Salvete Omnes Novae Romae:

In post 30895 just posted I forgot to indicate that I had snipped
the paragraphs preceeding the one I was addressing with my remarks.
Again I apologize for this.

Valete,
P. Minucia Tiberia

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus Candidatis Tribunatibus Plebis salutem
dicit.

Recently, Aulus Apollonius asked a question to you about the failed Lex
Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi Tributorum. I have a
subsequent question to ask the seven of you:

If it is your intention to re-propose the Lex Arminia, will you, in spite of
the controversy it caused and would indeed cause again, propose it again in
the same manner?

I appreciate your responses.

Valete Optime,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
Civis Plebeius Novae Romae

Publius Minius Albucius Qu. Caecilio Metello omnibusque s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

You wrote:

> (..)
> Recently, Aulus Apollonius asked a question to you about the
>failed Lex Arminia de Ratione Comitiorum Plebis et Populi
>Tributorum.

>I have a subsequent question to ask the seven of you:

> If it is your intention to re-propose the Lex Arminia, will you,
> in spite of the controversy it caused and would indeed cause
> again, propose it again inthe same manner? (..)

Please see my reply to A.Apollonius (nb 30860), that answers your
question and reminds my independent but clear position in last
November on this matter.



Optime vale, Legatus, ac omnes.
Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. II Id. Dec. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

Publius Minius Albucius
Candidate for Tribune
http://geocities.com/publiusalbucius/great_outdoors.html

Salve Metelle;
check my previous post 30876# I adressed this very issue. And the
ahistorical use of a tribunia veto after a lex is passed.
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

> If it is your intention to re-propose the Lex Arminia, will you, in

spite of

> the controversy it caused and would indeed cause again, propose it

again in

> the same manner?
>
> I appreciate your responses.
>
> Valete Optime,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
> Civis Plebeius Novae Romae

Salve

I wrote on my statement that I would veto any proposed lex that attempted to take jurisdiction over religious affairs away from the CP. As stated in the constitution, the CP has authority over these matters. This has nothing to do with personal dislike over a lex but constitutionality.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

I support Nova Roma being as close to traditional practises as
possible, given our circumstances and contemporary societies.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa

Salve Vipasani Agrippa;
forgive me if I am mistaken, but I saw on your statement that you
would veto a lex voted by the plebs on, I think the CP issue.
How can you do such a tremendously ahistorical act? You say you
support NR being close to traditional practice when a Tribune of the
Plebis has never vetoed a law passed by the Plebs.

I would never do such a thing even if it involved a law I personally
disliked (let's say no female pontifices) The Tribunian veto is very
powerful and must never be misused....
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ




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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Salve

Actually, Vipsanius Agrippa, the Constitution says that

"The collegium pontificum shall have the following honors, powers, and
responsibilities:

(skipped)

To issue decreta (decrees) on matters relevant to the Religio Romana and its
own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in
the comitia or Senatus consultum)."

Now, what it doesn't say is that the Collegium shall have these powers in an
exclusive way and actually the explicit mention that the laws cannot
overrule the decreta once issued seems to suggest that the laws could indeed
rule on the field where no decree is already present, which would actually
explain why in the hierarchy of the sources of law of Nova Roma the Collegia
decree are placed after the laws.. if the two acts ruled in totally
separated fields, it would make no sense to place them in a hierarchical
order, right?

actually, it's an old dispute, but th practical situation is that we face a
pretty interesting legal version othe "first come, first served" situation,
where if the populus issues a law on a given religious matter, included the
internal procedures of the collegium, the collegium cannot reverse it as its
decree can't overrule a law, but if a decree by the collegium is issued then
it's the populus who can't overrule it, by explicit exception to the general
provision of the source hierarchy.

It follows that a law by the populus in a religious matter whatsoever
approved by the populus in absence of a pontificial decree on the matter the
law would rule would be perfectly constitutional, and a veto based on the
inconstitutionaliy of such a law would be valid and effective (after all, it
is written nowhere that a tribune has to attach a motivation to its veto),
yet lacking a solid legal base.

It is also to be considered that this is all a moot point... considering the
time neeed to approve a law (at least 2 weeks, included the contio), the
Collegium would very well be quicker in releasing a decree of its liking on
the matter the pending law would like to cover, making the law, at that
point, void of effects even if approved (yet, still constitutional).

Vale

Domitius Constantius Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs



Da: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Organised groups
Data: 12/12/04 22:25

>
>
>
> Salve
>
> I wrote on my statement that I would veto any proposed lex that attempted

to take jurisdiction over religious affairs away from the CP. As stated in
the constitution, the CP has authority over these matters. This has nothing
to do with personal dislike over a lex but constitutionality.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
>
> Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> I support Nova Roma being as close to traditional practises as
> possible, given our circumstances and contemporary societies.
> >
> > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
>
> Salve Vipasani Agrippa;
> forgive me if I am mistaken, but I saw on your statement that you
> would veto a lex voted by the plebs on, I think the CP issue.
> How can you do such a tremendously ahistorical act? You say you
> support NR being close to traditional practice when a Tribune of the
> Plebis has never vetoed a law passed by the Plebs.
>
> I would never do such a thing even if it involved a law I personally
> disliked (let's say no female pontifices) The Tribunian veto is very
> powerful and must never be misused....
> bene vale
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
> Propraetrix Hiberniae
> caput Officina Iuriis
> et Investigatio CFQ
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Manuali.net pensa alla tua formazione con corsi per tutte le professioni e
dal costo contenuto.
Da Office alla Grafica, dal PC alla programmazione....Clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2734&d=20041213

A. Apollónius Cordus P. Minió Albució omnibusque sal.

> Sorry for the "respectu" attachment ! I am guilty,
> alas, because I
> want to answer all the messages I received as soon
> as possible :
> you are naturally right ! On the matter, it does not
> change anything.

Yes, it doesn't change much - I point it out because
you seemed to think that "respectú" was where I was
getting "feeling" from, whereas actually "partisan
feeling" was all meant to translate "factió" - and
since the meaning of "factió" was what we were
discussing, I thought it was important to get it
clear. But yes, the meaning of the quotation in
general is much the same either way.

> Thanks for Pr Lintott biography. I have learnt
> something.
>
> Yes, he is surely a better Latinist than both of
> us. But your
> quotation seemed to me taken from his "Roman
> Political and
> Administrative History, Roman Law" works, not from
> his latinist
> skills.

As far as I know he hasn't written any purely
philological books or articles, but of course the
meanings of words are sometimes important in
discussions of law or history. I presume that he is as
good at Latin when he writes about history as he is
when he writes about Latin! :)

> > >"Nam vesana factio nobilissimorum iuvenum pacem
> > >publicam infestat."
> > >[in :]
>
> > "For the mad factionalism of the most noble
> attacks
> > the public peace of the young"
>
> One of the interests of this sentence was to show
> us how
> different can be the point of views, a fortiori
> without the context
> of the text, as you have sensed it. I do not know
> how our masters
> would translate this, but I arrive to :
>
> French (sorry but it can help you):
>
> "Car une bande de jeunes fous de très bonne
> naissance s'attaque à la
> tranquillité publique."
>
> English (under your control) :
> " For there is a gang of very noble [or, better :
> "good social
> standing" ?] young madmen who attacks the peace."

Yes, I think you're probably right to put "júvenum"
with "nóbilissimórum", especially since one of our
most latinate citizens, Tullia Scholastica, has
suggested the same correction to me privately. On the
other hand, I think we have to keep "vesána" with
"factió" rather than with the "nóbilissimí júvenés",
since it is feminine and singular, like "factió",
rather than masculine and plural.

