---M. Flavius:

If you know anything about me at all, I usually post in a candid
manner with no hidden meaning. If I had a bone to pick with my
paterfamilias, 'he' would be the first to know, not you....and vice
versa.

I do not see a post from him that he is angered by my comments.

If you choose to think I had anything else buried within my text
that's fine. I will likely continue to assume a pulse and
respirations, despite your obviously definite analysis that I meant
something vulgar.

Venerable would describe either the pope or the pontifex maximus, or
a deity...not a Senator. Offensive as it may be to you, I still find
the use of the term as it was applied 'cute'.

I am also aware of proxy protocols being a former senator, and
thought I would clarify what they were and what they are not.

Sorry to have been so terribly offensive to you.

P. Cornelia




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M Flavius Aurelius"
<m.flavius.aurelius@i...> wrote:

> Pompeia Cornelia
>
> Is it only worth a chuckle because it is Sulla? Or the concept of

Senators being venerable amuses you in general?

>
> M Flavius Aurelius
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pompeia_cornelia
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 8:18 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Results of Senate Vote
>
>
> ---
>
> "Venerable" Senator?
>
> Lol..never heard that coined phrase before.
>
> It is common place to ask someone to vote for you, that you
> entrust, ...please vote yes for me as I am tied up an unable to.
> This is acceptable Senatorial protocol.
>
> It is not a case of the other Senator making up the mind of
> the 'venerable' Senator, it is simply the formality of the

entrusted

> Senator voting as per the wishes of the venerable senator,.
>
> I hope you don't mind my chuckle...that is cute.
>
> Pompeia
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"

<alexious@e...>

> wrote:
> > Ave Gaius Ursus et Omnes,
> >
> > I gave my proxy vote in the Senate to Senator Lucius Sicinus

Drusus.

> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: zak29577
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:58 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Results of Senate Vote
> >
> >
> > Salve omnes,
> >
> > While I appreciate having the results of the Senate voting

being

> > published by our Triblunus Plebis (and agree with all

results), I

> am
> > left wondering about the entry (see below) stating that

Senator

> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla's vote was given by proxy.
> >
> > I would like to know who delivered the venerable Senator's

vote.

> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gaius Ursus Casca
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
> > <diana@p...> wrote:
> > > Tribunus Plebis Diana Moravia Aventina Quiritibus SPD
> > >
> > > Senate Voting Results published on July 3 2756.
> > >
> > > The Senate has finished its latest session and the votes

have

> been
> > tallied
> > > as follows.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > The following 17 Senators cast votes in time. They are

referred

> to
> > below by
> > > their initials, and are listed in alphabetical order by

nomen:

> > >
> > <another snip>
> > >
> > > Lucius Cornelius Sulla (LCS) (proxy vote)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]

Salve Diana Moravia,

> As for the rest of your email below, when I opened it I 'assumed' (proving
> the Odd Couple's definition of that word) that it was to defend me. But
> after reading your email I have to say that this is the first time that I
> have never been genuinely sad and hurt in Nova Roma. I guess my skin is not
> as thick as I think.

I am sorry that you feel that way. I am not supporting or condoning
anything he said about you, and I hope that nothing in my mail is
being interpreted as such.

All that I am doing is objecting to the possibility of an edict being
issued against a citizen while he is away and is unable to put up
any sort of defense whatsoever. Although he knew that moderation had
been requested before he announced his one-week vacation, the statement
from the praetores that he would indeed be moderated came after his
departure.

I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of anything you or he said
or did; I am merely objecting to any punitive action being taken at
a time when one party is completely unable to present his side of
the case.

If you wish to continue your petition when he returns, I won't
stand in your way.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/

A. Apollonius Cordus to Senator & Consular Q. Fabius
Maximus and all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I should like to pick up on your 'point of law':

> Ah but I must have misunderstood. When did you give
> Senator Drusus imperium to call the centuries? I
> must have missed that important, constitutional
> changing post. Point of law, it says only you, the
> junior Consul and the Praetors in your absences
> may summon the centuries for anything.

Neither the constitution nor any law says this. The
constitution, at III.B, says:

"While it shall be called to order by either a consul
or a praetor, only the comitia centuriata shall pass
laws governing the rules by which it shall operate
internally."

This is a confusing and badly written construction
(though rather better than yours above - what exactly
is a 'constitutional changing post'?), admitting
several interpretations. One is "during those times
when the comitia centuriata is called to order by a
consul or a praetor, it and only it shall have the
power to pass laws concerning its own operation." I
suspect this is not what is meant.

Another is "although it is true that the comitia
centuriata may be called to order by a consul or a
praetor, nonetheless it and only it shall have the
power to pass laws concerning its own operation." This
would be illogical, for it implies that the first part
of the sentence would normally make the second
impossible or unexpected.

The only other interpretation grammar allows, even if
its rules are applied very leniently indeed, is "the
comitia centuriata may be called to order by either a
consul or a praetor; and it, and only it, shall have
the power to pass laws concerning its own operation."
This, I presume, is what the writer intended: if so,
he or she really ought not to have put both these
statements, which have nothing to do with one another,
in the same sentence.

Taking that to be the correct interpretation, may I
point out that it says nothing which forbids anyone
else from summoning the centuries? It implies that
only a consul or a praetor may convene the centuriate
assembly; but this does not mean that only a consul or
a praetor may ask the people to assemble in their
centuries for some purpose other than to pass a law,
elect a magistrate or try a criminal case. It would,
in fact, be totally inappropriate for a praetor or
consul to use this clause to call a mock election,
because it is nothing to do with mock elections and
everything to do with real elections.

Similarly, clause II of the Cornelian-Octavian law on
the procedure of the assmbly states:

"Either a Consul or Praetor may, as described in the
Constitution, call the Comitia to order, to hold a
vote on a lex or leges, or to hold an election."

This, thankfully, is a grammatically and logically
clear sentence (though there is no real need for the
second or third commas). It implies that no one but a
consul or a praetor may convene the comitia
centuriata, but it does not forbid anyone at all from
summoning the centuries in any other form or for any
other purpose. Moreover, it specified the purposes for
which the assmbly may be convened: "to hold a vote on
a lex or leges, or to hold an election". This
implicitly excludes any other purposes, including
holding a mock election.

So when we actually read the relevant laws, we find
that your 'point of law' is utterly unfounded. Anyone
at all may ask the people to assemble in their
centuries. Whether they will do so or not is quite
another thing; but even a consul or a praetor cannot
force or require the people to vote. And finally, if
you still feel, despite the evidence to the contrary,
that an ordinary citizen is not permitted to call the
centuries, I would suggest to you that you are still
at liberty to call mock centuries - just the ticket
for a mock election, one might think.

There is, therefore, no legal provision whatever to
prevent you or anyone else calling a mock election. If
there were, Curule Aedile Equitius Marinus would
hardly be able to hold a mock election, would he?

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Marcus Octavius Germanicus
<hucke@c...> wrote:

> Salve Senator Sicini,
>
> > There has been a disturbing trend on this list of
> > late. Any crictism of policies favored by the Senior
> > Consul's staff is met by a barrage of posts from the
> > Consular Cohorts and others closely allied with the
> > Senior Consul.
>
> Would it not also be correct to be said that any action or proposal
> of the Senior Consul or his allies is met with a barrage of posts
> from a small group of citizens who habitually oppose him?
>
> The first such event this year was his appointment of his large
> staff - which was actually the subject of a petition for

intercessio!

> Already by January 5th, when no proposals for any significant

changes

> had been advanced, there was already an organized effort underway
> to neutralize the current administration.

Salve Honorable Censor,

My petition for intercesso had nothing to do with the size of the
Senior Consul's cohors. The petition was delivered to the Tribunes
on Jan 3rd, not 5th. It was a question of whether or not a minor
could be subject to a formal legal oath of office. Other than your
incessant barrage of accusations of dark conspiracies and political
motivations the ensuing discussions were calm, reasoned, respectful,
civil, and centered solely upon the legal questions raised. On
January 5th the unanimous decision of the Tribunes was returned by
Tribune Lucius Pompeius Octavianus that stated in a nutshell that
while my concerns were legitimate the possibility of legal troubles
for Nova Roma were remote enough to allow the Consular Edicts to
stand as written.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Tribune Diana,

> Um, your details are a bit off. I recall this quite clearly because the
> Tribunes and I were scrambling to get ourselves organized.

Thanks for the details. My secretary didn't take very good notes,
and will have to be beaten and/or replaced.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/

Salvete,

The Nova Britannia Provincial Website has been updated and relocated to
a new domain and can now be found at:

http://www.3commando.org/roma_index.htm

My virtual Temple to Minerva as also been relocated:

http://www.3commando.org/temple.htm

Bene valete in pace Deorum,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Propraetor Nova Britannia
Lictor
Minerva Templi Sacerdotes

Patria est communis omnium parens.
"Our native land is the common parent of us all." - Cicero




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

Salvete Quirites,

I just want to wish a Happy Independence day to my
fellow Nova Romans from the United States. May
Libertas continue to guide you.


=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

I will be away, without any internet access, for approximately
30 hours.

As my home state, unfortunately, has enacted a ban upon the recreational
use of devices that propel themselves upward at great speed and then
explode, I am forced to travel elsewhere to do that.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/

"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@...> writes:

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> I just want to wish a Happy Independence day to my
> fellow Nova Romans from the United States. May
> Libertas continue to guide you.

Thank you Drusus. I hope you have a happy independence
day yourself. It'll be nice to see the fireworks.

I second Senator Drusus wish for a happy 4th of July
to all who celebrate the day. It is, indeed, a great
day.

-- Marinus

Salve Philippus Flavius,

who is the author of that poem?

It reminds me the last two lines of the most famous poem of Horatio:

"Dum loquimur, fugerit invidia
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

Vale,
Octavia Fabia Musica

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

Gn. Equitius Marinus Praetoris Novae Romae SPD

After private communication with a privatus citizen whom I respect,
I appreciate that a request for praetorian investigation looks enough
like prosecution that I've given second thought to my earlier request
for the Praetors to look at the recent posts of Marcus Octavius
Germanicus, one of our current Censors.

In as much as placing Censor Germanicus on moderated status might
interfere with his performance of his magisterial duties, I ask
the Praetors to please not place the Censor on moderated status
now or for so long as he holds his curule office.

No curule magistrate could be prosecuted while he held office
in antiquity. We should recognize not only the letter, but also
the spirit, of that policy here and now.

-- Gn. Equitius Marinus

Salve Gnae Equiti,

> After private communication with a privatus citizen whom I respect,
> I appreciate that a request for praetorian investigation looks enough
> like prosecution that I've given second thought to my earlier request
> for the Praetors to look at the recent posts of Marcus Octavius
> Germanicus, one of our current Censors.

In the spirit of peacemaking and of free speech, let us also dismiss
any action against L. Sicinius Drusus.

Vale, O.
(leaving for vacation in five minutes)

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/

Pompeia Cornelia

I do not know whose message you are responding to, but it clearly is not the one I authored, to whom your comments are addressed. I spoke not of offence, an angry Sulla, buried meanings. I asked if you were amused by the word "venerable" being used in relation to Sulla in particular, or all Senators.

M Flavius Aurelius

Venerable: Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position (dictionary.com)

----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_cornelia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:49 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Results of Senate Vote


---M. Flavius:

If you know anything about me at all, I usually post in a candid
manner with no hidden meaning. If I had a bone to pick with my
paterfamilias, 'he' would be the first to know, not you....and vice
versa.

I do not see a post from him that he is angered by my comments.

If you choose to think I had anything else buried within my text
that's fine. I will likely continue to assume a pulse and
respirations, despite your obviously definite analysis that I meant
something vulgar.

