G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.

Salve, Q. Lani amice

>Here is my quick review of this book about the Teutoburg Wald I said
>I would do last month. I welcome any further critiques from our
>citizens and especially our professional historians if they have a
>moment.
>

Wells' book has been savaged by every expert on the Clades Variana who
has reviewed it, including the archaeological team which has been
excavating the Kalkriese. Where it is not a paraphrase of already
established scholarship, it is riddled with factual errors and
unsubstantiated speculation.

>All in all the book was nice light reading. I think I have a better
>picture in my mind as to what Nothern Europe and the barbarians may
>have been really like and have a prettier image in my mind of the
>countryside, societies, villages, their technology, cohesiveness and
>lifestyles were really like. On the dark ugly images, people and
>landscape I pictured before just seemed to be in the Teutoburg wald
>itself in the battle scene.
>
>The book explains a lot about the settings, real status of
>Rome's "domination" in Germania and make up, tactics and every day
>life of the Roman and Germanic armies. It explains how the Germans
>learned al lot from studying Roaman legion behavoir and patterns in
>order to set them up for the fall. Wells also paints a better picture
>of Veras who seeme to be a far more capable and intelligent
>administrator than I previously had thought. Also Wells may have
>addressed the point of how long or short the battle may have been in
>an indirect way. He said that there were no eye witnesses that lived
>to describe the actual battle so the writings of Dido and Tacitus are
>based only on second hand information also so we really don't know
>that time frame.
>

Wells is talking nonsense here. A reinforced century of Varus' army
under Cassius Chaerea fought its way to Varus' base camp on the Lippe
and held there until relieved by Germanicus. It was by dispatch from
this remnant of the army that Rome was informed of the disaster. BTW,
it's Dio Cassius, not Dido (who pined... er... pyred away for Aeneas
:-). We do not know if their accounts are based on sources derived from
first-hand accounts (both Tacitus and Dio wrote too late to have been
contemporary to any survivors of the battle, but documentary reports
from survivors may have been extant for them), but the possibility
cannot be ruled out as blithely as Wells suggests.

>Now the only problem I had with the book was that it was presented
>rather frustratingly, very much like the opening of the sealed tiny
>passageway in the Great Pyramid last year or the opening ot the
>Titanic's safe 10 years ago. Instead of a brief introduction and
>getting right to the nitty gritty of the battle or situation itself
>like Dido does, you have to go through a lot of history and talk on
>the side that seems to fill in the time just like they did on those
>two programs. You get the odd teaser thinking ah, here we go but
>alas, another side issue is brought up and discussed at length. The
>actual battle itself is only on the last 60 or 70 pages of the book.
>

That's because most of it is padding from the already established
scholarship. What little is new contradicts both the literary and
archaeological sources on no more basis that Wells' unfounded speculation.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

Salvete.

I come home from a rough day, after 16 meetings, and I have 125 mails in my
box?

STOP IT!

We must have consensus. All you that want to start you own family go do it.
You voted for let it, so let it be done.

Inform all your Paterfamilias that you are leaving to start one, then go do
it. But don't come whining back to them if it doesn't work out. Also
remember, you lose your Patrician status when you do. Only the first 20+ gens names
of founding members are Patrician. But apparently that is not important to
those independent minded. Also, if your family name is not to the Paterfamilias
liking, expect to be booted out. Paterfamilias have worked too hard on their
gens, to be so insulted.
Inform the Censors of the change, and I'm sure when they get to you, the
change will be recorded in the Rolls.

Those who want to stay in the original Gens, stay, if you read the lex you
have the option.
This adoption BS is just that, the people who want to stay with their gens
should not be penalized in anyway, the status quo, remains just that. No muss
no fuss. Making people jump through hoops will just make them resign.

In this way the original NR tradition is retained, yet the People have the
option to change
which apparently is important to some people.

Now I realize this means revising the lex slightly, but that can be done.
Romans love to change their laws, if it meant improving them.

The Consuls are not to blame for the situation they inherited, although I
believe when I person says he's an "expert" he should have the props to back it
up. I believe that both Consuls were not ready for this, and this discussion
should have first occurred in the Senate, then brought before the people. By
bringing it before the people, we have just ignited a firestorm. In the Senate
cooler heads would have prevailed, and we could have hammered out an
agreement we could later present to the People.

This discussion should have occurred last year. It did not. Too bad for us.
Now there is going to be a larger hassle than was necessary to implement
this.

Q. Fabius Maximus.


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

Salve colleague Paulinus,
honestly I disagree a moratorium for the 2757.
First of all I think that we are not in a so chaotic and tragical
legislative situation. We have several laws of course, but not so
much to stop the legislative machine. The Macro-Nations make this
kind of actions when the situation is very dangerous and they have
thousands of laws. We are not in this situation and I think the best
solution is firstly an hard restoration of the tabularium and
secondly maybe a reformation and unions of our past laws (it's only
a possible solution,I don't know if it's correct ... ;-)

Secondly I think a moratoria is a dangerous and hard political
issue. Why an elected Consul (or Praetor or Tribun) would renounce
to accomplish his administrative projects and goals thinking the
best job for NR is "to do something" and not "to do nothing"? Who
will the voluntary? Why a moratoria during this legislation and not
during the next? ;-)

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Tribunus

EDICTUM AEDILICIUM DE INTERDICTO RESTITUTORIO PER FORMULAM ARBITRARIAM

In order to provide an additional alternative for resolution of
commercial disputes other than legal proceedings before an Aedilician
Court in accordance with the Edictum Aedilicium de Commercio Iusto, a
system of binding arbitration has been devised, based on the
principles of historical Roman law and the recommendations of the
International Arbitration Association, and is promulgated in this edictum.

I. Arbitration for Commercial Disputes

A. Aedilician Jurisdiction

1. Whereas the Constitution of Nova Roma, IV.A.4.e, endows the Aediles
Cururles with the power and obligation "to maintain the venues where
the Ordo Equester are engaged in commerce, within Nova Roma property,"
the Aediles Curules assume jurisdiction over commercial disputes
arising from transactions between Nova Roman citizens and peregrines
on Nova Roman property, at Nova Roman events, or through the Macellum;

2. Whereas the Constitution of Nova Roma, IV.A.4.b, endows the Aediles
Curules with the power and obligation "to administer the law," the
jurisdiction of the Aediles Curules over commercial disputes as
specified in I.A.1 of this edictum shall include the establishment of
tribunals to arbitrate such disputes and the issuance of interdicta
restitutoria per formulam arbitrariam to resolve them;

3. Whereas the Constitution of Nova Roma, IV.A.4.a, empowers and
obliges the Aediles Curules "to hold imperium," the procedures of
arbitration specified in this edictum shall have the force of law and
default or defiance thereof shall constitute obstruction of justice.

B. Requirement of Arbitration Agreement.

1. The actor of an arbitration must execute an agreement to accept
binding arbitration and submit it at the time of the request for
arbitration.

2. The reus of an arbitration must execute an agreement to accept
binding arbitration and submit it at the time of the reply to the
request for arbitration.

3. The text of the agreement to accept binding arbitration is found in
Appendix I of this edictum.

C. Definition of Terms

1. Arbitration. Arbitration is a form of interdictum restitutorium per
formulam arbitrariam. It consists of a binding agreement between
parties to place their commercial dispute before an Aedilis Curulis
for resolution by a tribunal of arbitri appointed by the presiding
Aedilis Curulis and to abide by that resolution permanently and entirely.

a. Arbitration is a form of interdictum restitutorium because its
determination forbids the illicit transfer of possession of something
of value from one party to another, voiding the commercial
transaction, and restoring the status quo ante the dispute,
compensating by award such parties as may have been injured by the
status quo post.

b. Arbitration is per formulam arbitrariam since it entails
determination by a tribunal of arbitri rather than a quaestio of
iudices, requires no sponsio, and its determination does not result in
criminal sanction.

2. Criminal sanction may arise from default or obstruction of justice
in the arbitration process.

3. Presiding Aedilis Curulis. The presiding Aedilis Curulis is the
Aedilis Curulis to whom the instant request for arbitration has been
presented; the presiding Aedilis Curulis must cede the right to
preside to his Aedilician colleague in the event of a demonstrated
conflict of interest involving himself and the parties when either
Aedilis Curulis judges that such a conflict exists.

4. Party

a. A party is a person or group of persons who have a dispute with
another person or persons over a single commercial transaction.

(i.) A single commercial transaction may involve multiple objects or
purchases possession of which is taken at the same time.

b. Only citizens of Nova Roma, members of the Ordo Equester, vendors
on Nova Roman property, at Nova Roman events, or through the Macellum,
and peregrines who have executed an agreement to binding abritration
(Appendix I of this edictum) may be a party to a request for
arbitration or reply to a request for arbitration.

(i.) An actor may refuse to execute an agreement to binding
arbitration, but in such cases the presiding Aedilis Curulis shall
refuse the request for arbitration with prejudice.

(ii.) A member of the Ordo Equester may refuse to execute an agreement
to binding arbitration. However, on such refusal the presiding Aedilis
Curulis shall notify the Censores and request entry of a nota
indicating the refusal. Such a refusal shall result in termination of
the arbitration process.

(iii.) A vendor on the Macellum may refuse to execute an agreement to
binding arbitration, but the presiding Aedilis Curulis shall require
the Curator Araneum to post a report of the refusal in connection with
the vendor's advertisement in the Macellum permanently. Such a
refusal shall result in termination of the arbitration process.

(iv.) A vendor on Nova Roman property or at Nova Roman events may
refuse to execute an agreement to binding arbitration and shall be
refused permission to vend at the above specified venues. Such a
refusal shall result in termination of the arbitration process.

(v.) Execution of an agreement to binding arbitration does not
preclude pursuit of praetorian and/or macronational remedies for
offences specified in I.E of this edictum.

c. The party who submits the request for arbitration is the actor;

d. The party against whom the claim is lodged in the request for
arbitration is the reus.

5. Arbiter. An arbiter is a fair and impartial determiner of fact,
appointed by the presiding Aedilis in accordance with III.A and B and
IV.A of this edictum. No person shall be an arbiter who is not
assiduus at the time of appointment and through the final
determination of the arbitration.

6. Tribunal. A Tribunal is a panel of three arbitri who shall hear
evidence and make a final determination of the arbitration by majority
vote.

7. Pignus.

a. The pignus is a surety provided by each party. The pignus may
consist of the disputed property or a sum of money equal to the value
of the requested award.

b. The award shall be paid from the pignus.

c. In extraordinary circumstances in the interest of justice and with
the concurrence of both the presiding Aedilis Curulis and his
aedilician colleague, the requirement of a pignus may be waived by the
presiding Aedilis Curulis.

d. The pignus of each party shall be safeguarded by the quaestor of
the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

e. In the event of termination of the arbitration by the presiding
Aedilis Curulis for any reason except default or determination, the
pignus of each party shall be returned to each party.

f. In the event of default the pignus of the defaulting party shall be
given to the non-defaulting party and the non-defaulting party's
pignus returned.

D. Confidentiality.

1. All arbitrations, excepting the deliberation of the arbitri, shall
be a matter of public record.

2. Parties to the arbitration and their witnesses, and the arbitri
must waive their right to confidentiality under the Leges Cornelia et
Vedia de Privatus Rebus.

3. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall ensure that a permanent record
is kept of all official correspondence pertaining to arbitrations and
that a record of hearing and determination is prepared and issued at
his direction.

E. Default Praetorian and Macronational Jurisdiction. Any request for
arbitration which alleges a Nova Roman or macronational criminal
offence shall be rejected by the presiding Aedilis Curulis and
referred by default to praetorian jurisdiction and macronational
authorities for appropriate action. The presiding Aedilis Curulis
shall also inform the Consules of such referral in timely fashion and,
through them, the Senate.

II. Communications, Time Periods, Prohibited Dates, and Place of
Arbitration

A. Methods of communication. Surface mail, mail, telefax, and
telephonic conference are permitted methods of communication except as
indicated below. Hearings shall be conducted by email, telephonic
conference, or physical meeting. The means of communication not
specified below for procedures shall be determined from the above list
by the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

B. Time period. A nundinum shall be reckoned as a period of eight days
inclusive.

C. Prohibited Dates. No business pertaining to arbitration shall be
conducted on a dies nefastus. If business pertaining to arbitration is
accidentally conducted on a dies nefastus, the business must be
conducted anew and an expiation performed as recommended by the
Collegium Pontificum.

D. Place of Arbitration. The electronic or physical venue of hearing
and deliberation shall be determined by the presiding Aedilis Curulis
after consultation with the parties and their advocati.

III. Procedures for Filing for Arbitration

A. Request for Arbitration

1. Any party, as defined in I.C.4 above, to a commercial transaction
may file a request for arbitration by written communication to the
presiding Aedilis Curulis. The requesting party shall be termed the
actor. Such a request must contain the following information:

a. Names, addresses, email, telephone and/or telefax of all parties
and witnesses;

b. Designation of the actor's advocatus, if any;

c. A brief description of nature and circumstances of the dispute and
the actor's claim;

d. A brief statement of relief sought and amount, if any, claimed;

e. A signed agreement to accept binding arbitration; the signed
agreement must be sent by post to the presiding Aedilis Curulis (the
form of the agreement must be that found in Appendix I of this edictum);

f. Names, addresses, email, telephone and/or telefax of two arbitri
proposed by the actor.

g. The disputed propery or check or international money order in the
amount of the pignus, if required; the financial instrument for the
pignus must be sent by post to the presiding Aedilis Curulis;

h. The oath of the actor in Appendix II of this edictum.

2. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall acknowledge in writing receipt
of the request for arbitration from the actor;

3. The aedilis shall forward a full copy of the request for
arbirtration to the reus within one nundinum of original receipt of
the request.

4. If any of the material required in III.A.1 is absent from the
request for arbitration, the request shall be dismissed without
prejudice. Five copies of all the material required in III.A.1 shall
be submitted at the time of request.

5. The presiding Aedilis Curulis may refuse to accept a request for
arbitration on grounds of jurisdictional incompetence, defect of law,
or inconsistency with reason. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall
inform the actor of the refusal and its grounds within one nundinum of
receipt of the request for arbitration.

B. Reply of Reus to the Request for Arbitration.

1. The reus shall have two nundina from the date of transmission or
postmark of the forwarded original request for arbitration to reply to
that request. The reply to request must be by written communication to
the presiding Aedilis Curulis and include:

a. Names, addresses, email, telephone and/or telefax of all parties
and witnesses;

b. Designation of the reus' advocatus, if any;

c. A brief description of nature and circumstances of the dispute and
reply to the actor's claim;

d. A signed agreement to accept binding arbitration; the signed
agreement must be sent by post to the Curulis Aedilis (the form of the
agreement must be that found in Appendix I of this edictum);

e. Names, addresses, email, telephone and/or telefax of two arbitri
proposed by the reus;

f. The disputed property or a check or international money order in
the amount of the pignus, if required; the financial instrument for
the pignus must be sent by post to the presiding Aedilis Curulis;

g. The oath of the reus in Appendix II of this edictum.

2. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall acknowledge in writing receipt
of the reply to request for arbitration from the reus.

3. The aedilis shall forward a full copy of the reply to request for
arbitration to the actor within one nundinum of receipt of the reply
to the request.

4. A continuance of no more than two nundina may be granted by the
presiding Aedilis Curulis for compliance with III.B.1.

5. If the reus declines to participate in arbitration, the presiding
Aedilis Curulis shall deny the request for arbitration.

6. If the reus accepts arbitration and if any of the material required
in III.B.1. is absent from the reply to the request, the reus shall be
held to be in default. Five copies of all the material required in
III.A.1 shall be submitted at the time of request.

C. Upon receipt of the reply to request for arbitration the presiding
Aedilis Curulis shall initiate the procedures of arbitration within
two nundina and notify the parties thereof.

IV. Procedures of Arbitration

A. Appointment of Arbitri and Default Appointment

1. Upon notification that arbitration has been initiated by the
presiding Aedilis Curulis, the actor may preemptorily challenge one of
the reus' arbitri; notice of challenge shall be communicated to the
presiding Aedilis Curulis.

2. Upon notification that arbitration has been inititated by the
presiding Aedilis Curulis, the reus may preemptorily challenge one of
the actors' arbitri; notice of challenge shall be communicated to the
presiding Aedilis Curulis.

3. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall appoint the unchallenged
arbitri of the actor and reus arbitri on a tribunal to hear,
deliberate, and determination the outcome of the arbitration. If no
arbiter is challenged, the presiding Aedilis Curulis shall select one
from each submitted panel.

4. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall appoint an impartial and
independent third arbitrator of his selection to service as arbiter on
a tribunal to hear, deliberate, and determination the outcome of the
arbitration.

5. In the event that a arbiter duly appointed for the actor or reus
shall be unable to perform his duties before commencement of the
hearing, the presiding Aedilis Curulis shall appoint an impartial and
independent replacement of his selection.

6. If the actor and/or reus shall refuse to accept any appointment of
arbiter to the tribunal, the refusing party/parties shall be held in
default.

7. If, the hearing having commenced, a arbiter is unable to to perform
his duties, the presiding Aedilis Curulis shall act as arbiter in his
place. If more than one arbiter is unable to perform his duties under
these circumstances, the tribunal shall be dissolved and a new
tribunal selected in accordance with III.A.1.f, III.B.1.f, and IV.A.
of this edictum.

8. No citizen shall be compelled to serve as an arbiter, but, having
accepted the office, no arbiter shall withdraw except for corruption,
conflict of interest, grave illness, or other serious reason
sufficient to the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

B. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall preside over the tribunal and
rule upon points of order and law. The decisions of the presiding
Aedilis Curulis shall be binding on the arbitri, the parties, their
advocati, and witnesses.

1. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall prepare a formula on the basis
of the request for arbitration and the reply to the request for
arbitration.

2. This formula shall take the form: "N, NN, and NNN shall be the
arbitri. If it appears that the claim of the actor, Titius, to wit
[statement of claim of the actor] should prevail in the matter in
dispute, the arbitri shall require that the reus, Seius, provide the
award, to wit [statement of the award] to the actor; otherwise the
arbitri shall absolve the reus."

3. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall inform the parties and arbitri
of the formula at the time specified in III.C of this edictum.

4. When the cause of justice shall require, the presiding Aedilis
Curulis may amend the formula at any point prior to conclusion of the
hearing. The parties and arbitri shall be notified immedidately of any
amendments to the formula.

5. No award in formula shall require a reus to perform a
dishonourable, criminal, or otherwise infamous act.

C. Oaths

1. Of arbitri. Each arbiter appointed to the tribunal shall take the
oath specified in Appendix II of this edictum before undertaking his
duties;

2. Of Parties. Each party shall take the oath specified in Appendix II
of this edictum in the request for arbitration or reply to the request
for arbitration.

3. Of Witnesses. Each witness shall take the oath specified in
Appendix II of this edictum before giving evidence.

D. General Powers of the Tribunal

1. The Tribunal shall serve as the court of hearing, deliberation, and
determination of the binding arbitration;

2. Arbitri may query witnesses and examine documents through the
presiding Aedilis Curulis;

3. Arbitri may request the presiding Aedilis Curulis to compel
witnesses to testify under penalty of fine for refusal; no reus shall
be compelled to testify against himself;

4. Arbitri may not deviate from the formula provided by the presiding
Aedilis Curulis;

5. If an arbiter is found to have been corrupted at any stage of the
arbitration, that arbiter shall be dismissed and the arbitration
dismissed;

a. With the agreement of the parties, a new tribunal shall be
empaneled in accordance with I.A.1.f, I.B.1.e, and III.A of this
edictum; uncorrupted arbitri of the previous tribunal may be empaneled
in its successor;

b. The corrupted arbiter shall be prosecuted for perjury and
obstruction of justice.

E. Language of Arbitration

1. The official language of arbitration shall be English;

2. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall arrange with the Decuria
Interpres for translation into other languages as needed, but no more
than one continuance shall be granted to facilitate procurement of
translation.

F. Advocati

1. Any party to the arbitration may be represented by an advocatus of
his choosing; neither actor nor reus shall be required to be
represented by an advocatus.

2. No advocatus shall be compensated for his services.

G. Hearing

1. The place, date, time of the hearing shall be determined by the
presiding Aedilis Curulis after consultation with the parties and
their advocati. The parties are responsible for ensuring the presence
of witnesses and documentary evidence.

2. The following procedures shall be followed at hearings:

a. The actor and/or his advocatus shall state the claim, the evidence
to be submitted for that claim, and the relief and/or amount requested.

b. The reus and/or his advocatus shall state the denial of the claim
and the evidence to be submitted for that denial.

c. The actor and/or his adovcatus shall present the evidence for the
claim and relief in the form of witnesses for examination and
cross-examination by the reus and/or his advocatus, the presiding
Aedilis Curulis, or the arbitri, and/or documents certified to the
tribunal by the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

d. The reus and/or his adovcatus shall present the evidence against
the claim and relief in the form of witnesses for examination and
cross-examination by the actor and/or his advocatus, the presiding
Aedilis Curulis, or the arbitri, and/or documents certified to the
tribunal by the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

3. Ex parte Communications. No party or witness shall communicate,
except with the permission of the presiding Aedilis Curulis, with any
other party or witness regarding the dispute from the opening of the
hearing until the final determination has been made.

4. Continuance. The presiding Aedilis Curulis may adjourn and continue
a hearing for a period up to a nundinum at the request of a party or
at his discretion.

5. Waiver and Stipulation. Parties shall have the right to waive their
portion of the procedures of sections VI.G.2 of this edictum. Parties
may stipulate by agreement to facts.

6. Termination by Settlement. If, prior to final determination and
with the consent of the presiding Aedilis Curulis, the parties agree
to settle their dispute outside the arbitration, the tribunal shall be
dismissed and the aribtration terminated. No dispute terminated by
settlement may be resubmitted for arbitration.

H. Deliberation and Determination

1. Upon completion of the hearing, the tribunal shall retire to
deliberate privately. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall accompany
them to rule on points of law and chair their deliberation. Unless
also a arbiter under IV.A.5 of this edictum, the presiding Aedilis
Curulis shall not vote on the final determination of the arbitration.

2. Determination of the arbitration shall be a vote to accept or
reject (1) the actor's claim and (2) the actor's award in the formula
presented by the presiding Aedilis Curulis. Determination of the
arbitration shall be on preponderance of the evidence by a majority
vote of the arbitri. Abstentions shall be counted as votes against the
claim or award of the actor.

a. If the actor's claim is accepted, the award specified in the
formula must be made in accordance with the formula.

3. The tribunal is not obligated to give an award, even if a
determination has been made, unless otherwise specified in the formula
of the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

3. The determination shall be given to the presiding Aedilis Curulis
for notification of the parties.

I. Award. The amount of award shall be determined by the tribunal in
accordance with the presiding Aedilis Curulis' formula, but shall not
exceed the amount claimed for relief in the request for arbitration.
The award shall be paid from the pignus of the reus and the pignus of
the actor returned. In the event that the pignus of the reus has been
waived by the Aediles Curules, the reus shall have one nundinum to
surrender the appropriate pignus to the Quaestor of the presiding
Aedilis Curulis. A reus who refuses to surrender the pignus within
this time limit shall be subject to prosecution before the Praetor for
fraud and obstruction of justice.

J. Costs and Fines

1. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall recover from the parties such
receipted costs for communications, copying, exhibits, and the like as
are reasonable.

a. In the event that a party shall dispute the recovery, the matter
shall be referred to the presiding Aedilis Curulis' aedlician
colleague for decision; his decision shall be final.

2. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall be empowered to fine any party
or advocatus who violates the procedures of the arbitration. The fine
shall not exceed twenty-five U.S. dollars ($25.00) per violation.

a. In the event that a party or advocatus shall dispute the fine, the
matter shall be referrerd to the presiding Aedilis Curulis' aedlician
colleague for decision; his decision shall be final.

b. Fines must be paid within two nundina of their imposition. Failure
to pay a fine will result in prosecution before the Praetor for
obstruction of justice.

3. The presiding Aedilis Curulis shall be empowered to fine any
defaulting party up to the amount of the pignus, as well as awarding
the pignus to the non-defaulting party.

a. In the event that a party dispute the fine, the matter shall be
referrerd to the presiding Aedilis Curulis' aedlician colleague for
decision; his decision shall be final.

b. Fines must be paid within two nundina of their imposition. Failure
to pay a fine will result in prosecution before the Praetor for
obstruction of justice.

K. Exclusion of Liability. The parties shall exclude Nova Roma, the
presiding Aedilis Curulis, and arbitri from any legal liability
arising from the arbitration.

L. Waiver of Defamation. The parties shall agree to waive any action
for defamation arising from sworn testimony or admitted written
evidence in the hearing.

M. Default. A party shall be held in default if that party fails to
follow the procedures directed in this edictum, to provide requested
documents or testimony, or acts to disrupt or evade the agreed upon
arbitration. In the event that a party shall default, the presiding
Aedilis Curulis shall determine that the non-defaulting party has
prevailed and shall award reflief in accordance with IV.I of this
edictum. A defaulting party may be fined by the presiding Aedilis Curulis.

N. Appeals

1. To Consular or Praetorian Jurisdiction. As a condition of
arbitration, the parties shall agree not to attempt to invoke consular
or praetorian jurisdiction over the arbitration.

2. To Comitia Centuriata. Appeal of a binding arbitration may be made
by either party only to the Comitia Centuriata and only on grounds of
a serious procedural error in the arbitration. The Comitia Centuriata
shall conduct trial as an appellate court in case of such an appeal.

O. Intercessio

1. Tribunician or superior curule intercessio may be applied to any
procedure in abritration in accordance with the Constitution of Nova
Roma. Such an intercessio shall terminate the aribtration without
prejudice.

2. As a condition of arbitration, the parties shall agree not to seek
tribunician or superior curule intercessio over the arbitration.

APPENDIX I

The following text is the agreement to accept binding arbitration
which must be executed by actor and reus in accordance with I.B of
this edictum:

AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT BINDING ARBITRATION

The undersigned party at interest in the matter of
______________________________________________ agrees to submit the
dispute now pending with ________________________________________ to
binding arbitration under the Aedilician Edictum on Binding
Arbitration of Commercial Disputes of Nova Roma.

The party agrees that a tribunal of arbiters appointed by a Aedilis
Curulis of Nova Roma will serve as arbitrators and decide the matter.

The party agrees that the Edictum Aedilicium de Interdicto
Restitutorio per Formulam Arbitrariam of Nova Roma shall govern all
rules of all proceedings related to this aribtration.

The party agrees that the tribunal's award is binding in all respects
upon all parties and may be entered as a final judgment in any court
of competent jurisdiction.

The party agrees that the tribunal shall hear and determine the
controversy on the evidence submitted. The presiding Aedilis Curulis
shall have ultimate responsibility to determine the relevancy and
admissibility of all evidence and to submit the formula. The party
agrees that the hearing and all other procedures will be conducted in
accordance with the Edictum Aedilicium de Interdicto Restitutorio per
Formulam Arbitrariam of Nova Roma. Any party who proceeds through the
arbitration after knowledge that any provision or requirement of this
edictum has not been complied with or fails to object in writing,
shall be deemed to have waived the objection. The undersigned party
agrees that should any party violate this agreement, that party shall
indemnify Nova Roma and the non-violating party for any and all
resulting costs.

This agreement for binding arbitration may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which shall be considered one and the same valid and enforceable
agreement.

Actor/Reus:_______________________________________________

Witness:_______________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________

Presiding Aedilis Curulis:_________________________________________

Date:_______________________________________________


APPENDIX II

The following text is the oath which each arbiter shall take before
undertaking his duties:

I, [legal and Roman names], do hereby solemnly swear to accept the
office of arbiter and perform the duties of that office fairly and
impartially and to accept neither favour nor compensation for my
determination of this arbitration. On my honour as a citizen and in
the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by
their will and favour I undertake this oath. [Arbitri of religions
other than the Religio Romana may specify the deity/deities in whose
presence the oath is undertaken, or if atheist, on his or her honour
alone].

The following text is the oath which a citizen actor shall take in the
request for arbitration:

I, [legal and Roman names], do hereby solemnly swear that the claim I
have made in my request for arbitration is true to the best of my
knowledge and that I have made a good-faith effort to resolve the
matter in dispute before requesting arbitration. On my honour as a
citizen and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman
people and by their will and favour I undertake this oath. [Citizens
of religions other than the Religio Romana may specify the
deity/deities in whose presence the oath is undertaken, or if atheist
on his or her honour alone].

The following text is the oath which a peregrine actor shall take in
the request for arbitration:

I, [legal name], do hereby solemnly swear that the claim I have made
in my request for arbitration is true to the best of my knowledge and
that I have made a good-faith effort to resolve the matter in dispute
before requesting arbitration. On my honour and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people I undertake this oath.
[Peregrines of religions other than the Religio Romana may specify the
deity/deities in whose presence the oath is undertaken or, if atheist,
on his or her honour alone].

The following text is the oath which a citizen reus shall take in the
reply to the request for arbitration:

I, [legal and Roman names], do hereby solemnly swear that the claim I
have made in my reply to the request for arbitration is true to the
best of my knowledge. On my honour as a citizen and in the presence of
the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and
favour I undertake this oath. [Citizens of religions other than the
Religio Romana may specify the deity/deities in whose presence the
oath is undertaken, or if atheist, on his or her honour alone].

The following text is the oath which a peregrine reus shall take in
the reply to the request for arbitration:

I, [legal name], do hereby solemnly swear that the claim I have made
in my reply to the request for arbitration is true to the best of my
knowledge. On my honour and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses
of the Roman people I undertake this oath. [Peregrines of religions
other than the Religio Romana may specify the deity/deities in whose
presence the oath is undertaken, or if atheist, on his or her honour
alone].

The following text is the oath which a citizen witness shall take in
the reply to the request for arbitration:

I, [legal and Roman names], do hereby solemnly swear that the evidence
I shall give is true and that I have neither received nor shall
receive compensation for my testimony. On my honour as a citizen and
in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by
their will and favour I undertake this oath. [Citizens of religions
other than the Religio Romana may specify the deity/deities in whose
presence the oath is undertaken, or if atheist, on his or her honour
alone].

The following text is the oath which a peregrine witness shall take in
the reply to the request for arbitration:

I, [legal name], do hereby solemnly swear that the evidence I shall
give is true and that I have neither received nor shall receive
compensation for my testimony. On my honour and in the presence of the
Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favour I
undertake this oath. [Peregrines of religions other than the Religio
Romana may specify the deity/deities in whose presence the oath is
undertaken, or if atheist, on his or her honour alone].

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis

M. Iulius Perusianus
Aedilis Curulis

Given on pridie Idus Februarii in the consulship of Cn. Salix Astur
and Gn. Equitius Marinus.

If you have been to William'sburg Virginia, you can see a modern case of
historical reconstruction. To make it work it took a lot of money from
visitors and from a Mr John D. Rockafeller.

An alternative would be to visit Fort Ticondaroga NY, another place
rebuilt with a great deal of money from the Pell family.

On the other hand, if we wish to practice the ancient religion and
virtues in the modern world, we should make each member's home into a
temple.

thus we get hundreds of temples immediately.

Just a thought.

Marcus Equitius Paternus


On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:40:49 -0500 "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@...>
writes:

>Salve L. Arminius Faustus=20
>
>Yes it is and they are not extremist. "Seemed to me odd and
>unnecessary th=
>e idea of =B4catholic city=B4".
>
>Why?
>
>We want a Roman City after all.=20
>
>They want a City build and run on the precepts of the Catholic Church,
>just=
> like we want a Roman city based on Ancient Roman values and virtues.
>
>
>Vale
>
>Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Lucius Arminius Faustus=20
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com=20
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:01 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: A Vision of Peace and Worship: a Catholic
>City
>
>
> Salve,
>
> This text provides extensive discussion and it is really very
>nice.=20
> I=B4ve visited many religious houses and was fascinated by its=20
> equilibrium and simpleness, indeed on the best tradition of roman=20
> architecture, places worthy to live an entire life, and this
>roman=20
> Saint Benedictus was really a genius.=20
>
> However, I fear our own prejudice will not allow we use the text.=20
> Unfortunatly. Concordia Paxque save us all!
>
> Vale bene in pacem deorum,
> L. Arminius Faustus
>
> PS. If my knowledge of the Roman Church is not flawed, this
>=B4Society=B4=
>=20
> is a valid order recognized by the Vatican? It seems to me too=20
> =B4ultraortodox=B4 or perhaps a extremist branch. Seemed to me odd
>and=20
> unnecessary the idea of =B4catholic city=B4. The Roman Church
>always=20
> survived living on interaction with the social environmental,
>what=20
> explain it sucess, there is no need of =B4confined=B4 spaces for
>leigos.=
>=20
> Form my experience, difficultly this project will become
>something=20
> even inside the Church.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"
><spqr753@m...>=20
> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >=20
> > "Neque enim est ulla res,
> > in qua propius ad deorum numen
> > virtus accedat humana,
> > quam civitates aut condere novas
> > aut conservare iam conditas."
> >=20
> >=20=20
> >=20
> > ("For there is really no other occupation
> > in which human virtue approaches
> > more closely the august function of the gods than that of
>founding=20
> new cities
> > or preserving those already in existence.")
> >=20
> >=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
> >=20
> > Cicero, De Re Publica, Book I, VII, paragraph. 12.
> >=20=20=20=20=20=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > The Society of St Johns is building a Catholic city in PA. This=20
> information was given to be last year and I feel that it might be
>a=20
> good model for Nova Roma to follow. Please take a few minutes to=20
> review this site for it illustrates the need for in-depth
>planning=20
> and massive fundraising.
> >=20
> > http://www.ssjohn.com/library/city.html#_Toc458167710
> >=20
> > Vale
> >=20
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>=20=20=20
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>=20=20=20
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>=20
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>=20
>
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

A. Apollonius Cordus to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo and
all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I hope you're well; I'm well.

> Perhaps it was 'divinely mandated' by and through
> the glitch in your
> hardrive that your deserved some "down time", after
> working so hard to
> provide us with some interesting daily posts??

It would be well-deserved, wouldn't it? But from what
I know of Iulius Scaurus I suspect not even the lack
of a computer could stop him working on some or other
project for the common good.





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete quirites,

Just to remember, legally, we can have interpreters of other
languages we have not now a ´chair´, if the Senate approve the name
individually. We are not bound by the languages of the existing
interpreters nowadays.


Vale bene,
L. Arminius Faustus, Tribune, former interpreter

PS. Alas, a greek interpreter would be great... NR must conquest
Achaia...

Salve Cives Romanus,

I've been experiencing religious troubles as of late, and was aided
by a fellow Nova Roman. He reminded me of the importance of the Home
Cult however, and since then I've developed a renewed vigor for it.
However, since I've taken to worshipping Romes gods, I thought it
would be appropriate to base my home cult about the Roman gens to
which I have officially been made a part of.

From what I know the Flavian's are an actual historical gens. I was
wondering if there is anyone out there that can provide me with
historicial and geneological information regarding this gens, and
perhaps contact me with people who pay homage to our adopted
ancestors of antiquity.

