---> And if they are designed to curb a Woman's choice of name,
but not a

> Man's. What is that called?.....
>
> Thank you for your Time.
> Merlinia Ambrosia Artorii(Well, I choose it in 1972)

Salve Merlinia Ambrosia;
I want to say first that I am NOT speaking in my capacity as scriba,
but that the idea that women are getting a harder time than men is
entirely mistaken.
Right now men have the choice of praenomen- nomen-cognomen &
agnomen. And that is it, there is also a limited choice of permitted
praenomen.
Women have the choice of
1.praenomen-nomen-cognomen, Gaia Ambrosia Fausta
2. nomen-nomen; Fabia Ambrosia,
3.nomen only; Ambrosia,
4.nomen-cognomen; Ambrosia Fausta,
5.nomen-nomen-nomen; Fabia Ambrosia Aurelia

and I am sure I have left out more, then there is the problem of
people not choosing Latin praenomen.... So from all those examples
which you can see for yourself in Nova Roma, onamastically women have
far more choice;).
bene vale
Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta (praenomen, nomen, cognomen)

Salve Quintiliane,

The problem is not, I think, the reforms you are proposing but the
fact that you are enforcing them before publishing the new
requirements. As I understand it, you are asking all new female
applicants to choose a female version of one of the standard male
praenomina. But, you have not yet published an edict on the subject;
you are just doing it. The name you recently rejected for one female
applicant is the Roman form of a Greek personal name. You rejected it
because it doesn't appear on the list of male praenomina.

Also, it doesn't help that the initial rejection to the applicant was
a curt advice to read the website. The website has a nice overview of
women's names in Roma Antiqua, but nothing about choosing a woman's
name in Nova Roma. Nor, if you stand by your principle of reform,
would you be allowing women in a different gens to choose the names
given on the website.

I applaud your desire for reform, but I think you need to re-think
your plan of enforcing a change before you publish an edict on the
new standard.

Vale,
C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

> Salve Honorable Merlinia Ambrosia Artorii!
>
> I would be delighted to discuss the issue of Roman names with You.
> Although I must ask You to forgive my English as I am not a native
> English speaker. My native language is Swedish.
>
> I have been a Censor for nearly four months, I haven't got any real
> introduction to the tasks of the Censor and there exists no real
> guidelines for the work exept the list of names on
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html. During the elections

I

> promised to work for more correct Roman names in Nova Roma,

something

> that doesn't seem too much to ask.
>
> My Scribae have got the instruction to try to get new citizens to
> choose Roman names from the Republican period. The base for this is
> the list of Roman names on
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html but this list seem to
> be a bit problematic and to create proper guidiance to applicants

for

> citizenship I have appointed two Scribae that are researching male
> and female names (praenomen, nomen and cognomen) so that I can
> publish a edict which better can guide applicants on how to apply

for

> a Roman name. This work is expected to be done in about two or

three

> months, faster if possible
>
> If one checks the Album Gentium one will find a lot of names that
> could be taken from any fantasy novel but not from Roman history.

To

> give You an example someone has applied for "Loadstar" as

praenomen.

> As You understand this isn't possible to approve. When one start to
> research the rules one will discover more than one problem with

Roman

> names. It becomes a question of where to draw the line and now and
> then even rather sensible names will have to be under scrutiny.
>
> Female name are more complicated that is true, the reason is that
> women in Roma Antiqua where not treated equally not even when it

came

> to names, but in Nova Roma we have equal rights for women. This

leads

> to the fact that the female names from Roma Antiqua must be

analysed

> thoroughly and if possible some kind of principle must be derived
> from the Roman republican traditions. This is a hard task and to do
> this now before the new guidelins will continue to be difficult
> sometimes.
>
> We have once and again made sensible compromises with applicants

that

> can present a sensible solution and will contine to do so until the
> research is over and the new edictum with guidelines is published.
>
> When it comes to the female applicant to your Gens I think we will

be

> able to find a solution soon as I got a very interesting proposal
> today. Have You seen that proposal? I have been ockupied with a
> youngster with plans of suicide, but hope to be able to deal with
> this proposal as soon as possible.
>
> Let me assure You that my Cohors is working very hard to create
> correct and understandable rules. I am sure that no one expect us

to

> approve anything. I also am sure that most understand that there

will

> be difficult judgements to do as long as the guidelinees look as

they

> do. Of course we could choose to only approve names from the

existing

> list, but then we would have to disapprove reasonable and

historical

> proposals.
>
> >Salvete, All. Merlinia Ambrosia here, with an Observation.
> >
> > It seems that some of the new members are having trouble with
> >choosing names.
>
> Some have nameproposals that are very unRoman.
>
> > Apparently, there will be a new system for choosing one. The

rules

> >are not now on the website, and haven't apparently been passed

through

> >due process of Law.
>
> That is correct. I am using the present rules and guidelines and at
> times I also give advise to make a more historical change which
> mostly is well take by the applicants.
>
> > But they are making people use them now, by saying, no, you

can't

> >have that name. Try again.
>
> Yes we sometimes start a discussion, I think that is sensible and
> mostly the applicants agree and will get their name very fast.
>
> > They seem to be doing it to women.
>
> Not more than to men and often to give women the same right as men.
> That is to use the "tria nomina system" (praenomen. nomen and
> cognomen). Still we are not convinced that we will propose that
> system for women in all instances.
>
> > Now, If they aren't on the books/Web, how can they be

understood,

> >let alone be legal?
>
> They are on the web, look at the page above, but as some apllicants
> have reasonable proposals we also allow a name that are not there

if

> they have a historical base. I don't think that we are unreasonable
> at all. My Scribae are hardworking and I supervise their work
> closely, I really think that most applicants are satisfied with the
> service that we give.
>
> > And if they are designed to curb a Woman's choice of name,

but not a

> >Man's. What is that called?.....
>
> In what way are we handling men different from women? I would say
> that we are rather trying to give women equal rights and treatment.
>
> >Thank you for your Time.
> >Merlinia Ambrosia Artorii(Well, I choose it in 1972)
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salvete Quirites, et salve Ambrosi Artori,

You wrote, addressing Censor Fabius Quintillianus:

> The problem is not, I think, the reforms you are proposing but the
> fact that you are enforcing them before publishing the new
> requirements.

While I certainly agree with you, Artori, that it is a sub-optimal way
for the Censor to proceed, I'll add that the Censors have always had
broad powers to accept or reject proposed names. I think this is the
basis of authority under which the Censor has been proceeding. Censors
are the highest ranking magistrates of our Republic, and like their
counterparts in antiquity, they are at liberty to do pretty much as they
choose.

What I would suggest to my esteemed friend (and former Aedilean colleague)
would be the publication of an interim edictum which simply advises that
prospective citizens should contact the Censors with respect to possible
names while more permanent rules are being developed. That way the sense
of uncertainty will be reduced.

Artori, I would ask you to please pass along to your sister my deepest
regrets about her unfortunate experience. I would implore her to work
with the Censors to resolve this issue.

--
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

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

> Salvete omnes.
>
> One must take into account that there were four cities, Pompeii,
> Herculaneum, Oplontis and Stabiae where the Roman intelligentsia

of the

> time had large villas with libraries in them. These cities started

to

> get buried by Vesuvius August 24th of 79 c.e. at noon. They became

time

> capsules. Today there is no evidence whatsoever of Jesus, his

ministry,

> his dogma etc in those cities

Salve,

The absence of "christian literature" real only proves that the
owners of the villas probably were not Christians. Given the time
frame there were very few Christians amongst the elite of Rome.
Those very few elite who were Christians were not so stupid as to
leave evidence of being members of a radical outlaw group lying
about their homes where prying eyes could report them back to the
authorities during the next wave of persecution.

As for Constantine that he used Christianity for the political
purpose of uniting a badly divided polyglot empire is beyond
dispute. However to say that Constantine invented Christianity and
the figure of Jesus is historically incorrect as Christianity as a
religious movement pre-existed Constantine by well over 250 years.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I have no doubt that there was once a person
called Siddartha Gautama who was a philosopher who became known as
the Buddha and founded Buddhism. Siddartha Gautama doesn't have the
added baggage of also being diety incarnate that Christian doctrine
attaches to Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe that lack of divine baggage
makes it a little easier to believe that there was once a person
named Siddartha Gautama who founded a philosophy/theology despite
the lack of hard archaeological evidence that Siddartha Gautama ever
really existed at all.

In 2000 years I'd be surprised that anyone would be able to find any
archaeological evidence that I ever existed, but that doesn't mean
that I don't exist now.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Marine, and thanks for your gentle admonition. I will relay
your judgment, and the Censor's. No doubt some sort of solution will
be found, although I fear that damage has been done that will not be
so easily repaired. I will take some time to think -- I'm still
incredulous that a name documented in Tacitus is considered not to be
a proper Roman name.

Vale,
C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Ambrosi Artori,
>
> You wrote, addressing Censor Fabius Quintillianus:
>
> > The problem is not, I think, the reforms you are proposing but the
> > fact that you are enforcing them before publishing the new
> > requirements.
>
> While I certainly agree with you, Artori, that it is a sub-optimal
way
> for the Censor to proceed, I'll add that the Censors have always
had
> broad powers to accept or reject proposed names. I think this is
the
> basis of authority under which the Censor has been proceeding.
Censors
> are the highest ranking magistrates of our Republic, and like their
> counterparts in antiquity, they are at liberty to do pretty much as
they
> choose.
>
> What I would suggest to my esteemed friend (and former Aedilean
colleague)
> would be the publication of an interim edictum which simply advises
that
> prospective citizens should contact the Censors with respect to
possible
> names while more permanent rules are being developed. That way the
sense
> of uncertainty will be reduced.
>
> Artori, I would ask you to please pass along to your sister my
deepest
> regrets about her unfortunate experience. I would implore her to
work
> with the Censors to resolve this issue.
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Salvete omnes;
this issue of women's names is a fascinating one, and takes an
immense amount of research to come up with material.
I so far have found one important resource

M. Kajan "Roman Female Praenomen" Studies in the Nomenclature of
Roman Women, Rome, 1994, (Acts Instituti Romani Finlandiae 14)
This entire volume of some 289 pages is devoted to women's names.
The Finnish classicists have made onamastic studies a specialty. I
cannot get it in Hibernia but Caius Curius Saturninus in Helsinki was
kind enough to go out of his way to get this volume and offer to scan
some material for me. Especially the chapter "The Nomenclature of
Roman Women in the Republican Period - General Outlines."
It is very frustrating that the fruits of my research are near & so
far, if Nova Roma wants to send me, I'm free;)
vale Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta

Salve Censor,

I Recall former Censor Sulla spending a large ammount of time drafting
a handbook for the use of future Censors while he was in office. If
you contact him I'm sure he'll send you a copy.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

>
> I have been a Censor for nearly four months, I haven't got any real
> introduction to the tasks of the Censor and there exists no real
> guidelines for the work exept the list of names on
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html.

Salve Honorable C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus!

I must say that I am a bit surprised with You going public with our
discussion about the name of your sister. You have sent me a new
proposal for a name only five hours ago that I find rather
interesting, but as You understand I feel I have to check it out and
You haven't told me if there is an approval on your side. Please also
be aware of the fact that I live in Sweden and it is night here. Now
I will have to go to bed and will only be able to return to the
computer in ten to eleven hours.

I will _not_ discuss your or any other case publicly and advise you
to contact me privately to solve this issue! I just want to remind
You that You have sent me very grateful mails ten days ago because of
my fast handling of your own case. I am a bit surprised that You have
become so disappointed in such a short time.

>Salve Marine, and thanks for your gentle admonition. I will relay
>your judgment, and the Censor's. No doubt some sort of solution will
>be found, although I fear that damage has been done that will not be
>so easily repaired. I will take some time to think -- I'm still
>incredulous that a name documented in Tacitus is considered not to be
>a proper Roman name.
>
>Vale,
>C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Senator!

Good idea, but I have already done so 13 days ago. The handbook is
rather outdated,but I like the idea and asked the former Censor to be
allowed to continue to work with it if I acknowledged his part in it.
I haven't recieved any answer yet and I guess that he isn't
interested. Now I guess I will have to re-create one from bottom up
myself.

By the way I already have the web address to the handbook.

>Salve Censor,
>
>I Recall former Censor Sulla spending a large ammount of time drafting
>a handbook for the use of future Censors while he was in office. If
>you contact him I'm sure he'll send you a copy.
>
>L. Sicinius Drusus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Gaius Modius Athanasius Caeso Fabio Quintiliano S.P.D.

I think making prospective citizens assume a fully Roman name is a most excellent fullfilment of the duties of the office of Censor. I know that it will be difficult doing the necessary research and work to ensure a proper Roman name for new citizens, but it will pay off in the long run.

I urge everyone to show some understanding to the Censors, I'm sure they will need some time to fully put together naming requirements. But this is a very necessary think within Nova Roma. I commend you Caeso Fabius for taking this position!

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/23/2004 7:27:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, christer.edling@... writes:

> If one checks the Album Gentium one will find a lot of names that
> could be taken from any fantasy novel but not from Roman history. To
> give You an example someone has applied for "Loadstar" as praenomen.
> As You understand this isn't possible to approve. When one start to
> research the rules one will discover more than one problem with Roman
> names. It becomes a question of where to draw the line and now and
> then even rather sensible names will have to be under
> scrutiny.

Ex Officio Censoris Iunioris Caesonis Fabii Quintiliani

Edictum Censoris CFQ VI about interim guidelines for choosing Roman
names in Nova Roma

As I expect to issue a more comprehensive edictum about choosing
Roman names in Nova Roma I hereby issue the following interim edictum
to give applicants some guidance as how to choose names until the
permanent rules are established. This issue is very complicated so
there will still be some problems left, these will be solved by the
Censors and their Scribae from case to case.

I. Applicants for citizenship are directed to work with my Scribae to
find an acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the right to guide
applicants under my supervision.

II. Citizens that want to change names are also directed to work with
my Scribae to find a acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the
right to guide such citizens under my supervision. As the workload is
rather high these kind of name changes _may_ have lower priority
than applications from non-citizens to become citizens.

III. For the time being Nova Roma will not accept any new Gentes.

IV. The list of Roman names at
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html will function as
guidelines for the time being, but as there are problems with this
list, there is a need to be guided by the Scribae. This list may be
exchanged by a few more accurate lists in an new edictum during this
spring or summer.

V. When it comes to male name "tria nomina" (praenomen, nomen and
cognomen) are the rule. In some cases cognomina may be allowed.
Cognomina that are honorary can't be just adopted, but may need to be
assigned by the Censors or the Senate.

VI. When it comes to female names women have the choice of
A. Primarily, as a rule: 1.praenomen-nomen-cognomen
B. Secondary in _exceptional_ cases the Censors _may_ allow: 2.
nomen-nomen; 3.nomen only 4.nomen-cognomen, 5.nomen-nomen-nomen;

IX.. These rules apply until a new set of rules are established in a
more comprehensive Censorial edictum later this summer. Before the
new edictum is published the Senate and the Tribunes will be
consulted.

VIII. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given the 24th of April, in the year of the Consulship of Gnaeus
Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, 2757 AUC.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Quintiliane,

I believe you are taking a rather strong position here, and confusing
a number of different issues.

First, I sent you a proposal about 12 hours ago that I believe might
resolve the particular case in which I've become involved. If you did
not receive that proposal until 5 hours ago, that seems like a
plausible delay. I don't think you need to suddenly accuse me of not
leaving you enough time to consider that proposal. Consider it at
your leisure. No one is ready to act or not act at the moment, and no
one is asking you to make a precipitous decision.

Second, I did not take this issue public, although I contributed to
publicizing it after it was already public.

