Salve Flavia,

Thanks for the information on that poem.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus
.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "k.a.wright" <k.a.wright@n...>
wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)"
>
> . Here is one by one of my
> > favourite poets Rudyard Kipling It was a pleasant surprise

since I

> > have a few books of Kipling's poems and works but I had never

seen

> > this one.
>
> Yes I remember this. I was a great Kipling fan in my youth. I'm

pretty

> sure it's from either 'Puck of Pook's Hill' or the

sequel 'Farewell Rewards

> and Faries'
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula

Salve Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Yes did ask for good poems for the Eagle. This one is a gem. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
(Curator Differum 2756)

----- Original Message -----
From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Now For Something Different - A Good Roman Poem!


Salvete omnes,

Several months ago one of our citizens (Tribune Paulinus?) asked us
to find some good poems about Rome. Here is one by one of my
favourite poets Rudyard Kipling I pinched from the Imperial Rome 2
list thanks to Doris Howe there. It was a pleasant surprise since I
have a few books of Kipling's poems and works but I had never seen
this one. Well better late than never I suppose:


The Roman Centurion's Song

Roman Occupation of Britain, A.D. 300

Legate, I had the news last night --my cohort ordered home
By ships to Portus Itius and thence by road to Rome.
I've marched the companies aboard, the arms are stowed below:
Now let another take my sword. Command me not to go!

I've served in Britain forty years, from Vectis to the Wall,
I have none other home than this, nor any life at all.
Last night I did not understand, but, now the hour draws near
That calls me to my native land, I feel that land is here.

Here where men say my name was made, here where my work
was done;
Here where my dearest dead are laid--my wife--my wife and
son;
Here where time, custom, grief and toil, age, memory, service,
love,
Have rooted me in British soil. Ah, how can I remove?

For me this land, that sea, these airs, those folk and fields
surffice.
What purple Southern pomp can match our changeful Northern
skies,
Black with December snows unshed or pearled with August
haze--
The clanging arch of steel-grey March, or June's long-lighted
days?

You'll follow widening Rhodanus till vine an olive lean
Aslant before the sunny breeze that sweeps Nemausus clean
To Arelate's triple gate; but let me linger on,
Here where our stiff-necked British oaks confront Euroclydon!

You'll take the old Aurelian Road through shore-descending
pines
Where, blue as any peacock's neck, the Tyrrhene Ocean shines.
You'll go where laurel crowns are won, but--will you e'er forget
The scent of hawthorn in the sun, or bracken in the wet?

Let me work here for Britain's sake--at any task you will--
A marsh to drain, a road to make or native troops to drill.
Some Western camp (I know the Pict) or granite Border keep,
Mid seas of heather derelict, where our old messmates sleep.

Legate, I come to you in tears--My cohort ordered home!
I've served in Britain forty years. What should I do in Rome?
Here is my heart, my soul, my mind--the only life I know.
I cannot leave it all behind. Command me not to go!

Rudyard Kipling


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salvete Quirites;
I wish to recommend someone I have known almost since I have joined
NR, Laureatus Amoricus, I knew of him from the Britannia list as he
had the energy and enterprise to organize the first Britannia
meeting.It was a great success and is a firm example of his
leadership skills.

Secondly I recommend Amoricus as he is an Accountant. What better
skills could we ask for from a Questor; the job which is overwhelming
for some will be in an area that his is already excellently trained
and has the necessary real life experience and ability.

And finally I have personally worked with Amoricus over at Censor
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus's cohors, his energy and organization to
deal with the non-stop citizenship applications, his patience and
devotion to write long letters helping prospective cives (never my
strong point!) And his devotion to duty make him the ideal candidate
for the post of Questor.
Choose Amorice for Questor: the Leadership, the Ability, the
Devotion
bene valete
Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta

Salvete,

My thanks to all who wrote and posted to wish me well on my
appointment. You are all very kind.

Valete,
Artorus Iulianus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, cassius622@a... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I would like to make a belated Priesthood announcement that missed
being done
> while Patricia Cassia and I were on vacation in Britannia
Provincia.
>
> Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus has been approved as Flamen
Volturnalis
> (Flamen of the river-god Volturunus) by the Collegium Pontificum of
Nova Roma. As
> Flamen Volturnalis, Ambrosius Artorus will both restore the rites
to
> Volturnus as well as working to expand knowledge about Volturnus'
ancient worship.
>
> I have every confidence that Gaius Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus will
do
> excellent work in this position, and I hope that the Citizens of
Nova Roma will
> assist me in congratulating him on his new position. I would also
like to extend a
> public apology to Ambrosius for the delay in this post being made!
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pontifex Maximus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Ambrosius Artorus Iulianus"
<artorus@a...> wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> My thanks to all who wrote and posted to wish me well on my
> appointment. You are all very kind.
>
> Valete,
> Artorus Iulianus
>
> Salve Artore Iuliane;

many congratulations on the Flaminate! I for one cant wait to learn
more about the cultus of Volturnus. Surely the gods are pleased with
such devotion!
bene vale in amore deorum,
Sp.Fabia Vera Fausta
sacerdos Magnae Matris

Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete Omnes,

I, Spurius Postumius Tubertus, Praetorian Scribe, with the approval of Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus, acting in loco Praetoris, have investigated the complaint made by Diana Octavia Aventina, and have come to this conclusion.

Whereas in Message 23051, Citizen Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta stated the following, quoted verbatim:

"...I believe that the Populus and the Di Immortales will only be reconciled and appeased by a really big sacrifice; and I volunteer Scaurus..."

it is the decision that, while this post was intended humorously, it is also extremely disrespectful, inappropriate, and unacceptable for the List. However, it does not explicitly violate the guidelines of the Praetorian Edict of 04 February 2757. Subsequently, Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is hereby warned that her conduct has been unacceptable and inappropriate, and shall be subject to moderation for a period of thirty-three days, to begin at 00:00 Roman Time, 11 May 2757, and to end at 23:59 Roman Time, 12 June 2757. Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is informed that continued inappropriateness on the List may subject her to further action, including, but not limited to, moderation for a period of not less than one-hundred and eighty days, and/or prosecution under Section XV of the Lex Salicia Poenalis. Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is also informed that she does have the right to appeal this decision to the Tribunes of Nova Roma and/or the Comitia Populi Tributa. Furthermore, I am more than willing to answer any questions on this decision, publicly or privately (in the case of any questions, however, to ensure that a response is obtained, please send it to me personally (postumius AT gmx DOT net), and label it somewhere as public or private).

May the Gods of Rome Guide Us Eternally,

Spurius Postumius Tubertus
Scriba Praetoris

G. Equitius Cato Fanaticus quirites S.P.D.

Salvete,

I, too, would like to voice my endorsement of C. Moravius Laureatus
Amoricus in his bid for the quaestorship. In many posts, both
private and public, Laureatus has shown himself a decent, generous,
and determined thinker. Although he and I have disagreed (sometimes
very strongly) on a number of issues, my experience in dealing with
him has never left me thinking anything other than he truly has the
well-being of NR and *all* its citizens at heart.

LAUREATUS FOR THE QUAESTORSHIP!

valete,

Cato

Salve Spuri Postumi;
I accept & abide by this decision entirely. In the spirit of
Concordia I also forgo any appeal.
bene vale in pacem deormum
Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta

. Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is also informed that she does have the
right to appeal this decision to the Tribunes of Nova Roma and/or the
Comitia Populi Tributa. Furthermore, I am more than willing to answer
any questions on this decision, publicly or privately (in the case of
any questions, however, to ensure that a response is obtained, please
send it to me personally (postumius AT gmx DOT net), and label it
somewhere as public or private).

>
> May the Gods of Rome Guide Us Eternally,
>
> Spurius Postumius Tubertus
> Scriba Praetoris

Salve Romans

A few months ago on another Roman group imperialrome2@... A post was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of Tiberius he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman gods. Does anybody know the history behind this? Did this really happen or did I misread the post?


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

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

---Salvete Omnes:



As I spoke up with concerns way back in January regarding Senator
Drusus situation, regarding the law, etc. I must voice concerns with
respect to this.

I am not in a position to rule on this,of course, nor was I in a
position to do much about Drusus other than express my concerns, as a
citizen, and abide by the appropriate magistrates' decisions.

In the spirit of Concordia you have, Fabia Vera, elected to accept
this 'sentence' and forgo appeal. I just wrote a letter of appeal
about 10 minutes ago. I did not know you even knew about this, and it
seems that you are attempting to compromise in the fostering of peace,
and attempting to foster justice, and that is in itself commendable, imo.

I believe strongly though, whether you agree with this decision or not
Fabia Vera, that this edictum is not being applied appropriately, and
I will not discuss the ins and outs on the list, but I will in
private, if anyone likes, as I am running short of time, and it would
entail a lengthy letter.

It has nothing to do with the disrespect to the Consul, who is giving
Propostume the leeway to apply the edictum under his imperium, as
Propostume reports. However, I do not belive proper procedure is
being followed, in the actual application of the edictum by Propostume
scriba. If the Guideline edictum is misapplied to your situation,
this sets a precedent for it to be misapplied in the situation of
others. This, herein, is what concerns me.

Valete,
Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

> Salve Spuri Postumi;
> I accept & abide by this decision entirely. In the spirit of
> Concordia I also forgo any appeal.
> bene vale in pacem deormum
> Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
>
> . Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is also informed that she does have the
> right to appeal this decision to the Tribunes of Nova Roma and/or the
> Comitia Populi Tributa. Furthermore, I am more than willing to answer
> any questions on this decision, publicly or privately (in the case of
> any questions, however, to ensure that a response is obtained, please
> send it to me personally (postumius AT gmx DOT net), and label it
> somewhere as public or private).
> >
> > May the Gods of Rome Guide Us Eternally,
> >
> > Spurius Postumius Tubertus
> > Scriba Praetoris

Salve Paulinus,

I checked arounf the net and Tiberius knowing a description of
Christ etc and wonderful works is thought to be a thirteenth century
hoax. Meanwhile here is an article about Tiberius from the Catholic
encyclopedia and your question seems to be answered in the last
paragraph.





Tiberius
The second Roman emperor (A. D. 14-37), b. 16 November, 42 B. C., d.
16 March, A. D. 37. He was the son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and
Livia. By the marriage of his mother with Emperor Augustus he became
the latter's stepson, and was adopted by Augustus in A. D. 4. In the
year 10 he was appointed coregent with Augustus. Hard and secretive
by nature and embittered by the neglect with which his step- father
allowed him to be treated, he did not arouse personal enthusiasm,
and until recently was described by historians as a bloody tyrant.
It is only during the last sixty years that he has been more fairly
judged, and at present the opinion begins to prevail that he was a
genuine Roman, a ruler faithful to his duties, just, wise, and self-
contained. In his internal policies especially he is one of the most
distinguished of all Roman emperors. Like Augustus he reformed and
improved every department of the government, and promoted in every
direction the prosperity of the empire of which Augustus had laid
the foundation. He developed imperial power by declining to have his
authority renewed from time to time by the Senate, as Augustus had
done. The strong opposition which grew up against him was due to his
taciturn and domineering disposition, and to the influence of the
prefect of the guard, Ælius Sejanus, who alone possessed his
confidence. The persecutions and executions for lese-majesty, which
rapidly increased during the second half of his reign, and the gloom
which pervaded Rome induced Tiberius to leave the capital altogether
in the year 26 and to live partly in Campania and partly on the
Island of Capri. Before this date the question as to the succession
to the empire had led to a terrible family tragedy. By his first
marriage Tiberius had a son called Drusus, while his second marriage
with the immoral Julia, daughter of Augustus, was childless. After
the death of his nephew Germanicus (A. D. 19), whom he had been
obliged to adopt at the command of Augustus to the exclusion of his
own son, he hoped to secure the succession for Drusus. A low
intrigue was formed against this plan, in which the wife of Drusus,
Livilla, who had illicit relations with Sejanus, took part. In the
year 23 Drusus was poisoned by Sejanus and Livilla. However, when in
31 Sejanus formed a conspiracy to secure the throne for himself,
Tiberius was warned at the last moment and had Sejanus executed.
Tiberius spent his last years in constantly increasing seclusion,
misanthropy, and cruelty on the Island of Capri, where it is said he
abandoned himself to debauchery. However, these reports are at least
coloured by prejudice and have not been satisfactorily proved.
Neither is it probable that Tiberius was murdered.

The ministry and death of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ
occurred during the reign of Tiberius. According to St. Luke (iii,
1), St. John the Baptist was called by God, in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius, to prepare the way for Christ as His
precursor. Shortly before his death Tiberius recalled the procurator
Pontius Pilate from Judea. Tertullian (Apologeticum, v, xxi), from
whom Eusebius and Orosius take the story, relates that Tiberius
received a report concerning Christ and that he called upon the
Senate to place Christ among the gods. The Senate rejected the
request; Tiberius then threatened the accusers of the Christians
with punishment. The narrative is not worthy of belief, still it is
probable that Tertullian knew a document that professed to be a
report of Pilate.

STAHR, Tiberius (2nd ed., Berlin, 1873); DOMASZEWSKI, Gesch. der
römisch. Kaiser, I (Leipzig, 1909), 250-319; TARVER, Tiberius the
Tyrant (London, 1902); SCHILLER, Gesch. der römisch. Kaiserzeit, I
(Gotha, 1883), 238-304; HARNACK, Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur,
II (Leipzig, 1897), pt. I, 604-10; BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der
altkirchl. Literatur, I (Freiburg, 1902), 410-11.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER
Transcribed by WGKofron
With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert and St. Mary's Church, Akron, Ohio

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
If an ad appears here that contradicts Catholic teachings,
please click here to notify the webmaster.




