Venerable would describe either the pope or the pontifex maximus, or
a deity...not a Senator. Offensive as it may be to you, I still find
the use of the term as it was applied 'cute'.

I am also aware of proxy protocols being a former senator, and
thought I would clarify what they were and what they are not.

Sorry to have been so terribly offensive to you.

P. Cornelia




In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "M Flavius Aurelius"
<m.flavius.aurelius@i...> wrote:
> Pompeia Cornelia
>
> Is it only worth a chuckle because it is Sulla? Or the concept of
Senators being venerable amuses you in general?
>
> M Flavius Aurelius
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pompeia_cornelia
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 8:18 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Results of Senate Vote
>
>
> ---
>
> "Venerable" Senator?
>
> Lol..never heard that coined phrase before.
>
> It is common place to ask someone to vote for you, that you
> entrust, ...please vote yes for me as I am tied up an unable to.
> This is acceptable Senatorial protocol.
>
> It is not a case of the other Senator making up the mind of
> the 'venerable' Senator, it is simply the formality of the
entrusted
> Senator voting as per the wishes of the venerable senator,.
>
> I hope you don't mind my chuckle...that is cute.
>
> Pompeia
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> > Ave Gaius Ursus et Omnes,
> >
> > I gave my proxy vote in the Senate to Senator Lucius Sicinus
Drusus.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: zak29577
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 1:58 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Results of Senate Vote
> >
> >
> > Salve omnes,
> >
> > While I appreciate having the results of the Senate voting
being
> > published by our Triblunus Plebis (and agree with all
results), I
> am
> > left wondering about the entry (see below) stating that
Senator
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla's vote was given by proxy.
> >
> > I would like to know who delivered the venerable Senator's
vote.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gaius Ursus Casca
> > Roman Citizen
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
> > <diana@p...> wrote:
> > > Tribunus Plebis Diana Moravia Aventina Quiritibus SPD
> > >
> > > Senate Voting Results published on July 3 2756.
> > >
> > > The Senate has finished its latest session and the votes
have
> been
> > tallied
> > > as follows.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > The following 17 Senators cast votes in time. They are
referred
> to
> > below by
> > > their initials, and are listed in alphabetical order by
nomen:
> > >
> > <another snip>
> > >
> > > Lucius Cornelius Sulla (LCS) (proxy vote)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]


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]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Max" <maxmarth@l...> wrote:

> Salve Philippus Flavius,
>
> who is the author of that poem?
>
> It reminds me the last two lines of the most famous poem of Horatio:
>
> "Dum loquimur, fugerit invidia
> aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
>
> Vale,
> Octavia Fabia Musica

Salvete Octavia Fabia Musica,

aliqui studiosi scholastici illud scribebant inter annis
2603 atque 2633.

Vale
Philipp Flavius Conservatus Maior

[posted with separate e-mail copy to Octavius]

Marcus Octavius Germanicus <hucke@...> writes:

> Salve Gnae Equiti,
>
> > After private communication with a privatus citizen whom I respect,
> > I appreciate that a request for praetorian investigation looks enough
> > like prosecution that I've given second thought to my earlier request
> > for the Praetors to look at the recent posts of Marcus Octavius
> > Germanicus, one of our current Censors.
>
> In the spirit of peacemaking and of free speech, let us also dismiss
> any action against L. Sicinius Drusus.
>
> Vale, O.
> (leaving for vacation in five minutes)

While I applaud your desire for concord, my request for praetorian
review stands. It isn't driven by any desire to increase hostilities,
as I hope you and all others know. I want the praetors to examine
the exchanges and to take such actions as they consider appropriate.
For myself, Senator Drusus has completely satisfied me with his
forthright statement of last evening. But it is not only for
myself that I ask. I ask for the good of all here, especially those
who have experienced dismay and become disheartened by the exchanges.

I hope your vacation goes well, and that you enjoyed your time away
from the cares of NR.

-- Marinus

Cn. Salix Astur Quiritibus S.P.D.

I am writing these lines to explain to you, the People of Nova Roma,
what I, as your elected praetor, am going to do about the recent
events on this mailing list.

As you might have guessed, I have received several private messages
from different citizens concerning this case, in addition to the
comments posted to this very same list. Some of these messages
contained different perspectives that I have considered worthy of
consideration.

To add up, there are several ideas floating around:

a) Some people have indicated that leaving the solution to such a
complex situation to the arbitrary decision of two magistrates is not
appropriate, given that we do now have a judicial process that will
be able to warrant everyone's rights and duties in the Lex Salicia
Iudiciaria:
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2002-11-24-iii.html
This would mean, of course, a fair trial by a jury of citizens of
Nova Roma. I think that this is a very reasonable argument, since we,
as a Nation, are certainly striving to become a Nation Under the Rule
of the Law.

b) Some others have indicated that C. Minucius Scaevola has announced
that he will be absent for a week, and that it wouldn't be
appropriate to judge someone in any way while he is not able to
defend himself. For the same reasons indicated above, I also think
that this is a very reasonable argument.

c) Some people have indicated that C. Minucius Scaevola has not been
the only one to have used an unacceptable language lately. As I have
indicated in the past, the praetores are ready to consider any lawful
petitio from any citizen.

So, basically, there are several things to consider. Besides that, I
can not take this decision alone, because there are *two* praetores
in Nova Roma.

So this is what I am going to do: I am going to take 72 hours (until
monday) to think about this issue and to reach an agreement with my
colleague about a certain course of action. After that time, we will
make a joint announcement to this mailing list about our future
course of action.

As always, our praetorial offices are open to all your comments and
requests.

Bene valete in Pace Deorum!

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

F. Galerius Aurelianus Secundus to the Illustrus L. Sicinius Drusus. Salve.

There is neither an organized plan of response nor or the members of the
cohors of the Senior Consul "over zealous" in defense of his plans, posts, or
personal opinions. However, we do voice OUR personal opinions when we feel it is
appropriate but we do not make it anything else because we are, for the most
part, not elected, administrative or executive magistrates. Happy Independence
Day to you and yours.

Vale.


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

Oh yeah! Today is the fourth of July isn't it?

Hey now US citizens, I'm jealous! The fourth of July and Thanksgiving are
the 2 holidays that I miss as an expatriot. Those hot dogs (filled with
mystery meat) go down real smooth on the fourth! Enjoy your three day
weekend. I hope that you are having great weather and if you have a moment,
drink a sip of beer for me! I'll do the same for (all of) you over here in
Gallia :-)

And a Happy Nova Roman birthday to Britannia Propraetor D Iunius Silanus!!
Cheers Mate!

Vale,
Diana Moravia

Diana Moravia Aventina <diana@...> writes:

> Oh yeah! Today is the fourth of July isn't it?

It is, indeed. The fourth of Quintillus.

> Hey now US citizens, I'm jealous!

I'm willing to share with you Diana.

> The fourth of July and Thanksgiving are
> the 2 holidays that I miss as an expatriot.

I understand. I've more than once described myself as an expatriate
Texan, after living there for 8 years and being married to a native.
I'd guess you feel as much an expatriate New Yorker as you do an
expatatriate American.

> Enjoy your three day
> weekend. I hope that you are having great weather

Currently hotter than the hinges of hades here in Mediatlantica.
All that rain and cool weather that you remember from Roman Days
is long gone now. It's hot, hazy, and humid here.

> and if you have a moment, drink a sip of beer for me!

If I find myself drinking any beer, I'll do that. Though it's
far more likely I'll toast you in iced tea.

> I'll do the same for (all of) you over here in Gallia :-)

Thank you. Don't let your guard down there. You know what
all those wild barbarians would want to do to a nice Roman
girl like you if they thought they had a chance. (He said,
with tongue firmly in cheek.)

> And a Happy Nova Roman birthday to Britannia Propraetor D Iunius Silanus!!

I hadn't known! Happy Birthday Silanus!

-- Marinus

Salvete Praetores,

Thank you for your response.

I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt. For me it is fair if you wait
until C Minucius Scaevola comes back. I am sure that having a week to think
about it, he will come back a bit 'calmer'. Despite what he thinks, I really
am a fair preson.

That said, his accusation that I am a dishonest Tribune needs to be
addressed and so I need to wait for his return. I believe that issues like
this are not within the responsiblilties of a Praetor. In any case, I am
sure that after a week he'll retract his statement against me at which time
I will be more than happy to (vitually) kiss and make up.

Thank you to both of you and to the Senior Consul for your patience with me.
I'm truly sorry if I lost my temper or got impatient. It's my fiery Sicilian
temperament. Most of the time it is a positive thing, but now and then it is
an embarrassment :-)

Vale,
Diana Moravia
Tribunus Plebis

In a message dated 7/4/03 8:14:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gawne@...
writes:

> In as much as placing Censor Germanicus on moderated status might
> interfere with his performance of his magisterial duties, I ask
> the Praetors to please not place the Censor on moderated status
> now or for so long as he holds his curule office.
>

Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
By law he would have to be impeached anyway, before any discipline applied.
You are free to renew your petition after his term expires.
Valete


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

Salvete omnes.

a new temple has opened its doors.
it'll be a pleasure to see you there and leave some supplications.

Vale
Philippus Flavius

i forgot the addy, sorry

http://www.geocities.com/felixdeus

Vale
Philippus Flavius

I did not like the mini-series. In thier attempt to fit so much in to an alloted time, they left out so much or they just made it upon...the best Caeser I have seen so far was Timothy Dulton in the 1999 Cleopatra...some people don't like this movie either, but the Caser in this flick was cool, to say the least and Cleopatra was much too hot.

gaiuspopilliuslaenas <ksterne@...> wrote:--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus"
<ahenobarbus@h...> wrote:

>
> Now about that TNT miniseries: the actor they got to play

Vercingetorix is

> about a thousand times cooler than Christopher Lambert in "The

Druids"

> (a.k.a. "Vercingetorix" everywhere outside the US)

Haha! For a guy who was supposed to be starving to death in Alesia,
he looked kinda chunky to me.

Gaius Popillius Laenas


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.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Diana Moravia Aventina"
<diana@p...> wrote:

><SNIP>
> That said, his accusation that I am a dishonest Tribune needs to be
> addressed and so I need to wait for his return. I believe that

issues like

> this are not within the responsiblilties of a Praetor. In any case,

I am

> sure that after a week he'll retract his statement against me at

which time

> I will be more than happy to (vitually) kiss and make up.
>

<SNIP>

Salvete,

I'm fully prepared for the smackdown I'll receive for posting this
since I'm new, but I can read just as well as the next person. I have
nothing against any person, grouping, or office holder in NR and have
no reason to dislike or abuse any such. That said, I've sat back and
read several years of bad behavior and virulence in the archives for
the last several months and much of what is under the bridge and
forgotten for others is still rather fresh for me. It would be
completely hypocritical for me to sit back and not say a word when
I've been wringing my hands over others not saying a word to the many
situations that came and went in the archives.
So here goes.
In the last week, a *lot* more people than CM Scaveola have made
comments that are completely out of line and, though I am surprised
by it after reading so much good sense from you, that includes you
Diana Moravia, as well. IMHO, of course. Here are just a sampling of
those posts that really should be addressed with regard to your
current request for praetorian action.

+++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/12604

From: "Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@p...>
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 8:59 am
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Attn Praetores & Senior Consul
<Consular Sulla,
<Are you suggesting that the Senior Consul or any of his cohors would
<abuse their authority in order to influence the judgement of the
<Praetors or the Censors? Or that either the Praetors or the Censors
<would give special treatment to anyone based on their membership
<in said cohors?

My answer to your response to Sulla would be 'It certainly is
beginning to
look like that, so please prove me wrong."
++++++

In this post it looks to me that you are also questioning the honesty
and integrity of office holders as well. Yes, I know you apologized
for losing your temper, but who says Scaveola wasn't just losing his?
And does it excuse the action?