Third, I think you are conflating two separate issues. One issue,
which is properly private, is the issue of a particular name that you
have rejected. I am not asking you to discuss that case publicly.

The other issue is properly public -- whether it is fair for you to
apply, without publishing an edict, guidelines that make the choice
of names for women dramatically stricter than they've been in the
past. You are characterizing your approach as "advising" new
applicants, but in our private emails you have been clear that in
fact the rules have changed, that you are enforcing the change, and
that you don't feel the need to publish the change until your
research is complete. I think you are being arbitrary. Marinus has
pointed out that this is your prerogative. I accept that.

Finally, yes. My public thanks for acting so quickly when I asked you
to change my cognomen from Artorius to Artorus a week ago. Although,
I have to say that your consideration is rather diminished by your
later comment privately that the name is not proper and can only be
approved by your special dispensation.

I don't think you need to be surprised that pleasure has turned to
disappointment in such a short time. I think it is human nature to
become disillusioned when confronted with seemingly capricious
exercises of power, particularly when no explanation is offered.

Vale,
C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

> Salve Honorable C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus!
>
> I must say that I am a bit surprised with You going public with our
> discussion about the name of your sister. You have sent me a new
> proposal for a name only five hours ago that I find rather
> interesting, but as You understand I feel I have to check it out

and

> You haven't told me if there is an approval on your side. Please

also

> be aware of the fact that I live in Sweden and it is night here.

Now

> I will have to go to bed and will only be able to return to the
> computer in ten to eleven hours.
>
> I will _not_ discuss your or any other case publicly and advise

you

> to contact me privately to solve this issue! I just want to remind
> You that You have sent me very grateful mails ten days ago because

of

> my fast handling of your own case. I am a bit surprised that You

have

> become so disappointed in such a short time.
>
> >Salve Marine, and thanks for your gentle admonition. I will relay
> >your judgment, and the Censor's. No doubt some sort of solution

will

> >be found, although I fear that damage has been done that will not

be

> >so easily repaired. I will take some time to think -- I'm still
> >incredulous that a name documented in Tacitus is considered not to

be

> >a proper Roman name.
> >
> >Vale,
> >C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus
>
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Avete Omens,

The original Censor handbook is still available at the following address: http://home.earthlink.net/~alexious

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: Nova Roma Main List
Cc: Marcus Octavius Germanicus ; NR Announce ; Censor's Joint Office ; Cohors Censoris CFQ
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Edictum Censoris CFQ VI about interim guidelines for choosing Roman names in Nova Roma


Ex Officio Censoris Iunioris Caesonis Fabii Quintiliani

Edictum Censoris CFQ VI about interim guidelines for choosing Roman
names in Nova Roma

As I expect to issue a more comprehensive edictum about choosing
Roman names in Nova Roma I hereby issue the following interim edictum
to give applicants some guidance as how to choose names until the
permanent rules are established. This issue is very complicated so
there will still be some problems left, these will be solved by the
Censors and their Scribae from case to case.

I. Applicants for citizenship are directed to work with my Scribae to
find an acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the right to guide
applicants under my supervision.

II. Citizens that want to change names are also directed to work with
my Scribae to find a acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the
right to guide such citizens under my supervision. As the workload is
rather high these kind of name changes _may_ have lower priority
than applications from non-citizens to become citizens.

III. For the time being Nova Roma will not accept any new Gentes.

IV. The list of Roman names at
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html will function as
guidelines for the time being, but as there are problems with this
list, there is a need to be guided by the Scribae. This list may be
exchanged by a few more accurate lists in an new edictum during this
spring or summer.

V. When it comes to male name "tria nomina" (praenomen, nomen and
cognomen) are the rule. In some cases cognomina may be allowed.
Cognomina that are honorary can't be just adopted, but may need to be
assigned by the Censors or the Senate.

VI. When it comes to female names women have the choice of
A. Primarily, as a rule: 1.praenomen-nomen-cognomen
B. Secondary in _exceptional_ cases the Censors _may_ allow: 2.
nomen-nomen; 3.nomen only 4.nomen-cognomen, 5.nomen-nomen-nomen;

IX.. These rules apply until a new set of rules are established in a
more comprehensive Censorial edictum later this summer. Before the
new edictum is published the Senate and the Tribunes will be
consulted.

VIII. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given the 24th of April, in the year of the Consulship of Gnaeus
Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, 2757 AUC.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Oops I responded to the wrong post. Here is the proper thread for this response.

Vale,

Sulla

Avete Omens,

The original Censor handbook is still available at the following address: http://home.earthlink.net/~alexious

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: What's in a Nomen?


Salve Senator!

Good idea, but I have already done so 13 days ago. The handbook is
rather outdated,but I like the idea and asked the former Censor to be
allowed to continue to work with it if I acknowledged his part in it.
I haven't recieved any answer yet and I guess that he isn't
interested. Now I guess I will have to re-create one from bottom up
myself.

By the way I already have the web address to the handbook.

>Salve Censor,
>
>I Recall former Censor Sulla spending a large ammount of time drafting
>a handbook for the use of future Censors while he was in office. If
>you contact him I'm sure he'll send you a copy.
>
>L. Sicinius Drusus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

F. Galerius Aurelianus has asked me to post a report of a public
caerimonia of the Religio Romana for the Vinalia Priora which he
performed today. I am very pleased to do so and laud F. Galerius
Aurelianus for his pietas in volunteering to undertake this valuable
service.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

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

F. Galerius Aurelianus conducted this caerimonia at the 7th Pagan
Unity Festival on April 23, 2004 at 4:30 p.m.

Ritual of the Vinalia Prioria

I bathed in preparation, then, garbed in toga virilis, cinctu Gabino,
capite velato, I began the praefatio.

Praefatio

"Iane pater*, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi^ et Senatui Populoque Novaromanorum Quiritum
[Father Ianus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so
that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of the Novaromans, the Quirites]." I placed incense in the focus of
the altar.

"Iuno Regina*, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitia mihi^ et Senatui Populoque Novaromanorum Quiritum
[Queen Iuno, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so
that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of the Novaromans, the Quirites]." I placed incense in the focus of
the altar.

"Minerva Dea*, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitia mihi^ et Senatui Populoque Novaromanorum Quiritum
[Goddess Minerva, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and
People of the Novaromans, the Quirites]." I placed incense in the
focus of the altar.

"Mars pater*, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi^ et Senatui Populoque Novaromanorum Quiritum
[Father Mars, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers, so
that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and People
of the Novaromans, the Quirites]." I placed incense in the focus of
the altar.

"Quirine pater*, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti sies
volens propitius mihi^ et Senatui Populoque Novaromanorum Quiritum
[Father Quirinus, by offering this incense to you I pray good prayers,
so that you may be willingly propitious to me and the Senate and
People of the Novaromans, the Quirites]." I placed incense in the
focus of the altar.

"Iane pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Ianus, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Iuno Regina*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Queen Iuno, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Minerva Dea*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Minerva, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation
on the focus of the altar.

"Mars pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Mars, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Quirine pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Quirinus, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation
on the focus of the altar.

I washed my hands in preparation for the praecatio.

Precatio

"Iuppiter Dapalis*, Rex Deorum hominumque, quod tibi fieri oportet in
die Vinaliae culullum vini, ergo macte hac pollucenda esto."
["Iuppiter of the Sacrifices, King of Gods and men, because it is
proper of Vinalia's day to offer you a cup of wine, therefore be
honoured by this feast offering.]" I poured a libation on the focus
of the altar.

"Venus Erycina*, quod tibi fieri oportet in die Vinaliae culullum
vini, ergo macte hac pollucenda esto. [Venus of Eryx, because it is
proper of Vinalia's day to offer you a cup of wine, therefore be
honoured by this feast offering.]" I poured a libation on the focus
of the altar.

"Venus Erycina*, quod tibi fieri oportet in die Vinaliae incensum,
ergo macte hac pollucenda esto." ["Venus of Eryx, because it is proper
of Vinalia's day to offer incense to you, therefore be honoured by
this feast offering.]" I placed incense of frankincense and mint on
the focus of the altar.

I washed my hand in preparation for the praecatio.

Redditio

"Iuppiter Dapalis*, Rex Deorum hominumque, macte istace dape
pollucenda esto, macte vino interio esto." [Iuppiter of the
Sacrifices, King of Gods and men, may you be honoured by this feast
offering, may you be honoured by the humble wine.]" I placed cakes and
wine on the focus of the altar.

"Venus Erycina*, macte istace dape pollucenda esto, macte vino inferio
esto." [Venus of Eryx, may you be honoured by this feast offering, may
you be honoured by the humble wine.]" I placed cakes and wine on the
focus of the altar.

"Quirine pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Quirinus, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on
the focus of the altar.

"Mars pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Mars, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Minerva Dea*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Goddess Minerva, as by
offering to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the
sake of this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation
on the focus of the altar.

"Iuno Regina*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Queen Iuno, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Iane pater*, uti te ture ommovendo bonas preces bene precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto [Father Ianus, as by offering
to you the incense virtuous prayers were well prayed, for the sake of
this be honoured by this humble wine.]" I poured a libation on the
focus of the altar.

"Vesta Dea*, custos ignis sacri, macte vino inferio esto [Goddess
Vesta, guardian of the sacred fire, be honoured by this humble wine.]"
I poured a libation on the focus of the altar.

"Ita vultis, ita est!" ["As You will, so it is!"]

"Illicet [It is permitted to go.]"

I profaned wine and cakes, and I partook of the epulum with Iuppiter
Dapalis and Venus Erycina, praying as I ate and offering libations in
my private devotions. The plate of libum and cup of wine was passed to
the attendees.

Piaculum

Since the historical caerimonia of the Vinalia Prioria has not yet
been recovered, I offer a piaculum to Iuppiter Dapalis and Venus
Erycina if anything in this caerimonia should offend them and I make
offering as atonement.

"Iuppiter Dapalis*, Venus Erycina*, si quidquam tibi in hac caerimonia
displicet, hoc vino inferio veniam peto et vitium meum expio."
[Iuppiter of the Sacrifices, Venus of Eryx, if anything in this
ceremony is displeasing to you, with this humble wine I ask
forgiveness and expiate my fault.]" I poured a libation on the focus
of the altar.

A dance was performed by Violentilla Titania Saltarix at this point.

Rubrics:
* Adoratio
^ Right hand to heart

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is ante diem VIII Kalendae Maii and the Feria Cerialiae; the day
is comitialis.

Tomorrow is ante diem VII Kalendae Maii, the Feria Cerialiae, and the
Feria Robigaliae; the day is nefastus publicus. is ante diem VII
Kalendae Maii, the Feria Cerialiae, and the Feria Robigaliae; the day
is nefastus publicus. The Feria of the Robigalia was celebrated to
appease the Goddess Robigo (the gender of this deity, who originated
as one of the numina, is uncertain), the deity of wheat-rust, mildew,
and blight. It was an ancient festival of the agricultural calendar,
and was celebrated by the Flamen Quirinalis. Both a red, unweaned
puppy and a sheep were sacrificed to Robigo, along with wine and
incense; prayers were then spoken to protect the crops.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salve Censor,

Thank you.

Vale,
C. Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

> Ex Officio Censoris Iunioris Caesonis Fabii Quintiliani
>
> Edictum Censoris CFQ VI about interim guidelines for choosing Roman
> names in Nova Roma
>
> As I expect to issue a more comprehensive edictum about choosing
> Roman names in Nova Roma I hereby issue the following interim

edictum

> to give applicants some guidance as how to choose names until the
> permanent rules are established. This issue is very complicated so
> there will still be some problems left, these will be solved by the
> Censors and their Scribae from case to case.
>
> I. Applicants for citizenship are directed to work with my Scribae

to

> find an acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the right to

guide

> applicants under my supervision.
>
> II. Citizens that want to change names are also directed to work

with

> my Scribae to find a acceptable name. My Scribae are delegated the
> right to guide such citizens under my supervision. As the workload

is

> rather high these kind of name changes _may_ have lower priority
> than applications from non-citizens to become citizens.
>
> III. For the time being Nova Roma will not accept any new Gentes.
>
> IV. The list of Roman names at
> http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/names.html will function as
> guidelines for the time being, but as there are problems with this
> list, there is a need to be guided by the Scribae. This list may be
> exchanged by a few more accurate lists in an new edictum during

this

> spring or summer.
>
> V. When it comes to male name "tria nomina" (praenomen, nomen and
> cognomen) are the rule. In some cases cognomina may be allowed.
> Cognomina that are honorary can't be just adopted, but may need to

be

> assigned by the Censors or the Senate.
>
> VI. When it comes to female names women have the choice of
> A. Primarily, as a rule: 1.praenomen-nomen-cognomen
> B. Secondary in _exceptional_ cases the Censors _may_ allow: 2.
> nomen-nomen; 3.nomen only 4.nomen-cognomen, 5.nomen-nomen-nomen;
>
> IX.. These rules apply until a new set of rules are established in

a

> more comprehensive Censorial edictum later this summer. Before the
> new edictum is published the Senate and the Tribunes will be
> consulted.
>
> VIII. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.
>
> Given the 24th of April, in the year of the Consulship of Gnaeus
> Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, 2757 AUC.
> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

I don't post crap like this very often, and I send most of my "Dude,
I agree" posts privately. However, today I will do so in this
forum.

Here, f&*$in' here!

In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gnaeus_iulius_caesar@h...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I thought it would be interesting to see what transpired as a

result

> of my post, and I wasn't disappointed. Many have more knowledge

than

> myself. Others are fluent in Latin, I readily agree that my grasp,
> to put it mildly, could be better. So what?
>
> Obviously Nova Roma has in its ranks individuals who have had the
> privilege of a classical education, and who have a raft of
> qualifications behind them. Undoubtedly they are experts. Then

there

> are those citizens who were not lucky enough to have access to
> privileged education. I always have thought that with privilege
> should come a sense of obligation, for privilege without obligation
> is the path to autocracy.
>
> Mere possession of knowledge is in any case, to me, not the measure
> of the worth of a person. Surely it is what is done with that
> knowledge that is important; to enlighten, instruct, enthral? In
> short to educate? That I think is the obligation, and education is
> not instruction.
>
> It appears that the experience new citizens receive, who have the
> temerity to post, is vastly different from anything that could be
> called an education. I am sure that some would have liked me to (a)
> say nothing or (b) sit, listen and learn. I ignore the first and as
> to the second, I could have been persuaded that this may have been

a

> valuable exercise had I any faith in the civility and impartiality
> of those of my "betters" who would have instructed me. I could even
> have accepted that I would only get a limited input of facts and
> consideration of differing viewpoints, knowing that "teach" held a
> fixed, immovable opinion. What made me decide against "look, listen
> and learn" was that it appears served in two dishes called facts

and

> conclusions with the admonishment of "digest and regurgitate,
> because this is the only meal you are going to get". I hardly
> consider that an education.
>
> Instead it is painfully obvious that there is a group of people who
> in a very disdainful manner step through this board, trying to

avoid

> their intellectual inferiors as though they suffer from some form

of

> communicable disease. Perhaps I, we, do. Perhaps it is that
> revolting disease of free thought, a questioning attitude, a
> rejection of the nanny-knows-best approach. It appears as though

the

> function of people like myself who join is, pay taxes, be touched

up

> for a donation, sit and be quiet, respect your intellectual

betters,

> mention nothing that could be classed as controversial and

generally

> stay in the shadows.
>
> The moment that someone posts a view that rankles, or upsets the
> peace and tranquility of that self-satisfied superiority of thought
> and purpose, you see a loss of civility and an almost total absence
> of a desire to educate.
>
> What transpires is essentially an intellectual mugging.
>
> I will only address the question of reconstruction to say that this
> is a topic in its own right. I have not (if you re read my posts)
> inferred or suggested that our religious leadership – ie the
> official structure of the Religio - is the Boni. What I am saying
> clearly, this time I hope, is that the very serious topic of
> reconstruction (and this involves more than a religious element to
> reconstruction) appears to have been hijacked in this list and
> elsewhere (no Scaurus – not by you) by people who seek a legitimate
> platform to mask a very simple and old attitude; "I know best
> because I was here first". It is the secular elitism of titles
> and "rank" that appears to be important to them. Since we are still
> a micronation and those titles, rank and privilege only have

meaning

> here, this avaricious and possessive desire for such baubles even
> now does not bode well for the rest of the populace when we move
> from a micro to a macro nation.
>
> As to my religious beliefs, when I make them public property you

can

> discuss them. Until that time speculation and deduction does not
> equate to factual knowledge.
>
> I had already searched the archives. Thanks to all who suggested
> that, and I am sad to report that the incidences of that
> intellectual mugging, elitism, and just plain snobbery stood out
> front and centre. I don't know that this depository is the most
> appropriate place to send new citizens.
>
> So in conclusion before we even discuss reconstruction or any other
> serious topic, perhaps we should give consideration to whether new
> citizens are a "good thing". They obviously come at a price, and
> some will question and some will disagree.
>
> If this is so objectionable that very few of the experts want to
> take the time to "convert" anyone, then obviously the impression a
> number of us is left with is that those who come as new members
> should by preference be either gifted, or if from the great mass of
> the intellectually unwashed have the good manners to shut up and
> know their intellectual place in the order of life.
>
> What I have done for Nova Roma? Added a new taxpayer and
> demonstrated I have the desire to be involved rather than a

phantom.