But your central point is quite correct: this could
mean "a mad faction of noble youths" or "the mad
factionalism of noble youths", depending on the
precise meaning of "factió". But when you say:

> The last interest of this sentence was to underline
> that you cannot
> go on writing, as you did in your post 30863, that
> factio
> (*always*)...
> <(..)is an abstract noun meaning something like
> <"the tendency to form a ruling group" or "the
> monopoly
> <of power by a group" or "centralized power". Allow
> me
> <to quote Lintott's "The Constitution of the Roman
> <Republic": (..)>
>
> for we have here at least one more meaning "gang",
> near to
> the "group" meaning which I gave.

Well, I don't think this quotation proves what you are
trying to make it prove. It would still make perfect
sense when translated according to Lintott's
definition as "the mad factionalism of young
noblemen".

If you are going to disprove Lintott's definition, you
will have to find a usage of "factió" in which it
cannot possibly be an abstract noun. This is not such
a usage.

> > But perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me where
> the
> > sentence comes from, so I can look at the context?
>
> Yes, naturally :
>
> Apuleius, Metamorphoses, II, 18, 5th sentence
>

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apuleius/apuleius2.shtml

Thank you. The context doesn't really help us either,
I fear. Photis is clearly talking about a particular
group of young men, but it's also clear that what she
is complaining of is not the young men themselves, but
their oppressive regime in the locality - she talks
about the way they wander about and are not
constrained by the rule of law, which is rather
reminiscent of what Lintott says about "factió"
denoting the monopoly of power by a small group (but
not referring to the group itself. We might translate
the phrase as "the mad tyranny of some young nobles".

It's also worth mentioning that Apulejus was a North
African writing a couple of centuries after the end of
the republic, so he's not likely to give us a very
accurate picture of the Roman republican usage of the word.





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

Q. Caecilius Metellus Postumianus M. Arminiae Maiori Fabianae
Candidatae salutem.

Thank you for your response. I had, actually, read the post to which
you directed me when it originally reached my inbox. I should
perhaps have rephrased my question, so let me please ask a few more
questions to clarify what I actually wanted to know.

Since it is your intention to re-propose the proposal, do you intend
to do so in exactly the same manner as it was before, i.e., by
placing it solely before the Comitia Populi Tributa? If so, why, in
spite of the controversy it caused, would you do so? Or, if you
would not place it solely before the Comitia Populi Tributa, would
you then but it before both of the Comitia involved, i.e., the
Comitia Populi Tributa and the Comitia Plebis Tributa? If so, again,
why? Finally, would you be willing to actually amend the proposal
into two proposals, one each for the Comitia Populi and the Comitia
Plebis, proposing them to the respective Comitia? And lastly, if
not, why?

Vale Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus

Salve Marca Arminia,

In response to C. Vipsanius Agrippa, Candidate for the Tribunate, you
said, in regards to vetoing a law which impeached the powers of the
Collegium Pontificium over religious matters:

> How can you do such a tremendously ahistorical act? You say you
> support NR being close to traditional practice when a Tribune of

the

> Plebis has never vetoed a law passed by the Plebs.

How could he not? He would be more worthy of being removed from the
Tribunate (or never being elected to it) if he would NOT hold up the
Constitution? Have you, Marca Arminia, forgotten the duties of the
Tribunes? Paragraph IV.A.7.a.: "To pronounce intercessio ... when
the spirit and/or letter of this Constitution ... are being violated
thereby;"

> The Tribunian veto is very
> powerful and must never be misused....

Precisely. But it also MUST be used when the occasion for it is all
to obvious.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

A. Apollónius Cordus C. Equitió Catóní amícó
omnibusque sal.

> > Indeed. But I don't really see how this bears on
> the
> > question of whether factió semper officit públicís
> > cónsiliís. It is rather as though I had asked
> "does
> > feeding pigeons always make them fatter?" and you
> had
> > responded "sometimes you feed a pigeon and then it
> > dies of food poisoning". Obviously that's true,
> but it
> > doesn't really answer the question. So let me
> agree
> > with you when you say that factió can sometimes
> lead
> > to unexpected and good consequences. Now, could
> you
> > explain to me how that helps us answer the
> original
> > question?
>
> CATO: Amice, you always make me both laugh and
> puzzled at the same
> time. I think it would be more the equivalent of
> you asking if
> feeding pigeons "always" made them fatter, and I'd
> answered "sometimes". I'm not sure where the poison
> came from. Do
> you harbor a secret ill-will against the flying
> rats? :-)

Well, I can't say that I'm very fond of pigeons, but I
don't wish death by poison upon them. What I meant to
point out is this: if you feed a pigeon and it then
dies of food poisoning, then the ultimate outcome was
both unexpected and the opposite of what you
(presumably) intended, just like the creation of the
tribunate was unexpected and the opposite of what the
senate intended. But the fact that the pigeon died of
food poisoning, and the fact that the tribunate was
created, doesn't actually tell us anything useful
about whether feeding pigeons makes them fatter, or
about whether factió is obstructive to public policy.

> > The tribunate was not the result of públicum
> > cónsilium, though. It was created by the plébs and
> > accepted by the patricians as a fait accompli. So
> yes,
> > it was a good outcome, but it wasn't an outcome of
> > public deliberations. "Públicum" is to do with the
> > state, the populus, and the legitimately
> constituted
> > authorities; "cónsilium" implies a rational
> process of
> > decision-making. So when we look for "públicum
> > cónsilium" - public policy - we're look for the
> > legitimate authorities making calculated
> decisions.
> > The creation of the tribunate was not the result
> of
> > calculated decisions by legitimate authorities. It
> > was, in fact, the result of the failure of the
> > legitimate authorities to achieve a satisfactory
> > solution to the problem at hand. Public policy
> failed,
> > so the plébs resorted to extra-legal measures.
>
> CATO: This may be true, but you missed my point.
> My point was
> precisely what you are saying: that the Senate, by
> following srict
> party lines, making calculated decisions, brought
> upon themselves the
> actions of the Plebs. The "legitimate authorities"
> made calculated
> decisions, which turned out (legal or not) to be bad
> ones --- it was
> as a direct result of these decisions that the Plebs
> were moved to
> act in such a way that they were *capable* of
> presenting the
> Tribunate as a "fait accompli". So public policy
> created the bed
> from which this "extra-legal" tree grew. Just
> because the action was
> itself not "public policy" and was extra-legal does
> not negate the
> fact that public policy was the primary catalyst.
> The Tribunate of
> the Plebs then became a part of that legal process
> by which public
> policy was created; it became part of the political
> machine.

I have not missed your point at all - rather, I'm
trying to help you to understand why your point, true
and valuable though it is, is not actually relevant to
the question. I asked the question whether factió is
always obstructive to public policy; you answered that
the effects of factió on public policy can sometimes
produce good outcomes. Yes, they can. But what are the
effects of factió on public policy? Is it not clear
that on this occasion the effect of factió on public
policy was a destructive one - it caused the
policy-making process to fail to solve the problem at
hand, which meant that the plébs had to take matters
into its own hands. The fact that the outcome was good
makes no difference to the fact that the effect of
factió on public policy - which is what I was asking
about - was a harmful one.

> > So while I agree with your statement that factió,
> in
> > this particular case, led to a good outcome, I was
> not
> > asking you whether factió leads to good outcomes -
> I
> > was asking you whether it is good for public
> policy,
> > i.e., the legitimate, legal, established process
> by
> > which the problems of the state are solved.
>
> CATO: And I say again, that in the context of the
> passage from Livy,
> and its ultimate outcome of the creation of the
> Tribunate, the
> answer, in practical terms, is "sometimes".

Listen, I am quite happy to accept your answer of
"sometimes", and I'm not trying to persuade you to
change it. What I am trying to persuade you of,
though, is that your interpretation of this passage of
Livy is back-to-front. This passage of Livy shows us
an occasion on which factió *was* obstructive to
public policy. It caused public policy to fail in its
goal. The ultimate consequence was good, but I did not
ask "can factió sometimes lead to an ultimate outcome
which is good"; I asked "is factió always obstructive
to public policy?".