+++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/12590

From: "Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@p...>
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 6:38 am
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Attn Praetores & Senior Consul

C Miniucius Scaevola,

What you say about me publicly or behind my back means very little to
me.
Mr. Okopnik, the *real* Roman blood that runs through my veins has
made me
strong enough to listen to your comments and to have a good laugh at
them!
+++++

In this it does appear that you have decided that genetics are more
important where the ability to be a "New Roman" is concerned. How
does being a modern Italian make you better than one descended from
any other part of the world? Considering that I, like the majority of
Americans, am a "Mutt" with many countries and regions mixing in my
veins, I take exception to the statement that some racial or ethnic
advantage is had by those who didn't immigrate to a new world. You
also descend to referring to a person by their Macro name, something
in the archives to be considered rude and dismissive of their NR
status.

Why did I post this to the public list instead of sending it directly
to you? I had originally intended to, but when I saw the posts this
morning it seemed pointless to keep quiet what has been made so
glaringly public. I'm not skilled in the art of sophistry and so I
make no claim to hidden meanings, secret agendas or other nefarious
motives. What I have said is what I mean. There are examples in the
last week from many that I could include, but that would made this
missive even more cumbersome. Again, I must state that all this is
IMHO.

I mean no true offense to you, Diana Moravia, and hope that this
will not cause some eternal emnity from you towards me, as I honestly
don't wish to cause you injury. But I must, in good conscience,
address what seems to be mounting up as a one sided prosecution when
many are at fault. And I apologize to all other Nova Romans for the
length of it.

Valete,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

Salvete Moderators,

Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been on
the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I reply
or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist, sometimes for
several hours.
Is this just a yahoo thing or am I still moderated? Is there an
easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering anyone?

Valete,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aoctaviaindagatrix"
<bryanta003@h...> wrote:

> Salvete Moderators,
>
> Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been

on

> the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
> custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I

reply

> or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist, sometimes for
> several hours.
> Is this just a yahoo thing or am I still moderated? Is there an
> easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering anyone?
>
> Valete,
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix

Salvete Annia Octavia Indagatrix,

i would say the same, 'cause i waited several hrs before my post was
listed as well.
maybe they're sleeping *loool*
or just celebrating.
but well let's see how it'll go on

Vale
Philippus Flavius Conservatus Maior

Salve Annia Octavia,

I'm not one of the praetors, so I don't moderate *this* mailing list.
But I do moderate a few other Yahoo mailing lists, so I'll take a
stab at answering this.

> Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been on
> the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
> custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I reply
> or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist, sometimes for
> several hours.
> Is this just a yahoo thing

Yes, it is. When the Yahoo mail servers get heavily loaded it can
take some time before a post will be mailed out. I've noticed today
that several of my posts have taken a half hour or so to post, even
in groups I own.

> or am I still moderated? Is there an
> easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering anyone?

Unfortunately, the only way to know you're moderated is if you get
that return message. While as the owner or moderator of a group I
can view restricted web pages which tell me who is in what status,
those pages are only visible to owners and moderators.

I hope that helps.

-- Gn. Equitius Marinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aoctaviaindagatrix"
<bryanta003@h...> wrote:

> Salvete Moderators,
>
> Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been

on

> the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
> custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I

reply

> or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist, sometimes for
> several hours.
> Is this just a yahoo thing or am I still moderated? Is there an
> easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering anyone?
>
> Valete,
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix

Salve,

Above the message is an option to view source, which tells one every
piece of information about a message that noone but a total techie
would ever want to know. I did a view source on your original post:

"X-Yahoo-Profile: aoctaviaindagatrix
X-eGroups-Approved-By: deciusiunius <bcatfd@t...> via email; 4 Jul
2003 21:55:06 -0000"

Since is states your message was approved by deciusiunius, I'd hazard
a guess that you are still on moderated status.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salvete omnes,

What's the average time a new person is moderated. If my memory is
correct, I was on moderation for about 2 months after I joined the
ML.

Regards,

Quintus





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@a...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aoctaviaindagatrix"
> <bryanta003@h...> wrote:
> > Salvete Moderators,
> >
> > Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been
> on
> > the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
> > custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I
> reply
> > or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist, sometimes

for

> > several hours.
> > Is this just a yahoo thing or am I still moderated? Is there

an

> > easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering

anyone?

> >
> > Valete,
> > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
>
> Salve,
>
> Above the message is an option to view source, which tells one

every

> piece of information about a message that noone but a total techie
> would ever want to know. I did a view source on your original post:
>
> "X-Yahoo-Profile: aoctaviaindagatrix
> X-eGroups-Approved-By: deciusiunius <bcatfd@t...> via email; 4 Jul
> 2003 21:55:06 -0000"
>
> Since is states your message was approved by deciusiunius, I'd

hazard

> a guess that you are still on moderated status.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Apollonio Cordo et omnibus civibus salutem dicit.

Salvete, omnes.

A historical note might help clarify the idea of a Nova Roman curule
aedile summoning the comitia centuriata. Under historical Roman law
any curule magistrate could summon the comitia centuriata or the
comitia populi tributorum with the leave of the consuls. Curule
aediles usually convened the comitia to adjudicate serious infractions
of their commercial edicta. I suggest that the historical case
provides a direct analogy in support of a curule aedile covening the
comitia centuriata for a mock election with the leave of the consuls.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Q. Cassius Calvus,

Thank you for that information. It says I joined on 5/1/2003 so I
guess I'll ask a moderator sometime soon when I can get off moderated
status. Thanks again.

Vale,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "quintuscassiuscalvus"
<richmal@a...> wrote:

<SNIP>>

> Above the message is an option to view source, which tells one

every

> piece of information about a message that noone but a total techie
> would ever want to know. I did a view source on your original post:
>
> "X-Yahoo-Profile: aoctaviaindagatrix
> X-eGroups-Approved-By: deciusiunius <bcatfd@t...> via email; 4 Jul
> 2003 21:55:06 -0000"
>
> Since is states your message was approved by deciusiunius, I'd

hazard

> a guess that you are still on moderated status.
>
> Vale,
>
> Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Romans

This is a feature of the Eagle but as someone has already wished a Happy Nova Roman birthday to Britannia Propraetor D Iunius Silanus!! Here are the rest of the July birthdays

Happy Birthday (CD's note In seems all the Best Romans were born in July)

Caius Julius Caesar ( the first)
Caius Imperius Furius
Valeria Constantinia Iuliana
Andreas Licinius Crassus
Quintus Octavius Hispanicus
Gallio Velius Marsallas
Quintus Equitius Palladius
Iulia Cornelia Gaia
Domenica Africana Secunda
Marcus Aeneas Apollonius Lupus
Antonia Octavia Americana
Sabina Iulia Galla
Marcus Aelius Baeticus Aquila
Marcus Ritulius Falco
Marcus Claudius Decimus Lucius
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Marcus Germanus
Aulus Hirtius Helveticus
Marcus Serenus Sedulus
Gaius Sententiosus
Caius Sergius Mallus
Tiberius Claudius Catulus
Flavius Porticus Nolus
Prima Fabia Drusila
Titus Licinius Crassus
Lucius Virginius Irenaeus
Sextus Sententiosus Metellus
Prima Labiena Iulia
Stephanus Andreus Adrianus
Caius Curius Saturninus
Marcus Adrianus Scipio
Iulia Durmia Claudia
Lucia Valeria Secunda Ianuaria
Octavia Agoria
Prima Silvania Sabina
Publius Durmius Oriolus Ampurdanensis
Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus Minor
Tiberius Marcius Spurinus
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Aurelia Iulia Pulcra
Liberia Sicinia Tahtianna
Lucilla Iulia Aciliensis
Paulus Tiberius Gladius
Ianus Minicius Sparsus
Julius Claudius Tertius
Alexander Solaris Draconteus
Gaius Iulius Iulianus Octavianus
Gaius Popillius Laenas
Marcinus Ovidius Czeladzianus
Hannibal Apollonius Africanus
Gaius Columbius Antius
Tiberius Popillius Iulianus
Caius Bianchius Ursus
Publius Adrianus Augustus
Laverna Victoria Julia
Julia Fabia Gallica
Aulus Minicius Hadrianus
Gaius Arcanus Caligula
Annia Lollia Portica
Mecurius Minucius Gladius
Lucius Tarquinius Rex
Marcus Cornelius Militaris
Marcus Virginius Falco
Tiberius Iulius Scaevola
Tiberius Arminius Hyacinthus
Quintus Solaris Fabius Pictor
Septimus Lusitanicus
Decimus Volcatius Romanus Cincinnatus


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "aoctaviaindagatrix"
<bryanta003@h...> wrote:

> Salvete Moderators,

Salve A. Octavia,

> Rather than email all of you for this, I'll just ask. I've been
>on the list a while now and was moderated when I first joined as is
> custom. It no longer gives the little moderated message when I
>reply or post, but it also doesn't show up on the mainlist,
>sometimes for several hours.

That is because you are still on moderated status. In general my
colleague and I, along with our respective staffs, have a good track
record of speedy approval of messages, due in part to our being
scattered throughout several time zones. However, sometimes there is
a delay in approval time, especially around holidays.

> Is this just a yahoo thing or am I still moderated? Is there an
> easy way to find out if you are moderated without bothering anyone?

You are still on moderated status for the time being. My colleague
and I do review individuals and periodically remove them from
moderated status. The decision to remove people from moderation is
based partly on time spent on the list but also but the number of
posts by an individual. If someone joined the list five months ago
but never posted since then, or only a few times, he or she stays
moderated since we have no yardstick other than silence how the
individual will behave. Since you joined just over two months ago and
have posted 16 times without problems, you will likely be taken off
moderation soon.

In Service to Rome,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus,
Praetor (moderator)

Salve A. Apolloni Corde,

In a previous message, you quoted me,

>> The so-called modernist faction has recently put
>> forward a proposal designed to encourage
> >block voting and allow the political dominance of
> >their faction.

and then you replied,

>I am more profoundly insulted by this sentence than I
>have ever been before in this Forum. It combines two
>separate assertions which are both false and
>defamatory.

You are understandably upset by the wording and I will rephrase that
sentence for you.

"The so-called modernist faction has recently put forward a proposal
designed to encourage block voting, the unwitting effect of which
would allow the continued political dominance of their faction."

I do not retract my comment about the effect of the law would have
had but I am sorry that my hasty phrasing caused you such grief. I
was concentrating mostly on the Modern vs. Restoration aspects of the
message and wrote that sentence in passing.

Vale,

Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus

Salve Tiberi Galeri, Curator.

> someone has
> already wished a Happy Nova Roman birthday to
> Britannia Propraetor D Iunius Silanus!!

Thanks for the congratulations, but just for
clarification. Yesterday was my Nova Roma
birthday...two years as a Nova Roman citizen.

My BIRTH day is actually in November.

Thanks all the same.

Vale

Decimus Iunius Silanus.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here's a link to "Villae Rusticae in Pannonia":

http://www.hum.gu.se/~aksmp/project.html

And to a report on the joint Swedish-Hungarian excavations at
Pilisszántó in the 1999-2001 seasons:

http://www.hum.gu.se/~aksmp/report.html

Both were authored by Marianne Prohaszka (Classics, Univ. of Göteborg).

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Octavia,

< In the last week, a *lot* more people than CM Scaveola have made
<comments that are completely out of line and, though I am surprised
<by it after reading so much good sense from you, that includes you
<Diana Moravia, as well. IMHO, of course. Here are just a sampling of
<those posts that really should be addressed with regard to your
< current request for praetorian action.