> If you want phantoms, or at best persons cast in your image, then
> you essentially want a docile and tranquil population.
>
> So you can waggle your education, your degrees, your diplomas your
> research papers, your books and any other evidence of your
> intellectual superiority in my face, until you turn blue in your
> face. Those "trinkets" alone do not make for well-rounded people,
> with a civility of manner or a genuine desire to educate, nor does
> the acquisition and regurgitation of knowledge signify true
> understanding – just a good memory.
>
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Salve,

You are at liberty to nominate me if you wish. I shall enter you for
the "most feeble retort to a serious subject" prize. I have no doubt
that you will take gold.

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decimus Iunius Silanus
<iuniussilanus@y...> wrote:

> Salve Gnaeus Iulius Caesar,
>
> Are you trying for first prize in 'the most ludicrous
> show of indignation' category?
>
> Vale
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salve,

Of course you would immediately imagine I was talking about my
experiences. Actually I was referring to those of other new citizens.

As to chip on my shoulder - how ridiculous. This is precisely the
sort of pomposity I am talking about. I don't know that Lucius
Sicinius Drusus has always been a beacon of rational and level headed
debate in the past, or that you have extended a warm hand of
friendship, and if you still don't have a clue what I am talking
about, read your own posts and your reactions to old and new who took
a differing view from yours.

As to my "hostile attitude", I can scarce believe that you of all
people would have the utter gall to talk about hostility, seeing how
from the very records of this place you at times purchased the
monopoly on that.

You mistake hosility for contempt sir.

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Most new citizens are welcomed when they start posting, however most
> new citizens don't strut into the forum with a chip on their

shoulder,

> hurling accusations, and generally looking for a fight.
>
> If you found your welcome less than warm, you have no one but

yourself

> to blame for it, it's entirely a result of your hostile attitude.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gnaeus_iulius_caesar@h...> wrote:
>
> >
> > It appears that the experience new citizens receive, who have the
> > temerity to post, is vastly different from anything that could be
> > called an education.

Salve,

That concerns me since one of the goals (the main one that interested
me) of Nova Roma was to establish a permanent facility or homeland.
While I am content for the time being to "play" over the internet, I
would assume that at some point a structure, office, temple, whatever
would be built and maintained. My worries were not only immediate, but
also long-term.

Also, perhaps PETA should never be mentioned by name, as it seems that
people attach a lot of significance to them without noticing the crux
of the message. That being said, I would like to note for the record
that I am not in fear of PETA, nor in awe of PETA, nor do I admire,
love, swoon, or cry over PETA. My arguments were for the more
practical-minded who actually see this organization moving out of the
basements and city-owned recreation facilities and into the real world.

Vale,

Carantus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius SPD
>
> You fear PETA you become a slave to PETA!
>
> Who are they going to picket? Yahoo? Nova Roma lacks vast
infrastructure. If they decide to picket (an individual citizen) or
cause an internet campaign it would get Nova Roma a lot of press, and
attract those people who are interested in rebuilding Rome. Might not
be a bad thing.
>
> The priests of Nova Roma are busy maintaining the Pax Deorum. Have
confidence.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 4/22/2004 11:58:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gn_carantus@y... writes:
>
> > Who said we should look up to PETA? Do we need to admire an
> > organization in order to first incur their wrath? Come to think of
> > it, PETA typically goes after groups that already despise them.
This
> > organization can barely collect enough taxes to pay my water bill,
> > so I doubt it would prosper under a constant legal barrage and
> > threats from thousands of activists. Our saving grace for the time
> > being is that we probably are so far under anyone's radar that
> > nobody cares. I've seen their tactics firsthand, despite how unfair

> > or unjust it seems, they know how to shut things down.
> > Hence, my
> > concern and my earlier posts.

Salve,

"The PETA nuts have a history of going after high profile targets that
will get them lots of publicity."

When we are organized and recognized enough to suffer the attention
of PETA, I will be concerned. While our little world could come
crashing down on our heads at any time, I think that unlikely until
we can beat out the guy with the tiger in his apartment for media
coverage. I don't see that happening as we are still trying to
define our group identity.

We could always plead "mass indecisiveness".

Vale,
LCSardonicus



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> The PETA nuts have a history of going after high profile targets

that

> will get them lots of publicity. They have too keep the bucks

rolling

> in from the suckers that donate.
>
> Drusus
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius SPD
> >
> > You fear PETA you become a slave to PETA!
> >
> > Who are they going to picket? Yahoo? Nova Roma lacks vast
> infrastructure. If they decide to picket (an individual citizen) or
> cause an internet campaign it would get Nova Roma a lot of press,

and

> attract those people who are interested in rebuilding Rome. Might

not

> be a bad thing.
> >
> > The priests of Nova Roma are busy maintaining the Pax Deorum.

Have

> confidence.
> >
> > Valete;
> >
> > Gaius Modius Athanasius
> >
> > In a message dated 4/22/2004 11:58:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gn_carantus@y... writes:
> >
> > > Who said we should look up to PETA? Do we need to admire an
> > > organization in order to first incur their wrath? Come to think

of

> > > it, PETA typically goes after groups that already despise them.

This

> > > organization can barely collect enough taxes to pay my water

bill,

> > > so I doubt it would prosper under a constant legal barrage and
> > > threats from thousands of activists. Our saving grace for the

time

> > > being is that we probably are so far under anyone's radar that
> > > nobody cares. I've seen their tactics firsthand, despite how

unfair

> > > or unjust it seems, they know how to shut things down.
> > > Hence, my
> > > concern and my earlier posts.

Salve Caeso Fabius,

<I have been a Censor for nearly four months, I haven't got any real
<introduction to the tasks of the Censor

Together with Marcus Octavius you hold the highest magistracy in NR. Maybe I misunderstood, but
are now saying now that you don't know what you are doing?

Are you saying then that *none* of the previous Censores or even your co-Censor will give you
advice or an explanation of your duties? It must be horrible for you to be surrounded in the
Senate by so many ex-Censors none of whom will give you tips on how to do your job.

Speaking only for myself, I do hope that sometime during the next two years of office, our Highest
magistrate in NR figures out how to do his job without the need to publicly whine about it on the
mainlist.

Vale,
Diana Octavia

Then I shall see you at the ceremonies :-)

Vale

Silanus


--- Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
<gnaeus_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
Salve,

You are at liberty to nominate me if you wish. I shall
enter you for
the "most feeble retort to a serious subject" prize. I
have no doubt
that you will take gold.

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Decimus Iunius
Silanus
<iuniussilanus@y...> wrote:

> Salve Gnaeus Iulius Caesar,
>
> Are you trying for first prize in 'the most

ludicrous

> show of indignation' category?
>
> Vale
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________

> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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






____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salve Amica!

I always enjoy your kind and polite mails. ;-)

>Salve Caeso Fabius,
>
><I have been a Censor for nearly four months, I haven't got any real
><introduction to the tasks of the Censor
>
>Together with Marcus Octavius you hold the highest magistracy in NR.
>Maybe I misunderstood, but
>are now saying now that you don't know what you are doing?
>
>Are you saying then that *none* of the previous Censores or even
>your co-Censor will give you
>advice or an explanation of your duties? It must be horrible for you
>to be surrounded in the
>Senate by so many ex-Censors none of whom will give you tips on how
>to do your job.
>
>Speaking only for myself, I do hope that sometime during the next
>two years of office, our Highest
>magistrate in NR figures out how to do his job without the need to
>publicly whine about it on the
>mainlist.
>
>Vale,
>Diana Octavia

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

G. Iulius Scaurus Caesoni Fabio Quintiliano salutem dicit.

Salve, Quintiliane m amice.

I applaud absolutely your efforts to move to a more
historically-grounded set of onomastic practices in Nova Roma and think
your edictum is an excellent step in this direction. My only qualm is
on the prohibition of the formation of new gentes. If a citizen wishes
to reestablish a historically documented Roman gens, I think such an
effort should be met with support and accomodation rather than
prohibition. Otherwise, this is a significant step forward.

Vale.

Scaurus

Salve Amice!

The "prohibition" is only a temporary continuation of the a decision
by former Censors. I totally agree with You that historically
documented Gentes should be allowed. I am sure that the new edictum
will state exactly that. But until the resaerch in to other areas is
finished I would like to wait to open for new Gentes as there are
more complicated matters to take into consideration to mold the
edictum into a comprehensive whole.

Anyway I intend to present the edictum to the Consuls, the Tribunes,
the Senate and a few experts, like yourself, before I issue it. I
hope that You and others will have patience with me until that
presentation..

>G. Iulius Scaurus Caesoni Fabio Quintiliano salutem dicit.
>
>Salve, Quintiliane m amice.
>
>I applaud absolutely your efforts to move to a more
>historically-grounded set of onomastic practices in Nova Roma and think
>your edictum is an excellent step in this direction. My only qualm is
>on the prohibition of the formation of new gentes. If a citizen wishes
>to reestablish a historically documented Roman gens, I think such an
>effort should be met with support and accomodation rather than
>prohibition. Otherwise, this is a significant step forward.
>
>Vale.
>
>Scaurus

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

LOL,

Right, It's perfectly normal for people who aren't spoiling for a
fight to start a thread named "The joys of battle!".

So the next question, how long are you going to role play the psychic
new citizen who amazing powers of ESP allow him to know what's been
going on for years?

LSD

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
<gnaeus_iulius_caesar@h...> wrote:

> Salve,
>
> Of course you would immediately imagine I was talking about my
> experiences. Actually I was referring to those of other new citizens.
>
> As to chip on my shoulder - how ridiculous. This is precisely the
> sort of pomposity I am talking about. I don't know that Lucius
> Sicinius Drusus has always been a beacon of rational and level headed
> debate in the past, or that you have extended a warm hand of
> friendship, and if you still don't have a clue what I am talking
> about, read your own posts and your reactions to old and new who took
> a differing view from yours.
>
> As to my "hostile attitude", I can scarce believe that you of all
> people would have the utter gall to talk about hostility, seeing how
> from the very records of this place you at times purchased the
> monopoly on that.
>
> You mistake hosility for contempt sir.
>
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> <drusus@b...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > Most new citizens are welcomed when they start posting, however most
> > new citizens don't strut into the forum with a chip on their
> shoulder,
> > hurling accusations, and generally looking for a fight.
> >
> > If you found your welcome less than warm, you have no one but
> yourself
> > to blame for it, it's entirely a result of your hostile attitude.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> > <gnaeus_iulius_caesar@h...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It appears that the experience new citizens receive, who have the
> > > temerity to post, is vastly different from anything that could be
> > > called an education.

Salvete;

Infrastructure is my goal as well, but it will take time and money. It will also take a clear vision. One thing that will be necessary first is to have a clear "national meeting" that will help facilitate Nova Romans getting together and discussing in person the myraid subjects that compel us to be here.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/23/2004 3:31:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gn_carantus@... writes:

> That concerns me since one of the goals (the main one that interested
> me) of Nova Roma was to establish a permanent facility or homeland.
> While I am content for the time being to "play" over the internet, I
> would assume that at some point a structure, office, temple, whatever
> would be built and maintained. My worries were not only
> immediate, but
> also long-term.

G. Equitius Cato Fanaticus G. Modio Athanasio quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete,

Athanasius, I agree wholeheartedly that there should be some kind of
meeting. I have only two concerns regarding such an activity:

1. would the issues here be truly "debated", i.e., opened up for
scrutiny and fully examined with views from both sides taken in, and

2. what happens with the results of those debates? It's great to sit
(or stand) and yap at each other, but if, in the end, the holders of
office in the current power structure refuse to allow any change, no
matter how the "debates" end up, there really isn't any point, is
there?

If there were a national meeting, and (*just* as an example) the
issue of animal sacrifices came up, a debate was held, both sides
airing their points, then what? Is a vote taken among the citizens?
If the vote was to ban sacrifices altogether, what would happen?
Would the College accept the will of the people? Or would it end up
being a lot of discussion time wasted on an immutable subject?

This is one of the difficulties inherent in trying to re-create a
closed society in an age of open, democratic societies. I speak only
for myself, again, in saying that I am glad to have heard about the
pontiffs' discussions; but at what price did those discussions come?
Days of acrimony, misunderstanding, angry lashings out...if there
were, as Constantinus Fuscus so admirably suggested, an higher court
of some kind to which citizens could appeal in an orderly, legal way,
some of that might have been avoided. It hinges, once again, on
whether or not the political *and religious* power structure of NR is
willing to accept change, if indeed change should be shown to be the
will of the citizens.

The idea of checks and balances in government was rudimentary in
ancient Rome; does it by necessity follow that we in NR must follow
in that ignorance? This hearkens to the core question of strict re-
constructionism that I brought up several posts ago. Paulinus never
answered my request that he show me why my outline of the logical
conclusion of strict re-constructionism (as *he* described it)
was "ridiculous", either patently or otherwise. Neither did anyone
else. I must, therefore, conclude that the case I made might not
actually *be* ridiculous. I mentioned in a private post to another
citizen some time back that it looks to me as if NR might have been
founded by a small group of like-minded individuals with the sole and
express intention of reviving the religio romana; the rest of the
reconstruction of Roman society: political, social, economic, etc.,
were just a by-product of this. Unfortunatey, the response to the
idea of re-creating Roman society was far greater and much more
varied than they expected, because it strikes a chord in those of us
who came after; and a good portion of those who have come after,
while perfectly willing to go through the public motions of the
religio to some extent, are interested in much much more...we might
truly be called the "optimates" because we do indeed want to
incorporate the "best" of the Roman experience, while adapting it *in
some ways* to modern sensibilities: the abolition of slavery, the
enfranchisement of women, the curtailing of gladiatorial combat, not
using lead pipes in the water system, the acceptance of (in Paulinus'
own words) "modern amenities" such as electricity, computers,
automobiles, etc. All the above-mentioned have been accepted and
utilized by NR. Where is the line drawn between the acceptance of
what the evolution of the modern world has given us, and the denial
thereof? And *who* draws that line?