--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...>
wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
> A few months ago on another Roman group imperialrome2@y... A post

was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of Tiberius
he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman
gods. Does anybody know the history behind this? Did this really
happen or did I misread the post?

>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

See is articles are posting

QLP

Salvete


After a one-week travel, im reporting to the Senate
and People that i am available again.
Normally, when a magistrate needs to travel and is
away from communication with Nova Roma, he needs to
take a leave of absence previously, to prevent
confusion.
However i expected to mantain internet contact during
my travel, as i have done various times previously; in
the city where i was, there are two lan-houses and one
cyber-cafe nearby. Unexpectedly, the two lan-houses
closed, leaving the cyber-cafe overcrowded when i was
available, leaving me cut from Nova Roma.
Finally, i assume the full responsability of my
absence, and apologise to the senate and people for
the problems that my absence caused, specially to
Consul Marinus (who was obliged to act "in loco
praetoris"), to the scribes and other magistrates.


M.Arminius Maior
Praetor

______________________________________________________________________

Yahoo! Messenger - Fale com seus amigos online. Instale agora!
http://br.download.yahoo.com/messenger/

Salve Paulinus,

I did some more checking around and it looks like the scholars in
the RC church as well as other denominations who are strong in their
faith and beliefs,still have serious doubts about the narration of
this story and authenticity of such a document. Here is another
point of view:


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

THE JESUS PUZZLE

by Earl Doherty

READER FEEDBACK AND AUTHOR'S RESPONSE


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


A Letter from Pilate to Tiberius about Jesus?

Ah, yes. Pilate's letter to Tiberius on his execution of Jesus, and
the ageing emperor's championing of Christ and his divinity before a
hostile Senate at Rome. This is reported around the year 197 by
Tertullian in his Apology (5): "Tiberius . . . having himself
received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly
shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the
Senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ."

Any scholar today who would suggest that this is anything more than
a piece of naive nonsense would be laughed out of the halls of
academe. In Hennecke's 2-volume New Testament Apocrypha, the
reviewer of the literature of this sort surrounding Pilate (vol. 1,
444-84) considers that Tertullian had access to a recent, forged
Christian document under Pilate's name. In fact, several different
versions of such a letter have survived, cast in such pious language
on the part of Pilate that Tertullian could suggest that the Roman
governor had been converted to the faith! Such things only serve to
illustrate the shameless and ludicrous invention (not to mention the
church Fathers' own credulity!) which we know abounded throughout
the entire documentary career of early Christianity.

In one version of Pilate's letter, the governor enlightens the
emperor on the wondrous state of Lazarus' body as he emerged from
the tomb, gives an account of the darkness over the whole world
during the crucifixion (which Tiberius himself, along with the rest
of the empire, had presumably experienced), and recounts the words
of Jesus at one of his post-resurrection appearances. Pilate also
records events the evangelists overlooked, including the swallowing
up of various Jewish leaders and even whole synagogues in a series
of earthquakes, as punishment for their role in the killing of
Jesus.



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


To: Next File

Return to Index Page
Return to Home Page


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

Salvete omnes,

Please understand that in my last 2 posts in answering Paulinus'
question about Tiberius and his so called move to have Christ
deified is no way in my part a return to a religious debate or
discussion like the one a few weeks ago. I am just pointing out that
the particular story of "Tiberius" getting such a letter from Pilate
that would lead the emperor to try such a thing is highly unlikely
and doubted by many religious scholars also.

In other words there is very little or no merit to that story from
what I can see.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

In a message dated 5/9/04 5:56:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, spqr753@...
writes:

> A post was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of Tiberius
> he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman gods.

This was a 15th century hoax, which occured during the invasion of Italy by
France.

It was turned up supposedly in the sack of a Florence library. It was also
rumored to have surfaced after the Charles V. Landsknechts sacked Rome. It was
never authorized as genuine and is assumed to be a forgery.


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

>Salve Again Tiberi,

I checked around the net further and found the article below. It
therefore looks that even the scholars in the RC church as well as
other Christians who are strong in their faith and beliefs are still
very dubious or outright doubtful of this letter and story about
Pilate's letter and Tiberius' attempt to make Jesus a god attributed
to Tertullian about 197 AD.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

>
>
>

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

THE JESUS PUZZLE
by Earl Doherty

READER FEEDBACK AND AUTHOR'S RESPONSE


---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Letter from Pilate to Tiberius about Jesus?

Ah, yes. Pilate's letter to Tiberius on his execution of Jesus, and
the ageing emperor's championing of Christ and his divinity before a
hostile Senate at Rome. This is reported around the year 197 by
Tertullian in his Apology (5): "Tiberius . . . having himself
received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly
shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the
Senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ."

Any scholar today who would suggest that this is anything more than
a piece of naive nonsense would be laughed out of the halls of
academe. In Hennecke's 2-volume New Testament Apocrypha, the
reviewer of the literature of this sort surrounding Pilate (vol. 1,
444-84) considers that Tertullian had access to a recent, forged
Christian document under Pilate's name. In fact, several different
versions of such a letter have survived, cast in such pious language
on the part of Pilate that Tertullian could suggest that the Roman
governor had been converted to the faith! Such things only serve to
illustrate the shameless and ludicrous invention (not to mention the
church Fathers' own credulity!) which we know abounded throughout
the entire documentary career of early Christianity. To claim that
the same kind of invention did not extend into those documents
chosen for the canon is itself a piece of astonishing naivete.

In one version of Pilate's letter, the governor enlightens the
emperor on the wondrous state of Lazarus' body as he emerged from
the tomb, gives an account of the darkness over the whole world
during the crucifixion (which Tiberius himself, along with the rest
of the empire, had presumably experienced), and recounts the words
of Jesus at one of his post-resurrection appearances. Pilate also
records events the evangelists overlooked, including the swallowing
up of various Jewish leaders and even whole synagogues in a series
of earthquakes, as punishment for their role in the killing of
Jesus.



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


To: Next File

Return to Index Page
Return to Home Page


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

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"

<spqr753@m...>

> wrote:
> > Salve Romans
> >
> > A few months ago on another Roman group imperialrome2@y... A

post

> was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of Tiberius
> he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman
> gods. Does anybody know the history behind this? Did this really
> happen or did I misread the post?
> >
> >
> > Vale
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

L. Arminius Faustus, Tribunus Plebis, ex officio,

I´m most disapointed, angry and grieved. Young Postumius has passed
the good sense. He tarnished his reputation under my eyes and made a
legal and political mistake. Scribas do not share the Imperium of a
magistrate to act. And how he is acting in the name of the Imperium
of the praetor, following his edictum, if he hymself admits the
question is not in the edictum? Follow the edictum, so, not follow
´in the name of the magistrate´.

Fabia Vera, I acknowledge the arguments of the excellent former
praetor Strabo. Indeed, I´m ready to act, if you desire.

Postumius, you have commited a very serious mistake. I recommend... I
counsel... I warn friendly... to bring Fabia Vera back to the list. I
hope a counsel of a Tribune should be even powerful argument than the
Tribunicia Potestas.

Do not think that in the name of Concordia an injustice should be
allowed.

Fabia Vera, you have fallen in many unnecessary troubles on this
list. Be careful with the words. They weren´t nice, indeed, however,
they are not suficient to have this punishment.

However, Fabia Vera, indeed is a great citizen. And I remember his
piety and desire to serve the Roman Religio, the many hymns she has
made to Queen Minerva on the Religio List! I remember his desire to
help reaching missing Callidius Gracchus, excelent propraetora, soft
person, lovely citizen.

These facts... much more than vane angry words... make my mind on her
side.


Vale bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "pompeia_cornelia"
<scriba_forum@h...> wrote:

> ---Salvete Omnes:
>
>
>
> As I spoke up with concerns way back in January regarding Senator
> Drusus situation, regarding the law, etc. I must voice concerns with
> respect to this.
>
> I am not in a position to rule on this,of course, nor was I in a
> position to do much about Drusus other than express my concerns, as

a

> citizen, and abide by the appropriate magistrates' decisions.
>
> In the spirit of Concordia you have, Fabia Vera, elected to accept
> this 'sentence' and forgo appeal. I just wrote a letter of appeal
> about 10 minutes ago. I did not know you even knew about this, and

it

> seems that you are attempting to compromise in the fostering of

peace,

> and attempting to foster justice, and that is in itself

commendable, imo.

>
> I believe strongly though, whether you agree with this decision or

not

> Fabia Vera, that this edictum is not being applied appropriately,

and

> I will not discuss the ins and outs on the list, but I will in
> private, if anyone likes, as I am running short of time, and it

would

> entail a lengthy letter.
>
> It has nothing to do with the disrespect to the Consul, who is

giving

> Propostume the leeway to apply the edictum under his imperium, as
> Propostume reports. However, I do not belive proper procedure is
> being followed, in the actual application of the edictum by

Propostume

> scriba. If the Guideline edictum is misapplied to your situation,
> this sets a precedent for it to be misapplied in the situation of
> others. This, herein, is what concerns me.
>
> Valete,
> Pompeia
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...>

wrote:

> > Salve Spuri Postumi;
> > I accept & abide by this decision entirely. In the spirit of
> > Concordia I also forgo any appeal.
> > bene vale in pacem deormum
> > Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
> >
> > . Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is also informed that she does have

the

> > right to appeal this decision to the Tribunes of Nova Roma and/or

the

> > Comitia Populi Tributa. Furthermore, I am more than willing to

answer

> > any questions on this decision, publicly or privately (in the

case of

> > any questions, however, to ensure that a response is obtained,

please

> > send it to me personally (postumius AT gmx DOT net), and label it
> > somewhere as public or private).
> > >
> > > May the Gods of Rome Guide Us Eternally,
> > >
> > > Spurius Postumius Tubertus
> > > Scriba Praetoris

Salvete Omnes!

We the Citizens of Nova Roma -- ALL the citizens! -- have before us
the opportunity to elect a quaestor who will represent the dignity
of the citizenry: C Moravius Laureatus Amoricus!

He is a gentleman who recognises the broad foundation of our
backgrounds and stands before the citizenry as a man whom the often
silent -- or silenced -- citizens who make up the voters of Nova
Roma can vote for in good concience.

When the mudslinging starts, many of us stand aside. One man stands
ABOVE it: C Moravius Laureatus Amoricus.

Nova Roma is more than the strident voices of a vocal few. Nova
Roma is made up of citizens who VOTE. Now is our chance to
excersise that privilege for the good of ALL the citizenry by voting
C Moravius Laureatus Amoricus for quaestor.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

SALVE SCAURE AEDILIS ET FLAMEN ET PONTIFEX

It is with great pleasure that I see your strong support for me in
the next Quaestor's elections. I appreciate it and I'm

delighted to see how such a man in Nova Roma, and such a man in his
toga praetexta and in his toga trabea is endorsing me.
If elected I'll put all my intelligence and my abilities in the
growth of our Res Publica, to show you and all my other many

supporters that you were not wrong when you decided to endorse my
candidacy.

BENE VALE
L IUL SULLA

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> I come before you again to urge the election of L. Iulius Sulla as
> quaestor. He is a young man whose extraordinary intellectual
gifts, as
> well as his already subtanstial list of contributions to Nova
Rome, mark
> him as someone who will one day be of consular timbre. We would
be
> wasting a precious resource for our community if we do not start
this
> distinguished young man up the cursus honorum now by electing him
> quaestor. As a curule magistrate, Flamen Quirinalis and Pontifex,
I
> cannot imagine a more qualified and promisiing candidate for the
office.
> For the sake of Nova Roma's future and the mos maiorum, I urge
you in
> the strongest possible terms to support him for quaestor. If I
were not
> possessed already of an very competent quaestor in G. Vispsanius
> Agrippa, I would petition to consules to have L. Iulius Sulla
assigned
> to my office if he were elected, for I trust his judgment and
voracious
> capacity for work to decorate handsomely the staff of any
magistrate he
> might serve.
>
> Valete,.
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus
> Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex.

SALVETE OMNES

You have just one more day to send your questions to our monthly
Expert, for the project "interview the Expert"; tomorrow, I'll send
her some of the questions I've received, and we'll be waiting for
her answers.
For this month our Expert is Prof. Fem. Silvia Giorcelli Bersani; she
is Professor at the University of Torino, and teaches Roman History
and Latin Epigraphy. She has done many studies about Romanization of
northern Italy; she even collaborates to Supplementa Italica of
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

So, enjoy our Expert, and start asking your questions, to:
21aprile AT email DOT it.
Visit our website:
http://www.novaroma.org/expert/index.htm

I'm still waiting for the answers of prof Cristofori, our Expert of
the previous month (when received, I'll translate them in English)...

BENE VALETE
L IUL SULLA

Articles on Roman Government - V - Curia


This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes only. The text is copyright of its owner.

Curia

CU´RIA
CU´RIA (bouleutêrion, gerousia), the building in which the highest council of the state held its meetings. Scarcely anything is known of the form or dimensions of such structures. Vitruvius (v. 2) gives a curious rule for ascertaining the proportions between the height and the length and breadth: this does not, however, agree with the probable plan and elevation of the Curia of Diocletian at Rome. The same author enjoins the use of a cornice half-way up the wall to throw down the sound. The occurrence of columns down each side of the hall is attested by Pausanias (viii. 32; x. 5) at Phocis; a like arrangement has been noticed at Pompeii.