Thank you for your post. If you recall, I publicly apologized for that post
about 20 minutes later. Privately I apologized to G Equitius Marinus about
10 minutes later.

I realize that you are new, but for the record, my post was within list
guidelines. Opinions are acceptable whether or not anyone agrees with them.
Name calling is not acceptable, whether or not anyone agrees with them.

Vale,
Diana Moravia

+++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/12604

From: "Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@p...>
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 8:59 am
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Attn Praetores & Senior Consul
<Consular Sulla,
<Are you suggesting that the Senior Consul or any of his cohors would
<abuse their authority in order to influence the judgement of the
<Praetors or the Censors? Or that either the Praetors or the Censors
<would give special treatment to anyone based on their membership
<in said cohors?

My answer to your response to Sulla would be 'It certainly is
beginning to
look like that, so please prove me wrong."
++++++

In this post it looks to me that you are also questioning the honesty
and integrity of office holders as well. Yes, I know you apologized
for losing your temper, but who says Scaveola wasn't just losing his?
And does it excuse the action?

+++++
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/12590

From: "Diana Moravia Aventina" <diana@p...>
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 6:38 am
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Attn Praetores & Senior Consul

C Miniucius Scaevola,

What you say about me publicly or behind my back means very little to
me.
Mr. Okopnik, the *real* Roman blood that runs through my veins has
made me
strong enough to listen to your comments and to have a good laugh at
them!
+++++

In this it does appear that you have decided that genetics are more
important where the ability to be a "New Roman" is concerned. How
does being a modern Italian make you better than one descended from
any other part of the world? Considering that I, like the majority of
Americans, am a "Mutt" with many countries and regions mixing in my
veins, I take exception to the statement that some racial or ethnic
advantage is had by those who didn't immigrate to a new world. You
also descend to referring to a person by their Macro name, something
in the archives to be considered rude and dismissive of their NR
status.

Why did I post this to the public list instead of sending it directly
to you? I had originally intended to, but when I saw the posts this
morning it seemed pointless to keep quiet what has been made so
glaringly public. I'm not skilled in the art of sophistry and so I
make no claim to hidden meanings, secret agendas or other nefarious
motives. What I have said is what I mean. There are examples in the
last week from many that I could include, but that would made this
missive even more cumbersome. Again, I must state that all this is
IMHO.

I mean no true offense to you, Diana Moravia, and hope that this
will not cause some eternal emnity from you towards me, as I honestly
don't wish to cause you injury. But I must, in good conscience,
address what seems to be mounting up as a one sided prosecution when
many are at fault. And I apologize to all other Nova Romans for the
length of it.

Valete,
Annia Octavia Indagatrix




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.

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

As always, I'm grateful for your extensive historical
understanding and your helpful use of it. In this
particular case I'm afraid I don't feel that any
historical analogy is really necessary to justify the
organization of a mock election by a curule aedile.

As I've already explained, there is no legal
impediment to it, and I feel sure there is no
historical objection either: true, spectators at the
games would hardly have found a pretend election as
exciting as a pretend sea-battle in a specially
flooded arena, but I'm sure no one would have raised
any legal objection to an aedile - normally without
imperium to command a real fleet - arranging the
latter, and I'm equally sure no objection would have
been made to the same individual, or frankly anyone at
all, doing the former. But if you know of any such
case, I shall stand corrected.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor, Senator & Consular
Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus and all citizens and
peregrines, greetings.

> "The so-called modernist faction has recently put
> forward a proposal
> designed to encourage block voting, the unwitting
> effect of which
> would allow the continued political dominance of
> their faction."
>
> I do not retract my comment about the effect of the
> law would have
> had but I am sorry that my hasty phrasing caused you
> such grief. I
> was concentrating mostly on the Modern vs.
> Restoration aspects of the
> message and wrote that sentence in passing.

Well, Senator, this is a non-apology of the 'I'm sorry
I upset you' kind, which is at least an improvement on
your last non-apology, which was of the 'I didn't mean
to upset you' kind. Since you decline to apologize for
crediting my magistrate, my colleagues and myself with
criminal intent, I shall assume that you are not sorry
for so doing. It is a shame, then, that you haven't
the honesty simply to say so.

Nonetheless, it is nice to know that you're sorry I
was offended by your monstrous accusation, even though
you're apparently not sorry for making it. I am also
glad to see that you have retracted it (using the
politician's trick of presenting an outright
retraction as a 'clarification'). Your statement, as
amended, is still incorrect in almost every
particular, but it no longer accuses ten citizens
including a sitting consul of treasonable conspiracy,
and that is a decided improvement.

I accept that the accusation was a mistake, and though
you have not apologized for making it, you have
retracted it, for which I thank you. As for your
apology for offending me thereby, I accept it and hold
no grudge.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

For those new citizens who have expressed an interest in this list, some
time ago, the commnts, ideas, and thoughts of the last two years were
reviewed and collected in the Sodalitas Egressus Files. This so that
newcomers would not have to wade through several years of ideas, many of
which were the same or similar.

From those ideas, the basis of a organization was laid out for the
aquisition of Land and the Financing of the aquisition. In the
meantime, some land has been purchased in the U.S. by one of the
Consulars, and the intention when the paperwork is complete, as
indicated by the purchaser, is to offer the land to Nova Roma. This
land is in the U.S., but it is not "THE" Nova Roma headquarters as such
and is not meant to be so. It is simply the first in, hopefully, other
land aquisitions around the world. As the Consular has wisely said, "A
place to fly Nova Roma's flag."

If anyone is interested in involving themselves in the Land Organization
Plan and work toward identifying land in other areas of the world, and
working towards the donation of land or financial assistance to aquire
land. The Praefecti of the Sodalitas Egressus await your contact.

To join the Egressus and gain access to the files previously mentioned,
simply send an E-Mail to:

trog99@... (Beneficarius Pompeia Strabo)

and indicate your desire to join Egressus.

The Sodalitas Egressus is dedicated to the outreach program for Nova
Roma in several differet aspects. The Egressus is always looking for a
few good people who would be willing to undertake to work for Nova Roma
in this aspect for an hour or two each week.

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius Audens
Prafectus Fabrum -- Sdalitas Egressus -- Nova Roma

A wet sheet and a flowing sea, and a wind follows fast, and fills the
white and rustling sail, and bends the gallant mast; and bends the
gallant mast my boys while like the eagle free, our good ship starts and
flies and leaves old England on our lee------Fair Winds and following
Seas!!!

[posted with separate e-mail copy to Decius Iunius]

deciusiunius wrote:

[In a clarification of an earlier statement]

> "The so-called modernist faction has recently put forward a proposal
> designed to encourage block voting, [...]

While I've no doubt that's Decius Iunius' sincere opinion, I
disagree with the claim that approval voting would encourage
block voting. There's a rich literature concerning voting
available to anyone with a browser and the address of Google.com.
Interested citizens are welcome to satisfy themselves concerning
the relative strengths and weaknesses of approval voting. The
only type of voting that's been found superior to it for
reflecting the true desire of the majority is Borda Count
voting, which is a product of the French Revolution and would
thus be a "modern" affectation.

In many respects this is now water under the bridge, given that
the voting reform law has been substantially rewritten and will
soon be presented for comment in its new form. But I don't want
people thinking that the Senior Consul and his staff wrote a
law proposal incorporating approval voting in order to encourage
block voting. Approval voting was included specifically on the
recommendation of Quintus Fabius Maximus, who suggested it as
a historically correct method of how the Romans of antiquity
voted. We accepted QFM's suggestion only after satisfying
ourselves that it would *NOT* subvert the will of the majority.

-- Marinus

--- G�IVLIVS�SCAVRVS <gfr@...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus A. Apollonio Cordo et omnibus
> civibus salutem dicit.
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> A historical note might help clarify the idea of a
> Nova Roman curule
> aedile summoning the comitia centuriata. Under
> historical Roman law
> any curule magistrate could summon the comitia
> centuriata or the
> comitia populi tributorum with the leave of the
> consuls. Curule
> aediles usually convened the comitia to adjudicate
> serious infractions
> of their commercial edicta. I suggest that the
> historical case
> provides a direct analogy in support of a curule
> aedile covening the
> comitia centuriata for a mock election with the
> leave of the consuls.
>
> Valete.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
>

A Curile Aedile could summon a Comita for an action
within the Sphere of his Imperium. Market
transgressions were within this sphere, Holding
elections was not. A Curile Aedile was very unlikely
to summon the People in thier Centuries for a market
trial since convictions were far easier to obtain from
the tribes, and the logistics were far simplier.

Let's not ignore the fact that it was suggested that
I, a Senator with no more Imperium than a Novus Homo
approved by the Censors this morning was somehow
responsible for carrying out an action that I clearly
lack to powers to do, because I sugested it.

In Antiquita an attempt to summon the people by a
person who lacked the authority to do so would have
resulted in them standing before a Comitia, not as
it's presiding officer, but as a defendant answering a
charge of Perduellio or Maiestas.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

"L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:

> A Curile Aedile could summon a Comita for an action
> within the Sphere of his Imperium. Market
> transgressions were within this sphere, Holding
> elections was not.

Senator Drusus,

Do you have any objection to my holding a mock election
with the approval of both consuls? I appreciate your
concern for the historical restraints, and that's why
I offered to do this in the first place.

Personally, I'm inclined to Cordus' view, that a mock
election can be viewed as a game - albiet a serious game.
But I also appreciate that reasonable people can differ
in their opinions on this matter. Thus, I've offered
my own magisterial authority to grant your request for
a mock election. It's the best that I can offer you.

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
Curule Aedile
My Curule Aedile website is http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne/ca.html

I Have no objection to one of the Consuls summoning
the Comitia, and deligating you to act on thier behalf
after the summons is made. That is more consistant
with tradition. Some may think this is nit picking
over protocal, but more is involved, avoiding a
creeping increase in the powers of an office beyond
those held in antiquita.

--- Bill Gawne <gawne@...> wrote:

> "L. Sicinius Drusus" wrote:
>
> > A Curile Aedile could summon a Comita for an
> action
> > within the Sphere of his Imperium. Market
> > transgressions were within this sphere, Holding
> > elections was not.
>
> Senator Drusus,
>
> Do you have any objection to my holding a mock
> election
> with the approval of both consuls? I appreciate
> your
> concern for the historical restraints, and that's
> why
> I offered to do this in the first place.
>
> Personally, I'm inclined to Cordus' view, that a
> mock
> election can be viewed as a game - albiet a serious
> game.
> But I also appreciate that reasonable people can
> differ
> in their opinions on this matter. Thus, I've
> offered
> my own magisterial authority to grant your request
> for
> a mock election. It's the best that I can offer
> you.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
> Curule Aedile
> My Curule Aedile website is
> http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne/ca.html
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

In a message dated 7/5/03 8:03:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gawne@...
writes:

> Approval voting was included specifically on the
> recommendation of Quintus Fabius Maximus, who suggested it as
> a historically correct method of how the Romans of antiquity
> voted.

Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
If I may.
I also pointed out the importance of voting by centuries, 3 a day starting
with the first century. However that didn't seem to make it into proposal.
Valete


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

--- qfabiusmaxmi@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/5/03 8:03:37 AM Pacific
> Daylight Time, gawne@...
> writes:
>
>
> > Approval voting was included specifically on the
> > recommendation of Quintus Fabius Maximus, who
> suggested it as
> > a historically correct method of how the Romans of
> antiquity
> > voted.
> Q. Fabius Maximus SPD
> Salvete
> If I may.
> I also pointed out the importance of voting by
> centuries, 3 a day starting
> with the first century. However that didn't seem to
> make it into proposal.
> Valete
>
>

The method of voting is just part of the system the
ancients used in electing magistrates, the sequintal
casting of votes was another aspect. Adding the voting
method to a different counting method can result in in
functioning very differently than the historic model.