This should be on the Religio site, but technically I am asking for
historical as well as religious information and I feel I would
reachmore people this one. Apologies if this is on the inappropriate
group.

Vale.

O. Flavius Pompeius

Salve Quinti Flavi,

Indeed the Flavian are a historical gens. The most famous, I
suspect, being the Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian) and
his two sons who also were Emperor.

They supressed the jewish revolt in 70 CE and contructed the
Collessium (more accurately known as the Flavian Ampitheater).

You can find out more with a web search and there are numerous books.

Vale,

C. Popillius Laenas


-- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "octavianusflaviuspompeius"
<octavianusflaviuspompeius@y...> wrote:

> Salve Cives Romanus,
>
> I've been experiencing religious troubles as of late, and was

aided

> by a fellow Nova Roman. He reminded me of the importance of the

Home

> Cult however, and since then I've developed a renewed vigor for

it.

> However, since I've taken to worshipping Romes gods, I thought it
> would be appropriate to base my home cult about the Roman gens to
> which I have officially been made a part of.
>
> From what I know the Flavian's are an actual historical gens. I

was

> wondering if there is anyone out there that can provide me with
> historicial and geneological information regarding this gens, and
> perhaps contact me with people who pay homage to our adopted
> ancestors of antiquity.
>
> This should be on the Religio site, but technically I am asking

for

> historical as well as religious information and I feel I would
> reachmore people this one. Apologies if this is on the

inappropriate

> group.
>
> Vale.
>
> O. Flavius Pompeius

--- pompeia_cornelia <scriba_forum@...> wrote:

<largely snipped>

>
> REAL VS UNREAL FAMILIES
>
> There are 'bloodline' families, as Livia Fabia so
> well outlined, and
> there are 'families by mutual concensus' which may
> or may not be blood
> related. Lets stop talking about reality vs.
> fantacy. We are not
> fantacizing :) It is the commitment which makes or
> breaks the reality
> of any arrangement, I think.
>
> As far as the bloodline families, I *do* believe,
> despite what I wrote
> above, that they are quite special. They are the
> pioneers of the
> mission of Nova Roma, particularity her
> macronational ambitions...I
> think anything sealed by blood is very special. As
> others have said,
> I like to see this revered, and honoured. That is
> not to say that the
> rest of us are 'fakes'...just adoptees who are
> either too old or too
> young (or just don't want to) have a bloodline Nova
> Roma family.
>
> I would almost venture to say that two folks who are
> citizens and have
> a child is automatically a Nova Roma citizen (my
> vision) and that they
> continue to be so until they revoke said
> citizenship. Such a familia
> should be tax free until impubere is 18. This is a
> biological 'blood'
> component here, and when you look at this from a
> religio perspective,
> it carries even more weight. The taxation bit could
> be
> reviewed...maybe years down the road there will be
> so many biological
> familia that such would be unaffordable, and it
> would have to be
> revisited. But that's my idea and not my place to
> promulgate this
> sort of thing.
>

I'm unclear in the first paragraph if you are
referring to families in the sense of macronational
law or in Nova Roman law.

There are "real" families, in the sense of a
macronationally recognized family, that are not
necessarily bloodline families. In some
jurisdictions, much more is required than simple
consent between the parties.

For example, I have decided to start the process to
adopt a son. I have no wife, no girlfriend, or even
any remote prospects of any at the moment.
Nevertheless, once the adoption process has been
completed, my son and I will form a family in the eyes
of the law, which will be ratified by a court.

Because of this I have begun to take more of an
interest in this debate than I have previously. The
child I'm hoping to adopt is a 7 year old that
functions developmentally more as a 2 year old.

My point in all this, is to say that I may decide to
give my son Nova Roman citizenship. It is obviously
not something that he can consent to himself now, and
he very well may not ever be able to. But if the
recognition that you describe for "bloodline" families
becomes the policy, it should recognize all legal
macronational familial relationships and not be
limited to only bloodline relationships.

As you might expect, I am also beginning to consider
the types of accomdations that should be available at
any Nova Roman event for disabled individuals. But we
can save that for a later discussion. :)

Lucius Quintius Constantius

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Salve Romans

As you all are aware our profiles include the following information

Our Citizen ID#, Gens, Tax Status, date of Citizenship, our Email if public, our Country, Order, Provincia, Tribe, Century, and a place to request a Voter Code. I was thinking ( I know, I know jokes to follow) that the Censors could add a few additional spaces for other information we all might want to share.

The additional information would be VOLUNTARY.

For example

Occupation: University Professor, High School Teacher, Architect, City planner, Financial planner , etc
Avocation: Writing, Speaking in public,
Languages Spoken: Latin, Spanish etc
Languages Read: Latin, German
Languages Written: Latin
Sodalitas: Which Sodalitas are we members of
Special Talents: Artist, Poet, Music Composer, Re-Enactor, Actor, Playwright, Scout Leader
Hobbies: Roman Coin Collector, Re-Enactor


It would serve a number of purposes: If I need some one who can write in Latin and German I know who to ask for help. If the Senate need a Financial planner they would know we have at least three citizens that are FP. It also allows to "Know" each other a little better. We would have a more rounded view of who we are as a group.

Just an idea

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus







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

Salve G. Iuli Scaure amice!

Thank you for your great critique. That was just what I was hoping
for; a good academic point of view. Your opinions are noted.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus Q. Lanio Paulino salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Q. Lani amice
>
> >Here is my quick review of this book about the Teutoburg Wald I
said
> >I would do last month. I welcome any further critiques from our
> >citizens and especially our professional historians if they have a
> >moment.
> >
> Wells' book has been savaged by every expert on the Clades Variana
who
> has reviewed it, including the archaeological team which has been
> excavating the Kalkriese. Where it is not a paraphrase of already
> established scholarship, it is riddled with factual errors and
> unsubstantiated speculation.
>
> >All in all the book was nice light reading. I think I have a better
> >picture in my mind as to what Nothern Europe and the barbarians may
> >have been really like and have a prettier image in my mind of the
> >countryside, societies, villages, their technology, cohesiveness
and
> >lifestyles were really like. On the dark ugly images, people and
> >landscape I pictured before just seemed to be in the Teutoburg wald
> >itself in the battle scene.
> >
> >The book explains a lot about the settings, real status of
> >Rome's "domination" in Germania and make up, tactics and every day
> >life of the Roman and Germanic armies. It explains how the Germans
> >learned al lot from studying Roaman legion behavoir and patterns in
> >order to set them up for the fall. Wells also paints a better
picture
> >of Veras who seeme to be a far more capable and intelligent
> >administrator than I previously had thought. Also Wells may have
> >addressed the point of how long or short the battle may have been
in
> >an indirect way. He said that there were no eye witnesses that
lived
> >to describe the actual battle so the writings of Dido and Tacitus
are
> >based only on second hand information also so we really don't know
> >that time frame.
> >
> Wells is talking nonsense here. A reinforced century of Varus'
army
> under Cassius Chaerea fought its way to Varus' base camp on the
Lippe
> and held there until relieved by Germanicus. It was by dispatch
from
> this remnant of the army that Rome was informed of the disaster.
BTW,
> it's Dio Cassius, not Dido (who pined... er... pyred away for
Aeneas
> :-). We do not know if their accounts are based on sources derived
from
> first-hand accounts (both Tacitus and Dio wrote too late to have
been
> contemporary to any survivors of the battle, but documentary
reports
> from survivors may have been extant for them), but the possibility
> cannot be ruled out as blithely as Wells suggests.
>
> >Now the only problem I had with the book was that it was presented
> >rather frustratingly, very much like the opening of the sealed tiny
> >passageway in the Great Pyramid last year or the opening ot the
> >Titanic's safe 10 years ago. Instead of a brief introduction and
> >getting right to the nitty gritty of the battle or situation itself
> >like Dido does, you have to go through a lot of history and talk on
> >the side that seems to fill in the time just like they did on those
> >two programs. You get the odd teaser thinking ah, here we go but
> >alas, another side issue is brought up and discussed at length. The
> >actual battle itself is only on the last 60 or 70 pages of the
book.
> >
> That's because most of it is padding from the already established
> scholarship. What little is new contradicts both the literary and
> archaeological sources on no more basis that Wells' unfounded
speculation.
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus

Salvete omnes!

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
| Praetors, does this post not cross the line in regards to the list
| moderation?
| -- SNIP --
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
| To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
| Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:58 PM
| Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Reform - Counter Suggestion
| -- SNIP --

This complaint has been received and will be dealt with off list.

I would like to draw *everyone's* attention to § V of the recently issued list
guidelines:
"we urge you to consider the following when expressing disagreement of
opposing viewpoints: Express respect for the person and their entitlement to
an opinion, *as well as faith in his or her good intentions*."
Some recent posts from various sides show ample room for improvement in this
respect. Please bear in mind that everybody here - even the people one
disagrees with - wants NR to grow and prosper.
Thank you.

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus
Praetor

PARENTALIA

The festival of Parentalia ended with a day of family reunion, the
Caristia or Cara Cognatio (Dear Acquaintance) on either February 21
or 22, when all members of the family met in one house for dinner.
It was still being celebrated as an integral part of the Roman year
into the Principate. The ceremony is graphically described in the
fifth book of Vergil's AENEIAD:

"So saying he [Aeneas] bound his brows with his mother's myrtle
And Helymus followed suit and aged Acestes
And young Ascanius, and all the rest of the Trojans.
Aeneas made his way from the assembly
Towards the tomb with thousands pressing round him,
The center of the throng. And with due formality
He poured two bowls of unmixed wine on the earth,
Two of fresh milk, two of the blood of sacrifice,
The scattered some bright flowers and spoke these words:
"O hallowed father, hail to you once more!
O father saved in vain only to lie
In ashes here, all hail O Shade and Spirit!...."

F. Galerius Aurelianus,
Citizen and Rogator


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "g_iulius_scaurus" <gfr@w...>
wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> Today is pridie Idus Februarii; the day is nefastus and the Feria
> Dianae. The Feria Dianae is the anniversary of the dedication of

the

> Temple of Diana in the Circus Flaminius in 179 BCE.
>
> Tomorrow is Idus Februarii; the day is nefastus publicus, and the
> Feria Fauni in Insula and the Feria Parentaliae. The Feria Fauni

in

> Insula commemorates the establishment of a temple to Faunus by the
> Aediles Plebeii in 296 BCE, funded by fines on those who had not

paid

> rent on the ager publicus they held. Faunus, often associated with
> the Greek Pan, was a woodland deity and protector of herds and

crops.

> It is believed that a ritual dance similar to that of the Salii

was

> part of the rituals associated with this feria and some scholars
> believe there is a connection between the rites of Faunus and the
> Lupercalia, although more recent scholarship casts doubt on this

theory.

>
> The Parentalia, or dies parentales, began at the six hour of the

day,

> and commenced a period of reverence for the Di Manes and Di

Parentales

> lasting until the Feralia on Feb. 21. The Dies Parentales were not
> official holidays, although all temples were closed, no weddings

could

> be held during the period, and magistrates abandoned the dress and
> symbols of their offices. The ceremonies opened on Feb. 12 with a
> parentatio sacrifice at the tomb of the Vestal Tarpeia by the

Vestals.

> Parentationes were observed at the tombs of deceased family

members

> with offerings of bread, salt, wine, and wreaths of flowers (roses

and

> violets were often offered) and a communal meal shared with the
> departed parentales. It is uncertain whether the nundinum

associated

> with the dies parentales involved parentationes by each family on
> every day or simply provided a sufficiently long period of time

that

> all families might observe the parentatio ritual without

overcrowding

> in the necropolis outside the city. An official state holiday was
> observed on Feb. 21, the Feralia, during which the religious
> authorities made parentatio offerings on behalf of the state and
> families frequently repeated the parentatio offerings made earlier
> during the dies parentales.
>
> Valete.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
> Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salve, Praetor; salvete, omnes.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:00:08PM +0100, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus wrote:
> Salvete omnes!
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> | Praetors, does this post not cross the line in regards to the list
> | moderation?
> | -- SNIP --
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
> | To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> | Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:58 PM
> | Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Reform - Counter Suggestion
> | -- SNIP --
>
> This complaint has been received and will be dealt with off list.
>
> I would like to draw *everyone's* attention to § V of the recently issued list
> guidelines:
> "we urge you to consider the following when expressing disagreement of
> opposing viewpoints: Express respect for the person and their entitlement to
> an opinion, *as well as faith in his or her good intentions*."
> Some recent posts from various sides show ample room for improvement in this
> respect. Please bear in mind that everybody here - even the people one
> disagrees with - wants NR to grow and prosper.
> Thank you.

Excellent.

Since this is the case, I want to know why Quintus Fabius Maximus -
after having called a group of citizens "jackals" on *several*
occasions, after again referring to that group of citizens as "cowardly
animals", after having referred to a citizen's post as "horse-dung", AND
after I have requested the praetors to take note, is still able to talk
his trash here. I want to know why L. Cornelius Sulla and Lucius
Sicinius Drusus, after repeatedly insulting people on this list were not
moderated. I want to know why my last request to the praetors went
unheeded AND unanswered while Sulla's request received immediate
attention. If necessary, I will get all the relevant post numbers and
re-state my request; I will also add in a request to moderate Sulla.

Can you answer those for me, Praetor? I would like _everyone_ here to be
aware of the special privilege repeatedly extended to those individuals,
and of the specific reason that they are so specially treated - or of an
explanation that takes all of the above factors into account and still
accords with justice. "Being dealt with off-list" is not sufficient:
these individuals are clearly NOT being dealt with.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Primum est non nocere.
First of all, do no harm.
-- Hippocrates; The maxim has become an ethical guiding principle in medicine.

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus salutem dicit

Salvete, Amici

I join my colleague Pontifex Hadrianus in his praise of P Cornelia's fine
presentation.
Would that her analysis, and topics raised by others, were considered before
the Lex Labiena De Gentibus was proposed and passed last year.

I voted against the proposal in the vote, but voted to pass it in the Senate
I now regret.
As others have said, 'It's law now deal with it.' I've often thought that
many are in too much of a rush, for a wide variety of reasons, to pass a
pile of rules. Interestingly, these rules are often more work for someone
else, most often the Censores.
Last year the LEX FABIA CENTURIATA
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-12-02-ii.html
was passed. Thus far it's not been implemented, and this law was proposed by
one of our current Censores! One would think he'd be interested in seeing
his law working, but there are only 24 hours in a day, though I believe my
brother Scaurus is living in a 36 hr dimension ;-)

Anyway, back to the Gens mess.
This law, Lex Labiena De Gentibus
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/leges/2003-12-24-ii.html
doesn't change anything as it now stands. All it does is set up *some*
guidelines for the future breakdown of Gens into distinct Families. Nothing
in the law mandates changes.
I thank Pompeia for her post that organized and clearly stated the various
concerns, and valid concerns they are. Would that every "Paterfamilias" took
their responsibilities as seriously as Palladius, Gaius Modius and Sulla do.

I'm going to add this for consideration. Anyone who takes up a position of
Paterfamilias/Mater. ought to be in fact married, or even more important a
parent/guardian, otherwise they ought to remain in "Paterpotestas", which,
ahem, in ancient times didn't necessarily change their circumstances. I
believe that since this law was passed and ratified this year it should not
begin to be administered until next year. This will allow prospective Censor
candidates time to consider whether they will have the resources to properly
devote to the job.

Valete

Message: 25
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:11:40 -0600
From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus <c.minucius.hadrianus@...>
Subject: Re: Gens Restructuring.....Puleeze........

C. Minucius Hadrianus Quirtitibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

At the risk of "me-too-ism" I would also like to thank Pompeia Cornelia
for her insights and suggestions on the issue of Gens reform. With the
approval of Lex Labiena De Gentibus in both the Senate and Comitia
Centuriata Gens reform has become a reality. While there are citizens
who vocally oppose the Lex, I don't think this has to become and all or
nothing, "take no prisoners" issue. I hope that in the spirit of
Concordia, a compromise can be reached that adheres both to the Lex and
fairly adresses the legitimate concerns many of our citizens have on the
issue.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus




pompeia_cornelia wrote:

>Salvete Omnes:
>
>I did not invent the work 'puleeze'....I will accredit that one to a
>former Tribune.....but I guess it sums my feelings on the discussion
>at hand.
>
>I "do" think that these matters are important, and we do need them;...
>
>I will handle, if you will, some concerns which I feel are most
>appropriate,...
>
>SOME FALLACIES WITHIN THIS CONTIO
>
>Please remember that it was the Senate and Comitiae who chose to
>approve some basic elements of this Reform proposal...
>
> These basic items are not something any of us can up and throw away.
> They 'must' be addressed by law, and there can be no 'vetoing' of
>them by the Tribunes...

