
Origins and Foundations; Gladiators; Chariots and Circus Ludi; Theater,
Greek Athletics, and other events; Women and Sports; Politics and
Sports; Attitudes about Sport and Spectacles. Each of these chapters
offers translations of source material on the relevant topic; M. also
gives the various selections brief introductions to set the context and
introduce the authors. Following this, there is an outstanding
glossary, a one-page chronology of key events, two maps (the Roman
empire circa 69 AD and the city of Rome), and a short guide to further
reading. Finally, the book contains an index of sources and a good
subject index. It is unfortunate that the book does not include any
images, but this is probably necessary to limit the volume's cost.

The author suggests that this volume originated as translations of
specific passages for students in various classes, and I believe that
will remain its main use. What I mean by this is that individual
libraries or teachers will want to have a copy for reference, for
producing lectures or classes, and to refer students to. I don't think,
however, that many classes would require that students have copies of
their own. The scope of the volume is rather limited. By comparison, a
volume such as Jo-Ann Shelton's As the Romans Did covers sports and
spectacles, but also religion, family life, military matters,
government, etc. In addition, the nature of sourcebooks in general
means that the volume will not be especially helpful to novices outside
of other readings or a classroom context. So, for example, unless a
student had already heard a lecture on gladiators or read a synthetic
study (such as Balsdon or Hopkins), she would not be able to do much
with the eleven pages of selections on gladiators in this work. This is
not a criticism of M.'s work (and for the record the same goes for
virtually any sourcebook), but it does help to clarify who will benefit
most from this book and in what context. With that in mind, I will keep
strengths and weaknesses for students and teachers in mind as I look in
more detail at the book. (I should say explicitly that the book would
be appropriate for high-school and college students; I have both in
mind.)

The introduction is generally clear and accurate, but at times it is
overly brief or simplified. M. provides a general overview of Roman
sports and festivals, as well as of Roman history and social
organization. She very usefully describes the types of sources that the
volume contains, and she helpfully lays out the names and dates of all
the major Roman festivals. On a few crucial points, however, the
presentation is overly simplified or outright confusing. When comparing
Greek and Roman life and sports, M. wants to explain why Roman citizens
did not participate in sports as Greeks did. Part of her explanation is
that Greek citizen-soldiers needed the exercise: "Greek citizens fought
in the armies of their city-states" but "Rome, on the other hand, had a
standing army of professional soldiers" (viii). This is simply not true
for the early Roman Republic, and so it does little to help explain why
Romans and Greeks differed over who might participate in athletics.
Later in the introduction, M. seems to say that senators and knights
formed one class within Roman society. Although she might mean only
that they were the "haves" as opposed to the remaining Roman
"have-nots", again this would likely mislead students.

The heart of the book is clearly the translated source material, and M.
offers an excellent range of texts. Most of the sources focus on the
late Republic and early Empire, but this is entirely reasonable since
these periods provide the richest source material and are generally of
greatest interest to beginners. M. chooses material from literature,
letters, and inscriptions; she also includes material from Roman and
counter-Roman (read 'Christian') authors. I suspect that most readers
will find their favorites here: Ennius on auspices and chariot games;
Ovid on how to get a date at various games; Propertius on the delights
of Spartan women (sic); a graffiti tagger on the studliness of Celadus
the Thracian.[[1]] The most significant gap that leaps to mind is
Perpetua's vision of herself as a gladiator. This brief selection would
have added a great deal to the chapter on women and sports, which is
otherwise basically male sexual fantasies about women as gladiators or
(equally male) fantasies about sex between women and gladiators. It
might have also been nice to have Nietzsche's favorite selection from
Tertullian (Christians in heaven watching the tortures of the damned
like Romans at the games watching the torture of Christians). This
selection would helpfully counter-balance the other quotations of
Tertullian and also remind us that savagery is not missing from early
Christian authors.

The quality of the translations is very good. Although I did not
systematically check all of the material, those I did check were
excellent. In addition, the sources now read well as English, and M.
has done a nice job in a few cases (especially Petronius) of
reproducing the characteristic feel of the text. It is all too easy for
collections of translated source material to become entirely
homogenous, so that Ennius, Ovid, Cicero, and inscriptions all speak in
the same, contemporary English voice. M. chose to translate poetry as
prose, but again that seems reasonable for such a collection.

My only complaint in this regard is that M. does not give specific
references to the texts she uses for any given quotation. She says only
that she has used the Loeb, the Oxford Classical Text, or occasionally
the Teubner text (112). This doesn't really help since in many cases a
text appears in all three of these series. So, for example, when I read
the first selection of Ennius (page 24), I initially thought M. had
mistranslated "pictis e faucibus currus" so that the chariots rather
than the starting gates were painted. After looking around a bit,
however, I am inclined to think that she is translating here from O.
Skutsch's edition of the Annales (which reads for the phrase in
question "pictos e faucibus currus"). M. singles out for mention,
however, Warmington's Loeb volumes Remains of Old Latin, which include
Ennius, and she uses Warmington's numeration of Ennius rather than
Skutsch's. To compound matters, the translation of the rest of the
lines follows Warmington rather than Skutsch.[[2]] This may seem an
overly small concern, but, first, it really does matter whether the
chariots or the gates are painted and, second, teachers really should
know what they are giving their students. I noticed this point (largely
by accident), but I suspect that specialist readers of other authors
could raise similar concerns.

All in all then, I would repeat that M. has done teachers and students
a great service here. This volume will serve both groups well, whether
for producing lectures and classes or for offering further readings. In
more specialist contexts, teachers may want to check the source
material in question, but on the whole the volume will provide ample
and trustworthy background for this aspect of Roman life.

------------------
Notes:


1. Surely I am not the only reader to wonder if Celadus himself wrote
the four inscriptions in question.

2. The key is the final line of the quotation (91 Warmington, 82
Skutsch). At line end, there is a phrase which reads either "ora
tenebat" (Warmington) or "ore timebat" (Skutsch). M. translates
Warmington's version here.


-------------------------------
The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a complete
and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.
It also contains information about subscribing and unsubscribing from
the service.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9358 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Books on Hellenistic Music
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

This seems to be the day for good reviews from the Bryn Mawr Classical
Review. Here is the review of two works on ancient Greek music (the
reviewer is Dr. William Johnson, to whose website I posted a link a
few days ago):

(From BMCR 2003.04.08)

M.L. West, Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992. Pp. 410. ISBN 0-19-814975-1. $39.95.

Egert Po+hlmann, M.L. West, Documents of Ancient Greek Music. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2001. Pp. 222. ISBN 0-19-815-223-X. $65.00.

Reviewed by William A. Johnson, University of Cincinnati
(william.johnson@...)
-------------------------------

A quiet revolution has been astir in the study of ancient Greek music
over the last generation. Two landmark events stand out from among many
contributions. First is the publication in 1992 of Martin Litchfield
West's Ancient Greek Music (hereafter AGM). This book is the best on
the subject--period. The book is also my nomination for the best book
in the field of Classics in the 1990's. Breathtakingly learned,
brilliantly written, AGM puts forward a fresh compilation and analysis
of nearly all aspects of ancient music in 400 pages, and in such an
easy and modest way that the non-specialist is readily deceived into
thinking this all old hat. But it is hardly that: instead, a radically
clear and embracing view of how thousands of scattered and often arcane
details in ancient poetry, ancient philosophy, technical texts, papyri,
inscriptions, ethnomusicology, and elsewhere can be combined so as to
yield a sense of what ancient music was like and how it changed over
time. Read with attention and care, AGM not only will teach the reader
a great deal about music but also will transform fundamentally the ways
in which one views the archaic and classical "poetry" that we all know,
but seldom deeply appreciate, to have been mostly sung. Ancient Greek
Music was not originally the book under review here, but some remark
has seemed necessary since the book came out to surprisingly little
notice among all but specialists. Despite the Oxford University Press
imprint, the book was not included in BMCR or Classical Review, nor was
it reviewed in any leading Classics journal, excepting a review that
appeared almost a decade after the event.[[1]] I can't for the life of
me figure out why. It's certainly not the case that music is or should
be of marginal interest to ancient Greek culture or those who study
that culture. Nor is my own evaluation of AGM idiosyncratic. Of the few
reviews written, one (Beeman) begins, "after several attempts to write
this review I finally gave up trying to do justice to this prodigious
work"; another (Feaver) concludes, "West's book is a monument of
classical and musicological achievement and will serve as the standard
reference work on the subject of Greek music for generations to come."

One of the reasons that AGM is such an important book has to do with
West's thorough and integrated use of the ancient musical
documents--particularly papyri and inscriptions--in producing a
convincing and rounded view of changing musical tastes in the ancient
Greek world. That leads us to the second landmark event in the study
(or rather reconstruction) of ancient Greek music in the last
generation, which is the publication of a surprising number of new
fragments of ancient Greek melody. Since E. Po+hlmann's standard 1970
edition of the musical documents, Denkma+ler altgriechischer Musik, the
number of musical fragments has ballooned, from 35 to 61, including
several published even since the compendious 1992 catalogue included in
AGM. This miracle of new evidence, mostly from the sands of Egypt, is
what occasions the new edition, Documents of Ancient Greek Music
(hereafter DAGM), a welcome joint effort by Po+hlmann and West.[[2]]

DAGM contains for each fragment the Greek text, the Greek musical
notation (normally written above the Greek text on the papyrus), a
reasonably thorough apparatus criticus, a transcription into modern
staff notation, and a brief, technical commentary. Photographs are
included of documents without readily accessible plates. These are
fragmentary documents, and mostly very small fragments, with all that
entails. The Greek texts bristle with the usual uncertainties that
accompany fragmentary literary texts; the melodic notation is yet
worse, since there is far less guidance where the reading on the
papyrus or stone is uncertain; the commentary by necessity must range
into a host of technical considerations involving, for instance, sticky
details of rhythm as well as of music and text. The commentary, in
particular, is not for the uninitiated. There are, to be sure, tidbits
that will appeal to all. We find how typical tragic exclamations like
<greek>I)W/ MOI</greek>, <greek>E)\ E(/</greek>, and <greek>I)W\
PO/POI</greek> might be sung (DAGM, 22ff). The infectiously brilliant
writing of West's AGM is not generally in evidence here, but there are
moments, such as the amusing history of the stele containing the
Seikilos epitaph (DAGM, 90). But this is not bedtime reading; rather, a
major new edition of a group of fragments important for our
understanding of antiquity.

DAGM contains a fundamental re-appraisal of editio princeps and
subsequent discussion of each fragment. There is hardly a page without
a fresh suggestion (excepting West's recent POxy publications, which
are understandably only lightly reedited). The re-appraisal extends to
long-known fragments. The 1992 re-editing by Annie Be/lis of two Paeans
to Apollo from the Athenian Treasury at Delphi (Corpus des inscriptions
de Delphes III), itself a quantum-leap improvement in our understanding
of these important texts, is already improved in many places. We now
finally have an edition worth the name for one of our earliest
fragments of Greek music, a badly damaged papyrus fragment of
Euripides' Iphigeneia at Aulis (Pap. Leiden inv. P. 510). The detailed
reexamination of the manuscript tradition of Mesomedes (DAGM, 105ff) is
a good example of how fundamentally these editors have reevaluated even
the best-known documents. West and Po+hlmann have left no stone
unturned in the collecting of all known (or rumored) pieces. With a
recent spurt of publications West has now, apparently, exhausted the
musical fragments in the Oxford papyrus collections;[[3]] the editors
arranged to acquire advance notice of the most recent publications
elsewhere; and they managed to secure permission from Martin Sch<F8>yen to
include an as-yet unpublished papyrus in his personal collection.

The editing is often bold. Most of that appears to be due to Martin
West (judging from the app. crit. ), and those familiar with West's
editing style will not be surprised. The text abounds with brilliant or
plausible suggestions, but at times the judgment seems to tip towards
over-boldness, a tendency to raise plausible speculation from apparatus
to the text, particularly as regards uncertain musical notes. For most
fragments, the edition is based on autopsic re-collation against the
original by one or both editors, and in those cases one must nod to the
editors' expert judgments. But at times the editors appear to be
dependent on photographs, and yet remain surprisingly unhesitant to
correct the autopsic examination of the original editors. This is not
necessarily a bad thing. I note with embarrassment that the editors
correct an error that crept into my edition of the Yale musical papyrus
that I published in 2000.[[4]] Still, autopsy remains an important
issue, and yet the editors are not always clear whether they have
personally examined a piece or not. An example: the edition
incorporates three readings proposed by West in ZPE 92 (1992) 5 for
Pap. Zenon 59533 (DAGM No. 8, p. 41), but neither in the ZPE article
nor in DAGM is it made clear whether these are based on photograph or
personal inspection. At least one (reading <greek>]E-WN</greek> for
<greek>]DWN</greek> in line 3) seems implausible, judging from the fact
that one expects a gap between <greek>E</greek> and <greek>WN</greek>
if West were correct (this musical papyrus text otherwise shows
noticeable gaps between every syllable in the text). Our evaluation of
such details would be helped if we knew in every case whether the
editors' judgment were based on personal inspection, or on the
photograph available to us all.

With that caveat, I wish quickly to return to accolade. The technical
mastery necessary to achieve such an edition is hard to overstate, and
we are indeed very fortunate to have two such expert guides through the
many difficulties of poetic, metrical, rhythmic, and musical
interpretation. Indeed, as I reflect on the situation, perhaps one
reason that West's 1992 book, AGM, has received such shameful lack of
attention may have to do with the technical and terminological hurdles
that the reader eventually faces in the study of ancient music. AGM is
a marvel of instruction, but a great deal of hard work is required if
the reader is to absorb the whole. The book both boasts and succeeds in
taking the musicless reader by small steps into an understanding of the
fundamentals of ancient instruments, music, musical culture and theory,
but eventually the reader finds him- or herself in a rather strange
world where pitch notation, as opposed to the comfortable transparency
of modern notations, resembles an alphabetic soup; where moving up
along the notes of a particular key seems weirdly akin to deciphering a
subway map (see AGM, 257); and where we learn to think clear an
explanation like, "in other words, with either a conjunct or a disjunct
tetrachord above Mese^" (AGM, 221)-- just as, for a Classicist (but
hardly anyone else), it is clear to speak about an aorist participle or
an absolute construction. Now in the case of AGM, the reader can skim
or skip the most technical sections, and still get a lot from the book.
For DAGM, full command of the technical details and terminology is
routinely assumed.

DAGM will stand as the basic edition for the Greek musical documents
for a long time. For specialists, of course, DAGM is a fundamental
resource. For most non-specialists, AGM will remain the book to turn
to. But everyone with a serious interest in Greek poetry will, I hope
and expect, want to sing or play the transcribed melodies (inadequate
as that is for any reconstruction, and fragmentary as they are), and to
read through the Greek text and (at least parts of) the commentary to
get a sense of how the music relates to the "poetry" and the culture.
Indeed Po+hlmann and West's DAGM makes clear what sort of mastery of
detail, and what seamless integration between literary, papyrological,
epigraphic, and musicological evidence, West's earlier book, AGM,
proffers. The next time someone says that we don't really know anything
about ancient Greek music, pluck these two books off the shelf and
suggest some self-improvement.


------------------
Notes:


1. D. Feaver, AJPh 122 (2001) 436-440. A capsule review by Jon
Solomon did appear in CW 89 (1995-6) 493-4; and an interesting essay
("A Distant Music") by Otto Steinmayer in Arion 3rd ser. 4 (1996-7)
223-236 used West's book as a launching point. William O. Beeman, an
anthropologist and professional opera singer, wrote a review for the
on-line journal Didaskalia (volume 1, issue 5, December 1994). A couple
of reviews have appeared in musicological journals: Andre/ Barbera,
Notes 50 (1994) 1359-1361; E. Kerr Borthwick, Music and Letters 74
(1993) 562-4. I have not been able to see the review in the
curiously-named periodical 1/1, The Journal of the Just Intonation
Network 8 (1994) 2-3, by John H. Chalmers Jr.

2. E. Po+hlmann, Denkma+ler altgriechischer Musik Nuremberg 1970.
Counts and definition of "fragments" as in DAGM, 6.

3. "Texts with Musical Notation," POxy 55 (1998) nos. 4461-7;
"Sophocles with Music(?). Ptolemaic Music Fragments and Remains of
Sophocles (Junior?), Achilles," ZPE 126 (1999) 43-65.

4. William A. Johnson, "Musical Evenings in the Early Empire: New
Evidence from a Greek Papyrus with Musical Notation," JHS 120 (2000)
57-85 = DAGM no. 41. The error is the fifth note of col. i, line 2 (in
my hand transcripts I too read backwards gamma for phi; I thank Robert
G. Babcock for kindly re-confirming this reading on the papyrus).
Examples of bold readings elevated to the text are the two instances of
chi read at col. i, line 4. Note that in the re-editing of this papyrus
the alignment of column two has gone awry in DAGM: the left of this
column is flush, i.e. there is no indentation at col. ii, lines 8-10,
or ekthesis at col. ii, line 3.




-------------------------------
The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) contains a complete
and searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.
It also contains information about subscribing and unsubscribing from
the service.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9359 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salve,
The statement hit me on two fronts, first of all as
Senator Sulla has stated it is offensive to the
Religio to change the Games. They are for the Gods not
for the entertainment of men. (Though men may find
entertainment in our offering of games to the Gods.)

The Second is far more personal and it concerns the
accusation of "bombing inocent civilians". That is a
slur against my Macronation and my Family.

The United States has spent Billions of Dollars
developing accurate weapons, and these weapons are far
more expensive than the old fashioned dumb bombs. If
the United States wanted to target civilians we could
have sent wave after wave of bombers armed with dumb
bombs and after 17 days half the population of Baghdad
would be dead or injured.

Last week, during a fight for a bridge over the
Euphrates the Iraqis were using Iraqi civilians as
human shields. A woman broke away from the Iraqi
forces, and was shot in the back by the soldiers of
her country. She lay wounded in the middle of a
battle. An American Captain risked his life under fire
from the Iraqis to drag that civilian to safety. This
is one of the people that the mindless accusation of
"bombing inocent civilians" is aimed at.

I Am a Vetran. My Son is a Vetran. Both of my brothers
are Vetrans. My Father was a Vetran. All Three of his
brothers are Vetrans. One of My Grandfathers was a
Vetran who lost a leg in the battles to liberate Roma
from the Nazis. My Nephew is serving in Iraq now. The
United States has never fought a war that member of my
family didn't serve in.

When you slander the United States Military you are
also slandering my family. Over the years I have
learned to ignore the ignorant accusations from
mindless mobs howling in the streets, but I damn well
don't intend to ignore something that is insulting to
my Family, to my Macronation, and to the Religio in
offical anouncements from Magistrates of Nova Roma.

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@...>
wrote:
> Ave, Sp. Postumius,
>
> The problem is how can a man tamper and corrupt the
> Religio. I am
> activately waiting for our Pontifex Maximus to
> return from his trip to
> comment on this considering that our only Augur has
> asked for a veto, and
> another Pontiff has voiced strong displeasure. I
> hope that the Magistrates
> who are entitled to veto this "declaration" might
> for the sake of the
> Religio veto this measure before the CP are
> summoned, but if not I will wait
> for the Pontifex Maximus to intervene, and ask him
> privately via email to
> intervene.
>
> This attempt to dilute the Religo's practices and
> rituals is a corruption of
> the offical Religion of Nova Roma, in my opinion.
> And as I have spoken out
> when I have felt that members of Xtianity have been
> criticised, I am now
> speaking out just as vehmently when I see the
> Official Religion in Nova Roma
> being corrupted by men who do not have the
> knowledge, authority or
> relationship with the Gods.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
>
>
> > Salve Senator Sulla,
> >
> > Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed
> understand the issue. I
> myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with
> the Ludi, but I also
> cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to
> respect the opinions of
> some of the citizens. But I don't think you
> understand what I tried to say.
> I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's
> actions, why not first
> take it up in private before bringing things into
> the public forum. While I
> cannot say that this course of action was not taken,
> I just want to make the
> point that the course of action would have most
> likely been more effective
> if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there
> is that much of a
> problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not
> take it, after bringing
> it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the
> Collegium Pontificium. The
> Religio is their responsibility.
> >
> > Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think,
> was trying to please
> everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I
> think he tried to respect
> some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those
> who were not pleased,
> and move on.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sp. Postumius Tubertus
> >
> > "In domo maiorum vivimus."
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9360 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:37:11PM +0100, me-in-@... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
> >
> >Yes - except that the racist in his case was not a random entity as
> >in the above paragraph but a group described by the dismissive term
> >?Pinkskins?. That implication - ?pink skin == racist? - was precisely
> >what I found offensive.
> >
> The reference, if you need it spelt out in its entirety

Not particularly. I had read it previously, and understood the point you
were making. My objection was not to your main point - with which I
mostly agree, by the way - but with the racism of the term "Pinkskins".

> As I have never seen anyone
> with white skin even on a slab with a Formaldhyde drip attached, nor
> of black skin outside of certain Indian demons and gods and those
> inaccurate terminologies are overloaded with prejudicial baggage, it
> seemed appropriate to use the more accurate neologisms Pinkskin,
> Brownskin and Goldskin as a generality.

So... these so-called "more accurate" terms are *not* overloaded with
prejudicial baggage? I'm so glad you told me. Certainly, now that you
have said so, it _must_ be true. Oh, one last thing: by whose authority
was this fiat issued? I'm sure that I will quake at the name; it must be
some overarching, multicultural, multinational organization to whom all
must pay heed and reverence.

Unless you have something of substance to say, I won't belabor this
issue any further; I believe I've made my point clearly.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?
-- Said by the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna to encourage his son Johan when
he doubted his ability to represent Sweden at the Westphalian peace conference.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9361 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
In a message dated 4/5/03 2:32:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, postumius@...
writes:


> I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if that is of
> concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of the
> involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our esteemed
> magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were elected by the
> populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly, rather than
> being forced to accept their positions.
>
>

Which was why they were protested publicly. Indeed I and the Pontifix
Maximus had cooperated with the Aediles for the Megalesia, we asked the
Priestess to compose a ritual,
and we encouraged participation.
However had the Aediles made us privy to their plans beforehand we would have
told them
they were in violation of II I of the Constitution:
"No elected official shall use their elected powers or political status
as a means of working to undermine, remove, or replace the Religio Romana as
the State Religion of Nova Roma."

By ignoring the actual "spilling" of blood, they are undermining the
significance of the rituals and the purpose of the Ludi.

III "No Citizen or Magistrate shall actively encourage public disrespect for
the Gods of Rome, or actively advocate the non-practice of the Religio"

By making a political statement and by-passing the College they are in
violation
of this clause.

Truthfully had the Aediles approached the College beforehand, the PM, the
State Augur, and the Pontiffs would have said no. And this sad spectacle
could have been
avoided. But they did not. I was hoping that the rebuke was enough. It
wasn't.
So now the College will have to take other steps.
Thank you for your questions, Postumius.

Valete

FABIVS





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9362 From: Spurius Postumius Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Sp. Postumius Senatori Fabio Maximo S.P.D.

Salve Quinte Fabi,

> Truthfully had the Aediles approached the College beforehand, the PM, the
> State Augur, and the Pontiffs would have said no. And this sad spectacle
> could have been
> avoided. But they did not. I was hoping that the rebuke was enough. It
> wasn't.
> So now the College will have to take other steps.

So now, as I see it, you are stating a precedent that the Collegium Pontificium should be consulted on any action that involves the Religio. If that is the case, I must say this is absurd. Insofar as Nova Roma is concerned, a majority of the work the Aediles will do concerns the Religio. If the Aediles have to consult the Collegium on every action, I do not see anything getting done by either the Collegium Pontificium nor by the Aediles.

I cannot say that you did not take this course of action, but when your disagreement with the declaration was decided upon, why not take it to the Aedile privately? If he had felt himself to violate any part of the Religio or the Constitution, being a reasonable man, do you not think that he (and his cohors, which I seem to forget) would retract the declaration? When it became apparent that some of his prior edicts were unconstitutional, did he not retract those? So why would he act otherwise?

In any case, I think the rebuke would have been enough, had it been done in more quieter venues. Because it was done in a very open forum, it could not have had the chance to have been enough. So now, sadly, the College just may have to take other steps. Perhaps, not to question the integrity of the Collegium, they may first privately request a retractment of the declaration, before going public about it.

Optime Vale, Senator,

Sp. Postumius L.f. A.n. Tubertus, Citizen of Rome
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9363 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Drusus
You have My respect....
and prayers for a safe return of your nephew.If you
will, E-mail us the name of your nephew so we can lift
him up in prayer. We to have brothers in this war and
remember them daily.It is very unfortunate that we
have lost a cousin just two days ago [Russell
Rippetoe]. May his loss be not in vain.
Brutis


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9364 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Salve Romans!

I would like to start a series on the leading personalities and events of the Roman Republic, especially during it's last 100-150 years or so. It would end with the death of Augustus and the passing of his powers to Tiberius, the final act in the establishment of the Monarchy. You can write about individual people, the legal or constitutional issues involved or something else that interests you about his period in Roman history. If you are interested please e-mail me at spqr753@... and tell me who or what you would like to write about.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9365 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Ave,

How long and how thorough do you want it? Do you want it for beginners or a more advanced audience?

Respectfully,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Gallagher
To: Nova-Roma ; Novaromaeagle
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle


Salve Romans!

I would like to start a series on the leading personalities and events of the Roman Republic, especially during it's last 100-150 years or so. It would end with the death of Augustus and the passing of his powers to Tiberius, the final act in the establishment of the Monarchy. You can write about individual people, the legal or constitutional issues involved or something else that interests you about his period in Roman history. If you are interested please e-mail me at spqr753@... and tell me who or what you would like to write about.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Curator Differum


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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9366 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-05
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Barry Miller,
He's a specilist in Chem/Bio Warfare defense, so I'm
pretty sure He's near Baghdad, since that is where
they are most worried that the Butcher would use the
weapons. We haven't heard from him since the first day
of the war.

My Condolances on your loss, it will not be in vain.
Freedom isn't free. Libertas does not bestow her
blessings on nations who's sons are unwilling to pay
the ultimate price for them. We owe a debt of
gratitude your family and to all the families who have
paid a terrible price to secure her favors.

--- "G.Porticus Brutis" <celtic4usa@...> wrote:
> Drusus
> You have My respect....
> and prayers for a safe return of your nephew.If you
> will, E-mail us the name of your nephew so we can
> lift
> him up in prayer. We to have brothers in this war
> and
> remember them daily.It is very unfortunate that we
> have lost a cousin just two days ago [Russell
> Rippetoe]. May his loss be not in vain.
> Brutis
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
> and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9367 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Salve L. Cornelius Sulla

How about both? (asking to much?) I would like to include this in the
classroom edition of the Eagle that we are going to be publish. Middle
school/ high school? but mainly for NR. The size should be about 1000-1500
words. It can be edited or we can divide it in to more that one parts. More
important figures of the Republic would be given more space same with the
issues. More important issue more space. Do you have anyone or any issue in
mind?

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus



----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle


> Ave,
>
> How long and how thorough do you want it? Do you want it for beginners or
a more advanced audience?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Gallagher
> To: Nova-Roma ; Novaromaeagle
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 8:48 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
>
>
> Salve Romans!
>
> I would like to start a series on the leading personalities and events
of the Roman Republic, especially during it's last 100-150 years or so. It
would end with the death of Augustus and the passing of his powers to
Tiberius, the final act in the establishment of the Monarchy. You can
write about individual people, the legal or constitutional issues involved
or something else that interests you about his period in Roman history. If
you are interested please e-mail me at spqr753@... and tell me who or
what you would like to write about.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Curator Differum
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9368 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Thank you my friend
and we will remember only the good times.
I'm sure Spec.Miller will be home very soon, because
it does looks like the end is near for Sad-damn.
I do love the photo's of the Abrams running over his
statue.
Brutis


--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...> wrote:
> Barry Miller,
> He's a specilist in Chem/Bio Warfare defense, so I'm
> pretty sure He's near Baghdad, since that is where
> they are most worried that the Butcher would use the
> weapons. We haven't heard from him since the first
> day
> of the war.
>
> My Condolances on your loss, it will not be in vain.
> Freedom isn't free. Libertas does not bestow her
> blessings on nations who's sons are unwilling to pay
> the ultimate price for them. We owe a debt of
> gratitude your family and to all the families who
> have
> paid a terrible price to secure her favors.
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9369 From: Jim Lancaster Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
Salve Iulius Scaurus,

>What Greek noun is being translated here as "races"? I don't have a
copy of Dio Cassius at home, so I can 't immediately check (and the
English of Loeb-series translations often has a quaintly antiquarian
flavour to it). There are several Greek words that could be
translated as "race": _ethnos_ (a people with a shared culture),
_phulon_ (from a common race, class, or tribe), _genos_ (kind,
origin), _gonos_ (of a common biological descent), _rhiza_ (from a
common root or origin), or _sperma_ (of a common origin or descent).
_Phulon_ is one word that sometimes has racial connotations similar to
the racial-prejudice sense of the word, as in such such prejoratives
as _pamphulos_ (of mixed/mingled races, half-breed, perhaps even with
resonances of the loathesome Nazi term "Mischling"). One of the
problems with translation is that the English word "race" has a much
wider semantic field than some of the Greek words it translates. <

Indeed. I was at work and hadn't my copy handy when I posted, so I resorted
to the frankly fabululous on-line edition, which is just the translation.
78.6.1a uses the word _ethnos_. You are correct, I myself confused the
notional qualities in trying to figure out how he was "Gallic" - in the
sense you define above, it would be his adoption of Gallic culture in the
guise of his caracal, the hooded cloak he made popular and which stung him
with a lasting nickname.

The more deeply I read into Roman history, the more similarities I see with
people today (as opposed to the entirely "alien society" aspect Dr.
McCullough flogs us with). Dio appears no different, in fact, from my own
father: he had a complete shorthand of all the good and bad characteristics
of every ethnic/racial group, and the jokes that went with them. It appears
to me the Romans were just as bad as anyone in terms of "He's from Pontus,
watch the silver," but perhaps better than modern society in that skin-color
didn't seem pre-deterministic in the way it is in, say, my neighborhood of
South Central Los Angeles. But I admit, I want to do more research on this
before I commit.

I hope you didn't think I was arguing or disputing your point; I don't
generally do that on this list. I like to add, from my admittedly narrow
range of research. I realize most people are more interested in the later
republic and Julio-Claudian period. I enjoy your erudition mightily.

Salve,

CN IVLIVS STRABO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9370 From: Fortunatus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Praetores (was Greek fonts on Yahoo)
T Labienus Fortunatus C Iulio Scauro SPD

First, let me take this opportunity to thank you for your highly
informative and interesting posts. I wish that I had more time in which
to participate in some of the conversations they've sparked. It was
especially nice to be able to agree with someone about the Gracchi's
reforms for once.

> In historical Roman law a praetor urbanus could not adjudicate a
> violation of the law by a citizen unless an actio was presented
> by a citizen (in effect, all criminal actiones were private actiones).
> From something said in this thread I infer that a Novaroman praetor
> can take action against a citizen for a violation of law without an
> actio being presented by another citizen to that praetor. Is this
> inference correct?

The inference is technically correct. There is nothing in Nova Roman
law that prevents a praetor from acting against a civis through the use
of an edictum, even without a petitio from another civis. The closest
we have to such a law is the last sentence of the preamble of our
constitution, which states:

"As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova
Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable,
as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture,
religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of
ancient Rome."

So far, to my knowledge, no Nova Roman praetor has deviated from the mos
maiorum in order to act against a civis who has violated Nova Roman law
without a petitio*. However, it is my experience that praetores are
often (and erroneously) called upon to perform investigations into
possibly illegal actions taken by various cives. I think this is due to
a misunderstanding on the part of many of the role the praetores played
in Roma Antiqua, and therefore of the role they ought to play in Roma
Nova. That is, many think that the praetores constitute the law
enforcement arm of the government, when they are in fact the
government's law experts and judges.

*There is one major exception to this observation. The praetores do
routinely take action by fiat, sine petitio, against cives who violate
the main list's rules of conduct. They are given the authority to do
this in general by the constitution, which gives them imperium and the
ability to issue edicta, and by Lex Octavia de Sermone, which
specifically appoints and empowers the praetores as the moderators of
all of Nova Roma's official electronic fora. I personally view this as
an exception to the rule set forth by the mos maiorum.

Vale
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9371 From: Fortunatus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia affair
Salvete Francisce Apule Quiritesque

> sorry for my little absence, I had a complicated surgical operation
> to a tooth yesterday and I'm not so fine.

I hope your surgery went well, and that you have a rapid and full
recovery. I will light some incense to Aesculapius on your behalf.

> First of all the Joint declaration is by me and my Cohors. My
> Illustres colleagues Aediles didn't sign it, so please don't consider
> them.

Thank you for clearing this up. There had been some confusion about this.

> I want to explain that we haven't said to not want organize the
> games. We say we organize the games but without violent scenes.
> What is bad here? Do you want blood? Why?
> The blood and violence are not needed and obliged parts of the games.
> Why do you don't want quiet Ludi?

I don't want quiet ludi because, to my knowledge, the ancient ludi
weren't quiet. And, the ludi were, and are, sacred games. Nova Roma's
reason for being is the Religio Romana, and I want to see every effort
made to properly honor the Gods.