The difference between the two may seem like a split
hair, but I'm insisting on it for two reasons. One is
that I think when candidates run for election and
voters ask them questions, the voters are entitled to
hear the answers to the questions they ask rather than
the answers to questions which are vaguely similar to
the ones the ask. But the more important one is this:
I, for one, do not want the populus of Nova Róma to
have to seek extra-legal solutions to pressing
problems on account of the failure of the legitimate
policy-making process. So even though factió can have
ultimately good consequences, it would be rather
better to be able to achieve those good consequences
without the need for a collapse of law and order; and
this means that we do not want public policy to be
obstructed. So the important question is whether
factió obstructs public policy, not whether such
obstructions can have good outcomes.

Making decisions using a magic 8-ball could
conceivably have a good outcome, but that doesn't mean
that it's the best way to go about making public
policy. And if we feed the pigeons, yes, one of them
may die of food poisoning, but that doesn't mean that
feeding pigeons is a good way to kill them off.
"Factió can sometimes have good outcomes" may be
perfectly true, but that doesn't mean "factió can
sometimes be a good way to make public policy".





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

A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Caecilió Metelló amícó
omnibusque sal.

I've no great interest in commenting on the main
substance of your current discussion, but:

> ... Have you, Marca Arminia, forgotten
> the duties of the
> Tribunes? Paragraph IV.A.7.a.: "To pronounce
> intercessio ... when
> the spirit and/or letter of this Constitution ...
> are being violated
> thereby;"

Remember that (unless someone has proven me wrong
while I wasn't looking) this is not in fact a duty of
the tribúní but merely a discretionary power.

You may, of course, regard it as a moral duty, and you
may be correct, but it's important not to give people
the impression that it is a legal duty.



___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Metelle;

You are incorrect. There is no coercion, there is no 'must' at all
in this matter of the tribunian veto.

I say who is the better judge my own opinion or that of the
Plebs?
As a candidate for Tribune, I say the plebs are the judge.

> bene vale

Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ




Precisely. But it also MUST be used when the occasion for it is all

> to obvious.
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Q. Caecilius Metellus A. Apollonio Cordo salutem plurimam dicit.

Salve Amice Corde,

> Remember that (unless someone has proven me wrong while I
> wasn't looking) this is not in fact a duty of the tribúní but
> merely a discretionary power.
>
> You may, of course, regard it as a moral duty, and you may be
> correct, but it's important not to give people the impression
> that it is a legal duty.

You know, I've been giving this a lot of thought since it came up, and I
really think it is a duty. The very oath which the Tribunes, as well as
other magistrates, take, found in the Lex Iunia Iusiurando, says this:

"I, _____________________swear to protect and defend the Constitution of
Nova Roma."

By my interpretation, which we can certainly argue to no end, this gives all
the magistrates the duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Tribunes,
I would then submit, by having the right of intercessio against the actions
enumerated in the Constitution, have a duty to pronounce intercessio against
those actions which undermine, or even blatantly stand contrary to, the
Constitution.

Furthermore, since this oath is indeed taken before the Gods, there is not
just the legal duty, as well as the moral duty which I believe is there, but
also a religious duty, which even those who do not believe in the Gods ought
to at least take into account too.

Of course, that's just my interpretation, but it is how I intend to take the
Tribunate and all that comes with it. But, too, I'm not standing for
Tribune.

Vale,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

> You are incorrect. There is no coercion, there is no 'must'
> at all in this matter of the tribunian veto.
>
> I say who is the better judge my own opinion or that of the
> Plebs?
> As a candidate for Tribune, I say the plebs are the judge.

See my recent post to Cordus on the matter.

Vale,

Metellus

Salve Candidate Publi Mini,

> Please see my reply to A.Apollonius (nb 30860), that answers
> your question and reminds my independent but clear position
> in last November on this matter.

Thank you for responding. I am glad to see that it is your intention to
uphold the Constitution, regardless of what rhetoric might be put before
you. You have my full and unwavering support.

Vale Bene,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
Lictor
Fetialis
Legate
Scriba (x3)
Plebeian Citizen

Salve Metelle;
I don't understand your questions. I said I would propose the Lex
exactly as L. Arminius Faustus proposed it. And for the very same
reasons. Faustus is my model as to what a true Tribune should be.

We had a long and interesting discussion about this on the ML before
the vote. Don't you remember the discussions Cordus, Faustus,
Galerius Paulinus, Albucius et al and I had ? I'm not going to rehash
it now, as it would just tire everyone out but feel free to reread
the past posts. They're there for all to read.
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

Salve

Well, I stand corrected...

I did write:

> It follows that a law by the populus in a religious matter whatsoever
> approved by the populus in absence of a pontificial decree on the matter

the

> law would rule would be perfectly constitutional, and a veto based on the
> inconstitutionaliy of such a law would be valid and effective (after all,

it

> is written nowhere that a tribune has to attach a motivation to its veto),
> yet lacking a solid legal base.

Apparently, the Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia does require, if
not an extended motivation, at least to quote the Constitution article or
the law violated by the act he's vetoing upon (speak about laws diverging
from historical behaviour...), barring the historical, and probably most
important, possibility for a tribune to impose a veto for the simple reason
he does feel it is in the best interests of the plebs.

While I confirm the general analysys contained in my previous post about the
whole constitutionality/unconstitutionality of a law voted by the plebs in
religious matters and my surprise in front of such a law as the Didia
Sceptia that my mind must have removed as a freudean reaction to a traumatic
(historically-legally speaking) event, I'm the first to point out and admit
my mistake in that specific regard.

That goes to show that even someone who tries its best to stay in touch with
Nova Roma laws has a problem dealing with 84 laws organized the way they are
in the Nova Roma tabularium.

Did I mention that, if elected, I inted to put a great effort in simplyfing,
for how much within a tribune's powers, by collating and reducing, the
number of laws we have to keep in mind, besides working with the webmaster
of nova roma for a more efficient organizational method to list the laws at
the side of the historical layered tabularium? Well, if I didn't, I did now.

Vale

Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis
Candidate for Tribunus Plebis

>

--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Zuritel Rc auto. Assaggia il frutto del risparmio. Prezzo tagliato Più
garanzie. Clicca qui per un preventivo gratuito.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2814&d=20041213

G. Equitius Cato A. Apollonio Cordo amico quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete.

Apollonius Cordus, I *think* the divergence in our view of this
question may be in part tangled up with a question regarding
terminology.

When you say "public policy", I understand that to mean not the
*process* by which laws are passed or the elements which make up
that process, but rather I understand it to mean the *result* of
that process.

I take for an example a term used in the U.S. Senate: "filibuster".
A "filibuster" is the term used for an extended debate in the U.S.
Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. The term comes
from the early 19th-century Dutch term for Spanish and Portuguese
pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.
According to the rules of the U.S. Senate, a vote occurs only once
debate ends, and debate can only be ended by a 2/3 majority vote,
called "cloture".

The filibuster is an obvious tool by which members of the party
opposed to a particular piece of legislation can simply talk until
there are no longer enough members left in the Senate House (or at
least awake) to allow a vote on either ending debate or on the
proposed legislation. This is an instance in which partisanship
absolutely obstructs the *process* by which public policy is made.

However, once public policy has been set, once legislation is
passed, no amount of pure partisanship can reverse it except by
going through the process again in hopes of repeal or amendation.
So I do not believe that partisanship can obstruct public policy,
but sometimes can obstruct the process by which public policy is set.

Does that make more sense?