So, a meeting would be great...*if and only if* there were to be
real, substantive, and affective (not just effective) debate, with
real, substantive, and affective (not just effective) results; i.e.,
the possibility of change, if it is the will of the citizens.
Is this possible?

vale et valete,

Cato Fanaticus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Salvete;
>
> Infrastructure is my goal as well, but it will take time and
money. It will also take a clear vision. One thing that will be
necessary first is to have a clear "national meeting" that will help
facilitate Nova Romans getting together and discussing in person the
myraid subjects that compel us to be here.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 4/23/2004 3:31:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gn_carantus@y... writes:
>
> > That concerns me since one of the goals (the main one that
interested
> > me) of Nova Roma was to establish a permanent facility or
homeland.
> > While I am content for the time being to "play" over the
internet, I
> > would assume that at some point a structure, office, temple,
whatever
> > would be built and maintained. My worries were not only
> > immediate, but
> > also long-term.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Diana Octavia Aventina
<sacerdosveneris@y...> wrote:

> Salve Caeso Fabius,
>
> <I have been a Censor for nearly four months, I haven't got any real
> <introduction to the tasks of the Censor

Pompeia: Don't bother to quote the whole sentence of the Censor, just
what you feel you find pertinent....Would it be out of line, O
Praetors, to equate this with Augustan Propaganda?........

>
> Together with Marcus Octavius you hold the highest magistracy in NR.

Maybe I misunderstood, but

> are now saying now that you don't know what you are doing?

Pompeia: Let me indulge in a bit of 'propaganda of my own" to
interrup t your judgement and implied maladroitness of
Quintilianus...you mean Marcus Octavius Censor of course, your recent
Paterfamilias, Diana Moravia Apollonia Moravia Octavia? (hard to keep
track of the nomens) Well that is the one who holds the
paterfamiliasship of Octavia so let us safely assume so for the
argument below.

Before getting further into the issue of your painting Q. Fabius
Quintillianus as a 'nere-do-well' due to lack of knowledge of his
position (was there another point to all of this?), let us travel down
memory lane. Johanna, I, Pompeia, a problem child of the republic
(nonpractitioner), as a Catholic and a lover of Rome, loving even
peoples' right to practice the Religio, or anything else they feel
convicted to, think I have a far more advanced understanding of the
religio than you do....if that is a Blasphemy against the august
keeper of Venician mysteries, I shall 'cheerfully' stand trial.

You left "Moravia" because you felt that Octavius was a "nice guy" and
you longed to be in his gens on that basis.. A New Year and a New
Gens...remember that?. I remember way back in 2002 your being quite
out of sorts, and feeling persecuted, something to do with one woman
against another, because I investigated a petition submitted to me as
Praetor, questioning your ability legally to be the materfamilias of
Moravia until atleast we could substantiate that Masella, the current
Pater had actually resigned...no, you could be materfamilias, but not
until the next Gens Registration Lex Occurred was the crux of the
petition...but you immediately were appointed such, and such is the
Censor's decision. I investigated it , as Praetor of the republic, to
the best of my ability, in keeping with my oath, not to piss anyone
off. A mater/paterfamiliasship is a weighted position...for those who
understand the religio, you are the high priest of the
household....the keeper of the private religio for your familia....am
I mistaken, or is it absolutely sacriligious for one to just 'walk
away' from the religios duties of your position as materfamilias of
Moravia, which you scraped so ardently for....to flee to Marcus
Octavius Germanicus, or any other gens head for that member, simply
because 'he's a nice guy'.....????

So before you cut off a quote from the Censor, and accuse him of not
knowing enough about his position, consider the lack of your own
knowledge, Johanna, with respect to the religio, and how it reflects
on your ability to be an effective sarcedos of Venus, and a
responsible religious spokesperson for the religio for Nova Roma and
for your abandoned gens Moravia. Shall we fire the Censor, Diana
Moravia Apollonia Moravaia Octavia, or shall we fire you?

Before you take a can of Janitor in a Drum to the Censor, whose record
and pragmatism speak for themselves...clean out your own
cesspool.(like that Janitor in a drum line, sorry)

I could at any moment, I suppose, (now I am not accounting for
circumstances I cannot imagine, like others, and blindly criticize
them in several posts) walk away from my religious and ethical
responsibilities because 'someone is a nice guy'...if I did that,
though, I would not be in a position to criticize such a noble and
major magistrate as Caeso Fabius Quintillianus. No, if I assigned
myself as a representative of my position as both Sarcedos and
Materfamilias, it would not be with atleast a full understanding of
what I was committing to. Of course, I am assuming that your motives
were religious in the first place. I can only speak for myself, as I
know myself today. If I go crazy tomorrow, well, guys its your loss :)

>
> Are you saying then that *none* of the previous Censores or even

your co-Censor will give you

> advice or an explanation of your duties? It must be horrible for you

to be surrounded in the

> Senate by so many ex-Censors none of whom will give you tips on how

to do your job.

>
> Speaking only for myself, I do hope that sometime during the next

two years of office, our Highest

> magistrate in NR figures out how to do his job without the need to

publicly whine about it on the

> mainlist.

Pompeia: I not only 'hope' but I also pray for such an august
individual as Quintilianus, as I pray for others who have the bravery
to step into the ring and do the best they can, with sincere
intentions (the Fabius we speak of won a quite a victory), whilst they
are admitting to having perhaps a 'fraction' of the knowledge of
truth , humbly admitting that they don't have all the answers,...yes I
hope and pray... that they not be shortchanged by those who seem to
think they 'clearly' have all the answers with respect to their
claimed positions, and have the dementic irresponsiblity to suggest
that their ignorance is an excuse for criticizing those who agree to
not having all it takes, but do the best they can.

And some people wonder about why I worry about younger citizens
thinking its a good idea to act as your knight in shining armour? I
argue against such idiocy on their part, and make no apology for doing so.

Pompeia (Susan)

>
> Vale,
> Diana Octavia

Salvete Quirtes!

Let me make it _very_ clear that Illustris Marcus Octavius Germanicus
is the BEST of friends and Colleagues.

He has done everything possible to advise me, but he hasn't been
involved in approving citizens during the last few years. But as he
has been a Scriba to the Censors for some years now, he knows
virtually everything about the database.

But the Censor's tasks are fast becoming more complicated and if a
Censor, like me, tries to correct incorrect names and tasks that are
behind schedule new problems arise.

This is why I will create a Censor's handbook to help the next pair of Censors.
--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

---Salve Caeso Fabius Censor:

As much as I would have liked at times to send Octavius to the moon
akin to the Honeymooners oneliner, he was the one who ardently
defended you against former Censors who fashioned a petition citing,
well, some rather superficial reasons for 'not' wanting you in as
Censor... that in itself displays conviction...now I am making this
statement assuming that said petitioners were worrying about the
integrity, virtue of Rome and all that sort of thing, as opposed to a
petty power grab.

Please do not misunderstand my statements to the beautiful and
self-proclaiming Diana Moravia Apollonia Moravia Octavia as a slur
against Octavius in any way...simply a statement to the effect that
claiming the reason for abandoning one's religious obligations to her
familia as being that she thinks Octavius is a 'nice guy' displays a
rather superficial knowledge of her own responsibilities regarding a
materfamilias/sarcedos, leaving her in a rather niggardly position to
criticize you.

I hope this makes my positon a bit clearer, if you were questioning
anything I had to say in my last post. For the benefit of those who
may doubt, I have always been a supporter and a friend of C. Fabius
Quintillianus, and I have very little, if anything, to say in angst of
the gentleman.

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
<christer.edling@t...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirtes!
>
> Let me make it _very_ clear that Illustris Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> is the BEST of friends and Colleagues.
>
> He has done everything possible to advise me, but he hasn't been
> involved in approving citizens during the last few years. But as he
> has been a Scriba to the Censors for some years now, he knows
> virtually everything about the database.
>
> But the Censor's tasks are fast becoming more complicated and if a
> Censor, like me, tries to correct incorrect names and tasks that are
> behind schedule new problems arise.
>
> This is why I will create a Censor's handbook to help the next pair

of Censors.

> --
>
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
> Censor, Consularis et Senator
> Proconsul Thules
> Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
> Civis Romanus sum
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Salve Fanaticue.

>>Paulinus never

answered my request that he show me why my outline of the logical
conclusion of strict re-constructionism (as *he* described it)
was "ridiculous", either patently or otherwise.<<

Actually it's Popillius Laenas, and the reason I did not reply is
when something is ridiculous on it's face (such as comparing slavery
to animal sacrifice) there is nothing more to be said.

It like saying, "The sky is blue" and then being asked, "I don't see
that, explain to me why you say so".

Mr Dictionary, as you sarcastically name me, defines patently
as "plainly" or "clearly". I don't have the time or the skills to
explain the obvious to the obtuse.

Laenas

Salve dear Pompeia, Amica!

My mail about Octavius wasn't in any way produced because of your
mail, I wrote it long before I saw your mail.

Let me also have the priviliged to publicly tell the world how
satisfied I am to see You back in the saddle. Both Curule Aedile
Illustris Marcus Julius Perusianus and Sodalitas Miltarium with
Illustris Marcus Minucius Audens have the privilege to have You as a
active assitant. I am so proud that I by appointing You my Accensa
Magna recogonized your capacity during your "come back"!

Glad to have You here! ;-)

>---Salve Caeso Fabius Censor:
>
>As much as I would have liked at times to send Octavius to the moon
>akin to the Honeymooners oneliner, he was the one who ardently
>defended you against former Censors who fashioned a petition citing,
>well, some rather superficial reasons for 'not' wanting you in as
>Censor... that in itself displays conviction...now I am making this
>statement assuming that said petitioners were worrying about the
>integrity, virtue of Rome and all that sort of thing, as opposed to a
>petty power grab.
>
>Please do not misunderstand my statements to the beautiful and
>self-proclaiming Diana Moravia Apollonia Moravia Octavia as a slur
>against Octavius in any way...simply a statement to the effect that
>claiming the reason for abandoning one's religious obligations to her
>familia as being that she thinks Octavius is a 'nice guy' displays a
>rather superficial knowledge of her own responsibilities regarding a
>materfamilias/sarcedos, leaving her in a rather niggardly position to
>criticize you.

I _do_ understand!

>I hope this makes my positon a bit clearer, if you were questioning
>anything I had to say in my last post. For the benefit of those who
>may doubt, I have always been a supporter and a friend of C. Fabius
>Quintillianus, and I have very little, if anything, to say in angst of
>the gentleman.
>
>Pompeia

--

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Censor, Consularis et Senator
Proconsul Thules
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
Civis Romanus sum
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

Ex Officio Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiritibus Salutem Dicit

Salvete, Quirites

May this find you all in good health with the time and means to enjoy.

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

DECRETUM DE SACRIFICIIS

QVOD BONVM FAVSTVM FELIX FORTVNATVMQVE SIT POPVLO ROMANO QVIRITIBVS.

The Collegium Pontificum has met and decreed:

The Collegium Pontificum is the only institution empowered to regulate
the ritual practice of the Religio Publica of Nova Roma. Until such a
time as the Collegium Pontificum may determine that circumstances are
appropriate for the full restoration of the cultus of the Religio
Publica the Collegium neither mandates nor prohibits animal sacrifice in
the caerimoniae of the Religio Publica. Practitioners of the Religio
Romana, including sacerdotes conducting the caerimoniae of the Religio
Publica, may conduct or refrain from animal sacrifice in accordance with
their conscience and circumstances. If animal sacrifice is conducted in
accordance with this decretum, the slaughter of the animal must be
conducted humanely, in accordance with the mos maiorum, and in
compliance with the macronational law applying to the locale of the
sacrifice. The Collegium does not intend to request appropriation of
public funds by the Senate for animal sacrifice until and unless a final
decision on the full restoration of the ancient cultus has been made, a
circumstance which we do not envision as likely until the construction
of public temples occurs and the fullest possible discussion of the
matter has been undertaken by the appropriate authorities of the state.

ante diem VII Kalendas Maius MMDCCLVII ab urbe condita (24 April 2004)

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

Valete.

Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Augur
Flamen Martialis, Pontifex, Senator



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

Salve Diana,

I will reply in my quality of censorial scriba : if you judge that Censor's
Quintilianus's "whining" should have had avoided the main list, perhaps you
should have known better than posting yours.

Vale sis

Laureatus


In a message dated 24/04/04 10:17:01 GMT Daylight Time,
sacerdosveneris@... writes:

> Salve Caeso Fabius,
>
> <I
> <introduction to the tasks of the Censor
>
> Together with Marcus Octavius you hold the highest magistracy in NR. Maybe I
> misunderstood, but
> are now saying now that you don't know what you are doing?
>
> Are you saying then that *none* of the previous Censores or even your
> co-Censor will give you
> advice or an explanation of your duties? It must be horrible for you to be
> surrounded in the
> Senate by so many ex-Censors none of whom will give you tips on how to do
> your job.
>
> Speaking only for myself, I do hope that sometime during the next two years
> of office, our Highest
> magistrate in NR figures out how to do his job without the need to publicly
> whine about it on the
> mainlist.
>
> Vale,
> Diana Octavia
>

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

Salve!

Some time ago I sent a few things that should be changed in the novaroma.org webpage. I beg your pardon for repeat it in the Forum, but we'd like to have some changes done:

- The link to the webpage of the Provincia Hispania. The new adress is:

www.nrhispania.org

- The following are not part of the Provincial Government:

* Spurius Aelius Baeticus Malacitanus
* Ianus Minicius Sparsus
* Marcus Durmius Sisena

They have done a great job indeed!! :-)

- I also sent a (ehem) new picture of myself, that is not included in my profile... :-)

- Lusitania still appears as a province itself and it may cause some misunderstunding to new/old Lustianiae citizens.


I hope this changes will be treated as soon as possible. It is for the best of our Provincia Hispania. :-)


vale bene in pace deorum,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE




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

A. Apollonius Cordus to Domitius Constantinus Fuscus,
and to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
rgeetings.

First of all, apologies if I was short with you in my
previous message - as you may have noticed, I'm being
subjected to some rather unpleasant personal remarks
at the moment, and I realise that some of my
frustration got into the tone of my reply to you.

> One thing is the Constitution, that from now one
> IÂ’ll identify with a capital C,
> that being a formal legal document establishing the
> basic principles and
> procedures a country is ruled by and from which the
> magistrates of the country
> take the authority to rule and put in place
> secondary legal acts.
>
> One thing is the constitution, that being the sum of
> the principles considered
> preeminent in a given country and by whom that is
> ruled at a given moment,
> extrapolated by a series of documents like
> (primarily) the Constitution, and
> then the most important laws, the sentences of the
> higher courts and so on.

I'm quite content to accept that distinction, and
indeed I thought I had already made the same
distinction myself, but perhaps it was unclear. I
would add, though, that the constitution with a
lower-case 'c' comprises not only written laws and
judicial decisions but also conventions and agreed
principles.

> Only to the Constitution the concept of “flexible”
> and “rigid” can be applied
> properly as the concept of rigid Constitution
> implies that you can practically
> check if the system of rules can be changed by a
> specific procedure more
> complex than the one needed to change a normal law.

With this I disagree, and, to explain why, I'll first
unpack your argument into its constituent parts. One
is that it is difficult to check whether a
constitution is harder to change than other types of
law. This, I think, is not so: one could simply look
at the history of that constitution and see whether
there are any cases of an action which would have
sufficed to alter or overrule an ordinary law (or
convention, or principle) failing to alter or overrule
a part of the constitution; to double-check, one could
inspect the constitution itself looking for any
institution, mechanism, or criterion whose
participation is necessary for the constitution to be
altered but whose participation is unnecessary for the
alteration of other laws. A second component of your
argument is that a constitution cannot be flexible or
rigid if it is difficult to tell whether it is
flexible or rigid: this, again, strikes me as an
unfounded assumption, since it is rather like saying
that something cannot be white or black unless it is
known whether it is white or black. I know that case
is arguable on a deeper philosophical level, but from
the point of view of constitutional theory I don't
think we'll get very far by saying that things don't
exist if no one's looking at them.