> Illustrus Labienus, Illustrus Maximus and everybody, have you readen
> the histories of Venationes? Is this game so different from the game
> of the last year? Is it less funny? Is it against the Gods because it
> hadn't blood or murders? Do you think chariot races without accidents
> could offense the Gods? Do you think Naumachiae without blood hurt
> our Res Publica?
> I thing not, however I thing a bloodly and tragical murder of
> gladiator could hurt a citizen.

I'm rather torn on the subject, actually. Our ludi are already
bloodless and without real risk or sacrifice (except for the sacrifice
of time and effort put into them by the aediles and their staff--a
sacrifice which I, and hopefully the Gods, do appreciate). And, most of
our ludi have been held in a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion, with
entertainment value and humor in mind. Therefore, it doesn't seem all
that much of a step to remove the fictional blood from them. And, it
may be that virtual games are not particularly satisfying to the Gods in
any case.

On the other hand, the ancient ludi were bloody affairs, and we should
make every effort to recreate our sacred games in accord with the mos
maiorum as best we can, given the limitations imposed by the nature of
our community. Also, a number of our more knowledgeable and respected
cives, pontifices and an augur among them, have spoken against
non-violent ludi. Indeed, when our augur calls for a veto, I must, at
the very least, give careful consideration to the issue.

> I don't think we didn't respect the declaration of neutrality of Nova
> Roma.

I agree with you. I think that Q Fabius' suggestion that you've
committed perduellio is a bit much. However, I also think that you may
have taken the neutrality policy in an unintended direction. Caeso
Fabius and I have recognized Nova Roma's international character and
determined that Nova Roma will not take a side in the current US-Iraq
war. We have not asked that any of Nova Roma's internal functions be
changed.

Indeed, it would be best if we treated everything with a "business as
normal" attitude, as this is the course which is most congruent with
neutrality. Otherwise, any change in our ways of doing things will very
likely be construed by some as implying a political stance with regard
to the war. This is obviously the case with this issue.

> I don't say we are pro or against the war. I say I'm for the eternal
> idea of the peace. Is this political? Is this against our declaration
> of neutrality?

No, it is not. In fact, I feel that it is a laudable attitude.
However, we magistrates must occasionally put aside our personal
feelings in order to properly do our duty to Nova Roma. Therefore, I
ask you to carefully and dispassionately consider whether or not you
think you are properly fulfilling your duty to Nova Roma and the Gods of
Rome with your policy of non-violent ludi. If, after careful
reflection, you still wish to continue with that policy, I will not
immediately veto you.

That said, if the Collegium Pontificum as a whole officially asks me to,
or if our augur reports ill omens with regard to the ludi because of
your policy, I will use my veto and officially request that you and your
staff do your best to provide us with ludi which are in keeping with
those we have seen to date. I hope you realize that I won't do this for
personal reasons. Nor do I think at all badly of you and your staff. I
do sympathize with your feelings, and agree that war is a truly horrible
thing.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9372 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
Spectati cives omnes

I really had enough!

Nova Roma is neutral in this war and for this reason I Held my tongue
and kept quiet. But I am at present reading clear statements of
supports to the United States. I don't blame americans for supporting
their own government.
I would like to show them that what they think is not at all shared by
a Nova Roman citizen.

Being Italian I have a precise and strong idea of what a terroristic
bombing of civilian is. The americans bombed countless times civil
targets in Italy in WWII. Schools, as in Gorla near Milan, hospitals
nearly everywhere, monuments, the list of monuments hit in Bononia
where I live would be extremely long, funeral processions for the deads
of american bombing, as in Vicenza.

Moreover, Rome was an "open town", so liberated is not correct. In any
case, I would like to remember that thousands of Italians fought
against the american invasion, and from the point of view of honour and
military history, Germans were Italy's ally, so please keep the
rhetoric of Liberation to your private feelings.

If matter of liberation is, it's our business. Moreover, without any
reason other than military occupation, americans are at present
occupying Italy with plenty of military installations totally out of
control from our government.

I see american war against Iraq totally unjustified, but this is a
private statement of little importance, spectate Druse, I think the
deprived uranium is a weapon like the ones American say Saddam uses;
but even this is of little importance.

I respect your ideas, and even american soldiers, but not everybody is
interested in reading about your support to a war which I strongly
oppose, and not because I am in favor of peace, but because I think USA
are behaving against right and simply for economic imperialism.

I respect your feelings, but as we are neutral, please keep your ideas
to the private.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononia
Italia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9373 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
Spectati Cives Omnes

I didn't know Honorable Sulla is a Jew. And surely because I know too
little of Judaism, I thought until now that nothing could be farther
from Roman Religion than Judaism.

On the contrary, Hon. Sulla's statement about Roman Religion is of the
most accurate correctness. So I won't add anything and simply invite
everybody to read it again.

I shall simply say: yes, many people in Nova Roma don't like this war,
many other don't like war in general, but this has nothing to do from a
point of view of Religio with that idea. A religious action can't be
changed, never and in the slightiest.

If against the war, or in favor of peace, everybody could take any step
he likes. I don't think we can now: a declaration of neutrality has
been issued and we have to stick to it.

Bear in mind that could happen that an american Nova Roma citizen is
fighting at present in Iraq. I think he would need the freedom of
serving without any bonds from Nova Roma. Meanwhile, political debate
in the Senate can always be reopened, and duty of Senators is to listen
to citizens' issues.

Finally, let's try to speak more of Roman issues than politics bringing
divisions.

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononia
Italia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9374 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salve Sp. Posthumius,

re: your response to Q Fabius
< So now, as I see it, you are stating a precedent that the Collegium
Pontificium should be <consulted on any action that involves the Religio. If
that is the case, I must say this is absurd.

Why is that absurd? That is what they are there for. They consult with
eachother on matters regarding the Religio and now you are saying that when
non-religio people make decisions that effect the Religio they don't need to
consult with our Priests? Your local priest cannot change Sunday mass
without 5 years of discussions at the Vatican so why does the Religio Romana
get less respect?

Vale,
Diana Moravia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9375 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia affair
Salve Consul,

thank you very much for your support to my recovery, I'm not fine now
and I'll try to be quiet and concentrate to answer you all.
Thank you very much for your explanation but I have to ask you a
thing. In the past years several Magistrates didn't organize Ludi.
Illustrus Caesi Fabius Quintilianus (i was the chief of the Cohors)
have organized only Ludi Circenses, virtual chariot races where
players didn't die. Maybe this Magistrates have changed the Ludi?
Maybe they have hurted the Religio and the Gods? Why "they" attack me
now and not in the past?

Ok, do you want bllod in the Ludi, perfect you have it, but youìll
have to imagine it. IMHO my Office mustn't hurt my coscience as man.
I'm not a Nova Roman robot! ;-)
So, if you would like I'll give you all only the results of the games
(otherwise, my Cohors have sevaral technical problem to write the
histories, I needed writers). So, each citizen can imagine blood or
quiet scenes.

P.S: About the veto, Illustrus Cobsul, mine wasn't an official
edictum, is the veto able to stop a will declaration?

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Fortunatus <labienus@n...> wrote:
> Salvete Francisce Apule Quiritesque
>
> > sorry for my little absence, I had a complicated surgical
operation
> > to a tooth yesterday and I'm not so fine.
>
> I hope your surgery went well, and that you have a rapid and full
> recovery. I will light some incense to Aesculapius on your behalf.
>
> > First of all the Joint declaration is by me and my Cohors. My
> > Illustres colleagues Aediles didn't sign it, so please don't
consider
> > them.
>
> Thank you for clearing this up. There had been some confusion
about this.
>
> > I want to explain that we haven't said to not want organize the
> > games. We say we organize the games but without violent scenes.
> > What is bad here? Do you want blood? Why?
> > The blood and violence are not needed and obliged parts of the
games.
> > Why do you don't want quiet Ludi?
>
> I don't want quiet ludi because, to my knowledge, the ancient ludi
> weren't quiet. And, the ludi were, and are, sacred games. Nova
Roma's
> reason for being is the Religio Romana, and I want to see every
effort
> made to properly honor the Gods.
>
> > Illustrus Labienus, Illustrus Maximus and everybody, have you
readen
> > the histories of Venationes? Is this game so different from the
game
> > of the last year? Is it less funny? Is it against the Gods
because it
> > hadn't blood or murders? Do you think chariot races without
accidents
> > could offense the Gods? Do you think Naumachiae without blood
hurt
> > our Res Publica?
> > I thing not, however I thing a bloodly and tragical murder of
> > gladiator could hurt a citizen.
>
> I'm rather torn on the subject, actually. Our ludi are already
> bloodless and without real risk or sacrifice (except for the
sacrifice
> of time and effort put into them by the aediles and their staff--a
> sacrifice which I, and hopefully the Gods, do appreciate). And,
most of
> our ludi have been held in a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion, with
> entertainment value and humor in mind. Therefore, it doesn't seem
all
> that much of a step to remove the fictional blood from them. And,
it
> may be that virtual games are not particularly satisfying to the
Gods in
> any case.
>
> On the other hand, the ancient ludi were bloody affairs, and we
should
> make every effort to recreate our sacred games in accord with the
mos
> maiorum as best we can, given the limitations imposed by the nature
of
> our community. Also, a number of our more knowledgeable and
respected
> cives, pontifices and an augur among them, have spoken against
> non-violent ludi. Indeed, when our augur calls for a veto, I must,
at
> the very least, give careful consideration to the issue.
>
> > I don't think we didn't respect the declaration of neutrality of
Nova
> > Roma.
>
> I agree with you. I think that Q Fabius' suggestion that you've
> committed perduellio is a bit much. However, I also think that you
may
> have taken the neutrality policy in an unintended direction. Caeso
> Fabius and I have recognized Nova Roma's international character
and
> determined that Nova Roma will not take a side in the current US-
Iraq
> war. We have not asked that any of Nova Roma's internal functions
be
> changed.
>
> Indeed, it would be best if we treated everything with a "business
as
> normal" attitude, as this is the course which is most congruent
with
> neutrality. Otherwise, any change in our ways of doing things will
very
> likely be construed by some as implying a political stance with
regard
> to the war. This is obviously the case with this issue.
>
> > I don't say we are pro or against the war. I say I'm for the
eternal
> > idea of the peace. Is this political? Is this against our
declaration
> > of neutrality?
>
> No, it is not. In fact, I feel that it is a laudable attitude.
> However, we magistrates must occasionally put aside our personal
> feelings in order to properly do our duty to Nova Roma. Therefore,
I
> ask you to carefully and dispassionately consider whether or not
you
> think you are properly fulfilling your duty to Nova Roma and the
Gods of
> Rome with your policy of non-violent ludi. If, after careful
> reflection, you still wish to continue with that policy, I will not
> immediately veto you.
>
> That said, if the Collegium Pontificum as a whole officially asks
me to,
> or if our augur reports ill omens with regard to the ludi because
of
> your policy, I will use my veto and officially request that you and
your
> staff do your best to provide us with ludi which are in keeping
with
> those we have seen to date. I hope you realize that I won't do
this for
> personal reasons. Nor do I think at all badly of you and your
staff. I
> do sympathize with your feelings, and agree that war is a truly
horrible
> thing.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
> --
> "Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
> should I do?"
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9376 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: _[Nova-Roma]_Nova_Roman_Controversy
Your Knowledge of the History of Italy in the Second
World War seems to have come from someone who wished
to replace the truth with anti-american propaganda.

Mussolini began losing popularity after Italy lost her
African Colinies and Sicily was conqured. On July 25th
1943 the Fascist Grand Council desposed Mussolini and
King Victor Emmanuel III had Mussilini arrested, and
apointed Badogilo to head a new government. The
Italian government imeditaly entered negotions with
the United Nations. (The World War II alliance, not
the organization that grew out of it) An Armistice was
announced on the 8th of September 1943 that granted
Italy the status of a co-belligerent against the
Nazis. The United States landed troops the next day.
The following month Italy declared war against Germany
who now had the status of an occuping power, not of an
Italian ally.

"Liberation" was not just the view of the United
States government, it was also the view of the
majority of the Italian people and the Italian
government.

The United States did not target the Italian citizens
during the struggle to liberate them, though the
accuracy of the weapons of that time did lead to far
more deaths than would have occured with modern weapon
systems. Throughout the war in Europe the United
States suffered appalling loses by flying daytime
Bombing Missions in an effort to achive as precise a
bombing as possible. We could have saved a lot of
American lives by following the advice of British
Bomber Command and simply carpet bombing cities at
night, but we placed our aircrews in increased danger
in an effort to insure that as many bombs as possible
hit thier intended targets. 25,000 Americans died in
those dangrous daytime raids.

--- "sa-mann@..." <sa-mann@...> wrote:
> Spectati cives omnes
>
> I really had enough!
>
> Nova Roma is neutral in this war and for this reason
> I Held my tongue
> and kept quiet. But I am at present reading clear
> statements of
> supports to the United States. I don't blame
> americans for supporting
> their own government.
> I would like to show them that what they think is
> not at all shared by
> a Nova Roman citizen.
>
> Being Italian I have a precise and strong idea of
> what a terroristic
> bombing of civilian is. The americans bombed
> countless times civil
> targets in Italy in WWII. Schools, as in Gorla near
> Milan, hospitals
> nearly everywhere, monuments, the list of monuments
> hit in Bononia
> where I live would be extremely long, funeral
> processions for the deads
> of american bombing, as in Vicenza.
>
> Moreover, Rome was an "open town", so liberated is
> not correct. In any
> case, I would like to remember that thousands of
> Italians fought
> against the american invasion, and from the point of
> view of honour and
> military history, Germans were Italy's ally, so
> please keep the
> rhetoric of Liberation to your private feelings.
>
> If matter of liberation is, it's our business.
> Moreover, without any
> reason other than military occupation, americans are
> at present
> occupying Italy with plenty of military
> installations totally out of
> control from our government.
>
> I see american war against Iraq totally unjustified,
> but this is a
> private statement of little importance, spectate
> Druse, I think the
> deprived uranium is a weapon like the ones American
> say Saddam uses;
> but even this is of little importance.
>
> I respect your ideas, and even american soldiers,
> but not everybody is
> interested in reading about your support to a war
> which I strongly
> oppose, and not because I am in favor of peace, but
> because I think USA
> are behaving against right and simply for economic
> imperialism.
>
> I respect your feelings, but as we are neutral,
> please keep your ideas
> to the private.
>
> Reverenter
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
> Bononia
> Italia
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9377 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salvete,

in the last year the Curule Aedile Ceaso Fabius Quintilianus didn't
organize bloodly games. As chief of his Cohors I have organised only
Ludi Circenses, the virtual charriot races where the players don't
die!

In the last year some Aedile didn't organize Ludi. So they didn't
celebrate the religious rituals.

In the last year Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus was the first
Magistrate to organize real and wonderful games. Before Quintilianus,
nobody have organized Ludi these, several didn't organize Ludi,
nobody have organized bloodly games or religious rituals.

What do you think? Maybe the follow Illustris Magistrates hurted the
Gods, changed the religious rituals, offended or removed or replaced
the Religio Romana, encouraged the citizens to derespect the Religio
and the Gods?
This is the list of this Illustri Magistrates:

- Illustrus Ambrosius Silvanius Virbius
- Illustrus Marcus Martianus Gangalius
- Illustrus Flavius Vedius Germanicus
- YOU : Quintus Fabius Maximus
- Illustrus Antonius Gryllus Graecus
- Illustrus Gaius Africanus Secundus Germanicus
- Illustrus Marcus Octavius Germanicus
- Illustrus Quintus Gaufridus Canus
- Illustra Iulia Ovidia Luna
- Illustrus Marius Cornelius Scipio
- Illustrus Titus Sertorius Albinus
- Illustrus Marcus Arminius Maior
- Illustrus Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
- Illustrus Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

[to this honorable Citizens, please don't feel hurted, mine is not an
attack against you. This is only my defense.]

I want you, Illustri Magistrates, explain me in a detailed and
reasonable way:
what and where I have hurted the Religio Romana?
how I have encouraged the citizens to not respect the Religio?
how these Ludi have to run?
why you don't have critic the past Aediles?
where I have cracked the pacts of the Gods?
how I have cracked my Oath?
why the Collegium don't give to the Aediles the list of official
religious Ludi in the beginning of each year?
why you didn't contact me privately using a not noble way to attack
me?
what is your next step?
why you think the neutral and eternal idea of respect and peace is
less important of your political games?
why you think the neutral and eternal idea of respect and peace is
less important of bloodly games?

If you give me and to all the Citizens reasonable answers I'll ready
to give you my toga and leave my Offices as Curule Aedile and
Propraetor. Because I think the respect for the people and the idea
of peace are the most important things in this moment and I can't be
in a State where they aren't.

Otherwise, I'll give you only the results of the games without
histories. They are virtual and in this way we can imagine the most
hard and bad bloodly scenes of violence not hurting teh coscience of
several citizens and not hurting the Gods.

I ask the intervention of Illustri higher Magistrates too to clarify
this controversy.

Valete
Fr. Apulus CAesar
Senior Curule Aedile


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/5/03 2:32:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
postumius@g...
> writes:
>
>
> > I realize the religious implications of the declaration, but if
that is of
> > concern, why could it not have been brought to the attention of
the
> > involved Aediles in private, instead of publicly flaming our
esteemed
> > magistrates; lest we all forget that these magistrates were
elected by the
> > populace, and that these noble men took the position willingly,
rather than
> > being forced to accept their positions.
> >
> >
>
> Which was why they were protested publicly. Indeed I and the
Pontifix
> Maximus had cooperated with the Aediles for the Megalesia, we asked
the
> Priestess to compose a ritual,
> and we encouraged participation.
> However had the Aediles made us privy to their plans beforehand we
would have
> told them
> they were in violation of II I of the Constitution:
> "No elected official shall use their elected powers or political
status
> as a means of working to undermine, remove, or replace the Religio
Romana as
> the State Religion of Nova Roma."
>
> By ignoring the actual "spilling" of blood, they are undermining
the
> significance of the rituals and the purpose of the Ludi.
>
> III "No Citizen or Magistrate shall actively encourage public
disrespect for
> the Gods of Rome, or actively advocate the non-practice of the
Religio"
>
> By making a political statement and by-passing the College they are
in
> violation
> of this clause.
>
> Truthfully had the Aediles approached the College beforehand, the
PM, the
> State Augur, and the Pontiffs would have said no. And this sad
spectacle
> could have been
> avoided. But they did not. I was hoping that the rebuke was
enough. It
> wasn't.
> So now the College will have to take other steps.
> Thank you for your questions, Postumius.
>
> Valete
>
> FABIVS
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9378 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salve Illustrus Drusus,

I'm very sorruto have hurted you, your Family and your Nation, I
don't want to do it.
I want to say only that the civilian people are innocent because what
can do an iraqi children against? I don't think Iraq governators and
soldiers are innocent, but I think the civilian and the children are
innocent.
Please, take my apologies, really I don't want insulte you and your
Family, I want the peace everywhere and for everybody.

VAle
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salve,
> The statement hit me on two fronts, first of all as
> Senator Sulla has stated it is offensive to the
> Religio to change the Games. They are for the Gods not
> for the entertainment of men. (Though men may find
> entertainment in our offering of games to the Gods.)
>
> The Second is far more personal and it concerns the
> accusation of "bombing inocent civilians". That is a
> slur against my Macronation and my Family.
>
> The United States has spent Billions of Dollars
> developing accurate weapons, and these weapons are far
> more expensive than the old fashioned dumb bombs. If
> the United States wanted to target civilians we could
> have sent wave after wave of bombers armed with dumb
> bombs and after 17 days half the population of Baghdad
> would be dead or injured.
>
> Last week, during a fight for a bridge over the
> Euphrates the Iraqis were using Iraqi civilians as
> human shields. A woman broke away from the Iraqi
> forces, and was shot in the back by the soldiers of
> her country. She lay wounded in the middle of a
> battle. An American Captain risked his life under fire
> from the Iraqis to drag that civilian to safety. This
> is one of the people that the mindless accusation of
> "bombing inocent civilians" is aimed at.
>
> I Am a Vetran. My Son is a Vetran. Both of my brothers
> are Vetrans. My Father was a Vetran. All Three of his
> brothers are Vetrans. One of My Grandfathers was a
> Vetran who lost a leg in the battles to liberate Roma
> from the Nazis. My Nephew is serving in Iraq now. The
> United States has never fought a war that member of my
> family didn't serve in.
>
> When you slander the United States Military you are
> also slandering my family. Over the years I have
> learned to ignore the ignorant accusations from
> mindless mobs howling in the streets, but I damn well
> don't intend to ignore something that is insulting to
> my Family, to my Macronation, and to the Religio in
> offical anouncements from Magistrates of Nova Roma.
>
> --- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave, Sp. Postumius,
> >
> > The problem is how can a man tamper and corrupt the
> > Religio. I am
> > activately waiting for our Pontifex Maximus to
> > return from his trip to
> > comment on this considering that our only Augur has
> > asked for a veto, and
> > another Pontiff has voiced strong displeasure. I
> > hope that the Magistrates
> > who are entitled to veto this "declaration" might
> > for the sake of the
> > Religio veto this measure before the CP are
> > summoned, but if not I will wait
> > for the Pontifex Maximus to intervene, and ask him
> > privately via email to
> > intervene.
> >
> > This attempt to dilute the Religo's practices and
> > rituals is a corruption of
> > the offical Religion of Nova Roma, in my opinion.
> > And as I have spoken out
> > when I have felt that members of Xtianity have been
> > criticised, I am now
> > speaking out just as vehmently when I see the
> > Official Religion in Nova Roma
> > being corrupted by men who do not have the
> > knowledge, authority or
> > relationship with the Gods.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@g...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
> >
> >
> > > Salve Senator Sulla,
> > >
> > > Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed
> > understand the issue. I
> > myself am not entirely happy with the tampering with
> > the Ludi, but I also
> > cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his attempt to
> > respect the opinions of
> > some of the citizens. But I don't think you
> > understand what I tried to say.
> > I'm saying that if one has a problem with another's
> > actions, why not first
> > take it up in private before bringing things into
> > the public forum. While I
> > cannot say that this course of action was not taken,
> > I just want to make the
> > point that the course of action would have most
> > likely been more effective
> > if taken up in private first. And, to add, if there
> > is that much of a
> > problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why not
> > take it, after bringing
> > it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the
> > Collegium Pontificium. The
> > Religio is their responsibility.
> > >
> > > Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't think,
> > was trying to please
> > everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather, I
> > think he tried to respect
> > some of our citizens. Just count yourself with those
> > who were not pleased,
> > and move on.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sp. Postumius Tubertus
> > >
> > > "In domo maiorum vivimus."
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9379 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
I Will accept you apology.

Peace is a noble goal, but it something that the
people of Iraq haven't known for the past 35 years,
since the Ba'ath took power. Thier own government has
waged war against them. The day the Ba'ath siezed
power they rounded up 8 Iraqi Jews, part of a
community that had lived there since the Babylonian
captivity in Biblical times, and publicly hung them as
"spies" for Isreal. There are 24 Million Iraqis living
in Iraq and 6 million Iraqis living outside the
nation. A Fifth of the population has fled the 35 year
long war the Ba'ath has waged against the Iraqi
people. Between 1987 and 1990 an estimated 200,000
Kurdish civilians were slaughtered in the genocidal
campaign that earned "Chemical Ali" his nickname.
Between March and October of 1991 an estimated 100,000
Shia Arabs were slaughtered. The Marsh Arabs were one
of the oldest cultures on the planet, living in the
Marshes along the southern Tigris and Euphrates Rivers
throughout recorded History. In addition to murdering
tens of thousands of them, the Ba'ath destroyed the
Marshes that they lived in turning thousands of square
kilometers of Wetlands into salt poisoned desserts to
deprive them of a sanctuary from the Regime's forces.

March 20th isn't a date that the people's of Iraq lost
Peace. They hadn't known it since 1968. The end of
this war will give them a peace that they haven't
known for a generation.

To those who question American motives in occupying
Iraq, Colin Powell said it best. In response to a
question posed to him at a conference in England by
the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting that America
just wanted to expand its influence and empire, the
Secretary of State had this to say: "Over the years,
the United States has sent many of its fine young men
and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond
our borders. The only amount of land we have ever
asked in return is enough to bury those who did not
return."


--- Franciscus Apulus Caesar <fraelov@...> wrote:
> Salve Illustrus Drusus,
>
> I'm very sorruto have hurted you, your Family and
> your Nation, I
> don't want to do it.
> I want to say only that the civilian people are
> innocent because what
> can do an iraqi children against? I don't think Iraq
> governators and
> soldiers are innocent, but I think the civilian and
> the children are
> innocent.
> Please, take my apologies, really I don't want
> insulte you and your
> Family, I want the peace everywhere and for
> everybody.
>
> VAle
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> > The statement hit me on two fronts, first of all
> as
> > Senator Sulla has stated it is offensive to the
> > Religio to change the Games. They are for the Gods
> not
> > for the entertainment of men. (Though men may find
> > entertainment in our offering of games to the
> Gods.)
> >
> > The Second is far more personal and it concerns
> the
> > accusation of "bombing inocent civilians". That is
> a
> > slur against my Macronation and my Family.
> >
> > The United States has spent Billions of Dollars
> > developing accurate weapons, and these weapons are
> far
> > more expensive than the old fashioned dumb bombs.
> If
> > the United States wanted to target civilians we
> could
> > have sent wave after wave of bombers armed with
> dumb
> > bombs and after 17 days half the population of
> Baghdad
> > would be dead or injured.
> >
> > Last week, during a fight for a bridge over the
> > Euphrates the Iraqis were using Iraqi civilians as
> > human shields. A woman broke away from the Iraqi
> > forces, and was shot in the back by the soldiers
> of
> > her country. She lay wounded in the middle of a
> > battle. An American Captain risked his life under
> fire
> > from the Iraqis to drag that civilian to safety.
> This
> > is one of the people that the mindless accusation
> of
> > "bombing inocent civilians" is aimed at.
> >
> > I Am a Vetran. My Son is a Vetran. Both of my
> brothers
> > are Vetrans. My Father was a Vetran. All Three of
> his
> > brothers are Vetrans. One of My Grandfathers was a
> > Vetran who lost a leg in the battles to liberate
> Roma
> > from the Nazis. My Nephew is serving in Iraq now.
> The
> > United States has never fought a war that member
> of my
> > family didn't serve in.
> >
> > When you slander the United States Military you
> are
> > also slandering my family. Over the years I have
> > learned to ignore the ignorant accusations from
> > mindless mobs howling in the streets, but I damn
> well
> > don't intend to ignore something that is insulting
> to
> > my Family, to my Macronation, and to the Religio
> in
> > offical anouncements from Magistrates of Nova
> Roma.
> >
> > --- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
> > wrote:
> > > Ave, Sp. Postumius,
> > >
> > > The problem is how can a man tamper and corrupt
> the
> > > Religio. I am
> > > activately waiting for our Pontifex Maximus to
> > > return from his trip to
> > > comment on this considering that our only Augur
> has
> > > asked for a veto, and
> > > another Pontiff has voiced strong displeasure.
> I
> > > hope that the Magistrates
> > > who are entitled to veto this "declaration"
> might
> > > for the sake of the
> > > Religio veto this measure before the CP are
> > > summoned, but if not I will wait
> > > for the Pontifex Maximus to intervene, and ask
> him
> > > privately via email to
> > > intervene.
> > >
> > > This attempt to dilute the Religo's practices
> and
> > > rituals is a corruption of
> > > the offical Religion of Nova Roma, in my
> opinion.
> > > And as I have spoken out
> > > when I have felt that members of Xtianity have
> been
> > > criticised, I am now
> > > speaking out just as vehmently when I see the
> > > Official Religion in Nova Roma
> > > being corrupted by men who do not have the
> > > knowledge, authority or
> > > relationship with the Gods.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Spurius Postumius" <postumius@g...>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 3:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roman Controversy
> > >
> > >
> > > > Salve Senator Sulla,
> > > >
> > > > Since this is about the Religio, I do indeed
> > > understand the issue. I
> > > myself am not entirely happy with the tampering
> with
> > > the Ludi, but I also
> > > cannot disagree with Aedile Caesar in his
> attempt to
> > > respect the opinions of
> > > some of the citizens. But I don't think you
> > > understand what I tried to say.
> > > I'm saying that if one has a problem with
> another's
> > > actions, why not first
> > > take it up in private before bringing things
> into
> > > the public forum. While I
> > > cannot say that this course of action was not
> taken,
> > > I just want to make the
> > > point that the course of action would have most
> > > likely been more effective
> > > if taken up in private first. And, to add, if
> there
> > > is that much of a
> > > problem with the action taken by the Aedile, why
> not
> > > take it, after bringing
> > > it privately to the Aedile's attention, to the
> > > Collegium Pontificium. The
> > > Religio is their responsibility.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, to end things, the Aedile, I don't
> think,
> > > was trying to please
> > > everyone, as that is almost impossible; rather,
> I
> > > think he tried to respect
> > > some of our citizens. Just count yourself with
> those
> > > who were not pleased,
> > > and move on.
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sp. Postumius Tubertus
> > > >
> > > > "In domo maiorum vivimus."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9380 From: Marcus Iulius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: The temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine (long note)
M IVL PERVSIANVS QVIRITIBVS SPD

avete omnes,
today is, as proclaimed by our Senior Aedile Franciscus Apulus Caesar, the
archeological day dedicated to the Magna Mater and her temple on the Palatine
hill, Rome. This is a report I've written these last days. In a few days
a more friendly version will be published (with pictures and links) on FAC
Cohors site.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
One year later, what?s going on?

Almost one year has passed since my first recognition to the area of the
temple, on the Palatine hill. Since then I have learned a lot about this
topic, and most of all, I was appointed to follow this project on the behalf
of Cohors Aedelis of Franciscus Apulus Caesar.
Last year, as Scriba ad Historiam Provinciae Italiae I provided a first
report to Cohors Aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
(See at http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/templemagnamater.htm).


What did we figure out last year? All the south-west area of the Palatine
hill is the object, since 1977, of systematic surveying directed by Professor
Patrizio Pensabene Perez (with the collaboration of numerous graduated and
students of the Department of Archaeological and Anthropological Historical
Sciences of the University of Rome "La Sapienza"). Unfortunately it is still
not possible to visit that area as it remains all fenced and under restoration.
At the entrance of the area there is still a sign stating jobs of removal
of asbestos materials in progress.
A telephone call with Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, made two weeks
ago has confirmed this situation.

What is changed now, one year after? Well, this report is more aimed to
the archeological news about the temple. We feel like having as much information
as possible about the temple as in a few weeks we look forward to a big
event.

I think I?m not wrong if I say that for the first time Nova Roma is having
a contact with the managers of a Roman monument.
Later this month Propraetor Italiae and myself, together with other Italic
citizens, will have an appointment with D.sa Irene Iacopi, managing director
of Roman Forum and Palatine archeological areas, to offer our economical
help to preserve the temple and any other kind of possible relations. The
creation of an Aedilian fund is also aimed to this purpose. It?s our intention
to understand better what both sides can earn. There are some possibilities
enlisted by the Italian law, which allows private citizens, alone or associated,
to collaborate with the Ministero per i Beni e le attività culturali (for
cultural assets and activities) as written in the Decreto legislativo 368/98,
art.10, comma 1.

Questions of importance are as follows:

a. What are the rules for fundraising?
b. What forms of control are needed?
c. What merits could Nova Roma display?

The Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, addressed in Piazza S.Maria in
Nova 53, will hold the meeting on April 14 (http://www.archeorm.arti.beniculturali.it/sar2000,
email: info@...).


The History of Magna Mater

The Cult of Magna Mater, the Great Mother, is probably the oldest religion
of all. The earliest stone-age sculptures depict the mother- goddess, as
an idol found in Catal Hüyük, six thousands years old. In a later form she
became a seated woman flanked by two leopards. The area of the Aegean Sea
and especially the Cretan Isle, organized by a matriarchal order during
the prehistoric age, adored a Mother Goddess as dispenser of fecundity.
She was adored as Cybele, worshipped with this name in Greece, Phrygia and
Anatolia. On the banks of the Euphrates as Koubaba and near the Babylonians
as Damkina, which means "married with the earth and the sky". Other names
were Gaia, Ga or Ge (from greek Mother Earth), Terra (in Latin) and Gatumdu
(her Sumerian name); she was also called Ishtar in Akkadia and finally Isis
in Egypt, not saying that behind her name there was also the oriental goddess
Shub-Niggurath.

In nearly all creation myths of all cultures she appears to be the eternal,
not born, just existing from the beginning of time. She gives the earth
its shape. She is the bearer of the world and the population of this planet
(plants, animals and humans).
The Romans identified this goddess with the Greek Rhea, and called her the
Magna Mater, the Great Mother.
Although the priests of the cult were men who had castrated themselves in
front of her image, but most of the followers were women. They worshipped
the goddess in different temples, independent each other, although some
temples had more influence than others did. They were mainly in Phrygia,
Greece and Italy.
In Pessinus, in northern Asia, a simulacrum of the divinity was worshipped:
one black stone of conical shape, probably a meteorite. Another major temple
was in Delphi, which was later re-consecrated to Apollo and became much
more famous for his oracle.
In each temple the High Priestess had the greatest status, followed by the
Archigalli. Below in status was the ordinary priestesses and lowest the
galli.