If I took the wheels from a Roman Chairot and put them
on a modern Motercycle the resulting vehicle wouldn't
function like a chairot, despite the historic wheels.



=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

In reply to my earlier question, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> I Have no objection to one of the Consuls summoning
> the Comitia, and deligating you to act on thier behalf
> after the summons is made. That is more consistant
> with tradition. Some may think this is nit picking
> over protocal, but more is involved, avoiding a
> creeping increase in the powers of an office beyond
> those held in antiquita.

OK, I see where you're coming from.

I'll check with the Consuls, and see how they want to
proceed. One of the possible problems this brings
up is that a formal summons could require the rogators
to do the vote counting, the cista to be modified so
that it would reflect the new ballot structure, and
just a whole lot of work for something that may go
back on the drawing board after it's all over.

By treating it as a game, I could have my own scribes
count votes and not require the whole apparatus of
government to be involved.

What I'm trying to do here, Senator Drusus, is make sure
that you and whomever your friends in the Boni happen to
be are satisfied that this mock election gets done fairly.
I want to satisfy what was originally your request.

So, if one Consul summons the Comitia Centuriata to
participate in a mock election that I run and that
is conducted using only volunteer labor (except for
my scribes and my quaestor, who are stuck with me),
would that satisfy your requirements? Or do you want
the vote to be conducted as realistically as possible,
using the cista and having the rogators do the vote
tabulations? Because if I'm going to have to do it
that way to satisfy your requirements, then it's probably
better for me to do it *NOT* as Curule Aedile, but in
my capacity as one of the Senior Consul's Ductori.

Anyway, talk it over amongst your colleagues, and let
me know how you want to proceed.

-- Marinus

Salvete Plebeians citizens,

If you have not already done so, please subscribe to the Plebeian discussion
list where I have presented the LEX MORAVIA DE SVFFRAGIIS IN COMITIA PLEBIS
TRIBVTA ET RATIONE COMITIORUM PLEBIS TRIBUTORUM for the review/comments of
the Plebeian citizens of Nova Roma. In order to subscribe send a blank email
to comitiaplebistributa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Valete,
Diana Moravia Aventina
Tribunus Plebis




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

Salvete Luci Sicini et Gnaee Equiti et omnes

Lucius Sicinius scripsit:

>>I Have no objection to one of the Consuls summoning
>>the Comitia, and deligating you to act on thier behalf
>>after the summons is made. That is more consistant
>>with tradition. Some may think this is nit picking
>>over protocal, but more is involved, avoiding a
>>creeping increase in the powers of an office beyond
>>those held in antiquita.

Et Gnaeus Equitius scripsit:

> I'll check with the Consuls, and see how they want to
> proceed. One of the possible problems this brings
> up is that a formal summons could require the rogators
> to do the vote counting, the cista to be modified so
> that it would reflect the new ballot structure, and
> just a whole lot of work for something that may go
> back on the drawing board after it's all over.

I see two possible interpretations of the leges which govern the
procedures of the Comitia Centuriata. The first interpretation does not
allow those comitia to operate under any set of procedures than those
which are outlined in Lex Octavia Cornelia de Ratione Comitiorum
Centuratorum. Under this interpretation no one, from peregrinus to
consul, could convene the Comitia Centuriata for a mock election using
the procedure described in the proposed Lex Fabia. Any mock election
would have to be conducted in some other set of comitia created
explicitly for the purpose. In this case, there is certainly no
impediment to a curule aedilis, a senator, or anyone else staging such a
mock election in much the same way that there is no impediment to any of
these people putting on a play or some funereal games.

The other interpretation is that the rules set forth in Lex Octavia
Cornelia de Ratione Comitiorum Centruiatorum only apply to elections and
votes on leges. In this case, a consul would, indeed, have to call the
Comitia Centuriata together *if* the mock election were to occur in
them. In this case, the rogatores would have to tally the votes, but
none of the election software would necessarily have to be changed.
This would be up to the rogatores, as they administer votes in the trina
comitia.

I still think that even a privatus would be free to make some mock
comitia for a mock election, and that this action could be given some
officiality by a consular edictum regardless of which interpretation of
our comitial leges one prefers. However, I'm quite willing to convene
the Comitia Centuriata for a mock election, assuming my collega has no
objection (as he holds the fasces this month) and the tribuni plebis
agree with my second interpretation of our leges.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping? Use
them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more
merit is in your bounty."
-Shakespeare

Salvete omnes.

Amazing how Caesar kept all of his hair and youth at 50!...The
producers failed miserably at aging "Hairy" which makes me think they
had not seen his marble portraits in Rome.

Valete. Lucius Calpurnius Piso

On Friday, July 4, 2003, at 12:58 PM, raymond fuentes wrote:

> I did not like the mini-series. In thier attempt to fit so much in to
> an alloted time, they left out so much or they just made it upon...the
> best Caeser I have seen so far was Timothy Dulton in the 1999
> Cleopatra...some people don't like this movie either, but the Caser in
> this flick was cool, to say the least and Cleopatra was much too hot.
>
> gaiuspopilliuslaenas <ksterne@...> wrote:--- In
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Cornelius Ahenobarbus"
> <ahenobarbus@h...> wrote:
> >
> > Now about that TNT miniseries: the actor they got to play
> Vercingetorix is
> > about a thousand times cooler than Christopher Lambert in "The
> Druids"
> > (a.k.a. "Vercingetorix" everywhere outside the US)
>
>
> Haha!  For a guy who was supposed to be starving to death in Alesia,
> he looked kinda chunky to me.
>
> Gaius Popillius Laenas
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> 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]

Salvete,

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote: "While I applaud your desire for concord, my request for praetorian
review stands. It isn't driven by any desire to increase hostilities,
as I hope you and all others know. I want the praetors to examine
the exchanges and to take such actions as they consider appropriate."

<SNIP>

"I ask for the good of all here, especially those
who have experienced dismay and become disheartened by the exchanges."

LCS: I agree, see below.

Bill Gawne <gawne@...> wrote:

"In as much as placing Censor Germanicus on moderated status might
interfere with his performance of his magisterial duties, I ask
the Praetors to please not place the Censor on moderated status
now or for so long as he holds his curule office."

LCS: If moderated status will interfere the ability to perform the duties of public office, perhaps any such ruling by the Praetores can be delayed until the end of the term of magistracy. Libelous comments and insulting language should not be protected as free speech. This behavior should not be protected by virtue of holding public office.

Valete,

Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Octavius Giraldo-Vay
<octavius@o...> wrote:

> Salvete omnes.
>
> Amazing how Caesar kept all of his hair and youth at 50!...The
> producers failed miserably at aging "Hairy" which makes me think

they

> had not seen his marble portraits in Rome.
>
> Valete. Lucius Calpurnius Piso
>
>

Salve Octavi,

Unfortunately I was not able to get Caesar on our satellite link but
perhaps I can catch it again at a future time. I hope everyone else
enjoyed it.

So far I think the 1963 epic of Cleopatra was the most accurate movie
of the Roman world I have seen so far. I thought Rex Harrison did a
great job playing Julius Caesar. In reality his age of more or less
50 looked correct for that movie and his elitist but pragmatic type
of personality portrayed in Cleopatra is more or less how I imagined
Caesar to be. As Proconsul Fabius pointed out to me,the standards of
beauty 2000 years ago were different than today and when you see
busts of Cleopatra she is by no means a 10. It was probably her high
education ability to speak several languages and her business and
political skills that melted the hearts of Caesar and Antony. At the
same time, though keeping traditional dress, actors in their
appearences perhaps need to be modernized a little so Cleopatra's
enchanting beauty can be conveyed to the audience.

If I were allowed to choose the cast for another movie on this
subject, I would pick Ed Harris (a choice of many on another list) to
be Julius Caesar, Patricia Velasquez to play Cleopatra (She played
the Queen and lover in the Mummy 1, 2)


http://www.celebrity-
fansites.com/stars/patricia_velasquez/pictures_the_mummy_1.html

Patricia Valasquez Photos

Well that's my personal taste as a guy; any other thoughts?

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800012404&cf=gen&intl=us

Ed Harris photos.

Well Crassus (Lawrence Olivier) said he liked both snails and oysters
in the movie Spartacus. Each to their own; Quintus just prefers
Oysters (assuming oysters = females). Maybe some of our ladies can
help me with this male pick for Julius Caesar.


I'm still out to lunch on who should play Marc Antony. I have a few
ideas but perhaps I leave it up to other NR's to decide.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael
Kelly)" <mjk@d...> wrote:

> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Octavius Giraldo-Vay
> <octavius@o...> wrote:
> > Salvete omnes.
> >
> > Amazing how Caesar kept all of his hair and youth at 50!...The
> > producers failed miserably at aging "Hairy" which makes me think
> they
> > had not seen his marble portraits in Rome.
> >
> > Valete. Lucius Calpurnius Piso
> >
> >
> Salve Octavi,
>
> Unfortunately I was not able to get Caesar on our satellite link

but

> perhaps I can catch it again at a future time. I hope everyone else
> enjoyed it.
>
> So far I think the 1963 epic of Cleopatra was the most accurate

movie

> of the Roman world I have seen so far. I thought Rex Harrison did a
> great job playing Julius Caesar. In reality his age of more or less
> 50 looked correct for that movie and his elitist but pragmatic type
> of personality portrayed in Cleopatra is more or less how I

imagined

> Caesar to be. As Proconsul Fabius pointed out to me,the standards

of

> beauty 2000 years ago were different than today and when you see
> busts of Cleopatra she is by no means a 10. It was probably her

high

> education ability to speak several languages and her business and
> political skills that melted the hearts of Caesar and Antony. At

the

> same time, though keeping traditional dress, actors in their
> appearences perhaps need to be modernized a little so Cleopatra's
> enchanting beauty can be conveyed to the audience.
>
> If I were allowed to choose the cast for another movie on this
> subject, I would pick Ed Harris (a choice of many on another list)

to

> be Julius Caesar, Patricia Velasquez to play Cleopatra (She played
> the Queen and lover in the Mummy 1, 2)
> http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&cf=gen&id=1800354344&intl=us
>
>
>
> Patricia Valasquez Photos
>
> Well that's my personal taste as a guy; any other thoughts?
>
> http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hc&id=1800012404&cf=gen&intl=us
>
> Ed Harris photos.
>
> Well Crassus (Lawrence Olivier) said he liked both snails and

oysters

> in the movie Spartacus. Each to their own; Quintus just prefers
> Oysters (assuming oysters = females). Maybe some of our ladies can
> help me with this male pick for Julius Caesar.
>
>
> I'm still out to lunch on who should play Marc Antony. I have a few
> ideas but perhaps I leave it up to other NR's to decide.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Sorry,

That URL on Patricia Velasquez is too long to open; just reposted a
different URL address for photos.

Thanks,

Quintus

G. Iulius Scaurus L. Cornelio Sardonico salutem dicit.

Salve, L. Corneli.

>LCS: If moderated status will interfere the ability to perform the duties of
>public office, perhaps any such ruling by the Praetores can be delayed until
>the end of the term of magistracy. Libelous comments and insulting language
>should not be protected as free speech. This behavior should not be protected
>by virtue of holding public office.