> IÂ’ll even make a step forward and say that, on the
> other hand, a constitution is
> by definition always flexible because, in time, even
> the country with the most
> rigid Constitution imaginable (even the ones that
> have Constitutions derived
> from theological principles, by definition immutable
> in time) places at its
> side a mass of principles and concepts, not
> contrasting with the ones in the
> Constitution, that get to be considered
> constitutional, are more flexible and
> vary in time as the social and culture structure of
> the country evolves.

This is a fair point to a certain extent: it's true
that since all constitutions are likely to contain
some non-entrenched conventions which will constitute
flexible elements. This is not a proof that all
constitutions must be flexible and cannot be rigid; it
is merely a proof that 'flexible' and 'rigid' are
parts of a spectrum rather than mutually exclusive
categories. I'm sure you'll agree that a constitution,
or, if you prefer, a Constitution, can be more or less
rigid: one which can only be amended by a two-thirds
majority in each house of a bicameral legislature plus
approval in a referendum is more rigid than one which
can be amended by a simple majority in a referendum,
but both are rigid if ordinary laws may be amended by
simple majority in the legislature. So although all
constitutions are likely to be felxible in some parts
and to some extent, it is still possible to say that
one is, by and large, rigid, while another is
flexible.

There's a final point on this subject, which I've
mentioned before: perhaps you thought I was joking,
but it is a serious a logically valid point. It is
that a Constitution is a legal document, whereas a
constitution is a system - according to your own
definitions. Legal documents can be long, short,
poetic, rhetorical, detailed, general, and so on; if
you say that a legal document is flexible, you mean
that it is written on a piece of paper (or equivalent)
which is bendy. Systems, on the other hand, cannot be
literally flexible, but they can be metaphorically
flexible, meaning that it is easily changed or
reshaped. Clearly when we talk about constitutions or
Constitutions being flexible, we're using the latter
meaning, and that means that logic requires us to
apply the concept of flexibility to systems, not to
documents.

> The Constitution and the constituion, even if always
> related, sometimes are
> twins, sometimes are many times removed cousins and
> while I always stuck to the
> analysis of the Constitution and how the laws and
> decrees are in contrast with
> it, it seems to me you have moved from the
> Constitution to the constitution and
> back again, more than once and in a slightly
> confusing way, like when you
> address the Constitutional provisions of the America
> Constitution and then in
> the same mail do what is plainly a constitutional
> analysis of Nova Roman
> provision, or when you quote Polybius (who obviously
> was a fan of the
> constitution of Rome, yet just as obviously had no
> concept of Constitution and
> couldnÂ’t have it), to bring point to your line that
> Rome had a flexible
> Constitution. LetÂ’s keep the C and c divided :)

As I hope you'll see from my responses above, I have
consistently held clear in my mind in the distinction
between the system and the document: I think the
reason you didn't pick up on this may be that you have
been working with the assumption that constitutions
cannot be flexible or rigid and therefore whenever I
talk about a rigid or flexible constitution I must be
talking about the Constitution. But if you re-read my
previous messages, particularly the last one, you'll
notice that I generally say 'constitution' for the
system and 'constitutional document' for the document.

My discussion of the U.S. constitution was concerned
with the question whether rigidity is necessary better
than flexibility. In most respects, particularly the
means by which the constitution may be altered, the
constitution and the Constitution of the U.S. are the
same, and consequently I saw no need to make clear
which I was discussing. In the U.S., the fact that
something is written in the Constitution almost always
means that it is an accurate description of the
reality of the constitution; so I can talk about the
Constitution or the constitution rather indifferently.
When there is a significant discrepancy between the
two, as in Nova Roma, I took care to make clear which
I was talking about. When there is no Constitution at
all, as in the old Roman republic, I felt no need to
make such things clear since it should have been
obvious that I was not talking about the Constitution.
I can see why this may have created a confusing effect
across the full span of the e-mail, so I ought to have
been clearer; but I think if you re-read it now it
will probably make more sense to you.

> Prooceding from there, IÂ’ll even say that I stand
> with my opinion that the
> Romans had no idea of Constitution, a legal document
> having supremacy over any
> other legal document and defining the structure of
> the state and the principles
> ruling it, while of course itÂ’s since the Greeks
> that the antiqui had a concept
> of constitution.

Agreed.

> Following the same line, I do not think I did an “
> adopting a very narrow
> definition of 'constitution'” when I state that UK
> and New Zeeland have, in
> different degrees, no written Constitution: we are
> both right in our positions,
> I guess, once itÂ’s understood I speak of
> Constitution and you speak of
> constitution, but given I started the thread and
> always kept on it to a
> Constitutional level, I expected the answers to be
> in kind, hence the
> confusion.

Yes, though this is a slightly different question.
You've defined a Constitution as a single
constitutional document, so in that sense neither
country has a Constitution. However, they each have a
predominantly written constitution in that most of
their constitutional principles and norms are written
down in legal documents, judicial decisions, or
theoretical textbooks - just not in a single, supreme
legal document.

> Yet, again, I started this thread with a
> Constitutional analysis and that being
> my only interested, I will keep to it while you
> introduced instead
> constitutional perspectives that, truly, are not my
> concern and that I will not
> address unless they mix with Constitutional matters.

The reason I brought in questions concerning the
constitution is that these questions are crucially
important to the subject we're discussing. You see, a
legal document is not authoritative merely because it
is a legal document. There's no magic about the word
'Constitution' which means that if you write it at the
top of a document then everyone will automatically
obey that document. Let me illustrate with another
American example (at this rate people will begin to
think I'm American!): the U.S. Constitution says, "the
ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall
be sufficient for the establishment of this
Constitution between the States so ratifying the same"
- which basically means, "this Constitution will
become binding when 9 states approve it". Think about
that - it means that until the Constitution has been
approved, its contents will not be legally binding.
But hold on - if that's true, then the clause I've
just quoted isn't valid until it's been approved by 9
states. But if it's not valid until then, how do we
know when it will become valid if the only thing that
tells us is the clause itself? We go around and around
in circles. This example shows the limitations of a
Constitution: it cannot stand alone. The mere fact
that it claims to be supreme doesn't make it supreme.
What does make it supreme is the recognition of its
supremacy by the constitution: if it is a principle of
the constitution that the Constitution is supreme,
then it is. But that principle can never be embodied
in the Constitution - it must always remain outside
it.

This is the heart of what I am arguing: the
constitution of Nova Roma does not recognize the
Constitution of Nova Roma as supreme, because in the
constitution the tribunes have the power to permit the
Constitution to be overruled. I agree that the
Constitution of Nova Roma clearly intends the
constitution to be rigid; and I agree that if you read
the Constitution alone you would conclude that the
constitution is rigid. But the Constitution is set
within the constitution, and since the constitution
doesn't agree with the Constitution on the subject of
the Constitution's supremacy, it also doesn't agree
with the Constitution about whether the constitution
is rigid. Do you see why we can't set aside
constitutions for a separate discussion at another
time?

> And why the Constitution of any nation is the
> supreme authority of that state,
> given that most probably it has not been voted
> directly by the citizens and
> itÂ’s the only document affirming its supremacy? And
> even if the citizens had
> originally voted it, why should it be considered
> binding to the future
> generation, who didnÂ’t have a chance of expressing
> their opinion? :)
>
> Argh, Apollonie!!! That I wouldnÂ’t had expected from
> you. Following your line of
> thought the Constitution is not indeed the supreme
> document of the nation
> because itÂ’s authority is self-affirmed and
> self-referential, when itÂ’s indeed
> in the nature of any Constitution to be so.

That's absolutely right. The Constitution is only
supreme if the constitution treats it as supreme. In
most countries it does, but that's because in most
countries there exist institutions or mechanisms which
keep it that way. Those institutions or mechanisms - a
constitutional court, for example - are parts of the
constitution, not parts of the Constitution. The
Constitution may instruct that these things should
exist, but they are not *in* the Constitution - they
are in the constitution.

I could write a Constitution for Germany. But if the
constitution of Germany doesn't accept my Constitution
as the supreme legal document of Germany, it won't
have any force whatsoever. A country can have many,
many Constitutions at once, but only one constitution.
That's why it's the latter that we have to look at
first.

> Also, following your line, every single legal act we
> have enacted so far is
> void, given the magistrates were deprived of any
> authority in issuing them
> (being they derive their authority from the
> Constitution), the comitia were
> equally deprived of any authority in taking any
> decision (as they are given the
> power to vote by teh Constitution and is again the
> Constitution that state the
> results of teh Comitia are binding for every
> citizen) and the Senate as well is
> just a bunch of people meeting and assuming a title
> granted by them by a piece
> of paper of no real authority. Anarchy, is what you
> are suggesting. But I will
> take your lines as a dialectic provocation and
> nothing more, and I hope it was
> so indeed.

Not at all. My position is one which recognizes the
wider reality within whose context Constitutions and
laws operate. I know it's not something lawyers and
legal thinkers discuss very often, because in most
cases it's adequate to make an a priori assumption
that all laws are authoritative by virtue of their
being laws, and so on; but in a discussion of this
kind we can't get away with that assumption, because
it's simply not true. Laws derive their authority
from, on the one hand, the fact that the people accept
the unwritten principle that laws are binding, and, on
the other hand, the existence of institutions which
will, if necessary, use physical force to compel the
people to obey the laws. A law which is not accepted
by the people or enforced by the authorities is not
binding, even if it says it is.

Now, you mention the magistrates. They derive their
authority not from the Constitution but from the
constitution and ultimately from the people: they are
elected by the people, and are accountable to the
people, according to procedures and principles which
form part of the constitution. The comitia have the
power to create binding laws because they are the
assemblies of the people, and at the last ditch the
people will enforce them - through their elected
magistrates if possible, but, if not, in spite of the
magistrates. Why do the people have all this power?
It's not for any grand ideological reason, but for a
very practical one: the people as a whole outnumber
any individual or small group, and can if necessary
force them to accept the will of the majority. In the
old republic, the assemblies - particularly the
centuriate assembly - were the army in civilian
clothes, and their decisions were backed up with
military force. Ultimately, if all the people had
decided to abolish the senate or overthrow the
magistrates, it would have happened; so it was a
simple and pragmatic fact that the senate, the
magistrates, the assemblies, and all the other
elements which made up the constitution as a whole
system derived their authority ultimately from the
people.

> Indeed, we both know that the Constitution is the
> supreme document because
> (most) of the cives recognize themselves in what it
> says, because in asking for
> citizenship we implicitly (or even explicitly? I
> canÂ’t remember anymore the
> enrollment procedure, has been a few years)
> recognize its supremacy, because
> the whole nation is (sadly, sometimes only
> nominally) ruled by that and with
> continuous reference to that. Without going too much
> into legal philosophy, the
> Constitution is what Kelsen defined as grund-norme,
> from which stems the
> authority of all the restÂ… take it away, and you
> will have to start all over
> again.

That's precisely what I've been saying, with a single
exception: what you are describing is not the
Constitution but the constitution. The Constitution is
only a grund-norme if the nation treats it as such,
and the fact is that Nova Roma demonstrably does not
treat the Constitution as such: the tribunes have the
power to permit the Constitution to be overruled, and
they have that power because the people permit them to
exercise it.

> Nope, constitution can be changed, Constitution can
> be changed only in the way
> it allows itself to be changed. That acts have been
> put in place against it
> doesnÂ’t overrule the Constitution, but makes those
> acts unlawful. That people
> have obeyed them in the past and keep doing it just
> proves they have not been
> properly educated in constitutional matters or that
> the Constitution is not in
> line anymore with the constitution and should be
> changed by the means it
> provides to be changed.

You say the Constitution can be changed only in the
way it allows itself to be changed: as you'll be able
to guess, I disagree. The Constitution can be changed
only in the way the constitution allows it to be
changed. If the Constitution says it can be amended in
such and such a way, and the constitution accepts that
statement, then it is true in that political system;
and obviously if the constitution acknowledges the
Constitution as supreme then it will accept the
statement. But if the constitution doesn't recognize
the Constitution as supreme, it can decide how the
Constitution can be amended, or at can decide not to
bother with amending the Constitution at all and
simply ignore it instead, which is what has happened
in some cases in Nova Roma.

In case you're still not convinced, imagine this
scenario: the consuls propose a law to amend the
Constitution to create a new magistrate, the Cudetor,
whose job will be to design, mint, and sell NR coins.
The comitia approves the law. The consuls direct the
webmaster to amend the text of the Constitution
accordingly. The tribunes cast no veto. The people
voice no complaint. The webmaster makes the change. A
by-election is held, and a Cudetor is elected. the
Cudetor gets on which his or her job. Life goes on for
years and years and years. Now, perhaps you stand up
ten years later (don't as me why you didn't do it
earlier - maybe you were on a long holiday) and say,
'the existence of the Cudetor is unConstitutional,
because the Constitution was amended without the
correct procedure as laid out in the Constitution'.
But the official text of the Constitution now contains
an explicit job description for the Cudetor. The
office has existed for ten years. No one has ever
objected before. Were it not for the archives and our
own memories, we might not even know that there had
ever not been a Cudetor. So what happens now? Are you
seriously going to argue that the Cudetor is not an
established part of Nova Roma's political system? Are
you going to demand that every past act of every past
Cudetor be declared illegal and reversed? Are you
going to argue that the present text of the
Constitution is not the legitimate official text of
the Constitution?

> And in fact, I suggested way back that either the
> unCostitutional acts should be
> struck down or that the Constitution should be
> changed to be in line with the
> laws, if so is the will of the people. But to keep
> the Constitution as it is
> and at the same time laws that counter it.. no, that
> wonÂ’t do.

By whom should it be struck down? No one has the power
to do it without violating the Constitution you want
to protect. That won't do either. As for your other
suggestion, that the Constitution be updated, I would
be quite content for that to happen; it would make
things clearer and less misleading. But let's
recognize that if there's a discrepancy between the
Constitution and the constitution, that doesn't mean
that al sorts of things are invalid and illegal and
bad and must be shot at dawn and jumped up and down on
until they're flat like pancakes; the constitution,
which is the reality of the polticial system, carries
on as before, and no one's significantly worse off.

> And please let’s not start with “the people voted
> it, the people wanted it so,
> Constitutional or not, it will be so” because it has
> been the line usually used
> by the most infamous regimes to seize power and I
> shall never accept it as a
> valid argument point in a system that pretends to
> follow the rule of law.

I'm sure you'll have grasped by now that I'm making no
such argument, and there is no need to paint me as a
fascist as you seem to be shaping up to do.

> >The only evidence supporting the authoritative
> status of the constitutional
> >document is the fact that the constitutional
> document says it has authoritative
> >status.
>
> And again I hope that is just an argument taken to
> the limit and you are not
> really saying the Constitution isnÂ’t above the other
> laws. What then gives the
> US Constitution itÂ’s authority and supremacy, to
> make an example?

As I've explained, the U.S. Constitution derives its
supremacy from the U.S. constitution, which contains a
fundamental principle that the Constitution is supreme
and which also includes various institutional
protections and supports for the Constitution. Without
these, it would indeed be merely a piece of paper with
'trust me, I'm a Constitution' written on it.

