G. Equitius Cato G. Minucio Hadriano Felico quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Minucius Hadrianus et salvete omnes.

Minucius Hadrianus, I agree with you on general principle, so I'd
like to suggest the following:

There can be no intercessio, as there has been no action against
which it is possible to pronounce it.

The College of Pontiffs and the Tribunes will, when the time is
ready, conduct whatever business they have in this affair IN
PRIVATE, just as the agreement was made IN PRIVATE. It will have no
place whatsoever in the Forum until such time as an official
announcement (if any is needed) is made.

At that time, if Galerius Paulinus still finds it necessary to
invoke his intercessio, he can have at it.


Now, about those Gracchi...did you ever notice that no-one EVER saw
them in the same room at the same time? I'm thinking of the
"Michael Jackson = Janet Jackson" speculation ... just a thought ...

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salve Tiberia Sempronia, et salvete Quirites,

Tiberia Sempronia Modesta wrote:

> I'm interested in all aspects of Roman life, socitey and culture. I'm
> am also working on getting involved. Can some of you suggest ways in
> which to grow involved in our society? What are some of the better
> ways, what worked for you, what do you personally suggest? Admittedly
> I'm far more interested in family and religio aspects then military but
> I'm still curious about it all so anything will be appreciated and taken
> into account respectfully.

You should take a look at the various Sodalites if you haven't already
done so. While you may not be interested in the reenactment events
discussed in the Sodalitas Militarium, you may still find the historical
discussions interesting. You can see if the Sodalitas Latinitas (Latin
language) and the Sodalitas Musarum (Arts and Sciences) and the various
other sodalites are to your liking.

We have several mailing lists for people with an interest in the Religio
Romana. There's the ReligioRomana list itself, and also a Religio book
list, a Nova Religio list, and probably some others I'm forgetting right
now.

As some other people have already mentioned, you may also wish to seek
out appointments on the working staffs of various magistrates.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Quinte Lani,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:

[Asking for simple answers to these questions]

> 1) Has he fufilled his end and going to be reinstated?

That's two questions. There seems to be general agreement that he has
mostly fulfilled his part of the agreement. The sticking point is with
his having posted a number of posts that violated mainlist posting
guidelines in effect at the time, which got him moderated for two weeks
in late May and Early June. Because of that, the Pontifices and the
Tribunes were convened earlier this week to vote on whether or not the
posts in question, and the moderation therefore, constitute a violation
of the agreement. I've been informed that the Pontifices split evenly
and that a majority of Tribunes determined that a violation of the oath
occurred.

Whether or not the Senator will return to the Senate on the 31st is an
as yet unanswered question.

> 2) Have some of his foes decided to have him stripped of his offices
> and / or run off anyway?

This is something of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
I think the gist of the answer to it can be found above.

> 3) Are some issues related to this brewing between the senate and
> Tribunes (plebians) just like in the old republic?

Not as far as I know.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Tiberi Galeri, et salvete Quirites,

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus wrote:

> Salve Consul
>
> With the utmost respect for a Consul I voted for and have
> supported from day one I have to say you are wrong when you say:
>
> "I remind you that Drusus has the right of provocatio to the
> Comitia Populi Tributa where he can appeal any decision of any
> Nova Roman magistrate if it is damaging to him.
>
> It reads in part
>
> "If I violate this oath, I shall suffer expulsion from Nova
> Roman citizenship for life and neither shall I exercise the
> right of provocatio against this expulsion nor shall I accept
> any lex in Comitia to repeal the expulsion."
>
> As part of the agreement the Senator can not appeal.

Yes, I see... So where are we now? The Pontifices have voted, and that
vote was an even split. The Tribunes have voted, and that vote went
against Drusus, right?

So we have a situation where Drusus agreed to let the Pontifices and the
Tribunes be the final judges of his behavior. Unless there's some
reason to think that the Collegium Pontificum was convened improperly,
or the Tribunes acted improperly in their voting, I'm not sure if
there's anything left.

Is your veto intended to keep Drusus from having to comply with the
terms of his agreement? I know that you value both justice and mercy.
It seems to me that Drusus has exhausted any appeal to justice, so I'm
guessing that you're being merciful and hoping that your fellow tribunes
will join you in this act of mercy. Is that correct?

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve Equitius Marinus Consul et Salvete Omnes:

You wrote in part, which I've snipped to here:

I know that you value both justice and mercy.

> It seems to me that Drusus has exhausted any appeal to justice, so

I'm

> guessing that you're being merciful and hoping that your fellow

tribunes

> will join you in this act of mercy. Is that correct?

Pompeia: And this in itself I see as a noble gesture, but a simple
appeal to the Tribunes and Pontifices to temper justice with mercy
would probably have better impact than a rather controversial use
of intercessio, no?

Valete,
Po

>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

Salve Tribunus Paulinus,
no comments about the matter, only about your behaviour.

1) your intercessio is not correct. The right of veto is available
only after a uncorrect official action. The Tribunes and the
Collegium of Pontefices didn't published any official action or
statement or opinion about Iluustrus Senator Drusus. So your
intercessio would be reconsider when the two Collegia would take
decision.

2) if your goal was to avoid a crisis in Nova Roma, you failed it.
You're creating a crisis publishing an uncorrect intercessio and
publishing private discussions and ignoring the most democratical
methods we're using in the two Collegia.

3) I recall you that the list of the Tribunes and of the CP are
restricted, any discussions in this places wouldn't published out of
them. You're publishing private and unofficial affairs of the
Tribunes. Nothing is official until we Magistrates would make public
statements.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Salve Pompeia, et salvete omnes,

pompeia_minucia_tiberia wrote:

[in response to my question about Tribune Galerius trying to
be merciful]

> Pompeia: And this in itself I see as a noble gesture, but a simple
> appeal to the Tribunes and Pontifices to temper justice with mercy
> would probably have better impact than a rather controversial use
> of intercessio, no?

Perhaps Tribune Galerius has already attempted that, before the
Pontifices and Tribunes voted. I wasn't privy to those proceedings.

Vale,

-- Marinus

A. Apollónius Cordus omnibus sal.

Those who have recently pointed out that a tribune
cannot legally or even logically veto something which
hasn't happened yet are quite correct; and I think
enough people have said it now.

But it is perfectly legal for a tribune to declare his
intention to veto a certain thing if that thing should
occur. There are ample historical cases, and indeed
one could argue that it is a rather helpful thing to
do - at any rate it's more helpful than waiting until
the event occurs and then vetoing it, because at least
it gives the people involved some opportunity to think
before acting.

I think we should assume that this is what Paulínus
has done here. Certainly, he's done it in a slightly
muddled way which seemed to imply that he was actually
vetoing something; and certainly it's questionable
whether doing it in public was a good idea. But it
hasn't done any of us any harm, it's not illegal, and
I don't really see why anyone but the people directly
involved need worry about it.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve and welcome Tiberia Sempronia Modesta;
if you are interested in the Religio I can recommend two lists
devoted to this topic the yahoo groups ReligioRomana one, and the
NovaReligioRomana the former is the official list while the latter is
more relaxed where people with wiccan or other interests can discuss
them.
Additionally do visit Academia Thules which offers great courses
gratis. Right now I'm taking one on the religio; we have something
like 115 members, which is wonderful.

Also getting involved in your province is a good way to meet people,
becoming a scriba helping run NR, going to any Roman Days events...

NR is a wonderful place, I've learned a lot and made some great
friends.
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

Salvete omnes,

I am delighted to present the latest issue of Inter Alia, the newsletter of
Provincia Britannia. The timing for its release could not be better as we all
prepare here to attend yet another provincial meeting.

I cannot resist to tell you all that our Propraetrix has planned a great
event where Britanni will meet (and hopefully enjoy a few drinks :)) in London,
visit the British and London Musea, see the play "a funny thing happened on the
way to the Forum"....Her enthusiasm and kindness is one sure proof that Nova
Roma can developp peacefully and beautifully away from the mud that too often
spoil this list.

Here, now, is the link to Inter Alia III. Enjoy!

http://www.britannia-provincia.co.uk/InterAlia003.pdf

Optime Valete

C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Legatus Britanniae


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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Fr. Apulo Caesar salutem dicit

I support your words, and DO NOT support the intercessio of tribune Tiberius
Galerius Paulinus.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Tribunus Plebis
Pontifex

In a message dated 10/24/2004 11:51:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sacro_barese_impero@... writes:

Salve Tribunus Paulinus,
no comments about the matter, only about your behaviour.

1) your intercessio is not correct. The right of veto is available
only after a uncorrect official action. The Tribunes and the
Collegium of Pontefices didn't published any official action or
statement or opinion about Iluustrus Senator Drusus. So your
intercessio would be reconsider when the two Collegia would take
decision.

2) if your goal was to avoid a crisis in Nova Roma, you failed it.
You're creating a crisis publishing an uncorrect intercessio and
publishing private discussions and ignoring the most democratical
methods we're using in the two Collegia.

3) I recall you that the list of the Tribunes and of the CP are
restricted, any discussions in this places wouldn't published out of
them. You're publishing private and unofficial affairs of the
Tribunes. Nothing is official until we Magistrates would make public
statements.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar





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

Hi , spanish , a romance language:

http://www.iespana.es/latine/latine.index.html


Greetings to all


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



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

Gaius Modius Athanasius C. Moravio Laureato Armorico salutem dicit

This is an excellent newsletter!! I am very impressed by your work, and
believe that this is something that other provinces should take a look at!

Great job!!

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/24/2004 1:41:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
CornMoraviusL@... writes:


Salvete omnes,

I am delighted to present the latest issue of Inter Alia, the newsletter of
Provincia Britannia. The timing for its release could not be better as we
all
prepare here to attend yet another provincial meeting.

I cannot resist to tell you all that our Propraetrix has planned a great
event where Britanni will meet (and hopefully enjoy a few drinks :)) in
London,
visit the British and London Musea, see the play "a funny thing happened on
the
way to the Forum"....Her enthusiasm and kindness is one sure proof that Nova
Roma can developp peacefully and beautifully away from the mud that too
often
spoil this list.

Here, now, is the link to Inter Alia III. Enjoy!

http://www.britannia-provincia.co.uk/InterAlia003.pdf

Optime Valete

C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Legatus Britanniae





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

Salvete Consul Marine et omnes,

Thank you. Your reply clarifies everything in my mind. Question 2
was not intended to be that particular fallacy and I should have
perhaps phrased it differently.

I respectfully disagree with the premise of A. Maior that this
situation is not the citizen's business and a private matter. A
senator is a public figure who helps set public policy and directing
our future here in NR so internal affairs concerning his status and
welfare ought to be open the citizens' scrutiny. In addition to this,
by posting this affair since last June on the ML, the situation
ceased to be private anyway.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus








--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Quinte Lani,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>
> [Asking for simple answers to these questions]
>
> > 1) Has he fufilled his end and going to be reinstated?
>
> That's two questions. There seems to be general agreement that he

has

> mostly fulfilled his part of the agreement. The sticking point is

with

> his having posted a number of posts that violated mainlist posting
> guidelines in effect at the time, which got him moderated for two

weeks

> in late May and Early June. Because of that, the Pontifices and

the

> Tribunes were convened earlier this week to vote on whether or not

the

> posts in question, and the moderation therefore, constitute a

violation

> of the agreement. I've been informed that the Pontifices split

evenly

> and that a majority of Tribunes determined that a violation of the

oath

> occurred.
>
> Whether or not the Senator will return to the Senate on the 31st

is an

> as yet unanswered question.
>
> > 2) Have some of his foes decided to have him stripped of his

offices

> > and / or run off anyway?
>
> This is something of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

question.

> I think the gist of the answer to it can be found above.
>
> > 3) Are some issues related to this brewing between the senate

and

> > Tribunes (plebians) just like in the old republic?
>
> Not as far as I know.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus

Quintus Lanius Paulinus wrote:

> I respectfully disagree with the premise of A. Maior that this
> situation is not the citizen's business and a private matter.

I'd agree that the outcome is a public matter, but the specifics of
the ongoing proceedings, past and present negotiations should have
been kept private.

The original agreement, at the time of the almost-Nota, was intended
to allow both sides to save face by backing down partially. There
was even a section in there about words that could not be used by
the Censores in referring to Senator Drusus's absence, without having
to pay a penalty; but now they've all been laid out for public
perusal.

That should never have occurred. The statement of settlement,
and the oath sworn by those on both sides, was private.

Vale, Octavius.

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

George W. Bush: The Boy Who Cried "Wolf".