The history and site of the Senate-house at Rome have been much discussed. Built by Tullus Hostilius (Varr. L. L. v. 155-6), the Curia Hostilia was burnt at the funeral of Clodius (B.C. 52). Successive restorations by a son of Sulla and by Augustus are recorded in the names C. Cornelia and C. Julia. Under Domitian the C. Julia was again rebuilt. A still later building, ascribed to Diocletian, has been identified with the present church of S. Adriano on the N.E. of the Forum. It is of brick, ornamented with stucco and marble. (Franz v. Reber, Die Lage d. C. Hostilia u. d. C. Julia; H. Jordan, Topogr. d. Stadt Rom, 1 Bd., 2 Abth. p. 250 ff.; J. H. Middleton, Anc. Rome in 1885; Lanciani, L'aula e gli Uffici del Senato Romano ; Du Perac, Vestigj di Roma, 1575.) [J. M.]


A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin)
http://www.perseus.org/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aid%3Dcuria02





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Fale com seus amigos online. Instale agora!

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

Salvete omnes,

Q. Lanio Paulino, I am hideously offended by your remarks blah blah
blah :) Just kidding. The early Church abounded with these kinds
of forgeries: a letter supposedly written by Jesus Himself to the
King of Pontus, narratives of Jesus' childhood (I love the story
where He, angry because His clay bird isn't as cute as His
playmates', one-ups them by BRINGING IT TO LIFE!!!), various and
sundry "Gospels According to..." These are, rightly, dismissed as
the products of very fertile imaginations. The canonical books of
the Bible are quite full enough of mystery and miracles for me.
A question, as a bridge to more NR stuff, though: was there ever a
collection, in ancient Rome, of the deeds of the gods? Not
necessarily a "Bible" per se, but any kind of recorded "history" of
the gods and their work? Or was it primarily tramsitted orally?

valete,

Cato


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

> Salvete omnes,
>
> Please understand that in my last 2 posts in answering Paulinus'
> question about Tiberius and his so called move to have Christ
> deified is no way in my part a return to a religious debate or
> discussion like the one a few weeks ago. I am just pointing out

that

> the particular story of "Tiberius" getting such a letter from

Pilate

> that would lead the emperor to try such a thing is highly unlikely
> and doubted by many religious scholars also.
>
> In other words there is very little or no merit to that story from
> what I can see.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

---Salvete Quintus Lanius, Galerius Tiberius et alii:

I didn't take your remarks as anything outside wanted to add to a
discussion.

I do believe, that way back then, as today, there was much attempt to
'whitewash' certain things, in an attempt to absolve certain persons
from what might be perceived historically as 'wrongdoing'. Emperors
were certainly no exception. Look at the military propaganda
throughout the centuries, even the past 6 decades, which has been
'uncovered'...but that's another post.

When you look at the Bible for example, in alot of passages you see
Jesus and 'the scribes and Pharisees' beefing over this and that.
Very few if any passages, say 'the Sadducees'. (This argument is not
my own but based on something I read, which got me thinking).

"Why" would Jesus, an Essene, who shared beliefs very similar to the
Pharisees, be beefing seemingly 'more' with the Pharisees than
Sadducees, whose beliefs were more dissimilar to Jesus' beliefs?
Sadducees did not believe in the immortality of the soul as opposed to
the Pharisees, they believed that if you were resurrected, it was more
or less after you were dead...body and soul.

The Sadducees beliefs shared alot of similarities with the Romans'
take on our spiritual destiny.

Hmm, so I find it interesting that the Bible, doubtless under the
influence of Roman scholars, as they prevailed the world, or Greeks
working under them, does an 'overkill' on Jesus having problems with
the Scribes and Pharisees, as opposed to the rarity of him having
problems with the Sadducees.

It is neither here nor there, when one defines the 'main idea' behind
the whole Bible, but an interesting take on how an inconsequential
aspect of the scriptures 'could' have been influenced to 'suggest'
that the Saducees were somehow 'beyond' reproach.

I found this interesting, and an example of how things could have been
'whitewashed' in a small way.

Another argument, which steers off the track a bit, is that the Romans
were against Jesus from the very beginning. I don't buy this, on the
basis of my knowledge of Roman intelligence.

A man who is drawing crowds of thousands, preached nice 'sermons on
the mount' to his own people and polytheists alike, performing
miracles, etc. in the 'hotspot' of the world, Palestine, and Rome
didn't know about him and wasn't keeping an eye on him? Yeah, right!
I don't buy that. Of course they knew about him...he has doing this
for nearly three years before he was crucified, so if they had major
qualms with him they would have stepped in before then. I am inclined
to think that at some points,they found his work favourable, even from
the standpoint that it atleast kept the masses occupied in a peaceful
way, as opposed to the Zealots and others whom Rome had 'real'
problems with. Nonetheless, as a gatherer of crowds they were watching
him.

Jesus' entry into Jerusalem was his turning point, imo.

Being an amateur historian, there are those who will likely have a
more academically based argument 'for' or 'in doubt' of these things,
this is just my opinion based on stuff I've read.

Just some thoughts,
Pompeia


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

> Salvete omnes,
>
> Please understand that in my last 2 posts in answering Paulinus'
> question about Tiberius and his so called move to have Christ
> deified is no way in my part a return to a religious debate or
> discussion like the one a few weeks ago. I am just pointing out that
> the particular story of "Tiberius" getting such a letter from Pilate
> that would lead the emperor to try such a thing is highly unlikely
> and doubted by many religious scholars also.
>
> In other words there is very little or no merit to that story from
> what I can see.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus

A. Apollonius Cordus to L. Cornelius Sardonicus, and
to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
greetings.

It seems like we've wandered into conversational
territory which, though its relevance to the wider
issues may be clear to both of us, is probably of
little interest to the general public; so I'll reply
privately.

Let me just set one matter straight in public: I am no
more an epicurean than I am a stoic or a rhinoceros;
if it helps, consider me an aristotelean-confucian.





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

NOTE: If this posts as a duplicate, please forgive me.

Gaius Popillius Laenas Quiritibus salutem plurimam dicit,

First, I share the concerns of many regarding the absence of Gnaeus
Octavius Noricus. Noricus and I have had some very friendly contact
in the past, and I hope that all is well with him.

As the Consul has asked for candidates to fill his position,
assuming the Comitia Centuriata declares the office vacant, I
announce my candidacy for the position of Praetor.

I have been a cive of Nova Roma just over three years, and I am
familiar with her history and her laws. I have previously served as
Consular Quaestor, Consular Accensus, and Tribune of the People. I
currently serve as Propraetor of America Austrorientalis, and I am
the Paterfamilis of gens Popillia.

If the cives of Nova Roma approve, I shall be honored to serve again
as
Praetor for the remainder of this year.

Valete.

AVETE QVIRITES

I, Manius Constantinus Serapio, Propraetor Italiae and former
Quaestor af an Aedilis Curulis, strongly suggest all of you to
publicly support and vote for Aelius Solaris Marullinus, whose
dedication to Nova Roma we all should value. Until today he worked
behind the scenes, mostly in Provincia Italia, where I decided to
reappoint him as my Scriba. But now that he decided to publicly
stand in front of you asking for your vote in the election for the
position of Aedilis Curulis I can not do anything but telling you to
give this undefatigable citizen the opportunity to serve our
Republic to the best!

Aelius Solaris Marullinus for Quaestor!

OPTIME VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
Propraetor Italiae

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Tribune L.
Arminius Faustus, to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, and to
all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines, greetings.

I hope you don't mind me addressing you both together,
since my answers to your points overlap considerably.

If I've understood correctly, you both feel that due
process has not been followed in the placing of Fabia
Vera Fausta on moderation. The chains of logic and of
command behind that action are rather unclear, and I
hope the Consul will clarify them soon, but in the
mean time I think there's enough evidence for us to
work out what's gone on.

Postumius Tubertus began his statement as follows:

> I, Spurius Postumius Tubertus, Praetorian Scribe,
> with the approval of Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
> acting in loco Praetoris, have investigated the
> complaint made by Diana Octavia Aventina, and have
> come to this conclusion.

This paragraph is fairly densely packed with
information, but I think we can understand it to mean
the following:

1. Tubertus is a praetorian scribe, i.e. a scribe to
the praetor. This is, I think, uncontroversial.

2. Consul Marinus is (or was at the time) acting in
loco praetoris, i.e. in place of the praetors.

Has he the legal authority to do so? Well, as consul
he has imperium (constitution, IV.A.2.a). Under the
generally accepted principle that, where the
constitution and laws of Nova Roma are silent, the
historical practice is applicable, we should expect
that his imperium, being consular, would be greater
(maius) than that of a praetor. This is corroborated
by the fact that, according to our constitution and
laws, consuls may veto praetors and their edicts may
overrule those of praetors. It follows from this that
anything which a praetor can do by virtue of his or
her imperium, the Consul can do too. Imperium had, in
Roman law, various components, one being iurisdictio
(the power to rule on matters of law and to make
judicial decisions). Consequently any magistrate with
imperium has the power to make judicial decisions and
to award judicial punishments, subject of course to
the other party's right of appeal. So yes, the Consul
has the legal power to act in place of the praetors,
including the legal power to make judicial decisions
and award punishments.

The Consul, in his own message on this subject, said
that he did not consider it appropriate for him to
hear the petitio actionis of Constantinus Fuscus. His
legal duty to do so would indeed have been
questionable, since the lex Salica iudiciaria makes no
mention of any duty on the part of the consuls to
consider or hear petitiones actionis. He did not say,
however - and it would not be true to say - that he
had not the power to do so.

The matter in question, however, is not a petito
actionis but an informal request to the praetors by
Octavia Aventina for an official comment on Fabia Vera
Fausta's earlier remark. Since the Consul is acting in
loco praetoris, the duty (inasmuch as one exists) to
respond to that request fell upon him and his
colleague (also so acting). Now we come to point 3:

3. The Consul gave his approval to Postumius Tubertus
to consider the request made by Aventina. If this is
true (and I see no reason to doubt it), then we must
assume that the Consul further gave his approval to
Tubertus to come to a decision, and also that he
agreed in advance to implement that decision using his
imperium.

So here we have what I think must be the answer to the
Tribune's point: it is not by any power of his own
that Tubertus has awarded his penalty, but by virtue
of the Consul's imperium, since the Consul has (I
presume) previously agreed to put his imperium behind
whatever decision Tubertus came to.

Since the Consul was acting in loco praetoris,
Tubertus was effectively his scribe. So the situation
is as if a magistrate has asked his scribe to look
into a certain matter and recommend a course of
action, which the magistrate then implements.

Tubertus further says:

> Whereas in Message 23051, Citizen Spuria Fabia Vera
> Fausta stated the following, quoted verbatim:
>
> "...I believe that the Populus and the Di
> Immortales will only be reconciled and appeased by a
> really big sacrifice; and I volunteer Scaurus..."
>
> it is the decision that, while this post was
> intended humorously, it is also extremely
> disrespectful, inappropriate, and unacceptable for
> the List. However, it does not explicitly violate
> the guidelines of the Praetorian Edict of 04
> February 2757. Subsequently, Spuria Fabia Vera
> Fausta is hereby warned that her conduct has been
> unacceptable and inappropriate, and shall be subject
> to moderation for a period of thirty-three days, to
> begin at 00:00 Roman Time, 11 May 2757, and to end
> at 23:59 Roman Time, 12 June 2757.

... which brings me to point 4:

4. This penalty is unconnected with the list
guidelines embodied in the praetorian edict. Tubertus
clearly states that Fausta's remark does not violate
those guidelines. He then went on to say,
"Subsequently, Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is hereby
warned..." - note, not "consequently" or "therefore",
but "subsequently", which implies no logical or causal
connection between the edict and the penalty - it
merely states that one happens after the other.

If the guidelines had been violated, then this penalty
would have been contrary to the edict containing those
guidelines, which lay out a clear set of actions to be
taken as a result of violation. However, the
guidelines were not violated, and the penalty is not a
penalty for violating the guidelines; it is a penalty
for "unacceptable and inappropriate" conduct, as
Tubertus' statement makes clear. This, I think, is the
answer to Cornelia Strabo's concern.

Since there is no legal document which sets out any
particular penalty to be awarded for "unacceptable and
inappropriate" conduct, the Consul (acting in loco
praetoris) was free to set a penalty at his discretion
using his power of iurisdictio. He deputised his
acting scribe, Tubertus, to make the decision and
recommend the penalty; he then used his consular
imperium to effect the recommendation.

You both know that I am concerned to see due process
observed and to see justice done even-handedly; you
also know that I am on good terms with Fausta and have
no reason to wish this penalty upon her. But I am
strongly of the opinion that there has been no
misconduct in this case on the part either of the
Consul or of Tubertus, as I've explained. Of course my
interpretation of what has happened makes some
assumptions, and I hope we'll soon hear from the
Consul whether those assumptions are correct; if not,
then I'll look again to see whether any misconduct has occurred.





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

A. Apollonius Cordus to the Tribune Ti. Galerius
Paulinus, and to all his fellow-citizens and all
peregrines, greetings.

> "If a praetor receives a petition actionis he or she
> is
> obliged to decide within 72 hours whether to allow
> the
> action to proceed or not. It is not explicit in the
> lex Salica Iudiciaria whether, in the latter case,
> the
> praetor must inform any of the parties of his or her
> decision. In the absence of such an explicit
> statement, I think a failure by a praetor to respond
> to a petition may be taken as a dismissal, though it
> would be far better for the praetor to inform the
> parties of the decision, whatever it be, and a
> prosecution against a former praetor for a failure
> to
> do so might conceivably succeed."
>
> I strongly disagree Even if it is not stated
> clearly, that a magistrate needs to inform the
> parties of their decision on a matter in is STRONGLY
> IMPLIED . A veto by another higher magistrate or by
> the Tribunes can not be issued in a vacuum. We have
> to know that a magisterial action has taken place so
> it can be reviewed and if need be vetoed.

I think you're confusing two different things -
perhaps I expressed myself unclearly.