> >The U.S. constitutional document states that the
> president will be elected by
> >state Electors. In practice the president is
> elected by the people of the
> >states, with the Electors having by convention no
> personal influence in the
> >matter. That's a pretty important difference.
>
> ItÂ’s not. The Constitution states not, as far as I
> remember from my compared
> constitutional law studies, how the Electors shall
> be nominated. What happened
> in this case was that the constitution didnÂ’t change
> the Constitution, but put
> at its side a principle (the universal suffrage)
> that does NOT contradict the
> letter of the Constitution. The presidents IS indeed
> elect by Electors who are
> elected (not in contrast with the constitution) by
> the people. A perfectly
> valid C/constitutional move.

I didn't say it's unconstitutional, simply that it's
misleading and demonstrates the way in which a rigid
constitution can create an increasing divergence
between the constitution and the Constitution.

But I must point out that if this is not
unconstitutional, then the 'blasphemy decree' isn't
unconstitutional. Your argument for its
unconstitutionality was, I think, that it restricts
the freedoms of expression and political action which
are implicit in the Constitution. Now, the
Constitution doesn't explicitly state that citizens
have the right to advocate and attempt to achieve the
diestablishment of the religio Romana, so those rights
are implied by, firstly, the general right of freedom
of expression which is mentioned, and secondly, the
absence of any statement to the contrary. Compare this
to the case of the U.S. electors. Firstly, the
Constitution gives them the general right to elect the
president; and secondly, it does not mention that
their freedom to elect the president is to be limited
or restricted in any way. Nonetheless, there is a
convention (and perhaps a law, I don't know) which
requires the electors to vote in a way which takes
account of the votes of the populace in the states. So
although the electors in principle retain the right to
cast votes in the election, their freedom to exercise
this right in whatever way they choose is
significantly restricted; in the same way, the
blasphemy decree allows citizens to retain in
principle the right to speak freely, but in practice
significantly restricts their freedom to exercise this
right in whatever way they choose. Now, I can
understand the view that this constitutes a breach of
the Constitution, and I can understand the view that
it doesn't; but whichever you choose, it must be the
same for both the electors and the blasphemy decree.

> Actually, your evidence proves exactly the contrary.
> The political system
> strives to be in line with the Constitution as much
> as it can. Yes, it
> occasionally commits mistakes and yes, right now the
> Constitution is imperfect
> because it has not the means to correct those
> mistakes past the 72 hours
> allowed for tribunician intervention, yet I think
> most of us here, and IÂ’m
> sure all the magistrates, find the statement “Yes,
> the constitution says
> something, but the system actually works in a
> different way” abhorrent.

Well, so far we've had two items of feedback on my
theory, one of which strongly opposes it (that's you)
and one of which strongly supports it (that's Senator
Palladius). I don't see any reason to assume that all
magistrates will find it abhorrent - perhaps you ought
to do a survey. In fact I can guarantee you that not
all magistrates find it abhorrent, because I'm a
magistrate and I don't.

Your characterize the examples of divergence between
the real political syste and the text of the
Constitution as 'mistakes', and argue that because
they are mistakes that shows that they are not genuine
divergences; but you haven't proved that they are
mistakes. Have you interviewed the tribunes of the
time? If not, I see no reason to assume that they were
incompetent - surely it's more charitable and more
polite to assume that they were doing their job
properly, considered whether the bits of legislation
you're worried about were acceptable or not, and
deliberately chose not to veto them. Or have you
evidence to the contrary?

> >What evidence does the constitutional document
> offer? That it says so, and it's
> >always right because it says so.
>
> And that is good to me and I hope for everyone else
> but, it seems, you. “The
> Constitution says so therefore that is right and
> must be put in place” sounds
> as perfectly good and sounding argument to me just
> as much as “If a law
> directly or indirectly goes against the Constitution
> or produces directly or
> indirectly effects that are against the
> Constitution, that law must be
> eliminated” and I hope to all the cives they both
> sounds just as good.

I'm worried by your willingness to found an entire
legal and political system on what you must surely
recognize to be a logical absurdity. I'm assuming that
you understand the concept of a circular argument, and
that you understand that a circular argument is not
sound logic. Is this correct? If not, please say so
and I'll try to explain in more detail why this is so.

> First of all, romans had a constitution, not a
> Constitution, but besides this
> little pointÂ… the success? The flexible constitution
> (small c) of the Romans
> was exactly the thing that allowed the republic to
> be eradicatedÂ… if that is a
> success to youÂ…

The constitutional factors at work in the collapse of
the republic were not as significant as you imply. The
problem was not any flaw in the constitution itself
but the collapse of the consensus that the
constitution ought to be observed. Any state may
suffer such a collapse, because as we've both said
above a constitution relies ultimately on its
acceptance by those who operate within it. The problem
was that the armies, and those in control of them,
began to disregard the constitution altogether and
base their actions not on constitutional principles
but on their own moral principles and personal
ambitions, backed up with military force. To be sure,
constitutional reforms could perhaps have prevented it
or delayed it - one possibility, suggested to me by my
former tutor Miriam Griffin, would have been to
legislate to take the power to distribute booty and
military pensions away from the generals and give it
to the senate - but such reforms would have been
harder to achieve if the constitution had been a rigid
one.

> ... My idea is to
> force the courts (and the people of Nova Roma) to
> practically face the
> unConstitutionality of some laws and then state
> “yes, the law is indeed against
> the letter of the constitution, yet we do not have a
> mean to make it right, we
> have to apply it and condemn you” and then I hope
> that the sheer injustice of
> it will force someone to do something. And then I
> hope that someone else will
> do the smae again so much that the courts will
> have to condemn so many people
> out of an unConstitutional law that someone will
> HAVE to do something following
> the Constitutional means provided or by changing the
> Constitution, again using
> the Constitutional means to do that.

Well, you could do that; but I find it hard to see the
difference between that idea and Ghandi's idea of
saying "yes this is the law, and yes I have broken it,
because I wish to show that it is an unjust law and
ought to be changed". That's an extremely respectable
strategy, and has a good chance of success, but it
makes very little difference whether you begin it by
saying "this law is unConstitutional and I have broken
it" or whether you begin it by saying "this law is
unjust and I have broken it".

> And the Lex Iunia de Iusiuranda and the decree about
> blashpemy are
> unConstitutional.

Or are they? See above.

Incidentally, I'm noticing that no one else is joining
in this thread, and I suspect few are reading it. If
that's so, it might be better for us to move it to the
Laws list and so free up some space in the Forum. If
you agree, just reply to me on the Laws list.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

> Let me make it _very_ clear that Illustris Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> is the BEST of friends and Colleagues.

Thank you.

> He has done everything possible to advise me, but he hasn't been
> involved in approving citizens during the last few years.

This is true. Last year and this year, I have concentrated almost
entirely on the tools, because there is no one else who can do so.
Censor Caius Flavius and Censor Caeso Fabius handled all of the
citizen and applicant contact. Unfortunately that does leave me in
a poor position to give advice on policies regarding names; I think
my present colleague has done very well in an office of great complexity
where he had to, from the beginning, be the public face of that office.

My goal is to improve the tools enough that, when I retire at the end
of the year, I will not have to be a scribe at all in the following
years. Everything that I go directly to the database for - adding
voter codes, for example - will eventually be automated.

Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus.
http://www.graveyards.com/
Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess;
moderation is for monks. - Heinlein

EMILIA CURIA FINNICA QUIRITIBUS SPD

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

The sixth day of Ludi Cerialia consists of the following events:

1. CERIALIA CULTURAL CHALLENGE - 4. Religio Romana
2. VENATIONES reported by Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia and Marcus
Sempronius Sophus

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

*Find all information about Ludi Cerialia easily. Have a look at the
program:
http://www.insulaumbra.com/aedilisplebis_ecf/index_cerialia.html

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

1. CERIALIA CULTURAL CHALLENGE - 4. Religio Romana

CORRECT ANSWERS by C. Iulius Scaurus

1. The chief deity of the Roman pantheon was?
a. Iuppiter Optimus Maximus
b. Iuppiter Latiaris
c. Quirinus
-----
Answer: a
Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

2. Instruments of which metal were prohibited for use in Roman
sacrifices?
a. Bronze
b. Brass
c. Iron
-----
Answer: c
Iron.

3. Whose sacred fire was tended by priestesses under the manus of the
Pontifex Maximus?
a. Vesta
b. Iuno
c. Minerva
-----
Answer: a
Vesta.

BEST ESSAY

4. essay: Discuss the methods you would use to reconstruct a ceremony
of the Religio Romana. Select a specific feria or ceremony and discuss
those methods in the context of reconstructing it.

Instead of choosing any specific feria I will present here some ideas
about making a research. First of all one would have to gather literal
sources which speak about ceremonies, both primary and newest research
on the subject. Then should be continued to seek archeological and
other item based sources. After careful evaluation of the evidence
gathered one should start investigating about which of the elements of
the ceremony itself and its surroundings could be reconstructed and at
this point choose the ceremony which to reconstruct based on the amount
of information and possibility to make the reconstruction. Then one
would have to consider what there is that we don't know and would there
be any possibilities to find out that information from more research of
my making interpretations and/or assumptions based on any evidence on
e.g. other ceremonies. Then one should proceed by trying to create in
all possible means the correct surroundings and fill in possible gaps
by best possible assumptions. After that the theory would have to be
documented with care and to present it possible authorities of the
subject. After these preparations which probably would take at least
some months if not years, one would be able to actually perform the
reconstructed ceremony.

In order to be able to make research about the ceremonies and
especially to be able to make interpretations and assumptions one would
before research have to had special insight to Religio Romana and deep
understandment on it and Roman culture. Also studies in other religions
and religion history would be very important grounds into which to
build knowledge from special ceremony.

C. Curius Saturninus

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

2. VENATIONES
reported by Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia and Marcus Sempronius Sophus

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

1ST ROUND

Fight 1

Franciscus Apulus Caesar
Name: Arabicus
Type: DIMACHAERUS
Description: "gratatio pendolorum" (as a lucky act)

Titus Octavius Pius
Name: En Svensk Tiger
Type: Tiger
Description: A fierce tiger with blue and yellow stripes, known to keep
its country safe in times of need.


In the first round, Arabicus strides onto the field to face the En
Svensk Tiger, the striking blue-and-yellow guardian of its barbaric
homeland. This is no ordinary tiger - it's bizarre stripes are
mesmerizing and its muscles enormous. As it is released onto the
field, it howls with a scratching fury that silences the crowd, and
even lucky Arabicus looks up, as if searching the skies quickly for
good omens.

Steeling himself, Arabicus strides forward in a crouched stance,
approaching the Tiger, which begins lumbering out toward the center of
the ring. In no hurry, the beast swings its head slowly from side to
side as it walks, jaws open to reveal its dagger-like teeth.

Before they are seemingly close enough to strike, the tiger
Lunges, throwing its enormous length forward and reaching for the
throat of the gladiator, as if it had hands to strangle him. With
cat-like agility of his own, Arabicus spins down and away, quickly
back-stepping to a great distance. The crowd roars! What a move!

Angry now, the great cats turns and moves faster toward Arabicus,
kicking up dust as it breaks into a trot. Arabicus back-steps more
quickly now and the crowd begins to jeer. Running away? Is this
courage? Is this Roman?

But as he back-steps, Arabicus begins spinning his two curved siccae
before him, like a deadly pinwheel. As the shiny blades flash and
spin, the Tiger blinks at first, then hesitates. Slower and slower it
lumbers, until paused almost to a stop, moving its head from side to
side as it steps forward, trying figure out what it going on.

Arabicus has mesmerized it with his dexterous sword show. The blades
flash and blur.

Then it is Arabicus who begins walking forward toward the confused but
deadly cat. Slowly, inexorably Arabicus keeps his blades spinning,
flashing. The crowd is hushed to a silence, the only sound heard is
the gladiator's whistling blades. This is truly a gamble--with one
slip of the hands, he would lose his rhythm, the tiger would awake and
then have him!

But Arabicus moves forward, forward. Suddenly, as if it is bursting
from within, two enormous slices appear down the front shoulders of the
cat and blood pours down across its striped forelegs. No one saw
Arabicus' blades stop spinning, but now blood flies from them and
splatters onto the sand.

The cat shrieks a hellish cry. Shocked from its stupor, it lurches
back and flies from the battle, running full speed across the sand.
The crowd goes wild!!! What a show! What alacrity and courage!
Arabicus! Arabicus!

The cat is too magnificent to put to death, but it has clearly lost
this match. Arabicus wins, but the En Svensk Tiger survives to
threaten another gladiator next year.

Arabicus wins, En Svensk Tiger survives.


Fight 2

Titus Octavius Pius
Name: Orm Röde
Type: Secutor
Description: A huge Viking warrior with red hair and beard, foaming
around the mouth from his berserk rage. (That should teach him to stay
off red and white fungi, neh?)

Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
Name: Baby
Type: Tiger


In the second fight, a tiger again takes the field, but this time it is
the fierce Baby against Orm Röde, a huge Viking warrior whose red hair
and beard light up in the sun like flames.

The crowd is quiet and watchful as Orm Röde enters the ring. He is
known for his berserk rages--quite the opposite of the deft cunning
shown by Arabicus. How will he do against the feline power of a tiger?

Baby enters the ring. Baby is a legendary beast—-famous for its
cruelty and speed, making its name a vicious piece of irony.

The match is on. Orm Röde sees the great cat and begins striding
forward, slightly crouched behind his scutum, but obviously feeling the
beginnings of battle lust. He moves quickly, straight, and with no
guile. He wants to fight!

Watching him come, Baby paces from side to side, almost circling. She
never takes her eyes off of this curious approaching shape.

When he is close enough to engage, Orm Röde slows, caution getting the
best of him. Baby takes a few steps forward, wary but now also
annoyed.

Orm Röde makes a few thrusts with his gladius but the blade is too
short to strike home. The tiger dodges the thrusts easily, but becomes
anxious and annoyed.

The crowd grows impatient and begins cheering. Action! Action!
Fight! Fight!

In a burst, Orm Röde bellows an enormous battle cry and leaps forward,
raising his sword to strike for the kill!

But in leaping forward he drops his shield to the side, creating an
opening into which the tiger leaps like lightning, clamping its great
teeth onto the gladiator’s throat.

Orm Röde falls backward, gurgling as he crashes to the ground with the
tiger still fastened to his throat. The impact of the two combatants
sends dust erupting into the air. A few shakes of the tiger's head and
the Viking's head comes clean off, dribbling blood and gore onto the
dusty field as the tiger slowly crosses the arena, the head still in
its mouth.

It seems Orm Röde will not live to fight another day. Baby has a snack.

Baby wins, Orm Röde dies.


Fight 3

Aulus Ambrosius Celetrus
Name: Atticus    
Type: Murmillo

Tiberius Annaeus Otho
Name: Tylaria
Type: Leopard  


Atticus is proudly swinging his gladius, slicing through the air,
waiting for his fierce opponent. It is Tylaria, the skillful and
beautiful leopard. She is released and smells the blood from previous
fights still in the sand, baring her razor-like fangs with a roar.

Tylaria catches a glimpse of Atticus in front of her, and begins to
stalk him. Her hunger for blood is increasing as she swipes her iron
–like paw through the air, catching the gladiator’s right calf. He
jumps back and considers the leopard with steel in his eyes for a brief
moment as his shallow wound reddens.

The leopard lunges again, this time for Atticus’ shoulder. Someone in
the crowd cries out “Watch out, Atticus!” As he spins to deflect the
blow with his scutum, he slices his gladius through low the air and
across Tylaria’s hind legs. She roars and reaches out for him again,
this time Atticus taking a hit in the left thigh.