>This was tabled by Labienus Consul in December, and the consuls of
>today have to deal with it. "Why" it worked out that way, I dunno,
>
>The reform proposal was quite similar to one written by L. Sincinius
>Drusus in 2001 plus or minus some commas and periods,...
>
>
>********************************
>
>MY OPINIONS (optional reading :))*******************
>
>
> I) I am not in favour of 'gens hopping'...oh, one year, I'll be
>this, and the next I'll be that...
>
>Another extenuating circumstance where I can see us having to do some
>gens hopping is this reform. This is a time where we must reevaluate
>ou r positions, take some time to think of our commitment, present and
>future, to the importance of 'familia' as defined by the via
>Romana,both ours and the ancients, as best we understand it.
>
>II) I have no problem with calling Gens "Familia". What we see as
>Gens today, is the 'founding' familia of those familia who are begot
>from the founding familia. Those are the familia with cognomen.
>That's pretty cosmetic, and the term 'gens' is pretty old, really.
>The word familia is actually more historical.
>
>ie: Familia Cornelia (founding familia, or 'gens' as we call it today)
> Familia Cornelia Strabo (if I so chose)
>
>(Actually, I thought Vedius alread legislated this much of it all in 2001)
>
>I would have no problem in designating the founding paterfamilias of
>what we now see as Gens as 'Primus
>Paterfamilias/Materfamilias"....
>
>PATRIAPOTESTES/MATRIAPOTESTAS
>
>I would like to see the wishes of the founding Paters/Maters honoured
>to reasonable and beneficial deference to their roles in antiquita,
>with attention to what is practical and lawful for Nova Roma. ...

rendering them by

>that light some form of recognition of their patriapotestas.
>
>Examples which have been brought up are Gaius Modius concerns about
>religious traditions (good point, imo) and Palladius concerns,
>regarding the use of certain cognomens, which are treasured by the
>gens, as being off limits.
>
>I proposed something like this in the past and I will bring it up
>again, and I think this aligns somewhat with what the honoured Praetor
>Gaius Octavius stated earlier, and that is that we take a, say, a
>nundinium (sp), meaning 8 days...

Cincinnatus: I would propose a much longer time.

>If I were in G. Modius gens, for example, and we agreed that all
>filiae from here on in were to be religio practitioners (fair game,
>they can be citizens elsewhere), that means if I moved out and started
>my own familia "Modia Strabo" that I have chosen to honour the
>founding pater's wishes, as negotiated by himself and the
>'gens'members (our current structure). If during this discussion, we
>had a pot-throwing argument about the issue, and I told him that I
>would not honour this, well, I have two alternatives: I could at this
>time join another gens, OR start a gens of my own. In either case,
>though, I would not be a Modia.
>
>How does the paterfamilias/materfamilias make these important
>traditions 'carved in stone' so to speak? Well, he could file a
>declaratio of gens covenants, or some such term with either the
>Pontifex Maximus, or his designate, stating what he, upon consultation
>with his gens members have decided are reasonable traditions unher his
>patriapotestas to be honoured from here on in.
>
> So,when a prospective citizen applies for placement into one of the
>familia Modia at a later date, the Censors give the name to both the
>founding paterfamilias, and the paterfamilias of the familia within
>Modia to which this prospective is applying. This does not mean that
> there can be no other reason why you can refuse someone in your
>familia, but if I, as a head of a familia of Modi, decided to 'ignore'
>Gaius Modius' covenants under patriapostestas as being the founding
>father of Modia and do what I want, he could step in and say "I don't
>think so dear"...."here' is a copy of the covenants we agreed upon way
>back when, and you are out of line'. The censors could be made aware
>of this glitch by Gaius Modius and the bottom line is, he's not a
>Modia...never has been, never will be :)
>
>Again, this patriapostestas of the founding Pater/mater would ONLY BE
>applicable with the agreements reached through this negotiation period
>during gens reforms. In no other way, would the founding
>Paterfamilias be in authority to tell you what you can or can't do in
>your familia, who goes in, goes out.....ONLY on the grounds of the
>patriapotestas defined in the gens covenants.
>
>
>
>Nobody has suggested that we bring back the treatment of women as
>defined in antiquita in this legislation, ...
>
>Hey, live with it. There are Materfamiliae in Nova Roma, just like
>there are single moms macronationally...
>
>And that's what I do when I read magisterial posts on other lists
>decrying the presence of woman in the Senate or in magistracies....I
>"laugh"...even harder when I am at the cista with a stone in my hand.
>
>**************************
>
>REAL VS UNREAL FAMILIES
>
>There are 'bloodline' families, as Livia Fabia so well outlined, and
>there are 'families by mutual concensus' which may or may not be blood
>related. Lets stop talking about reality vs. fantacy. We are not
>fantacizing :) It is the commitment which makes or breaks the reality
>of any arrangement, I think.
>
>As far as the bloodline families, I *do* believe, despite what I wrote
>above, that they are quite special. They are the pioneers of the
>mission of Nova Roma, particularity her macronational ambitions...I
>think anything sealed by blood is very special. As others have said,
>I like to see this revered, and honoured. That is not to say that the
>rest of us are 'fakes'...just adoptees who are either too old or too
>young (or just don't want to) have a bloodline Nova Roma family.
>
>I would almost venture to say that two folks who are citizens and have
>a child is automatically a Nova Roma citizen (my vision) and that they
>continue to be so until they revoke said citizenship... But that's my idea

and not my place to promulgate this

>sort of thing.
>
>As Hadrianus Pontifex states, let's not worry about 'same sex
>marriages', (gun control too maybe?). We do not have to worry about
>this at the moment...
>
>HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS
>
>** Gn. Salix Astur, Consul, you had mentioned two terms in a past
>post 'nemo' and 'socci'. I am wondering if you would reconsider just
>using the term 'nemo'. "Socci" as I understand it, is the term
>applied to those nontaxpayers who do not respond to the Census. For
>some reason or another, persons who pay taxes might be off on Military
>Duty, ill, and other reasons previously suggested, and thus have not
>responded to the gens business. For them to return to discover they
>are 'socci' quasi citizens, even though they have paid taxes, doesn't
>not seem legally pallitable, and I think it might be just a matter of
>proper terminology here.
>
>Also, if you and Marinus decide on the above methodology, based on
>contio contributions, good sense, whatever, if the length of time
>could be extended from 2 months to 4 months, for reasons mentioned above.
>
>Besides, I saw 'finding nemo' twice, and there was never any mention
>in the script of any Socci :) (just a little humour)
>
>Also, I think we should just keep with antiquita and not lobby for
>changes in a woman's cognomen upon marriage of two NR citizens, as
>recognized by NR at some future date...there again...I don't think
>this is of immediate concern.
>
>*****************
>
>I am not a gens reform groupie :); ...the building block if you will
>of society.
>
>That is why I, and others would like to see this done as carefully as
>possible...>
>******************
>
>I wish the Consuls, the Tribunes, and Citizens well, ..., and the wellbeing

of our republic.

>
>Valete,
>Po

F. Galerius Aurelianus to L. Arminius Faustus, T. Galerius Paulinus, the Consuls, Senate, and People of Nova Roma. Salvete.

CITIZENS, DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RED HERRINGS AND BALDERDASH!

The current contio has identified five topics that are of genuine importance to the current and future Republic:

1. increasing our assidui (tax-paying) citizens;
2. increasing our fiscal base for advancement & growth;
3. the Macellum & how to make NR merchandise more available;
4. gens reform;
5. legal reform and organization.

The first three topics are all inter-connected to growth and advancement of Nova Roma by increasing both our active, tax-paying population and the fiscal base to carry out the various projects (archaeological, religious, real estate, et cetera) that the Senate and People may or may not approve through the legitimate activity of government as outlined in the Constitution and Laws of Nova Roma.

The fifth and last topic is of vital importance to the first four. If our laws, edicts, and decrees are not properly organized and if the Citizens fail to follow those laws through either ignorance or willful disobedience, the Republic cannot stand. A codification of our body of laws is as important to us as it was for Justinian.

The fourth topic is of intense interest to a small but very active segment of our Republic especially many of the pater/materfamiliae and the Senior Consul. However, even more important than this topic is that the debate and arguments are carried out with humility, moderation, and mutual respect. This is especially important for our elected Magistrates and members of the Senate to remember that if you cannot demonstrate the virtues in your dealing with each other, how do you expect the private citizens to respect your dignitas or auctoritas.
THIS IS NOT A TOPIC THAT WILL BE SETTLED THIS YEAR AND SHOULD BE GIVEN A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT, DISCUSSION, AND COMPROMISE BUT NOT ANGER, DISRESPECT, AND CONTEMPT.

CITIZENS. DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RED HERRINGS AND BALDERDASH!

The problems in Gallia are best left to the citizens of that province and the appropriate magistrates. The question of same sex marriage is important to a few citizens but it can be used as a red herring to distract vital time & energy. Since this is still an unsettled macronational issue, it is not something that will affect the greater majority of NR citizens for some time to come. Let those who are most concerned with it, get involved in their state and national organizations concerned with this subject.
And let us not forget to practice our Religio, share historical and archaeological information on the main list, keep working to get those new real world group going, and help our magistrates by offering your services to assist them in their duties.
May Di Immortales and Di Indigines grant the Senate and People of Nova Roma all that is appropriate, fortunate, and auspicious.

The Classic Comics Illustrated was around about 30 years ago, cousin. Try the Peter Conolly book on THE ILLIAD & THE ODYSSEY. This book had great illustrations and a ton of information even though it was written for the 10-14 year old age group.

Flavius

Salvete omnes, especially C. Minucius Scaevola!

Caius Minucius Scaevola wrote:

| I want to know why Quintus Fabius Maximus -
| after having called a group of citizens "jackals" on *several*
| occasions, after again referring to that group of citizens as "cowardly
| animals",

I sent him first a friendly reminder, then an official memo as stipulated in
the list guidelines. I am under the impression that his behaviour improved
somewhat after that. Moderated status is imposed only after the second memo,
as the list guidelines show.

| after having referred to a citizen's post as "horse-dung", AND
| after I have requested the praetors to take note, is still able to talk
| his trash here.

He called one post by another citizen "horse-dung". You call all his posts
"trash". Does this mean that you are asking me to admonish you too?

| I want to know why L. Cornelius Sulla and Lucius
| Sicinius Drusus, after repeatedly insulting people on this list were not
| moderated.

Because I did not see any repeated gross violation of the list guidelines by
L. Cornelius Sulla in my term of office. As to L. Sicinius Drusus, his
behaviour was indeed questionable - but the matter was addressed by the
Censores since it was a matter of morality rather than a legal issue, and he
has posted next to nothing since.

| I want to know why my last request to the praetors went
| unheeded AND unanswered

Sorry, my fault here. I should have sent you a message that yours had been
received as well. I prefer to work behind the scenes, and the fact that you
addressed the Praetores off list made me believe that you supported this
course and wouldn't need a receipt.

| while Sulla's request received immediate
| attention.

Because his was made in public. It was my intention to calm things down here
on the ML. The debate we are having right now is hot enough, and I didn't
think that we had to add a public censorship/free speech dispute to it.
Again, sorry for not acknowledging the receipt of your complaint.

| If necessary, I will get all the relevant post numbers and
| re-state my request; I will also add in a request to moderate Sulla.

Thank you, I don't need the exact post numbers. And as to your request to
moderate Sulla: If I take steps in this direction, I fear that I have to take
a real close look at the message he complained about as well.

| Can you answer those for me, Praetor?

I tried to.

| I would like _everyone_ here to be
| aware of the special privilege repeatedly extended to those individuals,

They are not the only persons that are treated with lenience. The top priority
here is free speech, and Nova Roma needs various ideas from different people.
Moderated status is the last measure we Praetores will take in our capacity
as list moderators.
Of course, if you feel personally insulted by someone, you are free to take
the matter to court. I would be happy to conduct a trial...

| and of the specific reason that they are so specially treated

No, I don't think that they are specially treated. They are treated just like
you and everyone else.

| - or of an
| explanation that takes all of the above factors into account and still
| accords with justice.

I hope that I made myself clear.

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

Salvete omnes,

Yes, those sure got me interested in books when I was a kid. I had
the Illiad as well as Caesar's Conquests.

Yo can find Classic's Illustrated in those used collectable comic
stores; I found the Time Machine a few years ago though it costed me
13.00 instead of 35 cents on the cover page.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> The Classic Comics Illustrated was around about 30 years ago,
cousin. Try the Peter Conolly book on THE ILLIAD & THE ODYSSEY.
This book had great illustrations and a ton of information even
though it was written for the 10-14 year old age group.
>
> Flavius

Salve!

I would be very interested in embarking on such a project! I own a
design firm, and I would be happy to give this to one of my graphic
design specialists, if all of you would be willing to generate some
ideas for me.

I look forward to some feedback.

Vale,

Gaius Sempronius Octavianus

A. Apollonius Cordus to Praetor Cn. Octavius Noricus
and all citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I hope you're well; I'm well.

Look, I hate to keep playing this same riff, but
doesn't this latest incident show that there is a
public perception that the guidelines are not
even-handedly enforced, regardless of how
even-handedly you do in fact enforce them? This is
because if the rules are flexible and they are
enforced quietly behind closed doors there is no way
for us to tell whether they're being enforced at all,
or fairly.

And comments like this below, I'm afraid, don't help:

> | If necessary, I will get all the relevant post
> numbers and
> | re-state my request; I will also add in a request
> to moderate Sulla.
>
> Thank you, I don't need the exact post numbers. And
> as to your request to
> moderate Sulla: If I take steps in this direction, I
> fear that I have to take
> a real close look at the message he complained about
> as well.

This is exactly the sort of flexible enforcement that
the guidelines by their vagueness and fluffiness
invite, and exactly the sort of flexible enforcement
that causes people to lose faith in the guidelines and
their enforcers. Surely either you need to look
carefully at both or you need to look carefully at
neither? Surely either the rules have been broken or
they have not? But it sounds like you're saying that
you're prepared to look the other way and not worry
about whether any rules have been broken, so long as
nobody makes a fuss.

I know you mean well, but the very nature of the
system you've inherited and declined to change means
that you will never be able to get rid of the
perception of unfairness, no matter how fair you are.
It's not your fault, and it won't be solved by you
trying harder, or getting tougher, or getting more
relaxed, or employing more people, or employing fewer
people: it's the fault of the system, and the system
needs to be changed.





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk

Salvete omnes, especially Aule Apolloni Corde!

| I hope you're well; I'm well.

Thanks, I can't complain.

| Look, I hate to keep playing this same riff

Ah well, there goes my hope that we wouldn't have a censorship dispute in
addition to the Gens Reform debate... But thank you for your thoughts and
especially for the calm tone you expressed them in!

| doesn't this latest incident show that there is a
| public perception that the guidelines are not
| even-handedly enforced, regardless of how
| even-handedly you do in fact enforce them?

In a word: Yes.
As long as people are disagreeing (=forever), any action or inaction by the
list moderators will be perceived as biased by someone.

| This is
| because if the rules are flexible and they are
| enforced quietly behind closed doors there is no way
| for us to tell whether they're being enforced at all,
| or fairly.

You are right. However, I prefer to continue working behind the scenes. It is
my belief that a friendly reminder, sent in private, can do more than a
public reproach.

| ---SNIP---
| I know you mean well, but the very nature of the
| system you've inherited and declined to change means
| that you will never be able to get rid of the
| perception of unfairness, no matter how fair you are.

Yes, no matter what I do or don't do, there will always be somebody who
perceives it as unfair. I do not think that more casuistic list guidelines
would change that: The discussions on the ML are a dynamic phenomenon, and
there will always be room for interpretation. I do not think that this could
be properly addressed by static guidelines. If we explicitly forbade accusing
magistrates of "striving for dictatorship", surely someone would use the term
"tyranny" instead.
Did I make myself clear in this last statement? I'm afraid not, so please ask
for explanation in case of doubt.

| it's the fault of the system, and the system
| needs to be changed.

Do you have any ideas how we should change it? I would be very interested in
your thoughts on this matter.

--
Optime valete!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

Salvete, L. Arminius Faustus, Tribune, to all quirites,


The recent aedilitian edictas about the Macellum come to cover a important area that NR has facing some problems. I see them with happyness and much hope.

However, I am a Tribune, and after the interests of the Res Publica, I must look on the interests of the Plebis.

Next year, during the Lex Fabia Centuriata, I was deeply concerned by the empytness the Plebeian Aedilship were left. I have ideas for the Plebeian Aedilship, but on the level of the Plebeian Class. I´ve said on elections and when right time of maturation comes I want to present it to the Comitia Plebis. However, to increase this range outside the class boundaries, more magistrates must be brought to the discussion. Not that I can´t do all myself, but a fasce is made of many rods. Gathering people is the smarter way to get things going.

But seeing these edictas, I was considering that almost nothing on roman tradition prevent to where is wrote ´curule aedile´ turns into ´aediles´ (both four).

Only that they are issued by a Curule Aedile, he cannot change powers of other magistrate, so it´s natural and right.

However, on ancient Rome, the burden of overseeing the market was shared by both aedilships.

So, I propose a effort of many magistrates, Aediles, Consules and Tribunes to make the document (with power of a bigger document, lex or collective edictum) to share the responsability between the aedilship as a hole, like the Ancient Rome was.

Vale bene on pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus, Tribune, former Plebeian Aedile


PS. Plebeians, it is a matter of honour for us. Consul Salix, you are a plebeian too, we count with you.

PS II. Not that the Aedile´s Edicta is already perfect now, but It is very complete and very workable to us.

PS III. Tribunes, and most of all, Plebeian Aediles, this is time to show ourselves worthy of our magistratures.



---------------------------------
Yahoo! GeoCities: 15MB de espaço grátis para criar seu web site!

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

Salve, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus Praetor; salvete, omnes.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:10:07PM +0100, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus wrote:
> Salvete omnes, especially C. Minucius Scaevola!
>
> Caius Minucius Scaevola wrote:
>
> | I want to know why Quintus Fabius Maximus -
> | after having called a group of citizens "jackals" on *several*
> | occasions, after again referring to that group of citizens as "cowardly
> | animals",
>
> I sent him first a friendly reminder, then an official memo as stipulated in
> the list guidelines. I am under the impression that his behaviour improved
> somewhat after that. Moderated status is imposed only after the second memo,
> as the list guidelines show.