The Roman Magna Mater

The Second Punic War had put in crisis the republican Rome and its religious
structure too. In the attempt of recovering the support of the Gods, which
appeared to be lost, the cult of the Magna Mater was introduced in 204 BC,
after the consultation of the Sibylline Books.
It?s also believed that the patricians imported the cult of Magna Mater
explicitly so that their social class would have a goddess that served some
of the functions that Ceres did for the plebeians. As a result, there was
sharp antagonism between the two cults, becoming rivals separated only by
the social classes they served. The same year the temple of Magna Mater
was dedicated, a new festival dedicated to Ceres was established. This festival
was called the Ieinium Cereris, and may have represented a plebeian response
to the new patrician goddess.
The embassy was sent to the king of Pergamus, in which territory the sanctuary
was located. Having obtained the delivery of the simulacrum, it was then
carried and loaded on a ship to Rome. The simulacrum was one pointed black
stone of conical shape, called acus, which represented the goddess. On its
arrival it was welcomed into the city by a vir optimus, or best man, selected
from one of the most distinguished patrician families. The matrons that
escorted the goddess on the road from Ostia to Rome were entirely drawn
from the patrician class. Since its arrival in Rome until the completation
of an appropriated temple, the black stone was kept in the temple of Victory
(the Aedes Victoriae), on the western side of the Palatine hill.
(Livy Ab urbe condita XXIX.37.2; XXXVI.36)

Between 204 and 191 BC the sanctuary was built in the same area in order
to receive the acus. Probably that place was chosen also because of the
proximity to the cave of the recovery of the twins, the Lupercale, as mountains
and caves were sacred to the Magna Mater, and her temples were often built
near them in the tradition. It was dedicated on April 11 191 BC, by the
praetor Marcus Iunius Brutus, on which occasion the ludi Megalenses, or
Megalesia, were instituted and celebrated in front of the temple (Livy loc.
cit.; Fast. Praen. ap. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I". p. 235, 314-315,
cf. p. 251=VI. 32498; Fast. Ant. ap. NS 1921, 91; Cicero de har. resp. 24;
cf. for site Ovidius Fast. II. 55; Martial VII.73.3).

In 111 BC there was a first fire in the Temple of the Magna Mater when the
statue of Quinta Cloelia within the temple was uninjured. It was caused
by the aedile Quintus Memmius, who took with him the black stone.

The temple was restored by Metellus Numidicus, consul in 110 BC, and the
cult resumed in an official and pacific version.

Burned again in 3 BC, it was destroyed by mysterious circumstances.

Augustus restored it in 3 AD. He also showed his closeness to the Religio
of Cybele (the other name commonly used in Rome) and his wife Livia was
resembled to the goddess. This worship has a large growing since the end
of the Imperial era (or since the interdiction of the paganism). After that
the traces of the cult of the black stone were lost.
(Val. Max. I.8.II; Obseq. 99; Ovidius Fast.IV. 347-348; Mon. Anc.IV.8)

According to writings about Roman Regiones, the temple was still standing
unharmed in the fourth century (Not.Reg.X).

During Roman History there are other references by classic authors:
- The temple is found in Cassius Dio (XLVIII.43.4), Juvenal (IX.23) as a
place of assignation, and in the third century (Hist. Aug. Claud. 4; Aurel.
I).
- The stone needle itself is described by a late writer (Arnob. adv. gentes
vii. 49) as small and set in a silver statue of the goddess (cf. Herodianus
ab exc. d. Marci i. II; Arnob. v. 5). It was perhaps removed by Elagabalus
to his temple (q.v.) on the Palatine (Hist. Aug. Elag. 3; cf. LR 134-138;
but cf. BC 1883, 211; HJ 53-54, n. 44).

Archaeological evidences of the temple

At the top of the Scalae Caci and behind the area of the Romulean huts,
on the southwestern corner of the Palatine, stand the ruins of the ancient
temple. Nowadays only a large brick box is visible in a squared work with
a staircase inside, on which a small wood of elm-oaks has grown.

These ruins consist of a massive podium made of irregular pieces of volcanic
tufo and peperino laid in thick mortar, and fragments of columns and entablature.
The building presents its own guideline (NorthEast - SouthWest, which was
decided by cultural reasons), different from the previous one of 191 BC.
Moreover a great courtyard occupied a large portion of the front space and
the western area of the temple, while to the East eased a connection with
the area of the nearby temple of Victory.
All this was inside of a wide rectangular area closed on the west flank
of the temple. This is because the courtyard had to be classified for a
specific function, probably connected to the theatrical events of the Ludi.
The structure shows the need of great bathtubs for the rituals of the cult.
The priests of Magna Mater used these when they washed her image in the
sacred waters of the Almon River during the festivals of the Goddess.
The temple by Augustus (the last version and how we see it today) was created
on a high base with big steps. The great concrete podium which, with the
foundations laying directly on the cliff of the Palatine, was 9 Mts. (29.5
feet) high. With the reconstruction of temple by concrete and the elevation
of the courtyard, the squared bathtub and the accessing angled scales were
obliterated. A new great rectangular concrete basin (16,50 x 3 Mts., 54.13
x 9.8 feet) was constructed in the West area of the podium of the temple.
It is evident that the restoration of that period was carried out using
materials from the original structure.

The dimensions of the podium are 33,40 x 19,35 Mts. (110 x 63 feet). The
walls are 3,84 Mts. (12.60 feet) thick on the sides and 5,50 Mts. (18.04
feet) in the rear, but this unusual thickness is due to the fact that the
rear wall is double, with an air space, 1,80 Mts. (5.91 feet) wide, between
the two parts. This wall was faced on the outside with stucco, not with
opus quadratum. The walls of the cell were somewhat thinner than the podium
ones, forming a smaller rectangle (32 x 64 Mts. = 105 x 210 feet), lying
on a high covered base with lava stone blocks. From the rear wall of the
cell projects the base of a pedestal on which the stone needle probably
stood.

While the previous described is the wider consideration, there is considerable
divergence of opinion as to the date of the podium: some attribute it to
110 BC, and believe that the architectural members were given only a new
coat of stucco under Augustus. Fiechter assigns the whole to the middle
of the first century BC, but it does not seem at all necessary to suppose
that Augustus would not have used peperino coated with stucco.

There weren't columns on the sides (prostylos) but only six columns (hexastylos)
in the front of the Corinthian order. And a plinth in masonry for the cult
of the statue, was placed perhaps in the inside of a sacellum on the bottom
wall (as said before). It was approached by a flight of steps extending
entirely across the front. The relationship between cell, pronao and front
body is 4:2:1. The rest of masonry are in opus reticulata and built after
the fire of 111 BC: the columns in lava stone lying beside podium are of
Augustan age. On the forehead of the pronao a terrace, supported by parallels
walls on turf made blocks, datable to III century BC. For following generations
this last structure was likely reused for several shops. They were placed
on a covered inner path that crossed the area.

Is this the real temple of Magna Mater?

Such a reconstruction has been confirmed as a relief of the first imperial
age that reproduces a procession in the front of the temple. This relief
is now at Villa Medici in Rome (http://www.villamedici.it/). This temple
was formerly attributed to the Ara Pacis.

This is commonly thought to be the temple of Magna Mater owing to an identification
of a coin of the elder Faustina (not possible to see the picture.) This
represents a temple of the Corinthian order, with curved roof, and a flight
of steps on which is a statue of Cybele with a turreted crown enthroned
between lions.

Recent diggings have characterized, to the east of the temple, the foundations
and the rests of the podium of another temple identified as the one of the
Victory. It was built in 294 BC by Consul Lucius Postumius Megellus and
to which Marcus Porcius Cato in the 193 BC added a place dedicated to the
Victoria Virgo. As said there was conserved the acus previously.

Inscriptions and objects found in the area make it extremely probable, if
not for sure.
Inscriptions referring to Magna Mater, especially one with a dedication
to the M(ater) D(eum) M(agna) I(daea), goddess of Mount Ida, a mount in
Phrygia by Pessinunt.
(CIL VI. 496, 1040, 3702= 30967; NS 1896, 186; cf. CIL XII.405),

Also found was a portion of a colossal female figure seated on a throne
and a fragment of a base with the paws of lions, the regular attendants
of the goddess.

Diggings are supposed to have recovered several votive terracotta of the
first age of the temple. Thanks to them many interesting aspects of the
cult have been cleared, like the importance of the spring celebration during
the equinox.

To say the least, a story says that in some cases hidden somewhere would
be located the acus, the famous black stone, itself recovered during the
diggings.

NR declaration & edict about the MM project

Nova Roma has shown its duty toward the temple of Magna Mater through two
main acts.

JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER IN ROMA
March 8 2002

I. Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (Aedilian site, Thule
site), Honorable Caius Cornelius Puteanus (Germania Inferior site), Honorable
Claudia Cornelia (Germania Inferior site), Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar
(Italia site), Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus (Finnicae site), Honorable
Emilia Curia Finnica (Finnicae site and Academia site), Illustrus Antonius
Gryllus Graecus (Lusitania site), Illustra Iulia Cocceia and Illustrus Sextus
Apollonius Scipio (Gallia site) have formed an alliance to further the correct
restoration and care for the Temple of Magna Mater in Rome.

II. Each of the above promise to place a picture of the Temple of Magna
Mater in Rome on "their" Nova Roman web-site (Aedilian,
Provincial or Regional) with an inquiry asking all that visit their web-site
to contribute to the correct restoration and care of the Temple of Magna
Mater in Rome. The web-site shall also have the address of the Propraetor
of Italia, so that it is possible to contact him to send funds to him to
enable Provincia Italia to execute this joint promise. This web-page shall
be designed by Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar and made available by
him to all the co-signers of this declaratio.

Signed in March the 8th, in the year of the consulship of Marcus
Octavius Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, 2755 AUC. by:
Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus,
Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar,
Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus,
Honorable Emilia Curia Finnica,
Illustrus Antonius Gryllus Graecus,
Illustra Iulia Cocceia,
Sextus Apollonius Scipio.

EDICTVM PROPRAETORICVM V - REFECTIO TEMPLI MAGNAE MATRIS
May 7 2002

Italian version:
Ex Officio Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae

I. Con Questo Edictum la Provincia Italia ribadisce ufficialmente l'impegno
assunto nella JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER IN ROMA promossa
dalla Cohors Aedilis di Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, firmata dal Propraetor
in carica e visionabile all'indirizzo http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/megalesia/temple.htm

II. La Provincia Italia istituirà un fondo, con le modalità ritenute più
convenienti, per la ricezione della donazioni provenienti dai cittadini
di Nova Roma a favore della ricostruzione e della manutenzione delle rovine
del Tempio di Magna Mater sul Palatino a Roma.

III. Per favorire la pubblicità del progetto al più ampio pubblico, sarà
predisposto un apposito sito Internet all'interno di http://italia.novaroma.org
contenente tutte le informazioni storiche sul tempio, i dati per la ricezione
delle donazioni e gli aggiornamenti sull'andamento dei lavori.

IV. La Provincia Italia designerà un magistrato provinciale come responsabile
del progetto. Egli dovrà ricercare notizie storiche ed archeologiche sul
Tempio di Magna Mater, curare i contatti con i donatori e con gli enti pubblici
manutentori delle rovine, conservare i fondi raccolti ed individuare un'associazione
o ente locale per la manutenzione del Tempio.
Egli sarà anche il supervisore per Nova Roma dell'andamento dei lavori.
Altri magistrati provinciali potranno essere coinvolti nel progetto a supporto
del responsabile.

V. Questo Edictum ha effetto immediato. Promulgato alle Nonis Maiis MMDCCLVI
a.u.c. (May 7, 2002), nell'anno del Consolato di Marcus Octavius Germanicus
e Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.

VI. Questo Edictum ha l'approvazione della Curia Italica (04/05/2002, http://italia.novaroma.org/curia/r30042002.txt)

Curiae Post Scriptum: Il Propraetor Provinciae Italiae, quando lo riterrà
opportuno, emanerà un Edictum contenente le indicazioni precise relative
all'Ente che si occuperà dell'opera di restauro e alle modalità di raccolta
delle offerte di denaro a favore del progetto.

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae

English version:
I. With this Edictum, Provincia Italia officially undertake the commitment
expressed in the JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER IN ROMA,
promoted by Cohors Aedilis of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, and signed by our
current Propraetor (see at http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/megalesia/temple.htm)

II. Provincia Italia will create a fund, following the most convenient methods,
to receive money from Nova Roma citizens explicitly given for the restoration
and management of the ruins of the Temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine
hill, Rome.

III. A new Internet site at http://italia.novaroma.org will be created to
advertise the project, to let it be known to as much as people are possible.
It will contain all the historical information about the temple, data about
fundraising and update about the working progress.

IV. Provincia Italia will appoint a provincial magistrate as responsible
of the project. He shall research historical and archeological news about
the Temple of Magna Mater, paying attention to the money givers and keeping
contacts with public organisms managing the ruins, saving money raised and
finding an association or local administration for the restoring the Temple.
He will be also a supervisor for Nova Roma about the restoration and other
kind of works. Other provincial magistrates could be involved in the project
in the future to support the supervisor.

V. This Edictum is immediately valid. Given in the Nonis Maiis MMDCCLVI
a.u.c. (May 7, 2002), in the year of the Consulship of Marcus Octavius Germanicus
and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.

VI. This Edictum has the approval of Curia Italica (04/05/2002, http://italia.novaroma.org/curia/r30042002.txt)

Curiae Post Scriptum: Propraetor Provinciae Italiae, up to his own decision,
will emanate an Edictum with the right indications about the administration
which is going to restore the monument, about rules for fundraising about
this project.

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Propraetor Provinciae Italiae

Useful licteral sources

Samuel Ball Platner,
A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.
(London: Humphrey Milford. Oxford University Press. 1929)

Pensabene Patrizio,
Scavi nell'area del tempio della Vittoria e del santuario della Magna Mater
sul Palatino
(Rome: Archeologia Laziale IX, 1989)

Lynn E. Roller,
In Search of God the Mother The Cult of Anatolian Cybele (Berkeley-Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1999)


Sites & articles

Magna Mater, The Great mother
(http://inanna.virtualave.net/mother.html)

Sophia Eva Kharis? site at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2179/magna_mater.htm

By Anders Sandberg at http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/magna.html

By Alicia Ashby at
http://students.roanoke.edu/groups/relg211/ashby/Index.html


Marcus Iulius Perusianus
-------------------------
Scriba ad historiam Provinciae Italiae
Scriba Aedilis Historicus Primus
Scriba Curatoris Differum

-------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
http://italia.novaroma.org
http://italia.novaroma.org/fac
-------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9381 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Neutrality and a Nova Roman Controversy
Salvete Quirites!

When it comes to the statement of the Aedilian Cohors this is my stand point:

1. I acknowledge the right of any citizen to openly declare a private
standpoint in any Forum. But the statement of the Aedilian Cohors
isn't private as I see it, as it was signed Ex officio. This means
that it could be vetoed.

2. The Ludi are already bloodless as they are virtual. To me it
doesn't seem to be such a big change to not tell any stories of death.

3. I agree that it is hard to see how these deathless games could be
any more wrong than the peaceful games organised by me last year and
the fact that there were _no_ games for many year before.

4. I don't see the Aedilian statement as something that goes against
the neutrality declaration as it doesn't take a stand for either side.

5. My knowledge about the Religio isn't so good that I can decide if
this Aedilian statement is in anyway against the will of the Gods. It
doesn't seem probable to me that this would be hurting the relation
between the Gods and the Roman State.

6. As my Consular Colleague, Illustrus Titus Labienus Fortunatus, I
will wait for the Collegium Pontificum as a whole to take a stand
officially or our Augur to report ill omens with regards to the ludi
because of the Aedilian statement.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9382 From: Alejandro Carneiro Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: MEGALESIA RACES (quarters)
AVETE, QUIRITES!

The Races of the Megalesia Ludi are here!!
Who will be the champion this year?
What Factio will get the victory for its hall of awards?

Reds, blues, whites and greens want to offer a great show in honor of
the Magna Mater Cybeles.

Gods bless their chariots and horses!

This year the commentator of the races will be the illustrious Gallus
Minucius Iovinus. The Aedilis Curulis and I, as scribe of the ludi,
thank before the citizenship his great effort and good work.
Gratias tibi agimus, Iovinus!


Salix Galaicus
Scriba primus ludorum


And now... the races!

--------------------- QUARTERS -------------------------

Race 1

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa.
Driver: Orion.
Chariot: Imperator Invictus
Tactics: always 2
Factio: Albata
-------------
Titus Licinius Crassus
Driver: Equus Magnus
Chariot: Orionis Draco
Tactics for qua and semi: 6
Tactics for final: 2
Factio: Veneta
-----------------
Lucius Arminius Faustus (Aedilis Plebeius)
Driver: Tleptolemus
Chariot: Cerealia
Tactics: always 3
Factio: Russata
--------------------
Tiberius Annaeus Otho--He´s the current green champion!!
Driver: Septimius Raurax
Chariot: Basilea
Tactics for qua and semis: 6
Tactics for the final: 1
Factio: Praesina
--------------------

Hello folks, and welcome to the first qualifying heats of the first
Ludi of 2756 auc. This is the competition where the fastest chariot
and it's driver eventually will be crowned.
Down at the circus we can see that the sky above is clearly blue and
filled with small, fluffy clouds. The sharp sounds of flags banging
in the wind echoes through the circus as the spectators anticipation
rises. Down at the starting-line the competitors are getting ready.
At the innermost lane stands the chariot Imperator Invictus, owned by
Illustrus Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa and driven by the skilled Orion.
Next to him stands the chariot Orionis Draco, owned by Illustrus
Titus Licinius Crassus and driven by Equus Magnus. Next to him we
find the chariot Cerealia, carring lots of advertising banners for
the next ludi, saying: -MY LUDI! Of course it can't be mistaken that
the chariot is owned by the Plebeian Aedile, Illustrus Lucius
Arminius Faustus. His driver is Tleptolemus which waves cheerfully to
the crowd. Next to him on the outermost lane we find the chariot
Basilea, driven by Septimius Raurax and owned by Illustrus Tiberius
Annaeus Otho which is the current champion of factio Praesina.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Orionis Draco gets a small advantage entering
the first curve, but is strongly challenged by Imperator Invictus
which passes the curve closely. The other two chariots is tightly
behind the leading Imperator Invictus and Orionis Draco. On the
straight line Cerealia gets up a good pace and is slowly comming up
next to the leading Imperator Invictus. But, hey what happens? As
only half a lap is remaining one of Cerealia's
advertising banners comes off and entangles Imperator Invictus
driver, Orion's face! Such an embarrassment... Orion simply can't see
the track and have to hold in his horse while the other chariots
rushes by him for he finish. Cerealia has a somewhat safe lead, but
the struggle for the second place is tough between Orionis Draco and
Basilea. As the finish line comes up closer and closer it seems as if
Basilea has got a small advantage over Orionis Draco. Cerealia
crosses the finish line as the winner and yes, it is
the green champion, Basilea that takes the second place before
Orionis Draco, which ends up third. The crowd applauds and cheers
loudly as Cerealia and Basilea makes it to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Cerealia
2nd Basilea
3th Imperator Invictus
4th Orionis Draco (accident)
Classified for semifinals: Cerealia and Basilea
---------------------------


Race 2

Caius Argentinus Cicero
Driver : Gordianus Camelius
Chariot : Australissima Orbis Terrae
Tactics for quartes and semi-finals : 2
Tactics for final : 4
Factio : Albata
----------------------
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Driver: Leonnatus
Chariot: Massilia
Tactics for qua and semis: 3
Tactics for final: 6
Factio: Russata
----------------------
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Driver : Victor Hispanicus
Chariot : Crux Australis
Tactics number for qua and semis: 6
Tactics number for the final: 1
Factio: Veneta
-------------------------
Caius Curius Saturninus
Driver: Euthymius
Chariot: Inexpugnabilis II
Tactics number for qua and semis: 1
Tactics number for the final.: 1
Factio: PRAESINA!
------------------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those small, fluffy
clouds. The sharp sounds of flags banging in the wind echoes through
the circus as the spectators anticipation rises. Down at the starting-
line the competitors are getting ready. At the innermost lane stands
the chariot Australissima Orbis Terrae, competing for factio Albata,
owned by Illustrus Caius Argentinus Cicero and driven by the skilled
Gordianus Camelius. Next to him stands the chariot Massilia, owned by
Illustrus Titus Sextus Apollonius Scipio and driven by Leonnatus.
Next to him we find the chariot Crux Australis, owned by Illustrus
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus and driven by Victor Hispanicus which
cheerfully waves to the crowd. Next to him on the outermost lane we
find the chariot Inexpugnabilis II, driven by Euthymius and owned by
Illustrus Caius Curius Saturninus.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Crux Australis and Inexpugnabilis II gets a
great start and directly takes the lead. Entering the first curve
they are strongly challenged by Australissima Orbis Terrae which
passes the curve closely. Massilia is currently on the last place,
but keeps a steady pace and is not far behind the rest of the field.
Crux Australis and Inexpugnabilis II are struggling hard to get the
upper hand on the straight lines, but loses their small advantages in
the curves to Australissima Orbis Terrae and Massilia. On the last
lap Crux Australis and Inexpugnabilis II are struggling really hard
on the straight line, but oh.. what happened there? It seems as if
the two leading chariots struggled too hard to make it first over the
finish line. Crux Australis and Inexpugnabilis II drove too closely
to eachother and banged toghether in a loud crunch! The driver of
Crux Australis, Victor Hispanicus looses the grip of his reins and
obiosly also over his chariot in
the tumult and one of Inexpugnabilis II wheels suddenly come of,
leaving Euthymius out of the race. Up for the finish only two
chariots remain; Australissima Orbis Terrae and Massilia. Aware of
the fact that he's already qualified to the semifinals Gordianus
Camelius, the driver of Australissima Orbis Terrae lowers his speed
and is passed by Massilia, which comes on strongly over the finish
line. The crowd applauds and cheers loudly as Massilia and
Australissima Orbis Terrae makes it to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Massilia
2nd Australissima Orbis Terrae
3th Crux Australis (accident)
4th Inexpugnabilis II (accident)
Classified for semifinals: Massilia and Australissima Orbis Terrae
------------------------

Race 3

Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
Driver: Marcus Atrox
Chariot Eversor
Tactics quarters and semi-finals: 6 5.
Tactics for the final: 1
Factio: Russata
------------------------------
Marcus Octavius Solaris
Driver: Damnator
Chariot: Gladius Albus
Tactics for all: 4
Factio: Albata
---------------------
Q. Salix Cantaber Uranicus.
Driver: Argonauta Aquilonius
Chariot: Phobos
Tactics 1/4 y 1/2: 2
Tactics for final: 1
Factio: Veneta
-------------------------
Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
Driver: Theodorus Citius
Chariot: Hyacintha Magna
Tactics number for quarters and semi-finals: 5
Tactics number for the final: 4
Factio Russata
--------------------------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those small...fluffy
clouds. Down at the starting-line the competitors are getting ready.
At the innermost lane stands the chariot Eversor, competing for
factio Russata, owned by Illustrus Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix and
driven by the skilled Marcus Atrox. Next to him stands the chariot
Gladius Albus, owned by Illustrus Marcus Octavius Solaris and driven
by Damnator. Next to him we find the chariot Phobos, owned by
Illustrus Q. Salix Cantaber Uranicus and driven by Argonauta
Aquilonius which cheerfully waves to the crowd. Next to him on the
outermost lane we find the chariot Hyacintha Magna, driven by
Theodorus Citius and owned by
Illustrus Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Eversor and Gladius Albus gets a great start
and directly takes a small lead. Entering the first curve Phobos
seriously challenges them both, but he is also struggling against
Hyacintha Magna, which tries to push Phobos to the wall of the
circus! Phobos have to slow down and Hyacintha Magna passes him
tightly. As Hyacintha Magna gets up side to side with Eversor and
Gladius Albus he is lashed by the driver of Gladius Albus, the brutal
Damnator. - Oohh... that's not fair play! But the audience cheers in
excitement as the race continues. Involved in their own
personal "vendetta" Hyacintha Magna and Gladius Albus is passed by
Phobos in a tight curve and up for the finish it's Phobos and Eversor
that's struggling to first pass the finish line. And it seems... yes,
it's Phobos that takes first place just before Eversor. Gladius Albus
ends up on a third and Hyacintha Magna comes in on a fourth place.
The crowd applauds and cheers
loudly as Phobos and Eversor makes it to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Phobos
2nd Eversor
3th Gladius Albus
4th Hyacintha Magna
Classified for semifinals: Phobos and Eversor
-----------------------------

Race 4

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Driver: Himself
Chariot: Italica
Tactics number for qua and semis: 2
Tactics number for the final: 5
Factio: Russata
----------------------
Titus Labienus Fortunatus
Driver: Pelops Celer
Chariot: Volatilis
Tactics number for qua and semis: 3
Tactics number for the final 6
Factio: Praesina
------------------------------
Gnaeus Octavius Noricus
Driver Concordius
Chariot: Impactus Infrenatus
Tactic for qua & semis: 5
Tactic for final: 6
Factio Albata
----------------------
Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus
Driver: Pertinax
Chariot: Volans
Tactics for the Quarter and Semifinals: 2
Tactics for the Finals: 5
Factio. russata
---------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those small....he, he,
fluffy clouds again. At the innermost lane stands the chariot
Italica, competing for factio Russata, owned and driven by Illustrus
Franciscus Apulus Caesar. Next to him stands the chariot Volatilis,
owned by Illustrus Titus Labienus Fortunatus and driven by Pelops
Celer. Next to him we find the chariot Impactus Infrenatus, owned by
Illustrus Gnaeus Octavius Noricus and driven by Concordius, which
grins in a little evil way. Next to him on the outermost lane we find
the chariot Volans, driven by Pertinax and owned by Illustrus
Hadrianus Arminius Hyacinthus.
I've just recived the news that the driver of the chariot Volatilis,
Pelops Celer obiously have suffered an assasination attempt, just
before the start!!!
He seems to be ok and I'm now reciving a report that the assasin has
been uncovered and taken care of. O, boy! Some people just can't
imagine the thought of loosing and will use all messures available to
win. Well...anyway Pelops Celer seems to be allright and soon the
race will begin. However, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus seems to be a bit
angry on his seat, murmuring words as "there are not good
professionals in the city", "I should have paid to Hannibal Lecterus"
and "at least they have not accused me, uf!".
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Italica and Impactus Infrenatus gets a great
start and directly takes a small lead. Entering the first curve
Volatilis seriously challenges them both, but he is also struggling
against Volans, which keeps a good and steady pace. Volatilis slowly
gets up side to side with italica and Impactus Infrenatus, but he is
tightly pressed against the wall of the circus by Impactus Infrenatus
and have to fall back again. Up for the last lap Impactus Infrenatus
keeps a small lead before Italica, which now is struggling towards
Volans, which is comming up strong. As the finish line approaches
they are racing side by side, behind the leading Impactus Infrenatus.
Who of these two will make it to the semifinals? It seems to be
Volans who has a small advantage over Italica. Yes, Impactus
Infrenatus finishes in first place, Volans comes in on a second place
closely followed by Italica and a not so happy Volatilis ends up on a
fourth place. The crowd applauds and cheers loudly as Impactus
Infrenatus and Volans makes it to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Impactus Infrenatus
2nd Volans
3th Italica
4th Volatilis
Classified: Impactus Infrenatus and Volans
------------------------------


Race 5

Alexander Solaris Draco
Driver : Scissor Obscurvs Northmannvs
Chariot : FVROR TEVTONICVS
Tactic for the Qua and Semis: 4
Tactic for the final: 5
Factio: Russata
------------------------
Julilla Sempronia Magna
Driver: Crescens
Chariot: Delecta Mea
Tactics number for quarters and semi-finals: 6
Tactics number for the final: 1
Factio: Praesina
--------------------------
Gaius Lanius Falco
Driver: Vincentius Maximus
Chariot VERITAS
Tactics number for quarters is 4
Tactics number for the final is 2
Factio: Veneta
-----------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those... YES... small,
fluffy clouds. At the innermost lane stands the chariot Furor
Teutonicus, competing for factio Russata, owned by Illustrus
Alexander Solaris Draco and driven by the well known Scissor Obscurvs
Northmannvs. He is a non-legitimate son of a High rank militar Roman
General and a "Norse" woman daughter of a cruel Gotic savager chief,
roman mercenary. He's known as a master of irony and cruelty, cunning
and dirty tactics but seriously engaged to do not show his low honor
to Roman Citizen to confront of he has envy. He say to the citizen
Constantinus Serapio in a rough italian: "LA PROSSIMA VOLTA DOVRAI
GUIDARE IL TUO CARRO TU, PERCHE' IL TUO TAURISCIO STAVOLTA LO FACCIO
FUORI!!!". "He´s really a barbarian beast!", said a confused
Serapio, looking disdainly to another side. Hum, it seems that in the
Italia province all the citizens are very good friends :-) Next to
him stands the chariot Delecta Mea, owned by Illustra Julilla
Sempronia Magna and driven by Crescens (Since the old driver,
Scorpianus, was sent to the provinces). Next to him on the outermost
lane we find the chariot Veritas, owned by Illustrus Gaius Lanius
Falco and driven by Vincentius Maximus which cheerfully waves to the
crowd.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Entering the first curve it's absolutely even
between all the three chariots. Veritas is the one that might have a
small advantage over the others, but he is tightly challenged by a
wild Furor Teutonicus, wich lashes out at Veritas driver, Vincentius
Maximus. Delecta Mea keeps out the trouble behind the other two
rivals, who now both are lashing out at eachother. Disturbed by their
personal fighting Veritas and Furor Teutonicus are passed by Delecta
Mea, which makes a tactical move during the final lap of the race.
Delecta Mea gets a small lead over the other two chariots. On the
finishing lane Delecta Mea has secured a safe lead and Veritas and
Furor Teutonicus sees their way to the semifinals slip away. First
over the finish line is Delecta Mea. Veritas comes in on second place
and Furor Teutonicus (with a really angry driver) ends up on a third
place. The crowd applauds and cheers loudly as Delecta Mea makes it
to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Delecta Mea
2nd Veritas
3th Furor Teutonicus
Classified for semifinals: Delecta Mea

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

Race 6

Titus Arminius Genialis.
Driver: Fabius Brasilicus.
Chariot: Terrifica.
Tactics for qua and semis: 2
Tactics for final: 6
Factio: russata
------------------
Lucius Suetonius Nerva
Driver: Stauracius
Chariot: Annonymous
Tactics for quarters and semi-finals: 2
Tactics for final: 5
Factio: Russata
---------------------
Marcus Minucius Audens
Driver: Pugio
Chariot: Emerald Wing
Tactic for all: 1
Factio Praesina
-----------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those small... As I can
say it... yes... fluffy clouds. Down at the starting-line the
competitors are getting ready. At the innermost lane stands the
chariot Terrifica, owned by Illustrus Titus Arminius Genialis and
driven by the skilled Fabius Brasilicus. Next to him stands the
chariot Annonymous, owned by Illustrus Lucius Suetonius Nerva and
driven by Stauracius. Next to him on the outermost lane we find the
chariot Emerald Wing, driven by Pugio and owned by Illustrus Marcus
Minucius Audens.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Terrifica and Annonymous gets a great start and
directly takes a small lead over Emerald Wing. The first curve is
really tightly raced by both Terrifica and Annonymous, which seems to
be really determined to walk away as todays winner. Emerald Wing has
lost a few yards to the leading duo as they begin the last lap.
Terrifica and Annonymous are still struggling, but Emerald Wing is
closing up on them. Will Emerald Wing make it all the way? He is
surely going strong, but I don't think he will. As the chariots comes
up towards the finish line Terrifica has taken a small lead over
Annonymous. Emerald Wing is still going strong, but... no, he comes
in on a third place, close behind Annonymous and the winner
Terrifica. The crowd applauds and cheers loudly as Terrifica makes it
to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Terrifica
2nd Annonymous
3th Emerald Wing
Classified for semifinals: Terrifica
----------------------------------

Race 7

N. Cassius Niger
Driver: Milo
Chariot: Leo
Tactics for Quarter finals an semis: 1
Tactics for the final: 3
Factio: Praesina
---------------------
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Driver: Gustavus Barbarus
Chariot: Proeliator
Tactics number for quarters and semi-finals: 2 5.
Tactics number for the final: 6
Factio: Russata
---------------------
G. Iulius Scaurus
Driver: Cethinus Aspis
Chariot: Raptor Cruentus
Tactics for Quarter finals an semis: 4
Tactics for the final: 6
Factio Praesina
------------------------

As the second race for the day is being prepared the sky above the
circus is still clearly blue and filled with those small...yes,
again, forever and never, fluffy clouds. At the innermost lane
stands the chariot Leo, owned by Illustrus N. Cassius Niger and
driven by the skilled Milo. Next to him stands the chariot
Proeliator, owned by Illustrus consul Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and
driven by Gustavus Barbarus. Next to him on the outermost lane we
find the chariot Raptor Cruentus, driven by Cethinus Aspis and owned
by Illustrus G. Iulius Scaurus.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Proeliator and Raptor Cruentus gets a great
start and directly takes a small lead over Leo. The first curve is
really tightly raced by both Proeliator and Raptor Cruentus. Leo
looses a few yards to the leading duo during the race, but as they
begin the last lap he really gets his "motor running". Proeliator and
Raptor Cruentus are still struggling, but Leo is slowly closing up on
them. He is surely going strong and now he's up next to Raptor
Cruentus. But what happens? The driver of Raptor Cruentus lashes out
at Leo's driver who seems to loose controll of his chariot. He rams
the wall of the circus with a crunch and flies high up in the air...
landing on... ooohhh, he seems to be landing somewere among the
Senators. - How embarrassing! The other two chariots continues the
race and comes up towards the finishing line side by side. It is
really even, but it seems as if Raptor Cruentus has taken a small,
small lead over Proeliator 4. Will Proeliator be able to answer to
that finish? I think he might... or... no, he comes in on a second
place, really close behind the winner Raptor Cruentus. The crowd
applauds and cheers loudly as Raptor Cruentus makes it to the
semifinals. The Red Armada has already 5 semifinalists!