There *is* an explicit legal duty on the praetors to
inform at least some of the parties if they decide to
*accept* a petitio. The lex reads:

"IV. If the claim is approved by the praetores, it
shall be presented to a court of justice defined
according to this law. The reus shall be informed of
the nature of the claim presented against him and of
the identity of the actor within 36 hours after the
claim's approval."

and also:

"V. Once a claim has been accepted by a praetor, that
same praetor shall prepare a formula to present to the
iudices."

The formula, since it is a specialised type of edict,
may of course be vetoed in the usual way.

There is *not*, however, (though perhaps there ought
to be) a clear or even an implicit legal duty on a
praetor to inform any of the parties if he or she
decides to *dismiss* a petitio.

Your argument from the veto doesn't affect the issue,
since a veto by its nature can only stop something
from being done; it cannot force something which is
not being done to be done. Since the dismissal of a
petitio actionis is simply the decision of the praetor
to do nothing, it cannot be vetoed, because no one can
veto a decision to do nothing.

I hope that makes things clearer.





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

Salvete Omnes:

I wish to clarify what I wrote in message 23256, to wit, "Regarding
the Threats of Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta", in response to the analysis of
A. Apollonius Cordus in message 23274 of the same thread.

I am sure that you were giving an answer to both myself and the
Tribune, but I did not accuse the Consul of misconduct or even
Posthumi (now that I have his name right)...I was saying the edictum
was being malapplied. I just feel that your words, however incidental
and innocent in nature, may be taken out of context.

I wrote in message 23256: "It has nothing to do with disrespect to
the Consul, who is giving Propostume the leeway to apply the edictum
under his imperium as Propostume reports. However, I do not believe
proper procedures are being followed, in the actual application of the
edictum, by Propostume Scriba. If the guideline edictum is misapplied
to your situation (speaking to Fabia Vera), this sets a precedent for
it to be misapplied in the situation of others. This herein, concerns
me."

It may be just hubris on my part, but with the greatest respect, where
did I accuse the Consul of misconduct? I am questioning the
application of this edictum...the authority is not so much the issue
as that I don't think the edictum's language is being followed, in
relation to what I am seeing written by Postumi. Even with the
authority, if the Tribunes see that authority as boni fide, one cannot
apply and edictum which is not applicable, or wherein procedures are
not being followed.



I hope this clarifies my position.

Valete,
Pompeia

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

The right of consular adrogatio of the imperium of inferior curule
magistrates is absolute in Roman law. If a consul cannot act in the
place of a missing praetor to instruct a praetorian scriba to implement
an action under his imperium, then we had all just better admit the
government of NR is modern game which bears as little resemblance to mos
maiorum as the U.S. constitution does.

Valete.

Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is ante diem VI Idibus Maii; the day is comitialis.

Tomorrow is ante diem V Idibus Maii, the second day of the Feria
Lemuria, and the Feria Mania; the day is nefastus. The rites of the
Lemuria were repeated. The day is acred to Mania, a Goddess of Death
and mother of the Lares. When a family was threatened with danger, they
often hung effigies of Mania from the front door of the house. On this
day she receives sacrifices of these images, characterized by small ugly
faces.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

> Since there is no legal document which sets out any
> particular penalty to be awarded for "unacceptable and
> inappropriate" conduct, the Consul (acting in loco
> praetoris) was free to set a penalty at his discretion
> using his power of iurisdictio. He deputised his
> acting scribe, Tubertus, to make the decision and
> recommend the penalty; he then used his consular
> imperium to effect the recommendation.
>
> You both know that I am concerned to see due process
> observed and to see justice done even-handedly; you
> also know that I am on good terms with Fausta and have
> no reason to wish this penalty upon her. >
>
>
> Salvete omnes;

yes this is the fascinating legal issue; in the absence of language
does the Consul have the right or power to invent a penalty for no
violation of the law? Are we like Germania; where everything not
explicitly licit is forbidden?
Believe me, I am concerned only from the legal point of view; are
we setting a legal precedent? I have a duty to the Plebis.

My good friend Cordus and Tribune Plebis Faustus and Pompeia
Cornelia Strabo et al; let us all discuss this case impersonally. I
take no offence whatsover. If the penalty is legal I am happy to bear
it. Consul Marinus has all my respect.

> bene valete

Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta

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

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

A while back, I proposed to the consuls a suggestion that anyone who wanted
to re-activate an inactive gens would have to pay Nova Roma $50.00 above and
beyond their citizen tax to become the pater/mater familias of that gens. My
cousin has proposed that those wishing to run for a magistracy post a bond to
insure that they complete their term. On one hand, this is a perfectly
reasonable and historical proposal since most magistrates during the Republican period
usually paid out a great deal of money to get elected. On the other hand, it
calls into question the presumed integrity and honor of anyone who wants to
serve our organization. If it is applied to everyone equally, it could be
workable, but some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus, and a few other
are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is like a slap in
the face to their previous service. No one know whether Noricus is alive or
dead but there is no question that his previous service was very good.
On the whole, I think that this proposal should be shelved until some time in
the future. Valete.


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

Actually, I didn't perform any caerimonia for the Veneralia (April 1). I
performed the Caerimonia Vinalia Prioria (April 23) in honor of Venus of Mt. Eryx
and Jupiter Dapalis. The Veneralia is in honor of Venus Changer-of-Hearts.
I would not dream of doing a ritual that was in the exclusive venue of the
sacerdos of Venus without consulting her and seeking her guidance. Since the
Vinalia was related to Jupiter and Venus and the specifics are unknown, I
consulted with Scaurus for information. I also found some information that Gryllus
had posted a couple of years ago.

F. Galerius Aurelianus


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

Ave Omnes

With all the respect for the legal mind, I happen to disagree with you Corde
(nothing new ;) ).

Fact is, the veto is not geared about something to be done, is aimed at the
"actions" of a magistrate. Now, it can be discussed at length if it is
intended a "material" action (issuing a decree), or it includes
"intellectual" actions deciding upon a matter). I am for the latter and in
this case, the decision if rejecting or admitting the petition is indeed an
action and can be vetoed, but for that it needs to be explicitated.

But besides that, the Praetores dismissing a petition actionis is not merely
doing nothing, is denying you the right to address a private judex. Now,
that has to be motivated, even if the law says nothing about it explicitly,
unless we want to allow a praetor to dismiss a petition actionis only
because he doesn't like the person submitting it. I think that is backed up
by the fact that the law gives the Praetores only three reasons why the
petitio can be dismissed, and somehow there must be a way to control that
the Praetores did indeed consider those in dismissing a petition. Obviously,
the only way that it can be done is that Praetor, in dismissing the
petition, states for which of the prescribed reasons he's doing so, while a
silent dismissal denies any kind of control on the fairness of the decision
and, more importantly, its lawfulness.

More. A dismissal based only on the silence of the Praetor doesn't take into
consideration the case (as it happened to be with my own petition), that the
Praetores didn't materially get to hear the petition. How shall we know if
the praetor did actually have the material possibility of deciding about the
petitio actionis?

Finally, the historical reason. The whole trial by formulae, that the lex
iudiciaria, it seems to me, wants to bring into Nova Roma, was born on the
basis of the actio per iudicis postulationem (exclusive for the roman cives
asking to the praetor urbanus an arbiter in the division of a property)
later adapted by the praetor peregrinus for the trials between cives and
peregrinos and between peregrinos in Rome. Now, the original actio didn't
allow the Praetor to deny an arbiter to the parties at all.

Moving on, let's imagine the situation: two cives come in front of the
praetor after a regular in ius vocation (which was a solemn act) or the
vadimonium, in public, asking for an action, with the families behind them
and probably their patrons... they address the praetor, present their case
and indicate in the Edictum praetorium that is exposed there for all to see,
one, which formula intends to use, the other what exception he thinks he
can use, then they discuss with the praetor what modification the formula
has to undergo to be viable to the case. Then the two turns to the witnesses
and implore them to keep everything in mind to report everything to the
iudex (that was what actually happened).. and then the praetor blankly
stares at them, stands and move away. Now, how many times that could have
happened? I actually think, even if I can wrong and am right now researching
it, that the praetors of old couldn't actually deny a judge unless they
couldn't find a formula that could be used in the judgment, and the choice
of the formula was actually a kind of 3 ways discussions between the parties
and the praetor.

Now, if in the silence of the law tradition must be used, I think that where
the law doesn't say if the rejection has to be explicit or not, it must be
explicit by tradition.

For all these reasons, I definitely do not think a "dismissal by silence of
the Praetor" can be allowed in NR. Incidentally, as I said, I've actually
dug up my books and studying :)

Vale Bene and my respects, Corde,

DCF
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis

---Salvete Fabia Vera et Omnes:

I think the first two paragraphs you are responding to are someone
elses thoughts, and I will, with respect, reiterate mine:

I do believe I have produced impartial rationale with respect to this
case.

The primary issue with me is that if a precedent is set for
misapplication to a law in your case, it could happen to others. I can
cite countless examples of persons whom, in my mind, 'should' receive
the same 'sentence' as you, under the terms of Postumini's
presentation, but that does not amend the situation, in the least.

I am not questioning Consular imperium or his authority to deputize
the adjudication of the law so much, but whether in any case, the
actual edictum is being applied within the constraints of the law. In
which case, the Consul could do this himself and he would still be
under the scrutiny of the Tribunes.

Mind you, if the Tribunes feel that there is concern with respect to
the way the chain of command is being handled, that is their call, if
they can produce constitutional rationale to support their claims.

Bene valete, and without disrespect, especially Consul Marinus

Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Sp. Fabia Vera" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

>
> > Since there is no legal document which sets out any
> > particular penalty to be awarded for "unacceptable and
> > inappropriate" conduct, the Consul (acting in loco
> > praetoris) was free to set a penalty at his discretion
> > using his power of iurisdictio. He deputised his
> > acting scribe, Tubertus, to make the decision and
> > recommend the penalty; he then used his consular
> > imperium to effect the recommendation.
> >
> > You both know that I am concerned to see due process
> > observed and to see justice done even-handedly; you
> > also know that I am on good terms with Fausta and have
> > no reason to wish this penalty upon her. >
> >
> >
> > Salvete omnes;
> yes this is the fascinating legal issue; in the absence of language
> does the Consul have the right or power to invent a penalty for no
> violation of the law? Are we like Germania; where everything not
> explicitly licit is forbidden?
> Believe me, I am concerned only from the legal point of view; are
> we setting a legal precedent? I have a duty to the Plebis.
>
> My good friend Cordus and Tribune Plebis Faustus and Pompeia
> Cornelia Strabo et al; let us all discuss this case impersonally. I
> take no offence whatsover. If the penalty is legal I am happy to bear
> it. Consul Marinus has all my respect.
> > bene valete
> Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> > your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

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

It's quite true that you did not accuse the Consul of
misconduct, and it's also true, as you say, that I
didn't say that you did.

However, I see that my remarks could be
misinterpreted, so let me make it clear that I don't
think you did make that accusation, and I'm sorry for
any misunderstanding I may have caused.

I did understand the point you were making, at least
as you've clarified it, and I think I answered it by
pointing out that the penalty was not awarded for a
breach of the guidelines-edict, but completely
separately from it. So it's not a misapplication of
the edict, it's simply not an application of the edict
at all.

The consuls had in the republic, and have in Nova Roma
as I contend, imperium, which includes the powers of
iurisdictio and coercitio maior, which taken together
give them the power to award penalties for breaches of
public order at their discretion and without reference
to statute.





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

---Salve Pontifex G. Iulius Scaurus:

Indeed, provided such is in accordance with the proper execution of
the applicable edictum by said Scriba, which is the heart of the
matter, not Consular imperium, consular misconduct, strong words which
were never issued in the first place.

Here is the edictum:

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/praetor-2004-02-04

Please read it for yourself.

As much as I honour Consular Imperium and Scribal efforts to work
within deputizations based on that imperium, said Scriba, in my view
'goofed'

In this light, I honour and am equally thankful for Tribuna Potestas
as well as Consul Imperium in the absence of missing Praetors.

If Consul Marinus, whom I have the greatest respect for and he knows
it, wishes to prosecute me for accusing him of malpractice, misconduct
etc. (which I did not do anywhere by the way), he is welcome to do so.
Malpractice indicates that he did not act with good intention in the
first place, which to me, isn't even a discussable factor...


Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:

> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> The right of consular adrogatio of the imperium of inferior curule
> magistrates is absolute in Roman law. If a consul cannot act in the
> place of a missing praetor to instruct a praetorian scriba to implement
> an action under his imperium, then we had all just better admit the
> government of NR is modern game which bears as little resemblance to

mos

> maiorum as the U.S. constitution does.
>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus

In a message dated 5/10/04 4:14:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lafaustus@... writes:

> Scribas do not share the Imperium of a
> magistrate to act. And how he is acting in the name of the Imperium
> of the praetor, following his edictum, if he hymself admits the
> question is not in the edictum? Follow the edictum, so, not follow
> ´in the name of the magistrate´.
>

Salvete.

Now Tribune, the scribe was assigned by the Jr. Consul to see to the case did
he not? Least that seemed to be the Consul's statement as indicated. The
Consul has the imperium to hear petitions in emergency since he is a higher
Curule magistrate. The People gave it to him when they allowed him to govern day
to day operations in Nova Roma as mandated in our Constitution.

Since our scribe was assigned to see to the case, the Consul either gave him
instructions or guidelines to resolve the matter. And from that source our
scribe draws his imperium to pass judgment and punishment.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Proconsul CAL
ex Praetor.


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

---Salve Cordus:

Iuisdictio et al wasn't cited as the basis...the list guidelines were
cited as the basis for such a 'sentence' , but a Praetorian Scriba,
acting in loco Consularibus. Under the language of that edictum, she
can not up and be sentenced to such a stiff penalty, as I read it,
first crack.