Now they truly begin to duel, with Atticus finally on the offensive.
He moves like an acrobat, ducking behind the animal to cut her in the
right shoulder. He jumps to her other side and slashes at her throat,
cutting her left ear nearly off. Crimson blood pours down the side of
her face and into her left eye as she howls in frustration.

Atticus can see that Tylaria is partially blinded, and jumps at the
chance to win the fight. From her left, he opens her throat with one
aggressive swipe of his gladius, and she falls to the sand. The crowd
roars! What a noise!

Atticus wins, Tylaria dies.


Fight 4

Lucius Cassius Pontonius
Name: Hortensus Appolonius
Type: Murmillo

Tiberius Annaeus Otho
Name: Lapis Tarpeicus
Type: Rhinoceros      


In the fourth fight, Hortensus Appolonius—-armed with a gladius and
scutum—-faces Lapis Tarpeicus, a vicious rhinoceros whose enormous mass
is rivaled in fearsomeness only by its seething, almost radiant anger.
There is something so hateful about this animal, something disturbing,
that it has been said that "Lapis Tarpeicus fights like he knows he
doesn't deserve to live, and wants to take it out on the world."

The gates open and the combatants take the field. Appolonius strides
into the dusty sunlight almost gingerly—-but with speed and assurance
that catch the eye. He is gorgeous, this gladiator, and it has been
rumored that many rich Roman ladies have paid for the pleasure of his
company.

Then the rhino enters the ring, banishing all amorous thoughts. This
is a malevolent creature and it trots forward without pausing, aiming
its great horn at the gladiator opposite. This animal is bent on
destruction, and the sooner it can kill, the better.

Wasting no time, Appolonius crouches and readies himself for the
charge. The rhino quickens, the impact of its great feet shaking the
very ground as it crosses the ring. The crowd is abuzz with
excitement.

When the rhino gets within an arm's length of the gladiator Appolonius
cries out and leaps to one side—-then forward, driving his sword and
the corner of his scutum both into the great beast's ribs. Tarpeicus
trumpets and wheels—amazingly fast—whipping its great horn around and
slamming it into Appolonius' shield. The CLANG can be heard even in
the highest stands, and Appolonius is thrown off balance, staggering
backward.

Wasting no time, the great rhino charges into Appolonius, knocking him
completely on his back. With a demonic bellow, Tarpeicus begins to
stomp on the gladiator, pounding its great feet down into its foe with
obvious hateful disdain.

Appolonius rolls to the left and to the right, dodging as many blows as
he can. But one lands on his ribs with a CRUNCH audible throughout the
arena, and a second one lands on his helmet, bending it into a shape
flatter than most gladiator's heads. A muffled scream makes its way
out of the helmet, and Appolonius goes limp.

After a few more missed stomps, the rhino notices the flaccid state of
his opponent. It looks down, sniffs, and steps off. Bored by the lack
of fight left in its foe, Tarpeicus looks back towards its cage, then
slowly ambles away—-back to where it remembers being fed so well.

When it is well departed, Appolonius begins dragging himself toward his
own gate, whimpering, bleeding and defeated but alive.

Lapis Tarpeicus wins, Hortensus Appolonius survives.


Fight 5

Lucius Cassius Pontonius
Name: Gladiator Cartaxia
Type: Homoplachus

Caius Curius Saturninus
Name: Sleeping Beauty
Type: Rhinoceros


The next to charge on the field is the gladiator Cartaxia, who has
mesmerized the crowd here before with lance and dagger. Today’s foe:
Sleeping Beauty, an angry and unpredictable beast. Even from the
audience she is a fearsome animal – her horn somehow appears to have
been sharpened and polished for the occasion.

Sleeping Beauty wastes no time and charges toward the only other
creature in her sight, Cartaxia, who stands proudly holding a small
circular shield. The shield deflects the rhinoceros’ horn as Cartaxia
jumps to the side, and reaches out with a protected right arm to jab
the lance deep into the animal’s flesh near the ribcage. Blood oozes
from the wound.

The animal lets out a deep, rumbling moan, and wanders off. Wanders
off? Cartaxia looks amused as the beast turns it’s back. The audience
is not satisfied, and calls for the death of the animal. “Kill, kill,”
they shout, growing increasingly louder.

Cartaxia bows slightly to the chanting crowd, and obliges, chasing
after Sleeping Beauty. What’s this? Cartaxia is dropping the shield and
lance, and jumping onto the back of the rhinoceros! The crowd goes
wild! Using the animal’s own single horn, the gladiator pulls back
Sleeping Beauty’s head, and slices her throat open with the dagger, not
once, not twice, but three times. Sleeping Beauty collapses, and
Cartaxia is triumphant once again.

Cartaxia wins, Sleeping Beauty dies.


Fight 6

Lucius Arminius Faustus
Name: Aristeus Atrox
Type: Thraex

Emilia Curia Finnica
Name: Heraldic Pig
Type: Wild Boar


Now Aristeus Atrox faces the vitriolic fury of Heraldic Pig, the wild
boar known to have gored and maimed many gladiators. The moment the
match begins, the combatants sprint toward each other, screaming and
bellowing as if lifetime foes. Aristeus holds his sicca high and
Heraldic Pig drops his tusks down in preparation to lunge upward.
Faster and faster they charge towards each other.

At the moment of impact, Aristeus bashes Heraldic Pig's tusks the side
with his parmula and brings his sicca down hard, burying it in the side
of the beast. Heraldic Pig squeals and roars as his momentum carries
him past Aristeus.

Digging his fore hooves into the dust Heraldic Pig, brakes to a stop
and turns back to face his enemy. Blood pouring from his wound, he
takes his stance to begin his charge anew.

Aristeus, now weaponless, crouches and braces his parmula with both
hands—-ready to defend himself from the wounded boar.

Heraldic Pig takes a few steps forward, beginning another charge,
seemingly invincible. Aristeus crouches lower, back-stepping slightly
and obviously nervous.

But suddenly the sicca does its job and Heraldic Pig shrieks, flopping
over into the dust in a wretched spasm. Obviously in a great deal of
pain, its hateful squealing begins ricocheting around the arena,
wrenching the souls of all present.

Aristeus rises and approaches. He removes his sword from the boar's
side and quickly beheads the creature, bringing peace to the arena.
The crowd roars in exaltation and thanks.

Aristeus Atrox wins, 1 dies.


Fight 7

Lucius Arminius Faustus
Name: Elonius 23000
Type: Dimachaeri
Description: This is out of the scope

Emilia Curia Finnica
Name: Heraldic Lion
Type: Lion


Elonius 23000 is the strutting type. Rightly proud of his skill with
the siccae, curved swords, he boasts that he can defeat anyone or
anything he faces in the gladiatorial games. Today, he will face
Heraldic Lion, a lion much larger and more fearsome than his name.
Heraldic Lion has already killed three animal handlers this morning.

Gladiator and beast charge out into the ring. They both move with
feline grace and purpose, circling and swiping at each other, Heraldic
Lion taking a cut on the shoulder. Heraldic Lion hisses and roars,
Elonius hisses and roars back.

Heraldic Lion leaps into the air and onto Elonius. He is pinned to the
ground! The crowd gasps. We can’t bear to watch, but we can’t look
away!

With a sword in each hand, Elonius fights to gain the offensive. He
winces as Heraldic Lion’s claws puncture his tanned skin. He swings
both blades towards the animal’s head, catching Heraldic Lion’s face
between them and rolling them over. Elonius is now pinning the lion to
the ground! What a match!

Elonius raises his arms for a killer blow, but is not swift enough.
Heraldic Lion’s barbaric strength knocks the gladiator to his back, and
his swords go flying. They land quietly in the sand, as the lion sees
his fourth kill of the day and takes it, biting Elonius’ left arm off
before going for his head.

Heraldic Lion wins, Elonius 23000 dies.


Fight 8

Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
Name: Viriato
Type: Retiarus

Aulus Ambrosius Celetrus
Name: Cicero
Type: Thraex                            


At last the crowd is presented with a match between gladiators: the
net and trident wielded by Viriato against Cicero's sicca and parmula.
The stands are full as the two warriors square off, their muscles and
armor glistening in the afternoon sun.

As the fight begins, both are tentative, shuffling and circling each
other in the ancient dance of combat. Viriato makes a few jabs with
his trident, and as Cicero knocks the last of these aside, Cicero
charges forward with his sicca held high, ready to come down in a
crushing blow.

But Viriato's net is already in motion, wrapping itself around Cicero's
sword arm and thwarting Cicero's strike by tangling him up. With a
flick of his arm, Viriato yanks Cicero's arm to one side, sending the
sicca flying and throwing Cicero off balance. What a move! What grace
with the net! Like it was an extension of his arm! The crowd roars in
delight.

Pulling his net back behind him, Viriato moves in for the kill with his
trident, but Cicero is quick as a cat. He knocks the trident away with
his parmula and somersaults over to retrieve his sicca. In fact, he is
so fast that Viriato is unprepared when Cicero comes up swinging, first
on one knee, then on both feet, but still low and fast.

Like a man possessed, Cicero bashes at Viriato's trident with his sicca
and uses his parmula to push aside the net like it was nothing but
wind. Viriato, clearly overwhelmed by this speed and fury, backpedals
quickly and trips over something on the ground. Down he goes in a
crash, and in a moment Cicero is standing over him sword poised for the
kill.

But Viriato has some moves left in him. Like a snake, his net flies
out and wraps around Cicero's calf. With a yank, Viriato pulls
Cicero's left leg out from beneath him.

With preternatural skill, Cicero manages to not lose his balance
entirely, but instead just comes down on his left knee, bringing his
sword point that much closer to Viriato's throat. It is clearly the
moment of truth.

But the crowd likes Viriato, with his deft net-work and his thick
shoulders. The match is called—-Cicero wins, Viriato survives.

Cicero wins, Viriato survives.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Valete,

Emilia Curia Finnica
Scriba Araniae Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Aedilis Plebis

Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Equitio Cato S.P.D.

When I said, "One thing that will be necessary first is to have a clear "national meeting" that will help facilitate Nova Romans getting together and discussing in person the myraid subjects that compel us to be here..." what I was refering to was those subjects that interested each and everyone of us enough to join the Republic of Nova Roma.

I joined Nova Roma because of the Religio Romana, its obvious that you did not. I would like an opportunity to both fellowship and worship with my fellow citizens from all over the world. To create a makeshift forum for discussion and education.

So if at such an event you would be more interested in debating your agenda with whoever will listen then great. There would always be a place at an event for those interested in debating topics. However, I would relish the time to learn from others. Visit old friends, and make new ones.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 4/24/2004 7:46:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mlcinnyc@... writes:

> So, a meeting would be great...*if and only if* there were to be
> real, substantive, and affective (not just effective) debate, with
> real, substantive, and affective (not just effective) results; i.e.,
> the possibility of change, if it is the will of the
> citizens.
> Is this possible?

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

Apologies for not replying sooner: I've been at a
party, relaxing among friends. What a change! But now,
back to the messy stuff:

> And I am asking you, Cordus to please produce me the
> unpleasant
> attacks that I have made on you 'monthly' since the
> beginning of the
> year.

Please note that I never said they were monthly;
simply that in one month you were friendly, and in
another hostile.

> ... Posts where you feel 'attacked' by me, as
> opposed to just
> addressing issues, which is really all I am doing
> here. It is a
> sensitive subject, it would seem. You are inplying
> to this forum that
> I am two-faced with you. Please prove it or clarify
> it, in
> understandable language (yes, now I am being a tad
> snitty)

Okay, here we go. Readers who aren't interested in the
history of Cornelia Strabo's communications with me
will probably prefer to ignore the rest of this
message.

Your first direct communication to me was a private
e-mail on the 10th of November '55. It was neither
especially friendly nor especially unfriendly, as one
would expect for a first communication. By the 20th,
after an exchange of a few messages, you were
confiding to me your feelings about your resignation
and the circumstances leading to it, about a
particular citizen's behaviour in an unrelated matter,
and about the state of the nation in general. I don't
suppose you want me to quote large chunks of this
stuff, and I don't much want to, but the tone of your
opening and closing remarks ought to give a sense of
your informal and amicable tone throughout: "My stars!
Now I've heard it all!!"... "I am sorry you were
caused unnecessary distress in my name". In the same
tone, I wrote to you on the 24th saying, among other
things, "I'm glad you'll be sticking around on the
main list, even if only piping up occasionally".

I didn't hear from you directly after that until the
9th of December, on the main list, message 5954. Your
tone was rather cool, because you thought I had been
casting aspertions on your diligence in wrapping up
outstanding duties after your resignation,
specifically in dealing with a petition of mine. I
replied on the 10th, both on the main list (message
5996) and privately. In both, I apologized for the
misunderstanding, explaining that I had a originally
intended to post a message to the main list mentioning
the care you had taken to follow up the issue but that
this message had been overtaken by events and thus
never posted. To set the record straight, I posted the
relevant passage in my main-list message 5996.

You didn't reply then, but on the 7th of January '56
you contacted me privately to ask me whether I could
find the evidence of a shady business I'd told you
about previously and which you were now minded to take
legal action over. We talked about it, again amicably
- a sample from your side of the correspondence is
"Just wanted to render you my perspectives on this,
from a legal and moral standpoint. Bene vale, and have
a good day" - and I said I'd look for what you needed.
When I failed to find it where I expected, you
responded, "If you 'can't' find it, don't worry about
it. You can only do what you can do". Soon after, on
the 13th, I also contacted you as part of an
opinion-gathering job I was doing for Consul
Quintilianus, but you didn't reply to that one.

Nothing for a long time, but I naturally continued to
assume that things remained much as they were. On July
the 6th, however, you posted on the main list, with no
provocation, message 12744. In it, you gave a lengthy
account of your past dealings with me which bore very
little similarity to the real course of events, and
was at many points chronologically muddled. You
claimed that I had hounded you mercilessly over the
matter of my petition until you had finally given up
in despair (in fact there had been a misunderstanding
for which I apologized in public and in private, to
which you raised no complaint); you said that after
your resignation I had called you "irresponible,
flawed in character" (not only was this completely
untrue, but it came as a great surprise since we had
corresponded amicably for two months *after* your
resignation without you saying a thing about it); then
you said "Further, in the return letter you apologized
to me in private that
the reason you posted this crud is because another
Senator wrote you and told you to shut up in my name"
(again completely false - I never apologized to you
for criticizing your resignation, because you had
never mentioned it, and the occasion on which I told
you about the occasion you mentioned was not when I
was apologizing for anything but when I was chatting
to you about various other matters); you implied that
I had the reason I hadn't been able to find the
evidence you asked me for was that I had made up the
whole thing (not only untrue but bizarre since you
clearly believed me at the time and nothing had
changed since then); and finally you said, "Let me
phrase this in the nicest way I can....I have a heck
of a time 'fully appreciating' your personality" (if
that's 'just addressing issues, what's it like when
you make it personal?). Please refresh your memory by
looking your message up in the archives, together with
my reply - number 12757 - which, you will note, is
polite throughout despite your unprovoked hostility.
Indeed, I even sent you a private message on the 7th,
of which these are some extracts:

"Nothing I said was a criticism of you as a person.
I thought what you did was wrong, and I still think
so, but I'm always careful to make the distinction
between who people are and what they do. I even
checked with you at the time to make sure you
understood that I wasn't attacking you personally, so
that if you thought I was I could write to the main
list to apologize and make it clear that I wasn't. You
seemed to say it was okay. You certainly didn't sound
upset about it then."

"I'm really baffled about what's changed since the end
of October / beginning of November, when we were
corresponding quite amiably. I really wish you'd
written to me whenever it was that you changed your
mind and decided it wasn't okay that we disagreed,
whenever you started to be offended or upset."