Results:
1st Raptor Cruentus
2nd Proeliator
3th Leo (accident)
Classified for semifinals: Raptor Cruentus
-------------------------------

Race 8

Sergius Adrianus
Driver: Lirones de los Andes
Chariot: Velociraptor
Tactics for all: 1
Factio: Albata
--------------------
Gallus Minucius Iovinus
Driver: Pontius Falx
Chariot: Ossifragus (the sea eagle)
Tactics for qua & semis: 2
Tactics for final: 2
Factio: Veneta
------------------------
Manius Constantinus Serapio
Driver: Italicus
Chariot: Essedum
Tactics for qua and semis: 1
Tactics number for the final: 4
Factio: Praesina
---------------------------

As the eight and last qualifying race for the day is being prepared
the sky above the circus is still clearly blue and filled with those
small, fluffy clouds, always fluffy clouds, always...ARRG... well,
ehem... The sharp sounds of flags banging in the wind echoes through
the circus as the spectators anticipation and cheers rises. Down at
the starting-line the competitors are getting ready. At the innermost
lane stands the chariot Velociraptor, owned by Illustrus Sergius
Adrianus and driven by the skilled Lirones de los Andes. Next to him
stands the chariot Ossifragus (the sea eagle), owned by Illustrus
Gallus Minucius Iovinus and driven by Pontius Falx. Next to him on
the outermost lane we find the chariot Essedum, driven by Italicus
and owned by Illustrus Manius Constantinus Serapio, the
great "friend" of Scissor.
The race starts and the chariots hurrys away to the loud cheers of
the excited audiense. Ossifragus gets a great start and directly
takes a small lead over the others as he passes the first curve
really tightly. Velociraptor and Essedum are really struggling
toward one and other, but no one seems to get the upper hand. The
driver of Essedum seems to be really concentrated, while the driver
of Velociraptor is screaming his lungs out to get his horses to go
faster. As the chariots comes in for the final lap Ossifragus has the
lead, but now both Velociraptor and Essedum, seems to quicken up
their pace. They are slowly gaining on the leading Ossifragus, but
will they make it all the way? As the chariots comes up towards the
finishing line Ossifragus still has a small lead and Velociraptor and
Essedum struggles side by side. It is really even between them both,
but I don't think they will manage to beat Ossifragus in this race.
The horses rushes towards the finishing line and yes, it is Ossifraus
that takes the first place. Velociraptor manage to take the second
place closely followed by Essedum. The crowd applauds and cheers
loudly as Ossifragus makes it to the semifinals.

Results:
1st Ossifragus
2nd Velociraptor
3th Essedum
Classified for semifinals: Ossifragus
---------------

Total classified:

Russata: 5 (Cerealia, Massilia, Eversor, Volans and Terrifica)
Praesina: 3 (Basilea, Delecta Mea and Raptor Cruentus)
Veneta: 2 (Phobos and Ossifragus)
Albata: 2 (Australissima Orbis Terrae and Impactus Infrenatus)

On Tuesday the semifinals!!!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9383 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Salve Francisce Apule Aedilis,

> What do you think? Maybe the follow Illustris Magistrates hurted the
> Gods, changed the religious rituals, offended or removed or replaced
> the Religio Romana, encouraged the citizens to derespect the Religio
> and the Gods?

> - Illustrus Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> - Illustrus Quintus Gaufridus Canus

Unfortunately, my colleague disappeared a week or two after the election,
and the one Plebeian Aedile that year was rather quiet... being
only one Aedile where there should be four, I was unable to perform
every duty of that office; I chose to concentrate on the record-keeping
aspect (by building the Album Civium we see today) at the expense of
Ludi.

> [to this honorable Citizens, please don't feel hurted, mine is not an
> attack against you. This is only my defense.]

Certainly.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9384 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The temple of Magna Mater on the Palatine (long note)
Salvete Omnes,

I want give my congratulations to my assistant Illustrus Marcus
Iulius Perusianus for this report. In my Cohors he's engaging in a
detailed and important project taking of care the ruins of Temple of
Magna MAter in the Palatine Hill in Rome.

At 14th April we, Perusianus, Aurelia Iulia Pulchra and me, will meet
the Soprintendenza Archeologica of Rome (the public Istitution
managing the ruins in Palatin). We'll present Nova Roma and the
Project of Restoration. The directors of the Soprintendenza have
confirmed us they want accept our proposals.
We would like to start a fund-raising and donate the raised money to
the Istitution for the improving of the ruins. We'll ask to patrocine
and sponsored the Temple and have a special sign in the Palatine
(like a logo near the ruins).

In my opinion this is the first real and important step of Nova Roma
in live restoration and conservation of the roman ruins everywhere.
This is the first step to an international and public recongition of
Nova Roma and I invite you all to send us a little donation for this
project.

And this is why I think the Aedilian Fund is so important because it
could give an assurance to everyone want donate money to the Aediles.
I invite the Senate to think about this in the next votation.

I'll give as soon as possible (i hope after a positive vote of the
Senate ;-) the dates to make a donation and I hope to give you other
wonderful news about the Project after 14th April.

I remember you all the Cohors Aediles FAC is engaged too in the
project of sensibilization of Rosia Montana, the Ancient Alburnus
Maior, the roman village in Romania risking to be destroyed by a gold
mine. Please visit http://aediles.novaroma.org/apulus/

Valete bene
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Marcus Iulius " <m_iulius@v...>
wrote:
> M IVL PERVSIANVS QVIRITIBVS SPD
>
> avete omnes,
> today is, as proclaimed by our Senior Aedile Franciscus Apulus
Caesar, the
> archeological day dedicated to the Magna Mater and her temple on
the Palatine
> hill, Rome. This is a report I've written these last days. In a few
days
> a more friendly version will be published (with pictures and links)
on FAC
> Cohors site.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> One year later, what?s going on?
>
> Almost one year has passed since my first recognition to the area
of the
> temple, on the Palatine hill. Since then I have learned a lot about
this
> topic, and most of all, I was appointed to follow this project on
the behalf
> of Cohors Aedelis of Franciscus Apulus Caesar.
> Last year, as Scriba ad Historiam Provinciae Italiae I provided a
first
> report to Cohors Aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> (See at
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/templemagnamater.htm).
>
>
> What did we figure out last year? All the south-west area of the
Palatine
> hill is the object, since 1977, of systematic surveying directed by
Professor
> Patrizio Pensabene Perez (with the collaboration of numerous
graduated and
> students of the Department of Archaeological and Anthropological
Historical
> Sciences of the University of Rome "La Sapienza"). Unfortunately it
is still
> not possible to visit that area as it remains all fenced and under
restoration.
> At the entrance of the area there is still a sign stating jobs of
removal
> of asbestos materials in progress.
> A telephone call with Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, made two
weeks
> ago has confirmed this situation.
>
> What is changed now, one year after? Well, this report is more
aimed to
> the archeological news about the temple. We feel like having as
much information
> as possible about the temple as in a few weeks we look forward to a
big
> event.
>
> I think I?m not wrong if I say that for the first time Nova Roma is
having
> a contact with the managers of a Roman monument.
> Later this month Propraetor Italiae and myself, together with other
Italic
> citizens, will have an appointment with D.sa Irene Iacopi, managing
director
> of Roman Forum and Palatine archeological areas, to offer our
economical
> help to preserve the temple and any other kind of possible
relations. The
> creation of an Aedilian fund is also aimed to this purpose. It?s
our intention
> to understand better what both sides can earn. There are some
possibilities
> enlisted by the Italian law, which allows private citizens, alone
or associated,
> to collaborate with the Ministero per i Beni e le attività
culturali (for
> cultural assets and activities) as written in the Decreto
legislativo 368/98,
> art.10, comma 1.
>
> Questions of importance are as follows:
>
> a. What are the rules for fundraising?
> b. What forms of control are needed?
> c. What merits could Nova Roma display?
>
> The Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma, addressed in Piazza
S.Maria in
> Nova 53, will hold the meeting on April 14
(http://www.archeorm.arti.beniculturali.it/sar2000,
> email: info@a...).
>
>
> The History of Magna Mater
>
> The Cult of Magna Mater, the Great Mother, is probably the oldest
religion
> of all. The earliest stone-age sculptures depict the mother-
goddess, as
> an idol found in Catal Hüyük, six thousands years old. In a later
form she
> became a seated woman flanked by two leopards. The area of the
Aegean Sea
> and especially the Cretan Isle, organized by a matriarchal order
during
> the prehistoric age, adored a Mother Goddess as dispenser of
fecundity.
> She was adored as Cybele, worshipped with this name in Greece,
Phrygia and
> Anatolia. On the banks of the Euphrates as Koubaba and near the
Babylonians
> as Damkina, which means "married with the earth and the sky". Other
names
> were Gaia, Ga or Ge (from greek Mother Earth), Terra (in Latin) and
Gatumdu
> (her Sumerian name); she was also called Ishtar in Akkadia and
finally Isis
> in Egypt, not saying that behind her name there was also the
oriental goddess
> Shub-Niggurath.
>
> In nearly all creation myths of all cultures she appears to be the
eternal,
> not born, just existing from the beginning of time. She gives the
earth
> its shape. She is the bearer of the world and the population of
this planet
> (plants, animals and humans).
> The Romans identified this goddess with the Greek Rhea, and called
her the
> Magna Mater, the Great Mother.
> Although the priests of the cult were men who had castrated
themselves in
> front of her image, but most of the followers were women. They
worshipped
> the goddess in different temples, independent each other, although
some
> temples had more influence than others did. They were mainly in
Phrygia,
> Greece and Italy.
> In Pessinus, in northern Asia, a simulacrum of the divinity was
worshipped:
> one black stone of conical shape, probably a meteorite. Another
major temple
> was in Delphi, which was later re-consecrated to Apollo and became
much
> more famous for his oracle.
> In each temple the High Priestess had the greatest status, followed
by the
> Archigalli. Below in status was the ordinary priestesses and lowest
the
> galli.
>
>
> The Roman Magna Mater
>
> The Second Punic War had put in crisis the republican Rome and its
religious
> structure too. In the attempt of recovering the support of the
Gods, which
> appeared to be lost, the cult of the Magna Mater was introduced in
204 BC,
> after the consultation of the Sibylline Books.
> It?s also believed that the patricians imported the cult of Magna
Mater
> explicitly so that their social class would have a goddess that
served some
> of the functions that Ceres did for the plebeians. As a result,
there was
> sharp antagonism between the two cults, becoming rivals separated
only by
> the social classes they served. The same year the temple of Magna
Mater
> was dedicated, a new festival dedicated to Ceres was established.
This festival
> was called the Ieinium Cereris, and may have represented a plebeian
response
> to the new patrician goddess.
> The embassy was sent to the king of Pergamus, in which territory
the sanctuary
> was located. Having obtained the delivery of the simulacrum, it was
then
> carried and loaded on a ship to Rome. The simulacrum was one
pointed black
> stone of conical shape, called acus, which represented the goddess.
On its
> arrival it was welcomed into the city by a vir optimus, or best
man, selected
> from one of the most distinguished patrician families. The matrons
that
> escorted the goddess on the road from Ostia to Rome were entirely
drawn
> from the patrician class. Since its arrival in Rome until the
completation
> of an appropriated temple, the black stone was kept in the temple
of Victory
> (the Aedes Victoriae), on the western side of the Palatine hill.
> (Livy Ab urbe condita XXIX.37.2; XXXVI.36)
>
> Between 204 and 191 BC the sanctuary was built in the same area in
order
> to receive the acus. Probably that place was chosen also because of
the
> proximity to the cave of the recovery of the twins, the Lupercale,
as mountains
> and caves were sacred to the Magna Mater, and her temples were
often built
> near them in the tradition. It was dedicated on April 11 191 BC, by
the
> praetor Marcus Iunius Brutus, on which occasion the ludi
Megalenses, or
> Megalesia, were instituted and celebrated in front of the temple
(Livy loc.
> cit.; Fast. Praen. ap. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I". p. 235,
314-315,
> cf. p. 251=VI. 32498; Fast. Ant. ap. NS 1921, 91; Cicero de har.
resp. 24;
> cf. for site Ovidius Fast. II. 55; Martial VII.73.3).
>
> In 111 BC there was a first fire in the Temple of the Magna Mater
when the
> statue of Quinta Cloelia within the temple was uninjured. It was
caused
> by the aedile Quintus Memmius, who took with him the black stone.
>
> The temple was restored by Metellus Numidicus, consul in 110 BC,
and the
> cult resumed in an official and pacific version.
>
> Burned again in 3 BC, it was destroyed by mysterious circumstances.
>
> Augustus restored it in 3 AD. He also showed his closeness to the
Religio
> of Cybele (the other name commonly used in Rome) and his wife Livia
was
> resembled to the goddess. This worship has a large growing since
the end
> of the Imperial era (or since the interdiction of the paganism).
After that
> the traces of the cult of the black stone were lost.
> (Val. Max. I.8.II; Obseq. 99; Ovidius Fast.IV. 347-348; Mon.
Anc.IV.8)
>
> According to writings about Roman Regiones, the temple was still
standing
> unharmed in the fourth century (Not.Reg.X).
>
> During Roman History there are other references by classic authors:
> - The temple is found in Cassius Dio (XLVIII.43.4), Juvenal (IX.23)
as a
> place of assignation, and in the third century (Hist. Aug. Claud.
4; Aurel.
> I).
> - The stone needle itself is described by a late writer (Arnob.
adv. gentes
> vii. 49) as small and set in a silver statue of the goddess (cf.
Herodianus
> ab exc. d. Marci i. II; Arnob. v. 5). It was perhaps removed by
Elagabalus
> to his temple (q.v.) on the Palatine (Hist. Aug. Elag. 3; cf. LR
134-138;
> but cf. BC 1883, 211; HJ 53-54, n. 44).
>
> Archaeological evidences of the temple
>
> At the top of the Scalae Caci and behind the area of the Romulean
huts,
> on the southwestern corner of the Palatine, stand the ruins of the
ancient
> temple. Nowadays only a large brick box is visible in a squared
work with
> a staircase inside, on which a small wood of elm-oaks has grown.
>
> These ruins consist of a massive podium made of irregular pieces of
volcanic
> tufo and peperino laid in thick mortar, and fragments of columns
and entablature.
> The building presents its own guideline (NorthEast - SouthWest,
which was
> decided by cultural reasons), different from the previous one of
191 BC.
> Moreover a great courtyard occupied a large portion of the front
space and
> the western area of the temple, while to the East eased a
connection with
> the area of the nearby temple of Victory.
> All this was inside of a wide rectangular area closed on the west
flank
> of the temple. This is because the courtyard had to be classified
for a
> specific function, probably connected to the theatrical events of
the Ludi.
> The structure shows the need of great bathtubs for the rituals of
the cult.
> The priests of Magna Mater used these when they washed her image in
the
> sacred waters of the Almon River during the festivals of the
Goddess.
> The temple by Augustus (the last version and how we see it today)
was created
> on a high base with big steps. The great concrete podium which,
with the
> foundations laying directly on the cliff of the Palatine, was 9
Mts. (29.5
> feet) high. With the reconstruction of temple by concrete and the
elevation
> of the courtyard, the squared bathtub and the accessing angled
scales were
> obliterated. A new great rectangular concrete basin (16,50 x 3
Mts., 54.13
> x 9.8 feet) was constructed in the West area of the podium of the
temple.
> It is evident that the restoration of that period was carried out
using
> materials from the original structure.
>
> The dimensions of the podium are 33,40 x 19,35 Mts. (110 x 63
feet). The
> walls are 3,84 Mts. (12.60 feet) thick on the sides and 5,50 Mts.
(18.04
> feet) in the rear, but this unusual thickness is due to the fact
that the
> rear wall is double, with an air space, 1,80 Mts. (5.91 feet) wide,
between
> the two parts. This wall was faced on the outside with stucco, not
with
> opus quadratum. The walls of the cell were somewhat thinner than
the podium
> ones, forming a smaller rectangle (32 x 64 Mts. = 105 x 210 feet),
lying
> on a high covered base with lava stone blocks. From the rear wall
of the
> cell projects the base of a pedestal on which the stone needle
probably
> stood.
>
> While the previous described is the wider consideration, there is
considerable
> divergence of opinion as to the date of the podium: some attribute
it to
> 110 BC, and believe that the architectural members were given only
a new
> coat of stucco under Augustus. Fiechter assigns the whole to the
middle
> of the first century BC, but it does not seem at all necessary to
suppose
> that Augustus would not have used peperino coated with stucco.
>
> There weren't columns on the sides (prostylos) but only six columns
(hexastylos)
> in the front of the Corinthian order. And a plinth in masonry for
the cult
> of the statue, was placed perhaps in the inside of a sacellum on
the bottom
> wall (as said before). It was approached by a flight of steps
extending
> entirely across the front. The relationship between cell, pronao
and front
> body is 4:2:1. The rest of masonry are in opus reticulata and built
after
> the fire of 111 BC: the columns in lava stone lying beside podium
are of
> Augustan age. On the forehead of the pronao a terrace, supported by
parallels
> walls on turf made blocks, datable to III century BC. For following
generations
> this last structure was likely reused for several shops. They were
placed
> on a covered inner path that crossed the area.
>
> Is this the real temple of Magna Mater?
>
> Such a reconstruction has been confirmed as a relief of the first
imperial
> age that reproduces a procession in the front of the temple. This
relief
> is now at Villa Medici in Rome (http://www.villamedici.it/). This
temple
> was formerly attributed to the Ara Pacis.
>
> This is commonly thought to be the temple of Magna Mater owing to
an identification
> of a coin of the elder Faustina (not possible to see the picture.)
This
> represents a temple of the Corinthian order, with curved roof, and
a flight
> of steps on which is a statue of Cybele with a turreted crown
enthroned
> between lions.
>
> Recent diggings have characterized, to the east of the temple, the
foundations
> and the rests of the podium of another temple identified as the one
of the
> Victory. It was built in 294 BC by Consul Lucius Postumius Megellus
and
> to which Marcus Porcius Cato in the 193 BC added a place dedicated
to the
> Victoria Virgo. As said there was conserved the acus previously.
>
> Inscriptions and objects found in the area make it extremely
probable, if
> not for sure.
> Inscriptions referring to Magna Mater, especially one with a
dedication
> to the M(ater) D(eum) M(agna) I(daea), goddess of Mount Ida, a
mount in
> Phrygia by Pessinunt.
> (CIL VI. 496, 1040, 3702= 30967; NS 1896, 186; cf. CIL XII.405),
>
> Also found was a portion of a colossal female figure seated on a
throne
> and a fragment of a base with the paws of lions, the regular
attendants
> of the goddess.
>
> Diggings are supposed to have recovered several votive terracotta
of the
> first age of the temple. Thanks to them many interesting aspects of
the
> cult have been cleared, like the importance of the spring
celebration during
> the equinox.
>
> To say the least, a story says that in some cases hidden somewhere
would
> be located the acus, the famous black stone, itself recovered
during the
> diggings.
>
> NR declaration & edict about the MM project
>
> Nova Roma has shown its duty toward the temple of Magna Mater
through two
> main acts.
>
> JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER IN ROMA
> March 8 2002
>
> I. Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus (Aedilian site,
Thule
> site), Honorable Caius Cornelius Puteanus (Germania Inferior site),
Honorable
> Claudia Cornelia (Germania Inferior site), Illustrus Franciscus
Apulus Caesar
> (Italia site), Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus (Finnicae site),
Honorable
> Emilia Curia Finnica (Finnicae site and Academia site), Illustrus
Antonius
> Gryllus Graecus (Lusitania site), Illustra Iulia Cocceia and
Illustrus Sextus
> Apollonius Scipio (Gallia site) have formed an alliance to further
the correct
> restoration and care for the Temple of Magna Mater in Rome.
>
> II. Each of the above promise to place a picture of the Temple of
Magna
> Mater in Rome on "their" Nova Roman web-site (Aedilian,
> Provincial or Regional) with an inquiry asking all that visit their
web-site
> to contribute to the correct restoration and care of the Temple of
Magna
> Mater in Rome. The web-site shall also have the address of the
Propraetor
> of Italia, so that it is possible to contact him to send funds to
him to
> enable Provincia Italia to execute this joint promise. This web-
page shall
> be designed by Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar and made
available by
> him to all the co-signers of this declaratio.
>
> Signed in March the 8th, in the year of the consulship of Marcus
> Octavius Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, 2755 AUC. by:
> Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus,
> Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar,
> Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus,
> Honorable Emilia Curia Finnica,
> Illustrus Antonius Gryllus Graecus,
> Illustra Iulia Cocceia,
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio.
>
> EDICTVM PROPRAETORICVM V - REFECTIO TEMPLI MAGNAE MATRIS
> May 7 2002
>
> Italian version:
> Ex Officio Propraetoris Provinciae Italiae
>
> I. Con Questo Edictum la Provincia Italia ribadisce ufficialmente
l'impegno
> assunto nella JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER IN
ROMA promossa
> dalla Cohors Aedilis di Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, firmata dal
Propraetor
> in carica e visionabile all'indirizzo
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/megalesia/temple.htm
>
> II. La Provincia Italia istituirà un fondo, con le modalità
ritenute più
> convenienti, per la ricezione della donazioni provenienti dai
cittadini
> di Nova Roma a favore della ricostruzione e della manutenzione
delle rovine
> del Tempio di Magna Mater sul Palatino a Roma.
>
> III. Per favorire la pubblicità del progetto al più ampio pubblico,
sarà
> predisposto un apposito sito Internet all'interno di
http://italia.novaroma.org
> contenente tutte le informazioni storiche sul tempio, i dati per la
ricezione
> delle donazioni e gli aggiornamenti sull'andamento dei lavori.
>
> IV. La Provincia Italia designerà un magistrato provinciale come
responsabile
> del progetto. Egli dovrà ricercare notizie storiche ed
archeologiche sul
> Tempio di Magna Mater, curare i contatti con i donatori e con gli
enti pubblici
> manutentori delle rovine, conservare i fondi raccolti ed
individuare un'associazione
> o ente locale per la manutenzione del Tempio.
> Egli sarà anche il supervisore per Nova Roma dell'andamento dei
lavori.
> Altri magistrati provinciali potranno essere coinvolti nel progetto
a supporto
> del responsabile.
>
> V. Questo Edictum ha effetto immediato. Promulgato alle Nonis Maiis
MMDCCLVI
> a.u.c. (May 7, 2002), nell'anno del Consolato di Marcus Octavius
Germanicus
> e Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.
>
> VI. Questo Edictum ha l'approvazione della Curia Italica
(04/05/2002, http://italia.novaroma.org/curia/r30042002.txt)
>
> Curiae Post Scriptum: Il Propraetor Provinciae Italiae, quando lo
riterrà
> opportuno, emanerà un Edictum contenente le indicazioni precise
relative
> all'Ente che si occuperà dell'opera di restauro e alle modalità di
raccolta
> delle offerte di denaro a favore del progetto.
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
>
> English version:
> I. With this Edictum, Provincia Italia officially undertake the
commitment
> expressed in the JOINT DECLARATIO ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF MAGNA MATER
IN ROMA,
> promoted by Cohors Aedilis of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, and signed
by our
> current Propraetor (see at
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/ludi/megalesia/temple.htm)
>
> II. Provincia Italia will create a fund, following the most
convenient methods,
> to receive money from Nova Roma citizens explicitly given for the
restoration
> and management of the ruins of the Temple of Magna Mater on the
Palatine
> hill, Rome.
>
> III. A new Internet site at http://italia.novaroma.org will be
created to
> advertise the project, to let it be known to as much as people are
possible.
> It will contain all the historical information about the temple,
data about
> fundraising and update about the working progress.
>
> IV. Provincia Italia will appoint a provincial magistrate as
responsible
> of the project. He shall research historical and archeological news
about
> the Temple of Magna Mater, paying attention to the money givers and
keeping
> contacts with public organisms managing the ruins, saving money
raised and
> finding an association or local administration for the restoring
the Temple.
> He will be also a supervisor for Nova Roma about the restoration
and other
> kind of works. Other provincial magistrates could be involved in
the project
> in the future to support the supervisor.
>
> V. This Edictum is immediately valid. Given in the Nonis Maiis
MMDCCLVI
> a.u.c. (May 7, 2002), in the year of the Consulship of Marcus
Octavius Germanicus
> and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix.
>
> VI. This Edictum has the approval of Curia Italica (04/05/2002,
http://italia.novaroma.org/curia/r30042002.txt)
>
> Curiae Post Scriptum: Propraetor Provinciae Italiae, up to his own
decision,
> will emanate an Edictum with the right indications about the
administration
> which is going to restore the monument, about rules for fundraising
about
> this project.
>
> Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> Propraetor Provinciae Italiae
>
> Useful licteral sources
>
> Samuel Ball Platner,
> A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.
> (London: Humphrey Milford. Oxford University Press. 1929)
>
> Pensabene Patrizio,
> Scavi nell'area del tempio della Vittoria e del santuario della
Magna Mater
> sul Palatino
> (Rome: Archeologia Laziale IX, 1989)
>
> Lynn E. Roller,
> In Search of God the Mother The Cult of Anatolian Cybele (Berkeley-
Los Angeles:
> University of California Press, 1999)
>
>
> Sites & articles
>
> Magna Mater, The Great mother
> (http://inanna.virtualave.net/mother.html)
>
> Sophia Eva Kharis? site at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2179/magna_mater.htm
>
> By Anders Sandberg at
http://hem.bredband.net/arenamontanus/Mage/magna.html
>
> By Alicia Ashby at
> http://students.roanoke.edu/groups/relg211/ashby/Index.html
>
>
> Marcus Iulius Perusianus
> -------------------------
> Scriba ad historiam Provinciae Italiae
> Scriba Aedilis Historicus Primus
> Scriba Curatoris Differum
>
> -------------------------
> http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
> http://italia.novaroma.org
> http://italia.novaroma.org/fac
> -------------------------
> AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9385 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Salve, Marcus Octavius Germanicus -

On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 04:55:00PM -0600, Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:
>
> > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
> > offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access
> > device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to
> > deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those
> > devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or
> > knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used
> > to do any of the following:
>
> > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
> > telecommunications service.
>
> They've just described every router and every host connected to the
> Internet that runs a relatively recent operating system. Every
> Cisco router has NAT; every Windows machine has it (which means that
> Microsoft violates this law several thousand times daily).
>
> This is a monumentally stupid law.

Yes. Hopefully, Nova Roma's physical plant isn't in one of the affected
states... although many more states are hurrying to jump onto that
particular bandwagon as I write this. I have no idea what sort of
through-the-looking-glass perspective their law-making bodies have on
the issue, but anyone with the slightest amount of technical expertise
would tell them just how deeply moronic and how disconnected from
reality it is. However, it seems that technical expertise is not
considered necessary or even useful in passing technology-related laws,
at least by those states.

<shrug> Until this is killed, we can only hope that we won't become the
test case.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Videant consules ne quid detrimenti capiat respublica.
May the consuls see to that no damage comes to the state.
-- Phrase that gave the Roman consuls absolute power when the state was
in a severe crisis, according to Cicero
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9386 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
G. Iulius Scaurus Cn. Iulio Straboni salutem dicit.

Ave, Cn. Iuli, propinque.

Scripsisti:

> Indeed. I was at work and hadn't my copy handy when I posted, so I
resorted
> to the frankly fabululous on-line edition, which is just the
translation.
> 78.6.1a uses the word _ethnos_. You are correct, I myself confused the
> notional qualities in trying to figure out how he was "Gallic" - in the
> sense you define above, it would be his adoption of Gallic culture
in the
> guise of his caracal, the hooded cloak he made popular and which
stung him
> with a lasting nickname.

I had vaguely recalled the passage in Dio, but did remember exactly
how the Greek went.

> The more deeply I read into Roman history, the more similarities I
see with
> people today (as opposed to the entirely "alien society" aspect Dr.
> McCullough flogs us with). Dio appears no different, in fact, from
my own
> father: he had a complete shorthand of all the good and bad
characteristics
> of every ethnic/racial group, and the jokes that went with them. It
appears
> to me the Romans were just as bad as anyone in terms of "He's from
Pontus,
> watch the silver," but perhaps better than modern society in that
skin-color
> didn't seem pre-deterministic in the way it is in, say, my
neighborhood of
> South Central Los Angeles. But I admit, I want to do more research
on this
> before I commit.

I'm torn on these issue. I think that a great deal of "human nature"
is driven by a biology we share with the historical Romans. Yet,
there are at least two things which make our world so radically
different from the Roman that it takes real concentration to think out
the implications of the differences. Modern medicine is one; without
it we would have the preoccupation with illness, pervasiveness of
death and fear, ascription of illnesses to demons, feel abject terror
at the not-so-gentle whims of unseen beings, and the like (and there
are still places in the world where this is still true, but not likely
in places where chaps can chat on the internet). Our conception of
time, particularly our expectations of time is another. In the Roman
world virtually everything involving work, commerce, transportation,
and military affairs, etc., took hugely more time than they do in the
modern world. Our attitudes toward time involving impatience at
having to wait come into play within minutes; in the Roman world
impatience in any complex activity involving coordination along
distances was unlikely to arise in anything under a few weeks, and
very likely much more.

> I hope you didn't think I was arguing or disputing your point; I don't
> generally do that on this list. I like to add, from my admittedly
narrow
> range of research. I realize most people are more interested in the
later
> republic and Julio-Claudian period. I enjoy your erudition mightily.

I didn't think anything of the sort and, actually, I enjoy a good
argument about history. I think it entirely laudable that you have
invested your free time in studying Roman history. My position is
somewhat different; indeed, where our relevant copies of Dio Cassius
were tells something of the tale. Yours was at home; mine on a
bookshelf in my office. I do history for a living (and am
sufficiently fascinated with history to do something like Nova Roma
for my recreation, which some of my colleagues take as a sign of
daftness). You do this for the pure love of knowledge. But that
gives me major practical advantages: I read the languages, I have many
of the primary texts at hand in my personal library and, if not there,
a university research library, I have been exposed to a huge secondary
scholarly literature, and, I think I have the greatest benefit that a
Ph.D. confers: if I don't know the answer, I know where to look it up.
I deeply admire the cives novaromani because they have devoted so
much time outside their livelihood to study Rome and her civilization
from their love of it.

Vale, propinque.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9387 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Praetores (was Greek fonts on Yahoo)
G. Iulius Scaurus T. Labieno Fortunato salutem dicit.

Ave, Consul nobilis.

Thank you very much for your kind words; and for your prompt answer to
my question about praetorian actiones.

Vale, Consul nobilis.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9388 From: asseri@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: a book of sorts RE: Racial prejudice in Rome - scattered thoughts
Salvette

I find this a very interesting subject. I can offer a book I use with some
of the other reenactment and education I pursue on the subject of slavery and
race .

"Race and Slavery inthe Middle East- An Historical Enquiry " by Bernard
Lewis
isbn 0-19-506283-3.

the author often comments on Roman law and it lasting influence in its
Provinces over the centuries.

Prima Fabia Drusila
Legatus Regionis Occidentalis
(Indiana ,Illinois, Kentucky)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9389 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: The project of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater
Salve Illustrus Franciscus Apulus Caesar et Salvete Cohors Aedilis FAC!

I congratulate and thank You all for the wonderful work You have done
with the Preoject of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater! I will
follow the development of this project very closely and promise to
leave a sum of money to the Aedilian Fund for this project during the
Roman Rally in Bologna this summer.

I also must state that I, even if my knowledge is small, see this
project as a very noble and relgious act from the Cohors Aedilis that
by far compensate for any problems with the non-violent ludi. I _do_
hope the Gods see it the same way!
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9390 From: Marcus Iulius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Age of Empires-Rise of Rome Video Game match
M IVL PERVSIANVS QVIRITIBVS SPD

According to many opinions Age of Empires, and especially its expansion
called Rise of Rome, it's one of the best strategy videogames ever done.
Also we believe it's one of the most widespread; hence the idea of making
a multiplayer online match (if not a tournment) durind these edition of
Megalesia Ludi.

What is important for the players is to have all the same release of the
game, which is "Age of Empires-Rise of Rome Expansion", because we tried
to play it with different version and it seemed not to work.

Anybody interested please feel free to write to me
(m_iulius@...) today or tomorrow until midday (Central European
Time). According to how many and, most of all, where are the players
from, we will decide how many matches and at what hour they're going to
be held. We'll try to have, if just one single match is to be played, a
date/time to please as many players is possible :-)

The time when the match is to be played and more detailled rules will be
sent to the subscribers. The scenario will be one with as many players as
the subscribers (max 8 each match), everybody with the same conditions,
and for 1 hour period of time.
The winner (or the winners from each match to partecipate to a
final match) will be the ones who gain most points (Age of Empires's
total points at the end of a match).

hope to see on line for a virtual match!

Valete

Marcus Iulius Perusianus
-------------------------
Scriba ad historiam Provinciae Italiae
Scriba Aedilis Historicus Primus
Scriba Curatoris Differum

-------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/m_iulius
http://italia.novaroma.org
http://italia.novaroma.org/fac
-------------------------
AEQVAM MEMENTO REBVS IN ARDVIS SERVARE MENTEM
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9391 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The project of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater
Salve Illustrus Consul,

> I congratulate and thank You all for the wonderful work You have
done
> with the Preoject of Restoring the Temple of Magna Mater! I will
> follow the development of this project very closely and promise to
> leave a sum of money to the Aedilian Fund for this project during
the
> Roman Rally in Bologna this summer.