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/praetor-2004-02-04

Po


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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, and
> to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
> greetings.
>
> It's quite true that you did not accuse the Consul of
> misconduct, and it's also true, as you say, that I
> didn't say that you did.
>
> However, I see that my remarks could be
> misinterpreted, so let me make it clear that I don't
> think you did make that accusation, and I'm sorry for
> any misunderstanding I may have caused.
>
> I did understand the point you were making, at least
> as you've clarified it, and I think I answered it by
> pointing out that the penalty was not awarded for a
> breach of the guidelines-edict, but completely
> separately from it. So it's not a misapplication of
> the edict, it's simply not an application of the edict
> at all.
>
> The consuls had in the republic, and have in Nova Roma
> as I contend, imperium, which includes the powers of
> iurisdictio and coercitio maior, which taken together
> give them the power to award penalties for breaches of
> public order at their discretion and without reference
> to statute.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salve citizens!

I would like to offer my enthusiastic support to C. Moravius
Laureatus Amoricus as he stands for quaestor. Apart from knowing him
to be an intelligent and kind man, I believe him to be highly
qualified for the office of Quaestor.

He is talented, extremely dedicated to Nova Roma, and would be a
great asset to the office of any magistrate.

vale bene,
A. Moravia Aurelia
Quaestor

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend Sp. Fabia Vera
Fausta, and to Domitius Constantinus Fuscus, and to
all his fellow-citizens and peregrines, greetings.

I'll be delighted to discuss these issues with you
further, but alas the Bodleian Law Library is about to
close and tomorrow is nefastus, so I'll have to defer
my comments until the next appropriate day (unless
someone more learned than I in such matters tells me
that such discussions are not inappropriate for a dies
nefastus).

Until then, I'll just say that I believe it is a very
widely accepted convention in Nova Roma that where
Nova Roman law is silent, Roman law rules; I further
believe that such a convention is crucial to the
effective functioning of Nova Roma; and finally it is
important to notice that in the Roman republic
magistrates with iurisdictio had discretion to
interpret even enacted law flexibly, to say the least
(note particularly the development of the ius
honorarium in relation to the XII Tables), from which
it follows that if we have the same concept of the
nature of law as had the Romans, we must at the very
least accept the power of imperium to rule where
statute is unclear or silent.

As for the question of tribunician veto, according to
the same principles it seems to me that we must
understand that veto to be of the same essential
nature as it was historically with respect to what it
can and cannot do. Since historically a tribunician
veto is effected by the physical prevention of an act
using the tribune's own sacrosanct person, it follows
that a tribune can only veto an action, not an
inaction. There is nothing in Nova Roman law to
contradict this view. Consequently a tribune cannot
veto a failure by a praetor to take a particular
action. I agree, however, that it is undesirable for a
praetor to be able to dismiss a petition without
informing the petitioner, and I would support
legislation to change the situation. As for whether it
was historically possible for a praetor to dismiss a
petition at all, I believe (contrary to your
contention, Fuscus) that it was, but I shall check and
return with sources one way or the other.

Again, apologies for being so telegraphic in style:
I'll expand on these issues at the next opportunity.





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

Po

Salve

I thought as much.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: QFabiusMaxmi@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Tiberius, Christ and the Roman Senate


In a message dated 5/9/04 5:56:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, spqr753@...
writes:

> A post was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of Tiberius
> he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman gods.

This was a 15th century hoax, which occured during the invasion of Italy by
France.

It was turned up supposedly in the sack of a Florence library. It was also
rumored to have surfaced after the Charles V. Landsknechts sacked Rome. It was
never authorized as genuine and is assumed to be a forgery.


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





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Salve Romans

The Consul has acted with leadership, determination and in the best traditions of his ancient forbearers.
He has my thanks and support.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Tribunus Plebs

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Rose
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] I Did Not Accuse the Consul of Misconduct


G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

The right of consular adrogatio of the imperium of inferior curule
magistrates is absolute in Roman law. If a consul cannot act in the
place of a missing praetor to instruct a praetorian scriba to implement
an action under his imperium, then we had all just better admit the
government of NR is modern game which bears as little resemblance to mos
maiorum as the U.S. constitution does.

Valete.

Scaurus







Yahoo! Groups Links







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

---Salve Tribunis Galerius:

I have never known Gn Equitius Marinus Consul to act other than within
the strictest of dignity and the best of intentions. I would never
believe anything else, and I certainly did not imply anything to the
contrary, on this list, for what its worth.

Vale,
Pompeia


In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@m...> wrote:

> Salve Romans
>
> The Consul has acted with leadership, determination and in the best

traditions of his ancient forbearers.

> He has my thanks and support.
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Tribunus Plebs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gregory Rose
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] I Did Not Accuse the Consul of Misconduct
>
>
> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
> The right of consular adrogatio of the imperium of inferior curule
> magistrates is absolute in Roman law. If a consul cannot act in the
> place of a missing praetor to instruct a praetorian scriba to

implement

> an action under his imperium, then we had all just better admit the
> government of NR is modern game which bears as little resemblance

to mos

> maiorum as the U.S. constitution does.
>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete omnes,

I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to all of you who have shown
support for my candidacy as quaestor. Your kind words have not gone unnoticed and
when one knows the high quality of the other citizens running for office, the
compliment is even more appreciated.
If elected I shall do my best to uphold and promote to my modest level the
notion of fairness and Iustitia for all with always the best interest of Nova
Roma at heart. For those of you who don't know me yet, please feel free to
follow the link below..

Many thanks

Optime Valete


C Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Candidate for Quaestor
www.members.aol.com/cornmoraviusl/welcome/index


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

--- .

>
> Until then, I'll just say that I believe it is a very
> widely accepted convention in Nova Roma that where
> Nova Roman law is silent, Roman law rules;>
>
> Now I am wondering; is this so? OR was Tubertus authorized as

Scribae Praetoris, meaning to act with the praetorian power, meaning
the ambit of his power was that of a Praetor and not a Censor.
Did he take his agency too far and act 'ultra vires' beyone his
delegated powers?
Advocati what do you think:)
bene valete
Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta

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

AVETE OMNES

Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to laugh as never
before! :-)
I got a private message (thank you Ti. Galeri Pauline! ;-) ) which
made me notice what a mess I made while writing my message
supporting Aelius Solaris Marullinus!
So, while I apologize for making such a confusion (I had only 30
seconds to write that message!) let me make clear that the good
Aelius Solaris Marullinus is definitely running for Plebeian
Aedilship!!! ;-)

So... Aelius Solaris Marullinus for Aedilis Plebis!!!

OPTIME VALETE
Manivs Constantinvs Serapio


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Manius Constantinus Serapio"
<mcserapio@y...> wrote:

> AVETE QVIRITES
>
> I, Manius Constantinus Serapio, Propraetor Italiae and former
> Quaestor af an Aedilis Curulis, strongly suggest all of you to
> publicly support and vote for Aelius Solaris Marullinus, whose
> dedication to Nova Roma we all should value. Until today he worked
> behind the scenes, mostly in Provincia Italia, where I decided to
> reappoint him as my Scriba. But now that he decided to publicly
> stand in front of you asking for your vote in the election for the
> position of Aedilis Curulis I can not do anything but telling you

to

> give this undefatigable citizen the opportunity to serve our
> Republic to the best!
>
> Aelius Solaris Marullinus for Quaestor!
>
> OPTIME VALETE
> Manivs Constantinvs Serapio
> Propraetor Italiae

---Q. Fabius, former Praetor:

Nonetheless he must do so within the constraints of the law

http:www.novaroma.org/tabularium/edicts/praetor-2004-02-04

Otherwise, other avenues such as the Lex Salicia et al must be put
into place.

She was moderated without warnings as stipulated in the edictum, and
further it was said in the opening sentence that such
inappropriateness was not in conflict with list guidelines to begin
with...so, the list guidelines are hardly an applicable yardstick in
this case.

Oh, all of us have been inappropriate, yet not quite against list
guidelines....two warnings then moderation. That a warning is issued
publically is certainly warranted at times, but a heaping month-plus
moderation without warning about inappropriateness? No, she received
a warning and a stiff sentence.

This is also in contadiction of the spirit of the constitution and
very reason the Lex Salicia, one of them, materialized, that Roman
citizens are entitled to a trial. The utilization of this edictum in
pronouncing sentence before warning and or availablility of a trial is
contraindicative of same, and therefore, a malapplication of the law.

The consul's dignatis or imperium has nothing to do with the issue.
If he misapplies the law personally, is he not subject to Tribune
scrutiny?

Po
(former Praetor)

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

> In a message dated 5/10/04 4:14:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> lafaustus@y... writes:
>
> > Scribas do not share the Imperium of a
> > magistrate to act. And how he is acting in the name of the Imperium
> > of the praetor, following his edictum, if he hymself admits the
> > question is not in the edictum? Follow the edictum, so, not follow
> > ´in the name of the magistrate´.
> >
>
> Salvete.
>
> Now Tribune, the scribe was assigned by the Jr. Consul to see to the

case did

> he not? Least that seemed to be the Consul's statement as

indicated. The

> Consul has the imperium to hear petitions in emergency since he is a

higher

> Curule magistrate. The People gave it to him when they allowed him

to govern day

> to day operations in Nova Roma as mandated in our Constitution.
>
> Since our scribe was assigned to see to the case, the Consul either

gave him

> instructions or guidelines to resolve the matter. And from that

source our

> scribe draws his imperium to pass judgment and punishment.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
> Proconsul CAL
> ex Praetor.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve

Nicely said Cousin. It was after all just an ideal.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Candidates pay to run for office.


F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

A while back, I proposed to the consuls a suggestion that anyone who wanted
to re-activate an inactive gens would have to pay Nova Roma $50.00 above and
beyond their citizen tax to become the pater/mater familias of that gens. My
cousin has proposed that those wishing to run for a magistracy post a bond to
insure that they complete their term. On one hand, this is a perfectly
reasonable and historical proposal since most magistrates during the Republican period
usually paid out a great deal of money to get elected. On the other hand, it
calls into question the presumed integrity and honor of anyone who wants to
serve our organization. If it is applied to everyone equally, it could be
workable, but some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus, and a few other
are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is like a slap in
the face to their previous service. No one know whether Noricus is alive or
dead but there is no question that his previous service was very good.
On the whole, I think that this proposal should be shelved until some time in
the future. Valete.


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





Yahoo! Groups Links







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

In a message dated 5/10/04 4:03:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
scriba_forum@... writes:

> Oh, all of us have been inappropriate, yet not quite against list
> guidelines....two warnings then moderation. That a warning is issued
> publically is certainly warranted at times, but a heaping month-plus
> moderation without warning about inappropriateness? No, she received
> a warning and a stiff sentence.
>

Salvete
So, you are saying when I was moderated last year with no warning, the law
was exceeded?

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. The Consul delegated authority, and
the Scribe carried it out.
Now remember the last time a citizen threatened another with death here in
NR? The Consuls and Senate banished the one for blasphemy, the other was fined,
moderated,
and put on a year's probation. I'd say Fabia Vera got off lightly with the
moderation,
wouldn't you? And while we were both Praetors, I finished my term. So don't
imply I don't
know what I'm talking about.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

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

> In a message dated 5/10/04 4:03:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> scriba_forum@h... writes:
>
> > I don't
> know what I'm talking about.
>
> Valete
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
>
> Salvete omnes;

this actually is a question of the law, now I checked Sp.Postumius
Tubertus's announcement and he says he is acting 'in loco Praetoris'
so he cannot be acting within the ambit of Consular power,
meaning 'in loco Consularis' rather the delimited one of Praetor,
since he says the law was not violated then how can he impose
punishment?
bene valete
Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta

Salvete, Omnes,

I would like to add my support for the election of Laureatus
Armoricus. Although I haven't known him long, in working under his
supervision in the Cohors of Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, I am very
impressed by his kindness, patience, fairness, and attention to
detail. I cannot imagine a better choice for Quaestor.

Valete,

Gaia Martiana Marcella
Scriba Censoris CFQ

Ave,

I just got an email from Crys, Rose was born on May 7th.

Crys is tired but doing Ok....but very happy to be home with her new daughter. :)

Rose was born 10:12 am May 7th. She was 7 lbs 6 oz. was 19 1/2 in. long. And was perfect execpt for a small hernia which doctors say should go away in a few months.

Crys was in recovery for about 5 hours...before her room was ready.

Crys and Rose were released from the hospital on May 9th and are resting comfortably! :)

Vale,

Sulla

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Cornelius Sulla"
<alexious@e...> wrote:

> Ave,
>
> I just got an email from Crys, Rose was born on May 7th.
>
> Crys is tired but doing Ok....but very happy to be home with her

new daughter. :)

>
> Rose was born 10:12 am May 7th. She was 7 lbs 6 oz. was 19 1/2

in. long. And was perfect execpt for a small hernia which doctors
say should go away in a few months.

>
> Crys was in recovery for about 5 hours...before her room was

ready.

>
> Crys and Rose were released from the hospital on May 9th and are

resting comfortably! :)

>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

Salve,

Finally some good and happy news on this mailing list. I wish
mother and daughter well.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

G. Iulius Scaurus Pompeiae Corneliae Straboni salutem dicit.

Salve, Pompeia Cornelia.

I think you are making a fundamental mistake by introducing the notion
of legal precedent. The concept so common in Anglo-American law simply
never existed in Roman lawa. The rulings of a magistrate did not extend
beyond his term of office. In some cases, for example, the edicta
perpetualia of praetores, it became customary for magistrates to reissue
substantially the same edicta for continuity, but a magistrate on his
own imperium still had an absolute right at law to change the edicta of
his predecessors by not including them among his own (C. Iulius Caesar
is reported to have done this extensively as praetor). I think you are
confusing bad example with precedent; bad example may have influence on
future decisions, but it does not carry the legal weight of precedent.
Mommsen discusses this issue at length in _Römisches Staatsrecht_.