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

> I cannot resist to tell you all that our Propraetrix
> has planned a great
> event where Britanni will meet (and hopefully enjoy
> a few drinks :)) in London,
> visit the British and London Musea, see the play "a
> funny thing happened on the
> way to the Forum"....Her enthusiasm and kindness is
> one sure proof that Nova
> Roma can developp peacefully and beautifully away
> from the mud that too often
> spoil this list.

I'd just like to add, in case anyone was in any doubt,
that anyone who finds themselves in London next
weekend has only to get in touch with me, and we'll
welcome you to join in the fun.

We're currently playing a guessing game on the
provincial list about who our mystery overseas guest
will be - so the more people who suddenly agree to
come, the better the odds that one of our citizens
will get it right by chance ;)

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Since we know that the Tribune is going to veto any action taken, there is
no point in taken said action. This saves us all a bunch of time. Leave
Drusus alone and let him return to Nova Roma. Its time to put these things
behind us. WeÂ’ve had an excellent debate going, lets continue. A.
Apollónius Cordus, I have read your post and will respond shortly, I’ve some
papers to write and algebra I am behind in that needs getting done.



Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

<mailto:mikeabboud@...> mikeabboud@...

<http://www.mikeabboud.com> www.mikeabboud.com,

<http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/> http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/

_____

From: A. Apollonius Cordus [mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@...]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:07 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] A small thought about procedure (WAS: Intercessio)



A. Apollónius Cordus omnibus sal.

Those who have recently pointed out that a tribune
cannot legally or even logically veto something which
hasn't happened yet are quite correct; and I think
enough people have said it now.

But it is perfectly legal for a tribune to declare his
intention to veto a certain thing if that thing should
occur. There are ample historical cases, and indeed
one could argue that it is a rather helpful thing to
do - at any rate it's more helpful than waiting until
the event occurs and then vetoing it, because at least
it gives the people involved some opportunity to think
before acting.

I think we should assume that this is what Paulínus
has done here. Certainly, he's done it in a slightly
muddled way which seemed to imply that he was actually
vetoing something; and certainly it's questionable
whether doing it in public was a good idea. But it
hasn't done any of us any harm, it's not illegal, and
I don't really see why anyone but the people directly
involved need worry about it.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1290ufclc/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1098720439/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=517690875>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Abboud" <mikeabboud@c...>
wrote:

> Since we know that the Tribune is going to veto any action taken,

there is

> no point in taken said action>
> Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
>

Ave Agricola;
this is quite incorrect. A tribunian veto may be overturned. I
suggest you visit the Tabularium and read the Lex Labiena de
Intercessione which concerns this very issue.

bene vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

> Since we know that the Tribune is going to veto any action taken, there is
> no point in taken said action.

Not true - a veto is only valid if a majority of the Tribunes support it.
(This is a departure from historical practice, but it does prevent one
Tribune from completely paralyzing the entire government).

--
hucke@...
http://www.graveyards.com

George W. Bush: "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' "

"The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the
voices you are throttling today." -- August Spies, 1887

Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus who wrote in part

"so I'm guessing that you're being merciful"

TGP -With respect Consul I am not out for mercy, I am out for justice, as the agreement is not being adhered to in a rush to judgment.

Consul GEM ...... " Yes, I see... So where are we now? The Pontifices have voted, and that vote was an even split. The Tribunes have voted, and that vote went against Drusus, right?"

TGP- Yes if you believe that the two colleges meeting separately was in the sprit and in accord with the agreement. I do not. This would mean at a minimum a joint meeting and not two separate meeting in which only one person in the affair attends both.

TGP-only 2 members of the CP voted. One doing so to make the motion die on a 1-1 vote. Maybe we should find out why most members, a super majority did not care to cast a vote on this issue or in the manner it was presented?

Justice and the agreement requires that both Colleges should meet and vote collectively.

It is rather simple really.

No one has alleged that he has not voluntarily remained unsubscribed from the SenatusRomanus mailing list for nine months.

The good Consul, the Tribunes and the members of the Senate can state that he has not participated in any Senate votes at any time during the agreement.

No one has alleged that the Senator did not post on the main list stating that he was sabbatical from the Senate for a limited time.


The agreement stated in unambiguous terms that the Praetors were to judge if the Senator remained civil on the main list. This is the only section of the agreement he has allegedly not kept. The Praetors in communication we me stated that he has. This was shared with the Tribunes and now all of Nova Roma .

If you would like to add your voice to that effect as having exercised the powers and responsibilities of the Praetors office "in loco parentis" that would make 3 out of 3 Praetors saying he was civil. If on the other hand you would say he had not then it would be Praetors 2 -1 that he has been civil. At this point the CP and the COT have nothing to vote on. No violation of the oath is possible without this finding. One other person who was elected to the office of Praetor who has been remove form office for not being in contact and AWOL and his opinion at this point having been absent for the vast majority of the year would not be worth much as he was gone and had no involvement with this agreement.

As has been pointed out on the main list and by me to the Tribunes I did suggest to the Senator in May that he needed to keep his promise in mind when he posted to the main list or to keep away from his key board. The term that he used was used first by someone in my Gens and in reference to the Senator. Nobody that was a party to this agreement state AT THAT TIME that this was a violation of his oath. Now five months later his conduct on the main list is the only item being used to say he is in violation of the agreement .

Lastly no one has alleged that the Senator has sought revenge or retribution of any kind for the recent conflict

It is clear for anybody being objective that the Senator has keep at least 80% of the agreement and that the one point that is in dispute is an area that under both the agreement and Nova Roma law falls under the purview of the Praetors of Nova Roma.

Consul GME - So we have a situation where Drusus agreed to let the Pontifices and the
Tribunes be the final judges of his behavior. Unless there's some reason to think that the Collegium Pontificum was convened improperly, or the Tribunes acted improperly in their voting, I'm not sure if there's anything left.

TGP- the final passage of the agreement states

"and that the College of Pontifices and College of Tribunes of the People collectively shall be the judges of any violation of this oath."

TGP-Again this would mean at a minimum a joint meeting and not two separate meeting in which only one person in the affair attends both and have an actionable violation of the agreement

Justice requires that both Colleges meet collectively, just like the agreement calls for.

Consul GME- Is your veto intended to keep Drusus from having to comply with the terms of his agreement? I know that you value both justice and mercy. It seems to me that Drusus has exhausted any appeal to justice, so I'm guessing that you're being merciful and hoping that your fellow tribunes will join you in this act of mercy. Is that correct?

TGP- No sir. I seek justice and only justice. If in the warm light of day if the majority of the Praetors had found that he had been uncivil and that this was judged to be an adequate reason to say he violated his oath and to remove a person from not only the Senate but from the Republic and damned in the eyes of his Gods then so be it.

I would continue to believe that this is not just but I believe the Senator would and should keep the agreement he has made just like everybody should.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Tribunus Plebs


PS I am having some difficulty with my e-mail and I will respond to the ones that are getting through.






















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

Ave Pauline;
why are you discussing the terms of a private agreement on this
public list? This issue has not been acted upon when it has you are
free to make an intercessio and discuss the details and rightness or
wrongness of the action on the Main List before all the Quirites but
not before.
Have you not read the postings of your fellow Tribunes Apulus
Caesar and Gaius Modius?

bene vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Iuriis et
Investigatio CFQ

Ave M. Maior,

I am not discussing the terms of a private agreement at all. I was
not privy to the dealings and discussions in the senate. What is not
private was a senator's let's say, announced sabaticle from the
senate which was published on the ML last June or so. Personally I
am not interested or able to be involved in the upcoming discussions.
My original posting says that I wanted people to drop legal jargon,
scattered premises and know what the original jist of this story
was; especially for the benefit of newer members and citizens.

Yes, I can read what Tribunes Caesar and Modius have said. Do you
see me taking sides and arguing for Drusus, Paulinus or the other
side yet? No. Even though trials or inquieries, some parts of trials
or inquiries or even priliminary hearings can be closed to the
public or private citizens, they are at least allowed to know what
Joe versus Bill is going to be about.

Vale bene,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Ave Pauline;
> why are you discussing the terms of a private agreement on
this
> public list? This issue has not been acted upon when it has you
are
> free to make an intercessio and discuss the details and rightness
or
> wrongness of the action on the Main List before all the Quirites
but
> not before.
> Have you not read the postings of your fellow Tribunes Apulus
> Caesar and Gaius Modius?
>
> bene vale
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
> Propraetrix Hiberniae
> caput Iuriis et
> Investigatio CFQ

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

>
> Ave M. Maior,
>
> I am not discussing the terms of a private agreement at all. I was
> not privy to the dealings and discussions in the senate. What is

not

> private was a senator's let's say, announced sabaticle from the
> senate which was published on the ML last June or so. Personally I
> am not interested or able to be involved in the upcoming

discussions.

> My original posting says that I wanted people to drop legal

jargon,

> scattered premises and know what the original jist of this story
> was; especially for the benefit of newer members and citizens.
>
> Yes, I can read what Tribunes Caesar and Modius have said. Do you
> see me taking sides and arguing for Drusus, Paulinus or the other
> side yet? No. Even though trials or inquieries, some parts of

trials

> or inquiries or even priliminary hearings can be closed to the
> public or private citizens, they are at least allowed to know what
> Joe versus Bill is going to be about.ADDENDUM: and what may or may

not happen to the defendent as a result.

>
> Vale bene,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave Pauline;
> > why are you discussing the terms of a private agreement on
> this
> > public list? This issue has not been acted upon when it has you
> are
> > free to make an intercessio and discuss the details and

rightness

> or
> > wrongness of the action on the Main List before all the Quirites
> but
> > not before.
> > Have you not read the postings of your fellow Tribunes

Apulus

> > Caesar and Gaius Modius?
> >
> > bene vale
> > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
> > Propraetrix Hiberniae
> > caput Iuriis et
> > Investigatio CFQ

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

Ye Gods and little fishes! This is becoming much more complicated
than it needs be. Let me (if I may) lay out the issue in the
simplest of possible terms:

The Senator Sicinius Drusus entered into a private agreement with
certain of our highest magistrates.

This agreement was to come to its intended completion on or about
pridie Kalends Novembras MMDCCLVII a.u.c. (31 October A.D. 2004).

At that time, the magistrates in question, in conjunction with a
vote from the College of Pontiffs and the Tribunes, would judge
whether or not the terms of the agreement had be satisfied by all
parties involved.

They would announce the results of these deliberations, with their
judgement, to the citizenry at large at the proper time and if
necessary.

One of our Tribunes of the Plebs, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, pronounced
an intercessio (as is his right) against any outcome of these
deliberations, before the outcome had even been decided.

As one of our resident legal beagles, Apollonius Cordus, has
mentioned, Galerius Paulinus is certainly free to announce his
intention.

The problems:

1. In doing so, Galerius Paulinus made public not only the terms of
the private agreement but included in his pronouncement certain
private messages between himself and other magistrates. This not
only negates the very intention of privacy, but is an unecessary and
unwarranted exposure of Senator Sicinius Drusus' difficulties.

2. No decision has been made about the satisfaction of the terms of
the agreement, and in pronouncing his intercessio, Galerius
Paulinus "jumped the gun", as it were --- acting as if that decision
*had* already been made.


I would applaud Galerius Paulinus' sense of "justice" if I believed
that were, in fact, the basis of his pronouncement. However, the
fact that no judgement has been made officially either in private
(as far as I know) or in public, I cannot help but suspect some
attempt to subvert a mutually agreed upon procedure. That, coupled
with his somewhat surprising depiction of Senator Sicinius Drusus as
some sort of gibbering monster hated and despised by all and sundry
(an attempt to gain "sympathy" for the Senator?), marks this for me
as somewhat disingenuous. But I will leave *that* discussion for
another, more appropriate time.

I would suggest that the procedure agreed upon at the commencement
of this whole affair be followed. In other words, take it outside,
gentlemen, and let us know what happens.

Valete,

Cato

Why doesn't everyone move this back to thye restricted forum lists? This is a matter that should be left private. This involves the involved parties and not the whole world. Because it is made public when it shouldn't have is no excuse to keep dragging this ridiculous debate on and on filling up cives inboxes with this private matter. If it is unofficial then it does not need this prolonged debate. But if nothing official has been made then let it go.

Vale, Quintus Brutus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Ave Quinte Lani;
I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the Plebs! I
don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling people only
by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just found out;)So
what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius Paulinus? You can
call me Arminia anytime...
optime vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.

Salve, Arminia Maior.

I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen and cognomen in
public when addressing someone, yes?


Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Ave Quinte Lani;
> I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the Plebs!
I
> don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling people
only
> by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just found out;)
So
> what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius Paulinus? You
can
> call me Arminia anytime...
> optime vale
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

Salve Gai Cato!

Thank you ever so much for your great summary of the situation! That
is all I asked for instead of a scattered complicated legal postings
that were rather confusing to some and that came straight out of the
blue. Your summary here is perfectly clear and understandable to all
so I need not comment any further; nothing satisfies me more than a
clear, concise logical asnwer.

Very respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

PS - Are you a baby-boomer? Ye gods and little fishes I have not
heard since the late 50's or early 60's from parents and grand
parents.





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

>
> G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> Ye Gods and little fishes! This is becoming much more complicated
> than it needs be. Let me (if I may) lay out the issue in the
> simplest of possible terms:
>
> The Senator Sicinius Drusus entered into a private agreement with
> certain of our highest magistrates.
>
> This agreement was to come to its intended completion on or about
> pridie Kalends Novembras MMDCCLVII a.u.c. (31 October A.D. 2004).
>
> At that time, the magistrates in question, in conjunction with a
> vote from the College of Pontiffs and the Tribunes, would judge
> whether or not the terms of the agreement had be satisfied by all
> parties involved.
>
> They would announce the results of these deliberations, with their
> judgement, to the citizenry at large at the proper time and if
> necessary.
>
> One of our Tribunes of the Plebs, Ti. Galerius Paulinus,

pronounced

> an intercessio (as is his right) against any outcome of these
> deliberations, before the outcome had even been decided.
>
> As one of our resident legal beagles, Apollonius Cordus, has
> mentioned, Galerius Paulinus is certainly free to announce his
> intention.
>
> The problems:
>
> 1. In doing so, Galerius Paulinus made public not only the terms

of

> the private agreement but included in his pronouncement certain
> private messages between himself and other magistrates. This not
> only negates the very intention of privacy, but is an unecessary

and

> unwarranted exposure of Senator Sicinius Drusus' difficulties.
>
> 2. No decision has been made about the satisfaction of the terms

of

> the agreement, and in pronouncing his intercessio, Galerius
> Paulinus "jumped the gun", as it were --- acting as if that

decision

> *had* already been made.
>
>
> I would applaud Galerius Paulinus' sense of "justice" if I

believed

> that were, in fact, the basis of his pronouncement. However, the
> fact that no judgement has been made officially either in private
> (as far as I know) or in public, I cannot help but suspect some
> attempt to subvert a mutually agreed upon procedure. That,

coupled

> with his somewhat surprising depiction of Senator Sicinius Drusus

as

> some sort of gibbering monster hated and despised by all and

sundry

> (an attempt to gain "sympathy" for the Senator?), marks this for

me

> as somewhat disingenuous. But I will leave *that* discussion for
> another, more appropriate time.
>
> I would suggest that the procedure agreed upon at the commencement
> of this whole affair be followed. In other words, take it

outside,

> gentlemen, and let us know what happens.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

Salve Arminia,

Oh, oh sorry Arminia,

Whatever you prefer. I'll understand. You aren't the first, I
thought several letters this month close to my posting were mine
when they were his.

Thanks!

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Ave Quinte Lani;
> I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the Plebs!
I
> don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling people
only
> by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just found out;)
So
> what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius Paulinus? You
can
> call me Arminia anytime...
> optime vale
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

Salve Cato;
well this gets interesting, calling me Arminia Maior is respectful
and correct as I am a pleb, but for a patrician not so.
A patrician would be called by his or her first name and cognomen.
So the PM Marcus Cassius Julianus would be called Marcus Julianus,
calling him Cassius Julianus would be insulting to a snobby Patrician
but our PM is a nice guy:-).
but you can call me Arminia too and that's fine unless there are
other Arminiae about. In the cohors it got really amusing as we have
2 Maiors, 2 Marca, Marcias so I started signing my letters Marca
Arminia.
Cordus and I have fun conversations about this all the time; but
hey we like the law too;-)
optime vale amice
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana


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

>
> G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Arminia Maior.
>
> I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen and cognomen in
> public when addressing someone, yes?
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave Quinte Lani;
> > I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the Plebs!
> I
> > don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> > Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling people
> only
> > by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just found

out;)

> So
> > what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius Paulinus? You
> can
> > call me Arminia anytime...
> > optime vale
> > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanio Paulino S.P.D.

Salve Lani Pauline!

Glad to help!

I just had my 42nd birthday, so I think I'm maybe sort of Baby
Boomer-esque ... I was going to say "Ten thousand furies and
serpents!" (my favourite expression of the Divine Augustus') but the
little fishes just sounded more...right. :-)

Vale,

Cato

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

>
> Salve Gai Cato!
>
> Thank you ever so much for your great summary of the situation!

That

> is all I asked for instead of a scattered complicated legal

postings

> that were rather confusing to some and that came straight out of

the

> blue. Your summary here is perfectly clear and understandable to

all

> so I need not comment any further; nothing satisfies me more than

a

> clear, concise logical asnwer.
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
> PS - Are you a baby-boomer? Ye gods and little fishes I have not
> heard since the late 50's or early 60's from parents and grand
> parents.

G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.

Salve, Marcia Arminia :-)

That makes it interesting...so if I really wanted to attempt extreme
politeness I'd have to know whether or not someone was Patrician or
Plebeian to address them correctly. This could get complicated but
fun. I should address, say, Scaurus as "Gaius Iulius" --- but what
about any other Gaius Iuliuses there are out there? Would you know
to whom the statement was being addressed by the initial greeting
(i.e., "Salve G. Iulius Scaurus")?

Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato;
> well this gets interesting, calling me Arminia Maior is
respectful
> and correct as I am a pleb, but for a patrician not so.
> A patrician would be called by his or her first name and
cognomen.
> So the PM Marcus Cassius Julianus would be called Marcus Julianus,
> calling him Cassius Julianus would be insulting to a snobby
Patrician
> but our PM is a nice guy:-).
> but you can call me Arminia too and that's fine unless there
are
> other Arminiae about. In the cohors it got really amusing as we
have
> 2 Maiors, 2 Marca, Marcias so I started signing my letters Marca
> Arminia.
> Cordus and I have fun conversations about this all the time; but
> hey we like the law too;-)
> optime vale amice
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato" <mlcinnyc@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
> >
> > Salve, Arminia Maior.
> >
> > I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen and cognomen
in
> > public when addressing someone, yes?
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ave Quinte Lani;
> > > I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the
Plebs!
> > I
> > > don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> > > Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling people
> > only
> > > by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just found
> out;)
> > So
> > > what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius Paulinus?
You
> > can
> > > call me Arminia anytime...
> > > optime vale
> > > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

Salve Illustrus Tribunus Paulinus,
as I said you're continuing to hurt your Office publishing a
discussion which would be private, an intercessio about a not
official measure and moving your honourable defense to the public
opinion. I invite you to talk about this matter to your new list.

In any way, as Tribunus I veto your intercessio because quite wrong.
You can't veto a nonexistent and unofficial matter.

Please, only few comments about your statements which I hope we
could continue to talk about in a separated list. Some comments
informing the public opinion about the opposite opinion as you did
before.

> TGP- Yes if you believe that the two colleges meeting separately

was in the sprit and in accord with the agreement. I do not. This
would mean at a minimum a joint meeting and not two separate meeting
in which only one person in the affair attends both.

As you know the two Collegia are equal in importance but different
in number. The number of members of the CP is higest than the
Tribunes and a joint meeting would be wrong if based on the number
of members.

> TGP-only 2 members of the CP voted. One doing so to make the

motion die on a 1-1 vote. Maybe we should find out why most members,
a super majority did not care to cast a vote on this issue or in the
manner it was presented?

Tribunus, this is not a logic reason. The Pontefices had the right
to vote. If they didn't voted pro Drusus, this means that they
wouldn't use their right and would have been no interested to
protect Senator Drusus.
Many times in legal affairs the silence is assent. In other
situations, teh silent means abstention. So following the results of
teh votation, only a Pontifex would prefered to defend Drusus, the
others were no interested about.

> Justice and the agreement requires that both Colleges should meet

and vote collectively.

No justice if we would vote counting the number of votes.

> It is rather simple really.
>
> No one has alleged that he has not voluntarily remained

unsubscribed from the SenatusRomanus mailing list for nine months.

>
> The good Consul, the Tribunes and the members of the Senate can

state that he has not participated in any Senate votes at any time
during the agreement.

>
> No one has alleged that the Senator did not post on the main list

stating that he was sabbatical from the Senate for a limited time.

I agree, Senator Drusus respected this points and I appreciate his
efforts. However you know that the agreement is about the behaviours
in the public lists too. Drusus was punished for his hurting
behaviour in this list, we have to judge fistly his "supposed"
violations in this list before.

> The agreement stated in unambiguous terms that the Praetors were

to judge if the Senator remained civil on the main list. This is the
only section of the agreement he has allegedly not kept. The
Praetors in communication we me stated that he has. This was shared
with the Tribunes and now all of Nova Roma .

However you know that the Prateores placed Senator Drusus under a
moderation of 2 weeks in the last May. Someone is thinking that this
moderation was yet a violation of teh Oath. Why the Praetores placed
him under moderation and now they are saying that Drusus was civil?
I would consider the judgement of the Praetores but it seems quite
controversial now after the moderation of May...
And in any way the past moderation "could" be considered as a
vilation.

> As has been pointed out on the main list and by me to the Tribunes

I did suggest to the Senator in May that he needed to keep his
promise in mind when he posted to the main list or to keep away from
his key board. The term that he used was used first by someone in my
Gens and in reference to the Senator.

I checked it and I think you're wrong, the behaviour of Drusus was
unjustified IN MY OPINION. In any way, I hope you would agree with
me that Drusus had the possibilities to avoid an harsh tone knowing
to be under an Oath.

> Nobody that was a party to this agreement state AT THAT TIME that

this was a violation of his oath. Now five months later his conduct
on the main list is the only item being used to say he is in
violation of the agreement .

Sorry, Tribunus, please read again the archive of your messages and
you could find many messages by me inviting you to keep attenction
about the behaviour of Drusus and recalling him to his oath. Many
time I asked your opinion about supposed violations by Drusus by I
had no answers.
Please, ask to Drusus how many messages I sent him inviting him to a
most polite tone?

> Lastly no one has alleged that the Senator has sought revenge or

retribution of any kind for the recent conflict

I agree

Plese, Tribunus, stop this discussion here, let's go to talk about
it in a separated place. Thank you

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

salve Armoricus,
my congratulations to you and the Provincia Britannia for this
newsletter, very good and interesting.

vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, CornMoraviusL@a... wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I am delighted to present the latest issue of Inter Alia, the
newsletter of
> Provincia Britannia. The timing for its release could not be
better as we all
> prepare here to attend yet another provincial meeting.
>
> I cannot resist to tell you all that our Propraetrix has planned a
great
> event where Britanni will meet (and hopefully enjoy a few
drinks :)) in London,
> visit the British and London Musea, see the play "a funny thing
happened on the
> way to the Forum"....Her enthusiasm and kindness is one sure proof
that Nova
> Roma can developp peacefully and beautifully away from the mud
that too often
> spoil this list.
>
> Here, now, is the link to Inter Alia III. Enjoy!
>
> http://www.britannia-provincia.co.uk/InterAlia003.pdf
>
> Optime Valete
>
> C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> Legatus Britanniae
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes,
first of all congratulations to my Provincia and my colleaugue and
to the Provincia Britannia, I'll try to be in 2006 at Hadrian's Wall.

Abotu the transportation to Rome, IMHO the best way now is the low-
coast flights.
There are several companies arriving in Rome like Ryanair, Virgin,
EasyJet, VolareWeb, Air Berlin, Vueling, Sterling, SkyEurope,Wizz
Air , etc. and from any nations in Europe. The best thing is to come
in UK and after go to Rome with a no-frills flight.
For exampel during the current week, the flights from Rome Fiumicino
to London coast 1 euro + taxes with Ryanair. The same price with
VolareWeb from Spain and France.

In any way I think the staff of the next Conventus will give you a
long list of the most cheap solutions.

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

Gaius Modius Athanasius Quinto Lanio Paulino salutem dicit

I believe Arminia Maior was refering to Tiberius Galerius Paulinus and not yourself. Of course, I could be incorrect in assuming this, I do believe she was responding to the other Paulinus.