Thank you very much, Illustrus Consul, we [me and my wonderful
Cohors] are very very engaged in this archeological project because I
think one of the most important goals of Nova Roma is the
conservation of our "Cultural Tresury", of the signs of Ancient Rome
in the world.
As last Curule Aedile you know well what is the Project of
Restoration of Temple of Magna Mater and how many time we are
spending to work about it.
The news given by Marcus Iulius Perusianus are very important because
we're crossing from a level of searching and studing to a level of
operating.
We have enough informations about Magna Mater and the Temple
inpalatine Hill, we have structural informations, histories, photos,
dates about the conservation and the right contacts to start the
practical time.
Now the next closer steps are 3:
1) to meet the Soprintendenza Archeologica of Rome and create a close
collaboration between NR and the most important archeological Public
Istitution in Rome;

2) to receive the approvation from the Senate about an Aedilian Fund
under the control of Res Publica (Senate) and managed by the Aediles
and their Quaestores;

3) to start the fund-raising and donate the raised money to the
Soprintendenza looking for a soon intervantion over the ruins.

I hope the Res Publica and the Collegium of Pontiffs and the Senate
and all the citizens would like to support this Project.

> I also must state that I, even if my knowledge is small, see this
> project as a very noble and relgious act from the Cohors Aedilis
that
> by far compensate for any problems with the non-violent ludi. I
_do_
> hope the Gods see it the same way!

Yes, I agree. This is our way to honourate Magna Mater. What a best
way to recover a temple? We think to follow the mos maiorum and to
respect the Religio Romana in our own life with practical and big
(for dimension and intentions) actions not only virtually. We hope
the Gods like our job!

[sorry for my english, I hope you understand what I means ;-)]

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Senior Curule Aedile
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9392 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites.

I have been reading the lastest comments on the decision of the
aediles, and I would like to add a couple of ideas.

First of all, I would prefer that the current war (which is only very
marginally connected to Nova Roma) did not affect any of our
activities. Having said this, I also have to say that I respect the
cohors aedilis's decision: they are the ones who create the ludi,
after all.

Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are, just in
case someone does not know. The ludi are basically fictional
*stories* written by the members of the aedilician cohors.

So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact, it
is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.

What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is going
to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will die! That
is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).

If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows; I
think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana believe
that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are talking about
stories. Fictional narration. Fun and entertainment.

This is simply a non-issue. I personally take the Religio Romana
*very* seriously. What the aedlician cohors do does not look like a
religious practice to me, so it is highly improbable that they might
be performing an impious action.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9393 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Minucius Scaevola and all
citizens & peregrines, greetings.

Thanks for clarifying what this all means. I wonder
whether it would be possible for us, if targeted by
this law, to have the identity of each voter recorded
automatically and filed deep in a database which could
only be accessed by the consent of an extremely large
number of people including the Consuls, so that we
could then argue that no one's identity is actually
being concealed.

Clutching at straws? How did you guess?

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9394 From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: New telecomm laws: possible problems
Salve Aule Apolloni,

> Thanks for clarifying what this all means. I wonder
> whether it would be possible for us, if targeted by
> this law,

I don't think that our voting system is a problem. No effort is made
to conceal the "place of origin" of any vote; each and every vote
originates from a place seven floors above Cermak Avenue in Chicago.

> to have the identity of each voter recorded
> automatically and filed deep in a database which could
> only be accessed by the consent of an extremely large
> number of people including the Consuls

Right now, the Rogatores and Censores, working together, could
piece this together. The Rogatores know that vote #10001 at
13:52 CST belonged to the citizen whose code is "1ABC123"; the
Censores know that citizen "1ABC123" is John Q. Smith. We're
forbidden to attempt to do so in normal circumstances, but an
attack by external hostile goverments would justify breaking the
seal.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus,
Censor, Consular, Citizen.
http://cynico.net/~hucke/
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9395 From: sa-mann@libero.it Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re:_[Nova-Roma]_Nova_Roman_Controversy
Spectate Druse

you took it the wrong way.
I don't think would be useful for Nova Roma starting a debate about
WWII.
So I won't add much about what you replied. Such an event like WWII
involves so many feelings and facts that I find it difficult to give a
simple exaustive issue.
I simply underline that what you gave as historical facts are plain
opinions derived from involvement. This is not negative, is different
from neutral history.




Your Knowledge of the History of Italy in the Second
> World War seems to have come from someone who wished
> to replace the truth with anti-american propaganda.


You speak like if exposing opinions different from yours about USA in
WWII would be anti-amrerican propaganda. Like if one could only be pro-
american, like if America always has been on the right's side. I simply
don't share this point. It's not propaganda.


Mussolini began losing popularity after Italy lost her
> African Colinies and Sicily was conqured. On July 25th
> 1943 the Fascist Grand Council desposed Mussolini and
> King Victor Emmanuel III had Mussilini arrested, and
> apointed Badogilo to head a new government. The
> Italian government imeditaly entered negotions with
> the United Nations.

Coming again to fact and opinions, you put an opinion like a fact. What
you call italian government had not the complete right to be called
Italian Government. Mussolini, and something like 25 million people,
formed a government in Northern Italy which was recognized by
innumerable States as the genuine italian government. This government
had nothing less than 500.000 volunteers who fought for Italy and
Italy's honour, as they said.
> An Armistice was
> announced on the 8th of September 1943 that granted
> Italy the status of a co-belligerent against the
> Nazis. The United States landed troops the next day.
> The following month Italy declared war against Germany
> who now had the status of an occuping power, not of an
> Italian ally.

I don't know, being you a Roman citizen, what you think of changing
ally during a war; what you think of turning your weapons against your
comrades and aginst the people that shared death with you, dangers,
bread and sorrows, not to speak of hopes and dreams; against their
backs, in the same barracks, in the same trenches.
I think, as a Roman, that nothing could be more disgusting than
breaking one's word, in any respect but mainly in a war that involves
the sorrows which everybody knows. The king broke his word. He
represented nothing but his cowardice, lack of honesty and honour.
For this reason, today, the vast majority of italians dislike him and
his family.

> "Liberation" was not just the view of the United
> States government, it was also the view of the
> majority of the Italian people and the Italian
> government.

Not the majority of Italians, and not a government based on popular
esteem.

> The United States did not target the Italian citizens
> during the struggle to liberate them, though the
> accuracy of the weapons of that time did lead to far
> more deaths than would have occured with modern weapon
> systems. Throughout the war in Europe the United
> States suffered appalling loses by flying daytime
> Bombing Missions in an effort to achive as precise a
> bombing as possible. We could have saved a lot of
> American lives by following the advice of British
> Bomber Command and simply carpet bombing cities at
> night, but we placed our aircrews in increased danger
> in an effort to insure that as many bombs as possible
> hit thier intended targets. 25,000 Americans died in
> those dangrous daytime raids.

I respect every soldier who fights honourably. So I do with the
americans that fought honestly. Sadly I could offer plenty instances of
american terrorism in Italy. But I don't want to offend you, simply ask
you to be patriotic as you are, it's truly a good attitude, but don't
offer your feelings as if they were the truth.

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononia
Italia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9396 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Moderation Announce
Salvete Quirites.

A message has been sent to this list from the address
BiggPoppaPump420@... under the title "Secret Ancient Roman Info".
That message just contains a link that does not seem related to
Ancient Rome.

I have decided to censor that message, because it seems spam to me.
If the person who sent it thinks that I am wrong, please contact me
privately and we will talk about it.

Thank you.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
PRAETOR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9397 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
In a message dated 4/6/03 11:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
salixastur@... writes:

Salvete.
> Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are, just in
> case someone does not know. The ludi are basically fictional
> *stories* written by the members of the aedilician cohors.


Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why people are
saying what is the big deal.
The big deal is perception and precedent.

> So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
> case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact, it
> is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.
>

Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we are
picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight we are not
much of a recreation are
we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you would not be
making
this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently that told you
this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?


> What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is going
> to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will die! That
> is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).
>

No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think this is true,
tells me
that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.

If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes bloodless
games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is welcome to do it.

However, this is not the case.
We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We have
attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, or when unable
to do so use divine inspiration
to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess, one who is
dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great Goddess
arrival in Rome and her intervention
allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to the prophecy.
It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor with Rome.
In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to throw a
giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to Rome and
winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your right since we
do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected Magistrates could
not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a state
function.
That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this from happening.

Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood is being
shed, where is the harm?
The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making their own
decisions on
how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being carried out.
There in lies the
harm.

> If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
> starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
> would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows; I
> think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana believe
> that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are talking about
> stories. Fictional narration. Fun and entertainment.
>

Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is necessary or not,

it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of a political
statement. We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none of
us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a large Texas
cookout
is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow, cook it, then
eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.

I hope this makes my objection to these proceedings clearer for you.

Q*FABIVS*MAXIMVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9398 From: curiobritannicus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Ludi Cerealia Chariot Races
Salvete omnes,

Nova Roma is certainly spoiled for Ludi this month. :-) The Ludi
Cerealia begin on 12 April, and Chariot races will be held. We are
now accepting entrants for these races - maybe this is a second
chance for all those who have been knocked out in the Ludi Megalesia!

On 13 April, the first round will be held. The semi-final will take
place on the 15th, and the final on the 17th.

If you wish to enter, please send an e-mail with "Chariot races" in
the subject heading to marcusscribonius@... with the
following details:

Your name in Nova Roma,
The name of your driver,
Your tactics for the quarter/semi-finals,
Your tactics for the finals,
Which factio your driver will be racing for. (Blue, Red, Green or
White)

There are six tactics:
To hurry in the last laps,
To pass the curves closely the "spina" of the circus,
To support a constant pace,
To lash the rivals,
To push the rivals to the wall of the circus,
To hurry in the straight lines.

There is also the possibility of sabotaging an opponent's chariot.
You must say what factio you wish to sabotage, and there is a 45%
chance of success. If you fail, your attempt is uncovered, and you
will be banned from the race due to your dishonourable tactics. If
you succeed, one chariot from the specified factio will suffer an
accident. Of course, you will not be identified as the saboteur if
you succeed...

Subscriptions must be sent by the 11th April.

For the honour of your factio, hire a chariot!

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus,
Plebeian Aedile.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9399 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
-----Original Message-----
From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
>
>So... these so-called “more accurate“ terms are *not* overloaded with
>prejudicial baggage? I'm so glad you told me.

Have you heard them before? I haven't.

Certainly, now that you
>have said so, it _must_ be true. Oh, one last thing: by whose authority
>was this fiat issued?

I am using the words: I choose the words I wish use to avoid racist connotations.

>Unless you have something of substance to say, I won't belabor this
>issue any further; I believe I've made my point clearly.
>
I don't recognise any point to be made: anyone can make offence of anything. You have. Your problem.
>
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9400 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
-----Original Message-----
From : “L. Sicinius Drusus“ <lsicinius@...>

>He's a specilist in Chem/Bio Warfare defense, so I'm
>pretty sure He's near Baghdad, since that is where
>they are most worried that the Butcher would use the
>weapons. We haven't heard from him since the first day
>of the war.
>
What would frighten me is the possibility of infecting Iraqis with some plague with or without antidote so they do not succumb themselves, and hand the invaders a batch of Typhoid Annies.

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9401 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/6/03 11:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> salixastur@y... writes:
>
> Salvete.
> > Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are,
> > just in case someone does not know. The ludi are basically
> > fictional *stories* written by the members of the aedilician
> > cohors.
>
>
> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.

First of all, please let me remind you that precedents have no legal
value in Nova Roma or in Roman tradition. They are an element of
Anglo-Saxon juridical systems.

> > So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
> > case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact,
> > it is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.
> >
>
> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we
> are picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight
> we are not much of a recreation are we?

Well; we try to improve everyday :-).
But I would say that there is still a slight difference between
innocent fun just coincidentally related to Rome and the *real*
recreation of religious rituals.

> And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you would
> not be making this feeble argument.

Well; I *am* a practitioner of the Religio, and I am making this
argument :-).

> What God have you spoken to recently that told you this is true?

Unfortunately, I do not speak with the Gods too often. The closest
thing I can do is reading auspices and auguries according to Roman
tradition. But that is beyond the point.

> Or are you just taking a wild guess?

Let me tell you a few things about how the current "ludi" where
created.

About a year ago, Gnaeus Salix Galaicus and I had the idea to
organize a small game to entertain the citizens of Hispania. It was
just an innocent game, and we certainly had no intention to claim
that it was a recreation of the ludi of Antiquity (that would have
been ridiculous). We had some fun with it, and Gnaeus Salix Galaicus
thought that it would be a good idea to bring the same game to a
national level. He convinced the aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus to
organize such an event according to Galaicus's rules, and so
these "ludi" were born.

So that is what the "ludi" have been since their beginning: an
innocent entertainment. *Real* ludi are a different concept
altogether.

> > What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is
> > going to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will
> > die! That is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).
> >
>
> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true, tells me that you are not paying attention to the
> situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes
> bloodless games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he
> is welcome to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We
> have attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings,
> or when unable to do so use divine inspiration to accomplish this.
> We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess, one who is dovoted in
> researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess arrival in Rome and her intervention allowing the Romans to
> win the Second Punic War, according to the prophecy.
> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor
> with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to
> throw a giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.

I do know what the Megalesia are, and given that Cybele is the patron
deity of my own hometown, you can be sure that I am interested in
keeping Her happy.

But there is a big difference between *real* rituals and our current
ludi. The latter are just entertainment. Do you want to honour
Cybele? Then help organize *real* cultual rituals. That is part of
your duty as pontifex.

> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to
> Rome and winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's
> your right since we do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.

I am a true Roman and a follower of the Religio. The fact that I do
not agree with you does not make me a "non-member", sorry :-).

> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could not express this doubt in state functions. The
> Megalesia is a state function. That is why those clauses exist. To
> keep impiety like this from happening.

This is not impiety. This is just light-hearted entertainment. They
are *not* supposed to be *real* ludi.

> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood
> is being shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making
> their own decisions on how a state function that has a deep
> religious meaning is being carried out.
> There in lies the harm.

There are not religious functions associated with the current ludi.
They are just a game. Religious rites are a serious issue.

If you really think that writing down a humorous story where
imaginary gladiators kick the hell out of each other can actually
substitute *real* religious rites, I am afraid that your point of
view seems quite impious to me. I am sure that Cybele Herself can
tell the difference.

> > If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
> > starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
> > would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows;
> > I think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana
> > believe that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are
> > talking about stories. Fictional narration. Fun and
> > entertainment.
> >
>
> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not, it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition
> for the sake of a political statement. We have banned animal
> sacrifice for the time being since none of us except for Venerator
> has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
> large Texas cookout is, without the religious connotation. You
> slaughter a cow, cook it, then eat it, with 300 of your closest
> friends.

Even the Ancients said that blood sacrifices where *not* necessary.

> I hope this makes my objection to these proceedings clearer for
> you.

It does; but it just shows how mistaken you are, sorry :-).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9402 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
-----Original Message-----
From : Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@...>
>
>to me the Romans were just as bad as anyone in terms of “He's from Pontus,
>watch the silver,“ but perhaps better than modern society in that skin-color
>didn't seem pre-deterministic in the way it is in, say, my neighborhood of
>South Central Los Angeles. But I admit, I want to do more research on this
>before I commit.
>
This is largely true of Europe anyway but reflection on the ancient world might explain other reasons. They certainly had a poor opinion of child-like dangerous blonde blue-eyed giants loyal until they switched sides unexpectedly. To their South and East where people would be notably darker were older civilisations of no threat to them. To Europe's South and East was first a higher civilisation of military and cultural threat and once Europeans had escaped to buy slaves from them, it was only because technology was advancing. Africa offered no such technology or learning below the Muslim line and only reminders of ignorant peasants and the past since Europeans got there largely after cultural collapse into a Dark Age. The Americas much the same: the Aztecs were hated savages even more bloodthirsty than the Conquistadores ruling from what predecessors had built, the Maya had collapsed, the Inca had just fought their first civil war and the North was full of farmers and nomads. By the time India and China came in sight, they were recognised as equal cultures but that faded as they stood technologically still and Europe did not. Both India and China were in any case suffering the shock of rule by Mongol invaders, in India's case, with profound religious differences. Whatever else the Chinese achieved, their propensity for exquisite torture did not endear them to people just putting public torture behind them either.
Barbary pirates remained a serious impediment to shipping until United America started looking for a use for the navy it had built against Confederate America. There were barbarous African kingdoms the Portuguese dared not tangle with but did encourage to greater decadence. Rome could claim to be best at being Roman but it could not claim any kind of general cultural superiority over Semites and Egyptians.
Added to that is an intriguing reference from Herodotos checking the truth of the Golden Fleece legend that came with those 'sons' of Danawos from Liya who did not stop off to found Thebes. He says the Kolkhisites must be of Arfican origin because "Though their faces are dark and hair curled tight, yet men like that may be found *anywhere in Civilisation*, but the practise circumcision and that preversion is of purely Egyptian origin". It's 'found anywhere' that is interesting. Could there have at one time been Negro settlement north of the Sahara? We hear nothing of whether the likes of Iugurtha and Iuba were 'Aethiops' (Burnt-face). One possible pointer is the Dogon tribe who have been investigated in recent years because they know of invisible stars in the Sirius system and have 'visitor' legends. Opinion is that there were French scientists capable of meeting them in the early 20th century when Sirius B had been surmised and Sirius C is a matter of their religious symmetry whether it exists or not. Some researchers claim that they have legends of having lived by the Mediterranean. But their whole investigation is too tied up with overt agendas to prove or disprove alien communication and nobody is being too rigorous on either side. Still, there is no reason Phoenician invasion should not have pushed Negroid tribes across the Sahara.

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9403 From: Daniel O. Villanueva Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD

Salvete,

The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant office of Tribunus Plebis
have been certified by the Rogatores.
Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes, the identities of the
citizens that voted could easily
be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by each candidate will not be
published.
Here below are the results given to me by honorables rogatores :
The votes for the fourth run-off election for Tribunus
Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.

114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes, in
31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.

While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did not
receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as follows:

Count of Uncontested Tribes:

Geminius: 5
Modius: 11 Tribes
Popillius: 10 Tribes

Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for in
two tribes , but did not win them.

As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the tied
tribes, so this, resulted in:

Modius: 16 Tribes


On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3 candidates for their continued participation and fortitude!
My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for all of their hard work and helpfulness.

Valete,
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Tribunus Plebis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9404 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/6/03 11:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> salixastur@y... writes:
>
> Salvete.
> > Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are,
> > just in case someone does not know. The ludi are basically
> > fictional *stories* written by the members of the aedilician
> > cohors.
>
>
> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.

First of all, please let me remind you that precedents have no legal
value in Nova Roma or in Roman tradition. They are an element of
Anglo-Saxon juridical systems.

> > So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
> > case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact, >
> it is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.
> >
>
> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we >
are picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight > we
are not much of a recreation are we?

Well; we try to improve everyday :-).
But I would say that there is still a slight difference between
innocent fun just coincidentally related to Rome and the *real*
recreation of religious rituals.

> And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you would
> not be making this feeble argument.

Well; I *am* a practitioner of the Religio, and I am making this
argument :-).

> What God have you spoken to recently that told you this is true?

Unfortunately, I do not speak with the Gods too often. The closest
thing I can do is reading auspices and auguries according to Roman
tradition. But that is beyond the point.

> Or are you just taking a wild guess?

Let me tell you a few things about how the current "ludi" where
created.

About a year ago, Gnaeus Salix Galaicus and I had the idea to organize
a small game to entertain the citizens of Hispania. It was just an
innocent game, and we certainly had no intention to claim that it was a
recreation of the ludi of Antiquity (that would have been ridiculous).
We had some fun with it, and Gnaeus Salix Galaicus thought that it
would be a good idea to bring the same game to a national level. He
convinced the aedilis Caeso Fabius Quintilianus to organize such an
event according to Galaicus's rules, and so these "ludi" were born.

So that is what the "ludi" have been since their beginning: an innocent
entertainment. *Real* ludi are a different concept altogether.

> > What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is
> > going to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will
> > die! That is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).
> >
>
> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true, tells me that you are not paying attention to the
> situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes >
bloodless games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he > is
welcome to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We >
have attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, >
or when unable to do so use divine inspiration to accomplish this. >
We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess, one who is dovoted in >
researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess arrival in Rome and her intervention allowing the Romans to >
win the Second Punic War, according to the prophecy.
> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor >
with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to >
throw a giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.

I do know what the Megalesia are, and given that Cybele is the patron
deity of my own hometown, you can be sure that I am interested in
keeping Her happy.

But there is a big difference between *real* rituals and our current
ludi. The latter are just entertainment. Do you want to honour Cybele?
Then help organize *real* cultual rituals. That is part of your duty as
pontifex.

> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to >
Rome and winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's >
your right since we do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.

I am a true Roman and a follower of the Religio. The fact that I do not
agree with you does not make me a "non-member", sorry :-).

> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could not express this doubt in state functions. The
> Megalesia is a state function. That is why those clauses exist. To >
keep impiety like this from happening.

This is not impiety. This is just light-hearted entertainment. They are
*not* supposed to be *real* ludi.

> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood >
is being shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making >
their own decisions on how a state function that has a deep
> religious meaning is being carried out.
> There in lies the harm.

There are not religious functions associated with the current ludi.
They are just a game. Religious rites are a serious issue.

If you really think that writing down a humorous story where imaginary
gladiators kick the hell out of each other can actually substitute
*real* religious rites, I am afraid that your point of view seems quite
impious to me. I am sure that Cybele Herself can tell the difference.

> > If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
> > starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
> > would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows; >
> I think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana
> > believe that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are
> > talking about stories. Fictional narration. Fun and
> > entertainment.
> >
>
> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not, it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition
> for the sake of a political statement. We have banned animal
> sacrifice for the time being since none of us except for Venerator >
has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
> large Texas cookout is, without the religious connotation. You
> slaughter a cow, cook it, then eat it, with 300 of your closest
> friends.

Even the Ancients said that blood sacrifices where *not* necessary.

> I hope this makes my objection to these proceedings clearer for
> you.

It does; but it just shows how mistaken you are, sorry :-).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF

___________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS
Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más...
http://messenger.yahoo.es
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9405 From: Daniel O. Villanueva Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Congratulatios to the two blues
Salvete omnes.

Congratulations to the two blues that go to the semifinals : Ossifragus and Phobos!!. The best fortune during the semifinals!!!!

Bene valete
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Dominus factionis veneta



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9406 From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Congratulatios to the two blues
Salve Illustrus Senator!

What are You saying?

>Salvete omnes.
>
>Congratulations to the two blues that go to the semifinals :
>Ossifragus and Phobos!!. The best fortune during the semifinals!!!!
>
>Bene valete
>Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
>Dominus factionis veneta

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Consul et Senator
Propraetor Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Cohors Consulis CFQ
http://www.insulaumbra.com/cohors_consulis_cfq/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9407 From: nathan guiboche Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
Salve All

This is a great idea! I shall write about Quintus Sertorius of Old Rome, as
this is my favorite Roman!... Please don't hold this against me!!! {:-\

Quintus Sertorius
Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis

>From: "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
>Reply-To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>To: "Nova-Roma" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>,"Novaromaeagle"
><Novaromaeagle@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [Nova-Roma] The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Eagle
>Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 23:48:09 -0500
>
>Salve Romans!
>
>I would like to start a series on the leading personalities and events of
>the Roman Republic, especially during it's last 100-150 years or so. It
>would end with the death of Augustus and the passing of his powers to
>Tiberius, the final act in the establishment of the Monarchy. You can
>write about individual people, the legal or constitutional issues involved
>or something else that interests you about his period in Roman history. If
>you are interested please e-mail me at spqr753@... and tell me who or
>what you would like to write about.
>
>Vale
>
>Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>Curator Differum
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9408 From: Caius Minucius Scaevola Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 09:45:11PM +0100, me-in-@... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
> >
> >So... these so-called ?more accurate? terms are *not* overloaded with
> >prejudicial baggage? I'm so glad you told me.
>
> Have you heard them before? I haven't.

Therefore, your labels of "more accurate" and "devoid of prejudice" are
so much bunkum. You've used different symbols to represent _exactly_ the
same concepts as had been represented by terms deemed to be prejudiced
(else why look for aliases?), and are hiding your prejudiced behavior
behind neologisms.

> Certainly, now that you
> >have said so, it _must_ be true. Oh, one last thing: by whose authority
> >was this fiat issued?
>
> I am using the words: I choose the words I wish use to avoid racist connotations.

<shrug> You have failed miserably and conspicuously.

> >Unless you have something of substance to say, I won't belabor this
> >issue any further; I believe I've made my point clearly.
> >
> I don't recognise any point to be made: anyone can make offence of
> anything. You have. Your problem.

Your recognition isn't relevant, given that you were the one using the
racist terminology; an honest admission and an attempt to correct the
error would have been much to your benefit, but I had scant expectation
of it. As to my having a "problem", you're not of sufficient
significance in my world to be one. I pointed out that you were using
language that you may want to rethink, which presumed decency and lack
of racial prejudice on your part; all that happens now is that these
presumptions are changed.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In magnis et voluisse sat est.
To once have wanted is enough in great deeds.
-- Propertius, "Elegies"
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9409 From: Alejandro Carneiro Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Avete, Quirites!

I am a citizen with few messages or personal opinions in this list,
because as epicurean I detest the politics and the excessive
participation in discussions. However, I think that I must offer my
opinion in this issue... after all, I´m the creator of the rules of
the races that two aediles used in NR and am the "scriba primus"
(main scribe) of the Ludi this year.
Salix Astur is right. I created the ludi for the province Hispania
and its aim was the simple amusement by means of a game where the
whole citizenship could take part.
The ludi in Hispania was a great success and I thought that it would
be a good idea to bring the same game to a national level for all the
nova roman citizenship.
Nowadays is the game where more citizens take part and thanks to the
races the four factiones or colors of the circus have reborn as part
of the daily life in our Rome. I fell very proudly for this little
success and I will be always at the disposal of the aediles to help
in what is necessary to increase the prestige of our ludi and
factiones.
Of course, I never thought in a religious use because I respect (and
I knew) the Religio. My vision of races was always an popular
entertainment for the citizens.
Another issue would be to run races in the sacred Murcia Valley
(Circus Maximus) in honor of Consus and Ceres, doing before the
great "Pompa" or parade... then...yeah.. it would be a true and
fascinating Ludi. Well, maybe someday :-)


Salix Galaicus
Scriba primus ludorum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9410 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
--- Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@...> wrote:
SNIP
>
> First of all, please let me remind you that
> precedents have no legal
> value in Nova Roma or in Roman tradition. They are
> an element of
> Anglo-Saxon juridical systems.
>

So What are we to make of the Mos Maiorum?
Isn't that a set of Precedents set by our ancestors?
One that had a major bearing on how the Romans of
Antiquita conducted thier affairs, including the law?

Wasn't it common for a Praetor taking office to
announce that he would govern under the edicts of a
predecessor? Isn't that a matter of precedent?

Are you claiming that no magistrate ever defended his
actions by pointing out that they were in keeping with
the Mos Maiorum as shown an earlier magistrate doing
the same thing?

If Nova Roma lasts for generations like The Roma of
Antiquita did then won't our ancestors look apon our
actions in areas not covered by the ancient Mos
Maiorum as constituting a new Mos Maiourum? That our
precedents will be look to for advice on conducting
the affairs of Nova Roma?


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9411 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
In a message dated 4/6/03 2:49:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
salixastur@... writes:


> It does; but it just shows how mistaken you are, sorry :-).
>
>

Fine, lets meet next week in Madrid with sharpened Gladiuses. Then we will
see who is mistaken.

Once again you prove nothing except that you a newcomer has no clue what we
are about.
That's my opinion, but I think the rest of the college will agree.
If you wanted a light hearted entertainment, then don't pattern it on a real
event. If you just called it a Ludi, I couldn't care less. I was
entertaining the populace with virtual gaming, long before you were
interested in NR.
If what you are saying is this is not a recreation of the Megalesia, then I
understand your puzzlement at my outrage. So why even involve the college,
then?

Oh and you aren't a very astute. Our whole constitution is based on
precedent, as was most
the rulings by Iudex. That was why formulae were invented. To standardize.
So since this is not a true recreation of the Megalesia as you have said, hey
no harm no foul.

FABIVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9412 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Maximus and others,

I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you, Sulla
and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus Gnaeus
Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?

> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
people are
> saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.

What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the majority
of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?

> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we
are
> picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight we
are not
> much of a recreation are
> we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
would not be
> making
> this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently that
told you
> this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?

And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday? What
kind of punishment they suggested you?
I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
controversy?

> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
this is true,
> tells me
> that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes
bloodless
> games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is welcome
to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We
have
> attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, or
when unable
> to do so use divine inspiration
> to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess,
one who is
> dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
Goddess
> arrival in Rome and her intervention
> allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to the
prophecy.

Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the intervation
of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years and
I have a my answer but you are the expert...

> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor
with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to
throw a
> giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to
Rome and
> winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
right since we
> do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
Magistrates could
> not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
state
> function.
> That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this from
happening.

I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy Magna
Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project for
a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of the
ruins, the study of a big project.
And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games (Naumachiae,
Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
honorate and make happy my Goddess.

What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not writing
bloodly scenes?
Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more to
make happy the Gods?
Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
friends.

> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood
is being
> shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making
their own
> decisions on
> how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
carried out.
> There in lies the
> harm.

I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of the
Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The majority
of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and I'll
not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except your
friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my Office.
Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate elected
by the Nova Romans?
I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the higher
Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
Tradition?...

> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
necessary or not,
>
> it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of a
political
> statement.

Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I have
changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent scenes.
Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
changement of the Tradition?

MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
LUDI??
Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!

> We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none of
> us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
large Texas
> cookout
> is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow, cook
it, then
> eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.

So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses, maybe
in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.

At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
accept your objections. They are not logical and several people and
Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect about
your position and move a step back.

[After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9413 From: AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
So there will be another run-off election. That will make it five correct? I think perhaps election reform is in order.

G. Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, danielovi@... writes:

> Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
>
> Salvete,
>
> The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant office of Tribunus Plebis
> have been certified by the Rogatores.
> Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes, the identities of the
> citizens that voted could easily
> be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by each candidate will not be
> published.
> Here below are the results given to me by honorables rogatores :
> The votes for the fourth run-off election for Tribunus
> Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
>
> 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes, in
> 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
>
> While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did not
> receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as follows:
>
> Count of Uncontested Tribes:
>
> Geminius: 5
> Modius: 11 Tribes
> Popillius: 10 Tribes
>
> Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for in
> two tribes , but did not win them.
>
> As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the tied
> tribes, so this, resulted in:
>
> Modius: 16 Tribes
>
>
> On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3 candidates for their continued participation and fortitude!
> My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for all of their hard work and helpfulness.
>
> Valete,
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Tribunus Plebis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9414 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete,
Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
to build stages for performances. We have to make due
with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
that for the present.

My Objection isn't based on the historic accuracy of
our games. It's based on the concept of a magistrate
making changes based on political or personal beliefs.
Games that are held on behalf of the state should
never be changed because of a magistrate's personal
beliefs. If any citizen feels that his/her personal
beliefs would prevent him/her from carrying out the
duties attached to an office then they should refrain
from contesting that office or resign from it.

This only applies to games held on behalf of the
state. If a citizen wishes to stage private games as a
matter of largesse, then they have more freedom.

If these were your private games I would make no
objection. If the Gods were displeased with them, then
thier displeasure would fall on you, not on the state.
However these aren't your games. They are Nova Roma's
games, and you can't place Nova Roma is a postion of
posibily displeasing the Gods because of a personal
whim.


--- Franciscus Apulus Caesar <fraelov@...> wrote:
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my
> "mistaken", why you, Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to
> Illustrus Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct
> answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do
> understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past
> message, the majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus
> Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize
> violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the
> precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the
> past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are
> recreation of Rome, and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st
> century hindsight we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as
> you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to
> recently that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild
> guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
> yesterday? What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position
> like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to
> stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact
> that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation
> at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova
> Roma," and he promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice
> and he is welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive
> the Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the
> ancients' writings, or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of
> the Great Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great
> Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration
> commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War,
> according to the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert,
> please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke
> the intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what
> Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and
> violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the
> last two years and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to
> maintain her favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not
> just an excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to
> think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say
> that her coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine,
> that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are
> elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The
> Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety
> like this from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I
> make happy Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a
> REAL project for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is
> happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my
> work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution,
> the check of the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4
> games (Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria),
> prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer
> video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is
> my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as
> Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if
> I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but
> i'm not writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I
> could do more to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you,
> Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual,
> and no real blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected
> magistrates are making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious
> meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The
> majority of the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting
> games. The majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
> declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my
> Office and I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However
> nobody (except your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to
> resign my Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a
> Magistrate elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody
> (except the higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you
> want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood
> sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition
> for the sake of a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I
> ask you what I have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other
> Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't
> violent scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
> Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't
> organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the
> "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE
> TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being
> since none of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it
> out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all,
> that is all a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You
> slaughter a cow, cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and
> running horses, maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue
> my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using
> this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble
> and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and
> several people and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have
> to reflect about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I
> started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly
> and I don't feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9415 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
I Concur.