Vale.

Scaurus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

For some reason this post to Yahoo did not appear. I am repeating it now.

Today is ante diem VIII Idibus Maii; the day is fastus.

Tomorrow is ante diem VII Idibus Maii and the first day of the Feria
Lemuria; the day is nefastus. Ovid descrives the rites of the Lemuria
in _Fasti_ v. 419-444:

ritus erit ueteris, nocturna Lemuria, sacri:
inferias tacitis manibus illa dabunt.
Annus erat breuior, nec adhuc pia februa norant,
nec tu dux mensum, Iane biformis, eras:
iam tamen exstincto cineri sua dona ferebant,
compositique nepos busta piabat aui.
Mensis erat Maius, maiorum nomine dictus,
qui partem prisci nunc quoque moris habet.
Nox ubi iam media est somnoque silentia praebet,
et canis et uariae conticuistis aues,
ille memor ueteris ritus timidusque deorum
surgit; habent gemini uincula nulla pedes,
signaque dat digitis medio cum pollice iunctis,
occurrat tacito ne leuis umbra sibi.
Cumque manus puras fontana perluit unda,
uertitur et nigras accipit ante fabas,
auersusque iacit; sed dum iacit, 'Haec ego mitto,
his' inquit 'redimo meque meosque fabis.'
Hoc nouies dicit nec respicit: umbra putatur
colligere et nullo terga uidente sequi.
Rursus aquam tangit, Temesaeaque concrepat aera,
et rogat ut tectis exeat umbra suis.
Cum dixit nouies 'Manes exite paterni'
respicit, et pure sacra peracta putat.

Then will the rite of the ancient sacrum: the night of Lemuria;
This feast will give offerings to the silent lemures.
Their year was shorter, thus far they did not know the pious purification,
not nor were you yet leader of the months, biformed Ianus:
Yet already that bore their offerings to the ashes of the dead,
and the grandson performed the right at the tomb of his grandfather.
The month was May from the name of the maiores,
who even now have a part of ancient custom.
When midnight arrives and affords silence for sleep,
and the dogs and bird of various hues are still,
at that hour the mindful of the ancient rite and fearful of the Gods
arises; his two feet have no sandals on them,
and he gives the signal with his fingers clasped in each other, his
thumb in the middle,
lest he meet the spectral shade silent.
And when he has washed his hands clean in the water of the fountain,
and he turns around, and takes the black beans before,
and adverting his face, he throws them; but while he flings them, "I
offer these,"
he said "by these beans I ransom myself and mine."
Nine times he says this and looks not behind; the shade is thought
to pick them up, and to follow if no one is watching.
Again he touches the water, and rattles the Temesan copper,
and begs the shade to leave his roof.
When nine times he repeats, "My paternal Manes depart,"
he believes that the rites have been performed properly.

He also comments (v.485-490) on the ban against marriage during the Lemuria:

[5,485] Fana tamen ueteres illis clausere diebus,
ut nunc ferali tempore operta uides;
nec uiduae taedis eadem nec uirginis apta
tempora: quae nupsit, non diuturna fuit.
Hac quoque de causa, si te prouerbia tangunt,
[5,490] mense malas Maio nubere uolgus ait.

Yet on those days the ancient shut the temples,
as now you see then such at the Feralia.
Neither auspicious for the wedding torches of widows or virgins
was that time; she who married did not long remain.
For this reason also, if proverbs bear weight with you,
the people say in the month of May bad wives marry.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

This post for May 9 also did not make it through Yahoo; I am reposting
it now.

Today is ante diem VII Idibus Maii and the first day of the Feria
Lemuria; the day is nefastus. Ovid descrives the rites of the Lemuria
in _Fasti_ v. 419-444:

ritus erit ueteris, nocturna Lemuria, sacri:
inferias tacitis manibus illa dabunt.
Annus erat breuior, nec adhuc pia februa norant,
nec tu dux mensum, Iane biformis, eras:
iam tamen exstincto cineri sua dona ferebant,
compositique nepos busta piabat aui.
Mensis erat Maius, maiorum nomine dictus,
qui partem prisci nunc quoque moris habet.
Nox ubi iam media est somnoque silentia praebet,
et canis et uariae conticuistis aues,
ille memor ueteris ritus timidusque deorum
surgit; habent gemini uincula nulla pedes,
signaque dat digitis medio cum pollice iunctis,
occurrat tacito ne leuis umbra sibi.
Cumque manus puras fontana perluit unda,
uertitur et nigras accipit ante fabas,
auersusque iacit; sed dum iacit, 'Haec ego mitto,
his' inquit 'redimo meque meosque fabis.'
Hoc nouies dicit nec respicit: umbra putatur
colligere et nullo terga uidente sequi.
Rursus aquam tangit, Temesaeaque concrepat aera,
et rogat ut tectis exeat umbra suis.
Cum dixit nouies 'Manes exite paterni'
respicit, et pure sacra peracta putat.

Then will the rite of the ancient sacrum: the night of Lemuria;
This feast will give offerings to the silent lemures.
Their year was shorter, thus far they did not know the pious purification,
not nor were you yet leader of the months, biformed Ianus:
Yet already that bore their offerings to the ashes of the dead,
and the grandson performed the right at the tomb of his grandfather.
The month was May from the name of the maiores,
who even now have a part of ancient custom.
When midnight arrives and affords silence for sleep,
and the dogs and bird of various hues are still,
at that hour the mindful of the ancient rite and fearful of the Gods
arises; his two feet have no sandals on them,
and he gives the signal with his fingers clasped in each other, his
thumb in the middle,
lest he meet the spectral shade silent.
And when he has washed his hands clean in the water of the fountain,
and he turns around, and takes the black beans before,
and adverting his face, he throws them; but while he flings them, "I
offer these,"
he said "by these beans I ransom myself and mine."
Nine times he says this and looks not behind; the shade is thought
to pick them up, and to follow if no one is watching.
Again he touches the water, and rattles the Temesan copper,
and begs the shade to leave his roof.
When nine times he repeats, "My paternal Manes depart,"
he believes that the rites have been performed properly.

He also comments (v.485-490) on the ban against marriage during the Lemuria:

[5,485] Fana tamen ueteres illis clausere diebus,
ut nunc ferali tempore operta uides;
nec uiduae taedis eadem nec uirginis apta
tempora: quae nupsit, non diuturna fuit.
Hac quoque de causa, si te prouerbia tangunt,
[5,490] mense malas Maio nubere uolgus ait.

Yet on those days the ancient shut the temples,
as now you see then such at the Feralia.
Neither auspicious for the wedding torches of widows or virgins
was that time; she who married did not long remain.
For this reason also, if proverbs bear weight with you,
the people say in the month of May bad wives marry.

Tomorrow is ante diem VI Idibus Maii; the day is comitialis.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

To Quintus Lanius Paulinus and all of our Nova Roman family and
friends, greetings.

Faith and truth, while not mutually exclusive, are certainly the
basis for many arguments on this list. While I am not an historical
scholar, and my opinion on the veracity of such a story is dubious,
I must suggest that it is possible. After all, the Christians have
a history of replacing pagan holidays with their own dates for
religious observances. Perhaps the Romans did this sort of thing as
well to appease the conquered. Religion is, as it is said, the
opiate of the masses.

I mean no offense to the Christian faith. I'm simply trying to
point out that it is possible for Tiberius to request admission of
Christ (or any other God, religion, totem, fetish) to the pantheon
of Roman Gods in order to convenience the Christians in the empire.

P.S. My apologies for not snipping this into digestible form. I
wanted to keep the thread complete.

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

> >Salve Again Tiberi,
>
> I checked around the net further and found the article below. It
> therefore looks that even the scholars in the RC church as well as
> other Christians who are strong in their faith and beliefs are

still

> very dubious or outright doubtful of this letter and story about
> Pilate's letter and Tiberius' attempt to make Jesus a god

attributed

> to Tertullian about 197 AD.
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> -----------
>
> THE JESUS PUZZLE
> by Earl Doherty
>
> READER FEEDBACK AND AUTHOR'S RESPONSE
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> A Letter from Pilate to Tiberius about Jesus?
>
> Ah, yes. Pilate's letter to Tiberius on his execution of Jesus,

and

> the ageing emperor's championing of Christ and his divinity before

a

> hostile Senate at Rome. This is reported around the year 197 by
> Tertullian in his Apology (5): "Tiberius . . . having himself
> received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly
> shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before

the

> Senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ."
>
> Any scholar today who would suggest that this is anything more

than

> a piece of naive nonsense would be laughed out of the halls of
> academe. In Hennecke's 2-volume New Testament Apocrypha, the
> reviewer of the literature of this sort surrounding Pilate (vol.

1,

> 444-84) considers that Tertullian had access to a recent, forged
> Christian document under Pilate's name. In fact, several different
> versions of such a letter have survived, cast in such pious

language

> on the part of Pilate that Tertullian could suggest that the Roman
> governor had been converted to the faith! Such things only serve

to

> illustrate the shameless and ludicrous invention (not to mention

the

> church Fathers' own credulity!) which we know abounded throughout
> the entire documentary career of early Christianity. To claim that
> the same kind of invention did not extend into those documents
> chosen for the canon is itself a piece of astonishing naivete.
>
> In one version of Pilate's letter, the governor enlightens the
> emperor on the wondrous state of Lazarus' body as he emerged from
> the tomb, gives an account of the darkness over the whole world
> during the crucifixion (which Tiberius himself, along with the

rest

> of the empire, had presumably experienced), and recounts the words
> of Jesus at one of his post-resurrection appearances. Pilate also
> records events the evangelists overlooked, including the

swallowing

> up of various Jewish leaders and even whole synagogues in a series
> of earthquakes, as punishment for their role in the killing of
> Jesus.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> -----------
>
>
> To: Next File
>
> Return to Index Page
> Return to Home Page
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> -----------
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Gallagher"
> <spqr753@m...>
> > wrote:
> > > Salve Romans
> > >
> > > A few months ago on another Roman group imperialrome2@y... A
> post
> > was made that suggested that sometime during the reign of

Tiberius

> > he petitioned the senate to add Christ to the Pantheon of Roman
> > gods. Does anybody know the history behind this? Did this really
> > happen or did I misread the post?
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ave Omnes

IÂ’ve waited and hesitated at length before writing this mail, both hoping that
someone else would have brought up the legal points IÂ’m going to (but
evidently, no one is going to and soÂ…) and waiting to know why Fabia Vera had
so promptly accepted the “verdict”. Once i got to know that happened due an
imperfect knowledge of her right under Nova Roma Laws and especially Roma
AntiquaÂ’s ones, i feel compelled to write.

LetÂ’s see, where do we start?

First of all, affirming my uttermost respect for the Consul that, I think,
committed or had someone committing a legal mistake under his imperium, but in
good faith, for a noble goal and trying to adhere to the laws.

But.

Can a Consul take the place of a praetor in his duties? It can be debated, but
generally speaking, yes, I think he can. Can a Praetor delegate powers about
moderating the list to a scriba? Indeed, he can, following the NR lex Octavia
de sermone (which I think is still standing, even if the mess the tabularium is
right now doesn’t help too much) “The Praetores are hereby given the powers and
duties of moderators for all public fora sponsored or owned by the central
government of Nova Roma, save for those exceptions listed below. They are
empowered to use all moderation features provided, subject to Constitutional
free speech guarantees, Tribunician intercessio, and any leges explicitly
setting list policies. They may delegate such authority to their appointed
scribae.” So, no scandal so far.

Can a Praetor, or a Consul using the imperium of a praetor or his own, create a
new crime and the consequent punishment on the spot without a previous law
about it? Nope. And not because I say that, or because thatÂ’s abhorrent for our
modern view, but because the Romans said that, being that jut as much abhorrent
to their eyes.

A disposition given against a single person without a previous general law about
it is technically called privilegium (from lex in private lata, law given
against specific persons, subsequently raising to the concept of any legal act
issued against a specific person not on the basis of a law applying to the
generality of the cives or without a law altogether). Now, one of the laws of
the twelve tables specifically forbade such a thing stating “privilegium ne
inroganto”. The disposition held its own for quite a long time, if the first
famous example of privilegium that we have is the ill famed “lex Clodia de
exilio Ciceronis” (mid first century BC) and if you consider how do we
generally react to a “privilege” even today…

Now, again, if in the silence of the law the roman tradition and law must take
place, IÂ’d say that whoever took the actual decision about Fabia Vera made a
mistake, infringing a clear principle of the classic Roman Law.

And let’s go on: “Mailing list guidelines”. Now, besides that is bad legal
policy to call a legal document that has the pretence of, not only being
respected, but establishing pains for the one who do not (but contradicting
itself by saying that “of course” (!) no one is going to be punished for the
violation of this or that rule), “guidelines”, still it is the general “law”
about communications. A law that following the Lex Octavia de Sermone they are
*bound* to adhere to “They are empowered to use all moderation features
provided, subject to (omissis) any leges explicitly setting list policies.”,
Now, the edictum is not a lex, yet was put in place under the authority of a
lex and to apply that.

More, by renovating that edictum, the present Praetores subjected their imperium
to the course of actions that they publicized. Now, either the Consul acted in
loco praetoris, and in such case his Imperium would had been limited by the
Edictum praetorium until it is rescinded, or as Consul, and then should have
not issued or let someone issue under his protection, a privilegium.