Vale;

Modius

---

Ave M. Maior,

I am not discussing the terms of a private agreement at all. I was not privy to the dealings and discussions in the senate. What is not private was a senator's let's say, announced sabaticle from the senate which was published on the ML last June or so. Personally I am not interested or able to be involved in the upcoming discussions. My original posting says that I wanted people to drop legal jargon,
scattered premises and know what the original jist of this story was; especially for the benefit of newer members and citizens.

Yes, I can read what Tribunes Caesar and Modius have said. Do you see me taking sides and arguing for Drusus, Paulinus or the other side yet? No. Even though trials or inquieries, some parts of trials or inquiries or even priliminary hearings can be closed to the public or private citizens, they are at least allowed to know what Joe versus Bill is going to be about.

Vale bene,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus who wrote in part

[snip]

The intercessio having been blocked by Tribune Apulus, and a private
mailing list having been created where the Tribunes and Pontifices and
other involved parties can discuss this, I'm going to remove myself from
this discussion on the main list.

I salute tribunes Modius and Galerius and Apulus, who have all three
stepped forward to give their honest and sincere opinions. Whatever any
of us may think about the positions they've taken, all have been
courageous in this matter, and have been true to their best sense of honor.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salvete,

"Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?"

I'm finding it rather refreshing, compared with the war that is
happening over this intercessio thing.

Now that I know the diffence in the forms of address, there will be
hell on if someone addresses me as a Plebeian ;-)

valete

T. Octavius Salvius



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

>
> G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Marcia Arminia :-)
>
> That makes it interesting...so if I really wanted to attempt

extreme

> politeness I'd have to know whether or not someone was Patrician

or

> Plebeian to address them correctly. This could get complicated

but

> fun. I should address, say, Scaurus as "Gaius Iulius" --- but

what

> about any other Gaius Iuliuses there are out there? Would you

know

> to whom the statement was being addressed by the initial greeting
> (i.e., "Salve G. Iulius Scaurus")?
>
> Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato;
> > well this gets interesting, calling me Arminia Maior is
> respectful
> > and correct as I am a pleb, but for a patrician not so.
> > A patrician would be called by his or her first name and
> cognomen.
> > So the PM Marcus Cassius Julianus would be called Marcus

Julianus,

> > calling him Cassius Julianus would be insulting to a snobby
> Patrician
> > but our PM is a nice guy:-).
> > but you can call me Arminia too and that's fine unless there
> are
> > other Arminiae about. In the cohors it got really amusing as we
> have
> > 2 Maiors, 2 Marca, Marcias so I started signing my letters Marca
> > Arminia.
> > Cordus and I have fun conversations about this all the time;

but

> > hey we like the law too;-)
> > optime vale amice
> > Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> >
> >
> > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"

<mlcinnyc@y...>

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Salve, Arminia Maior.
> > >
> > > I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen and

cognomen

> in
> > > public when addressing someone, yes?
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...>

wrote:

> > > >
> > > > Ave Quinte Lani;
> > > > I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the
> Plebs!
> > > I
> > > > don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> > > > Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling

people

> > > only
> > > > by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just

found

> > out;)
> > > So
> > > > what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius

Paulinus?

> You
> > > can
> > > > call me Arminia anytime...
> > > > optime vale
> > > > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

M. Arminia Maior Fabiana G. Equitio Catoni spd;
aarghhh, you called me a Patrician;-) I am one proud pleb!.
Ah nomenclature , complicated and fun and educational too!

Actually Cato, if you wish to address Gaius Iulius Scaurus, the late
Republican form would be "Gaius Scaurus" praenomen and cognomen. The
common "Iulius Caesar" that is so familiar to us all is incorrect it
would have been "Gaius Caesar". Which makes sense as you so rightly
surmise there must be a million Gaius Iulius's out there....

So to avoid confusing me with the other Maiors who are about;
Arminius Maior and Flavius Conservatus Maior, addressing me as
Arminia Maior is suitable, just my gens name is fine
too; "Arminia",to avoid any mix-ups as there are no female Arminiae
on this list, though for some it gives the idea you are THE head of
the gens.

Now if you are really keen you can refer to your family as "The
Catones" yes, that's the plural form of your familia. As for you
young Salvius, that's all you'll get from me, young whipper-snapper;

for all the above I'm grateful to my good pal Cordus, who's
spent a lot of time discussing this with me and Flavia Tullia Valeria
Scholastica who helped me and especially with those tough Latin forms

optime vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriise
et Investigatio CFQ

> > G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
> >
> > Salve, Marcia Arminia :-)
> >
> > That makes it interesting...so if I really wanted to attempt
> extreme
> > politeness I'd have to know whether or not someone was Patrician
> or
> > Plebeian to address them correctly. This could get complicated
> but
> > fun. I should address, say, Scaurus as "Gaius Iulius" --- but
> what
> > about any other Gaius Iuliuses there are out there? Would you
> know
> > to whom the statement was being addressed by the initial greeting
> > (i.e., "Salve G. Iulius Scaurus")?
> >
> > Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Cato;
> > > well this gets interesting, calling me Arminia Maior is
> > respectful
> > > and correct as I am a pleb, but for a patrician not so.
> > > A patrician would be called by his or her first name and
> > cognomen.
> > > So the PM Marcus Cassius Julianus would be called Marcus
> Julianus,
> > > calling him Cassius Julianus would be insulting to a snobby
> > Patrician
> > > but our PM is a nice guy:-).
> > > but you can call me Arminia too and that's fine unless

there

> > are
> > > other Arminiae about. In the cohors it got really amusing as we
> > have
> > > 2 Maiors, 2 Marca, Marcias so I started signing my letters

Marca

> > > Arminia.
> > > Cordus and I have fun conversations about this all the time;
> but
> > > hey we like the law too;-)
> > > optime vale amice
> > > Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> > >
> > >
> > > In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
> <mlcinnyc@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > G. Equitius Cato M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae S.P.D.
> > > >
> > > > Salve, Arminia Maior.
> > > >
> > > > I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen and
> cognomen
> > in
> > > > public when addressing someone, yes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ave Quinte Lani;
> > > > > I was addressing T. Galerius Paulinus the Tribune of the
> > Plebs!
> > > > I
> > > > > don't think you are able to make an intercessio yet;-)
> > > > > Well now we can discuss Roman nomenclature, calling
> people
> > > > only
> > > > > by their cognomens can lead to confusion, as we've just
> found
> > > out;)
> > > > So
> > > > > what is your preference Quintus Lanius or Lanius
> Paulinus?
> > You
> > > > can
> > > > > call me Arminia anytime...
> > > > > optime vale
> > > > > M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

Salvete omnes,

Plebs vs Patricians! Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war! ;-

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana G. Equitio Catoni spd;
> aarghhh, you called me a Patrician;-) I am one proud pleb!.
> Ah nomenclature , complicated and fun and educational too!
>

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix <c.minucius.hadrianus@...> wrote:

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete.

Here's an idea... why don't we take all of the parties involved in this
ridiculous dispute, throw them all in the arena with knives and just
declare the last one standing the winner? At least it would be over
quick, and we could put an end to all this petty sceheming, back
stabbing, character assination and other tripe that has turned Nova Roma
into the sordid soap opera it is today. I am utterly sick of this crap.
Nova Roma is never going anywhere so long as our leading citizens
continue spend 95% of there time trying to drive each other out of the
organization. 95% of the posts on the mainlist come from 5% of our
citizens who seem to take peverse delight in devoting thier bandwidth to
attacking each other. No wonder new citizens come post once or twice on
the main list then vanish. I can't blame them. Is this what everyone
wants? Everyone is always shouting how thier side is the one trying to
save NR, or protect the rights of its citizens, or safegaurd the
constitution or the State Religio, but ultimately they are helping
no-one and are simply running NR into the ground. It's time for NR to
grow up a little, and for its citizens to put Nova Roma before thier
feuds, egos and grudges for a change. But you know what? I'm not holding
my breath.

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix

Well said, but like you, I'm not holding my breath either.

Maxima Valeria Messallina


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

"Everyone is always shouting how thier side is the one trying to save NR, or protect the rights of its citizens, or safegaurd the constitution or the State Religio, but ultimately they are helping no-one and are simply running NR into the ground. It's time for NR to grow up a little, and for its citizens to put Nova Roma before their feuds, egos and grudges for a change. But you know what? I'm not holding my breath."

Ave,

The problem here is you have two sides who think they are right. The going at with knives solutions may very well be the quickest solution but as long as both sides have their own views on what is best there will be no end. What furthers this is when I returned, I was eventually point blanked asked to state my beliefs, where they lay, and whether I was Boni or Moderati. I find that in itself to be farsical. It is pretty sad when you have to ask someone to take a side over something that is in reality so simple. For this to end one side will have to cow down in submission and like your last sentence quoted above says or implies that is not very likely to happen.

But how do you put Nova Roma before yourself? If you take a side be it Boni Moderati or whatever you want to cal side XYZ and that side believes its views are the best course for Nova Roma then aren't they putting Nova Roma before themselves? Both sides do, in my opinion, believe they are putting Nova Roma and the hot issues before themselves. Of course the opposing side thinks otherwise. So who is going to submit to the other side? Then what do you have? By making one side submit or cow down to the views of the other you create in essence a mini dictatorship by pressing your views on them. But then again even if you were to completely wipe out one side you would have a void left open that would simply be filled by another group with opposing extremes in views. So what do you want to do get into some Nova Roma style state suppression?

Vale, Quintus brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

Salve Consul

Thank you for joining the mailing list I created to discuss this issue off the main list. I only wish I had thought of this a few days ago.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] intercessio


Salvete Quirites, et salve Tiberi Galeri,

Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> Salve Consul Gnaeus Equitius Marinus who wrote in part

[snip]

The intercessio having been blocked by Tribune Apulus, and a private
mailing list having been created where the Tribunes and Pontifices and
other involved parties can discuss this, I'm going to remove myself from
this discussion on the main list.

I salute tribunes Modius and Galerius and Apulus, who have all three
stepped forward to give their honest and sincere opinions. Whatever any
of us may think about the positions they've taken, all have been
courageous in this matter, and have been true to their best sense of honor.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

But then again even if you were to completely wipe out one side you
would have a void left open that would simply be filled by another
group with opposing extremes in views. So what do you want to do get
into some Nova Roma style state suppression?

>
> Vale, Quintus brutus
>
>
> Avete omnes;

these are good questions, and I do have an answer for you both; the
Peace List.
Modius Athanasius started it so that we could speak to one another
and work out our differences in an atmosphere of respect and mutual
understanding.
Now I've had my differences with Modius and he with me, it's not
easy, but I went to the Peace List and apologized and explained to
him why I felt a certain way, our friends helped, and he also did the
same. It's hard work and takes time.
They easy thing is to be cynical and not try, to blame and name-
call. That is how you tell the sincere from the phoneys in Nova Roma.
bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

"I went to the Peace List and apologized and explained...why I felt a certain way, our friends helped, and he also did the
same. It's hard work and takes time."

--Hmm, well I'd have more confidence in such if I hadn't received private e-mails that I considered from my point of view rather hostile in wording, just simply for me having an opinion. It is indeed hard work reconciling differences and is easier to do between individuals than groups. But I just don't appreciate being called out and more less being told to pick a side. My beliefs and opinions are mine and I shoudln't, nor should anyone else new or old, have to pick a side. It seems when it comes to certain subjects it is a crime to have an opinion. But then again the issues of before seem dead for now as another "crisis", and I use that loosely, has arisen.
Vale, Quintus Brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

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

Salvete;

Here is the URL for the PeaceNR list:

_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceNR_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceNR)

It was created to help maintain the conflict of Nova Roma, and allow for
people to discuss political issues involving Nova Roma, and as a place for
honest discussion and dialogue with the HOPE that positive change can be a reality
within Nova Roma.

The list has been a little silent lately, and that is a good thing. The
main list has been a more peaceful place.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/25/2004 3:54:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:

Avete omnes;
these are good questions, and I do have an answer for you both; the
Peace List.
Modius Athanasius started it so that we could speak to one another
and work out our differences in an atmosphere of respect and mutual
understanding.
Now I've had my differences with Modius and he with me, it's not
easy, but I went to the Peace List and apologized and explained to
him why I felt a certain way, our friends helped, and he also did the
same. It's hard work and takes time.
They easy thing is to be cynical and not try, to blame and name-
call. That is how you tell the sincere from the phoneys in Nova Roma.
bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana





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

F. Galerius Aurelianus Flamen Cerealis S.P.D.

The duties of the Tribune are to protect the Plebs from any action by a
Patrician Magistrate that would infringe on the rights of the Plebs, singly or as a
group. The gentes Fabia and Octavia are Patrician and the gens Sicinia is
Plebeian. Under these circumstances, I believe that Tribune Paulinus is doing
what he was elected to do as a Tribune. Even though other Plebs may not feel
that his action is appropriate, it is the duty of the Plebs to support the
actions of a Tribune of the Plebs if he is acting to protect the rights of a
Plebeian.