And while I sincerely admire your second rationale for what you term
your "splitting of hairs", history shows repeatedly that merely
resting on the "hope" that government will always obey its own legal
foundations is somewhat naive (NOT that I believe you are a naif).
One of the most basic ideas of liberty is that the citizens of a
State, by whom and for whom government is created and from whom
government receives every last shred of its dignitas and imperium,
may take any means necessary to ensure that the government reflects
their consent --- up to and including revolting against that
government and forcing it to return to obedience to the will of the
governed. Vox populi vox dei.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa wrote:

> I wrote on my statement that I would veto any
> proposed lex that attempted to take jurisdiction
> over religious affairs away from the CP. As stated
> in the constitution, the CP has authority over these
> matters. This has nothing to do with personal
> dislike over a lex but constitutionality.

Purely academically, then, and without intending to
upset the Collegium, for I'm not suggesting that such
a thing *should* happen -- if someone proposed a law
to alter the constitution in this respect, would you
veto that on the same grounds?

Livia



=====
C. Fabia Livia
Candidate for Curule Aedile





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

Salve Gensmate Titus Octavius,

<First, the Libra Alliance is not a political party. Please refrain <from
<misnomers, especially in regards to negatively loaded words.

There was nothing even slightly negative in my sentence "I am not running for office as a member of any political party, Boni, Libra or otherwise. So you can consider me 'Independent'"

<Does this, then, mean that you have left the boni?

Just like I did not have to join the Boni with a secret handshake and a password, I also don't have to 'leave' them by making a public announcement like Modius did. Am I still friends with Q Fabius? Very much so. If ever any of you would let your 'anti-Boni' guard down, and got a chance to get to know him, you'd find out how kind hearted he is.

But I no longer consider myself to have any political affiliations with anyone and am 100% independent. I have been keeping to myself for months because I'm quite tired of the arguing in NR. All of the different 'political' parties (or 'friendships' or whatever the politically correct term is) are full of stubbornness and are not willing to just once put the past arguing behind them and work together.

I do hope that I answered your question.

Vale,
Diana Octavia


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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

I feel your pain Diana...

I too am tired of the arguing and fighting.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 12/13/2004 5:35:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
joanne_amodea@... writes:

But I no longer consider myself to have any political affiliations with
anyone and am 100% independent. I have been keeping to myself for months because
I'm quite tired of the arguing in NR. All of the different 'political'
parties (or 'friendships' or whatever the politically correct term is) are full of
stubbornness and are not willing to just once put the past arguing behind
them and work together.

I do hope that I answered your question.

Vale,
Diana Octavia





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

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

SNIPPED

>
> Apparently, the Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia does

require, if not an extended motivation, at least to quote the
Constitution article or the law violated by the act he's vetoing
upon (speak about laws diverging from historical behaviour...),
barring the historical, and probably most important, possibility for
a tribune to impose a veto for the simple reason he does feel it is
in the best interests of the plebs.


Salvete omnes,

I have long said that the Tribunican veto in Nova Roma is restricted
to matters which violate the letter of spirit of our Constitution or
laws (paraphrased from the Constitution itself). This limit makes
our veto much more restrictive than that of antiquia.

The Lex Didia clarified this point, however, we still see from time
to time vetos threatened or discussed which exceed these
restrictions. The only watchdog over potential misuse of the veto
is the college of Tribunes itself.

Valete,

G. Popillius Laenas

It depends greatly upon the proposed changes. I would be hesitant to veto any proposed lex without reading the specific details. If the CP was in favour of the changes, then I would not veto it. But since it would most likely be recieved as a hostile move against the CP then I would strongly consider it. This is speaking in a general sense and again it would depend greatly upon the actual proposal.

At this point in NR's history, I feel that the CP must have jurisdiction over the public religion. No citizen, to the best of my knowledge, was raised as a practioner. We all learned as adults. Even in Nova Roma, which was created as a home for practioners, less than half are. Most of the citizens are either curious about the religio but not willing to become worshippers or are indifferent to the affairs of the Gods, while a very small number are privately hostile. The CP is needed to research and guide those who want to learn.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Canadidate for Tribune of the Plebs

"C. Fabia Livia" <c_fabia_livia@...> wrote:
Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa wrote:

> I wrote on my statement that I would veto any
> proposed lex that attempted to take jurisdiction
> over religious affairs away from the CP. As stated
> in the constitution, the CP has authority over these
> matters. This has nothing to do with personal
> dislike over a lex but constitutionality.

Purely academically, then, and without intending to
upset the Collegium, for I'm not suggesting that such
a thing *should* happen -- if someone proposed a law
to alter the constitution in this respect, would you
veto that on the same grounds?

Livia



=====
C. Fabia Livia
Candidate for Curule Aedile





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

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada


---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

A. Apollónius Cordus Q. Caecilió Metelló amícó
omnibusque sal.

A very shrewd piece of jurisprudence, amíce! I had
never thought of making the connexion between the veto
and that clause of the oath of office. Fascinating.
That certainly gives strong backing to the idea that
it is a tribúnus' moral and religious duty to veto
unconstitutional behaviour (though of course we are
left with the question of what exactly is
unconstitutional).

However, it's important to remember that Roman law
does not regard oaths as legally binding (except in a
few very restricted cases concerning the law of sale).
So this still does not create a legal duty.



___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

A. Apollónius Cordus C. Equitió Catóní amícó
omnibusque sal.

> When you say "public policy", I understand that to
> mean not the
> *process* by which laws are passed or the elements
> which make up
> that process, but rather I understand it to mean the
> *result* of
> that process.

I think you are quite right that we've been talking at
corss-purposes because of different understandings of
the meaning of "públicum cónsilium". This is partly my
fault, and partly the fault of the English language.

As I mentioned to Minius Albucius, "cónsilium" has a
double sense in Latin - it means both the process of
forming a plan, and the plan itself; so we could
translate it "deliberation", "planning", "decision",
"plan". And, as Albucius said, the French "conseil"
has the same double meaning.

I chose to translate it as "policy" because "policy"
in English has something of a double sense also. It
can be a concrete thing - a policy - or an abstract
thing - policy in general. However, it fails to
capture quite the same sense of a process or activity;
so it's really my fault that I failed to convey this
in my translation. It's also the fault of the English
language, because it simply has no word which can
convey both these meanings at the same time. Perhaps
"decision" would have been better, since one can talk
about a "process of decision".

So we are both right. But I think from the context of
Livy's sentence that he in this case means the process
more than the result. He is talking about a meeting of
the senate, and how it came to a decision, and he is
saying that factió caused the senátórés to vote one
way when they thought another. So if factió is being
obstructive here, it is the process of arriving at a
decision which is being obstructed rather than the
decision itself.

Your analogy of the filibuster is very interesting:

> I take for an example a term used in the U.S.
> Senate: "filibuster".
> A "filibuster" is the term used for an extended
> debate in the U.S.
> Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote.
> The term comes
> from the early 19th-century Dutch term for Spanish
> and Portuguese
> pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for
> ransom.
> According to the rules of the U.S. Senate, a vote
> occurs only once
> debate ends, and debate can only be ended by a 2/3
> majority vote,
> called "cloture".
>
> The filibuster is an obvious tool by which members
> of the party
> opposed to a particular piece of legislation can
> simply talk until
> there are no longer enough members left in the
> Senate House (or at
> least awake) to allow a vote on either ending debate
> or on the
> proposed legislation. This is an instance in which
> partisanship
> absolutely obstructs the *process* by which public
> policy is made.

Thanks, by the way, for the etymology of the word -
I'd never heard that before. It does sound like a
naval term, now I think about it, doesn't it? But of
course "filibuster" has this double-meaning as well,
hasn't it - you can filibuster (process) by engaging
in a filibuster (thing).

I'm not sure whether we can really count filibustering
as an obstruction of the policy-making process. I
suppose in a technical way it is, but it's also a
legitimate part of the process in itself, because it
has become institutionalized. And one might also point
out that filibustering can be used in a non-partisan
way, since it only requires a single individual to do
it. But while we're on the subject of my misleasding
translations, I ought to point out that "obstruct" is
only one possible translation of "offició" - it means,
in general, to harm, interfere with, get in the way
of.