Even in the case they (Praetores or Consul) had rescinded the Edictum, yet
people couldnÂ’t be punished for acts committed while the edictum was in place
as they had the legitimate expectation not to be punished for behavior that
under the edictum is considered legitimate (the principle that no one can be
punished under a law that was issued after the action was committed was well
known to the romans).

If what I said so far isnÂ’t enough, letÂ’s consider this for a moment: either the
principle behind this decision, that someone can be punished even when a law
doesnÂ’t allow for that, becomes now a general principle of Nova Roma, or it
applies to Fabia Vera only.

In the first case, we are establishing the principle that a sitting magistrate
is not bound by laws and his own edicta, but can penally decide at will about
anything as long as it doesnÂ’t go directly against a law, issuing punishments
for behaviors that are not consider punishable by law and his own previous
edicta and that were not punishable the minute before his decision (a principle
that is prone to the greatest abuse, even if IÂ’m absolutely ready to swear
about the ConsulÂ’s and the ScribaÂ’s good faith in this particular case).

In the second case, itÂ’s a blatant breach of the principle that every citizen is
equal in Nova Roma (and so it seems even more due the fact the ones who
counter-proposed FabiaÂ’s sacrifice went unpunished).

Was Fabia VeraÂ’s contested line of dubious taste? Yes (sorry Fabia, it was). Was
a crime? Under Nova Roma law, no. Should be punished? Maybe, but not the way
she was.

A while ago, for something much worse involving the very independence of Nova
Roma and the authority of his internal legal system, the matter was solved with
a parlay between (I think) the praetores and the guilty party and the thing
ended with an act of self-moderation by the guilty party. I do not see why it
couldnÂ’t be used that way in this case.

IÂ’m pretty confident that if the Consul or the Praetores would speak with Fabia
Vera, she would agree to self-moderate herself or to be put under moderation
with her consent, for, say, a week (33 days is absolutely un-proportional to
the act).

For all these reasons, on a legal basis I surely hope at least one of the
tribunes will shake from the torpor they seem to be in and issue an intercessio
(and not for Fabia Vera specifically, but for the good of the whole population
of Nova Roma), but if it wasnÂ’t so, I surely suggest Fabia Vera to use her
right to Provocatio and bring the thing to the appropriate assembly. On a more
reasonable basis, on the other hand and even before getting to such extremes, I
hope the matter could be solved in the way I suggested above between the Consul
and Fabia Vera.

One last note to the ones who apparently want to, or at least pretend to, take
FabiaÂ’s original comment as a serious threat to ScaurusÂ’ life putting it in
jeopardize and representing a present and real dangerÂ… OH, PLEASE! If you
really think so, contact the appropiate macronational authorities (either the
Irish ones where Fabia lives or the American ones of the state where Scaurus
lives). They will have a good laugh (they need it too, now and then), but your
conscience will be appeased.

Vale Bene

DCF
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis

L.C.Sardonicus to Nova Roma, greetings.

"If it is applied to everyone equally, it could be workable, but
some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus, and a few other
are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is
like a slap in the face to their previous service."

If is is applied, it is also a slap in the face of those who have
the skill and talent to serve, but lack the funds; a magistracy
becomes nothing better than a country club that applies a membership
fee significantly unattainable to those without financial means.
How Roman.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
>
> A while back, I proposed to the consuls a suggestion that anyone
who wanted
> to re-activate an inactive gens would have to pay Nova Roma $50.00
above and
> beyond their citizen tax to become the pater/mater familias of
that gens. My
> cousin has proposed that those wishing to run for a magistracy
post a bond to
> insure that they complete their term. On one hand, this is a
perfectly
> reasonable and historical proposal since most magistrates during
the Republican period
> usually paid out a great deal of money to get elected. On the
other hand, it
> calls into question the presumed integrity and honor of anyone who
wants to
> serve our organization. If it is applied to everyone equally, it
could be
> workable, but some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus,
and a few other
> are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is
like a slap in
> the face to their previous service. No one know whether Noricus
is alive or
> dead but there is no question that his previous service was very
good.
> On the whole, I think that this proposal should be shelved until
some time in
> the future. Valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LCSardonicus to Domitius Constantinus Fuscus, greetings.

You said, "OH, PLEASE! If you really think so, contact the
appropiate macronational authorities (either the Irish ones where
Fabia lives or the American ones of the state where Scaurus lives).
They will have a good laugh (they need it too, now and then), but
your conscience will be appeased."

Oh, please! We're not talking about a serious threat to life and
limb over the internet. We're talking about Fabia spouting enough
bullshit that finally someone had the cojones to gag her. Is it her
right to express her opinion on this list? Yes. Is it her right to
state that Nova Roma would benefit from sacrificing Scaurus? No.
That is what she stated and that is libel.

It is my opinion that Nova Roma would benefit from gagging you, as
well. However, I never suggested (nor will I) that Nova Roma would
benefit from your death.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
<dom.con.fus@f...> wrote:

> Ave Omnes
>
> I've waited and hesitated at length before writing this mail, both

hoping that

> someone else would have brought up the legal points I'm going to

(but

> evidently, no one is going to and soÂ…) and waiting to know why

Fabia Vera had

> so promptly accepted the "verdict". Once i got to know that

happened due an

> imperfect knowledge of her right under Nova Roma Laws and

especially Roma

> Antiqua's ones, i feel compelled to write.
>
> Let's see, where do we start?
>
> First of all, affirming my uttermost respect for the Consul that,

I think,

> committed or had someone committing a legal mistake under his

imperium, but in

> good faith, for a noble goal and trying to adhere to the laws.
>
> But.
>
> Can a Consul take the place of a praetor in his duties? It can be

debated, but

> generally speaking, yes, I think he can. Can a Praetor delegate

powers about

> moderating the list to a scriba? Indeed, he can, following the NR

lex Octavia

> de sermone (which I think is still standing, even if the mess the

tabularium is

> right now doesn't help too much) "The Praetores are hereby given

the powers and

> duties of moderators for all public fora sponsored or owned by the

central

> government of Nova Roma, save for those exceptions listed below.

They are

> empowered to use all moderation features provided, subject to

Constitutional

> free speech guarantees, Tribunician intercessio, and any leges

explicitly

> setting list policies. They may delegate such authority to their

appointed

> scribae." So, no scandal so far.
>
> Can a Praetor, or a Consul using the imperium of a praetor or his

own, create a

> new crime and the consequent punishment on the spot without a

previous law

> about it? Nope. And not because I say that, or because that's

abhorrent for our

> modern view, but because the Romans said that, being that jut as

much abhorrent

> to their eyes.
>
> A disposition given against a single person without a previous

general law about

> it is technically called privilegium (from lex in private lata,

law given

> against specific persons, subsequently raising to the concept of

any legal act

> issued against a specific person not on the basis of a law

applying to the

> generality of the cives or without a law altogether). Now, one of

the laws of

> the twelve tables specifically forbade such a thing

stating "privilegium ne

> inroganto". The disposition held its own for quite a long time, if

the first

> famous example of privilegium that we have is the ill famed "lex

Clodia de

> exilio Ciceronis" (mid first century BC) and if you consider how

do we

> generally react to a "privilege" even todayÂ…
>
> Now, again, if in the silence of the law the roman tradition and

law must take

> place, I'd say that whoever took the actual decision about Fabia

Vera made a

> mistake, infringing a clear principle of the classic Roman Law.
>
> And let's go on: "Mailing list guidelines". Now, besides that is

bad legal

> policy to call a legal document that has the pretence of, not only

being

> respected, but establishing pains for the one who do not (but

contradicting

> itself by saying that "of course" (!) no one is going to be

punished for the

> violation of this or that rule), "guidelines", still it is the

general "law"

> about communications. A law that following the Lex Octavia de

Sermone they are

> *bound* to adhere to "They are empowered to use all moderation

features

> provided, subject to (omissis) any leges explicitly setting list

policies.",

> Now, the edictum is not a lex, yet was put in place under the

authority of a

> lex and to apply that.
>
> More, by renovating that edictum, the present Praetores subjected

their imperium

> to the course of actions that they publicized. Now, either the

Consul acted in

> loco praetoris, and in such case his Imperium would had been

limited by the

> Edictum praetorium until it is rescinded, or as Consul, and then

should have

> not issued or let someone issue under his protection, a

privilegium.

>
> Even in the case they (Praetores or Consul) had rescinded the

Edictum, yet

> people couldn't be punished for acts committed while the edictum

was in place

> as they had the legitimate expectation not to be punished for

behavior that

> under the edictum is considered legitimate (the principle that no

one can be

> punished under a law that was issued after the action was

committed was well

> known to the romans).
>
> If what I said so far isn't enough, let's consider this for a

moment: either the

> principle behind this decision, that someone can be punished even

when a law

> doesn't allow for that, becomes now a general principle of Nova

Roma, or it

> applies to Fabia Vera only.
>
> In the first case, we are establishing the principle that a

sitting magistrate

> is not bound by laws and his own edicta, but can penally decide at

will about

> anything as long as it doesn't go directly against a law, issuing

punishments

> for behaviors that are not consider punishable by law and his own

previous

> edicta and that were not punishable the minute before his decision

(a principle

> that is prone to the greatest abuse, even if I'm absolutely ready

to swear

> about the Consul's and the Scriba's good faith in this particular

case).

>
> In the second case, it's a blatant breach of the principle that

every citizen is

> equal in Nova Roma (and so it seems even more due the fact the

ones who

> counter-proposed Fabia's sacrifice went unpunished).
>
> Was Fabia Vera's contested line of dubious taste? Yes (sorry

Fabia, it was). Was

> a crime? Under Nova Roma law, no. Should be punished? Maybe, but

not the way

> she was.
>
> A while ago, for something much worse involving the very

independence of Nova

> Roma and the authority of his internal legal system, the matter

was solved with

> a parlay between (I think) the praetores and the guilty party and

the thing

> ended with an act of self-moderation by the guilty party. I do not

see why it

> couldn't be used that way in this case.
>
> I'm pretty confident that if the Consul or the Praetores would

speak with Fabia

> Vera, she would agree to self-moderate herself or to be put under

moderation

> with her consent, for, say, a week (33 days is absolutely un-

proportional to

> the act).
>
> For all these reasons, on a legal basis I surely hope at least one

of the

> tribunes will shake from the torpor they seem to be in and issue

an intercessio

> (and not for Fabia Vera specifically, but for the good of the

whole population

> of Nova Roma), but if it wasn't so, I surely suggest Fabia Vera to

use her

> right to Provocatio and bring the thing to the appropriate

assembly. On a more

> reasonable basis, on the other hand and even before getting to

such extremes, I

> hope the matter could be solved in the way I suggested above

between the Consul

> and Fabia Vera.
>
> One last note to the ones who apparently want to, or at least

pretend to, take

> Fabia's original comment as a serious threat to Scaurus' life

putting it in

> jeopardize and representing a present and real dangerÂ… OH, PLEASE!

If you

> really think so, contact the appropiate macronational authorities

(either the

> Irish ones where Fabia lives or the American ones of the state

where Scaurus

> lives). They will have a good laugh (they need it too, now and

then), but your

> conscience will be appeased.
>
> Vale Bene
>
> DCF
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis

I recently joined this group and thought it was about time I
introduced myself, although I wasn't sure where to jump in. So far
I've only chosen a first name - "Eutropia" - and I'm not a Citizen
yet, but hopefully will be in the not-to-distant future. My main
interests are the Roman Empire, Latin, the Arts and Sciences (mainly
poetry and astronomy), and the Religio. I'm a polytheist pantheist
pagan, and have had a special fondness for the Greco-Roman pantheon
since childhood.

Can anyone recomend a site where I can study the Religio Romana? Nova
Roma is so active and diverse, I don't know where to begin!

Thanks,

Eutropia

Salvete,

Actually the situation is very simple(in my view). Of course I could
be wrong – in which case email me direct rather than yet more
postings on this arrant nonsense and if I agree with your analysis I
will post an abject notice of retraction.

There are two authorities in respect of moderation:

1. Lex Octavia de Sermone
2. EDICTVM PRAETORICIVM DE MODERATIONE 04 February MMDCCLVII

A considerable amount of effort seems to being expended on whether
the edictum was adhered to. This is a fallacious line of discussion.
The edictum does not prevail, rather the Lex Octavia is the superior
authority in this matter.

The Lex Octavia in section III defers to "any leges explicitly
setting list policies", as well as to provisions of Constitutional
free speech. "Leges" are laws, as in "Lex" as in "Lex
Octavia". "Leges" are not edicts. Since there is (unless I have
missed one) no other Lex governing list policies, the Lex Octavia de
Sermone is the highest authority in respect of list policies.

Even if someone wants to endlessly debate that very simple point,
the Constitution establishes a legal authority, whereby a Lex is a
higher authority than an edict (Section I.B). The only edicts a Lex
does not take precedence over are a Dictatorial Edict (not stated in
that section but obvious by the scope of dictatorial power as
described later in the Constitution) and those edicts issued under a
Senatus consultum ultima. The EDICTVM PRAETORICIVM DE MODERATIONE is
not in either of these catergories and thus takes a lower order of
precedence to the Lex Octavia de Sermone.

Therefore, hopefully, having established this simple point of legal
authority, one can then deal swiftly with supposed breaches of the
Edictum. Since the Lex is supreme, the edictum is irrelevant and so
too are its provisions for warnings.

The only question of merit is whether the actions of the "acting"
Praetor were legal. The Consul exercised his imperium to assume the
role of the Praetor, who was absent. Clearly in these circumstances
and having a higher imperium that was quite legal. Then under the
provisions of the Lex Octavia de Sermone the Consul – acting as
Praetor – delegated the task of investigating this sorry and very
silly incident to a scribe. Section III of the Lex Octavia
specifically allows for this to occur.