Let's see. As I recall, he started out by calling a group of cives
"jackals"; presumably, that would be #1. Next, he referred to the same
group as "cowardly animals"; that would be #2. After that, he _again_
referred to the same group as "jackals" - this time, starring out
several letters in the word but leaving it crystal clear, both in
context and referent, what it was; that would be #3. I believe there
were more instances, but I can't recall what they were. Following this,
and in the same time frame, he made his "horse dung" comment.

If this is considered improvement, I shall happily post whatever insult
I find appropriate in describing QFM and his buddies and insert
asterisks. Will that be sufficient? If not, then he has violated the
guidelines past the two-memo requirement.

> | after having referred to a citizen's post as "horse-dung", AND
> | after I have requested the praetors to take note, is still able to talk
> | his trash here.
>
> He called one post by another citizen "horse-dung".

No; I simply misspoke here. I'll quote his posting, #20298 on the ML:

------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think you are full of horse dung...can I say that, Praetors?"
------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a reference to a post but a personal insult directed at
another citizen. Is this what you mean by "improvement"?

> You call all his posts
> "trash". Does this mean that you are asking me to admonish you too?

Ah... I'll leave this one explicitly unaddressed, praetor, because I
believe that you deserve time to reconsider this response and because I
believe, from our private correspondence, that you _are_ trying your
best to do your job. I do, however, strongly suggest that you think
about the implications of finding fault with the person bringing the
complaint instead of dealing with the complaint itself.

> | I want to know why L. Cornelius Sulla and Lucius
> | Sicinius Drusus, after repeatedly insulting people on this list were not
> | moderated.
>
> Because I did not see any repeated gross violation of the list guidelines by
> L. Cornelius Sulla in my term of office.

Presumably, this means that all problems end when a new term of office
begins - is that right? Or is there such a thing as continuity, as
implied by the term "office"?

To bring things down from the general to the specific, I do not believe
that I did anything more than Athanasious did in his post. If my post is
out of line, then so is his (and based on the general tenor of what is
normal on this list, I don't believe that either one is.) However, if
Sulla chooses to point fingers, I shall happily take him up on it - it's
a case of a 20,000 tons of soot calling a kettle black.

> As to L. Sicinius Drusus, his
> behaviour was indeed questionable - but the matter was addressed by the
> Censores since it was a matter of morality rather than a legal issue, and he
> has posted next to nothing since.

No, the *Nota* was a matter of morality and addressed by the Censores.
His posts insulting individual cives, groups of cives, the institutions
of Nova Roma, Nova Roma itself, and just about anyone who disagreed with
him - even when that disagreement was imaginary - were ALL matters for
the praetors and all violations of the guidelines... which somehow slid
by with no punishment and little comment.

Do those with titles, no matter how spurious, get to lord it over the
rest of us here? If my - very mild, by comparison - response to
Athanasious merits notice, then I'm more than interested in the reason.

> | I want to know why my last request to the praetors went
> | unheeded AND unanswered
>
> Sorry, my fault here. I should have sent you a message that yours had been
> received as well. I prefer to work behind the scenes, and the fact that you
> addressed the Praetores off list made me believe that you supported this
> course and wouldn't need a receipt.

[blink] Interesting reasoning. I'll take it as straight info and respond
just as factually: whenever I contact a magistrate of Nova Roma with a
concern, I do indeed want a response unless I explicitly state otherwise.

Systems that work behind the scenes are fine with me - *as long as they
work*. When I do my pre-flight walk-around, I don't remove the cowling
and dig into the engine to make certain that the magnetos are going to
fire; but when I test them during the run-up and they _don't_ work, the
plane goes back to the hangar and the mechanic has to rip into it
because something failed under test. In this case, I see the system as
having failed under test - and I'm willing to pursue whatever
intervention is necessary to remedy it.

A. Apollonius Cordus may well be right; the design of this particular
engine may well be at fault. If so, then measures to fix it need to be
taken _here and now,_ in the public eye where the citizens of Nova Roma
can be assured of fair treatment for the future. For the moment,
whatever the reality, it looks like a system of privileged treatment for
some - those with Senatorial titles, perhaps? - and a different set of
rules for everyone else.

> | while Sulla's request received immediate
> | attention.
>
> Because his was made in public. It was my intention to calm things
> down here on the ML.

My response in which I stated that I would be contacting the praetors
shortly, although it was not directly addressed to you, was also made in
public and concerned QFMs posts. Was the necessity to keep things calm
absent then?

> The debate we are having right now is hot enough, and I didn't
> think that we had to add a public censorship/free speech dispute to it.
> Again, sorry for not acknowledging the receipt of your complaint.

Accepted with all good will. However, it does not address the question
of differential treatment that I perceive in the handling of these
complaints and the responses to them.

> | If necessary, I will get all the relevant post numbers and
> | re-state my request; I will also add in a request to moderate Sulla.
>
> Thank you, I don't need the exact post numbers. And as to your request to
> moderate Sulla: If I take steps in this direction, I fear that I have to take
> a real close look at the message he complained about as well.

Believe it or not, I don't see that as a problem; I'm more than willing
to be moderated if that's the level at which the bar is set. In that
case, though, everyone I've mentioned - including Athanasious - would
certainly fit the bill, and I would be quite satisfied with the result.
It's their ability to insult anyone they choose while everyone else is
required to keep quiet that I find intolerable.

> | I would like _everyone_ here to be
> | aware of the special privilege repeatedly extended to those individuals,
>
> They are not the only persons that are treated with lenience. The top priority
> here is free speech, and Nova Roma needs various ideas from different people.
> Moderated status is the last measure we Praetores will take in our capacity
> as list moderators.
> Of course, if you feel personally insulted by someone, you are free to take
> the matter to court. I would be happy to conduct a trial...

Nope. If someone insults me and is not moderated as a result, I take
that as the moderators' statement of acceptance - and will have a field
day all my own. If, as a result, _I_ am moderated, then I'll want to
know why the original poster isn't. That's about the range of it for me;
insults don't bother me that much.

*Injustice,* on the other hand, outrages me. This definitely includes
special rules for privileged subgroups.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Let him who wishes for peace prepare for war.
-- Vegetius. Also quoted "si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you desire peace, prepare
for war.

Salvete Fabius Maximus et Omnes

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> Salvete.
>
> I come home from a rough day, after 16 meetings, and I have 125
> mails in my box?
>
> STOP IT!
>
> We must have consensus. [...snipped...]

Thank you Senator! Yes, please, can we all stop it.
There is currently no lex before the people. Why are so
many people getting so upset over _ideas_ ?

There isn't even a proposed lex yet! This is just what
in engineering we call "Brainstorming". The first and
_only_ rule of brainstorming is that there are no "bad"
ideas. The second is that there are no personal attacks
on ideas nor any ego-attachment to them.

Debate is the life blood of a republic, but this has, for
the most part, not been debate; it has been name-calling,
mudslinging and factionalism.

This new year seems to be rife with this sort of behavior
and I for one am getting _very_ tired of it.

There only 625 Citizens on the main Nova Roma list out of 1063
Citizens of Nova Roma. Slightly less than 59% of the population.
Out of those 625 there are well less than 100 who are
regular and frequent posters to the main list. As this list is
essentially the Forum of Nova Roma, that means that less than
10% of the population takes an active part in political and
social life of the Res Publica.

We then owe it to ourselves, to the "silent majority" of
Citizens and to the wider world which may be watching to
conduct ourselves with dignity. So far this year I have
seen very little of it. Let us all try to rectify that.

Optime Vale in pace deorum
Livia Cornelia Hibernia

Ave Preators et Omnes,

Once again, the agitation of Caius Municius has been allowed to be voiced on the ML, Can there be some intervention or do we have to stomach more insults and invective from this individual? It grows tiring after a while, though at least I am getting more fodder for the back alley, but that is at this point the only upside that see.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Reform - Counter Suggestion


Salve, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus Praetor; salvete, omnes.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:10:07PM +0100, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus wrote:
> Salvete omnes, especially C. Minucius Scaevola!
>
> Caius Minucius Scaevola wrote:
>
> | I want to know why Quintus Fabius Maximus -
> | after having called a group of citizens "jackals" on *several*
> | occasions, after again referring to that group of citizens as "cowardly
> | animals",
>
> I sent him first a friendly reminder, then an official memo as stipulated in
> the list guidelines. I am under the impression that his behaviour improved
> somewhat after that. Moderated status is imposed only after the second memo,
> as the list guidelines show.

Let's see. As I recall, he started out by calling a group of cives
"jackals"; presumably, that would be #1. Next, he referred to the same
group as "cowardly animals"; that would be #2. After that, he _again_
referred to the same group as "jackals" - this time, starring out
several letters in the word but leaving it crystal clear, both in
context and referent, what it was; that would be #3. I believe there
were more instances, but I can't recall what they were. Following this,
and in the same time frame, he made his "horse dung" comment.

If this is considered improvement, I shall happily post whatever insult
I find appropriate in describing QFM and his buddies and insert
asterisks. Will that be sufficient? If not, then he has violated the
guidelines past the two-memo requirement.

> | after having referred to a citizen's post as "horse-dung", AND
> | after I have requested the praetors to take note, is still able to talk
> | his trash here.
>
> He called one post by another citizen "horse-dung".

No; I simply misspoke here. I'll quote his posting, #20298 on the ML:

------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think you are full of horse dung...can I say that, Praetors?"
------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a reference to a post but a personal insult directed at
another citizen. Is this what you mean by "improvement"?

> You call all his posts
> "trash". Does this mean that you are asking me to admonish you too?

Ah... I'll leave this one explicitly unaddressed, praetor, because I
believe that you deserve time to reconsider this response and because I
believe, from our private correspondence, that you _are_ trying your
best to do your job. I do, however, strongly suggest that you think
about the implications of finding fault with the person bringing the
complaint instead of dealing with the complaint itself.

> | I want to know why L. Cornelius Sulla and Lucius
> | Sicinius Drusus, after repeatedly insulting people on this list were not
> | moderated.
>
> Because I did not see any repeated gross violation of the list guidelines by
> L. Cornelius Sulla in my term of office.

Presumably, this means that all problems end when a new term of office
begins - is that right? Or is there such a thing as continuity, as
implied by the term "office"?

To bring things down from the general to the specific, I do not believe
that I did anything more than Athanasious did in his post. If my post is
out of line, then so is his (and based on the general tenor of what is
normal on this list, I don't believe that either one is.) However, if
Sulla chooses to point fingers, I shall happily take him up on it - it's
a case of a 20,000 tons of soot calling a kettle black.

> As to L. Sicinius Drusus, his
> behaviour was indeed questionable - but the matter was addressed by the
> Censores since it was a matter of morality rather than a legal issue, and he
> has posted next to nothing since.

No, the *Nota* was a matter of morality and addressed by the Censores.
His posts insulting individual cives, groups of cives, the institutions
of Nova Roma, Nova Roma itself, and just about anyone who disagreed with
him - even when that disagreement was imaginary - were ALL matters for
the praetors and all violations of the guidelines... which somehow slid
by with no punishment and little comment.

Do those with titles, no matter how spurious, get to lord it over the
rest of us here? If my - very mild, by comparison - response to
Athanasious merits notice, then I'm more than interested in the reason.

> | I want to know why my last request to the praetors went
> | unheeded AND unanswered
>
> Sorry, my fault here. I should have sent you a message that yours had been
> received as well. I prefer to work behind the scenes, and the fact that you
> addressed the Praetores off list made me believe that you supported this
> course and wouldn't need a receipt.

[blink] Interesting reasoning. I'll take it as straight info and respond
just as factually: whenever I contact a magistrate of Nova Roma with a
concern, I do indeed want a response unless I explicitly state otherwise.

Systems that work behind the scenes are fine with me - *as long as they
work*. When I do my pre-flight walk-around, I don't remove the cowling
and dig into the engine to make certain that the magnetos are going to
fire; but when I test them during the run-up and they _don't_ work, the
plane goes back to the hangar and the mechanic has to rip into it
because something failed under test. In this case, I see the system as
having failed under test - and I'm willing to pursue whatever
intervention is necessary to remedy it.

A. Apollonius Cordus may well be right; the design of this particular
engine may well be at fault. If so, then measures to fix it need to be
taken _here and now,_ in the public eye where the citizens of Nova Roma
can be assured of fair treatment for the future. For the moment,
whatever the reality, it looks like a system of privileged treatment for
some - those with Senatorial titles, perhaps? - and a different set of
rules for everyone else.

> | while Sulla's request received immediate
> | attention.
>
> Because his was made in public. It was my intention to calm things
> down here on the ML.

My response in which I stated that I would be contacting the praetors
shortly, although it was not directly addressed to you, was also made in
public and concerned QFMs posts. Was the necessity to keep things calm
absent then?

> The debate we are having right now is hot enough, and I didn't
> think that we had to add a public censorship/free speech dispute to it.
> Again, sorry for not acknowledging the receipt of your complaint.

Accepted with all good will. However, it does not address the question
of differential treatment that I perceive in the handling of these
complaints and the responses to them.

> | If necessary, I will get all the relevant post numbers and
> | re-state my request; I will also add in a request to moderate Sulla.
>
> Thank you, I don't need the exact post numbers. And as to your request to
> moderate Sulla: If I take steps in this direction, I fear that I have to take
> a real close look at the message he complained about as well.

Believe it or not, I don't see that as a problem; I'm more than willing
to be moderated if that's the level at which the bar is set. In that
case, though, everyone I've mentioned - including Athanasious - would
certainly fit the bill, and I would be quite satisfied with the result.
It's their ability to insult anyone they choose while everyone else is
required to keep quiet that I find intolerable.

> | I would like _everyone_ here to be
> | aware of the special privilege repeatedly extended to those individuals,
>
> They are not the only persons that are treated with lenience. The top priority
> here is free speech, and Nova Roma needs various ideas from different people.
> Moderated status is the last measure we Praetores will take in our capacity
> as list moderators.
> Of course, if you feel personally insulted by someone, you are free to take
> the matter to court. I would be happy to conduct a trial...

Nope. If someone insults me and is not moderated as a result, I take
that as the moderators' statement of acceptance - and will have a field
day all my own. If, as a result, _I_ am moderated, then I'll want to
know why the original poster isn't. That's about the range of it for me;
insults don't bother me that much.

*Injustice,* on the other hand, outrages me. This definitely includes
special rules for privileged subgroups.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Let him who wishes for peace prepare for war.
-- Vegetius. Also quoted "si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you desire peace, prepare
for war.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

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



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

Salve Quirites:
here is some information for you; Vespasian, Domitian and Titus
were all from the gens Flavia.
Vespasian was known as a restorer of temples and built/restored
temples to Peace, Glory and Courage and Jupiter the Preserver..
Domitian too was a great supporter of religion and restored temples
of Palatine Apollo, the Atrium of Vesta, and built new temples to
Isis, Jupiter the guardian and especially Minerva whose Quinquatria
he celebrated with great splendour. Also temples to Minerva
Chalcidica and Fortuna Redux.
This is all from a little book "The Religions of the Roman Empire"
by John Ferguson,
I'm sure the pontifeces will have more to add, but this certainly
will start you on the way.
bene valete in pace deorum, Fabia Vera

Salvete omnes, especially L. Corneli Sulla!

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
| Once again, the agitation of Caius Municius has been allowed to be voiced
| on the ML,

He is free to voice his opinion. I am going to reply to his post in public,
but not today - I'm off to bed now.

| Can there be some intervention or do we have to stomach more
| insults and invective from this individual?

Were there any insults in his message? I thought you had grown a thicker skin.

| It grows tiring after a while,
| though at least I am getting more fodder for the back alley, but that is at
| this point the only upside that see.

Good for the BA, isn't it?

--
Optime valete!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

Salvete Galerius Aurelianus et Omnes

This is an execelent point, Galerius Aurelianus!
We have all been focusing on the Gens Reform issue because
that is where all the sound and fury is. But as in The
Scottish Play, all this sound and fury really do signify
nothing. The other four issues are in fact far more important
to the future of the Republic than reforming families, which
for the most part, we do not have anyway!

This issue of gens reform may or not be a red herring, but
it is devisive and, at this point in our sociological
development, unnecessary.

I strongly urge the leadership and the Senate and the People
of Nova Roma to table this emotional and divisive issue for
a very long time (on the order of years). I will grant that
there are some (I think minor) problems with our gens system,
but this is certainly _not_ the biggest issue facing Nova Roma
today. Nor will it be tomorrow. Let us concentrate our
considerable collective energies, talents and passions to
building, strengthening and advancing our beloved Res Publica
rather than tearing it down.