Valete.


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

F. Galerius Aurelianus S.P.D.

The question of whether or not Point 4 of the agreement has been violated is
not totally in the hands of the Praetors that are currently serving that
office since the Senator was moderated by the Consul Marinus when he was acting for
the Praetors during a period when we had no active Praetors. It may be that
because he was moderated, some will feel that he (de facto) violated his oath.
Others may feel differently. However, the matter should be resolved
according to the laws and precedents of Nova Roma.

Valete.


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

G. Equitius Cato F. Galerio Aureliano S.P.D.

Salve, Galerius Aurelianus.

Spoken like a true Pleb! :-)

The Social Wars are so much more interesting than the Civil Wars,
even if we Patricians did lose out on a lot of stuff. Maybe we can
get it all back (Cato begins twirling his moustaches evilly) ...

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus Flamen Cerealis S.P.D.
>
> The duties of the Tribune are to protect the Plebs from any action
by a
> Patrician Magistrate that would infringe on the rights of the
Plebs, singly or as a
> group. The gentes Fabia and Octavia are Patrician and the gens
Sicinia is
> Plebeian. Under these circumstances, I believe that Tribune
Paulinus is doing
> what he was elected to do as a Tribune. Even though other Plebs
may not feel
> that his action is appropriate, it is the duty of the Plebs to
support the
> actions of a Tribune of the Plebs if he is acting to protect the
rights of a
> Plebeian.
>
> Valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

M. Arminia Maior Fabiana F. Galerio Aureliano spd;

Salve Aureliane;
I entirely support T. Galerius Paulinus acting on behalf of
Drusus, a pleb. And as Cordus pointed out historically a Tribune
Plebis would state before hand his intentions that he would declare
a veto of an upcoming action.

What is objected too is that T. Galerius Paulinus, behaved improperly
a.) in making the veto when no action has yet been taken

b.) in revealing on the Main List confidential correspondance
without the permission of the recipients.
This includes the Praetors as well as parties to the
private agreement Drusus made.


A Tribune Plebis must uphold the law not break it; can we agree on
this...
bene vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

A. Apollónius Cordus M. Octávió Germánicó omnibusque
sal.

> Not true - a veto is only valid if a majority of the
> Tribunes support it.
> (This is a departure from historical practice, but
> it does prevent one
> Tribune from completely paralyzing the entire
> government).

... and thereby renders the tribunician college
completely unable to perform the constitutional
function it served in the old republic. The whole
point of having tribunes is so that one tribune can
completely paralyze the entire government. If we don't
want that to happen, we ought to be honest and just
get rid of the tribunes. As currently arranged they
serve no useful purpose.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix S.P.D.

Salve.

I'm not asking anyone to give up on their beliefs or their vision of
Nova Roma. I'd just like to see some civility and perhaps a legtimate
desire to at least attempt dialogue and compromise. I don't think Nova
Roma's real problem is idelogical. While much of the politics, fighting
and acrimony on the mainlist are superficially ideological, the real
reasons for many of them are personal. It is long held dislikes,
grudges, hurt feelings, bruised egos - much if it going back to Nova
Roma's earliest days - that fuels the rancor in the debates on the main
list. The bottom line is that many of our leading citizens simply detest
each other on a personal level. The orginal causes of such conflicts may
have been over differences of opinion or ideology, but they seem to have
taken a life all their own. So instead of reasoned debate and
discussion, we have mudslinging, personal attacks, law suits, conspiracy
theories, plots, and every other unpleasant form of social interaction
that is physically possible via the Internet. I suppose the argument can
be made that such things are unavoidable and simply part of any human
organization, but when they seem to become the focus of all activity of
an organization, then there is a problem. Like the one we have now.

Vale,

Hadrianus

Quintus Brutus wrote:

>"Everyone is always shouting how thier side is the one trying to save NR, or protect the rights of its citizens, or safegaurd the constitution or the State Religio, but ultimately they are helping no-one and are simply running NR into the ground. It's time for NR to grow up a little, and for its citizens to put Nova Roma before their feuds, egos and grudges for a change. But you know what? I'm not holding my breath."
>
>Ave,
>
> The problem here is you have two sides who think they are right. The going at with knives solutions may very well be the quickest solution but as long as both sides have their own views on what is best there will be no end. What furthers this is when I returned, I was eventually point blanked asked to state my beliefs, where they lay, and whether I was Boni or Moderati. I find that in itself to be farsical. It is pretty sad when you have to ask someone to take a side over something that is in reality so simple. For this to end one side will have to cow down in submission and like your last sentence quoted above says or implies that is not very likely to happen.
>
> But how do you put Nova Roma before yourself? If you take a side be it Boni Moderati or whatever you want to cal side XYZ and that side believes its views are the best course for Nova Roma then aren't they putting Nova Roma before themselves? Both sides do, in my opinion, believe they are putting Nova Roma and the hot issues before themselves. Of course the opposing side thinks otherwise. So who is going to submit to the other side? Then what do you have? By making one side submit or cow down to the views of the other you create in essence a mini dictatorship by pressing your views on them. But then again even if you were to completely wipe out one side you would have a void left open that would simply be filled by another group with opposing extremes in views. So what do you want to do get into some Nova Roma style state suppression?
>
> Vale, Quintus brutus
>
>
>
>
>
>

A. Apollónius Cordus M. Arminiae Májórí C. Equitió
Catóní amícís omnibusque sal.

Ah, good stuff!

> I believe it is a mark of respect to use both nomen
> and cognomen in
> public when addressing someone, yes?

It can be. Ciceró addresses his friends and people
he's not averse to with two names 64% of the time,
while he addresses his opponents using two names only
18% of the time (all statistics from Dickey, 'Latin
Forms of Address'). We find also in Livy that many of
the times when a person is addressed using only a
single name it's in the context of defiance or rebuke.

But it also seems that the use of two names is more
formal than one, for Ciceró generally uses two names
at the beginning and at the end of speeches while
using only one in the middle; and when he addresses
Caesar in the senate he calls him by two names, though
if he is talking to him at home or in the forum he
uses only one. This to some extent backs up the first
point, because shows of respect tend to involve
formality and, conversely, being informal with someone
can be rude. But being informal with a friend can show
friendliness and familiarity. It depends on the person
and on the context. If I were to meet Tony Blair and
call him 'Tony' he'd think it a bit rude of me; but
he'd also think it rather odd if his wife were to call
him 'Mr. Blair'.

> well this gets interesting, calling me Arminia
> Maior is respectful
> and correct as I am a pleb, but for a patrician not
> so.
> A patrician would be called by his or her first
> name and cognomen.

Ooh... um... not quite. It's not a plebeian-patrician
thing, it's a nóbilis-ignóbilis thing. It seems that
in formal contexts one would normally call a nóbilis
by his praenómen plus his cognómen, an ordinary person
by his praenómen and nómen. Now, precisely what makes
someone a nóbilis is itself not entirely clear, but
the best answer seems to be that it's anyone who has
held a curule magistracy or whose ancestor has held a
curule magistracy. So according to this rule we would
address Titus Fortunátus, but Quintus Caecilius
(unless, of course, we want to count our Metellus as
descended from the consular Metellí, who were of
course nóbilés). But of course when Titus Fortunátus
and Quintus Caecilius are having dinner together they
may well relax and call one another Fortunátus and
Metellus, disregarding their differences.

Of course, these customs aren't arbitrary, and one can
see why this one developed. Noble gentés would tend to
be older, and older gentés would tend to have more
branches which would be differentiated by cognómina,
whereas newer and less distinguished gentés would
probably not be so large and their members wouldn't
need to be distinguished by cognómina. So in 80 B.C.
Lucius Cornélius could have meant Sulla, Scipió, or
umpteen other varieties of Cornélius; but there was
only one Gaius Marius worth mentioning. Roman 'rules'
of nomenclature and address all derive ultimately from
practical considerations about making sure people know
who you're talking about.

During the late republic, of course, politics was a
dangerous game and there were lots of new men about
whose families were unknown but who nonetheless might
be displeased if one were to draw attention to their
humble origins; so a new habit developed of saying
neither Quintus Caecilius nor Quintus Metellus but
Caecilius Metellus. This didn't offend anyone, and was
therefore safer; but it wasn't considered very stylish
by connoisseurs, and Ciceró resolutely stuck with the
old form. So one can choose whether to go for the
new-fangled egalitarian method or the traditional one.

> That makes it interesting...so if I really wanted to
> attempt extreme
> politeness I'd have to know whether or not someone
> was Patrician or
> Plebeian to address them correctly. This could get
> complicated but
> fun.

Well, that would be too simple, wouldn't it? Because
you can always look someone's géns up in the album to
find out whether he's patrician or plebeian; but to
know whether he's a nóbilis or not there's no
short-cut; you either have to go back through the
fástí looking for his ancestors, or ask around.

> ... I should address, say, Scaurus as "Gaius
> Iulius" --- but what
> about any other Gaius Iuliuses there are out there?
> Would you know
> to whom the statement was being addressed by the
> initial greeting
> (i.e., "Salve G. Iulius Scaurus")?

Well, Scaurus is curule aedile, so he's a nóbilis,
though only by a nose. So if you were using the old
form you'd call him Gaius Scaurus; or, in the new
style, Július Scaurus. Or to be extremely formal you
could call him Gaius Július Scaurus; to be informal,
just Scaurus; or to express extreme friendliness or,
conversely, contempt, you could just call him Gaius.
The number and combination of names you use in the
initial salutation is subject to the same conventions
as in other contexts, though sometimes a salutation
would be more formal than the rest of a letter; but in
Ciceró's letters he commonly open with a salutation
using only the cognómen.

> Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?

Not everyone. :)





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus C. Equitió Catóní amícó sal.

> The Social Wars are so much more interesting than
> the Civil Wars,
> even if we Patricians did lose out on a lot of
> stuff. Maybe we can
> get it all back (Cato begins twirling his
> moustaches evilly) ...

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you, Cató
amíce - it's just that I've noticed various people
making this mistake in the past and I always forget to
say anything about it.

The Social War was the war between the Romans and the
Italians in the 90s and 80s B.C. It's called that
because the Italians were formally called socií -
allies - so it was the war against the socií, i.e.,
the social war (bellum sociális), just like the
Hannibalic War was the war against Hannibal.

What you're talking about is the Struggle of the
Orders in the early republic. It wasn't a war because
it didn't come to blows; and the Romans, unlike
certain people among us who have a taste for melodrama
(cough cough Fábius Máximus cough), did not refer to
mere civil disturbances, even ones so serious as the
Secession of the Plébs, as wars.

There was hardly an adult male Roman in the history of
the republic who hadn't at some time in his life
fought in hand-to-hand, eyeball-to-eyeball combat, and
hardly an adult woman who hadn't lost a relative or
friend in battle. These people knew what was a war and
what wasn't, and they didn't belittle the deaths of
their compatriots by calling it a civil war when
somebody closes down an e-mail list.

Sorry, I've wandered right off the point, haven't I? I
started talking about an honest mistake on your part,
and I ended up ranting about a reprehensible lack of
gravitás on the part of people who have nothing to do
with this conversation. Well, I don't often indulge
myself by venting my anger in public, so I hope you
and the populus will indulge me on this occasion.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

M. Arminia Maior A. Apollonio Cordo G. Equitio Catoni optimis suis
spd;

>
>Cordus: Ah, good stuff!

I knew it; nomenclature discussions would bring Cordus;-). He has
helped me to creep ever so surely through, some pretty funny name
changes, and then an adoption to a kind of onomastic nirvana;)

> >
>Cordus: Ooh... um... not quite. It's not a plebeian-patrician
> thing, it's a nóbilis-ignóbilis thing.

Oh ho, thanks for the correction, sorry to spread misinformation.
Actually with the Album Gentium one can look someone up to see if
they have been a curule aedile...

So call me Marca Arminia, or Arminia Maior but not Marca Maior; I
don't deserve it;-)

>
> > Is this ridiculously boring to everyone else?
>
> Not everyone. :)
>

I think this is fascinating! More Corde please:)
optime valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Romans

I would not support legislation or a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Tribunes but I would support an amendment to return the Tribunes to the powers they had in the ancient Republic namely that each tribune would hold an absolute veto and not this current set up that requires a degree of collegially not present in ancient Rome.


Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: A. Apollonius Cordus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:08 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The purpose of the tribunate (WAS: A small thought about procedure)


A. Apollónius Cordus M. Octávió Germánicó omnibusque
sal.

> Not true - a veto is only valid if a majority of the
> Tribunes support it.
> (This is a departure from historical practice, but
> it does prevent one
> Tribune from completely paralyzing the entire
> government).

... and thereby renders the tribunician college
completely unable to perform the constitutional
function it served in the old republic. The whole
point of having tribunes is so that one tribune can
completely paralyze the entire government. If we don't
want that to happen, we ought to be honest and just
get rid of the tribunes. As currently arranged they
serve no useful purpose.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Amicus Amicis Quiritium salutem dicit.

Salvete,

It is interesting, for me, to watch this talk of coming to terms with each
other, submitting to the views of one over the other, agreeing to disagree,
etc. When I petitioned the Collegium Pontificium to become a member of the
Collegium Fetialium, I knew, as I do now, that if I ever were to find myself
in a position where I was to negotiate between we the Roman People and
another People, it would likely be nothing of easy. But, I believe that
peace can exist, if, and only if, all the sides party to making peace give
effort even beyond the utmost diligence Quintillian prescribes for raising
children. It seems that we here would like nothing more than peace, not
here between two Peoples as is my specialty, but between two people, if not
for the sake of peace itself, then at least so that we might be able to
cooperate to accomplish things. It is a lofty, perhaps, goal, but one I
think we, together, can achieve.

Since my being named a Fetial, on a few occasions, I have been called upon
to mediate, privately, between citizens. As now it stands, I can find no
better duty for myself by virtue of my office than in doing this. So let me
offer, now and for as long as I may consider myself a Roman, my assistance
in mediation to any citizen who might find it useful.

Fetials, in the duty of their office, frequently administered oaths, this
being done always in making treaties. This, we know, comes directly from
private law, as says Alan Watson, among others. Fetials also religiously
saw to the making of peace, the execution of whatever terms were involved,
and such (there is a section in Dionysius of Halicarnassus on this,
ii.72.2., but I will not bother list every item here now). What I offer to
you, is to perform the same functions between two people, citizens and
peregrines alike, as I would be required between two states, insofar as law
and religion might allow.

One of the things which drove me to petition for my office is my dedication
to peace. I offer to you all my same dedication, if so ever you might ask.

Valete Optime in Pace Aeterna Deorum,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
Civis, Fetialis, Amicus

G. Equitius Cato Q. Caecilio Metello quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve, Caecilius Metellus et salvete omnes.

Bravo, Caecilius Metellus! That's the spirit!

O quirites! We often forget, in our haste to put forth one opinion
or another, that we are Romans. We have been drawn together by the
Gods, or Fate, or whatever Divine Entity rules in the heavens to (as
Livy put it) rule the world and make mankind obey. We have been
culled from amongst all the peoples of the world; from every tribe
and nation, every people and all the world and the inhabitants
therein, to bring back the glory and pride that created, sustained,
and recreates, in us, the wonder that is the Roman world.

I do not pretend that I do not have certain viewpoints --- that I am
not interested in seeing our res publica develope in a certain way.
I am not impartial, I am not non-partisan, I am not un-political.

Yet, through the haze of partisanship and political, religious and
social disagreement, I see clearly the wings of the Roman eagle
spread across the globe; I see our destiny, the destiny that was to
some degree denied our spiritual and (in many cases, mine included)
genetic ancestors.

We hold in our hands the intellectual capabilities of turning the
world upside-down once again. We can create, in a world torn by
strife and uncertainty, a bedrock foundation of the great Virtues
that sustained a peace unlike any other known in the history of the
world. If it is one single man or woman, one child, into whom we
can encourage the germination of a new way of thinking --- one that
harkens back to our great roots in the glory of Rome --- then we
have succeeeded.

Will the world ever be ruled again by the togate descendents of the
Scipiones, the Equitii, the Iulii, the Metelli, the Catones? Who
knows? Who cares? Let us, as the citizens of the New Rome, put our
energies into the very chance that it might be so. We live in a
world of infinite possibilities. I refuse to allow my vision of
that world be denied by a resistance to growth, to learning, to
expanding our boundaries. Yesterday's impossibilities are today's
old news.

I do not pretend that I will not encourage our growth in a certain
vein. You have all heard me speak (ad nauseum, perhaps) on certain
issues. I will continue to do so. My namesake drove his
contemporaries crazy with his insistence that Carthage should be
destroyed. That he was, of course, correct, does not imply that I
am likewise as correct --- but it certainly helps me overcome any
attempt to damper my enthusiasm.

What I say is, through all the smoke and gloom and darkness of
internecine antagonism, I see the bright rays of the hope and glory
of which we are the heirs.

VIVAT NOVA ROMA! VIVANT NOVOROMANI!

Vale et valete,

Cato

SAlve Aurelianus,
the duty of the Tribunes is NOT ONLY protect the Plebeians, the
first duty is protect the spirit of the Costitution and of teh Res
Publica. PLease read our Costitution - par. 7 at
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution.html

I agree with you that we Tribunes would protect the Plebeians, but
ever following our coscience. We're not forced to defend a plebeian
reus if we are sure that he's wrong. If a plebeian is a killer, what
we would do? protect him fighting against our public civil coscience
and the interests of the Res Publica just because we're Tribunes
Plebis? What would happen if the plebeian is hurting the rights and
privileges of all the class? Should we Tribunes continue to defend
him or would we protect the Res Publica?
We are here too to protect the Plebeian class, but we're not here to
protect any wronging plebeian.

There are several solutions to guarantee the democracy and the
correct accomplishing of the tribunician duties. The high number of
the Tribunes and the unofficially "collegium" guarantee us by a
golpe or actions against the justice. And the reus could ever call
the comitia asking a solution to the highest Magistrate of the Res
Publica: the Populus.

Please, look that I didn't talked about Drusus and this supposed
crisis, please would you stop any discussion about him? In this
moment a group of 22 elected and not-elected Magistrates are
discussing about this situation. Thank you very much.

Vale
Fr. Apulus Caesar
Tribunus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@a... wrote:
> F. Galerius Aurelianus Flamen Cerealis S.P.D.
>
> The duties of the Tribune are to protect the Plebs from any action
by a
> Patrician Magistrate that would infringe on the rights of the
Plebs, singly or as a
> group. The gentes Fabia and Octavia are Patrician and the gens
Sicinia is
> Plebeian. Under these circumstances, I believe that Tribune
Paulinus is doing
> what he was elected to do as a Tribune. Even though other Plebs
may not feel
> that his action is appropriate, it is the duty of the Plebs to
support the
> actions of a Tribune of the Plebs if he is acting to protect the
rights of a
> Plebeian.
>
> Valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Salvete Omnes,
any attempt to ged rid the Tribunes is only an offense to our
History, to the Plebeian class, to the Sanctitas of the Office and
to the Res Publica. Would we come back to the sad reign of
Tarquinius, the last King?

> I would not support legislation or a constitutional amendment to

get rid of the Tribunes but I would support an amendment to return
the Tribunes to the powers they had in the ancient Republic namely
that each tribune would hold an absolute veto and not this current
set up that requires a degree of collegially not present in ancient
Rome.

This system was present in Ancient Rome but only with other words.
The collegially is the best way to guarantee the highest democracy
and the most clean and honest job.
An ABSOLUTE veto by just one Tribunus ignoring the possibilities to
veto it by the others Tribunes means in my opinion the "Tribunician
Dictatorship". In this hypothetical situation a Tribunus could
paralyze the Res Publica because nobody could stop him with another
intercessio.
The actual system guarantee to the population the correct protection
of the Costitution avoiding the tribunician dictatorship, a large
democratical agreement between the TRibunes, the indipendence and
the Sanctitas of the Office, etc.

Pauline, I think you don't dream a tribunician dictatorship, I would
suppose only that your actula orientation comes from the minority in
the Tribunicia Collegium. Is it?

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar

From: A. Apollonius Cordus [mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@...]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:08 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] The purpose of the tribunate (WAS: A small thought
about procedure)



A. Apollónius Cordus M. Octávió Germánicó omnibusque
sal.

> Not true - a veto is only valid if a majority of the
> Tribunes support it.
> (This is a departure from historical practice, but
> it does prevent one
> Tribune from completely paralyzing the entire
> government).

... and thereby renders the tribunician college
completely unable to perform the constitutional
function it served in the old republic. The whole
point of having tribunes is so that one tribune can
completely paralyze the entire government. If we don't
want that to happen, we ought to be honest and just
get rid of the tribunes. As currently arranged they
serve no useful purpose.



T.Acanus Agricola----> I would have to agree, thereÂ’s no purpose to the
office. Imagine your fleeing down some old Roman road toward the house of
the Tribune, hot on your heals is an angry mob of patricians. You reach the
house of the tribune; the Tribune boldly comes forward and stands between
you and the angry mob, and pronounces intersession. The crowd disperses,
except they donÂ’t, the crowd mills about for 3 days when the all-powerful
veto ends (or until another Tribune undoes the protection that protection),
and they string up the poor schmuck anyway. ThatÂ’s a powerful protection we
got going for us Plebs.



T.Arcanus Agricola







___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129lrmv06/M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1098832093/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https:/www.
orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS> click
here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2372354/rand=290507607>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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

Salve



The problems inherent in Nova Roma system is the same problem inherent in
any little group of online people. If we were a "real" government there
would be a civil war, and the side that won would remake Nova Roma in the
image that they wanted. Problems are settled with finality, by force of
arms. Diplomacy at its best is a delaying tactic used by the weaker, until
his military or political situation is strong enough for him to act with his
military. The idea that debate and diplomacy settles anything is a joke,
simply look at the UN of today. As an online community we have no armies
only diplomacy, so we have no real way to settle the issue and so we are
stuck with people we don't like.



Even if someone managed to get Drusus out, he could come back under another
name or worse those that liked him would begin a campaign to get rid of the
person or persons they thought were responsible, depending on how well they
performed the next guy drummed out could be Qunitus Brutus or A. Apollonius
Cordus (sorry to drag you guys into this). There has to be a better way.



There is; I propose a game of RISK, Drusus on one side and whoever on the
other. The loser and all his supporters are considered dead and must leave
Nova Roma having first signed non-disclosure agreements and a contract
stating they (the losers) are never to participate in Nova Roma again, nor
form a competing organization for the next three years. Now I am a supporter
of Drusus in that I think he should return to the fold, but I do not trust
his skills at RISK enough to risk my Nova Roman life with him, others might
know he is the best RISK player ever to walk the earth and eagerly jump to
his side. In any case it would be a winner take all civil war and the victor
would get the title of dictator for one year and can reshape nova Roma as he
chooses. This is (kind of) how the Romans did it and I don't see any reason
why we shouldn't do the same. A lasting peace is at hand my fellow Romans we
need simply take up the sword and purge whoever is the enemy.



Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

<mailto:mikeabboud@...> mikeabboud@...

<http://www.mikeabboud.com> www.mikeabboud.com,

<http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/> http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/

_____

From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
[mailto:c.minucius.hadrianus@...]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:13 PM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] This S*%$ has got to stop.



C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix S.P.D.

I'm not asking anyone to give up on their beliefs or their vision of
Nova Roma. I'd just like to see some civility and perhaps a legtimate
desire to at least attempt dialogue and compromise. I don't think Nova
Roma's real problem is idelogical. While much of the politics, fighting
and acrimony on the mainlist are superficially ideological, the real
reasons for many of them are personal. It is long held dislikes,
grudges, hurt feelings, bruised egos - much if it going back to Nova
Roma's earliest days - that fuels the rancor in the debates on the main
list. The bottom line is that many of our leading citizens simply detest
each other on a personal level. The orginal causes of such conflicts may
have been over differences of opinion or ideology, but they seem to have
taken a life all their own. So instead of reasoned debate and
discussion, we have mudslinging, personal attacks, law suits, conspiracy
theories, plots, and every other unpleasant form of social interaction
that is physically possible via the Internet. I suppose the argument can
be made that such things are unavoidable and simply part of any human
organization, but when they seem to become the focus of all activity of
an organization, then there is a problem. Like the one we have now.

Vale,

Hadrianus

Quintus Brutus wrote:

>"Everyone is always shouting how thier side is the one trying to save NR,

or protect the rights of its citizens, or safegaurd the constitution or the
State Religio, but ultimately they are helping no-one and are simply running
NR into the ground. It's time for NR to grow up a little, and for its
citizens to put Nova Roma before their feuds, egos and grudges for a change.
But you know what? I'm not holding my breath."