One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is that a curule
magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds imperium. Once a
magistrate's term is ended and he surrenders his imperium, he is a
privatus and can be prosecuted for any illegalities committed during
his term of office. The reason for this principle is to exclude the
possibility of political opponents using the courts to overwhelm a
magistrate with prosecutions (recall that all prosecutions are suits
brought by individuals as privati, not actions of the state) such that
he would be unable to perform the duties of his office because he would
be constantly either preparing a defence or appearing in court. It is
not a question of being protected by virtue of holding public office,
but rather of postponing prosecution for the public good until imperium
is surrendered. The constitution of Nova Roma does provide that
"[s]hould one of the ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties,
that magistrate may be removed by a law originating in the comitia that
elected him" (IV.A). However, such removal from office can only be for
dereliction of duty, not merely to facilitate a prosecution unrelated
to dereliction of duty. Dereliction is the intentional abandonment or
neglect of a duty of office imposed by law; there is a large number of
potentially prosecutable actions which do not constitute dereliction of
duty.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve G. Iuli,

Thank you. How clearer can you be than that?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, GÂ¥IVLIVSÂ¥SCAVRVS <gfr@i...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus L. Cornelio Sardonico salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, L. Corneli.
>
> >LCS: If moderated status will interfere the ability to perform the

duties of

> >public office, perhaps any such ruling by the Praetores can be

delayed until

> >the end of the term of magistracy. Libelous comments and insulting

language

> >should not be protected as free speech. This behavior should not

be protected

> >by virtue of holding public office.
>
> One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is that a curule
> magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds imperium. Once a
> magistrate's term is ended and he surrenders his imperium, he is a
> privatus and can be prosecuted for any illegalities committed

during

> his term of office. The reason for this principle is to exclude

the

> possibility of political opponents using the courts to overwhelm a
> magistrate with prosecutions (recall that all prosecutions are

suits

> brought by individuals as privati, not actions of the state) such

that

> he would be unable to perform the duties of his office because he

would

> be constantly either preparing a defence or appearing in court. It

is

> not a question of being protected by virtue of holding public

office,

> but rather of postponing prosecution for the public good until

imperium

> is surrendered. The constitution of Nova Roma does provide that
> "[s]hould one of the ordinarii be found to be derelict in his

duties,

> that magistrate may be removed by a law originating in the comitia

that

> elected him" (IV.A). However, such removal from office can only be

for

> dereliction of duty, not merely to facilitate a prosecution

unrelated

> to dereliction of duty. Dereliction is the intentional abandonment

or

> neglect of a duty of office imposed by law; there is a large number

of

> potentially prosecutable actions which do not constitute

dereliction of

> duty.
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus

A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus and all
citizens and peregrines, greetings.

> One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is
> that a curule magistrate cannot be prosecuted while
> he holds imperium.

May I quiz you further about this?

Was this immunity afforded only to magistrates with
imperium? On my understanding this would exclude
censors and aediles, but I have read (see below) that
censors at least were also immune. Also, was it
afforded to plebeian magistrates? I presume that
tribuncian sacrosanctity meant that no tribune could
be forced to attend a trial against his will in any
case!

Secondly, I think S. E. Finer wrote in his 'History of
Government' that the censors were immune from
prosecution over actions taken during their term of
office not only while sitting but also forever after.
Finer, however, was no expert in Roman law or history,
and I wonder if he has his facts straight.

Please let no one construe my last question as
carrying any implication about the present situation!
I'm asking purely out of historical interest.

Cordus

=====
www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/

There is one point that needs to be made. The current
delimia concerns modaration, a modern inovation, not
prosecution. We can look to the ancients for
insperation on how to handle this, but there is
nothing in history that will fully cover modaration.
In the end some modern ideas will have to be applied
to this modern inovation.

Giving the praetors the powers to silence an elected
magistrate isn't something that should be done
lightly. If the Praetors indeed are to have this
authority then there needs to be some kind of review.
I would suggest that in any event where the Praetors
determine that an elected Magistrate, Curule or not,
needs to be placed on modarated status that they only
be allowed to do so if the Senate concurs. This will
make it hard to place an elected magistrate on
modarated status, but not impossible if some outragous
case involving repeated transgressions occurs in the
future.

--- "A. Apollonius Cordus" <cordus@...>
wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to C. Iulius Scaurus and all
> citizens and peregrines, greetings.
>
> > One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is
> > that a curule magistrate cannot be prosecuted
> while
> > he holds imperium.
>
> May I quiz you further about this?
>
> Was this immunity afforded only to magistrates with
> imperium? On my understanding this would exclude
> censors and aediles, but I have read (see below)
> that
> censors at least were also immune. Also, was it
> afforded to plebeian magistrates? I presume that
> tribuncian sacrosanctity meant that no tribune could
> be forced to attend a trial against his will in any
> case!
>
> Secondly, I think S. E. Finer wrote in his 'History
> of
> Government' that the censors were immune from
> prosecution over actions taken during their term of
> office not only while sitting but also forever
> after.
> Finer, however, was no expert in Roman law or
> history,
> and I wonder if he has his facts straight.
>
> Please let no one construe my last question as
> carrying any implication about the present
> situation!
> I'm asking purely out of historical interest.
>
> Cordus
>
> =====
> www.collapsibletheatre.co.uk
>
>

________________________________________________________________________

> Want to chat instantly with your online friends?
> Get the FREE Yahoo!
> Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Salvete Quirites,
There is one aspect of being a Senator of Nova Roma
that I can't overlook. I Am also a member of the Board
of Directors of Nova Roma Inc. I Have duties to the
Corparation in addition to my duties to the Res
Publica.

One of these duties is to protet the corpration
against civil suits that could be filed as a result
of the actions of it's officers (the magistrates).

In the micronational world it is desirable to grant
the magistrates the protections that they enjoyed in
antiquita, but in the macronational world the
corparation has to have the power to stop one of it's
officers from engaging in conduct that could result in
civil action.

Like it or not, it is a legal nesicity that the Board
of Directors have some powers to disipline the
officers of the corparation in cases where the
historic Senate couldn't disipline the elected
magistrates.

Carthage couldn't haul the Roman government into a
civil court that had legal authority over it over the
actions of Cato the Censor. This isn't true of Nova
Roma. We can be sued in Macronational courts over the
actions the officers of the corparation.

This is why I have suggested that the Praetors be able
to recomend and the Senate concur on placing Officers
of the corparation (magistrates) on modarated status.

I Don't like having to do something this ahistoric,
but I would be failing in my duties as a member of the
Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc. if I failed to
bring this Macronational legal aspect up.

--- "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)"
<mjk@...> wrote:

> Salve G. Iuli,
>
> Thank you. How clearer can you be than that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> -- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, G�IVLIVS�SCAVRVS
> <gfr@i...> wrote:
> > G. Iulius Scaurus L. Cornelio Sardonico salutem
> dicit.
> >
> > Salve, L. Corneli.
> >
> > >LCS: If moderated status will interfere the
> ability to perform the
> duties of
> > >public office, perhaps any such ruling by the
> Praetores can be
> delayed until
> > >the end of the term of magistracy. Libelous
> comments and insulting
> language
> > >should not be protected as free speech. This
> behavior should not
> be protected
> > >by virtue of holding public office.
> >
> > One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is
> that a curule
> > magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds
> imperium. Once a
> > magistrate's term is ended and he surrenders his
> imperium, he is a
> > privatus and can be prosecuted for any
> illegalities committed
> during
> > his term of office. The reason for this principle
> is to exclude
> the
> > possibility of political opponents using the
> courts to overwhelm a
> > magistrate with prosecutions (recall that all
> prosecutions are
> suits
> > brought by individuals as privati, not actions of
> the state) such
> that
> > he would be unable to perform the duties of his
> office because he
> would
> > be constantly either preparing a defence or
> appearing in court. It
> is
> > not a question of being protected by virtue of
> holding public
> office,
> > but rather of postponing prosecution for the
> public good until
> imperium
> > is surrendered. The constitution of Nova Roma
> does provide that
> > "[s]hould one of the ordinarii be found to be
> derelict in his
> duties,
> > that magistrate may be removed by a law
> originating in the comitia
> that
> > elected him" (IV.A). However, such removal from
> office can only be
> for
> > dereliction of duty, not merely to facilitate a
> prosecution
> unrelated
> > to dereliction of duty. Dereliction is the
> intentional abandonment
> or
> > neglect of a duty of office imposed by law; there
> is a large number
> of
> > potentially prosecutable actions which do not
> constitute
> dereliction of
> > duty.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > G. Iulius Scaurus
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, omnes.

TNT's "Caesar" reminded me of a passage from Shakespeare's play; the
bit about not coming to praise Caesar but to bury him.

The one thing about Caesar's life about which historians are reasonably
certain is the chronology of the major events in it. Leave it to a
scriptwriter and director to bugger up even that.

M. Porcius Cato Minor was thirteen years old when Sulla took Rome after
the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 BCE and hardly in a position to
trade barbs with him in the Senate; in fact there is no evidence that
Cato the Younger ever even met Sulla.

Sulla resigned as dictator in 79 BCE and died in 78 BCE. He did not
die while ordering Gn. Pompeius Magnus to straggle one of his clients,
but rather, according to Plutarch, suffered a hemorrhage while ordering
his attendants to strangle a magistrate of Dicaearchia, a fellow named
Granius, and died the following day. It seems that every modern
fictional portrayal of Sulla -- from McCullough to "Caesar" -- has to
accept every piece of lurid gossip and political invective ever spread
in the ancient world about Sulla to portray him as a monster, something
which few historians of the period believe (I certainly don't applaud
the Sullan proscriptions, but they have to be viewed in the context of
the two far more arbitrary Marian proscriptions which preceded them).

There is no evidence that Gn. Pompeius Magnus saved Caesar from Sulla
(in fact Pompeius Magnus was probably still in Africa when Caesar was
pardoned by Sulla after the intercession of relatives and Vestals).

There was no mention of Caesar's flaminate, nor the civic crown he won
at Mytilene. After all, why the hell rely on the primary sources when
the scriptwriter can show how creative he is by making things up out of
whole cloth?

Iulia was born in 76 BCE. The Spartacus Revolt was crushed in 71 BCE.
Awfully bloody sophisticated conversation with her "tutor" at the age
of five, I'd say.

Caesar was captured by pirates in 75 BCE; Sulla died in 78 BCE. There
isn't much connection between his fleeing Sulla and encountering the
pirates, since Caesar had returned to Rome and prosecuted Dolabella
between his service under Lucullus and the trip to study in Rhodes
which resulted in his capture.

Pompey celebrated his third triumph (for the campaign against the
pirates and the Mithridatic War) in 61 BCE, ten years after the
Spartacus revolt among whose insurgents he supposedly freed Iulia's
tutor, according to TNT's "Caesar." Caesar was consul in 59, in which
year neither the Spartacus Revolt nor a triumph of Pompeius Magnus took
place.

Iulia died in 54 BCE; the seige of Alesia took place in 52 BCE and it
didn't take two bloody years for the news of his daughter's passing to
reach him.

The one relatively bright note was the portrayal of Caesar's
relationship with Cleopatra VII as a matter of realpolitik (Caesar
needed Egypt's wealth and grain; Cleopatra needed Roman troops to
defeat her brother's army). I barely stifled the urge to shout at the
TV (as proxy for the scriptwriter) when that insipid line "Rome is
masculine; Egypt is feminine" was spoken: Didn't pay any attention in
first-year Latin class, you bloody imbecile, did you? Roma is first
declension, feminine; Aegyptus is second declension, masculine, you
intellectual eunuch! Bu, then, the line was probably filler rather
than substance (after all, something has to go between the
commercials).

I simply don't understand why scriptwriters and directors need to
butcher what is one of the most interesting and exciting stories of
classical antiquity. I suppose that there are good reasons why TNT's
"Gettysburg" was a tour-de-force and "Caesar" was a travesty: Turner is
a Civil War reenactment afficianado, while a beancounter in marketing
probably pointed out that a knock-off ala "Gladiator" would make a
profit.