Optime vale in pace deorum
Livia Cornelia Hibernia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus to L. Arminius Faustus, T. Galerius
Paulinus, the Consuls, Senate, and People of Nova Roma. Salvete.
>
> CITIZENS, DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RED HERRINGS AND BALDERDASH!
>
> The current contio has identified five topics that are of genuine
importance to the current and future Republic:
>
> 1. increasing our assidui (tax-paying) citizens;
> 2. increasing our fiscal base for advancement & growth;
> 3. the Macellum & how to make NR merchandise more available;
> 4. gens reform;
> 5. legal reform and organization.
>
> The first three topics are all inter-connected to growth and
advancement of Nova Roma by increasing both our active, tax-paying
population and the fiscal base to carry out the various projects
(archaeological, religious, real estate, et cetera) that the Senate
and People may or may not approve through the legitimate activity of
government as outlined in the Constitution and Laws of Nova Roma.
>
> The fifth and last topic is of vital importance to the first four.
If our laws, edicts, and decrees are not properly organized and if
the Citizens fail to follow those laws through either ignorance or
willful disobedience, the Republic cannot stand. A codification of
our body of laws is as important to us as it was for Justinian.
>
> The fourth topic is of intense interest to a small but very active
segment of our Republic especially many of the pater/materfamiliae
and the Senior Consul. However, even more important than this topic
is that the debate and arguments are carried out with humility,
moderation, and mutual respect. This is especially important for our
elected Magistrates and members of the Senate to remember that if you
cannot demonstrate the virtues in your dealing with each other, how
do you expect the private citizens to respect your dignitas or
auctoritas.
> THIS IS NOT A TOPIC THAT WILL BE SETTLED THIS YEAR AND SHOULD BE
GIVEN A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT, DISCUSSION, AND COMPROMISE BUT NOT
ANGER, DISRESPECT, AND CONTEMPT.
>
> CITIZENS. DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RED HERRINGS AND BALDERDASH!
>
> The problems in Gallia are best left to the citizens of that
province and the appropriate magistrates. The question of same sex
marriage is important to a few citizens but it can be used as a red
herring to distract vital time & energy. Since this is still an
unsettled macronational issue, it is not something that will affect
the greater majority of NR citizens for some time to come. Let those
who are most concerned with it, get involved in their state and
national organizations concerned with this subject.
> And let us not forget to practice our Religio, share historical and
archaeological information on the main list, keep working to get
those new real world group going, and help our magistrates by
offering your services to assist them in their duties.
> May Di Immortales and Di Indigines grant the Senate and People of
Nova Roma all that is appropriate, fortunate, and auspicious.

Ave Praetor!

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Octavius Noricus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Reform - Counter Suggestion


Salvete omnes, especially L. Corneli Sulla!

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
| Once again, the agitation of Caius Municius has been allowed to be voiced
| on the ML,

He is free to voice his opinion. I am going to reply to his post in public,
but not today - I'm off to bed now.

Sulla: Ok you take care, I will look forward to your response tomorrow.

| Can there be some intervention or do we have to stomach more
| insults and invective from this individual?

Were there any insults in his message? I thought you had grown a thicker skin.

Sulla: Oh I have thick skin, my problem is that the more he posts the more disrespect he shows to the laws (in this case edicts) governing NR. But, as I said in my previous post, I am quite enjoying his invective it gives me wonderful fodder in the back alley!

| It grows tiring after a while,
| though at least I am getting more fodder for the back alley, but that is at
| this point the only upside that see.

Good for the BA, isn't it?

Sulla: Oh yeah. Don't you know it! ;)

Vale,

Sulla

--
Optime valete!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

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



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

Salve All

It is with great sadness that I hereby tender my resignation as Propraetor of Canada Occidentalis. I do this with a heavy heart, but I know this is the right decision. My Macroworld commitments are becoming far too great for me to commit the time that is required for the office I hold...But, and fortunately for Canada Occidentalis we have a Senior Legatus(Quintus Lanius Paulinus) that is capable, and more than willing to take over the duties until such time as the Senate finds a new Propraetor for Canada Occidenatlis. It is my Recommendation that the Senate appoint Quintus Lanius Paulinus as Propraetor for Canada Occidentalis. He has more than shown he is up to the task. Sorry for any inconvenience this post may cause.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius
Privatus


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

Salve Quintus Sertorius

Thank you for you service both in NR and out. Quintus Lanius Paulinus will have a big job but he is more that up to it.

Best of luck in the macroworld.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Guiboche
To: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) ; NR_CanOcc@yahoogroups.com ; Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com ; censors@... ; consuls@... ; senate@...
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Resignation of Propaetorship




Salve All

It is with great sadness that I hereby tender my resignation as Propraetor of Canada Occidentalis. I do this with a heavy heart, but I know this is the right decision. My Macroworld commitments are becoming far too great for me to commit the time that is required for the office I hold...But, and fortunately for Canada Occidentalis we have a Senior Legatus(Quintus Lanius Paulinus) that is capable, and more than willing to take over the duties until such time as the Senate finds a new Propraetor for Canada Occidenatlis. It is my Recommendation that the Senate appoint Quintus Lanius Paulinus as Propraetor for Canada Occidentalis. He has more than shown he is up to the task. Sorry for any inconvenience this post may cause.

Vale

Privatus


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




Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salvete
I stopped reading it halfway through the piece. It doesn't agree with
current archeological evidence, and worse some of his statements are just incorrect.

There were survivors from the campaign, and some of those had taken part in
the three day running battle, not all killed as Wells asserts. The idea the
Germans were carrying pikes, based on Tacitus statement in Germania, has pretty
much been disproved, and the Roman auxiliary especially the Gallic contingent
did not desert at the start of the retreat.
That's just for starters.
Give it a pass.

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

It is always sad to see someone resign within Nova Roma, best of luck to you Quintus Sertorius.

I think Quintus Lanius Paulinus would do an excellent job as Propraetor!

Valete;

Gaius Modius

In a message dated 2/12/2004 7:24:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, nate@... writes:

> Salve All
>
> It is with great sadness that I hereby tender my resignation as Propraetor of Canada Occidentalis. I do this with a heavy heart, but I know this is the right decision. My Macroworld commitments are becoming far too great for me to commit the time that is required for the office I hold...But, and fortunately for Canada Occidentalis we have a Senior Legatus(Quintus Lanius Paulinus) that is capable, and more than willing to take over the duties until such time as the Senate finds a new Propraetor for Canada Occidenatlis. It is my Recommendation that the Senate appoint Quintus Lanius Paulinus as Propraetor for Canada Occidentalis. He has more than shown he is up to the task. Sorry for any inconvenience this post may
> cause.
>
> Vale
>
> Quintus Sertorius
> Privatus

Salvete, omnes -

I'm going to direct this to Sulla, since he seems to have taken issue
with me (/quelle surprise!/) I won't see his response, since I've had
his posts set to "delete before read" for months now, but - that's how
that cookie crumbles, I suppose...

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:23:39PM +0100, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus wrote:
> Salvete omnes, especially L. Corneli Sulla!
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
> | Once again, the agitation of Caius Municius has been allowed to be voiced
> | on the ML,

[smile] Yes indeed. Watching you get all wound up as a result is just
too cute for words! I must say that since I killfiled you, my NR mailbox
has been *so* much more pleasant to read that I highly recommend the
practice to everyone.

Ta for now, then. You may have stirred up this brouhaha, but it's I who
will now pursue resolution for this broader issue through our legal
system. If the shoe pinches at some point - as I'm sure it will - you'll
have only yourself to blame.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Nil desperandum!
Never despair!
-- Horace, "Carmina"

Salve, Propraetor Quintus Sertorius

My appreciation for your work as Propraetor Provincia Canada Occidentalis.
May your efforts in the macroworld enjoy fruition. I hope you will continue to
be active in Nova Roma as your time allows.

Vale,

G. Lanius Falco


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

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

What passes for invective on the main list is, in fact, rather mild
compared to the invective in which historical Roman politics was usually
conducted. For example, Cicero referred to Marcus Antonius as a
"verpa" in a speech to the senate; "verpa" means "erect penis" and has
homosexual connotations. In at least one manuscript of the Phillipics
Cicero accused a slave of Antonius named "Romanus" of doing to Antonius'
arse by night what Antonius did to the Romani in the forum by day.
There is a graffito in the Forum Romanum which reads "Scrib mentula
iudicat" ("Scribonius judges with his dick" -- presumably a reference to
the praetor L. Scribonius Rufinus and his judicial judgment). I can't
get Yahoo to display Greek fonts, so I'll just provide the translation:
Sulla is reported to have remarked that "Marius was shat from his whore
mother, the son of a Greek slave, because his claimed father's dick was
as limp as a dead eel. The only Greek Marius had was the Greek who had
his mother." Such terms of abuse as "irrumator" (face-fucker),
"pathicus" (passive sodomite), "pedicator" (active sodomite), and
"cinaedus" (cocksucker -- it has a nastier semantic field than
"fellator") were hurled as part of ordinary electoral invective. The
calumny that Caesar obtained a Bithynian fleet by passive buggery was
relatively mild by the standards of the day. Look at the disgusting
perversities of which Suetonius accused Tiberius (very probably
unjustly, after all Suetonius was Hadrian's de facto minister of
propaganda, and the Lives of the Twelve Caesars was a work of propaganda
condemning the hereditary principle of succession among the
Iulio-Claudians and Flavians and supporting the adoptive model of Nerva
and his successors). Look at the sources and judge for yourself.

If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
"full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>
>
>

I chanced upon this Greek island, smaller than one I saw previously
that would have undeniably support a decent number of Nova
Roman, "colonists," but has been sold.

I'll paste a link to the ad for this island, simply to perhaps
stimulate conversation and prospects more than to suggest anything
with knowledgeable authority to Nova Roman government:

http://www.privateislandsonline.com/greecerinia.htm#

Ave atque vale,

TIB.AMB.QUINTILIANVS

Caius Minucius Scaevola Gaius Iulius Scaurus SPD.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:57:47PM -0600, Gregory Rose wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, C. Minuci.
>
> What passes for invective on the main list is, in fact, rather mild
> compared to the invective in which historical Roman politics was usually
> conducted. For example, Cicero referred to Marcus Antonius as a
> "verpa" in a speech to the senate; "verpa" means "erect penis" and has
> homosexual connotations. In at least one manuscript of the Phillipics
> Cicero accused a slave of Antonius named "Romanus" of doing to Antonius'
> arse by night what Antonius did to the Romani in the forum by day.
> There is a graffito in the Forum Romanum which reads "Scrib mentula
> iudicat" ("Scribonius judges with his dick" -- presumably a reference to
> the praetor L. Scribonius Rufinus and his judicial judgment). I can't
> get Yahoo to display Greek fonts, so I'll just provide the translation:
> Sulla is reported to have remarked that "Marius was shat from his whore
> mother, the son of a Greek slave, because his claimed father's dick was
> as limp as a dead eel. The only Greek Marius had was the Greek who had
> his mother."

[chuckle] Three points for style, I'd say.

Since you mention it, I'm going to toss in a bit of UTF-8 Greek and see
if it makes it through:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek (in Polytonic):

The Greek anthem:

Σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν κόψη
τοῦ σπαθιοῦ τὴν τρομερή,
σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν ὄψη
ποὺ μὲ βία μετράει τὴ γῆ.

᾿Απ᾿ τὰ κόκκαλα βγαλμένη
τῶν ῾Ελλήνων τὰ ἱερά
καὶ σὰν πρῶτα ἀνδρειωμένη
χαῖρε, ὦ χαῖρε, ᾿Ελευθεριά!

From a speech of Demosthenes in the 4th century BC:

Οὐχὶ ταὐτὰ παρίσταταί μοι γιγνώσκειν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι,
ὅταν τ᾿ εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἀποβλέψω καὶ ὅταν πρὸς τοὺς
λόγους οὓς ἀκούω· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λόγους περὶ τοῦ
τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον ὁρῶ γιγνομένους, τὰ δὲ πράγματ᾿
εἰς τοῦτο προήκοντα, ὥσθ᾿ ὅπως μὴ πεισόμεθ᾿ αὐτοὶ
πρότερον κακῶς σκέψασθαι δέον.
------------------------------------------------------------------

> Such terms of abuse as "irrumator" (face-fucker),
> "pathicus" (passive sodomite), "pedicator" (active sodomite), and
> "cinaedus" (cocksucker -- it has a nastier semantic field than
> "fellator") were hurled as part of ordinary electoral invective. The
> calumny that Caesar obtained a Bithynian fleet by passive buggery was
> relatively mild by the standards of the day. Look at the disgusting
> perversities of which Suetonius accused Tiberius (very probably
> unjustly, after all Suetonius was Hadrian's de facto minister of
> propaganda, and the Lives of the Twelve Caesars was a work of propaganda
> condemning the hereditary principle of succession among the
> Iulio-Claudians and Flavians and supporting the adoptive model of Nerva
> and his successors). Look at the sources and judge for yourself.

I've actually read about this point of view (among others) before; I
don't yet have enough relevant knowledge to judge it for myself, but the
process goes on. :) My thanks for your exposition on all of the above;
it's very interesting in addition to being entertaining.

> If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
> "full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
> but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
> Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
> such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
> embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
> it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.

Oddly enough, our preferences are precisely aligned in this regard.
However, in Roma Antiqua there were no moderators who would prevent a
citizen for speaking out in response to an insult, whereas here, we're
constrained by the list rules. Since I am prevented from responding as I
wish, then I have no recourse but to turn to the law - or turn the other
cheek. I submit that *that* sort of tolerance would be even more foreign
to our spiritual ancestors.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ridentem dicere verum, quid vetat?
What prohibits us to tell the truth laughing (through a joke)?
-- Horace, "Satirae"

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete!

If we only had 15,000,000 Euros..... This place would be PERFECT!

http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/sales_islands/sites/01/01_stefano_1.html

Well, if I win the lottery, I'll buy it! *lol*

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus

Salve Q.Fabi Maxime,

Thank you very much for the critique. G. Iuli Scaure also passed his
judgement on the book earlier today which essentially covers yours.
Since history is a hobby and not a profession for me I did make sure
I finished the book since I put out 27.00 US (40.00 CDN) for it. I
guess its easier to stomach for a civi like me than for professionals
like you two who know when someone is really bs'sing or out to lunch
on his history. We are indeed fortunate to have you two to guide us
when we go astray in our history reading choices.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> Salvete
> I stopped reading it halfway through the piece. It doesn't agree
with
> current archeological evidence, and worse some of his statements
are just incorrect.
>
> There were survivors from the campaign, and some of those had taken
part in
> the three day running battle, not all killed as Wells asserts. The
idea the
> Germans were carrying pikes, based on Tacitus statement in
Germania, has pretty
> much been disproved, and the Roman auxiliary especially the Gallic
contingent
> did not desert at the start of the retreat.
> That's just for starters.
> Give it a pass.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

>Since you mention it, I'm going to toss in a bit of UTF-8 Greek and see if it makes it through:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Greek (in Polytonic):
>
> The Greek anthem:
>
> Σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν κόψη
> τοῦ σπαθιοῦ τὴν τρομερή,
> σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν ὄψη
> ποὺ μὲ βία μετράει τὴ γῆ.
>
> ᾿Απ᾿ τὰ κόκκαλα βγαλμένη
> τῶν ῾Ελλήνων τὰ ἱερά
> καὶ σὰν πρῶτα ἀνδρειωμένη
> χαῖρε, ὦ χαῖρε, ᾿Ελευθεριά!
>
> From a speech of Demosthenes in the 4th century BC:
>
> Οὐχὶ ταὐτὰ παρίσταταί μοι γιγνώσκειν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι,
> ὅταν τ᾿ εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἀποβλέψω καὶ ὅταν πρὸς τοὺς
> λόγους οὓς ἀκούω· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λόγους περὶ τοῦ
> τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον ὁρῶ γιγνομένους, τὰ δὲ πράγματ᾿
> εἰς τοῦτο προήκοντα, ὥσθ᾿ ὅπως μὴ πεισόμεθ᾿ αὐτοὶ
> πρότερον κακῶς σκέψασθαι δέον.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>

On my browser (Mozilla) all the breathing marks and vocalic diacriticals
appear as "?" which is the same problem I had when I tried myself.

>>If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
>>"full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
>>but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
>>Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
>>such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
>>embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
>>it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.
>>
>>
>
>Oddly enough, our preferences are precisely aligned in this regard.
>However, in Roma Antiqua there were no moderators who would prevent a
>citizen for speaking out in response to an insult, whereas here, we're
>constrained by the list rules. Since I am prevented from responding as I
>wish, then I have no recourse but to turn to the law - or turn the other
>cheek. I submit that *that* sort of tolerance would be even more foreign
>to our spiritual ancestors.
>

If we could find a legal way to obtain common carrier status, I'd
advocate abolishing list moderation except for spam. One of the
problems with having a moderation policy is that it opens the
corporation to becoming an ancillary party to libel suits in
macronational courts in some countries if actionable libels are carried
on the list.

I personally don't have a problem with giving at least as good as I get,
but, then, I'm not a praetor and the list does not fall under my imperium.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>

Salve Iulius Scaurus

I completly agree that the "rhetoric" in the Forum of Roma Antiqua
could be quite direct and personal with much use made of real and
putative sex scandals. I'm well acquainted with Cicero as I most of
the Loeb Library volumns of Cicero.

It is interesting how the use of insult, particularly the use of
sexually related insult changes, ebbs and flows over time. Indeed, in
Roma Antiqua, if you called me a name, I'd counter by calling you a
worse name. Neither of us would go to the courts about it, nor call
each other out on the "field of honour" and the mob would suck it all
up and love it!

A scant 100 years ago, even the milder of the insults used by Cicero
would have been more than ample (and legal) cause to challenge the
speaker to a duel to the death with sword or pistol.

My point is that while we all do dealy love Roma Antiqua, few if any
of us would want to completely recreate it (e.g. I for one am _Very_
glad that toilet tissue has replaced a sponge on a stick!).

We here in Nova Roma are not yet one culture. We come from many
macronational cultures and some are more sensitive to insult than
others and some are more accustom to a rougher give-and-take. In any
event it does not contribute to constructive debate.

We need to remember that when the greats of Roma Antiqua such as
Cicero resorted to name calling and mudslinging they were, generally,
not trying to be constructive and were not engaged in nationbuilding,
they were trying to defeat their opponent. In some cases they were
trying to distract the mob from what was really going on (see another
Citizen's posting about Red Herrings). Remember too, that pointing to
the behaviour of politicians at the end of the Republic is not
exactly and endorsement of that behaviour! They did after all
contribute to the downfall of their republic!