The Elections have been drug out far too long,
primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.

I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires a
canidate who fails to reach a minium level of support
in an election or a runoff be striken from the ballots
only leaving serious canidates that have a reasonable
chance of being elected.


--- AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
> So there will be another run-off election. That
> will make it five correct? I think perhaps election
> reform is in order.
>
> G. Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, danielovi@... writes:
>
> > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> >
> > Salvete,
> >
> > The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant
> office of Tribunus Plebis
> > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes,
> the identities of the
> > citizens that voted could easily
> > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by
> each candidate will not be
> > published.
> > Here below are the results given to me by
> honorables rogatores :
> > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> Tribunus
> > Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
> >
> > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes,
> in
> > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> >
> > While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did
> not
> > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as
> follows:
> >
> > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> >
> > Geminius: 5
> > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> >
> > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for
> in
> > two tribes , but did not win them.
> >
> > As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the
> tied
> > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> >
> > Modius: 16 Tribes
> >
> >
> > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius
> Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> candidates for their continued participation and
> fortitude!
> > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for
> all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> >
> > Valete,
> > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > Tribunus Plebis
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9416 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Scattered thoughts on race
G. Iulius Scaurus Cn. Iulio Straboni salutem dicit.

Salve, Cn. Iuli, propinque.

Rereading my posting I discovered a typo which completely reversed
what I meant to say. It should have read:

"I had vaguely recalled the passage in Dio, but did _not_ remember exactly
how the Greek went."

Vale, propinque.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9417 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"

I have a better and simpler solution.

If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune, where five are elected,
then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up to, but no more than
five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five or less but no more than
five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and each voter should be
allowed to vote for each office.

In the election for Consul each voter would be allowed to vote for up to two
candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.

If we adopt this reform or something close to it the need for run off
election will most likely come to and end.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>; <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
<tribunes@yahoogroups.com>; <NR_Argentina@...>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results


> I Concur.
>
> The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
> on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
>
> I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires a
> canidate who fails to reach a minium level of support
> in an election or a runoff be striken from the ballots
> only leaving serious canidates that have a reasonable
> chance of being elected.
>
>
> --- AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
> > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > will make it five correct? I think perhaps election
> > reform is in order.
> >
> > G. Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > Standard Time, danielovi@... writes:
> >
> > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > >
> > > The results of the election for the 1(one) vacant
> > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > Due to the small size of many plebeian Tribes,
> > the identities of the
> > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won by
> > each candidate will not be
> > > published.
> > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > honorables rogatores :
> > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > Tribunus
> > > Plebis have been counted and all ties resolved.
> > >
> > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total votes,
> > in
> > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > >
> > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in the
> > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate did
> > not
> > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results are as
> > follows:
> > >
> > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > >
> > > Geminius: 5
> > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > >
> > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted for
> > in
> > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > >
> > > As Modius won the greatest number of uncontested
> > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate are
> > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of the
> > tied
> > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > >
> > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > >
> > >
> > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L. Didius
> > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > candidates for their continued participation and
> > fortitude!
> > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores for
> > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > >
> > > Valete,
> > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9418 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
That would decrease representation. I will use the
names of the American Political Parties as an example.
The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
will feel they have no stake in it's government.

--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
> Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
>
> I have a better and simpler solution.
>
> If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> where five are elected,
> then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> to, but no more than
> five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> or less but no more than
> five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> each voter should be
> allowed to vote for each office.
>
> In the election for Consul each voter would be
> allowed to vote for up to two
> candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
>
> If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> need for run off
> election will most likely come to and end.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
> Fortuna Favet Fortibus
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> <NR_Argentina@...>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> results
>
>
> > I Concur.
> >
> > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> name
> > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> >
> > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> a
> > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> support
> > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> ballots
> > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> reasonable
> > chance of being elected.
> >
> >
> > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
> > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> election
> > > reform is in order.
> > >
> > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > Standard Time, danielovi@... writes:
> > >
> > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > >
> > > > Salvete,
> > > >
> > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> vacant
> > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> Tribes,
> > > the identities of the
> > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> by
> > > each candidate will not be
> > > > published.
> > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > Tribunus
> > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> resolved.
> > > >
> > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> votes,
> > > in
> > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > >
> > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> the
> > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> did
> > > not
> > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> are as
> > > follows:
> > > >
> > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > >
> > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > >
> > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> for
> > > in
> > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > >
> > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> uncontested
> > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> are
> > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> the
> > > tied
> > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > >
> > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> Didius
> > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > fortitude!
> > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> for
> > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > >
> > > > Valete,
> > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9419 From: Stephen Gallagher Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve L. Sicinius Drusus

That may be true and it may not be true.

We have five Tribunes of the people and all were so posed to take office
January 1, the fourth one took office a few weeks ago. It is now April 6th
the next and last tribune will most likely not take office until May at the
earliest.

FIVE MONTHS into office.

I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
We have five county Commissioners that are elected in the general election
out of 10 candidates from the major political parties. Sometimes the
Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans do. Most of the time it
is a majority that cross party lines and is held together by different
views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no Growth.

Elections are the place where a "factions" ideals get tested.

It was once said in the USA that that on any given day in a legislative body
there are "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies" because each issue
will bring about new "factions" and new groupings.

Election reform is needed. What form if will finally take I do not know but
the debate on it is just beginning.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Citizen


----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results


> That would decrease representation. I will use the
> names of the American Political Parties as an example.
> The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
> and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
> lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
> will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
> will feel they have no stake in it's government.
>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
> > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> >
> > I have a better and simpler solution.
> >
> > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > where five are elected,
> > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> > to, but no more than
> > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> > or less but no more than
> > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> > each voter should be
> > allowed to vote for each office.
> >
> > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > allowed to vote for up to two
> > candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
> >
> > If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> > need for run off
> > election will most likely come to and end.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <NR_Argentina@...>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> > results
> >
> >
> > > I Concur.
> > >
> > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> > name
> > > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> > >
> > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> > a
> > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > support
> > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > ballots
> > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > reasonable
> > > chance of being elected.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
> > > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > election
> > > > reform is in order.
> > > >
> > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > > Standard Time, danielovi@... writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete,
> > > > >
> > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > vacant
> > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > Tribes,
> > > > the identities of the
> > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> > by
> > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > published.
> > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > > Tribunus
> > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > votes,
> > > > in
> > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > > >
> > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> > the
> > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> > did
> > > > not
> > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> > are as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> > for
> > > > in
> > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > uncontested
> > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> > are
> > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> > the
> > > > tied
> > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > >
> > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > Didius
> > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > > fortitude!
> > > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> > for
> > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > >
> > > Roman Citizen
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > forms, and more
> > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9420 From: deciusiunius Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites.

Salve G. Salix,

> Secondly, I would like to clarify what the ludi *really* are, just
>in case someone does not know. The ludi are basically fictional
> *stories* written by the members of the aedilician cohors.
>
> So I think that it is not reasonable to cry "Sacrilege!" in this
> case, even if the ludi may have had a religious origin. In fact, it
> is quite ridiculous, if I may express my mind freely.
>
> What we are actually hearing is: "Hey! That guy over there is going
> to write a story about gladiators where no gladiator will die! That
> is a direct attack to the Religio Romana!" :-).

Well, then if one turns this argument around, one could reasonably
say it sounds absurd to say there will be no blood in games that are
already bloodless since they are virtual. One might even ask how it
can go against one's conscience to describe virtual, *fictional*
games in which virtual and *fictional* animals or people may die?

> If we where talking about *real* ludi, we might even consider
> starting this conversation (although I think that not many people
> would support *real* blood spilling in modern gladiatorial shows; I
> think that most of the practitioners of the Religio Romana believe
> that blood sacrifices are *not* necessary). But we are talking
>about stories. Fictional narration. Fun and entertainment.

Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we were
able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have a
crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I am
not able to understand his perspective on this issue. Next I suppose
the Age of Empires tournament that has been discussed would have to
be cancelled because it portrays deaths of game characters.

> This is simply a non-issue. I personally take the Religio Romana
> *very* seriously. What the aedlician cohors do does not look like a
> religious practice to me, so it is highly improbable that they
>might be performing an impious action.

I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not an
official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.

Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9421 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-06
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
Since you have brought it up.
I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
There has been a find of chemicals that have had the
solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to be
small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.
Brutis
--- me-in-@... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From : �L. Sicinius Drusus� <lsicinius@...>
>
> >He's a specilist in Chem/Bio Warfare defense, so
> I'm
> >pretty sure He's near Baghdad, since that is where
> >they are most worried that the Butcher would use
> the
> >weapons. We haven't heard from him since the first
> day
> >of the war.
> >
> What would frighten me is the possibility of
> infecting Iraqis with some plague with or without
> antidote so they do not succumb themselves, and hand
> the invaders a batch of Typhoid Annies.
>
> Caesariensis.
>
>
> --
> Personalised email by http://another.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9422 From: deciusiunius Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve Druse,

Not to mention we have used this system in the past. NR voting was
held that way for the first couple of years. We switched from one
vote per open office to one vote per position to prevent any powerful
faction from dominating NR politics. It forces them to prioritize
their votes.

I was actually against switching to the current system. I thought
that only one vote per position was partially disenfranchising the NR
voter. In retrospect, I admit I was wrong and believe the current
system is a good safeguard against factional politics. I do think
that changing the requirement from a majority to a plurality would
help prevent constant runoffs.

In the current election, it would be the noble thing for the
candidate with the least support to drop out of the race.

Vale,

Palladius



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> That would decrease representation. I will use the
> names of the American Political Parties as an example.
> The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> Republicans they will always elect both the Consuls,
> and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This will
> lead to frustration and soon the minority Democrats
> will start drifting away from Nova Roma because they
> will feel they have no stake in it's government.
>
> --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> >
> > I have a better and simpler solution.
> >
> > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > where five are elected,
> > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for up
> > to, but no more than
> > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for five
> > or less but no more than
> > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office and
> > each voter should be
> > allowed to vote for each office.
> >
> > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > allowed to vote for up to two
> > candidates , because we are electing two Consuls.
> >
> > If we adopt this reform or something close to it the
> > need for run off
> > election will most likely come to and end.
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > Citizen
> > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...>
> > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > <NR_Argentina@g...>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> > results
> >
> >
> > > I Concur.
> > >
> > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
> > > campaigned nor recived much support has left his
> > name
> > > on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.
> > >
> > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that requires
> > a
> > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > support
> > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > ballots
> > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > reasonable
> > > chance of being elected.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > > > So there will be another run-off election. That
> > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > election
> > > > reform is in order.
> > > >
> > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM Eastern
> > > > Standard Time, danielovi@c... writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > >
> > > > > Salvete,
> > > > >
> > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > vacant
> > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > Tribes,
> > > > the identities of the
> > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers won
> > by
> > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > published.
> > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election for
> > > > Tribunus
> > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > resolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > votes,
> > > > in
> > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4 tribes.
> > > > >
> > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader in
> > the
> > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that candidate
> > did
> > > > not
> > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The results
> > are as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was voted
> > for
> > > > in
> > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > uncontested
> > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a candidate
> > are
> > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all of
> > the
> > > > tied
> > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > >
> > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues Marcus
> > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > Didius
> > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our 3
> > > > candidates for their continued participation and
> > > > fortitude!
> > > > > My personal thanks to our team of Rogatores
> > for
> > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > >
> > > > > Valete,
> > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > >
> > > Roman Citizen
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > forms, and more
> > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Roman Citizen
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9423 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
I Do agree that reform is needed. The Tribune
Elections are being hled under a lex who's preamble
states

" Preamble. Given that, for some of the magistracies
of the Res Publica, run-off elections have proved to
be a frequent affair; and given that those run-off
elections mean a serious waste of time and effort both
for our magistrates and our citizenry, this law
pursues to reduce the frequency of those run-off
elections by increasing the number of votes cast by
each citizen"

Since we have had more runoffs under this lex than
under previous laws it has to be regarded as a
failure.

This problem first surfaced when we moved to a
majority of all the tribes as the threshold for
election.

I would like to move back to having the canidates who
recive the greatest number of votes elected with a
minimum threshold of 40% in the event that a great
number of canidates are running, with each citizen
casting 1 vote. In the event of a runoff there needs
to be a minimum ammount of support to make the runoff
ballot, or a cutoff of the number of open postions
plus one, ie if there are three open spots for
tribunes in a runoff only the top four non elected
canidates would be eligable for the runoff ballot.

--- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
> Salve L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> That may be true and it may not be true.
>
> We have five Tribunes of the people and all were so
> posed to take office
> January 1, the fourth one took office a few weeks
> ago. It is now April 6th
> the next and last tribune will most likely not take
> office until May at the
> earliest.
>
> FIVE MONTHS into office.
>
> I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
> We have five county Commissioners that are elected
> in the general election
> out of 10 candidates from the major political
> parties. Sometimes the
> Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans
> do. Most of the time it
> is a majority that cross party lines and is held
> together by different
> views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no
> Growth.
>
> Elections are the place where a "factions" ideals
> get tested.
>
> It was once said in the USA that that on any given
> day in a legislative body
> there are "no permanent friends and no permanent
> enemies" because each issue
> will bring about new "factions" and new groupings.
>
> Election reform is needed. What form if will finally
> take I do not know but
> the debate on it is just beginning.
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Citizen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis tributa
> results
>
>
> > That would decrease representation. I will use the
> > names of the American Political Parties as an
> example.
> > The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> > canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> > Republicans they will always elect both the
> Consuls,
> > and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This
> will
> > lead to frustration and soon the minority
> Democrats
> > will start drifting away from Nova Roma because
> they
> > will feel they have no stake in it's government.
> >
> > --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
> > > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> > >
> > > I have a better and simpler solution.
> > >
> > > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > > where five are elected,
> > > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for
> up
> > > to, but no more than
> > > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for
> five
> > > or less but no more than
> > > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office
> and
> > > each voter should be
> > > allowed to vote for each office.
> > >
> > > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > > allowed to vote for up to two
> > > candidates , because we are electing two
> Consuls.
> > >
> > > If we adopt this reform or something close to it
> the
> > > need for run off
> > > election will most likely come to and end.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Citizen
> > > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <NR_Argentina@...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis
> tributa
> > > results
> > >
> > >
> > > > I Concur.
> > > >
> > > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > > primarly because one canidate, who has not
> activly
> > > > campaigned nor recived much support has left
> his
> > > name
> > > > on the ballot throughout these endless
> runoffs.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that
> requires
> > > a
> > > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > > support
> > > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > > ballots
> > > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > > reasonable
> > > > chance of being elected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
> > > > > So there will be another run-off election.
> That
> > > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > > election
> > > > > reform is in order.
> > > > >
> > > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM
> Eastern
> > > > > Standard Time, danielovi@...
> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > > vacant
> > > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > > Tribes,
> > > > > the identities of the
> > > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers
> won
> > > by
> > > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > > published.
> > > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election
> for
> > > > > Tribunus
> > > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > > resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > > votes,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4
> tribes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that
> candidate
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The
> results
> > > are as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was
> voted
> > > for
> > > > > in
> > > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > > uncontested
> > > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a
> candidate
> > > are
> > > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > tied
> > > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues
> Marcus
> > > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > > Didius
> > > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our
> 3
> > > > > candidates for their continued participation
> and
> > > > > fortitude!
> > > > > > My personal thanks to our team of
> Rogatores
> > > for
> > > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > >
> > > > Roman Citizen
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > > forms, and more
> > > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9424 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve,

Since the canidate with the least support has shown no
intention to step aside for the good of Nova Roma,
despite causing repeated runoffs persuing a hopeless
canidacy, we need an election law that sets minimum
standards to make the ballot for the runoff so that in
the future minor canidates with little support won't
tie up elections for months by forcing repeated
runoffs.

--- deciusiunius <bcatfd@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Druse,
>
> Not to mention we have used this system in the past.
> NR voting was
> held that way for the first couple of years. We
> switched from one
> vote per open office to one vote per position to
> prevent any powerful
> faction from dominating NR politics. It forces them
> to prioritize
> their votes.
>
> I was actually against switching to the current
> system. I thought
> that only one vote per position was partially
> disenfranchising the NR
> voter. In retrospect, I admit I was wrong and
> believe the current
> system is a good safeguard against factional
> politics. I do think
> that changing the requirement from a majority to a
> plurality would
> help prevent constant runoffs.
>
> In the current election, it would be the noble thing
> for the
> candidate with the least support to drop out of the
> race.
>
> Vale,
>
> Palladius
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius
> Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > That would decrease representation. I will use the
> > names of the American Political Parties as an
> example.
> > The Democrats and the Republicans each run two
> > canidates for Consul. If most of the voters are
> > Republicans they will always elect both the
> Consuls,
> > and the Democrats will never elect a Consul. This
> will
> > lead to frustration and soon the minority
> Democrats
> > will start drifting away from Nova Roma because
> they
> > will feel they have no stake in it's government.
> >
> > --- Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@m...> wrote:
> > > Salve "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> > >
> > > I have a better and simpler solution.
> > >
> > > If we have multi candidate offices like Tribune,
> > > where five are elected,
> > > then each citizen is allowed to cast a vote for
> up
> > > to, but no more than
> > > five candidates. Then can if the wish vote for
> five
> > > or less but no more than
> > > five. The tribunes each hold a separate office
> and
> > > each voter should be
> > > allowed to vote for each office.
> > >
> > > In the election for Consul each voter would be
> > > allowed to vote for up to two
> > > candidates , because we are electing two
> Consuls.
> > >
> > > If we adopt this reform or something close to it
> the
> > > need for run off
> > > election will most likely come to and end.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > > Citizen
> > > Fortuna Favet Fortibus
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...>
> > > To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <ComitiaPlebisTributa@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <tribunes@yahoogroups.com>;
> > > <NR_Argentina@g...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 9:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Comitia Plebis
> tributa
> > > results
> > >
> > >
> > > > I Concur.
> > > >
> > > > The Elections have been drug out far too long,
> > > > primarly because one canidate, who has not
> activly
> > > > campaigned nor recived much support has left
> his
> > > name
> > > > on the ballot throughout these endless
> runoffs.
> > > >
> > > > I propose that we pass a pleblacita that
> requires
> > > a
> > > > canidate who fails to reach a minium level of
> > > support
> > > > in an election or a runoff be striken from the
> > > ballots
> > > > only leaving serious canidates that have a
> > > reasonable
> > > > chance of being elected.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > > > > So there will be another run-off election.
> That
> > > > > will make it five correct? I think perhaps
> > > election
> > > > > reform is in order.
> > > > >
> > > > > G. Modius Athanasius
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 4/6/2003 4:58:36 PM
> Eastern
> > > > > Standard Time, danielovi@c... writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > Comitiis Plebis Tributis SPD
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The results of the election for the 1(one)
> > > vacant
> > > > > office of Tribunus Plebis
> > > > > > have been certified by the Rogatores.
> > > > > > Due to the small size of many plebeian
> > > Tribes,
> > > > > the identities of the
> > > > > > citizens that voted could easily
> > > > > > be recognized, so the actual Tribe numbers
> won
> > > by
> > > > > each candidate will not be
> > > > > > published.
> > > > > > Here below are the results given to me by
> > > > > honorables rogatores :
> > > > > > The votes for the fourth run-off election
> for
> > > > > Tribunus
> > > > > > Plebis have been counted and all ties
> > > resolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 114 valid votes were cast out of 125 total
> > > votes,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 31 tribes. No votes were cast in 4
> tribes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While one candidate did emerge the leader
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > number of tribe-votes received, that
> candidate
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > receive the vote of 18 tribes. The
> results
> > > are as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Count of Uncontested Tribes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geminius: 5
> > > > > > Modius: 11 Tribes
> > > > > > Popillius: 10 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marianus Adrianus Sarus (write-in) was
> voted
> > > for
> > > > > in
> > > > > > two tribes , but did not win them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Modius won the greatest number of
> > > uncontested
> > > > > > tribes, all ties in which he was a
> candidate
> > > are
> > > > > > awarded to him. He was a contender in all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > tied
> > > > > > tribes, so this, resulted in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Modius: 16 Tribes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On behalf of myself and my colleagues
> Marcus
> > > > > Marcius Rex , Diana Moravia Aventina and L.
> > > Didius
> > > > > Geminus Sceptius, I would like to thank our
> 3
> > > > > candidates for their continued participation
> and
> > > > > fortitude!
> > > > > > My personal thanks to our team of
> Rogatores
> > > for
> > > > > all of their hard work and helpfulness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Valete,
> > > > > > Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> > > > > > Tribunus Plebis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> > > >
> > > > Roman Citizen
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> > > forms, and more
> > > > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:
> > > > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com> Yahoo! Tax Center - File
> online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9425 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Moderation Announce
He is a member of the Gens Cassia, for your info.

Respectfully,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Moderation Announce


Salvete Quirites.

A message has been sent to this list from the address
BiggPoppaPump420@... under the title "Secret Ancient Roman Info".
That message just contains a link that does not seem related to
Ancient Rome.

I have decided to censor that message, because it seems spam to me.
If the person who sent it thinks that I am wrong, please contact me
privately and we will talk about it.

Thank you.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
PRAETOR



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9426 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave,

I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to me. Can you please point it out?

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salvete Maximus and others,

I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you, Sulla
and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus Gnaeus
Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?

> Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
people are
> saying what is the big deal.
> The big deal is perception and precedent.

What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the majority
of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?

> Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome, and we
are
> picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight we
are not
> much of a recreation are
> we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
would not be
> making
> this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently that
told you
> this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?

And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday? What
kind of punishment they suggested you?
I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
controversy?

> No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
this is true,
> tells me
> that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
>
> If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he promotes
bloodless
> games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is welcome
to do it.
>
> However, this is not the case.
> We have an orginization that is commited to revive the Religio. We
have
> attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings, or
when unable
> to do so use divine inspiration
> to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great Goddess,
one who is
> dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
Goddess
> arrival in Rome and her intervention
> allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to the
prophecy.

Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the intervation
of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years and
I have a my answer but you are the expert...

> It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her favor
with Rome.
> In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an excuse to
throw a
> giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her coming to
Rome and
> winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
right since we
> do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
Magistrates could
> not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
state
> function.
> That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this from
happening.

I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy Magna
Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project for
a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of the
ruins, the study of a big project.
And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games (Naumachiae,
Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
honorate and make happy my Goddess.

What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not writing
bloodly scenes?
Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more to
make happy the Gods?
Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
friends.

> Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real blood
is being
> shed, where is the harm?
> The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are making
their own
> decisions on
> how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
carried out.
> There in lies the
> harm.

I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of the
Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The majority
of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and I'll
not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except your
friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my Office.
Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate elected
by the Nova Romans?
I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the higher
Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
Tradition?...

> Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
necessary or not,
>
> it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of a
political
> statement.

Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I have
changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent scenes.
Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
changement of the Tradition?

MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING
LUDI??
Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!

> We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none of
> us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> However that may change in the future. After all, that is all a
large Texas
> cookout
> is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow, cook
it, then
> eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.

So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses, maybe
in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.

At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
accept your objections. They are not logical and several people and
Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect about
your position and move a step back.

[After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9427 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Please don't take this the wrong way.
I know I have not became a part of the conversations about the games but I really think the answer maybe as close as the nose on your faces. Why not just simple find out who may want the bloodily games than e-mail them a copy of the games "with blood" so they will be happy, but on the main list only show the one "without blood."
It's like Beer......"less filling...... tastes great".....Give the people what they want, and you have peace. Take away their right to choose and you have more e-mails about blood. OR JUST A REALLY GOOD CAT FIGHT!!......LOL
I think this could fix everything, unless I'm total of base, head stuck in the clouds, or just plan wrong.

G.Porticus Brutis



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9428 From: rexmarciusnr Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Tribunician Statement
Salvete omnes

> Since we have had more runoffs under this lex than
> under previous laws it has to be regarded as a
> failure.

There is currently a discussion ongoing among the Tribunes how to
resolve this issue. There are several options available and I amsure
that all the already elected Tribunes will try their utmost to
determine the best short and long-term course to take under the
circumstances. I am certainly listening to the discussion and will
take the arguments presented into account.

Avete et Valete

Marcus Marcius Rex
Tribune of the Plebs
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9429 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Iunius,

> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
were
> able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have
a
> crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I
am
> not able to understand his perspective on this issue.

Mine is not a crisis of coscience, mine IS coscience.
I reapeat again for the 10th or maybe 20th time ... we don't organize
bloodly games respecting the people, soldiers, civilians, people
witth familiars, in war and the general and NEUTRAL idea of peace.
Writing violent virtual scenes and organizing entertainment based
over the blood IMHO can hurt citizens involved in this sad situation.

For teh Gods what is the difference between a virtual Ludi where
there ins't real blood and virtual ludi where there isn't explicit
real blood?
Iunius, I'm honourating Magna Mater in a different and most important
way, restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill, The blood not WRITTEN
is substituted by a most big real offer!

> Next I suppose
> the Age of Empires tournament that has been discussed would have to
> be cancelled because it portrays deaths of game characters.

We decided to continue the Age of Empire match because this game is
closed to few people. Only 10-12 citizens can see the game, only 10-
12 citizens can be entertain with murders and war.
We think this game don't hurt directly and indirectly the involved
people and could interest people like you.

> I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
> fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not
an
> official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
> statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.

It's a your opinion, not mine.

> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?

Having one only Augur is absurd too and it's clear the two Pontiffs
are using their religious power like a political power. I'm awiting
for the Collegium.

Vale
Fr. Apulus CAesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9430 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Senattor,

please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the Main
mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and
I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but
beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to
me. Can you please point it out?
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you,
Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome,
and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight
we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday?
What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings,
or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to
the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years
and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her
favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy
Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project
for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of
the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
(Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more
to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real
blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of
the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and
I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except
your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the
higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of
a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I
have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none
of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all, that is all
a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow,
cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses,
maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and several people
and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect
about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't
feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9431 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
G. Iulius Scaurus G.Portico Bruti salutem dicit.

Salve, G. Portice.

Scripsisti:

> Since you have brought it up.
> I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
> calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
> There has been a find of chemicals that have had the
> solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
> burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to be
> small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.

Reuters, the BBC, and MSNBC report that the material originally
thought to be a chemical weapon has turned out to be a barrel of
agricultural pesticide. When this all concludes, I suspect we'll find
that a great number of people have been put at risk on a pretext of
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. I have trouble
imagining that a dictator as brutal as Saddam would have restrained
himself from using chemical weapons, if he had them, when they might
have had a military effect long before the coalition tanks were at the
gates of Baghdad (after all, even an American threat of nuclear
retaliation wouldn't be much of a deterrent, since he's going to be a
dead man regardless).

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9432 From: Gregory Rose Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Gladiatorial Link
G. Iulius Scaurus S.P.D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to the "Roman Gladiatorial Games" website:

http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/gladiatr/

This site, created by Roger Dunkle (Classics Dept.,Brooklyn College),
is the best I've found on the net on munera and venationes ludorum.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9433 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Moderation Announce
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Senator Sulla.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> He is a member of the Gens Cassia, for your info.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla

Yes; I have been now informed about that :-). It is sometimes
difficult to differentiate spam from legitimous messages, especially
if they are not signed and contain nothing but a link that does not
seem connected with our topic :-).

If this gentleman would like to contact me, I will be glad to help
him in any way.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9434 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: A short history of NR games
In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@... writes:


> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT ORGANIZING LUDI??
>
In answer to that question. When Antonios Gryllus and I started to discuss
games in early '99, it was more to be the bread and circus type with no
religious connotations. Frankly we had just started researching the Religio
seriously, and while we were aware of the feasts and festivals, we never
thought to tie one with the other.
Our games were more about entertainment: a plus to be part of Nova Roma.
We used minatures, had non NR citizens as players to play the part of
Gladiators, or Charioteers. We never thought about recreating Beast hunts or
Naval battles since those were properly set in the Principate, and we were
the republic. (Little history lesson there.)
The bouts were recreated by using rules of my design, (I used to make my
living while in college, by designing and selling military history games,)
while the Chariot races were done using modified Circvs Maximvs.
We invited citizens to a special chatroom and described the action, much like
a radio broadcast. We never held these during religious festivals, until
2000, when we held a live
Gladiator fight during Flora's feast day. This was staged at USC. Now, I
have found no
example of a munus in Flora's honor, but that was what the Gens organizing
the
bouts wanted, so I went along with it. We had a large turnout of 25 people,
I say large as
it was the last week of the semester, and the campus was deserted. We
actually shed blood during one of the bouts, a fighter got his helmet knocked
off, and his forehead cut.
This munus was never seen or heard even though I taped it, as we had no way
to stream video to the NR populace, though I hope that will change in the
future.

The big difference between my concept and that of the current crop of Aediles
the last two years is that they want to get the citizens involved in the
gaming process. In reality the
citizens would not, slaves and prisoners of war did all the fighting, winning
or dying, and
the citizens were spectators who bet on the outcome. When NR started to coin
its own money, I thought "there was the way for the citizens to be involved."

They would bet. But we are still working on that aspect of gaming.

That pretty much sums up the history of the Nova Roma virtual gaming.

Now that we are actually tying the festivals to the Religio, the games will
take on a more important function. However I really think we should not do
this yet, until we iron out the
bugs in the system. Entertainment for the populace sure. Religious
appeasement, no.
Also it bothers me that the Aediles pick and choose their festivals. Mars'
week came and went, and we had no races by the youth, nor did we have the
great procession.

Several people wrote and said they were experts on the Great Goddess. I have
to ask, who did their castration? Also, since she is a foreign deity, and
comes from Anatolia, one of the most bloodthirsty areas around, the fact she
doesn't like blood, is a very strange comment.
Since I am un castrated man, I make no attempt to understand her or her ways.
However
I appreciate her help in defeating the Carthaginians, and setting Rome on her
path to greatness. By the by I found no mention of a munus held during the
Megalesia. But I
have not completed all my research yet.
Valete
FABIVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9435 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
-----Original Message-----
From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>

If you try hard enough you can of course read anything into anything and you are trying enough to find what you know perfectly well is not there. See a psychiatristic about your obsessive bigotry.

>> Have you heard them before? I haven't.
>
>Therefore, your labels of “more accurate“ and “devoid of prejudice“ are

What has not been heard before has had no 'pre' to judge has it? Therefore cannot be prejudiced.

>so much bunkum. You've used different symbols to represent _exactly_ the
>same concepts as had been represented by terms deemed to be prejudiced

Yes: exactly the same concepts of colour-defined races that happened to be the matter under discussion. The prejudice lies with the use of words invoked, not with the physical characteristics being described.

>(else why look for aliases?), and are hiding your prejudiced behavior
>behind neologisms.
>
Do you understand the meaing of the word Prejudice - or are you just an ignorant example of it?

>> I am using the words: I choose the words I wish use to avoid racist connotations.
>
><shrug> You have failed miserably and conspicuously.
>So would Martin Luther King with a bigot as dertermined to find fault as yourself.

>Your recognition isn't relevant, given that you were the one using the
>racist terminology; an honest admission and an attempt to correct the
I was the one avoiding racist terminology. I have yet to hear anyone take offence as such terms as red-haired, black-haired, olive-skinned, sallow-complacioned. So what do you find so offensive about pink-skinned, brown-skinned and gold-skinned? Are you more familiar with terms like honky,nigger and chink?

>language that you may want to rethink, which presumed decency and lack
>of racial prejudice on your part; all that happens now is that these
>presumptions are changed.
>
I used words I deliberately selected as literal description of appearance to avoid any racist connotations accruing to previous usage in the hope that they might catch opn as anti-racist terminology. Have you complained about the depiction of anti-Semitic elements in Schindler's List yet?

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9436 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments
In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@... writes:


> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
>

I think it was our candle and incense to Aesculapius myself, but what do I
know?

FABIVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9437 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> So What are we to make of the Mos Maiorum?
> Isn't that a set of Precedents set by our ancestors?
> One that had a major bearing on how the Romans of
> Antiquita conducted thier affairs, including the law?

There is a difference between the Mos Maiorum and the idea of
precedent. We follow the Mos Maiorum (that's what being a Roman is
mainly about), but that does not mean that the actions of a
magistrate are binding to future magistrates.

> Wasn't it common for a Praetor taking office to
> announce that he would govern under the edicts of a
> predecessor? Isn't that a matter of precedent?

In fact, the case you are considering is an excellent example of the
difference between the Mos Maiorum and precedent :-).

The edicta issued by a magistrate are valid during the term of office
of that magistrate. That is why a new magistrate must issue an
edictum saying which ones of the previous magisterial edicta are
still valid (he does not have to accept *all* of them). If precedent
was a basis of our legislative system, that would be not necessary,
since *all* previous edicta would be considered valid. And a
magisterial edictum can revoke or modify a previous edictum.

By having time-limited edicta, we are actually enforcing the Mos
Maiorum (because that was exactly the way in which our forefathers
did things).

I hope that the difference is clearer now :-).

> Are you claiming that no magistrate ever defended his
> actions by pointing out that they were in keeping with
> the Mos Maiorum as shown an earlier magistrate doing
> the same thing?

No; I am not claiming that.
A magistrate can certainly say that his actions are in keeping with
the Mos Maiorum. And a magistrate can certainly say that a previous
magistrate has done the same thing. But the fact that a previous
magistrate did a certain thing does not force a magistrate to do
exactly the same thing.