It would also have been nice to have an actor play Caesar whose range
extended beyond sullen and dyspeptic (I'm tempted to paraphrase Dorothy
Parker on a rare, dismal theatrical performance by Katherine Hepburn:
the actor showed the gamut of emotions from A to B), and it is rather a
pity that Richard Harris wasn't given the chance to play Sulla as the
conflicted, contradictory genius he probably was. I was pleasantly
surprised to see Chris Noth play someone other than himself; he might
well have been an interesting Caesar if he had been given a competent
script.

In short, from my perspective "Caesar" deserved to end sine missione.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

I'm afraid that I didn't watch Caesar, as I had other
matters to attend to, and there is an advantage to
getting it on DVD later if it had proven worth
watching (No ads every 10 minutes).

On "historic" movies I can understand that they are
intended as entertainment first and history lessons
second. I can understand if they omit some details,
and compress three minor historic figures into one
person to make it easier for the average person to
follow the storyline.

I've never understood the blatant disregard for
historic facts in many of these movies. Things are
changed that have no effect on the entertainment value
of the product, and which IMHO often lessen the
entertainment value.

--- G�IVLIVS�SCAVRVS <gfr@...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> TNT's "Caesar" reminded me of a passage from
> Shakespeare's play; the
> bit about not coming to praise Caesar but to bury
> him.
>
> The one thing about Caesar's life about which
> historians are reasonably
> certain is the chronology of the major events in it.
> Leave it to a
> scriptwriter and director to bugger up even that.
>
> M. Porcius Cato Minor was thirteen years old when
> Sulla took Rome after
> the Battle of the Colline Gate in 82 BCE and hardly
> in a position to
> trade barbs with him in the Senate; in fact there is
> no evidence that
> Cato the Younger ever even met Sulla.
>
> Sulla resigned as dictator in 79 BCE and died in 78
> BCE. He did not
> die while ordering Gn. Pompeius Magnus to straggle
> one of his clients,
> but rather, according to Plutarch, suffered a
> hemorrhage while ordering
> his attendants to strangle a magistrate of
> Dicaearchia, a fellow named
> Granius, and died the following day. It seems that
> every modern
> fictional portrayal of Sulla -- from McCullough to
> "Caesar" -- has to
> accept every piece of lurid gossip and political
> invective ever spread
> in the ancient world about Sulla to portray him as a
> monster, something
> which few historians of the period believe (I
> certainly don't applaud
> the Sullan proscriptions, but they have to be viewed
> in the context of
> the two far more arbitrary Marian proscriptions
> which preceded them).
>
> There is no evidence that Gn. Pompeius Magnus saved
> Caesar from Sulla
> (in fact Pompeius Magnus was probably still in
> Africa when Caesar was
> pardoned by Sulla after the intercession of
> relatives and Vestals).
>
> There was no mention of Caesar's flaminate, nor the
> civic crown he won
> at Mytilene. After all, why the hell rely on the
> primary sources when
> the scriptwriter can show how creative he is by
> making things up out of
> whole cloth?
>
> Iulia was born in 76 BCE. The Spartacus Revolt was
> crushed in 71 BCE.
> Awfully bloody sophisticated conversation with her
> "tutor" at the age
> of five, I'd say.
>
> Caesar was captured by pirates in 75 BCE; Sulla died
> in 78 BCE. There
> isn't much connection between his fleeing Sulla and
> encountering the
> pirates, since Caesar had returned to Rome and
> prosecuted Dolabella
> between his service under Lucullus and the trip to
> study in Rhodes
> which resulted in his capture.
>
> Pompey celebrated his third triumph (for the
> campaign against the
> pirates and the Mithridatic War) in 61 BCE, ten
> years after the
> Spartacus revolt among whose insurgents he
> supposedly freed Iulia's
> tutor, according to TNT's "Caesar." Caesar was
> consul in 59, in which
> year neither the Spartacus Revolt nor a triumph of
> Pompeius Magnus took
> place.
>
> Iulia died in 54 BCE; the seige of Alesia took place
> in 52 BCE and it
> didn't take two bloody years for the news of his
> daughter's passing to
> reach him.
>
> The one relatively bright note was the portrayal of
> Caesar's
> relationship with Cleopatra VII as a matter of
> realpolitik (Caesar
> needed Egypt's wealth and grain; Cleopatra needed
> Roman troops to
> defeat her brother's army). I barely stifled the
> urge to shout at the
> TV (as proxy for the scriptwriter) when that insipid
> line "Rome is
> masculine; Egypt is feminine" was spoken: Didn't pay
> any attention in
> first-year Latin class, you bloody imbecile, did
> you? Roma is first
> declension, feminine; Aegyptus is second declension,
> masculine, you
> intellectual eunuch! Bu, then, the line was
> probably filler rather
> than substance (after all, something has to go
> between the
> commercials).
>
> I simply don't understand why scriptwriters and
> directors need to
> butcher what is one of the most interesting and
> exciting stories of
> classical antiquity. I suppose that there are good
> reasons why TNT's
> "Gettysburg" was a tour-de-force and "Caesar" was a
> travesty: Turner is
> a Civil War reenactment afficianado, while a
> beancounter in marketing
> probably pointed out that a knock-off ala
> "Gladiator" would make a
> profit.
>
> It would also have been nice to have an actor play
> Caesar whose range
> extended beyond sullen and dyspeptic (I'm tempted to
> paraphrase Dorothy
> Parker on a rare, dismal theatrical performance by
> Katherine Hepburn:
> the actor showed the gamut of emotions from A to B),
> and it is rather a
> pity that Richard Harris wasn't given the chance to
> play Sulla as the
> conflicted, contradictory genius he probably was. I
> was pleasantly
> surprised to see Chris Noth play someone other than
> himself; he might
> well have been an interesting Caesar if he had been
> given a competent
> script.
>
> In short, from my perspective "Caesar" deserved to
> end sine missione.
>
> Valete.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
>
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

Roman Citizen

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

In a message dated 7/5/03 12:47:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gawne@... writes:

> So, if one Consul summons the Comitia Centuriata to
> participate in a mock election that I run and that
> is conducted using only volunteer labor (except for
> my scribes and my quaestor, who are stuck with me),
> would that satisfy your requirements? Or do you want
> the vote to be conducted as realistically as possible,
> using the cista and having the rogators do the vote
> tabulations? Because if I'm going to have to do it
> that way to satisfy your requirements, then it's probably
> better for me to do it *NOT* as Curule Aedile, but in
> my capacity as one of the Senior Consul's Ductori.
>

Q Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
I think we all have to remember that this test be conducted under the
strictest realistic conditions.
So yes, all the machinery has to function. Which means the vote must taken
as if it is a real vote, otherwise we learn nothing.
As for imperium of Gaius Equitius, the constitution allows the Consules to
issue edictum facilitate the day to day administration of Rome. So an edictum
needs to be
issued giving the Curule Aedile imperium to conduct the trial vote. Once
that is completed, he may proceed as if he was the consul for this perticular
project.

Vale


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

In a message dated 7/5/03 5:58:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cordus@... writes:

> Was this immunity afforded only to magistrates with
> imperium? On my understanding this would exclude
> censors and aediles, but I have read (see below) that
> censors at least were also immune. Also, was it
> afforded to plebeian magistrates? I presume that
> tribuncian sacrosanctity meant that no tribune could
> be forced to attend a trial against his will in any
> case!
>

Q Fabius Maximus SPD
Salvete
Tullius tells us that indeed Censors could be persecuted as privitus once the
term was over.
However few did it unless their faction had control of the Censorship. A
pissed off ex-censor with friends in the office could make one's life in Rome
very interesting. And that may be what Finer is referring to.
Tribunes were untouchable as long as they were carrying out their duties to
the State.
They could be convicted of bribery after their term was up, we have several
cases of this.

Valete


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

Salve,

G�IVLIVS�SCAVRVS <gfr@...> wrote:
"One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is that a curule
magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds imperium. Once a
magistrate's term is ended and he surrenders his imperium, he is a
privatus and can be prosecuted for any illegalities committed during
his term of office. The reason for this principle is to exclude the
possibility of political opponents using the courts to overwhelm a
magistrate with prosecutions (recall that all prosecutions are suits
brought by individuals as privati, not actions of the state) such that
he would be unable to perform the duties of his office because he would
be constantly either preparing a defence or appearing in court. It is
not a question of being protected by virtue of holding public office,
but rather of postponing prosecution for the public good until imperium
is surrendered. The constitution of Nova Roma does provide that
"[s]hould one of the ordinarii be found to be derelict in his duties,
that magistrate may be removed by a law originating in the comitia that
elected him" (IV.A). However, such removal from office can only be for
dereliction of duty, not merely to facilitate a prosecution unrelated
to dereliction of duty. Dereliction is the intentional abandonment or
neglect of a duty of office imposed by law; there is a large number of
potentially prosecutable actions which do not constitute dereliction of
duty."

Many thanks for the clarification of Roman law and custom. My post stemmed from ignorance of these facts, but I don't think I was that far off the mark. I never stated that any magistrates should be prosecuted immediately for vular, libelous, and insulting language. What I said was that any judgements and punishments could be delayed until after the term of office. Isn't that in line with what you just said? Also, I don't think I stated that anyone should be removed from office for violating the guidelines of this list.

If you think about it, your statement, "One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is that a curule
magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds imperium", makes the statement, "It is
not a question of being protected by virtue of holding public office" false. It most certainly is a question of being protected by holding office. Logically, by the virtue of holding imperium, one is protected from prosecution.

Tuus in Sodalicio Novae Romanae Republica,
Lucius Cornelius Sardonicus






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

Salvete omnes,

There are certainly some good points here. As an analogy we all
know the Bridge on the River Quai movie they showed last year around
Rememberance day. After the movie they interviewed a few real
survivors from that camp. They said the sets were good, dress and
uniforms accurate but..... Colonel Sito in the movie was too nice a
guy compared to the real camp commandant.

I sometimes wonder if reading the original writings of Seutonis or
Tacitus, Caesar's writings on the Gallic and Civil wars really gives
us a fair assesment either? I'm sorry, out in the field and do not
have the books with me but a few authors writing on Caligula
mentioned that we must credit the Romans to be the first to write
histories in a logical cohesive way, invent the encyclopedia etc but
in their writings they lacked what we call objectivity today. Tacitus
and Seutonius and family for example had political and business
problems, quarrels and personal negative experiences with some of the
Emperors and other historical figures they write about. With bad
feelings they had nothing nice to say and may well have exagerated
the excess and vices of these people. The authors feel that we should
keep this in mind when studying their writings. Similarily it has
been pointed out that Caesar totally ignored the social and technical
chievments of his enemies in Gaul. He really down played them much as
the social Darwinists down played the "savages" in the colonies
during the 19th century. How reliable is his word and does he suffer
from personal biases as modern fiction writers might?

As I have mentioned on previous postings, I try to see historical
fiction on books and movies in a positive light. As we become more
expert on a subject we get more annoyed or frustrated with the
technical errors that novices to the subject would never notice. At
the same time, as imperfect those works can be they still do far more
to get people interested in history. For example, how many people
went to see Gladiator 2 years ago? tens of millions. At the same
time, how many were enrolled in heavy Classical university courses
around the world? A few thousand? It is certainly obvious to me which
is the better medium for "initially" interesting the masses. Marcus
Octvius Germanica, our censor chatted to me once that he got drawn
into Ancient Rome after seeing I Claudius on TV. Similarily I
got interested in the British Empire history after reading the "
Flashman Series by George MacDonald Fraser who takes Flashman, the
school bully, liar and coward character from "Tom Brown's School
Days" and traces his wild life and misadventures throughout the world
in the Victorian age. All the historic situation and events are
footnoted and referenced so the reader can cross check with the
accuracy of the author. I enrolled in a few university courses on the
Empire and Victorian era thanks to the interest these books sparked
in me. I am certain that Roman historical fiction and cinema has a
similar effect on many people.