Digressing a little, do you remember that famous
filibuster of Roman history? If I remember rightly,
Caesar was presenting his agrarian law to the senate.
It met with initial resistance, so he went through it
clause by clause and sentence by sentence, challenging
the patrés to find any fault with it. Nobody could,
but the conservatives were still opposed to it because
it would make Caesar enormously popular, so Cató stood
up and filibustered. After he had been going for some
hours, Caesar called in the guards and had him
arrested. They marched him - still talking - out of
the senate-house and round the corner to the carcer,
and, in a show of support, all the other senátórés got
up and followed him. He sat there in the prison, still
talking, and the rest of the senate sat around,
listening, leaving Caesar and his agrarian bill in an
empty senate-house. Great stuff. :)

Anyway, yes, I think we agree now that, to judge from
this episode Livy is telling us, factió can be harmful
to the policy-making process.

And I quite agree that we can't rely on the idea that
legitimate processes will be sufficient and that
extra-legal action will never be necessary; I merely
suggest that it is better, if at all possible, to
arrange our legitimate institutions in such a way as
to minimize the danger that they will break down in
this way and force people to take the law into their
own hands. So if, as Livy seems to be suggesting,
factió does tend to be harmful (indeed, he says that
it is always harmful) to those legitimate processes
(in that it tends to induce decision-makers to make
the wrong decisions), then it is something we should
avoid unless we want to end up with citizens being
forced to bypass those processes.



___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

LOL

"Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> wrote:
Salvete omnes,

I came across this material today which is rather amusing and a
slight change of pace:


joke from the ancient Greek collection called the Philogelos or
Laughter Lover. Here's another one, paraphrased for readability: a
pointy-headed intellectual is caught having sex with his
grandmother, and beaten for his crime by his father. His
reaction: "you had sex with my mom, why shouldn't I have it yours?"


Aulus Gellius 4.20
Translation copyright 2001 Neil W. Bernstein.

Concerning people who made certain inappropriate jokes before the
censors and were punished by them; also, the deliberation concerning
the punishment of a person who yawned while standing before them.
1. The following three examples of the strictest discipline
occur in the written record among the severe punishments inflicted
by the censors.
2. The first is of the following sort:
3. A censor was conducting the formal oath concerning wives;
the formula was as follows:
"If it please you, do you have a wife?"
A certain person who took the oath was a joker, an insolent dog, and
an utterly ridiculous person.
4. When the censor said, as was his custom,
"If it please you, do you have a wife?"
the man thought that this was an opportunity for him to tell a joke.
5. He said,
"Indeed I have a wife, but by Hercules! she doesn't please me." (1)
6. Because he had made an inappropriate joke, the censor
demoted him to a citizen of the lowest class [aerarius], and adduced
the fact that the man had made a scurrilous joke in his presence as
the reason for his punishment.
7. Another example of censorial severity is of the same
category and shows the same kind of discipline.
8. There was a deliberation concerning the punishment of a man
who was called as a witness before the censors by his friend. He
yawned too loudly and clearly as he stood in court. He was on the
point of being charged on the grounds that his yawning was the proof
of a wandering and delusive mind, as well as of blatant and
dissolute indifference.
9. But when he swore that he had most unwillingly and
resistingly been overcome by yawning, and that he suffered from a
condition called oscedo [a morbid tendency to yawn], then he was
exempted from the destined punishment.
10. Publius Scipio Africanus, the son of Aemilius Paulus,
included both stories in a speech which he delivered during his
censorship, as he exhorted the people to observe the customs of
their ancestors.
11. Masurius Sabinus records another severe punishment in the
seventh book of his Memorabilia. He writes:
When the censors Publius Scipio Nasica and Marcus Popilius were
conducting the census of the equestrian order, (2) they saw a horse
that was too lean and badly cared for, but his rider was very well-
off and well-dressed. They asked: "Why is it the case that you are
better cared for than your horse?" He replied: "Because I care for
myself, but Statius, a worthless slave, cares for my horse." This
seemed to be an irreverent reply to them, and so he was demoted to a
citizen of the lowest class [aerarius ], as was the custom.
12. Moreover, "Statius" was the slave's name.
13. In the past there were many slaves who had this name. The
famous comic poet Caecilius Statius was a slave, and for this reason
had the name "Statius". But afterwards this name was changed to a
type of surname, and he was called Caecilius Statius.
Notes:
1. The joke turns on the two meanings of the phrase ex
sententia, "in all honesty" and "to my liking" (Oxford Latin
Dictionary s.v. sententia 1.C-D). Cicero tells a similar joke at De
Oratore 2.64, identifying the joker as Lucius Nasica and Cato as the
censor.
2. 159 BC.
Return to introduction and index.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus





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!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

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

>
> At this point in NR's history, I feel that the CP must have

jurisdiction over the public religion.

Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
But this gives them an ahistorical power over all the magistrates
and all the cives.

Women contrary to NR's mos were suddenly disenfranchised from being
pontiffs, flamens and augurs.

As Questor to Gaius Iulius Scaurus you read that he thinks that
Consul Marinus should be declared 'sacer.'

Do you agree with this? If the Collegium Pontificium declared a
civis 'sacer' and this person appealed to the Tribunes what would you
do?

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

Salvete omnes;
Let's remember the Romans did not have a Constitution. Even the
famous Twelve Tables were laws passed under the Comitia Centuriata.

The NR Constitution is a way not a goal. The goal is Romanitas. If
something is wrong; we should correct it.

Our ideals and guiding principles are those of Republican Rome!
bene valete in pace deorum
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ





However, it's important to remember that Roman law

> does not regard oaths as legally binding (except in a
> few very restricted cases concerning the law of sale).
> So this still does not create a legal duty.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>

O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes.

Armina Maior Fabiana veritas dixit. Constitutionem nostram "via
media" sola est, et fortasse sola per nunc.

I think that's right :-)

The point being is that we are almost all products of a modern world
in which legal and political power is based generally on a single
written document which acts as the source of supreme authority --- a
constitution of one kind or another. The fact that we have one is a
psychological and emotional by-product of the fact that our Pater
Patriae are both also citizens of the U.S., and a constitution seems
like the obvious "norm" when creating a system of government.

While it stands, I will absolutely support it in general, and work
within its own guidelines to seek any adjustment I might think
necessary to have it reflect more accurately the will of the People.

But it is not Roman.

And "romanitas" does not mean simply adopting the dress and language
of the Romans, but also (in part) their way of thinking and looking
at a question as well, being flexible enough to bend for the benefit
of, yet strong enough to support, the progress of the res publica.

There may come a time when we are strong enough to seriously
consider adopting a more Roman style of self-government.

A question to Apollonius Cordus, Caecilius Metellus, or any other
legal-beagle types: Roman law does not consider oaths to be legally
binding, and our own law does not touch upon that subject, so we use
Roman law as our guide. Why do magistrates bother taking an oath of
office in Nova Roma?

Valete bene,

Cato

O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato

Salvete omnes.

So, this Stoic and this Cynic walk into a bar...


Valete,

Cato

Salvete omnes,

This is an interesting campaign so far focused a fair bit on the
Tribunes. It has been great for the more established citizens in NR
but I was wondering if some of our newer people who are just getting
started are familiar with the office its duties, terminology and all.
Here is a summary I hope will to helpful to those who are just
beginning with us:


" The powers of the Tribuni Plebis or Tribunes of the Plebians.
Tribunes were originally considered mere magistrates, elected by the
Plebians(everyday folk) to defend them against the cruelties of the
Patricians (upper class ex- aristocrats) or the Consuls. They lacked
any insigna of office and were not honored by the lictors (body
guards / status symbols / enforcers for magistrates). They did not
have attendents.