> If Nova Roma lasts for generations like The Roma of
> Antiquita did then won't our ancestors look apon our
> actions in areas not covered by the ancient Mos
> Maiorum as constituting a new Mos Maiourum? That our
> precedents will be look to for advice on conducting
> the affairs of Nova Roma?

Our descendants may very well look upon us for inspiration. Or they
may think in a different way. That is up to them. That is what the
Mos Maiorum is: something you can refer to.

Our forefathers changed things constantly: they adopted new
technology (like the corvus or the gallic helmet), they drafted new
laws, they adopted new Gods (like Cybele Herself). They always kept
an eye on what they ancestors had done, to learn from the past. But
Rome was *not* a static, unchanging society. It was a thriving
civilization, ready to accept foreign influences and new ideas (or to
reject them).

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9438 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Maxime.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Fine, lets meet next week in Madrid with sharpened Gladiuses. Then
> we will see who is mistaken.

You will have to forgive me, but I will take that as a joke :-).

> Once again you prove nothing except that you a newcomer has no clue
> what we are about.

I have been around for over two years now. Nova Roma, I have been
told, is just five years old; so I have been here for more than a 40%
of the time :-). If that makes me a newcomer whose opinion is not to
be considered, I wonder where that leaves all those citizens who have
arrived here more recently :-).

> That's my opinion, but I think the rest of the college will agree.
> If you wanted a light hearted entertainment, then don't pattern it
> on a real event. If you just called it a Ludi, I couldn't care
> less.

*I* just called it "ludi". But, in any case, I never suspected that
someone would mistake such a thing for a religious ceremony. I
thought that we all were pretty serious on what a religious ceremony
was.

> I was entertaining the populace with virtual gaming, long
> before you were interested in NR.

Were you? That's excellent :-). And did anyone accuse you of impietas
for doing that?

> If what you are saying is this is not a recreation of the
> Megalesia, then I understand your puzzlement at my outrage.

What Galaicus and I thought was not supposed to be a religious
ceremony. It never occurred to me that anyone could mistake the
action of writing entertaining stories with a cultual act.

> So why even involve the college, then?

I don't know; I didn't involve the Collegium Pontificium when we
arranged ludi in Hispania.

Perhaps our aediles just wanted to add some entertainment to a
religious festival. You could play "charade" or "Monopoly" during a
Saturnalia dinner in your house, and that wouldn't be a cultual
practice. It would just be fun.

> Oh and you aren't a very astute. Our whole constitution is based
> on precedent, as was most the rulings by Iudex. That was why
> formulae were invented. To standardize.

Where is the principle of precedent established in our Constitution?
Please direct me to the specific paragraph, because I have been re-
reading it and I couldn't find it.

As for formulae and the rulings of a Iudex, may I direct you to
paragraphs V and VI of the Lex Salicia Iudiciaria?:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-iii.html

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9439 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salvete,
> Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
> We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
> to build stages for performances. We have to make due
> with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
> that for the present.

I do not think that the Gods will accept our little "tell-tales"
games as a substitution for *real* cultual practices. There is just
*one* way to perform a Roman cult; they way of our ancestors. There
are no substitutes. It is true that we can not currently perform what
we would like to do (although I think that we could certainly improve
our current efforts); but that is not an excuse.

> My Objection isn't based on the historic accuracy of our games.
> It's based on the concept of a magistrate making changes based on
> political or personal beliefs. Games that are held on behalf of the
> state should never be changed because of a magistrate's personal
> beliefs. If any citizen feels that his/her personal beliefs would
> prevent him/her from carrying out the duties attached to an office
> then they should refrain from contesting that office or resign from
> it.

My good Druse; Roman history is full of examples of politicians
changing the games :-). In fact, an ambitious aedilis was *expected*
to add new features to the games. And sometimes there were
gladiatorial games where no one died: they were called "sponsiones",
if I remember correctly (I do not have access to my sources right
now).

> This only applies to games held on behalf of the
> state. If a citizen wishes to stage private games as a
> matter of largesse, then they have more freedom.
>
> If these were your private games I would make no
> objection. If the Gods were displeased with them, then
> thier displeasure would fall on you, not on the state.
> However these aren't your games. They are Nova Roma's
> games, and you can't place Nova Roma is a postion of
> posibily displeasing the Gods because of a personal
> whim.

There is a difference between a real cultual practice and simple
entertainment. I am sure that the Gods can tell the difference.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9440 From: G.Porticus Brutis Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Nova Roman Controversy
To NR

Not to bother the others in NR this will be the last
I'll speak on the war. I will take it off the ML.

To the Honorably G. Iulius Scaurus

The wall street journal reports:�Marines Report Signs
of Chemical Weapons Disposal.Marines report discovery
of mustard-gas agents, cyanide in the Euphrates
river.Friday,a Marine unit drawing drinking water from
the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah said it found
concentrations of cyaiyah and mustard-gas agents in
the water, apparently dumped there by Iraqi forces.


<Mon April 7, 2003 06:43 AM ET
NEAR BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. biological and chemical
weapons experts believe they may have found an Iraqi
storage site for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a
U.S. officer told Reuters on Monday.
"Our detectors have indicated something," said Major
Ros Coffman, a public affairs officer with the U.S.
3rd Infantry.
"We're talking about finding a site of possible WMD
storage. This is an initial report, but it could be a
smoking gun," he said, adding that the site was south
of the central Iraqi town of Hindiyah.

"It is not as if there is a cloud of gas hanging
everywhere endangering soldiers lives. We're talking
about a facility," Coffman added.

This is not meant to show they have WMD but the
possibility still remains.Do not presume that they
don't or do, just let time be the judge.
I'm sure we shall learn the truth.

Scaurus please do not take what I have found as
offends, but I invite you to e-mail me off the ML.
This way we don't offend the other Romans.
Friend
Brutis


--- Gregory Rose <gfr@...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus G.Portico Bruti salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, G. Portice.
>
> Scripsisti:
>
> > Since you have brought it up.
> > I must say with the new find and the e-mails/phone
> > calls, that there may be signs to start worrying.
> > There has been a find of chemicals that have had
> the
> > solders braking out in red spots/throwing up and
> > burning eyes. I only pray it will not come out to
> be
> > small pox, but if it is I hope they maybe well.
>
> Reuters, the BBC, and MSNBC report that the material
> originally
> thought to be a chemical weapon has turned out to be
> a barrel of
> agricultural pesticide. When this all concludes, I
> suspect we'll find
> that a great number of people have been put at risk
> on a pretext of
> Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that don't exist.
> I have trouble
> imagining that a dictator as brutal as Saddam would
> have restrained
> himself from using chemical weapons, if he had them,
> when they might
> have had a military effect long before the coalition
> tanks were at the
> gates of Baghdad (after all, even an American threat
> of nuclear
> retaliation wouldn't be much of a deterrent, since
> he's going to be a
> dead man regardless).
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9441 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, collega.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "deciusiunius" <bcatfd@t...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Well, then if one turns this argument around, one could reasonably
> say it sounds absurd to say there will be no blood in games that
> are already bloodless since they are virtual. One might even ask
> how it can go against one's conscience to describe virtual,
> *fictional* games in which virtual and *fictional* animals or
> people may die?

To tell you the truth, collega (and I hope that Apulus does not get
too nervous about it), I agree with you :-).

I do not think that Apulus's decision was a good decision (sorry,
Apule; we just have different perspectives here, it seems) . But I am
sure that it was not an impious decision or an illegal decision. So
that makes Apulus's determination a matter of personal taste; and he
is the one who arranges these games, after all :-).

<<snipped>>

> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
> were able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may
> have a crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual*
> games? I am not able to understand his perspective on this issue.

I think that you have understood perfectly well my point of view :-).
In fact, I would *not* have done what Apulus has done, if I had been
an aedilis curulis.

From my perspective, Apulus's is just staging an activity to
entertain our citizenship. I might agree with the way he does that or
I might disagree; but I won't be asking for Apulus's head just
because he has decided to change a minor detail of an innocent
activity which I would have kept unchanged. That would not be fair or
reasonable.

> Next I suppose the Age of Empires tournament that has been
> discussed would have to be cancelled because it portrays deaths of
> game characters.

I personally don't like real-time war games :-). I prefer things
moving in turns (although I haven't played any of these games for a
long, long time; perhaps that Age of Empires is worth trying) ;-).

> I agree it should be a non issue, since we are discussing only
> fictional "deaths." I also think (this is a personal opinion, not
> an official statement) the Curule Aedile should withdraw his policy
> statement and hold the so-called "bloody" games.

That is your opinion, and its an excellent one. In fact, I would also
like to see some blood in those games :-).

So we have an opinion. We can say: "C'mon, Apulus; give us some
blood!" :-). If Apulus says: "Not this time; I am tired of blood. I
would like to do a different thing this time", we have two
alternatives:

1.- Wait for the blood in the next games.

2.- Write our *own* games as private citizens and put there 285
gallons of blood ;-).

> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?

And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9442 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete,

I´m taking a ride on the excellent post of Salix Astur to show my
aprovation and support to the pretty good work of the coohrs of the
fellow Curule Aedile Apulus Caesar. A bold decision very sensitive.

And I really urge the ones who are claiming about ´sacrilege´ that
propose a legislation reguling the games, so. Until it be aproved,
the Ludi will be held by the sense of the assigned Aediles.

I and my colleague Curio Britanicus are starting the Cerealia Ludi on
12 april. May Ceres find our little virtual game pleasant. We know it
is just a smallest resemblance of the glorious days, poorly email
based, but the offers of humble hearts do not dismiss, mother Ceres,
if you still hear us.



L. Arminius Faustus
Senior Plebeain Aedile


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Salix Astur"
<salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini Druse.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete,
> > Our games are ahistoric. There is no doubt about that.
> > We lack the resources to stage actual chariot races,
> > to build stages for performances. We have to make due
> > with ahistoric games and hope the Gods will accept
> > that for the present.
>
> I do not think that the Gods will accept our little "tell-tales"
> games as a substitution for *real* cultual practices. There is just
> *one* way to perform a Roman cult; they way of our ancestors. There
> are no substitutes. It is true that we can not currently perform
what
> we would like to do (although I think that we could certainly
improve
> our current efforts); but that is not an excuse.
>>
> There is a difference between a real cultual practice and simple
> entertainment. I am sure that the Gods can tell the difference.
>
> CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9443 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve Drusus,

< The Elections have been drug out far too long,
< primarly because one canidate, who has not activly
< campaigned nor recived much support has left his name
< on the ballot throughout these endless runoffs.

I'm not sure that it is Geminus' fault that the elections have dragged on
for so long. On the other side, I personally don't agree that a candidate
never posts and has a one sentence candidacy speech. A candidate should be
active in NR so that everyone can see that he would be a worker when/if he
assumes office. At this point the 'team' of Tribunes is a good one: all of
us are active and working as a team even if we have different opinions. I
find myself in a very pleasant atmosphere.

But like my colleague Marcus Marcius Rex, I would like to also say that I am
reading these discussions with great interest and that the Tribunes have
been discussing a way to improve things. Our Senior Consul also has a few
ideas and we are also waiting to see what he proposes.

Vale,
Diana Moravia Aventina
Tribune




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9444 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave G. Porticus,

Its not that easy, its tied to the Religio. It would be like going to Church and not having Communion on Sunday (for the Xtians) or the Jews, it would be like not needing to go through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: G.Porticus Brutis
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments



Please don't take this the wrong way.
I know I have not became a part of the conversations about the games but I really think the answer maybe as close as the nose on your faces. Why not just simple find out who may want the bloodily games than e-mail them a copy of the games "with blood" so they will be happy, but on the main list only show the one "without blood."
It's like Beer......"less filling...... tastes great".....Give the people what they want, and you have peace. Take away their right to choose and you have more e-mails about blood. OR JUST A REALLY GOOD CAT FIGHT!!......LOL
I think this could fix everything, unless I'm total of base, head stuck in the clouds, or just plan wrong.

G.Porticus Brutis



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9445 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave Fr. Apulus,
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:53 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salve Iunius,

> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games, since it is, as you
> say, fictional entertainment? There is no blood involved. If we
were
> able to hold real games I could see why the curule aedile may have
a
> crisis of conscience but over the narration of *virtual* games? I
am
> not able to understand his perspective on this issue.

Mine is not a crisis of coscience, mine IS coscience.
I reapeat again for the 10th or maybe 20th time ... we don't organize
bloodly games respecting the people, soldiers, civilians, people
witth familiars, in war and the general and NEUTRAL idea of peace.
Writing violent virtual scenes and organizing entertainment based
over the blood IMHO can hurt citizens involved in this sad situation.

Sulla: Maybe you should consider resigning the Office then, since you obviously cannot meet a major portion of the responsibilities of the office.
Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9446 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave,

Email them privately to me, and I will respond.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salve Senattor,

please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the Main
mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday and
I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend) but
beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed to
me. Can you please point it out?
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salvete Maximus and others,
>
> I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why you,
Sulla
> and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
>
> > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand why
> people are
> > saying what is the big deal.
> > The big deal is perception and precedent.
>
> What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
majority
> of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso fabius
> Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and bloodly
> games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong Ludi?
>
> > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of Rome,
and we
> are
> > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century hindsight
we
> are not
> > much of a recreation are
> > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim, you
> would not be
> > making
> > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
that
> told you
> > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
>
> And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater yesterday?
What
> kind of punishment they suggested you?
> I think maybe do you use your religious position like a political
> position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a political
> controversy?
>
> > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you think
> this is true,
> > tells me
> > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> >
> > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
promotes
> bloodless
> > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
welcome
> to do it.
> >
> > However, this is not the case.
> > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
Religio. We
> have
> > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients' writings,
or
> when unable
> > to do so use divine inspiration
> > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
Goddess,
> one who is
> > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the Great
> Goddess
> > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according to
the
> prophecy.
>
> Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us a
> description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
intervation
> of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater (or
> Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two years
and
> I have a my answer but you are the expert...
>
> > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain her
favor
> with Rome.
> > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
excuse to
> throw a
> > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
coming to
> Rome and
> > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's your
> right since we
> > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> Magistrates could
> > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia is a
> state
> > function.
> > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
from
> happening.
>
> I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make happy
Magna
> Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL project
for
> a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for the
> project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work time,
> my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check of
the
> ruins, the study of a big project.
> And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
(Naumachiae,
> Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers and
> rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's match, an
> archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way to
> honorate and make happy my Goddess.
>
> What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm organizing
> sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
writing
> bloodly scenes?
> Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do more
to
> make happy the Gods?
> Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and your
> friends.
>
> > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no real
blood
> is being
> > shed, where is the harm?
> > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
making
> their own
> > decisions on
> > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is being
> carried out.
> > There in lies the
> > harm.
>
> I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority of
the
> Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
majority
> of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will declaration.
> If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office and
I'll
> not continue my career in the next year. However nobody (except
your
> friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
Office.
> Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
elected
> by the Nova Romans?
> I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except the
higher
> Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> Tradition?...
>
> > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> necessary or not,
> >
> > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the sake of
a
> political
> > statement.
>
> Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you what I
have
> changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates didn't
> organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
scenes.
> Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the Tradition?
> Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize real
> games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is a
> changement of the Tradition?
>
> MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING
> LUDI??
> Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
>
> > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since none
of
> > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > However that may change in the future. After all, that is all
a
> large Texas
> > cookout
> > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a cow,
cook
> it, then
> > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
>
> So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running horses,
maybe
> in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard work.
>
> At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I can't
> accept your objections. They are not logical and several people
and
> Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to reflect
about
> your position and move a step back.
>
> [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be fine
> from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I don't
feel
> pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
>
> Valete
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9447 From: jlasalle Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Quote of the day:
I prefer the term "blue eyed devils"

G B Agricola


On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:37:11PM +0100, me-in-@... wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From : Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@...>
> >
> >Yes - except that the racist in his case was not a random entity as
> >in the above paragraph but a group described by the dismissive term
> >?Pinkskins?. That implication - ?pink skin == racist? - was precisely
> >what I found offensive.
> >
> The reference, if you need it spelt out in its entirety

Not particularly. I had read it previously, and understood the point you
were making. My objection was not to your main point - with which I
mostly agree, by the way - but with the racism of the term "Pinkskins".

> As I have never seen anyone
> with white skin even on a slab with a Formaldhyde drip attached, nor
> of black skin outside of certain Indian demons and gods and those
> inaccurate terminologies are overloaded with prejudicial baggage, it
> seemed appropriate to use the more accurate neologisms Pinkskin,
> Brownskin and Goldskin as a generality.

So... these so-called "more accurate" terms are *not* overloaded with
prejudicial baggage? I'm so glad you told me. Certainly, now that you
have said so, it _must_ be true. Oh, one last thing: by whose authority
was this fiat issued? I'm sure that I will quake at the name; it must be
some overarching, multicultural, multinational organization to whom all
must pay heed and reverence.

Unless you have something of substance to say, I won't belabor this
issue any further; I believe I've made my point clearly.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?
-- Said by the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna to encourage his son
Johan when
he doubted his ability to represent Sweden at the Westphalian peace
conference.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9448 From: Lucius Equitius Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Francisco Apulo SPD
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 22
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:53:36 -0000
From: "Franciscus Apulus Caesar" <fraelov@...>
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments

Salve Iunius,

> Fine. So why not hold so-called "bloody" games,
<SNIP>
> Besides, there is the concern that two pontiffs and and our only
> augur think there is the risk of impiety in this action. Why risk
> that over a desire not to describe *virtual* blood and deaths?

Having one only Augur is absurd too and it's clear the two Pontiffs
are using their religious power like a political power. I'm awiting
for the Collegium.

Vale
Fr. Apulus CAesar


L Equitius: You specious argument is duly noted. Often those who accuse
others of nefarious motives need to look at their own actions as the
template. Your use of the Religio to make political statements is nothing
short of hypocritical.
I believe you have heard from several Pontificies, none supporting your
statement. How many more must it take for you to listen? Must we make it
public only to hear the, "why did this have to be public, why didn't this
get settled in private?" whine.

BTW Though Nova Roma is not a 'theocracy', religious positions are
political! The Religio is part of the State! Go back and read the
Constitution and related documents.

The Consules issued a direct statement that Nova Roma is neutral concerning
the current conflict. I wonder what anyone would say if I, as Flamen
Martialis Novae Romae, were to make an offering to Mars requesting success
of coalition forces?

I've kept my opinions to myself and I wish others would do the same.
"Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one and they all stink."
(the same goes for excuses)

To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
"And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"

I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the State
Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.
Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder why did F
Apule made such a
to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration II", must have been
important to him.

Mars nos protegas
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9449 From: jlasalle Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: j-j-j-jayhawks
The LaSalle Law Office
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using
the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the
original message to the sender. Thank you.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9450 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Avete omnes,

after this busy weekend spent writing the Magna Mater report (hope
you have appreciated), I've now the time to express my point of view
about the joint declaration, which I have subscribed.
First, let me say that it was deeply discussed before sending,
because we feared that somebody could be hurted somehow. We changed
things, smoothed others and signed what we thought it was best to
express our feeling before start writing, playing and enjoying these
games.
Please, trust us, our first thought was to avoid anyone be hurted:
not by a declaration though (which is only an unofficial text NOT a
law, an edict or whatever) BUT by the Entertainmnet, the nature of
the games, seemed in contrast in this moment of sadness in the world.
I don't think it sounds so strange to have had such a worry!
I do believe Peace is an universal ideal, and most of all, neutral.
With that we didn't blame US or UK to begin this war, because peace
could be obtained at the same time if i.e. Iraqi troops surrendered.
It has perfectly the same result: no one is going to be killed in
this war. That is the important!

respectfully
M IVL PERVSIANVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9451 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Ave, M. Iulius,

You as Magistrates, should have known better than to even tamper with the Religio without the full consent of the Pontiffs and Augur. You and your fellow magistrates went to the CP before and got information, and established a working relationship. Why did you not continue to use your established relationship with the CP and Augur before you tried to publish this "Joint Declaration?" This answer has not been forth coming to date.

The issue, of "Peace, and being against the war" and all those good things are not the issue. The fact that you have exercised your position, to the determint of the Religio is the issue. Had you just made a politcal statement that you are against the war, is fine. But you have done more than that, by issing your "Joint Declaration" You and your fellow magistrates have created policy. You have corrupted an area of the Religio Romana, regardless if that is how you see it or not. Let us not forget that it was these very Aediles who in February tried to pass an edict that would have created a Police state and the establishment of a secret police!

I respectfully ask that this "Joint Declaration" be removed, revoked or whatever necessary and if it is not, I respectfully ask for impeachment of those magistrates who continue to mock, cheapen and corrupt the Religio Romana.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Senator
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration


Avete omnes,

after this busy weekend spent writing the Magna Mater report (hope
you have appreciated), I've now the time to express my point of view
about the joint declaration, which I have subscribed.
First, let me say that it was deeply discussed before sending,
because we feared that somebody could be hurted somehow. We changed
things, smoothed others and signed what we thought it was best to
express our feeling before start writing, playing and enjoying these
games.
Please, trust us, our first thought was to avoid anyone be hurted:
not by a declaration though (which is only an unofficial text NOT a
law, an edict or whatever) BUT by the Entertainmnet, the nature of
the games, seemed in contrast in this moment of sadness in the world.
I don't think it sounds so strange to have had such a worry!
I do believe Peace is an universal ideal, and most of all, neutral.
With that we didn't blame US or UK to begin this war, because peace
could be obtained at the same time if i.e. Iraqi troops surrendered.
It has perfectly the same result: no one is going to be killed in
this war. That is the important!

respectfully
M IVL PERVSIANVS



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9452 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Salve,

the original law was not that bad, it is the roman law, but in order to
work, there must be a much larger number of citizens in each tribe.

All the other propositions will turn us away from the historical model.

The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific moment of Roman
history with a much larger number of citizens.

At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in fact only 1 before
the absorption of the surrounding cities).

Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
later when we have much more citizens.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@...>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9453 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
Is there something missing here or is Yahoo now using invisibile
fonts?



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "jlasalle" <jlasalle@s...> wrote:
>
>
> The LaSalle Law Office
> 417 East 13th Street
> Kansas City, Missouri 64106
> (816).471.2111
> (816).510.0072(cell)
> (816).471.8412(Fax)
> The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney
privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the
individual or
> entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient,
> or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received
> this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by using
> the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the
> original message to the sender. Thank you.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9454 From: A. Hirtius Helveticus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Salvete Quirites

As a Rogator it is not my duty to comment on this
matter, I think. But I do so anyway...

--- Michel Loos wrote:
> the original law was not that bad, it is the roman
> law, but in order to
> work, there must be a much larger number of citizens
> in each tribe.
>
> All the other propositions will turn us away from
> the historical model.

> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the
> possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.

That is, imho, correct. As far as I recall, we once
already had a discussion about this last year.
Speaking for myself and not as elected magistrate, I
strongly believe that we should stay as close as
possible to the ancient system. Nevertheless,
non-voting citizens cause troubles (ties in tribes
with only two [sic!] votes, tribes not voting at all).
Therefore we really should diminish the numbers of our
tribes until we are a big enough society to fill them
all.

Let's stick with the ancients and let us not implement
modern electoral systems. I hope that our Tribunes
will consider this, too!

But until then, we have to stick with the current
situation and have another round. Sure, I got other
things to do, but on the other hand, counting votes is
what I was elected for by you, my fellow citizens!

Curate ut valeatis,


=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9455 From: Marcus Iulius Perusianus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: Joint Declaration
Ave Senator Sulla,

> You as Magistrates, should have known better than to even tamper
with the Religio without the full consent of the Pontiffs and Augur.
You and your fellow magistrates went to the CP before and got
information, and established a working relationship. Why did you not
continue to use your established relationship with the CP and Augur
before you tried to publish this "Joint Declaration?" This answer
has not been forth coming to date.

well, I've been told that I am not a Magistrate as Scriba Aedilis
when I made my oath for Apparitoria. This would be wonderful to me,
because, as any other Roman citizen, I would like to climb the steps
of Cursus Honorum. :-)
To answer your question, I guess the reason is why it was only a
declaration, something that anyone of us liked to express before the
beginning of the games. But this is only my opinion, nothing
official. I usually don't relate with the CP when a write a Report
about Magna Mater or organize a ludi.

Changing topic for a while: after such a long report who costed my
efforts, money and time I would have liked to receive some "thanks,
well done, nice job" stuff, maybe also from the CP. But, not being a
relationship between them or you and me, I think this is quite normal.

> The issue, of "Peace, and being against the war" and all those good
things are not the issue. The fact that you have exercised your
position, to the determint of the Religio is the issue. Had you just
made a politcal statement that you are against the war, is fine. But
you have done more than that, by issing your "Joint Declaration" You
and your fellow magistrates have created policy. You have corrupted
an area of the Religio Romana, regardless if that is how you see it
or not. Let us not forget that it was these very Aediles who in
February tried to pass an edict that would have created a Police
state and the establishment of a secret police!

Have we corrupted an area of Religio? I still don't know, we're
waiting for a response.
I don't know anything about the last topic (Police State and secret
police). I should inform about this and reply. But I wonder why I
should? Does it change the importance of this fact we're arguing
about?
And are you saying giving me a personal opinion or the Aedilis were
found guilty of something?
Here is a personal opionion of mine: what I know for sure, is that
these Adeilis and their staff are doing a good job and their efforts
and devotion to Nova Roma are great. This is why I am in the Cohors
Aedilis. I can't say anything else about their behavior.

> I respectfully ask that this "Joint Declaration" be removed,
revoked or whatever necessary and if it is not, I respectfully ask
for impeachment of those magistrates who continue to mock, cheapen
and corrupt the Religio Romana.

This was my oath for Apparitoria:
>I, Marcus Iulius Perusianus, do hereby solemnly swear to
>uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best
>interests of Franciscus Apulus Caesar while I hold this office,
>except when such action would be illegal or unconstitutional.

if my behavior, signing that declaration, will be considered an
action illegal or uncostituional then I'll have no problem resigning
my position.

M IVL PERVSIANVS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9456 From: Charlie Collins Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
From a K-State Fan: Gooooo Hawks!!!!!!!!!!

Cotta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9457 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Ave,

Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much clearer picture of the true number of citizens.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Loos
To: NovaRoma
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement


Salve,

the original law was not that bad, it is the roman law, but in order to
work, there must be a much larger number of citizens in each tribe.

All the other propositions will turn us away from the historical model.

The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific moment of Roman
history with a much larger number of citizens.

At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in fact only 1 before
the absorption of the surrounding cities).

Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
later when we have much more citizens.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus
--
Michel Loos <loos@...>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9458 From: Krysialtemus@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: j-j-j-jayhawks
From a Pitt fan: Go Big East/Syracuse, dalmatica
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9459 From: L. Sicinius Drusus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
voted the results were announced. this influanced to
vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
vote for one of the leading canidates.

To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
would look something like this.

Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April

Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
thier tribe participation would drop.

The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
requiring a majority of the tribes without also
allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
is going is the cause of our problems.

--- Michel Loos <loos@...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> the original law was not that bad, it is the roman
> law, but in order to
> work, there must be a much larger number of citizens
> in each tribe.
>
> All the other propositions will turn us away from
> the historical model.
>
> The magic number of tribes was taken from a specific
> moment of Roman
> history with a much larger number of citizens.
>
> At Rome's fundsations there were only 3 tribes (in
> fact only 1 before
> the absorption of the surrounding cities).
>
> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the
> possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
> --
> Michel Loos <loos@...>
>
>


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9460 From: Michel Loos Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Em Seg, 2003-04-07 às 13:11, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
> Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
> voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
> voted the results were announced. this influanced to
> vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
> citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
> canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
> vote for one of the leading canidates.
>
> To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
> have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
> would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
> able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>
> Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
> being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
> thier tribe participation would drop.
>
> The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
> requiring a majority of the tribes without also
> allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
> is going is the cause of our problems.

It is also one of the causes, I agree.
With less tribes, we could implement the following, nearly historical
system:
Sort out tribe 1, continue in predefined order.
Tribe 1 votes day 1, results published imediately after the end of
voting.
tribe 2 day 2 etc.

This would make long elections but perhaps much less run-off elections
which IMHO is much better.

Manius Villius Limitanus


--
Michel Loos <loos@...>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9461 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
1 Tribe to vote for one day? Interesting....we cannot even have the entire Senate vote and the voting period for that is a minimum of 48 hours.

Vale,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Loos
To: NovaRoma
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement


Em Seg, 2003-04-07 às 13:11, L. Sicinius Drusus escreveu:
> Our entire method of voting is ahistoric. The Romans
> voted by Tribe, not all at once, and as each tribe
> voted the results were announced. this influanced to
> vote of Tribes waiting thier turn to vote. When
> citizens in the later tribes saw that thier favored
> canidate had no chance of winning they could opt to
> vote for one of the leading canidates.
>
> To implement a Roman system via the internet we would
> have to have a set day for voting when all citizens
> would meet on line to wait thier turn. They would be
> able to see how earlier tribes had voted. A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>
> Since many citizens would be in the postion of not
> being able to be on line at the scheduled time for
> thier tribe participation would drop.
>
> The attempt to partially implement Roman voting by
> requiring a majority of the tribes without also
> allowing citizens to see how the progress of the vote
> is going is the cause of our problems.

It is also one of the causes, I agree.
With less tribes, we could implement the following, nearly historical
system:
Sort out tribe 1, continue in predefined order.
Tribe 1 votes day 1, results published imediately after the end of
voting.
tribe 2 day 2 etc.

This would make long elections but perhaps much less run-off elections
which IMHO is much better.

Manius Villius Limitanus


--
Michel Loos <loos@...>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9462 From: A. Hirtius Helveticus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Salvete again!

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we
> have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much
> clearer picture of the true number of citizens.

Good point!

Oh, BTW: What happened to the reform of our Gens
system? (Can't wait to start arguing over that again
;o)

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9463 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
Ave A. Hirtius,
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Hirtius Helveticus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tribunician Statement


Salvete again!

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> Why don't we wait to do such haste action til we
> have the Census conducted. Then we will have a much
> clearer picture of the true number of citizens.

Good point!

Sulla: Yes, the Census should be very revealing, and give us a much more accurate picture before any dramatic reforms are proposed.

Oh, BTW: What happened to the reform of our Gens
system? (Can't wait to start arguing over that again
;o)

Sulla: LOL!!! Oh yeah I just can't wait! <g> On a more serious note, again, we should wait til the Census is completed because, once again that will give us a much more accurate picture before any reforms are proposed.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
-------------------------
"Res Romana Dei est, terrenis non eget armis."
(Corippus, In laudem Iustini 3, 328)
-------------------------
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
-------------------------

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9464 From: A. Apollonius Cordus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Electoral reform (and the Census)
A. Apollonius Cordus to all citizens and peregrines,
greetings.

I must stress that nothing in this message is
official, it is all my personal opinion, and I take
full responsibility for it.

There is a solution to the electoral problem which is
historical, efficient and fair. I have a strong
suspicion that you will see it being proposed to the
next meeting of the Senate.

I also have a sneaking feeling that Senators at that
same meeting may well be discussing a significant step
towards holding the Census.

This is all, however, only a suspicion, and I'm afraid
that I can't comment further, so don't ask. ;)

Cordus

=====


www.strategikon.org


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9465 From: quintuscassiuscalvus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Tribunician Statement
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Sicinius Drusus"
<lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>A schedule
> would look something like this.
>
> Tribe 1 8:00 to 8:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
> Tribe 2 9:00 to 9:59 Roman time on the Ides of April
>

Salve Drusus,

I would hope that somewhere in the schedule would be 10:00 to 10:05
Roman time the Rogators get a potty break! <G>

While this would be more historical I'm not sure how practical it
would be. It's hard enough to get people to vote at a time of their
convenience over the course of several days let alone get them to
vote at a time that may turn out to be most inconvenient such as one
hour window that opens at 2 in the morning local time.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9466 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Cincinnate.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@s...>
wrote:

<<snipped>>

> To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
> "And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
> more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
> religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"
>
> I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the
> State Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.

I am afraid that you do answer to me, senator. You answer to all the
citizens of Nova Roma.

Being a priest does not mean belonging to a selected club; it means
being a *public servant*, whose duty is to provide for the cultus
publicus. You have a responsability towards the People of Nova Roma.

> Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder
> why did F Apule made such a to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI:
> Joint Declaration II", must have been important to him.

I don't know; perhaps he really thought that it was an important
thing :-). In any case, that does not make him impious.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9467 From: Jim Lancaster Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
Salvete Quirites:

I very much enjoyed reading the report on the Palatine Magna Mater. In
regards to:

>It was perhaps removed by Elagabalus to his temple (q.v.) on the Palatine
(Hist. Aug. Elag. 3; cf. LR 134-138; but cf. BC 1883, 211; HJ 53-54, n.
44).<

It's my understanding, from either Dio or Herodian (I don't have the
references with me at work) that when the temple of Elagabalus was
reconsecrated under Severus Alexander to Jupiter Ultor (I believe), all the
sacred icons that had been collected by Antoninus #3 into that temple were
returned to their proper homes, including the meteor of Ilahu-Gabal, which
was sent back to Emesa. To my knowledge, Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
(#3) aka "Elagabalus", did not actually destroy or lose any sacred objects,
whatever other scrapes he may have gotten into.

Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .

Valete,

CN IVLIVS STRABO
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9468 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 10:42 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Cincinnate.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Equitius" <vergil@s...>
wrote:

<<snipped>>

> To CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
> "And why are our pontifices and our augur (who should have something
> more constructive to do, like preparing the performance of a *real*
> religious ritual) so worried about such an unimportant thing?"
>
> I do my job Augur, I don't answer to you, and watching over the
> State Religio is part of our job as Pontificies.