Optime vale
Livia Cornelia Hibernia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, C. Minuci.
>
> What passes for invective on the main list is, in fact, rather mild
> compared to the invective in which historical Roman politics was
usually
> conducted. For example, Cicero referred to Marcus Antonius as a
> "verpa" in a speech to the senate; "verpa" means "erect penis" and
has
> homosexual connotations. In at least one manuscript of the
Phillipics
> Cicero accused a slave of Antonius named "Romanus" of doing to
Antonius'
> arse by night what Antonius did to the Romani in the forum by day.
> There is a graffito in the Forum Romanum which reads "Scrib mentula
> iudicat" ("Scribonius judges with his dick" -- presumably a
reference to
> the praetor L. Scribonius Rufinus and his judicial judgment). I
can't
> get Yahoo to display Greek fonts, so I'll just provide the
translation:
> Sulla is reported to have remarked that "Marius was shat from his
whore
> mother, the son of a Greek slave, because his claimed father's dick
was
> as limp as a dead eel. The only Greek Marius had was the Greek who
had
> his mother." Such terms of abuse as "irrumator" (face-fucker),
> "pathicus" (passive sodomite), "pedicator" (active sodomite), and
> "cinaedus" (cocksucker -- it has a nastier semantic field than
> "fellator") were hurled as part of ordinary electoral invective.
The
> calumny that Caesar obtained a Bithynian fleet by passive buggery
was
> relatively mild by the standards of the day. Look at the
disgusting
> perversities of which Suetonius accused Tiberius (very probably
> unjustly, after all Suetonius was Hadrian's de facto minister of
> propaganda, and the Lives of the Twelve Caesars was a work of
propaganda
> condemning the hereditary principle of succession among the
> Iulio-Claudians and Flavians and supporting the adoptive model of
Nerva
> and his successors). Look at the sources and judge for yourself.
>
> If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that
I was
> "full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm
still,
> but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores
because a
> Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept
that
> such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma
antiqua. I
> embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better
for
> it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.
>
> Vale.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
>
> >
> >
> >
> >

Salve, G. Iulius Scaurus -

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:21:01PM -0600, Gregory Rose wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, C. Minuci.
>
> >Since you mention it, I'm going to toss in a bit of UTF-8 Greek and see if it makes it through:
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Greek (in Polytonic):
> >
> > The Greek anthem:
> >
> > Σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν κόψη
> > τοῦ σπαθιοῦ τὴν τρομερή,
> > σὲ γνωρίζω ἀπὸ τὴν ὄψη
> > ποὺ μὲ βία μετράει τὴ γῆ.
> >
> > ᾿Απ᾿ τὰ κόκκαλα βγαλμένη
> > τῶν ῾Ελλήνων τὰ ἱερά
> > καὶ σὰν πρῶτα ἀνδρειωμένη
> > χαῖρε, ὦ χαῖρε, ᾿Ελευθεριά!
> >
> > From a speech of Demosthenes in the 4th century BC:
> >
> > Οὐχὶ ταὐτὰ παρίσταταί μοι γιγνώσκειν, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι,
> > ὅταν τ᾿ εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἀποβλέψω καὶ ὅταν πρὸς τοὺς
> > λόγους οὓς ἀκούω· τοὺς μὲν γὰρ λόγους περὶ τοῦ
> > τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον ὁρῶ γιγνομένους, τὰ δὲ πράγματ᾿
> > εἰς τοῦτο προήκοντα, ὥσθ᾿ ὅπως μὴ πεισόμεθ᾿ αὐτοὶ
> > πρότερον κακῶς σκέψασθαι δέον.
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> On my browser (Mozilla) all the breathing marks and vocalic diacriticals
> appear as "?" which is the same problem I had when I tried myself.

I'm also using Mozilla, and I can see every character just as I pasted
them in. Is your character coding (under "View/Character Coding")
perhaps set to something other than "Unicode (UTF-8)"? If it's correctly
set and the breathing marks still don't show up, you may need to load
the appropriate font - which I just happen to have handy. :) I'm not a
Mac expert by any means, but if you're using OS/X, feel free to contact
me off-list and I'd be more than happy to help.

> >>If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
> >>"full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
> >>but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
> >>Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
> >>such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
> >>embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
> >>it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.
> >
> >Oddly enough, our preferences are precisely aligned in this regard.
> >However, in Roma Antiqua there were no moderators who would prevent a
> >citizen for speaking out in response to an insult, whereas here, we're
> >constrained by the list rules. Since I am prevented from responding as I
> >wish, then I have no recourse but to turn to the law - or turn the other
> >cheek. I submit that *that* sort of tolerance would be even more foreign
> >to our spiritual ancestors.
>
> If we could find a legal way to obtain common carrier status, I'd
> advocate abolishing list moderation except for spam. One of the
> problems with having a moderation policy is that it opens the
> corporation to becoming an ancillary party to libel suits in
> macronational courts in some countries if actionable libels are carried
> on the list.

True. I understand the perspective which says that we must maintain some
semblance of reasonable demeanor on this list in order not to scare away
the new citizens; this is not to say that I don't have deep reservations
about it. Your point is a definite addendum to the list of reservations.
It's not something I'd considered previously, but it certainly makes
sense.

> I personally don't have a problem with giving at least as good as I get,
> but, then, I'm not a praetor and the list does not fall under my imperium.

I believe that most people here would behave in a reasonable manner and
discuss things calmly and without rancor. For those who don't wish to
participate in arguments, there's always "filter by thread/keyword" -
or, if someone is consistently tiresome, "filter by person" method.
Normal life on a list, in other words. [grin] It _would_ get quite noisy
at the beginning, but these things settle out in rather quick order.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Aquila non captat muscas.
The eagle doesn't capture flies.
-- N/A

In a message dated 2/12/04 7:00:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, gfr@...
writes:

> If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
> "full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
> but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
> Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
> such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
> embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
> it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.
>

Salvete.

Oh I have made this argument soo many times, Iulius. Face it, the average
person today is a lot more "soft skinned" then a Roman politician. But this
also was a recent development as well. It wasn't this way in Early Nova Roma.

Valete
Fabius




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

Salve Gaius Sempronius Octavianus

That's great

Someone mentioned Classic's Illustrated comics for 30 years ago. If they are our of print do you think it would be possible for Nova Roma to arrange to re-print these with the copy write holders. These are also a large number of book written in the past and now in the public domain that we might be able to adapt.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Sempronius Octavianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Question on Classic Comic book?


Salve!

I would be very interested in embarking on such a project! I own a
design firm, and I would be happy to give this to one of my graphic
design specialists, if all of you would be willing to generate some
ideas for me.

I look forward to some feedback.

Vale,

Gaius Sempronius Octavianus





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salve Scaurus et salvete omnes!

In large measure these were both said and written down for 'shock value', not because they were considered exemplary in any way.
While such behaviour did indeed occur, keep in mind that most of these men were murdered by their opponents - an indication that they went too far or insulted the wrong person. Every system has its checks and balances, and in Ancient Rome going too far with anything was frequently fatal.
Invective may have been to some extent a tradition, but so was having your political opponents clubbed to death like baby seals, or demogoguery ending with someone being torn apart by an angry mob.
Such terms weren't used for entertainment or local colour - these weren't "shock jocks" and it wasn't a sit-com: These men were out to destroy their opponents - often permanently.
The words exchanged don't stand alone - they are accompanied by the violence that almost always followed. Through such exchanges - both verbal and violent - governments fell, people fell, and ultimately the Republic fell.
This is the tradition we want to appeal to in order to build a Republic? How absurd.

Valete
~ Servius Equitius Mercurius Troianus

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Rose <gfr@...>
Sent: Feb 12, 2004 9:57 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Reform (WARNING-- May not be suitable for minors)

G. Iulius Scaurus C. Minucio Scaevolae salutem dicit.

Salve, C. Minuci.

What passes for invective on the main list is, in fact, rather mild
compared to the invective in which historical Roman politics was usually
conducted. For example, Cicero referred to Marcus Antonius as a
"verpa" in a speech to the senate; "verpa" means "erect penis" and has
homosexual connotations. In at least one manuscript of the Phillipics
Cicero accused a slave of Antonius named "Romanus" of doing to Antonius'
arse by night what Antonius did to the Romani in the forum by day.
There is a graffito in the Forum Romanum which reads "Scrib mentula
iudicat" ("Scribonius judges with his dick" -- presumably a reference to
the praetor L. Scribonius Rufinus and his judicial judgment). I can't
get Yahoo to display Greek fonts, so I'll just provide the translation:
Sulla is reported to have remarked that "Marius was shat from his whore
mother, the son of a Greek slave, because his claimed father's dick was
as limp as a dead eel. The only Greek Marius had was the Greek who had
his mother." Such terms of abuse as "irrumator" (face-fucker),
"pathicus" (passive sodomite), "pedicator" (active sodomite), and
"cinaedus" (cocksucker -- it has a nastier semantic field than
"fellator") were hurled as part of ordinary electoral invective. The
calumny that Caesar obtained a Bithynian fleet by passive buggery was
relatively mild by the standards of the day. Look at the disgusting
perversities of which Suetonius accused Tiberius (very probably
unjustly, after all Suetonius was Hadrian's de facto minister of
propaganda, and the Lives of the Twelve Caesars was a work of propaganda
condemning the hereditary principle of succession among the
Iulio-Claudians and Flavians and supporting the adoptive model of Nerva
and his successors). Look at the sources and judge for yourself.

If someone called me a "jackal" on the main list or suggested that I was
"full of dung," I'd reply in kind, probably with sharper sarcasm still,
but I wouldn't demand the fellow be moderated by the praetores because a
Roman politician was innured to such trivial invective and I accept that
such rough and tumble was part of the viva publica of Roma antiqua. I
embrace Roma antiqua, warts and all, and I think we would be better for
it here if we emulated the thicker skins of our Roman forefathers.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is Idus Februarii; the day is nefastus publicus, and the Feria
Fauni in Insula and the Feria Parentaliae. The Feria Fauni in insula
commemorates the establishment of a temple to Faunus by the Aediles
Plebeii in 296 BCE, funded by fines on those who had not paid rent on
the ager publicus they held. Faunus, often associated with the Greek
Pan, was a woodland deity and protector of herds and crops. It is
believed that a ritual dance similar to that of the Salii was part of
the rituals associated with this feria and some scholars believe there
is a connection between the rites of Faunus and the Lupercalia,
although more recent scholarship casts doubt on this theory. The
Parentalia, or dies parentales, began at the six hour of the day, and
commenced a period of reverence for the Di Manes and Di Parentales
lasting until the Feralia on Feb. 21.

The Dies Parentales were not official holidays, although all temples
were closed, no weddings could be held during the period, and
magistrates abandonned the dress and symbols of their offices. The
ceremonies opened on Feb. 12 with a parentatio sacrifice at the tomb
of the Vestal Tarpeia by the Vestals. Parentationes were observed at
the tombs of deceased family members with offerings of bread, salt,
wine, and wreaths of flowers (roses and violets were often offered)
and a communal meal shared with the departed parentales. It is
uncertain whether the nundinum associated with the dies parentales
involved parentationes by each family on every day or simply provided
a sufficiently long period of time that all families might observe the
parentatio ritual without overcrowding in the necropolis outside the
city. An official state holiday was observed on Feb. 21, the Feralia,
during which the religious authorities made parentatio offerings on
behalf of the state and families frequently repeated the parentatio
offerings made earlier during the dies parentales.

The Idus was sacred to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus; the Flamen Dialis
sacrificed a white ewe to Iuppiter on each Idus.

Tomorrow is ante diem XVII Kalendae Martii; the day is nefastus and
the Feria Iunonis Februrae and Feria Parentaliae. Epigraphic evidence
indicates that the second day of the dies parentales was also observed
as the Feria Iunonis Februrae, the mother of Mars and patroness of
marital passion; however, Ovid implies this feria occured earlier in
the month (_Fasti_ ii.19-34), suggesting that wheat, salt, and
branches of olive or pine trees were involved in the rites.
Unfortunately scholarship has not been successful in elucidating
further the caerimonia associated with this feria nor the
contradiction between the sources.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Here's a link to "Catulli Carmina: Text with Comments":

http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/Texts/catullus3.html

This is William Harris' excellent introduction to the poetry of
Catullus, including a very vivid translation of Carmen LXIII.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus Servio Equitio Mercurio Troiano salutem dicit.

Salve, Serv. Equiti.

> In large measure these were both said and written down for 'shock

value', not because they were considered exemplary in any way.

Charitably put, this is an admission of ignorance.

> While such behaviour did indeed occur, keep in mind that most of

these men were murdered by their opponents - an indication that they
went too far or insulted the wrong person. Every system has its
checks and balances, and in Ancient Rome going too far with anything
was frequently fatal.

Of the people whose invective (or who were the object of invective) I
mentioned in my post, only Cicero and Caesar were assassinated. M.
Antonius died by his own hand in a civil war which was at least as
much a result of the inevitable confrontation between Egyptian and
Roman ambitions in the East as late Republican internecine conflict.
L. Scribonius Rufinus died in his bed (and in the Middle Republic, not
the Late); we don't know who scrawled the grafitto. Sulla died of
natural causes, as did Marius -- although both were certainly
responsible for more than their share of political violence. Tiberius
died of natural causes -- scholarship has established beyond
reasonable doubt that the story of Macro smothering him is
anti-Iulio-Claudian propaganda. We have no idea how Suetonius died,
but there is no indication it was violently. I could have quoted
another dozen examples of obscene invective from the Middle Republic
(Scipio Aemillianus' predilection for things Greek produced some very
rude verses by his opponents about "Greek" his tastes were; and I
doubt an epigraphic reference to "Scipio Africunnus" was an illiterate
stonecutter's error). Verse villifying Tarquinius Superbus is among
the earliest fragments of Latin poetry from the Republican period.

> Invective may have been to some extent a tradition, but so was

having your political opponents clubbed to death like baby seals, or
demogoguery ending with someone being torn apart by an angry mob.

The sources show in the three most infamous cases of riotous public
political violence in Roman Republican history -- the murders of the
brothers Gracchi and the Clodius-Milo riots -- no evidence of
precipitating obscene invective. And like most people whose knowledge
of Roman Republican history is superficial, you fixate on a relatively
small number of violent political incidents while ignoring the rather
long periods of time in which political invective was commonplace
without any accompanying civil disorder.

> Such terms weren't used for entertainment or local colour - these

weren't "shock jocks" and it wasn't a sit-com: These men were out to
destroy their opponents - often permanently.

The technical term for this is "human nature." Do you think George
Bush wants the "evildoers" any less dead than Osama bin Laden wants
Bush and "the Great Satan"? Or that Sir William Howe was any less
ready to hang George Washington than Tom Paine was to advocate
regicide? Serious disagreements over matters of principle sometimes
lead to violence. Hell, minor disagreements over cans of beer in
American bars lead to violence even more often. We are not a species
naturally given to permanent amity.

> The words exchanged don't stand alone - they are accompanied by

the violence that almost always followed. Through such exchanges -
both verbal and violent - governments fell, people fell, and
ultimately the Republic fell.

Actually, if you examine the sources in their original languages, you
will find that such words were usually accompanied by similar words in
reply and no violence at all. Your notion of the reasons for the fall
of the Republic is a caricature.

> This is the tradition we want to appeal to in order to build a

Republic? How absurd.

I have noted since you joined our republic a tendency on your part to
mount your high horse and lecture others on matters about which you
evidence little knowledge. Until now I've tended to regard it with
the amusement that Calpurnius Siculus showed toward midgets astride
stallions in the Circus Maximus, an afternoon's minor diversion.
Roman Republican political culture was not the mamby-pamby,
politically correct pipedream you imagine Nova Roma should be. When
you show me the slightest evidence that you actually have a command of
the relevant sources, I'll take instruction from you on the role of
invective in Roman political life. Until then, to paraphrase
Catullus, pedica sese.

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

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

> No one is forcing anybody to do anything. With Pater Potestas
> suspended by Censor edictum, that stopped Paterfamilias to compel
> any one to remain in their Gens.
> So no one can force anyone to stay where they are now.

Patria potestas (note spelling, once again) has never existed in Nova
Roma as such, so it has not been suspended. Some bylaws were enacted
because, in the past, some people had used their magisterial powers
to force citizens to stay in a gens where they did not want to stay,
although no law at all said that they could do that.

In any case, I am afraid that your friend, the senator Sulla,
proposed exactly such a thing: (quoting) "all Paters of a multi
person Gens who WISHED to do so freeing all Gens members to form
indiviual families". Note the word "freeing" there; like if the
members of a gens were not free citizens. That means that he must
think that he *can* force people to stay.

You can check it in message nº 20756 of this very same mailing list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/20756

> When I discussed this Lex with Labienus, (ye gods was it two years
> ago?), we wanted to insure some Paters rights were protected.
> After all we were trying to be Roman here.

The system you are defending has nothing to do with the Romans.
And T. Labienus Fortunatus actually proposed a reform that is the
same one I am proposing (except in minor details, perhaps), and you,
of course, opposed it. I was there, senator. You can not trick *me*.

> I suspect that many filiusfamilias will want the status quo.

My proposal would allow them to choose to keep their status quo. But
it would give *them* the choice. Each one of them. I still fail to
understand how that can be depicted as "forcing someone", while
defending that a gens leader should make that choice for other people
is "defending someone's rights".

> I also believe based on the current number of private e-mails I
> have received, people are confused as heck on this issue, and if
> the vote was held today, the measure would be defeated.

So you misteriously have received messages from 500 citizens asking
*you* to speak in their name.

Please allow me to doubt it.

> So, what I wanted was if the filiusfamilias wishes to stay with is
> current Pater, nothing needed to be done, after the revision was
> passed to remain.

Under my proposal, all that such a person would need to do would be
sending *one* e-mail to the censores saying "I want to join this
person's familia". That's it. End of story.