Very quickly however the tribunes massed vast political powers, and
the tribuninicia potsestas became the strongest protection from the
tyrrany of the Roman Republic. According to the oath taken to them
by the plebians, the tribuni plebis were made sacrosanct, free from
persecution and prosecution in fulfillment of their duties. They
safeguarded all Plebians (and later everybody) from excesses by the
magistrates (excepting the dictators). The right to enact compulsary
measures including arrests, fines, imprisonment and even death, was
to their use. Troops could be levied or taxes demanded, but appeals
to these orders could also be made. Their privilage to veto certain
enactments spread to allow them to curtail or even suspend the
activities of the senate.

Officially any proposals made by the tribunes had to be approved by
the senate, but in times of crisis this legal technicality was
ignored. The tribune was free to do this because of his immunity
from prosecution. Changes in the law were also tolerated, and a
place was provided for the tribunes in the Curia (senate house)
during the proccedings of the senate. From this bench called the
subsillia, the tribune used his auxilium to speak out in defense of
his constituency, if he felt the need. The capacity to interfere in
senatorial deliberations led to an actual seat in the body, a right
to veto and finally, the ability to summon the senate."

- From ' A Dictionary Of The Roman Empire - Matthew Bunson - Oxford
Press.

Not a bad picture at all of the Tribunes and their powers. I hope
this helps some of you to get a clearer picture of this office.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve, Diana Octavia; salvete, omnes.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:31:47AM -0800, Joanne Amodea wrote:
>
> Just like I did not have to join the Boni with a secret handshake and a
> password, I also don't have to 'leave' them by making a public announcement
> like Modius did. Am I still friends with Q Fabius? Very much so. If ever any of
> you would let your 'anti-Boni' guard down, and got a chance to get to know him,
> you'd find out how kind hearted he is.

Ah. This would be the kindhearted Q. Fabius - to make absolutely certain
that we're discussing the same person, the Quintus Fabius Maximus,
a.k.a. Steven Phenow - who threatened to blow up the boat I live on in
an email to NR officials, and whom I had to report to macronational
authorities? Perhaps your definition of kind-heartedness, or your
knowledge of Q. Fabius, could stand a bit of updating.


Vale et valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet.
A timid dog barks more violently than it bites.
-- Curtius Rufus

In a message dated 12/13/04 8:25:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

> However, it's important to remember that Roman law
> does not regard oaths as legally binding (except in a
> few very restricted cases concerning the law of sale).
> So this still does not create a legal duty.
>

Now that's interesting, Cordi. Justification please?

Q. Fabius Maximus


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

In a message dated 12/13/04 2:35:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
joanne_amodea@... writes:

> Am I still friends with Q Fabius? Very much so. If ever any of you would
> let your 'anti-Boni' guard down, and got a chance to get to know him, you'd
> find out how kind hearted he is.
>

Careful Octavia, you will start rumors...:-)

Fabius


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

This is a difficult question which I will try to answer as delicately as possible.

First, I think that as NR has not even been around for ten years it is much too early to say that we have established a mos maiorum.

Second, if one is to read the text of Pontifex Scaurus' report the issue of Consul Marinus being declared sacer is complicated. Pontifex Scaurus states -

"When the junior consul threatened to make membership in the Collegium elective in a Comitia dominated by non-practitioners of Religio if the Collegium did not acquiesce in his and Quintilianus' vendetta against Drusus, it became clear to me that the Religio is regarded as nothing but a political plaything by these magistrates and their adherents. That the Collegium did not rise as one to pronounce Marinus sacer and unfit to hold citizenship, much less a magistracy, for his sacriligious threat against those entrusted with responsbility for guiding reconstruction of the Religio
within Nova Roma told me that Roman reconstructionism in Nova Roma exists only at the sufferance of
atheists and Christians, and that is intolerable."

If someone came to me, I would investigate the issue for myself before I intervened.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs


Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
> At this point in NR's history, I feel that the CP must have

jurisdiction over the public religion.

Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
But this gives them an ahistorical power over all the magistrates
and all the cives.

Women contrary to NR's mos were suddenly disenfranchised from being
pontiffs, flamens and augurs.

As Questor to Gaius Iulius Scaurus you read that he thinks that
Consul Marinus should be declared 'sacer.'

Do you agree with this? If the Collegium Pontificium declared a
civis 'sacer' and this person appealed to the Tribunes what would you
do?

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




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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Publius Minius Albucius A. Apollonio Cordo omnibusque s.d.


A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

(..)

> If you are going to disprove Lintott's definition,

Lintott is certainly right on the field in the frame of which he
set his definition.

But it does exist other general meanings (group, gang..)

> you will have to find a usage of "factió" in which it
> cannot possibly be an abstract noun. This is not such
> a usage.

Yes, however ! So... as you met the Graal but have seen it yet
(lol), one more example (Plautus, Rudens) :

"G. Reddere argentum mihi. 1370.
L. Neque edepol tibi do, neque quicquam debeo.
G. Quae haec *factio* est? Non debes?
L. Non hercle vero."

And if you succeed in showing me that factio has a abstract
meaning (i.e. = factionalism), I will praise you to the skies !

(I would prefer not, being reluctant for blasphemy...)

Vale(-te),

Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, Id. Dec. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

Publius Minius Albucius
Candidate for Tribune
http://geocities.com/publiusalbucius/great_outdoors.html

Salve Cai Cato,

> A question to Apollonius Cordus, Caecilius Metellus, or any
> other legal-beagle types: Roman law does not consider oaths
> to be legally binding, and our own law does not touch upon
> that subject, so we use Roman law as our guide. Why do
> magistrates bother taking an oath of office in Nova Roma?

Well, my strictest answer is that it is our law, via the Lex Iunia.
However, looking at it from the historical perspective, I'd say that I don't
know. You yourself just mentioned that, both our Patres Patriae being
modern United States citizens, having a Constitution, or some written form
of supreme law, would be the norm. Similarly, in the United States, it is
the norm for officials to take oaths upon taking an office, so this might
have caused that.

On the value of the oath alone, I don't think it's a bad thing to have it
there: I surely see no harm coming from it. From the historical
perspective, I'd say that it may need to be scrapped simply for the sake of
history, though.

In any case, I think the best person to ask is the legislator himself, who
is still among us.

Vale Optime,

Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
We already had the case of the CP pronouncing me 'nefas' and
Tribune Modius Athanasius a Boni at that time vetoed my appeal to the
plebs.

If the CP, as Pontiff Scaurus wishes declared Consul Marinus 'sacer'
and he came to you as a pleb what would you do?

bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


That the Collegium did not rise as one to pronounce Marinus sacer and
unfit to hold citizenship, much less a magistracy, for his
sacriligious threat against those entrusted with responsbility for
guiding reconstruction of the Religio

> within Nova Roma told me that Roman reconstructionism in Nova Roma

exists only at the sufferance of

> atheists and Christians, and that is intolerable."
>
> If someone came to me, I would investigate the issue for myself

before I intervened.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
>

Salvete omnes;
if you don't have this bookmarked may I recommend you check out
Rogueclassicm, what a terrific Classics blog.
http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism/

Additionally if you click on to http://www.atrium-media.com/ there
are best discussions from the Classics list, what's on T.V. classical
and more. Enjoy!
bene valete
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana

G. Equitius Cato G. Vipsanio Agrippo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Gaius Agrippus et salvete omnes.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa wrote:

"Second, if one is to read the text of Pontifex Scaurus' report the
issue of Consul Marinus being declared sacer is complicated."



With all due respect, Vipsanius Agrippus, and I truly mean that,
the "issue" of Gaius Scaurus wanting Consul Marinus declared sacer is
not at all complicated: Gaius Scaurus thinks that the Consul did
sometghing wrong, so wrong that he wrote

"That the Collegium did not rise as one to pronounce Marinus sacer
and unfit to hold citizenship, much less a magistracy, for his
sacriligious threat against those entrusted with responsbility for
guiding reconstruction of the Religio within Nova Roma told me that
Roman reconstructionism in Nova Roma exists only at the sufferance of
atheists and Christians, and that is intolerable."