I am afraid that you do answer to me, senator. You answer to all the
citizens of Nova Roma.

Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not agree Praetor?
Being a priest does not mean belonging to a selected club; it means
being a *public servant*, whose duty is to provide for the cultus
publicus. You have a responsability towards the People of Nova Roma.

Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club, in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.

> Oh, are the games really "an unimportant thing?" Well then wonder
> why did F Apule made such a to-do with his little "MEGALESIA LUDI:
> Joint Declaration II", must have been important to him.

I don't know; perhaps he really thought that it was an important
thing :-). In any case, that does not make him impious.

Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9469 From: Diana Moravia Aventina Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: MEGALESIA LUDI: correction and resignation
Salvete,

I have just gone back in the archives and I am a bit embarrased to see that
my name was signed to the joint declaration regarding the Megalesia Ludi,
which I did not even read until 5 minutes ago because I have been pretty
much absent from all of the NR lists for the last month. Hindsight tells me
that I should have sent an 'official' absentio email so that it would clear
that the only emails that I would read would be those posted to the Tribune
list.

Had I read the statement beforehand, I would not have agreed to have my name
signed to it for 3 reasons:
- I see it as a political statement even if I personally agree with peace
- As a Priestess in the Religio (albeit a very minor one and surely not the
most knowledgeable one) I would not sign my name to anything that even
slightly involves the Religion without the approval of the Collegium
Pontificum
- As a Tribune I find putting my name to the statement of any other
magistrate to be a conflict of interest.

So to whomever is in charge of 'officially' adding these types of documents
to out official records, please remove my name. Thanks!

Lastly, I hereby resign my position as Scriba ad Narrationes since personal
obligations will most likely prevent me from being able to write any of the
narrations this year.

Thanks & valete,
Diana Moravia Aventina

<Signed by the following members of F. Apulus Caesar Cohors Aedilis:
> * F. Apulus Cesar - Senior Curule Aedile
> * M. Constatinus Serapio - Quaestor
> * Gn. Salix Galaicus - Scriba Ludorum Primus
> * M. Iulius Perusianus - Scriba Historicus Primus
> * G. Fabia Livia - Scriba Historica Secunda
> * L. Didius Geminus Sceptius - Scriba Ludorum Secundus
> * C. Curius Saturninus - Scriba Ludorum
> * D. Moravia Aventina - Scriba ad Narrationes
> * Renata Corva - Scriba ad Narrationes
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9470 From: Decimus Iunius Silanus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Comitia Plebis tributa results
Salve,

In the macronational world, whom we vote for is very much affected by the
socio-economic situation of the day. Political ideology is great, but it
doesn't put food on the table. Nova Roma voters have no such concerns, and
as such we are far less likely to witness the rise and fall of factions.

> I live in Frederick county in Maryland, USA
> We have five county Commissioners that are elected in the general election
> out of 10 candidates from the major political parties. Sometimes the
> Democrats have a majority some times the Republicans do. Most of the time
it
> is a majority that cross party lines and is held together by different
> views. Liberal vs Conservative or Growth vs no Growth.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9471 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Multiple Runoffs
In a message dated 4/7/03 8:46:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
loos@... writes:

Salvete et Salve Mani Villi Limitane!

> Let's dimish our number of tribes with the possibility of raising it
> later when we have much more citizens.
>

I felt that this should have been done three years ago. However such things
are hard to
carry out when going against tradition.
In all my studies I have found Roman citizens did not vote for one candidate
at a time, especially when multiple candidates were on the ballot. It
appears it is this one "one vote, one candidate" that is causing the problem.

Valete

FABIVS*MAXIMVS





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9472 From: qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
In a message dated 4/7/03 10:53:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jlancaster@... writes:


> Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
> phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .
>

Very Good. Though I believe he was a spoiled brat, who found himself on the
stage of
destiny. Like Caligia he wished to implement Diocletianus reforms years too
early.
Interesting that his cousin Alexander, who was a stronger and better ruler,
was also brought down during his German campaign. There was just no pleasing
the Roman army at this point.

FABIVS


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9473 From: Lucius Arminius Faustus Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: CERELIA LITERARY CONTEST - RULES
CERELIA LITERARY CONTEST - RULES





Our ancestors, O judges, ordained that the sacred rites of Ceres should be performed with the very strictest religious reverence and the greatest solemnity;
M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Flacco






OVERVIEW: For the greater glory of Nova Roma, enlightening of our people, and satisfaction of Mother Ceres, the Cerealia Ludi this year is granting a great literary Contest opened to all citizens.



LANGUAGES: The text can be presented on Latin, English, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish. We strongly recommend that a English abstract follow the non-english texts.



THEME: Free! (Roman themes are always recommended, but if the daughters of Mnemosine inspire on other way, who can resist?)



STYLE: Free!



I – Prose

II – Poetry

III – Historical Essay

IV – Political Speech

V – Religious Hymn

VI – Play (Theater)



LENGTH: Free!



SUBSCRIPTIONS: The text must be sent as plain email text to Aedile L. Arminius Faustus (lafaustus@...) until the ides of april (15th april). The email must have the subject: “Cerealia Literary Contest” and the following information as a header:



a) Roman Name

b) Province

c) Title

--- Text





JUDGES: The four members of the Collegium Aediles shall judge, the Honourable Curules Aediles and the Illustrious Plebeian Aediles; they will judge as the muses shall fit. Anyone desiring to be a judge can contact the Aedile L. Arminius (lafaustus@...) until 10th april.







MULTIPLE PARTICIPATION: Texts running on other contest, as the fine Megalesia Epigram Contest, can run on Cerealia as well.







But when the home of Cybele they make with toil out-worn

O'er much, they lay them down to sleep and gifts of Ceres scorn;

Till heavy slumbers seal their eyelids langourous, drooping lowly

And raving frenzy flies each brain departing softly, slowly.


Gaius Valerius Catulus, Carmina






WINNERS: The winners shall be known until four days after the end of the Cerealia Ludi. As a reward, a virtual monument will be granted on the Aediles site to the winner.





And now 'tis done: more durable than brass
My monument shall he, and raise its head
O'er royal pyramids: it shall not dread
Corroding rain or angry Boreas.

Nor the long lapse of immemorial time.
I shall not wholly die: large residue
Shall 'scape the queen of funerals. Ever new
My after fame shall grow, while pontiffs climb

With silent maids the Capitolian height.
“Born,” men will say, “where Aufidus is loud,
Where Daunus, scant of streams, beneath him bow'd
The rustic tribes, from dimness he wax'd bright,

First of his race to wed the Aeolian lay
To notes of Italy. Put glory on,
My own Melpomene, by genius won,
And crown me of thy grace with Delphic bay.




Q. Horatius Flaccus, Odes














Valete bene in pacem deorum,

L. Arminius Faustus

Senior Plebeian Aedile



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
O melhor e-mail gratuito da internet: 6MB de espaço, antivírus, acesso POP3, filtro contra spam.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9474 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
-----Original Message-----
From : “L. Cornelius Sulla“ <alexious@...>
>
through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.
>
You can as long as you change *form* rather than *significance* - or no religion would ever have developed. I can think of a few I wish had never developed but that is not the point: magick and religion are filled with innovators discovering new techniques within traditional context. There's barely a god in the Vedas recognised today in Hindu temples but no doubt that it is the same religion. The Ludi did develop as time went on - in fact they became more bloodthirsty and more directed to pure entertainment with the religious side ever more perfunctory. There's no *principle* to object to change. The Naumachia itself was an innovation. Whether the *reason* given is valid is a different debate. I contend that (a certain Star Trek 1 episode notwithstanding), had the Empire continued and maintained the old Religio, it would have changed to a more benign form at least in recent centuries just as execution for other reasons ceased to be public entertainment and animal sacrifice dropped out of religions such as Judaeism and less 'countrified' interpretations of Islam. All things develop and the Ludi no doubt would have continued to do so with citizens feeling human sacrifice, even disguised as battle, not truly appropriate. For the Republican period gladiatorial Ludi often were not lethal, gladiators being too much of an investment to lose. That they degenerated into mass displays of blindfold helmets and amateurs forced to fight each other might be what more conservatives Romans could have considered the reason the Iulio-Claudians generally came to such a bad end.

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9475 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave,

If I am an Orthodox- Religiously observant Jew, I cannot eat Pork Shellfish and other non-Kosher foods, for there are strict regulations regarding Kosher Laws. If I am a Jew, I must be circumcised. You cannot change that. If you were not born a Jew, but wish to convert to Judaism, despite all attempts to dissuade you, you (as a man) must be circumcised, it happened to me (as I was born into a Jewish family [on my moms side of the family]), it happend to Sammy Davis Jr (who converted to Judiasm). There is no changing the form or significance about it.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: me-in-@...
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


-----Original Message-----
From : "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@...>
>
through a bar mitzvah or a bris. You cannot just simply change areas of the Religio that you do not approve.
>
You can as long as you change *form* rather than *significance* - or no religion would ever have developed. I can think of a few I wish had never developed but that is not the point: magick and religion are filled with innovators discovering new techniques within traditional context. There's barely a god in the Vedas recognised today in Hindu temples but no doubt that it is the same religion. The Ludi did develop as time went on - in fact they became more bloodthirsty and more directed to pure entertainment with the religious side ever more perfunctory. There's no *principle* to object to change. The Naumachia itself was an innovation. Whether the *reason* given is valid is a different debate. I contend that (a certain Star Trek 1 episode notwithstanding), had the Empire continued and maintained the old Religio, it would have changed to a more benign form at least in recent centuries just as execution for other reasons ceased to be public entertainment and animal sacrifice dropped out of religions such as Judaeism and less 'countrified' interpretations of Islam. All things develop and the Ludi no doubt would have continued to do so with citizens feeling human sacrifice, even disguised as battle, not truly appropriate. For the Republican period gladiatorial Ludi often were not lethal, gladiators being too much of an investment to lose. That they degenerated into mass displays of blindfold helmets and amateurs forced to fight each other might be what more conservatives Romans could have considered the reason the Iulio-Claudians generally came to such a bad end.

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9476 From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Sidenote on Temple of Magna Mater
-----Original Message-----
From : Jim Lancaster <jlancaster@...>
>
>was sent back to Emesa. To my knowledge, Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
>(#3) aka “Elagabalus“, did not actually destroy or lose any sacred objects,
>whatever other scrapes he may have gotten into.
>
If he really was thinking along lines of all gods aspects of or subordinate to the Emyssan sun-god (and isn't it Emyssa still a holy city under the name of Homs?) then is this a hint that such thinking was current in the East long before we hear of it as Diocletion's brilliant proposition of One Empire, One God, Four Emperors?
And where Ilahu-Gabal? Shades of Elijah (Eliyahu) but I thought the original was 'El-`Aga-Ba`al, of which the first and last would be God and Lord and the middle ancestral to the Afga Khan's title maybe?

>Poor, misunderstood Antoninus. I believe he was, in Joan Rivers' memorable
>phrase, just a simple country girl with a dream ;o) .
>
Auntie was. But then again far from simple :)

Caesariensis.


--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9477 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to
> the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not
> agree Praetor?

There is a Latin phrase that reads: "Vox Populi, vox Deorum" :-).

> Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club,
> in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova
> Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and
> beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public
> servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they
> answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much
> more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.

Public priests serve the Senate and the People by performing the
rites of the sacra publica. That is their role. They are not
prophets, or messiah, or gurus. They do not set dogma, or dictate
what people should believe. They are the people who perform the
rites, and they do so according to the Mos Maiorum.

<<snipped>>

> Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a
> much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.

The Religio Romana has some particularities, senator. It is not
dogmatic, every paterfamilias is the high priest of the cultus
privatus of his familia, and public priests are there to perform the
rites of the cultus publicus. They are not there to tell what is
right or wrong; they are there to perform *rites*.

Some bodies (like the Collegium Pontificium, for example) do have a
say in establishing what is the proper way to perform rites, or to
organize priesthoods. But that is all.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9478 From: Gnaeus Salix Astur Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Multiple Runoffs
Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Maxime.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:

<<snipped>>

> In all my studies I have found Roman citizens did not vote for one
> candidate at a time, especially when multiple candidates were on
> the ballot. It appears it is this one "one vote, one candidate"
> that is causing the problem.

I tried to solve this problem last year by allowing for more than one
vote per citizen, but it seems that it has not worked.

Could you please provide a few reliable sources about the possibility
of more than one vote per voter? I think that we all would be
interested in considering a historically appropriate alternative.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9479 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Fw: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Forwarded, since it did not show up the first time.

Vale,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Cornelius Sulla
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments



----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Digest No 535 Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salvete Quirites; et salve, senator Sulla.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Sulla: I would believe that all Religious officials answer to
> the Gods who are a higher authoirty than the People, would you not
> agree Praetor?

There is a Latin phrase that reads: "Vox Populi, vox Deorum" :-).
Sulla: Yes I am familiar with that, but you have not answered the question.


> Sulla: Actually being a Priest is belonging to a selected club,
> in that they have a much more serious role to exercise in Nova
> Roma, by maintaining the Bonds with the Gods. They are above and
> beyond the status of a public servant. Magistrates are public
> servants, Religious officials are public servants in as far as they
> answer the questions and inquires of the public, but serve a much
> more important role in maintaining the contract with the Gods.

Public priests serve the Senate and the People by performing the
rites of the sacra publica. That is their role. They are not
prophets, or messiah, or gurus. They do not set dogma, or dictate
what people should believe. They are the people who perform the
rites, and they do so according to the Mos Maiorum.

Sulla: Interesting that you are trying to imply that I am placing them in the status of prophets or messiahs. Which I am not. I am stating is that they perform their rituals and mantain the contract between us, the People of Nova Roma, and the Gods. With that role carries a responsibility. But also it includes the authority to speak on behalf of the Gods (in the role of determining what days are Dies Fast, Nefasti, or to preform auguries to determine auspices) . This is clearly something that they have authority to do. This goes beyond the role of just being a public servant.

<<snipped>>

> Sulla: I would believe that the Augur(s) and Pontiffs have a
> much more valid interpretation of what is impious or not.

The Religio Romana has some particularities, senator. It is not
dogmatic, every paterfamilias is the high priest of the cultus
privatus of his familia, and public priests are there to perform the
rites of the cultus publicus. They are not there to tell what is
right or wrong; they are there to perform *rites*.

Sulla: They do more than just perform *rites* You as a practioner should be much more aware of their role, espeically since you were going to teach a course on the Religio. (I have quoted the Constitution below for you to see how broad their jurisdictional authority is)

Some bodies (like the Collegium Pontificium, for example) do have a
say in establishing what is the proper way to perform rites, or to
organize priesthoods. But that is all.

Sulla: I would like to hear from members of the College if that is just all that they do, before I would take your word on the matter, because according to the Constitution, they have much more authority than that. According to the Constitution of Nova Roma, the CP has the authority to do the following:

The collegium pontificum (college of pontiffs) shall be the highest of the priestly collegiae. It shall consist of the Pontifex Maximus, fourteen Pontifices, twelve flamines, six Sacerdotes Vestales, and the Rex and Regina Sacrorum. The collegium pontificum shall appoint its own members. The collegium pontificum shall have the following honors, powers, and responsibilities:
1.. To control the calendar, and determine when the festivals and dies fasti and dies nefasti shall occur, and what their effects shall be, within the boundaries of the example of ancient Rome;
2.. To have ritual responsibilities within the Religio Romana; and general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the public Religio Romana;
3.. To issue decreta (decrees) on matters relevant to the Religio Romana and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum).
According to VI. B. 1 B, they have general authority over the institutions, rites, rituals and priesthoods of the Religio Romana. So, I disagree with your interpretation that their jurisdiction is limited to just *rites.* I quoted the above section from the Constitution so you can read it for yourself.

CN·SALIX·ASTVR·T·F·A·NEP·TRIB·OVF



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9480 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: A short history of NR games
Maximus, I repeat you my question: Hae you organized bloodly and
violent games as Aedile?
In a special way, have you organized Megalesia Ludi? And these Ludi
have beeen violent?
Why you think your Ludi were only entertainment and mine are more
religious?
Do you have organized other religious events like public prayers,
restoration of Temples, etc.?
And why you think now the Ludi have been tyed to the religious more
than yours? You have been Aedile like me, why your duties were less
than mine?

Abput your "wonderful" little lesson of history, we know well waht
were teh Naumachiae and we have organized them not thinking to
recreate the original Ludi but offering new excting games to Gods and
Nova Romans.

Vale
F. APulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/6/03 10:18:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> alexious@e... writes:
>
>
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
ORGANIZING LUDI??
> >
> In answer to that question. When Antonios Gryllus and I started to
discuss
> games in early '99, it was more to be the bread and circus type
with no
> religious connotations. Frankly we had just started researching
the Religio
> seriously, and while we were aware of the feasts and festivals, we
never
> thought to tie one with the other.
> Our games were more about entertainment: a plus to be part of Nova
Roma.
> We used minatures, had non NR citizens as players to play the part
of
> Gladiators, or Charioteers. We never thought about recreating
Beast hunts or
> Naval battles since those were properly set in the Principate, and
we were
> the republic. (Little history lesson there.)
> The bouts were recreated by using rules of my design, (I used to
make my
> living while in college, by designing and selling military history
games,)
> while the Chariot races were done using modified Circvs Maximvs.
> We invited citizens to a special chatroom and described the action,
much like
> a radio broadcast. We never held these during religious festivals,
until
> 2000, when we held a live
> Gladiator fight during Flora's feast day. This was staged at USC.
Now, I
> have found no
> example of a munus in Flora's honor, but that was what the Gens
organizing
> the
> bouts wanted, so I went along with it. We had a large turnout of
25 people,
> I say large as
> it was the last week of the semester, and the campus was deserted.
We
> actually shed blood during one of the bouts, a fighter got his
helmet knocked
> off, and his forehead cut.
> This munus was never seen or heard even though I taped it, as we
had no way
> to stream video to the NR populace, though I hope that will change
in the
> future.
>
> The big difference between my concept and that of the current crop
of Aediles
> the last two years is that they want to get the citizens involved
in the
> gaming process. In reality the
> citizens would not, slaves and prisoners of war did all the
fighting, winning
> or dying, and
> the citizens were spectators who bet on the outcome. When NR
started to coin
> its own money, I thought "there was the way for the citizens to be
involved."
>
> They would bet. But we are still working on that aspect of
gaming.
>
> That pretty much sums up the history of the Nova Roma virtual
gaming.
>
> Now that we are actually tying the festivals to the Religio, the
games will
> take on a more important function. However I really think we
should not do
> this yet, until we iron out the
> bugs in the system. Entertainment for the populace sure.
Religious
> appeasement, no.
> Also it bothers me that the Aediles pick and choose their
festivals. Mars'
> week came and went, and we had no races by the youth, nor did we
have the
> great procession.
>
> Several people wrote and said they were experts on the Great
Goddess. I have
> to ask, who did their castration? Also, since she is a foreign
deity, and
> comes from Anatolia, one of the most bloodthirsty areas around, the
fact she
> doesn't like blood, is a very strange comment.
> Since I am un castrated man, I make no attempt to understand her or
her ways.
> However
> I appreciate her help in defeating the Carthaginians, and setting
Rome on her
> path to greatness. By the by I found no mention of a munus held
during the
> Megalesia. But I
> have not completed all my research yet.
> Valete
> FABIVS
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9481 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: Own Comments
Salve Maximus,

> I think it was our candle and incense to Aesculapius myself, but
what do I
> know?

No, I disagree with you because I doubt you have lighted real candles.
BTW my Cohors and me are engaged in a big project and in fun Ludi
honorating Magna Mater...
But you're the expert... ;-)

Vale
F. Apulus Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9482 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Sulla,

> Sulla: Maybe you should consider resigning the Office then,
since you obviously cannot meet a major portion of the
responsibilities of the office.

Why, Iullstrus Sulla?
Our Costitution says:
"Aediles Curules (Curule Aedile). Two curule aediles shall be elected
by the comitia populi tributa to serve a term lasting one-year. They
shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
To hold Imperium;
To issue those edicta (edicts) necessary to see to the conduct of
public games and other festivals and gatherings, to ensure order at
public religious events, to see to the maintenance of any real public
facilities that the State should acquire, and to administer the law
(such edicts being binding upon themselves as well as others);
To pronounce intercessio against another aedile (curule or plebeian)
or magistrate of lesser authority;
To appoint scribae (clerks) to assist with administrative and other
tasks, as he shall see fit.
To maintain the venues where the Ordo Equester are engaged in
commerce, within Nova Roma property. It is the responsibility of the
Curule Aediles to report any changes of the Ordo Equaestor to the
Censors. "

Do you read detailed words about how I have to organize the Ludi? Is
written I have to offer violent and bloodly games?

I have several events, games, shows, projects offering to the Gods
and to the Nova Romans.
I disagree with you, as Curule Aedile I have 5 macro-duties and in
the second point I have 4 detailed goals. What you mean? I think I'm
following what the Costitution ask to do me.

And I'm not able to organize bloodly games in this moment because now
we live in sad time of war. I think you're hoping the war will
continue since the end of the year. I hope the war ends as soon as
possible, before my next Ludi.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9483 From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Salve Sulla,

no, you're attacking me in a not-noble public way. So please answer
to my reasonable questions in the same public way.
You can read the questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/ and if you don't answer me I have to think you haven't the
answers...
The same things is for Illustrus Fabius Maximus and others. Please,
give the answers. I answered you, why you wan't do it?

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Email them privately to me, and I will respond.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salve Senattor,
>
> please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the
Main
> mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
> But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
>
> Vale
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
> <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday
and
> I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend)
but
> beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed
to
> me. Can you please point it out?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
> >
> >
> > Salvete Maximus and others,
> >
> > I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why
you,
> Sulla
> > and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
> Gnaeus
> > Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> >
> > > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand
why
> > people are
> > > saying what is the big deal.
> > > The big deal is perception and precedent.
> >
> > What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
> majority
> > of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso
fabius
> > Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and
bloodly
> > games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> > I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> > Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong
Ludi?
> >
> > > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of
Rome,
> and we
> > are
> > > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century
hindsight
> we
> > are not
> > > much of a recreation are
> > > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim,
you
> > would not be
> > > making
> > > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
> that
> > told you
> > > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
> >
> > And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
yesterday?
> What
> > kind of punishment they suggested you?
> > I think maybe do you use your religious position like a
political
> > position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a
political
> > controversy?
> >
> > > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you
think
> > this is true,
> > > tells me
> > > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> > >
> > > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
> promotes
> > bloodless
> > > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
> welcome
> > to do it.
> > >
> > > However, this is not the case.
> > > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
> Religio. We
> > have
> > > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients'
writings,
> or
> > when unable
> > > to do so use divine inspiration
> > > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
> Goddess,
> > one who is
> > > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the
Great
> > Goddess
> > > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according
to
> the
> > prophecy.
> >
> > Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us
a
> > description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
> intervation
> > of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater
(or
> > Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> > Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> > I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two
years
> and
> > I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> >
> > > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain
her
> favor
> > with Rome.
> > > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
> excuse to
> > throw a
> > > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
> coming to
> > Rome and
> > > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's
your
> > right since we
> > > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> > Magistrates could
> > > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia
is a
> > state
> > > function.
> > > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
> from
> > happening.
> >
> > I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make
happy
> Magna
> > Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL
project
> for
> > a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for
the
> > project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work
time,
> > my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check
of
> the
> > ruins, the study of a big project.
> > And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
> (Naumachiae,
> > Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers
and
> > rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's
match, an
> > archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way
to
> > honorate and make happy my Goddess.
> >
> > What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> > Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm
organizing
> > sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
> writing
> > bloodly scenes?
> > Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do
more
> to
> > make happy the Gods?
> > Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and
your
> > friends.
> >
> > > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no
real
> blood
> > is being
> > > shed, where is the harm?
> > > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
> making
> > their own
> > > decisions on
> > > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is
being
> > carried out.
> > > There in lies the
> > > harm.
> >
> > I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority
of
> the
> > Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
> majority
> > of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
declaration.
> > If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office
and
> I'll
> > not continue my career in the next year. However nobody
(except
> your
> > friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
> Office.
> > Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
> elected
> > by the Nova Romans?
> > I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except
the
> higher
> > Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> > Tradition?...
> >
> > > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> > necessary or not,
> > >
> > > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the
sake of
> a
> > political
> > > statement.
> >
> > Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you
what I
> have
> > changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates
didn't
> > organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
> scenes.
> > Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
Tradition?
> > Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize
real
> > games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is
a
> > changement of the Tradition?
> >
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
> ORGANIZING
> > LUDI??
> > Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> >
> > > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since
none
> of
> > > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > > However that may change in the future. After all, that is
all
> a
> > large Texas
> > > cookout
> > > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a
cow,
> cook
> > it, then
> > > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
> >
> > So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running
horses,
> maybe
> > in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard
work.
> >
> > At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> > declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I
can't
> > accept your objections. They are not logical and several
people
> and
> > Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to
reflect
> about
> > your position and move a step back.
> >
> > [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be
fine
> > from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I
don't
> feel
> > pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 9484 From: L. Cornelius Sulla Date: 2003-04-07
Subject: Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
Ave Fr. Apulus,

Well you can go ahead and repost the question, or since you have gone the trouble and provided the link to the groups page you can give me which message number you are referring too, and I will be more than happy to respond.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments


Salve Sulla,

no, you're attacking me in a not-noble public way. So please answer
to my reasonable questions in the same public way.
You can read the questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-
Roma/ and if you don't answer me I have to think you haven't the
answers...
The same things is for Illustrus Fabius Maximus and others. Please,
give the answers. I answered you, why you wan't do it?

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> Email them privately to me, and I will respond.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:07 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
>
>
> Salve Senattor,
>
> please, read my past messages (yesterday) in the archive of the
Main
> mailing list if you are interested to answer me.
> But if you don't want answer me don't search ... ;-)
>
> Vale
> Fr. Apulus Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
> <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > Ave,
> >
> > I have not been online for the most part of today (it is Sunday
and
> I do try to get most of my errands compeleted during the weekend)
but
> beyond that I have not seen any question that you have directed
to
> me. Can you please point it out?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Franciscus Apulus Caesar
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Megalesia Affair: My Own Comments
> >
> >
> > Salvete Maximus and others,
> >
> > I have ask you several questions about my "mistaken", why
you,
> Sulla
> > and your friends don't answer me? Why you answer to Illustrus
> Gnaeus
> > Salix Astur and not give me reasonable and correct answers?
> >
> > > Of course. No one is dying in reality. So I do understand
why
> > people are
> > > saying what is the big deal.
> > > The big deal is perception and precedent.
> >
> > What kind of precedents? As I written in a past message, the
> majority
> > of the past Aediles didn't organize Ludi, Illustrus Caeso
fabius
> > Quintilianus in the last year didn't organize violent and
bloodly
> > games, the last Megalesia Ludi hadn't bloodly games.
> > I reapeat and please answer: what are the precedents?
> > Maybe Magna Mater have punished Nova Roma for the past wrong
Ludi?
> >
> > > Intersting that you say this. If we are recreation of
Rome,
> and we
> > are
> > > picking what is best for Rome, based on 21st century
hindsight
> we
> > are not
> > > much of a recreation are
> > > we? And if you are indeed a follower of Gods as you claim,
you
> > would not be
> > > making
> > > this feeble argument. What God have you spoken to recently
> that
> > told you
> > > this is true? Or are you just taking a wild guess?
> >
> > And do you have talken with the Gods and Magna Mater
yesterday?
> What
> > kind of punishment they suggested you?
> > I think maybe do you use your religious position like a
political
> > position? Are you using your religious powers to stop a
political
> > controversy?
> >
> > > No that is not what we are saying. And the fact that you
think
> > this is true,
> > > tells me
> > > that you are not paying attention to the situation at all.
> > >
> > > If some one is writing a novel, called "Nova Roma," and he
> promotes
> > bloodless
> > > games to protest a forign war, that is his choice and he is
> welcome
> > to do it.
> > >
> > > However, this is not the case.
> > > We have an orginization that is commited to revive the
> Religio. We
> > have
> > > attempted when ever possible to follow the ancients'
writings,
> or
> > when unable
> > > to do so use divine inspiration
> > > to accomplish this. We now have a priestess of the Great
> Goddess,
> > one who is
> > > dovoted in researching and writing about the Great Goddess.
> > > The Megalesia was a yearly celebration commentating the
Great
> > Goddess
> > > arrival in Rome and her intervention
> > > allowing the Romans to win the Second Punic War, according
to
> the
> > prophecy.
> >
> > Illustrus Maximus, you are a religious expert, please give us
a
> > description and explanation of Magna Mater. I invoke the
> intervation
> > of Illustra Iulia Vopisca Cocceia checking what Magna Mater
(or
> > Cybele) was for the Ancient Romans.
> > Please, show me if Magna Mater means blood and violence.
> > I have studied the cult of Magna MAter during the last two
years
> and
> > I have a my answer but you are the expert...
> >
> > > It is also an appeasement to her to continue to maintain
her
> favor
> > with Rome.
> > > In other words let's keep her happy. It was not just an
> excuse to
> > throw a
> > > giant party which our current Aediles seems to think it is.
> > > Now all you non members of the Religio might say that her
> coming to
> > Rome and
> > > winning the war is a load of peanut butter. Fine, that's
your
> > right since we
> > > do celebrate freedom of religion here in Rome.
> > > But we made sure that that non practicers who are elected
> > Magistrates could
> > > not express this doubt in state functions. The Megalesia
is a
> > state
> > > function.
> > > That is why those clauses exist. To keep impiety like this
> from
> > happening.
> >
> > I'm very sorry, Maximus, I have a different idea. I make
happy
> Magna
> > Mater restoring the Temple in the Palatine Hill in a REAL
project
> for
> > a REAL action in a REAL life. IMHO Magna Mater is happy for
the
> > project of my Cohors: I'm donating year my money, my work
time,
> > my "face" in front of the local italian Istitution, the check
of
> the
> > ruins, the study of a big project.
> > And during this work I organize big Ludi within 4 games
> (Naumachiae,
> > Ludi Circenses, Venationes and Munera Gladiatoria), prayers
and
> > rituals, a cultural contest, a multiplayer video-game's
match, an
> > archeological day, an artistic contest, etc. This is my way
to
> > honorate and make happy my Goddess.
> >
> > What are your way to honorate Magna Mater as Pontiffs?
> > Why Magna Mather should be hurted by my actions if I'm
organizing
> > sevarl events and recovering the original Temple but i'm not
> writing
> > bloodly scenes?
> > Please, as expert of Religio, what do you think I could do
more
> to
> > make happy the Gods?
> > Please, I'm waiting for a soon answer from you, Sulla and
your
> > friends.
> >
> > > Wait, I hear you say! If the games are virtual, and no
real
> blood
> > is being
> > > shed, where is the harm?
> > > The harm lies in the fact that duly elected magistrates are
> making
> > their own
> > > decisions on
> > > how a state function that has a deep religious meaning is
being
> > carried out.
> > > There in lies the
> > > harm.
> >
> > I was elected by the majority of the citizens. The majority
of
> the
> > Nova Romans give me their faith to have exciting games. The
> majority
> > of Nova Romans didn't send me messages about my will
declaration.
> > If I wrong the Nova Romans will ask me to resign my Office
and
> I'll
> > not continue my career in the next year. However nobody
(except
> your
> > friends) asked me to withdraw the declaration or to resign my
> Office.
> > Who elected Sulla and your friend to attack me, a Magistrate
> elected
> > by the Nova Romans?
> > I remember you all that in the Ancient Rome nobody (except
the
> higher
> > Magistrates) could interfere with the Ludi. Do you want the
> > Tradition?...
> >
> > > Again you miss the point. If we believe blood sacrifice is
> > necessary or not,
> > >
> > > it is not up to the Aediles to change tradition for the
sake of
> a
> > political
> > > statement.
> >
> > Please, give me an answer, this is the 4th time I ask you
what I
> have
> > changed! There aren't precedents, the other Magistrates
didn't
> > organize bloodly games and the last Megalesia hadn't violent
> scenes.
> > Please answer, the past Magistrates have changed the
Tradition?
> > Or maybe I'm changing the Tradition because I don't organize
real
> > games with real blood and real deaths? Maybe the "virtual" is
a
> > changement of the Tradition?
> >
> > MAXIMUS, YOU AS PAST AEDILE HAVE CHANGED THE TRADITION NOT
> ORGANIZING
> > LUDI??
> > Please answer me and to all the Nova Romans!!!
> >
> > > We have banned animal sacrifice for the time being since
none
> of
> > > us except for Venerator has the skill to carry it out.
> > > However that may change in the future. After all, that is
all
> a
> > large Texas
> > > cookout
> > > is, without the religious connotation. You slaughter a
cow,
> cook
> > it, then
> > > eat it, with 300 of your closest friends.
> >
> > So, I can't organize real ludi with murders and running
horses,
> maybe
> > in the future I'll do it, please now let me continue my hard
work.
> >
> > At the end, I think you and your friends are using this noble
> > declaration as a political attack. This is not noble and I
can't
> > accept your objections. They are not logical and several
people
> and
> > Magistrates are disagreeing with you. Maybe you have to
reflect
> about
> > your position and move a step back.
> >
> > [After my messages during the past afternoon I started to be
fine
> > from my surgical operation. My wound isn't bloodly and I
don't
> feel
> > pain. Maybe Magna Mater and Gods are protecting me!]
> >
> > Valete
> > Fr. Apulus Caesar
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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