>
>Ave,
>
> The problem here is you have two sides who think they are right.

The going at with knives solutions may very well be the quickest solution
but as long as both sides have their own views on what is best there will be
no end. What furthers this is when I returned, I was eventually point
blanked asked to state my beliefs, where they lay, and whether I was Boni or
Moderati. I find that in itself to be farsical. It is pretty sad when you
have to ask someone to take a side over something that is in reality so
simple. For this to end one side will have to cow down in submission and
like your last sentence quoted above says or implies that is not very likely
to happen.

>
> But how do you put Nova Roma before yourself? If you take a side be

it Boni Moderati or whatever you want to cal side XYZ and that side believes
its views are the best course for Nova Roma then aren't they putting Nova
Roma before themselves? Both sides do, in my opinion, believe they are
putting Nova Roma and the hot issues before themselves. Of course the
opposing side thinks otherwise. So who is going to submit to the other
side? Then what do you have? By making one side submit or cow down to the
views of the other you create in essence a mini dictatorship by pressing
your views on them. But then again even if you were to completely wipe out
one side you would have a void left open that would simply be filled by
another group with opposing extremes in views. So what do you want to do
get into some Nova Roma style state suppression?

>
> Vale, Quintus brutus
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dfkq8u/M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1098832385/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https:/www.
orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS> click
here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2372354/rand=155127873>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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

G. Equitius Cato Ti. Arcano Agricolo A. Apollonio Cordo S.P.D.

Salvete, Arcanus Agrcola et Apollonius Cordus.

> T.Acanus Agricola----> I would have to agree, there's no purpose

to the

> office. Imagine your fleeing down some old Roman road toward the

house of

> the Tribune, hot on your heals is an angry mob of patricians. You

reach the

> house of the tribune; the Tribune boldly comes forward and stands

between

> you and the angry mob, and pronounces intersession. The crowd

disperses,

> except they don't, the crowd mills about for 3 days when the all-

powerful

> veto ends (or until another Tribune undoes the protection that

protection),

> and they string up the poor schmuck anyway. That's a powerful

protection we

> got going for us Plebs.
>
>
>
> T.Arcanus Agricola

CATO: Hmph. First of all, Arcanus, you're not gonna find ME
fleeing down some road: I'll make the slaves carrying my litter run
faster, that's all. And besides, that's what you get for being a
Pleb. Neener neener neener.

Corde, I stand corrected in re the Social Wars. It's just an
irresistable impulse that makes me call the struggles between the
Patricians and the Plebs a "social war": I imagine all the
matriarchs on the Upper East Side marching down 3rd Ave., the sun
glinting off their Mont Blanc fountain pens/spears and shimmering
across their Louis Vuitton and Prada handbag/shields to engage their
housekeepers as the latter cross over from Queens on the 59th Street
Bridge, their faces set grimly while they swing their dog
leashes/nets; the air is thick with the ululations of "Immigration
reform!" and "Dental coverage!" being met by imperious cries
of "I've got 37 people due for dinner in 4 hours!" and "that ottoman
hasn't been vacuumed in MONTHS!" --- they meet, and havoc ensues.
Now THAT's a social war.

Valete,

Cato

Salvete Omnes

"CATO: Hmph. First of all, Arcanus, you're not gonna find ME
fleeing down some road: I'll make the slaves carrying my litter
run faster, that's all. And besides, that's what you get for being
a Pleb. Neener neener neener."


It's good to see someone finally sticking up for us poor oppressed
Patricians. Er.....


valete

T. Octavius Salvius

Salve,


Or we could each recruit hundreds of Mercenaries and do it for real.
First one to secure the capital wins.
See you all in Rome.

vale

T. Octavius Salvius


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Abboud" <mikeabboud@c...>
wrote:

> Salve
>
>
>
> The problems inherent in Nova Roma system is the same problem

inherent in

> any little group of online people. If we were a "real" government

there

> would be a civil war, and the side that won would remake Nova Roma

in the

> image that they wanted. Problems are settled with finality, by

force of

> arms. Diplomacy at its best is a delaying tactic used by the

weaker, until

> his military or political situation is strong enough for him to

act with his

> military. The idea that debate and diplomacy settles anything is a

joke,

> simply look at the UN of today. As an online community we have no

armies

> only diplomacy, so we have no real way to settle the issue and so

we are

> stuck with people we don't like.
>
>
>
> Even if someone managed to get Drusus out, he could come back

under another

> name or worse those that liked him would begin a campaign to get

rid of the

> person or persons they thought were responsible, depending on how

well they

> performed the next guy drummed out could be Qunitus Brutus or A.

Apollonius

> Cordus (sorry to drag you guys into this). There has to be a

better way.

>
>
>
> There is; I propose a game of RISK, Drusus on one side and whoever

on the

> other. The loser and all his supporters are considered dead and

must leave

> Nova Roma having first signed non-disclosure agreements and a

contract

> stating they (the losers) are never to participate in Nova Roma

again, nor

> form a competing organization for the next three years. Now I am a

supporter

> of Drusus in that I think he should return to the fold, but I do

not trust

> his skills at RISK enough to risk my Nova Roman life with him,

others might

> know he is the best RISK player ever to walk the earth and eagerly

jump to

> his side. In any case it would be a winner take all civil war and

the victor

> would get the title of dictator for one year and can reshape nova

Roma as he

> chooses. This is (kind of) how the Romans did it and I don't see

any reason

> why we shouldn't do the same. A lasting peace is at hand my fellow

Romans we

> need simply take up the sword and purge whoever is the enemy.
>
>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Arcanus Agricola
>
> <mailto:mikeabboud@c...> mikeabboud@c...
>
> <http://www.mikeabboud.com> www.mikeabboud.com,
>
> <http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/> http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/
>
> _____
>
> From: Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix
> [mailto:c.minucius.hadrianus@n...]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:13 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] This S*%$ has got to stop.
>
>
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus Felix S.P.D.
>
> I'm not asking anyone to give up on their beliefs or their vision

of

> Nova Roma. I'd just like to see some civility and perhaps a

legtimate

> desire to at least attempt dialogue and compromise. I don't think

Nova

> Roma's real problem is idelogical. While much of the politics,

fighting

> and acrimony on the mainlist are superficially ideological, the

real

> reasons for many of them are personal. It is long held dislikes,
> grudges, hurt feelings, bruised egos - much if it going back to

Nova

> Roma's earliest days - that fuels the rancor in the debates on the

main

> list. The bottom line is that many of our leading citizens simply

detest

> each other on a personal level. The orginal causes of such

conflicts may

> have been over differences of opinion or ideology, but they seem

to have

> taken a life all their own. So instead of reasoned debate and
> discussion, we have mudslinging, personal attacks, law suits,

conspiracy

> theories, plots, and every other unpleasant form of social

interaction

> that is physically possible via the Internet. I suppose the

argument can

> be made that such things are unavoidable and simply part of any

human

> organization, but when they seem to become the focus of all

activity of

> an organization, then there is a problem. Like the one we have now.
>
> Vale,
>
> Hadrianus
>
> Quintus Brutus wrote:
>
> >"Everyone is always shouting how thier side is the one trying to

save NR,

> or protect the rights of its citizens, or safegaurd the

constitution or the

> State Religio, but ultimately they are helping no-one and are

simply running

> NR into the ground. It's time for NR to grow up a little, and for

its

> citizens to put Nova Roma before their feuds, egos and grudges for

a change.

> But you know what? I'm not holding my breath."
> >
> >Ave,
> >
> > The problem here is you have two sides who think they

are right.

> The going at with knives solutions may very well be the quickest

solution

> but as long as both sides have their own views on what is best

there will be

> no end. What furthers this is when I returned, I was eventually

point

> blanked asked to state my beliefs, where they lay, and whether I

was Boni or

> Moderati. I find that in itself to be farsical. It is pretty sad

when you

> have to ask someone to take a side over something that is in

reality so

> simple. For this to end one side will have to cow down in

submission and

> like your last sentence quoted above says or implies that is not

very likely

> to happen.
> >
> > But how do you put Nova Roma before yourself? If you take a

side be

> it Boni Moderati or whatever you want to cal side XYZ and that

side believes

> its views are the best course for Nova Roma then aren't they

putting Nova

> Roma before themselves? Both sides do, in my opinion, believe

they are

> putting Nova Roma and the hot issues before themselves. Of course

the

> opposing side thinks otherwise. So who is going to submit to the

other

> side? Then what do you have? By making one side submit or cow

down to the

> views of the other you create in essence a mini dictatorship by

pressing

> your views on them. But then again even if you were to completely

wipe out

> one side you would have a void left open that would simply be

filled by

> another group with opposing extremes in views. So what do you

want to do

> get into some Nova Roma style state suppression?
> >
> > Vale, Quintus brutus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dfkq8u/M=315388.5526708.6599542.30011
76/D=gr

>

oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1098832385/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*http
s:/www.

> orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?

pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS> click

> here
>
>
>
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?

M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2372354/rand=155127873>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A. Apollonius Cordus Ti. Galerio Paulino Francisco
Apulo Caesari tribunis Ti. Arcaeno Agricolae
omnibusque sal.

Paulinus said:

> I would not support legislation or a constitutional
> amendment to get rid of the Tribunes but I would
> support an amendment to return the Tribunes to the
> powers they had in the ancient Republic namely that
> each tribune would hold an absolute veto and not
> this current set up that requires a degree of
> collegially not present in ancient Rome.

Likewise. I don't want to see the tribunes scrapped,
but it would at any rate be a more honest way forward
than the present situation. But by far the best
solution would be to reform the office.

Caesar said:

> The collegially is the best way to guarantee the
> highest democracy
> and the most clean and honest job.
> An ABSOLUTE veto by just one Tribunus ignoring the
> possibilities to
> veto it by the others Tribunes means in my opinion
> the "Tribunician
> Dictatorship". In this hypothetical situation a
> Tribunus could
> paralyze the Res Publica because nobody could stop
> him with another
> intercessio.
> The actual system guarantee to the population the
> correct protection
> of the Costitution avoiding the tribunician
> dictatorship, a large
> democratical agreement between the TRibunes, the
> indipendence and
> the Sanctitas of the Office, etc.

Senator, I think you're forgetting that what you refer
to as "tribunician dictatorship" is simply what
existed in the Roman republic. Any one tribune could
veto anything which could be vetoed, and there was
nothing his colleagues could do about it. It was that
way from the creation of the tribunate until the
collapse of the republic. Was the government of the
republic paralyzed from the fourth century B.C. until
the first? On the contrary, from the fourth century to
the first century the republic was at its best.

You must look at the tribunate in the context of the
whole constitutional system. The consules and
praetores are, by virtue of their powers, their
collegiality, and the way they are elected, the
officers of the ruling class (the majority of the
centuries, which of course are weighted toward the
most distinguished citizens). The tribunes in the
ancient system were elected by a different assembly,
one which voted on a basis rather like modern systems
of proportional representation. This was not an
accident: the tribunician college was deliberately
designed to be representative of as broad a range of
views as possible; and the unfettered power of each
individual tribune to exercise a veto ensured that
every section of the community had a representative
who could resist on its behalf the tyranny of the
majority. The tribunes are the Roman constitution's
mechanism for protecting the rights and interests of
minorities.

Not so in our current system. At the moment, the
tribunes are elected in a non-proportional way which
makes it less likely that they will represent a broad
range of opinions. The only reason they do represent a
reasonably broad range this year is that the number of
candidates was relatively small. If there had been ten
Apuli Caesares running for tribune last November, the
nature of the current electoral system means that we
might well have had five Apuli Caesares as tribune.
Then where are the representatives of those who
disagree with Apulus Caesar? And even when a broad
range of candidates are, by chance, elected in spite
of the electoral system which is biased against such
an outcome, then again the tyranny of the majority
appears, because the one or two who don't represent
the opinion of the majority of voters are unable to
use their powers unless the majority agrees. The
current system, in other words, is unconsciously
designed so that the people who get elected tribune
are the same sort of people who get elected consul and
praetor, and that any minority candidates who do
happen to sneak in will be unable to use their powers.
In other words, the people who are given the power to
resist the actions of the higher magistrates are those
who don't want to resist them.

You can test this statement in your own mind. When was
the last time more than half the tribunes were
opponents of the consules? And when was the last time
that a majority of tribunes actually agreed to veto
something which one of the consules did? In other
words, when was the last time the tribunes actually
did what they are supposed to do? I can't remember
that time.