So Gaius Scaurus has taken it upon himself to decide that the Consul
has acted in a manner so blasphemous, so contrary to the will of the
Gods that he *should* have been declared sacer --- yet he himself,
Gaius Scaurus, said not a word. Not only that, but he once again
drags up the old bugbear of how non-practitioners and Christians are
at the heart of some vast evil conspiracy to do harm to the religio.
Ridiculous, and not worthy of someone who claims to be an academic.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salvete omnes,

I guess a problem I see is that we are not always consistant in our
logic, a problem that often arises in the legal systems which are
very confusing to those who bank on common sense. Yes, in ancient
Rome priests were the magistrates and Religous laws, rules and
dogmas had to be presented and passed by the Senate. I am sure that
in Republican Rome there were no Christians, Jewish or Germanic
pagans in the Senate so in modern times there are those who wish
that we be somewhat ahistorical and allow the situation as Scaurus
describes to be altered so the CP can operate free of non-
practitioner interference within the Senate. I'll just pretend I
have some sort of dictatorial power and say, no! It shall be along
real historical lines and the Senate votes and calls the shots
ultimately on religious matters. So be it.

Very well, now it can also be brought up that having women as
magistrates and priests is highly ahistorical also. Now here the
situation will follow the same sort of logic of
the concept of "ahistorical" but now it has boomeranged back in the
faces of those who were satisfied about the religio decision. Well
shall we be consistant in applying this or just think along a line
that suits our particular convenience?

A quick analogy to this; 14 women were shot by a lunatic in Montreal
14 years ago. There was much emotional reaction and the government
passed laws banning various types of firearms and making all
citizens register their long arms. This was upheld by our supreme
court 10 years later. Gun owners cried the blues saying it was wrong
to punish the many for the crimes of a few (+-500 homicides per year
here). Tough luck! Now over the last several years some various
breeds of dogs frim Pitbulls to Rotweillers have killed, injured or
maimed a fair number of people across Canada. Now several cities,
starting with Toronto are writing legislation to ban these animals
there once and for all. I know dog owners with these breeds here in
Edmonton, many of who were very anti-gun. Ho! says Quintus, now it
is your turn to be a victim of your own logic!.If 1/2 of one
perecent of gun owners are irresponsible, punish or inconvenience
them all; therefore if 1/2 of one percent of these particular dogs
are nasty with irresponsible owners... you've got it, punish them
all.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
<canadaoccidentalis@y...> wrote:

> This is a difficult question which I will try to answer as

delicately as possible.

>
> First, I think that as NR has not even been around for ten years

it is much too early to say that we have established a mos maiorum.

>
> Second, if one is to read the text of Pontifex Scaurus' report the

issue of Consul Marinus being declared sacer is complicated.
Pontifex Scaurus states -

>
> "When the junior consul threatened to make membership in the

Collegium elective in a Comitia dominated by non-practitioners of
Religio if the Collegium did not acquiesce in his and Quintilianus'
vendetta against Drusus, it became clear to me that the Religio is
regarded as nothing but a political plaything by these magistrates
and their adherents. That the Collegium did not rise as one to
pronounce Marinus sacer and unfit to hold citizenship, much less a
magistracy, for his sacriligious threat against those entrusted with
responsbility for guiding reconstruction of the Religio

> within Nova Roma told me that Roman reconstructionism in Nova Roma

exists only at the sufferance of

> atheists and Christians, and that is intolerable."
>
> If someone came to me, I would investigate the issue for myself

before I intervened.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
> Maior <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > At this point in NR's history, I feel that the CP must have
> jurisdiction over the public religion.
>
> Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
> But this gives them an ahistorical power over all the

magistrates

> and all the cives.
>
> Women contrary to NR's mos were suddenly disenfranchised from

being

> pontiffs, flamens and augurs.
>
> As Questor to Gaius Iulius Scaurus you read that he thinks that
> Consul Marinus should be declared 'sacer.'
>
> Do you agree with this? If the Collegium Pontificium declared a
> civis 'sacer' and this person appealed to the Tribunes what would

you

> do?
>
> bene vale
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> Propraetrix Hiberniae
> caput Officina Iuriis
> et Investigatio CFQ
>
>
>
>
> 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.

>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana;

I vetoed nothing. I opposed the other tribunes to take your "case" to
comitia.

Additionally, while I had no official say in your removal as sacerdos (I was
a Flamen at the time) I supported it at the time. I also supported the
removal of the nefas statement and subsequent reinstatement as sacerdos -- as did
Hadrianus -- after you issued an apology.

I would appreciate it if you stated all the facts. Yes I am an ex-Bonus,
but Hadrianus has never stated if he is or is not still in the Boni. Yet both
of us made efforts to work with you and to appeal to the other pontificies.
Your constant attack on the Collegium Pontificum, and the pontifices, does
nothing further your efforts to be reinstated as a sacerdos.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 12/13/2004 5:35:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rory12001@... writes:

Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
We already had the case of the CP pronouncing me 'nefas' and
Tribune Modius Athanasius a Boni at that time vetoed my appeal to the
plebs.

If the CP, as Pontiff Scaurus wishes declared Consul Marinus 'sacer'
and he came to you as a pleb what would you do?

bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs





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

---Salve Gai Modi;
excuse me, you are correct you did not support me. You did say you
would veto bringing my case to the plebs.
The snipped post is below it is 24359# for anyone who wishes to
read it in it's entirety.
The tribunian veto is extremely powerful and should be rarely
used at all. Romanitas is to leave these serious issues to be decided
by the Plebs.
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


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

The other tribunes are working on the possibility of convening the
comitia to let "the people" decide. I consider such a move
unconstitutional, for the reasons stated previously by others, and
will veto any attempt to convene the comitia. Surely, the other
tribunes can veto my veto but so be it.

---

Salve Quinte Lani;
frankly I don't know what to make of your post...it contains
neither facts nor sense.
I advocate that Nova Roma should adhere to the goal of Romanitas
and have our institutions conform to those of the Republic. This does
not mean a return to the mos of 1,000 years ago. Romans believed in
change as well and there is a nice quote from Livy that discusses
this.

Women partipate in NR government and did in religion in NR. I've
made the historical point with ample quotes from Livy that the
women's situation is similar to that of the Plebians who were denied
entry to all the major priestly colleges by the Patricians.

After a protracted fight around 300 B.C the Lex Ogulnia was passed
creating more priesthoods for the Plebians, who were admitted to all
the priestly colleges.

A. Apollonius Cordus made the point that we could do the same thing
for women along the lines of the Lex Ogulnia and create a pontifical
college for women.

All this discussion is done, with reason, fact and analogy. I suggest
when you wish to make a point you do the same.
vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Finally this is not a topic for amusement; to practice the Religio
in an atmosphere of tolerance and freedom I've joined the ADF, a
druidic group where one of the ex-female pontiffs Julia Ovidia Lupa
is a leader. They have 800 members and actually meet and do rituals
in the flesh. That is the Religio I wish to promote and be part of.

AVETE OMNES

I think we really should say thank you to Censor Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus and his Cohors.
Myself being a member of their mailing list, I can see the work they
are doing to provide Nova Roma with a strong and definitely
historical system of Roman names.

In the past we saw citizens with very bizarre names which sounded
like Latin, but weren't Latin at all! It was very easy to simply
accept every application without checking the historical
authenticity of the names applicants chose.

Many people knew that, but nobody had the courage to start such a
radical and titanic reform of the name system. Quintilianus saw the
problem and understood it was unavoidable for Nova Roma to face it
sooner or later, so decided to take it on his shoulders (and on the
ones of his Scribae!!!) and started the job.
And believe me, it's a huge job! They did historical researches to
find out which names are historical and acceptable, and which names
can't be accepted, which names are related to specific Gentes, and
which names can be accepted only if the applicant has certain
characteristics, etc.