We have now, hopefully, therefore established that the Consul acted
legally and that the Scribe was legally appointed. All that remains
is to examine the scope of the powers granted to the Praetor (and
thus if so delegated a Scribe) in respect of the Lex Octavia de
Sermone.

Section I.b defines moderation as (amongst other duties) the
performance of "other administrative tasks". It also states that the
Praetors (and thus if so delegated a Scribe) are given the "powers
and duties of moderators for all public for a sponsored and owned by
the central government of Nova Roma". Further the "Praetors are
empowered to create and enforce policies of acceptable behaviour in
the public fora". Section IV of the Lex Octavia specifically
designates the ML as one such public fora.

So in respect of the case of Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta the only
authority that applies is the Lex Octavia de Sermone, which has been
correctly followed and a duly appointed Scribe acting on behalf of a
Praetor (in the form of the Consul) created and enforced a policy of
acceptable behaviour. Beginning and end of story. Placing a citizen
on moderation can be described as an adminstrative task of
moderation and the creation of specific policies is allowed for.

Now – as an aside to the irrelevant issue as to whether Sp. Fabia
Vera Fausta committed (for want of a better word) an "offence" under
the edict, I take a different opinion from the Scribe, since I could
argue that Section V was clearly breached, in so much as she
committed a "misrepresentation of the truth for the purpose of
making another person look foolish".

Since the question of sacrificing a human was by her own admission a
joke, then the statement that "the Populus and the Di Immortales
will only be reconciled and appeased by a really big sacrifice; and
I volunteer Scaurus..." was a fatuous one. Therefore the Di
Immortales would not be reconciled and appeased by sacrificing a
priest of the Religio. Therefore the statement is a
misrepresentation of the truth. Given all the recent debates over
sacrifice, I am firmly of the opinion that the statement was made
for the purposes of making Scaurus look foolish. Therefore there was
an "offence" committed.

Now unless anyone wants to argue over anything else (I have this
sinking feeling that unlike the Titanic, this is indeed the issue
that is unsinkable), can we all accept the ruling of the "Duly
appointed Scribe acting as Praetor", can Sp. Fabia Vera Fausta
accept the ruling by stopping to claim to abide by Concordia and
then in the next breath throwing more kindling onto the fire by
posting yet again on this issue, can all the barrack room lawyers
hand in their wigs and robes, and can someone start a thread that is
relevant and interesting?

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Salve Sardonicus,
I agree with you, this is an usual problem for NR. We need to think
that NR is now a world international organization including citizens
coming from South-America, Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc. which
50$ are an "important" price. Would we cut out the Cursus Honorum
this skilled cives? Would we have only magistrates coming from USA
and Occidental Europe? Running for an Office would be a "right" for
everyone and not a "privilege" for few rich people, in my opinion.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Mr Sardonicus" <sardonicus_@h...>
wrote:

> L.C.Sardonicus to Nova Roma, greetings.
>
> "If it is applied to everyone equally, it could be workable, but
> some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus, and a few other
> are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is
> like a slap in the face to their previous service."
>
> If is is applied, it is also a slap in the face of those who have
> the skill and talent to serve, but lack the funds; a magistracy
> becomes nothing better than a country club that applies a

membership

> fee significantly unattainable to those without financial means.
> How Roman.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> > F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.
> >
> > A while back, I proposed to the consuls a suggestion that anyone
> who wanted
> > to re-activate an inactive gens would have to pay Nova Roma

$50.00

> above and
> > beyond their citizen tax to become the pater/mater familias of
> that gens. My
> > cousin has proposed that those wishing to run for a magistracy
> post a bond to
> > insure that they complete their term. On one hand, this is a
> perfectly
> > reasonable and historical proposal since most magistrates during
> the Republican period
> > usually paid out a great deal of money to get elected. On the
> other hand, it
> > calls into question the presumed integrity and honor of anyone

who

> wants to
> > serve our organization. If it is applied to everyone equally,

it

> could be
> > workable, but some persons like Scaurus, Quintilianus, Paulinus,
> and a few other
> > are such honorable men that asking them to front money to run is
> like a slap in
> > the face to their previous service. No one know whether Noricus
> is alive or
> > dead but there is no question that his previous service was very
> good.
> > On the whole, I think that this proposal should be shelved until
> some time in
> > the future. Valete.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salve,

L. Arminius Faustus Tribunus Plebis ex officio to the people of the
quirites

There is one case know on roman tradition of apparitor receiving
Imperium of using of Nova Roma, this is the case of a legatus of a
procounsul/propretor on the provincia.

Scriba do not is a legate, do not receive Imperium. Like the
constitution said, the scriba is a clerk.

Otherwise we can say a lictor have the Imperium of the many
magistrates. No, he is just a way the Potestas act, and the Potestas,
common to all roman magistrates, are inside (between other rights) of
the Imperium.

Alas, the Imperium is attached to the body of the consul. So, the
consul himself should have decided about the moderation, and
moderated personally under his Imperium. The scriba just executed the
orders.

Otherwise, the scriba consularis has the same power of another
consul? Too dangerous.

From whom the decision of this act was taken? From the consul? From
the scriba? I´d like to hear.

One thing is a consul deciding and putting people under moderated
status. OK. Perhaps not too much wise from the political view, on
that time we will have Comitia ahead and many laws to be proposed.
Other thing is a scriba consularis deciding and putting people under
moderated. This is a most dangerous precedent to all Res Publica!

Anyway, still, according to the mos maiorum, there is space of a
tribunitian veto. However, I prefer that Fabia Vera should be
restored to all her capacibities by the soft counsel and Concordia,
not by legal matters. Indeed, I want neither to think about vetoing
nothing now!

All this problem is this ´loco praetoris´. The consul ay act in ´loco
praetoris´, but can a scriba act ´in loco consulis´? And so let´s
make a law with regulation about this ´loco someone´. The laws should
prevent us much trouble. But acting form preatorian edictum in loco
consulis in loco pretoris... oh my... come on... this is extending
the laws too much... do not expect having no trouble on them!

Who acted?
Make this clear and prevent us another annoying legal question!

I´m thinking on a law to submit to the Comitia Clarifing the matter.
The best solution I see is submiting the question, once for all, for
decision of the very source of power of all our laws, the Populi of
Nova Roma.

Now two adresses I must do:

I - One of the magistrates more actives and whom I have most
confidence and trust as a sixth tribune is Consul Equitius Marinus.
He is a new Valerius Corvus on softness and wiseness. But be aware!
These small and inutile confrontations can tarnish without noble-
cause good consulships. Remember the many laws that must go to the
Comitia, remember perhaps it is not a good time to dirt the
reputation. And everyone, everyone, everyone, scriba, consul,
tribune, propretor, everyone gets hurted from this kind of subject.

II - S. Fabia Vera Fausta, a citizen worthy of the agnomen, beloved
by the gods. The reputation can be our burden or our shield. Do not
make your bed. Care about it. Be aware of what you say. If you really
get reputation of troublemaker, everything you say will be turned
into polemic and offense. Everyone is tired. Even I myself will face
some political problems as ´guardian angel´ - the burdens of
Tribuneship - and you know politics is everything - But when I
consider this forum, when I consider the petty rethoric revenges we
see daily here, my thinking goes to Hibernia, and there I see a place
most suitable needing your talents! Yes! I consider the exemple of
the plebeian consul Volumnius, who was joked by his patrician
colleague, Apius Claudius, by not knowing how to adress a speech to
the pleople, but has indeed saved him with good leadership on the
army Claudius from the teeth of the Etruscans forces! Yes! The
province is a worthy battlefield and Ireland needs you.

Vale bene,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP


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

> A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Tribune L.
> Arminius Faustus, to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, and to
> all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines, greetings.
>
> I hope you don't mind me addressing you both together,
> since my answers to your points overlap considerably.
>
> If I've understood correctly, you both feel that due
> process has not been followed in the placing of Fabia
> Vera Fausta on moderation. The chains of logic and of
> command behind that action are rather unclear, and I
> hope the Consul will clarify them soon, but in the
> mean time I think there's enough evidence for us to
> work out what's gone on.
>
> Postumius Tubertus began his statement as follows:
>
> > I, Spurius Postumius Tubertus, Praetorian Scribe,
> > with the approval of Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus,
> > acting in loco Praetoris, have investigated the
> > complaint made by Diana Octavia Aventina, and have
> > come to this conclusion.
>
> This paragraph is fairly densely packed with
> information, but I think we can understand it to mean
> the following:
>
> 1. Tubertus is a praetorian scribe, i.e. a scribe to
> the praetor. This is, I think, uncontroversial.
>
> 2. Consul Marinus is (or was at the time) acting in
> loco praetoris, i.e. in place of the praetors.
>
> Has he the legal authority to do so? Well, as consul
> he has imperium (constitution, IV.A.2.a). Under the
> generally accepted principle that, where the
> constitution and laws of Nova Roma are silent, the
> historical practice is applicable, we should expect
> that his imperium, being consular, would be greater
> (maius) than that of a praetor. This is corroborated
> by the fact that, according to our constitution and
> laws, consuls may veto praetors and their edicts may
> overrule those of praetors. It follows from this that
> anything which a praetor can do by virtue of his or
> her imperium, the Consul can do too. Imperium had, in
> Roman law, various components, one being iurisdictio
> (the power to rule on matters of law and to make
> judicial decisions). Consequently any magistrate with
> imperium has the power to make judicial decisions and
> to award judicial punishments, subject of course to
> the other party's right of appeal. So yes, the Consul
> has the legal power to act in place of the praetors,
> including the legal power to make judicial decisions
> and award punishments.
>
> The Consul, in his own message on this subject, said
> that he did not consider it appropriate for him to
> hear the petitio actionis of Constantinus Fuscus. His
> legal duty to do so would indeed have been
> questionable, since the lex Salica iudiciaria makes no
> mention of any duty on the part of the consuls to
> consider or hear petitiones actionis. He did not say,
> however - and it would not be true to say - that he
> had not the power to do so.
>
> The matter in question, however, is not a petito
> actionis but an informal request to the praetors by
> Octavia Aventina for an official comment on Fabia Vera
> Fausta's earlier remark. Since the Consul is acting in
> loco praetoris, the duty (inasmuch as one exists) to
> respond to that request fell upon him and his
> colleague (also so acting). Now we come to point 3:
>
> 3. The Consul gave his approval to Postumius Tubertus
> to consider the request made by Aventina. If this is
> true (and I see no reason to doubt it), then we must
> assume that the Consul further gave his approval to
> Tubertus to come to a decision, and also that he
> agreed in advance to implement that decision using his
> imperium.
>
> So here we have what I think must be the answer to the
> Tribune's point: it is not by any power of his own
> that Tubertus has awarded his penalty, but by virtue
> of the Consul's imperium, since the Consul has (I
> presume) previously agreed to put his imperium behind
> whatever decision Tubertus came to.
>
> Since the Consul was acting in loco praetoris,
> Tubertus was effectively his scribe. So the situation
> is as if a magistrate has asked his scribe to look
> into a certain matter and recommend a course of
> action, which the magistrate then implements.
>
> Tubertus further says:
>
> > Whereas in Message 23051, Citizen Spuria Fabia Vera
> > Fausta stated the following, quoted verbatim:
> >
> > "...I believe that the Populus and the Di
> > Immortales will only be reconciled and appeased by a
> > really big sacrifice; and I volunteer Scaurus..."
> >
> > it is the decision that, while this post was
> > intended humorously, it is also extremely
> > disrespectful, inappropriate, and unacceptable for
> > the List. However, it does not explicitly violate
> > the guidelines of the Praetorian Edict of 04
> > February 2757. Subsequently, Spuria Fabia Vera
> > Fausta is hereby warned that her conduct has been
> > unacceptable and inappropriate, and shall be subject
> > to moderation for a period of thirty-three days, to
> > begin at 00:00 Roman Time, 11 May 2757, and to end
> > at 23:59 Roman Time, 12 June 2757.
>
> ... which brings me to point 4:
>
> 4. This penalty is unconnected with the list
> guidelines embodied in the praetorian edict. Tubertus
> clearly states that Fausta's remark does not violate
> those guidelines. He then went on to say,
> "Subsequently, Spuria Fabia Vera Fausta is hereby
> warned..." - note, not "consequently" or "therefore",
> but "subsequently", which implies no logical or causal
> connection between the edict and the penalty - it
> merely states that one happens after the other.
>
> If the guidelines had been violated, then this penalty
> would have been contrary to the edict containing those
> guidelines, which lay out a clear set of actions to be
> taken as a result of violation. However, the
> guidelines were not violated, and the penalty is not a
> penalty for violating the guidelines; it is a penalty
> for "unacceptable and inappropriate" conduct, as
> Tubertus' statement makes clear. This, I think, is the
> answer to Cornelia Strabo's concern.
>
> Since there is no legal document which sets out any
> particular penalty to be awarded for "unacceptable and
> inappropriate" conduct, the Consul (acting in loco
> praetoris) was free to set a penalty at his discretion
> using his power of iurisdictio. He deputised his
> acting scribe, Tubertus, to make the decision and
> recommend the penalty; he then used his consular
> imperium to effect the recommendation.
>
> You both know that I am concerned to see due process
> observed and to see justice done even-handedly; you
> also know that I am on good terms with Fausta and have
> no reason to wish this penalty upon her. But I am
> strongly of the opinion that there has been no
> misconduct in this case on the part either of the
> Consul or of Tubertus, as I've explained. Of course my
> interpretation of what has happened makes some
> assumptions, and I hope we'll soon hear from the
> Consul whether those assumptions are correct; if not,
> then I'll look again to see whether any misconduct has occurred.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html