You made no reply.

On the 1st of December you posted a public apology to
Senator Cassius Iulianus in message 17422. You did not
offer any similar sentiment towards any of the other
people you had attacked in the summer including
myself. I wrote message 17481, saying "Just as I've
criticised before now those actions of yours I
considered unjustifiable, I can't do less than
applaud this one which strikes me as brave, just and
generous". I was, you may note, the only person who
posted any message of praise for your action.

The next I heard from you was, I think, the 12th of
December, when you contacted me privately in the same
amicable tone as a year before, as though nothing had
happened. It was a propos a discussion that was going
on at the time on the Laws list. You suggested that
the Academy should offer a law course, and you also
discussed with me your worries about a lack of
even-handedness in the enforcement of laws governing
resignation of office on past occasions. I said I'd
discuss the law course idea with the Academy, and that
I'd look into the other matter also. You wished me
good luck in my candidacy for rogator. A little later,
you asked my advice and help in an important matter
which you asked me not to discuss further, and which I
shan't therefore explain here unless you want me to. I
agreed to advise you and said that I would think hard
about whether I could meet your further request for
help. I hope you won't mind me quoting a small section
of one of your messages to give a flavour of your
general tone: "We have had our draggem-outs, but I
wouldn't be speaking to you electronically if I didn't
think you were honest, upfront, knowledgable, had a
good moral compass, respected good government, and
love the republic. I will handle this, and equally I
appreciate your willingness to even read my memos". We
left the matter there, though I made it clear that I
was prepared to give further advice or assistance if
you needed it as things developed.

Since then, we have participated in a discussion on
the Laws list, again in amicable tone (see, for
instance, message 520 in that list's archive), but
have had no further private correspondence.

And then a couple of days ago you once again launched
into a fairly aggressive attack on my statement -
which was nothing more than the plain truth - that
Quaestor Aventina had never claimed to be a member of
the Boni and that the fact that she occasionally
agreed with them was no good reason to think she was
one of them. And not just on my statement, but on me
personally, despite your claim that you are "just
addressing issues": you claimed that I made that
statement while knowing that Aventina was a Bona or
was very closely associated with the Boni, which
amounts to calling me a liar; and worse, you implied
very clearly, twice - and you've done it a third time
since then - that my motive for 'defending' the
Quaestor was simply that I find her attractive. You
said that in the fully knowledge of my engagement. If
that's not a personal and malicious attack, I don't
know what is.

> So, it would seem that you can dish it out, but you
> can't take it.
> You can carry on at length, citing your opinions,
> judgements,
> conclusions about the rightness and wrongness of
> others, but when
> Cornelia voices concerns about you pontificating a
> contradiction about
> who is in the Boni, you run like a spoiled child and
> accuse me of
> personal attacks, and two facedness.

I have never 'dished out' personal insults or attacks
of the kind you have subjected me to not just in the
last few days but also last summer, for which you
never troubled to apologize; and since I don't dish
them out I see no reason why I should take them. If
you have a criticism of something that I've done, then
I'll hear it and respond to it politely. That's not
what you've been doing, though, is it? I made a
statement which contained nothing but the undeniable
truth: Octavia Aventina has not said that she's in the
Boni, and the fact that she sometimes agrees with them
doesn't mean she's one of them. But somehow you seem
to believe I said "Octavia Aventina is a completely
blameless person who has never associated with the
Boni, who would never dream of having any connections
with them at all, and who has never done anything
wrong in her life". And on top of attacking me for
saying something I didn't say, you make insinuations
about my motives. What is that supposed to achieve,
apart from making people think I'm a swine, upsetting
my fiancee, and insulting me? Please explain how
that's "just addressing issues".

> Pompeia: I think you make a serious error when you
> claim things which
> you cannot prove. The person you hurt is 'you'.
> One cannot guarantee
> the actions of another completely. Endorsements
> which are most
> effective are best done on a person's past behaviour
> statements, etc.

Again, please tell me when I claimed something I
couldn't prove, and whom I endorsed. I said Aventina
had never claimed to be a Bona, and I can prove that.
I didn't endorse her. Does saying that someone has
never claimed to be a member of the Boni constitute an
endorsement? It's pretty faint praise.

> You felt an obvious need to dissuade readers from
> believing she was
> affiliated with this group, so judging by your need
> to so so, I can
> only concur, that at very least, that you atleast
> recognize they are
> at times, not on the most popular list, and felt a
> need to protect
> her. Be careful. The actions of a given person are
> best explained by
> themselves.

Utter nonsense. I made no attempt to protect anyone.
When I asked Aventina to retract her accusation of
blasphemy against the Consul, was I protecting him?
Not in the least - he's quite capable of defending
himself. I was objecting to the flinging around of
frivolous accusations. It's the same here. Someone
accused her of being a Bona, and I objected. I would
do the same if someone accused you of being a Bona, or
a blasphemer, or a donkey. That's what you want, isn't
it - even-handedness? Why, then, is it okay for me to
'protect' the Consul, whom you like, but not okay for
me to do exactly the same for the Quaestor, whom you
dislike? How even-handed is that?

> Pompeia: I am not going to comment on this other
> than to say, that my
> remarks regarding the Boni are only in response to
> your need to point
> out that our Quaestor likely wasn't a part of them.

How many times must I tell you that I didn't say that?
I simply said that she hadn't claimed to be. Are you
saying that's not true?

> Further, it is
> interesting to note that those you have made
> exceptions for in the
> past, especially when it comes to your pet peeve,
> resignations, happen
> to be in the Boni. Is this a crime? No. I am not
> judging the
> rightness of wrongness of your partisanship...but
> those you are
> lenient with happen to be Boni. If they are good,
> why do you feel that
> you have to protect Diana's rep from public
> association with them?

Did you read my last message? I have not made
exceptions. I didn't criticise Laenas because he
retracted his resignation. I didn't criticise Aventina
because it was no business of anyone but the residents
of Gaul. Who they were made no difference. I said that
two days ago, and rather than comment you've just
repeated the same accusation that I've already
answered.

> Pompeia: Well, as one who recognized your initial
> note as riddled
> with sarcasm (I'm sure others did too) it looked
> like an
> quasiretraction to me. "22282....It has since been
> brought to my
> attention that there is a danger that I was being
> deeply sarcastic (so
> others did recognize your sarcasm), fear
> (justifyably) that I had gone
> completely off my rocker. My apologies to anyone
> who thought I was
> sincere"
>
> My bad, Cordus...but if you want to continue writing
> like that, expect
> to be misinterpreted.

I do not expect to be misinterpreted, because I write
good English and anyone who can read good English can
understand what I mean. It looks nothing like a
retraction to anyone who bothers to think about it
rather than simply seizing it as something to hit me
over the head with, which is what it feels like you're
doing.

> Pompeia; I do not call denying my initial statement
> a
> retractiion...it is just that, a denial. Further in
> 22179 the Consul
> is herein accused of 'encouraging resignations and
> breeches in Nova
> Roma'. Such is also prosecutable. It is not a
> matter of her
> obligation to prosecute the Consul at the end of his
> term...the point
> is, these statements in themselves are prosecutaable
> and have no basis
> in truth. If you are satisfied with this
> 'retraction' (would she have
> made it without your prompting, Cordus? who knows,
> as we can neve
> guarantee the actions of another completely). I
> have seen to date no
> such statement retracting 22179... the Consul's
> 'alleged' conspiracy
> to commit insurrection.

Such conspiracy would have constituted a breach of the
Consul's oath. The accusation that he had breached his
oath was precisely what I asked her to retract. She
replied, "In my opinion, he hasn't violated his Oath
of Office". Where there was an accusation, now there
is no accusation. That's a retraction. No accusations
are outstanding. If they were, I would be demanding
their retraction.

As for whether she would have made thr retraction if I
hadn't asked, I fail to see how that's relevant, but
nonetheless you should be able to work out my view for
yourself: if I thought she was going to do it anyway,
why would I have bothered to ask?

> Would it be a fair statement to say, that although I
> am not Mother
> Cornelia of the Gracchi, I don't like to see the
> Consul accused
> falsely, and that I would like people to be
> accountable for their
> actions in issuing apologies/magisterial retractions
> for untruths,
> based on 'their' convictions in their oath of
> office? I will not call
> such an attempt to allude accountability
> appropriate, and I won't feed
> into it.

I don't like to see people falsely accused either. In
fact, I don't like to see people accused groundlessly,
whether the accusation happens to be true or not. That
is precisely why I objected to the accusation that
Octavia Aventina is a Bona. It was groundless. Whether
it was true or not I don't know and at this hour of
the night I don't much care.

> Pompeia: In my humble opinion, he merits no
> criticism at all. In your
> opinion his notice time isn't long enough. I
> thought the issue with
> you was the giving of notice, not a set period of
> notice...Your
> criteria varies, I'm afraid.

My position is and has consistently been that a
magistrate who feels compelled to resign ought not to
leave office without ensuring that his or her
successor is adequately prepared to take over. But you
are overlooking that fact that I also believe that
magistrates ought not to resign in the first place if
at all possible.

> Pompeia: Well, whatever, yes, some people will
> doggit, given the
> chance. Let's assume she did that, and she is 'bad'
> regardless of the
> circumstances. But please do that for everyone.

For heaven's sake, how many hours of my life have I
wasted telling you and others again and again that a
person who has done something wrong is not the same as
a bad person? I have never called anyone in Nova Roma
a bad person. I don't do that. Suggesting otherwise is
at best unjust and at worst spiteful.

> Pompeia: I am going to stop you right here. No, I
> am a procotious
> shrew, who feels she has just as much right to
> address concerns as you
> do...has just as much right to stick up for what she
> feels is correct
> and proper. If the price of friendship is to assure
> that I will never
> challenge you on points of ethics, law, government
> etc. to you, than I
> guess you can think what you wish, which is very
> sad, but your choice.

And yet again I must repeat, for you don't seem to pay
attention the first, second, or third time, that I do
not mind people criticising my actions, just as I
criticise theirs. But I do object to people
criticising me for things that I have not done; and I
do object to people attacking me rather than my
actions, words, or beliefs. That's what you've been
doing. If you didn't mean to, that's fine, but you've
omitted to say so. Let me give you an opportunity: if
you did not intend your remarks to be insulting or
hurtful, then say so now.

> Your reasons for making exceptions to your hard and
> fast rules of
> resignation or anything else, are up to you. I have
> as much right to
> challenge them, but I won't bother. The common
> denominator is that
> the very fact that circumstances mean nothing in one
> case, and much in
> another shows your are rather partisan in your
> judgement, in keeping
> with the rest of humanity...

Why do you continue to claim that I've been partisan
and that I've made exceptions? I have explained in
detail why I made no comment on the resignations of
either Laenas or Aventina. You haven't commented on my
explanations. Do you accept them, or do you think I'm
lying through my teeth? There's no third option.

> Pompeia: Cordus, that is very nice but it doesn't
> have much to do
> with the discussion. I do believe that I've had one
> or two nice
> things to say about you in the past as well. I am
> keenly aware of my
> shortcomings, I have been very open about my angry
> outburts last July,
> and most people who have a clue what was going on,
> although there is
> no excuse for it, can atleast see why I was
> exasparated...from all
> over Nova Roma, Populares and Boni alike.

Forgive me for contradicting you, but you haven't been
"very open about your angry outbursts in late July".
At the top of this message you claim that you have
never attacked me personally, only discussed issues.
In July you did attack me personally, quite clearly,
and far from being very open about it you haven't
mentioned it since.

> .... However, if
> you feel that I
> called you, even indirectly these things, I am truly
> sorry. I think
> most people will connect the dots on what I was
> truly trying to
> convey, Cordus.

Thank you. I'm still mystified as to why you should
say such things if you didn't intend them to be
hurtful, but I'll take you at your word when you say
that you didn't.

> Pompeia: I am scriba for the Curule Aedile Marcus
> Iulius Perusianus.
> I write Ludi Scripts, produce a monthly report, and
> try to act in an
> advisory capacity where appropriate. As far as
> discussions on the
> mainlist.... I have talked about possible gens
> reforms solutions,
> which Modius, Minucius and Cincinnatus, Pontifices
> thought were good
> solutions. Just food for thought stuff that the
> Consuls might like to
> consider.
>
> I talked with you and the Consul about the list
> guidelines...giving my
> views for consideration.

With respect, I must point out that this doesn't
answer my question. You say my proposed solutions to
problems are over-intellectual. I am asking you why,
if that's the case, you haven't said so at the time,
and why you didn't suggest any alternatives.

> Pompeia: There you have it Cordus....I have
> answered you fully. Why?
> Because of my perpetual need to pick on you?
> Because I think you
> might be making some serious mistakes, due to a
> smart brain, yet
> perhaps a bit unlearned in life's experiences?
> Because I don't
> condone improper behaviour anymore than you
> do...even from myself?

Well then, let me make a suggestion: why don't you try
telling me precisely what it is you think I'm doing
wrong? Because so far everything you've accused me of
is simply untrue.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio S.P.D.

salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
> Gaius Modius Athanasius G. Equitio Cato S.P.D.
>
> When I said, "One thing that will be necessary first is to have a
clear "national meeting" that will help facilitate Nova Romans
getting together and discussing in person the myraid subjects that
compel us to be here..." what I was refering to was those subjects
that interested each and everyone of us enough to join the Republic
of Nova Roma.
>
> I joined Nova Roma because of the Religio Romana, its obvious that
you did not. I would like an opportunity to both fellowship and
worship with my fellow citizens from all over the world. To create a
makeshift forum for discussion and education.
>
> So if at such an event you would be more interested in debating
your agenda with whoever will listen then great. There would always
be a place at an event for those interested in debating topics.
However, I would relish the time to learn from others. Visit old
friends, and make new ones.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius

Athanasius, what part of "discussing in person the myriad subjects
that compel us to be here" means "I will only talk to people who
follow the religio and think like I do"? If you are only willing to
speak to/discuss with people who think exactly like you do, there's
not much chance of growth, is there? Discussion serves no purpose if
you already agree with everything everybody you talk to says; your
idea of a natuional meeting would just be one great big mutual
admiration society... I'd be more interested in something
substantive, where I can learn from people that I do *not*
necessarily agree with.

vale,

Cato

G. Equitius Cato A. Appollonio Corda D. Constantino Fusco
quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salvete, gentlemen (and quirites),

Actually, I've been reading these posts and find em interesting. Can
I ask a couple of non-lawyerly questions to clear up a little
confusion I have? thanks :)

Now then, this is what I'm getting from the gist of Cordus'
statements: "The Constitution's validity relies mainly on the
constitution of the state accepting it as such; if the constitution
of the state refuses to acknowledge or enforce a law contained in the
Constitution, it no longer has the real force of law."

Fuscus replies: "No, the constitution of the state has already
created the foundation upon which the Constitution is based. Once
the Constitution exists, it becomes the law, and provides within
itself the only acceptable means of being changed."

My question to Fuscus is: what role does precedence play once the
Constitution has been written; i.e., if the writers of the
Constitution "assumed" that "everybody knows such-and-such, even if
it's not explicitly stated", does the fact that everyone *does* know
such-and-such make any difference when that sucj-and-such violates
the written Constitution?

My question to Cordus is: just because a law is, in fact ignored or
unenforced, does that automatically invalidate it? Consider the
sodomy laws in the US; until the Supreme Court struck them down, they
were (whether enforced or not) the law in their particular states. I
get the impression that what you are calling the constitution
(small "c") is rather something more like the mos maiorum.

My question to the *two* of you is: if the constitution/mos maiorum
does or doesn't agree with the Constitution, which wins in NR?

valete,

Cato Fanaticus





____________________________________________________________

> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html