> This insured all that be time, and effort that the Pater went
> through forming and maintaining his Gens, would be rewarded.

So the founder of a gens should be "rewarded" for his efforts with
*power* over the people who joined that gens unknowing that such a
power could be exerted against them. With the power to force them to
stay where they do not want to be.

You have a pretty peculiar concept of "reward", senator.

> I suspected that many filiusfamilias will want the status quo.
> I also believe based on the current number of private e-mails I
> have received, people are confused as heck on this issue, and if
> the vote was held today, the measure would be defeated.

You are repeating yourself, senator. And not just in this message.

> Those who wanted to start separate families, could do so, but they
> had to inform the Censors of the fact, and they had to have a
> cogonomen added to designate it from the original. It did not have
> to be their own cogonomen. And that's it. Pretty simple.
> The current lex does not reflect this.

When you say "the current lex", are you referring to my proposal?
Because *that* is exactly what my proposal says, senator. Read it
again, please:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/20673

> Worse it is missing many parts that are important.
> This explains why the Consuls did the end run around the Senate.

No. That is explained by the fact that a huge majority of the Senate
supports this reform. That is why senator Sulla blocked its voting
and even its discussion in the Senate when he was consul.

> Any time the a government tries to legislate a change, it also
> becomes more complicated then it should be.

I have news for you, senator: as Nova Roma grows, it will become more
complex.

In any case, the reason why this is more complicated than it should
be is because the proposal makes an effort to *respect* the will of
the citiziens. If this had been done right from the very beginning,
or if it had been corrected three or four years ago, it would have
been much simpler. But there you were, opposing Roman tradition back
then as well.

> You newcomers here have no idea the effort put in to get Gens
> started and maintained. So I can't expect you to understand why I
> am so adamant against this issue.

Senator; I know several "newcomers" like me that have founded and
mantained a gens since *three years ago*. For example, the founder of
gens Aelia Baetica is a good friend of mine.

In any case, no matter how much effort you may have put into your
gens, it does not grant you the power to force other adult citizens
to do something they do not want to do. At least, unless they
explicitly accept your patria potestas (note spelling), something
they haven't done yet.

Under my proposal, those who wanted to be included in your familia
and to accept your patria potestas would be allowed to do so. But
knowing full well what kind of relationship they are getting into.

You just want the parts of Roman tradition that would increase your
personal power, while you disregard the rest. It doesn't work like
that, senator.

> It is that we simply are not ready, and I expect to see mass
> resignations once this starts.

Here you go again. The Old Scary Mass Resignation.
Frankly, senator, I do not expect too many messages like: "I am
resigning my citizenship because I do not want to join my gens
leader's familia by having to write a letter to the censores; I want
to be *forced* to do it whether I like it or not! This is because I
care about my gens so much. So much, in fact, that I am going to
leave Nova Roma for ever and never again have any kind of contact
with my old gens mates" :-).

S.V.B.E.E.V.
CN.SALIX.T.F.A.NEP.OVF.ASTVR

Salvete omnes, especially C. Minuci Scaevola, L. Corneli Sulla, C. Iuli
Scaure, S. Equiti Mercuri Troiane, A. Apolloni Corde and everybody else with
interest in this issue!

I invite you to move further discussion into this thread so we don't hijack
the Contio thread.

First off, let me draw your attention to the fact that we have a Senior
Praetor as well. I do not speak for him, and if you feel treated unfairly by
me, you might want to talk to him. I will be happy to bow to his judgement
then.

Second, the question has arisen if and when and on whom moderated status
should be imposed.
I do believe in free speech, and setting people to moderated status will be
the last measure I take, to avert damage from the community.
Of course, this does not mean that I will ignore violations of the guidelines.
I will be here, contacting people in private, and trying to keep the forum as
civil as possible.
On a sidenote, we do have the Lex Salicia Poenalis in place. § XIV deals with
calumniae, and I would be happy to conduct a trial. If someone feels
personally offended, just drop me a petitio actionis.

Third, I promised to reply to a message by C. Minucius Scaevola. Here are a
few thoughts of mine:
| Ah... I'll leave this one explicitly unaddressed, praetor, because I
| believe that you deserve time to reconsider this response and because I
| believe, from our private correspondence, that you _are_ trying your
| best to do your job.
Thank you for believing in my good intentions. I did not intend to say that
you have no right to complain.

| > Because I did not see any repeated gross violation of the list guidelines
| > by L. Cornelius Sulla in my term of office.
| Presumably, this means that all problems end when a new term of office
| begins - is that right?
No, the problems do not end, unfortunately. However, I don't think that it is
my job to deal with offenses that happened under the jurisdiction of my
predecessors. Or do you think that I should skim through the archives and
deal out punishments for posts from years ago?

| To bring things down from the general to the specific, I do not believe
| that I did anything more than Athanasious did in his post. If my post is
| out of line, then so is his (and based on the general tenor of what is
| normal on this list, I don't believe that either one is.)
Here we agree basically. Neither one was overly pleasant and friendly, but on
the other hand, neither one was blatantly unacceptable and harmful to the
community.

| However, if
| Sulla chooses to point fingers, I shall happily take him up on it
Which is your right, of course.

| Do those with titles, no matter how spurious, get to lord it over the
| rest of us here?
I surely hope not, and I thank you for making me aware that this is the
impression that some might have.

| If my - very mild, by comparison - response to
| Athanasious merits notice, then I'm more than interested in the reason.
You are not on moderated status. Your post was not really worse than those of
others. So much to "merits notice".

| whenever I contact a magistrate of Nova Roma with a
| concern, I do indeed want a response unless I explicitly state otherwise.
Noted.

| A. Apollonius Cordus may well be right; the design of this particular
| engine may well be at fault. If so, then measures to fix it need to be
| taken _here and now,_ in the public eye where the citizens of Nova Roma
| can be assured of fair treatment for the future.
Yes, A. Apollonius raised very valid points. This thread is here for
suggestions.

| My response in which I stated that I would be contacting the praetors
| shortly, although it was not directly addressed to you, was also made in
| public and concerned QFMs posts. Was the necessity to keep things calm
| absent then?
Right now, we are having a hot and important debate. This is why the necessity
to keep things calm seemed rather urgent to me now.

| Nope. If someone insults me and is not moderated as a result, I take
| that as the moderators' statement of acceptance - and will have a field
| day all my own. If, as a result, _I_ am moderated, then I'll want to
| know why the original poster isn't. That's about the range of it for me;
| insults don't bother me that much.
You are not moderated.

| *Injustice,* on the other hand, outrages me. This definitely includes
| special rules for privileged subgroups.
I noticed that you are outraged, and I am sorry for it. There are no special
rules, and I really do try to be fair. However, I do not think that the line
where moderation would cause less damage to the republic than free speech has
been crossed lately. Not by you, not by others.

Please, *everybody*, do not take this as a carte blanche for the future. As I
said, the Gens Reform debate is hot enough. Adding a "mudwrestling match" to
it could really cause damage to the republic, and that would be the point for
me to reconsider the lenience policy. Please try to remain as civil as
possible and do not provoke others.

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

Salvete iterum omnes, especially everybody with interest in this issue!

Warning: The following is a feeble attempt to add a bit of serenity to this
issue.

Somebody told me in a private message that the Romans were indeed rude. C.
Iulius Scaurus has provided some examples that prove this.
However, I urge each and everyone not to choose rudeness as the preferred
means to enhance his or her Romanitas. Let's try to be civil!

--
Optime vale!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

Salve, Gnaeus Salix Astur -

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:33:22AM -0000, Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
>
> > I also believe based on the current number of private e-mails I
> > have received, people are confused as heck on this issue, and if
> > the vote was held today, the measure would be defeated.
>
> So you misteriously have received messages from 500 citizens asking
> *you* to speak in their name.
>
> Please allow me to doubt it.

Just as a side note, QFM's tactic is usually referred to as "the lurkers
support me in email" in the Usenet culture. It's a common attempt to
create an impression of support where none exists - is in fact a
*definite* indication that none exists - and is always met with the
laughter it deserves.


Optime Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes.
It is foolish to fear what you cannot avoid.
-- Cicero, "De officiis"

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

Perhaps we could cut down on unnecessary demands on the praetors if we simply loosened our restrictions during two periods, namely during contio and during annual elections. I am not proposing that we all use such unrestrained insults about sexual habits or relations with our mothers or sheep on the ML but we could reasonably expect expressions such as: 'jackal', 'a**hole', 'lying sack of horse dung', 'curmudgeon', 'blockhead', 'Stalinist',
'dictatorial SoB', 'overbearing bastard', 'elitist s***head',
'Minimus', 'boor', 'conniving backstabber', 'cranial-anal inversion problem', 'hypocritical d***head'.
Usually these periods are the only time that our citizens have a real problem controlling themselves. Of course, we would have to restrain from saying someone else is a blasphemer or oath-breaker because those are very serious charges. Also, a suggestion that a magistrate is corrupt or has released confidential information would be completely out of line and would require a strong response from the praetors and, if repeated, a petitio filed against the miscreant responsible. Ditto for suggesting that Nova Roma is a waste of time or is so unhistorical as to be a joke insults our entire status as a potentially sovereign entity. Especially when the Constitution specifically cites that the period that we recognize as cognizant for our Republic covers 1,158 years which includes the Monarchy, Republic, Principate, and Empire.

On the matter of oaths, a Senator recently told me that members of the Senate do not take an oath of office like the magistrates and pontiffs/augurs/flamens/sacerdos do. Is this true? If it is true, why not? The Senate and certain Priesthoods are for life (or until a person resigns from Nova Roma and never returns) and it seems to me that the strongest of all possible oaths should be sworn by those individuals who are taking a post for life. This oath should not merely include a statement that the individual swears to do no harm to Nova Roma but should swear to abide by all of the laws, edicts, and decrees of Nova Roma without condition and to make sure that all the other members of the Senate or Sacred College abide by those laws also. The Romans and Greeks of old swore strong oaths as magistrates, as jurors, and as individuals. Lycurgus wrote of the oath that a young Athenian took as an ephebe (military cadet):

"I will not bring shame upon these sacred weapons nor will I abandon my comrade-in-arms wherever I stand in the ranks. I will defend both the holy and profane things. I will not hand on the fatherland smaller than I received it, but larger and better, so far as it lies in my power with the assistance of all the other citizens. I will obey the officials who govern wisely and the laws, both those which are already established and those which are wisely established in the future. If anyone attempts to destroy them, I will not allow it, so far as it lies in my power with the assistance of all the other citizens. I will hold in honor the ancestral sanctuaries. The following gods are witnesses: Aglaurus, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalius, Ares, Athena Areia, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone, Heracles, the territory of the fatherland, the wheat, barley, vines, olive-trees, and fig-trees."

Perhaps the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus should propose to the Senate and the Sacred College the creation of a very strong and thorough oath that would bind those that take a post for life under the Gods of Rome and their personal God or Gods, the Lares, the Penates, the Genius & Iuno of their gentes, the Manes, the Sacred Urbes and all that they hold sacred and profane. I cannot believe that anyone who truly wishes to support Nova Roma and the Spirit of Old Rome would not want such an oath to be sworn by our highest leaders and holy persons.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus D. IunioPalladio salutem dicit.

Salve, D. Iuni amice.

>Indeed you are right, though whether the origins of the term are
>barbaric, I don't know. I find definition two and its specific
>reference to the Britons interesting. Hopefully someone can shed
>light on that.
>
>Certainly however it makes the term Roman enough for the use it is
>given in the law in question.
>

The associaation of the term "oppidum" sspecifically with settlements
arises from a legal compromise promulgated by Claudius during the
conquest of Britannia. The two usual forms of legally-recognised Roman
settlements in the Latin West were colonia and municipia. However,
Allied Britonic kings wanted some form of legal recognition of the
village fortifications, usually on hilltops, from which they ruled; the
term "oppidum" was applied to these settlements, granting to the
Britonic kings Roman citizenship (much like the decuriones of a
municipium receivedfull citizenship), but without the Latin rights for
other residents of municipia which were cusstomary in Roman law. I know
there is epigraphic evidence for this phenomenon and I vaguely recall
that Tacitus mentions it in his Agricola (but I don't have my copy of
Agricola right at hand to check).

Vale.

G. Iulius Scaurus

>
>

Salve, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus praetor!

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus wrote:
> Salvete omnes, especially C. Minuci Scaevola, L. Corneli Sulla, C. Iuli
> Scaure, S. Equiti Mercuri Troiane, A. Apolloni Corde and everybody else with
> interest in this issue!
>
> I invite you to move further discussion into this thread so we don't hijack
> the Contio thread.

An excellent idea, sir; that way, those who are disinterested can
implement that "filter by thread" feature.

> First off, let me draw your attention to the fact that we have a Senior
> Praetor as well. I do not speak for him, and if you feel treated unfairly by
> me, you might want to talk to him. I will be happy to bow to his judgement
> then.

As I've said before, I do not have any doubt of your good intentions.
Please accept my apologies if I've given that impression. However, I'm
initially appealing to you as an effort to avoid invoking the Lex
Salicia Poenalis because I believe that this issue can be settled here
by simply adhering to the guidelines in the case of QFMs gross and
repeated violations; if he is moderated, I will take no further steps.
If and only if I cannot get satisfaction here will I advance to the next
step; I do not wish to leap past anyone that could help resolve it at
the initial levels.

> Second, the question has arisen if and when and on whom moderated status
> should be imposed.
> I do believe in free speech, and setting people to moderated status will be
> the last measure I take, to avert damage from the community.
> Of course, this does not mean that I will ignore violations of the guidelines.
> I will be here, contacting people in private, and trying to keep the forum as
> civil as possible.
> On a sidenote, we do have the Lex Salicia Poenalis in place. § XIV deals with
> calumniae, and I would be happy to conduct a trial. If someone feels
> personally offended, just drop me a petitio actionis.

It may well come down to being the only answer. Now that Sulla has
disturbed the beehive, so to speak, I fully intend to pursue something
I'd held off on previously. Their insults - to me, to Franciscus Apulus
Caesar, to Troianus, to Marinus, to F. Galerius Aurelianus, to all of
Nova Roma in general and to her institutions in particular - have been
allowed to go on for too long, and that *is* an example of privilege
whether it was intended that way or not. It's not just a question of
feeling insulted any longer; it is a question of a political party that
feels themselves to be immune from list policy under the shelter of
/noblesse oblige/, and this cannot be allowed to go on.

> | > Because I did not see any repeated gross violation of the list guidelines
> | > by L. Cornelius Sulla in my term of office.
> | Presumably, this means that all problems end when a new term of office
> | begins - is that right?
> No, the problems do not end, unfortunately. However, I don't think that it is
> my job to deal with offenses that happened under the jurisdiction of my
> predecessors. Or do you think that I should skim through the archives and
> deal out punishments for posts from years ago?

Not at all. Their violations are recent and continuous, and this is why
I pursue the matter. I suppose that there should be some sort of a time
limit, but none is stated in the guidelines; however, in this case, even
the most charitable time limit would not suffice.

> | If my - very mild, by comparison - response to
> | Athanasious merits notice, then I'm more than interested in the reason.
> You are not on moderated status. Your post was not really worse than those of
> others. So much to "merits notice".

Oh, I wasn't equating moderation and notice; notice, to me, simply means
official cognizance.

> | A. Apollonius Cordus may well be right; the design of this particular
> | engine may well be at fault. If so, then measures to fix it need to be
> | taken _here and now,_ in the public eye where the citizens of Nova Roma
> | can be assured of fair treatment for the future.
> Yes, A. Apollonius raised very valid points. This thread is here for
> suggestions.

Let's see... where to start... :) I'll give it some hard thought and
perhaps post separately.

> | Nope. If someone insults me and is not moderated as a result, I take
> | that as the moderators' statement of acceptance - and will have a field
> | day all my own. If, as a result, _I_ am moderated, then I'll want to
> | know why the original poster isn't. That's about the range of it for me;
> | insults don't bother me that much.
> You are not moderated.

It was a demonstrative scenario, nothing more; intended to show how a
balanced situation would go, from my perspective.

> | *Injustice,* on the other hand, outrages me. This definitely includes
> | special rules for privileged subgroups.
> I noticed that you are outraged, and I am sorry for it. There are no special
> rules, and I really do try to be fair. However, I do not think that the line
> where moderation would cause less damage to the republic than free speech has
> been crossed lately. Not by you, not by others.

This is, perhaps, the largest part of the problem I'm seeing, and goes
along with what A. Apollonius Cordus brought up; "the problem with
unwritten rules is that you never know where to go to erase them." Or to
read them, for that matter. There's no way to know what the enforcement
policy is if it's not stated anywhere; if your limit is "damage to the
republic", this at least gives a broad outline where there has been
nothing but darkness. I truly do not wish to be a "rules lawyer", but
people that abuse the system purposely and repeatedly need to be
restrained - as a warning to others if nothing else. Those who are
incapable of understanding the lesson simply need to be restrained for
the protection of others.

> Please, *everybody*, do not take this as a carte blanche for the future. As I
> said, the Gens Reform debate is hot enough. Adding a "mudwrestling match" to
> it could really cause damage to the republic, and that would be the point for
> me to reconsider the lenience policy. Please try to remain as civil as
> possible and do not provoke others.

I'll do my best. However, I would like to hear back from you on this
enforcement matter - privately, if you prefer - because I fully intend
to pursue it as long as necessary to get satisfaction and a definite
result that I can show to the public. I believe that many people would
want to actually *see* justice done in this case; I'm not the only one
tired of their attacks.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ars longa, vita brevis.
Art is long, life is short.
-- Seneca, "De brevitate vitae"