Regards,

Michael Kelly

G. Iulius Scaurus L. Cornelio Sardonico salutem dicit.

Salve, L. Corneli.

> If you think about it, your statement, "One of the fundamental principles of Roman law is that a curule
> magistrate cannot be prosecuted while he holds imperium", makes the statement, "It is
> not a question of being protected by virtue of holding public office" false. It most certainly is a question of being protected by holding office. Logically, by the virtue of holding imperium, one is protected from prosecution.

I suspect we are having a semantic diagreement here. If a magistrate
can be prosecuted for illegal actions during his magistracy the moment
he surrenders his imperium, I don't think that the magistrate is
protected from prosecution; at most the prosecution is delayed, not
prevented.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve , G. Iulius Scaurus who said in part

".....Sulla to portray him as a monster, something which few historians of the period believe (I certainly don't applaud the Sullan proscriptions, but they have to be viewed in the context of the two far more arbitrary Marian proscriptions which preceded them).

Or the lack of proscriptions by Caesar after him. Makes one wonder what would have happen if Caesar had had been a less merciful " Tyrant" as some have labeled him.


Make one go HMMMMMMM?


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus






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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@s...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor, Senator & Consular
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus and all citizens and
> peregrines, greetings.

Salve A. Apolloni,

> > "The so-called modernist faction has recently put
> > forward a proposal
> > designed to encourage block voting, the unwitting
> > effect of which
> > would allow the continued political dominance of
> > their faction."
> >
> > I do not retract my comment about the effect of the
> > law would have
> > had but I am sorry that my hasty phrasing caused you
> > such grief. I
> > was concentrating mostly on the Modern vs.
> > Restoration aspects of the
> > message and wrote that sentence in passing.
>
> Well, Senator, this is a non-apology of the 'I'm sorry
> I upset you' kind, which is at least an improvement on
> your last non-apology, which was of the 'I didn't mean
> to upset you' kind. Since you decline to apologize for
> crediting my magistrate, my colleagues and myself with
> criminal intent, I shall assume that you are not sorry
> for so doing. It is a shame, then, that you haven't
> the honesty simply to say so.

I never accused you, any magistrate or anyone else of criminal intent
and never intended to, so NO, I am NOT going to apologize for your
interpretation of my words.

> Nonetheless, it is nice to know that you're sorry I
> was offended by your monstrous accusation, even though
> you're apparently not sorry for making it. I am also
> glad to see that you have retracted it (using the
> politician's trick of presenting an outright
> retraction as a 'clarification'). Your statement, as
> amended, is still incorrect in almost every
> particular, but it no longer accuses ten citizens
> including a sitting consul of treasonable conspiracy,
> and that is a decided improvement.

I never accused anyone of criminal conspiracy or "treason." Those
were your words and I suggest you be more careful with loosely
tossing such terms around--we have no laws defining treason so it
would be difficult to accuse anyone of such. At worst my original
statement could be interpreted as an accusation of jockeying for
political advantage. Unsavory perhaps but not criminal. And just to
clear, I do not think anyone involved with this law was even doing
that.

Finis.

Decius Iunius Palladius

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit

Salve, A. Apolloni.

While Cicero declared in his _Oratio secunda de legel agraria contra P.
Servilius Rullus in Senatu_, ii.11 (Jan. 63 BCE), that the censores
possessed no imperium, in 1963 an inscription was found in Rome which
referred to "imperium censorum" which has been dated to the early first
century BCE. This epigraph has led scholars to believe that either the
restoration of the censorship, abolished by Sulla, in the consulship of
Pompey and Crassus (70 BCE) replaced the old censorial imperium with a
ius censurae or regimen morum and the plebscitum obtained by P. Clodius
in 58 BCE limiting censorial authority may have weakened it further.
The fact that there is an inscription which mentions the imperium of
the censors L. Munatius Plancus and
P. Aemilius Lepidus in 22 BCE and inscriptions which refer to Augustus'
imperium as praefectus morum and censor morum as distinct from his
imperium maius has also led some to suggest that imperium was restored
to the censorsial office by a Lex Metella in 52 BCE. Original
possession of imperium would also explain the right of the censors to
the sella curulis which is attested by Livy, xl.45.

There is evidence that plebian aediles and both patrician and plebian
quaestores as well as the vigintisexviri and military tribunes, could
be prosecuted during their terms, so the legal issue does primarily
revolve around imperium. A tribunus plebis could be prosecuted, but he
could exercise ius auxilii ferendi to quash any proceeding while he was
in office, which makes a tribunus plebis' position somewhat different
with respect to the legal grounds for immunity and, of course, a
tribune could be prosecuted like any other privatus once his term
ended.

There are, as Q. Fabius noted, several references in the middle and
late republic to the prosecution of censors after the expiration of
their term. The politics of the late republic would be virtually
incomprehensible if it were not understood that the prosecution of
magistrates for actions during their terms was not merely permitted but
a commonplace once they had surrendered imperium.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<cordus@s...> wrote:

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor, Senator & Consular
> Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus and all citizens and
> peregrines, greetings.

Salve A. Apolloni,

> > "The so-called modernist faction has recently put
> > forward a proposal
> > designed to encourage block voting, the unwitting
> > effect of which
> > would allow the continued political dominance of
> > their faction."
> >
> > I do not retract my comment about the effect of the
> > law would have
> > had but I am sorry that my hasty phrasing caused you
> > such grief. I
> > was concentrating mostly on the Modern vs.
> > Restoration aspects of the
> > message and wrote that sentence in passing.
>
> Well, Senator, this is a non-apology of the 'I'm sorry
> I upset you' kind, which is at least an improvement on
> your last non-apology, which was of the 'I didn't mean
> to upset you' kind. Since you decline to apologize for
> crediting my magistrate, my colleagues and myself with
> criminal intent, I shall assume that you are not sorry
> for so doing. It is a shame, then, that you haven't
> the honesty simply to say so.

I never accused you, any magistrate or anyone else of criminal intent
and never intended to, so NO, I am NOT going to apologize for your
interpretation of my words.

> Nonetheless, it is nice to know that you're sorry I
> was offended by your monstrous accusation, even though
> you're apparently not sorry for making it. I am also
> glad to see that you have retracted it (using the
> politician's trick of presenting an outright
> retraction as a 'clarification'). Your statement, as
> amended, is still incorrect in almost every
> particular, but it no longer accuses ten citizens
> including a sitting consul of treasonable conspiracy,
> and that is a decided improvement.

I never accused anyone of criminal conspiracy or "treason." Those
were your words and I suggest you be more careful with loosely
tossing such terms around--we have no laws defining treason so it
would be difficult to accuse anyone of such. At worst my original
statement could be interpreted as an accusation of jockeying for
political advantage. Unsavory perhaps but not criminal. And just to
be clear, I do not think anyone involved with this law was even doing
that.

Finis.

Decius Iunius Palladius

G. Iulius Scaurus L. Sicino Druso salutem dicit.

Salve, L. Sicini.

> I Don't like having to do something this ahistoric,
> but I would be failing in my duties as a member of the
> Board of Directors of Nova Roma Inc. if I failed to
> bring this Macronational legal aspect up.

If a magistrate were to do something which opens the corporation to
civil suit, then the place to remedy that is not the courts of Nova
Roma but rather the courts of Maine or another appropriate
macronational jursdiction. I also have difficult imagining an offence
sufficient to produce the real likelihood of a macronational lawsuit
not rising to the level of dereliction of duty under the constitution.
If the comitia which elected the magistrate didn't see the question in
that way, then there would be a problem, but that's a function of how
the constitution is written. Such a situation would almost certainly
end up (1) in macronational court because of suits by directors to
clarify the by-laws or (2) in resignations by senators as directors
because they believed they could no longer exercise their fiduciary
responsibility to the corporation. In either case, if macronational
law is at stake, it wouldn't be before a praetor and iudices that the
matter would be ultimately resolved. That is simply an artifact of the
world in which we live.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Cleopatra was Greek and Patricia Velasquez, although very pretty,
doesn't look Greek.

Peregrinator.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

G. Iulius Scaurus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit.

Salve, A. Apolloni.

I've been meaning to say something about this since your first post on
this matter and I apologise for not doing so earlier. I recognise that
you took offence at what appeared to you to be an accusation that the
consular cohors was trying to rig the electoral system (if I thought
someone had accused me of such a thing, I, too, would be hugely
offended by it). I also believe D. Palladius when he states that he
did not intend for his words to be taken that way. What I would like
to point out, however, is that even if someone _were_ to accuse another
of trying to rig the electoral system, the charge would be ambitus
(electoral corruption) or largitio (bribery), depending on how the
rigging worked. It would not, however, amount to either of the two
forms of treason recognised by Roman law -- perduellio or laesa
maiestatis. There were quite a few times in republican history when
people were prosecuted for trying to rig the electoral system and
_never_ was anyone charged with any form of treason as a result.
Trying to abolish the electoral system would have been regarded as a
treasonous act during the republic (although the transfer of electoral
powers from the Comitia to the Senate in the early principate seems not
to have occasioned an allegation of treason, but the reasons for that
are complex).

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Avete, Quirites.

Here are links to three sites created by the Dutch historian Jona
Lendering, all are well worth a detailed exmination.

First, an essay on the "Varronian Chronology":

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/varro.html

This essay is a fascinating summary of the key problems in establishing
an accurate chronology of the early Republic; this is the best and most
succinct treatment of these problems I have ever read.

Next, a series of essays relating to the Roman province of Germania
Inferior:

http://www.livius.org/germinf.html

And, finally, "The Roman Legions: A General Introduction":

http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions.htm

This site provides links to essays on every known late republican and
imperial legion of the Roman army. It is an exceptional resource for
anyone interested in Roman military history.

Valete, Quirites.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salve Gai,

I see your point but its difficult to say. I know Cleopatra was Greek
but what were Greek racial characteristics at that time? Did she
dress and use make up to look more Egyptian? In Patrica's case, the
Moors from Northern Africa ruled Spain for 800 years so you have that
mixture in some Spanish people. Also I've seen Greeks today that look
like fairer northern Europeans and Greeks that look like your
Mediterreanian or semetic Mediterreanians something like Northern
Italians and Sicilians.

Regards,

Quintus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator"
<gaiusgalerius@h...> wrote:

>
> Cleopatra was Greek and Patricia Velasquez, although very

pretty,

> doesn't look Greek.
>
> Peregrinator.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Salve,
Just another log to throw on this fire: I remember seeing an intereview with
an African American lady Professor of classical literature during Black
History Month specials. She went into how Cleopatra was possibly a darker
woman. One of her students had been going on about how "Cleo was one of US"
in a class at her predominantly African Amer. college. so the prof went to
the library and pulled out the geneology of Cleopatra and said "this right
here show she was without a doubt of Greek ancestry" and pointed at the
page. as she puts it "My finger landed right on the questsion mark listing
for her grandmother." so my question now is: Is there any proof one way or
the other, for Cleopatra's ancestry? I'm of the opinion, with out the in
depth study at this point, that she may be of mixed heritage, but I don't
think it really amounts to a hill of beans in the historical realms if her
granmother was african, greek, roman or chinese for that matter. She still
used/was used by Caeaser, she still had a repoted love affair wiht Marcus
Antonius, and she still killed herself rather than be taken captive by
Octavian. I'm just curious to know what people who are more learned in the
subject than i am think.
Vale,
Clauda Fabia Calpurnia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Something else to argue about; thank the gods!


>
> Cleopatra was Greek and Patricia Velasquez, although very pretty,
> doesn't look Greek.
>
> Peregrinator.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>