The consules and the praetores are the officers of the
ruling classes in the Roman constitution. They don't
need extra protection from the tribunes. The people
who need the protection of the tribunes are the ones
who are outside the ruling group. The current system
by which the tribunes are elected and by which they
vote collegially is ineffective at protecting those
people. The evidence is absolutely clear. The ancient
Romans created the tribunate in a certain way and it
worked efficiently for three hundred years. We have
changed the way the tribunate works, and now the
tribunes are completely impotent. What do we learn
from this? The Romans got it right, and we got it
wrong. So let's go back to the old way.

Agricola wrote:

> ... Imagine your fleeing down some old Roman
> road toward the house of
> the Tribune, hot on your heals is an angry mob of
> patricians. You reach the
> house of the tribune; the Tribune boldly comes
> forward and stands between
> you and the angry mob, and pronounces intersession.
> The crowd disperses,
> except they donÂ’t, the crowd mills about for 3 days
> when the all-powerful
> veto ends (or until another Tribune undoes the
> protection that protection),
> and they string up the poor schmuck anyway. ThatÂ’s a
> powerful protection we
> got going for us Plebs.

The power of the tribunes to protect people from
physical assault is nothing to do with intercessio.
Intercessio is what happens when a tribune prevents a
magistrate from doing something. In the scenario you
describe above, with the howling mob, what the tribune
is giving is auxilium - help. He doesn't veto
anything. He just stands in front of the door and
doesn't let the mob in. His sacrosantity means they
can't force him to stand aside. So they go away.
Unless this is an angry mob with packed lunches,
they're not going to stay outside the house of three
days. But if they do, the tribune can stay there too,
until his term of office expires if he wants.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Fr. Apulus Caesar who said in part

"Pauline, I think you don't dream a Tribunician dictatorship, I would suppose only that your actual orientation comes from the minority in the Tribunicia Collegium. Is it?

Our terms as Tribunes end on December 31 2757. Any change in the set up or powers of the Tribunes would empower our next group of Tribunes. I hope to stand for election in the up coming elections and I would not be serving as a Tribune but would be subject to the "absolute veto" as all other magistrates would.

Vale

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

----- Original Message -----
From: FAC
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:45 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The purpose of the tribunate (WAS: A small thought about procedure)



Salvete Omnes,
any attempt to ged rid the Tribunes is only an offense to our
History, to the Plebeian class, to the Sanctitas of the Office and
to the Res Publica. Would we come back to the sad reign of
Tarquinius, the last King?

> I would not support legislation or a constitutional amendment to
get rid of the Tribunes but I would support an amendment to return
the Tribunes to the powers they had in the ancient Republic namely
that each tribune would hold an absolute veto and not this current
set up that requires a degree of collegially not present in ancient
Rome.

This system was present in Ancient Rome but only with other words.
The collegially is the best way to guarantee the highest democracy
and the most clean and honest job.
An ABSOLUTE veto by just one Tribunus ignoring the possibilities to
veto it by the others Tribunes means in my opinion the "Tribunician
Dictatorship". In this hypothetical situation a Tribunus could
paralyze the Res Publica because nobody could stop him with another
intercessio.
The actual system guarantee to the population the correct protection
of the Costitution avoiding the tribunician dictatorship, a large
democratical agreement between the TRibunes, the indipendence and
the Sanctitas of the Office, etc.

Pauline, I think you don't dream a tribunician dictatorship, I would
suppose only that your actula orientation comes from the minority in
the Tribunicia Collegium. Is it?

Valete
Fr. Apulus Caesar




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





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

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

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

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



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

"I'm not asking anyone to give up on their beliefs or their vision of Nova Roma. I'd just like to see some civility and perhaps a legtimate desire to at least attempt dialogue and compromise. So instead of reasoned debate and discussion, we have mudslinging, personal attacks, law suits, conspiracy theories, plots, and every other unpleasant form of social interaction that is physically possible via the Internet. I suppose the argument can be made that such things are unavoidable and simply part of any human organization, but when they seem to become the focus of all activity of an organization, then there is a problem. Like the one we have now."[edited/cut and paste]

--I know you're not asking anyone to discard personal beliefs or vision as it pertains to Nova Roma. No one should. If there are cives be they officials or not who detest each other that is their business. I tried discussion. I gave my honest opinion and as a result I received "mudslinging" in return via private e-mails. As it stands in my opinion reasoned debate/discussion is out the door. For having an opinion you get mudslinging etc. in return and there is no point. You have people who come up with their own delusional statements about what the Constitution says even though when you go to verify there is no mention. You have people who express their "vision" for Nova Roma that goes well outside the framework laid out on the main site. Then when you go against their views you are attacked. I gave up on reconciliation too with one cive who several times accused me FALSELY of "misogyny" and couldn't even spell it right at that. From that person the reconciliation comes on
my terms of full fledged apology and nothing short. But it has become almost farsical to discuss anything. I'm surprised the "nomenclature" string didn't start up a firestorm. What I find amusing is the cives play the "we're Roman" card when its convenient and say "we're not Roman's" when it is convenient. But then again Roman's IMO didn't go catering around to try and be liked by everybody.

Vale, Quintus Brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

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

"If we were a "real" government there would be a civil war, and the side that won would remake Nova Roma in the image that they wanted."

--This can be averted. All the information needed to guide the direction of Nova Roma can be found on the main website and in a good history book and if further support is needed United States law (constitutional, legislative and case law). Half of what was argued before this intercessio business began could be solved just like that. It's not a matter of playing a good game of risk. But this boils down to what Nova Roma is about. What it boils down to frankly can be found right on the website.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

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

T Aurelius Ursus Q Bruto SPD

Ave, mi amice!

I know this is going to sound like I'm calling you out, which I'm not
at all; but what are you referring to on the website? Your post was
interesting and I'm just wondering what you meant and all.

Vale bene,

Urs

Salvete omnes

As a former tribune, just a thought.

There is a law passed last year that seems to be forgotten. The Lex
Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia. I shall remember part of it:

II.A.1.

"When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio, it must include, in a
reasoned exposition in which the Tribunus shall include if the
auxilium was requested or ex-officio, the following elements:

a. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested the
Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official name(s) of
the citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has provided auxilium ex
officio.

b. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose
act(s) or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed.

c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the
magistrate's act(s)."

I must say that in the announcement made it wasn't clear that all
the three points were respected. I should say too that it is
invalid, and therefore, if the intercessio has not been amended
correctly, it is invalid at all. Besides, I have my doubts in a
couple of points;

- If it has been a private arrangement, in which I do not enter to
judge, I'm not sure the Tribunus Plebis can protect the cives.
- If the request is to forbid such arrangement, I'm not sure the
Tribunes are the people to do such thing.

Tribunus, with all my respect, I think the intercessio has been
wrongly issued. I do not enter the matter itself, because I can't
judge it -even morally. I just enter the juridic side.

On the other hand, I shall remember that the Tribunus Plebis are NOT
a College. Each has the power to issue an intercessio, and it
includes an intercessio against another colleague. Please do not
altere the spirit of such office.


vale bene in pace deorum

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE
(Former Tribune)

I will get back to you privately on this...I'll list it bit by bit...I really don't feel like being the subject of the next flame war on this list nor do I feel like being the center of why it started...The vultures are circling over head :)

Vale, Quintus brutus

fabruwil <fabruwil@...> wrote:

T Aurelius Ursus Q Bruto SPD

Ave, mi amice!

I know this is going to sound like I'm calling you out, which I'm not
at all; but what are you referring to on the website? Your post was
interesting and I'm just wondering what you meant and all.

Vale bene,

Urs




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


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

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

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

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

"Each has the power to issue an intercessio, and it includes an intercessio against another colleague"

--This oughtta get interesting.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

Salve Quintus Cassius Brutus ~

It would be nice if it were truly that easy, but it isn't ~ really.

The Constitution of NR is very vague and open to subjective
interpretation, as numerous threads on the ML this past year have shown.

History is too often silent, or worse yet has conflicting information ~
there have been numerous threads demonstrating this, too.

For every "good History book" you can cite, someone else can find an
equally respected scholarly book with a different interpretation of the
facts ~ the original source materials just have too many contradictions
and gaps, unfortunately.

As for your last point, appealing to the U.S. Constitution for guidance
rather surprises me: We're an international group. Yes, we're
incorporated in Maine, but that only means we have to take Maine and
U.S. Law into account on occassion ~ looking to the U.S. Constitution
for guidance on Roman matters simply doesn't figure into it.

Read the Main List Archives, or just ask Cordus or one of our other
thoughtful active Citizens and they'll tell you the same thing: It just
isn't as straightforward as you'd like to think it should be. Wish it
were, but it just isn't.

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at 01:59 PM, Quintus Brutus wrote:

>
>
> "If we were a "real" government there would be a civil war, and the
> side that won would remake Nova Roma in the image that they wanted."
>
> --This can be averted. All the information needed to guide the
> direction of Nova Roma can be found on the main website and in a good
> history book and if further support is needed United States law
> (constitutional, legislative and case law). Half of what was argued
> before this intercessio business began could be solved just like that.
> It's not a matter of playing a good game of risk. But this boils
> down to what Nova Roma is about. What it boils down to frankly can be
> found right on the website.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salve T. Arcanus Agricola ~

I must respectfully disagree.
Requiring a majority of Tribunes for a veto still allows the office to
wield real authority. It prevents "frivolous" vetoes, and makes it
less likely that the Government will be paralyzed, but it still allows
for real action.

What it means is that a single Tribune can't halt Government just
because he personally doesn't like something; by requiring a majority,
it means the act in question must be bad enough that more than half of
the Tribunes agree that it needs to be vetoed. I'd like to think that
if something truly awful were done by some Magistrate, that surely more
than half of the Tribunes would see it for what it is and put a halt to
it.

The biggest problem that I see is the 72 hour limit: Since all of our
officeholders are part-time volunteers, it can easily take that long
just to inform everyone about what has happened, and even longer to
arrange a time for them all to convene in a Chat room to discuss it
(e-mail exchanges could easily take even longer). For complex issues
it's not hard to see it taking three days just to discuss it and come
to a conclusion, or even just to assemble all of the facts that are
relevant. Three days for informing all of the Tribunes, gathering the
facts and testimony, discussion and reaching a conclusion, then issuing
a veto, is simply inadequate.

Checking the validity of Laws or Edicts is especially difficult to do
within the 72 hour time limit.

All a bad Magistrate would have to do is perform their misdeeds on a
Friday night: One Tribune may see it then, a second spot it Saturday,
the others (if away or working, as likely) not know about it until
Sunday night, leaving only a few hours Monday after work to discuss it
and issue a Veto: Odds are the 72 hours will expire while e-mails are
flying or a Chat being arranged.

So what we really need to do to make the office of Tribune more
effective is to lengthen the time limit ~ perhaps doubling it, to a
week. Keep the need for a majority as it is.

Now, if we were actually at risk of lynch mobs here in cyberspace I
might have to change my opinion!

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, at 09:25 AM, Mike Abboud wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: A. Apollonius Cordus [mailto:a_apollonius_cordus@...]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:08 PM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The purpose of the tribunate (WAS: A small thought
> about procedure)
>
>
>
> A. Apollónius Cordus M. Octávió Germánicó omnibusque
> sal.
>
>> Not true - a veto is only valid if a majority of the
>> Tribunes support it.
>> (This is a departure from historical practice, but
>> it does prevent one
>> Tribune from completely paralyzing the entire
>> government).
>
> ... and thereby renders the tribunician college
> completely unable to perform the constitutional
> function it served in the old republic. The whole
> point of having tribunes is so that one tribune can
> completely paralyze the entire government. If we don't
> want that to happen, we ought to be honest and just
> get rid of the tribunes. As currently arranged they
> serve no useful purpose.
>
>
>
> T.Acanus Agricola----> I would have to agree, there’s no purpose to
> the
> office. Imagine your fleeing down some old Roman road toward the house
> of
> the Tribune, hot on your heals is an angry mob of patricians. You
> reach the
> house of the tribune; the Tribune boldly comes forward and stands
> between
> you and the angry mob, and pronounces intersession. The crowd
> disperses,
> except they don’t, the crowd mills about for 3 days when the
> all-powerful
> veto ends (or until another Tribune undoes the protection that
> protection),
> and they string up the poor schmuck anyway. That’s a powerful
> protection we
> got going for us Plebs.
>
>
>
> T.Arcanus Agricola
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> Yahoo!
> Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129lrmv06/
> M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/D=gr
> oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1098832093/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/
> *https:/www.
> orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS>
> click
> here
>
>
>
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=315388.5526708.6599542.3001176/
> D=groups/S=
> :HM/A=2372354/rand=290507607>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>