Those marvellous Scribae contact every single applicant whose name
is not attested in Rome, and patiently explain which is the problem
and how can be solved, until they find a historically accurate name
the applicant likes.

Maybe you don't directly perceive such a great goal, because you
already have your own name, but now you know that every new citizen
of Nova Roma has a proper Latin name, and that's a huge advantage
for our Republic, a very important step toward historicity.
I think we can say it was one of our big problems, and now it's
getting finally solved.

I am one of Censor Quintilianus' Scribae, but I'm employed in a
different field, so I can dare to strongly congratulate on their
great dedication and their results!
Let me remind their names, as they really deserve it:
Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Marcia Martiana Marcella
Gaia Flavia Aureliana
Annia Octavia Indagatrix
Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana

And I shall mention Quintus Cassius Calvus too, which is also doing
an outstanding job!
I hope I didn't forget anybody! :-)

Please, forgive me if I have been a bit pedantic, but this is the
kind of people who work behind the scenes to improve Nova Roma every
day! They deserve their work to be recognized!

Thank you very much!

OPTIME VALETE
Manius Constantinus Serapio
Propraetor Italiae

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

Salve Lanius Paulinus et salvete omnes.

Lanius Paulinus, you bring up a very interesting point. What I am
about to say is not intended to start a flame war, but simply an
observation which I have made repeatedly, and with it the two most
common replies I have received.

My observation:

The foundation of Nova Roma, the very bedrock upon which the res
publica currently stands, contain within itself articles which are
entirely inconsistent with the practices of ancient Rome. Since this
is true, since much of the legal, political, and religious foundation
is already unhistorical (including the very document which creates
them), I believe it is not such an horrific idea that we also look
reasonably at other adaptations in the evolution of mankind over the
past 1700 years in deciding how to best build a living, vibrant res
publica, while trying to keep as close as possible to the ancients.
When we can, we adopt the practice of the ancients directly. If a
particular practice seems unreasonable in the light of contemporary
understanding, then we approach it using the concepts of aequitatis
or utilitatis which Apollonius Cordus outlined some time ago: what is
useful and reasonable --- for *us*, not the ancients. We approach it
with reason and transparency, not hyperbole or misdirection. When a
final decision is to be made, it is made in the proper Roman way, by
vote of the People. Vox populi vox dei.

With this observation, and my insistence that we can indeed claim at
least the seedling of our own mos, it comes as no great leap in logic
to understand why I believe that women pontifices are not a sign of
the destruction of Nova Roma. We have had them before (seedling of
our own mos) and it is consistent with both utilitas and aequitatis
(it follows from a logical process the ancients themselves might use)
in an adaptation to a contemporary understanding.


Now, the two answers I've received:

1. Making the ancients' way of life adjust to the modern world is
sometimes required by our articles of incorporation, to remain a not-
for-profit organization which adheres to guidelines set down by both
the State of Maine and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. In other
words: if we didn't adapt, we'd be breaking the law. The
macronational law. The law that gets you arrested and fined and
thrown in jail. We must allow for these instances because it is
legally impossible to do otherwise. This does not mean we accept
these changes willingly or happily.

2. There is a huge difference in making changes based on
macronational law with regards to our political/legal organization
and with making changes which would affect the faith or the
orthopraxy of the practitioners of the religio romana in Nova Roma.
This faith, passed down to the practitioners by the ancients,
requires strict adherence or else the Gods will abandon the res
publica. Absolute obedience in orthopraxy is required, or else the
religio cannot be correctly observed, and is therefore not only
useless but offensive to the Dii Immortales. It must be strictly
reconstructed at every level, or we will once more (or continue to)
offend the Dii Immortales. This threat, the threat of continuing to
offend and corrupt and thereby make impossible a revivification of
the pax deorum, is so great that any deviation cannot be tolerated.


The inconsistency I find, Lanius Paulinus, is in the insistence that
absolutely nothing can be changed when the fact is many things have
*already* been changed and those changes have been supported by some
who cry "foul!" now. By even Gaius Scaurus' own admission, a vast
percentage of the actual orthopraxy of the ancients has simply
disappeared, lost forever in time. So the College of Pontiffs is
actually making things us as they go along, albeit in absolute
earnest and to their very best effort to be in line with what little
does survive. I do not doubt their sincerity, or their motives, in
desiring to recreate for practitioners a functioning and energized
religio romana. But they are not reconstructing the exact orthopraxy
of the ancients, because it simply no longer exists to copy.

It is not difficult, either, to understand the precarious position
that the Pater Patriae believed the religio to be in when the res
publica was founded; this precipitated the investiture of the College
of Pontiffs with the current, completely unhistorical powers which it
now possesses. There must come a point, however, if true
reconstruction is to take place on any kind of meaningful level, that
these powers be relinquished in the trust that there is no wolf at
the door, save that which suckled the Divine Twins; there is no vast
anti-religio conspiracy which will leap out at a moment's notice to
devour the practitioners mercilessly; there is no intent to deprive
the practitioners of that home which they sought and unquestionably
deserve in Nova Roma --- their faith is one of the great pillars
which supports the res publica, which helps give it it's true form in
a world which has lost so much of the spirit of the ancients.

So. As a non-practitioner, I have a duty to watch out for my fellow-
citizens who *are* practitioners. As a citizen concerned with the
law and government, I have a duty to watch out for *all* citizens.
As an amateur historian, who loves Roma Antiqua and what she gave to
the world, I have a duty to watch out for what can be directly
copied from the ancients and try to discern what may need to be
adapted into a more fitting expression of their Virtues in the
current age. We can find a way of speaking to each other, of
bridging these two ideals, without demonizing our loyal opponents.

Vale et valete,

Cato

---Salvete Omnes:



C. Fabius Quintilianus is indeed a wonderful citizen and magistrate.
I have never known him to achieve anything but exemplary results in
the four plus years I have known him. And my kudos to the citizens
dedicating their time to helping him undertake the enormous amount
of work entailed in fulfilling his duties. And to boot, CFQ and his
staff, plus webmaster Q. Cassius Calvus are doing the work normally
done by two Censors.

Bene valete et Ave!,

Pompeia


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

>
> AVETE OMNES
>
> I think we really should say thank you to Censor Caeso Fabius
> Quintilianus and his Cohors.
> Myself being a member of their mailing list, I can see the work

they

> are doing to provide Nova Roma with a strong and definitely
> historical system of Roman names.
>
> In the past we saw citizens with very bizarre names which sounded
> like Latin, but weren't Latin at all! It was very easy to simply
> accept every application without checking the historical
> authenticity of the names applicants chose.
>
> Many people knew that, but nobody had the courage to start such a
> radical and titanic reform of the name system. Quintilianus saw

the

> problem and understood it was unavoidable for Nova Roma to face it
> sooner or later, so decided to take it on his shoulders (and on

the

> ones of his Scribae!!!) and started the job.
> And believe me, it's a huge job! They did historical researches to
> find out which names are historical and acceptable, and which

names

> can't be accepted, which names are related to specific Gentes, and
> which names can be accepted only if the applicant has certain
> characteristics, etc.
>
> Those marvellous Scribae contact every single applicant whose name
> is not attested in Rome, and patiently explain which is the

problem

> and how can be solved, until they find a historically accurate

name

> the applicant likes.
>
> Maybe you don't directly perceive such a great goal, because you
> already have your own name, but now you know that every new

citizen

> of Nova Roma has a proper Latin name, and that's a huge advantage
> for our Republic, a very important step toward historicity.
> I think we can say it was one of our big problems, and now it's
> getting finally solved.
>
> I am one of Censor Quintilianus' Scribae, but I'm employed in a
> different field, so I can dare to strongly congratulate on their
> great dedication and their results!
> Let me remind their names, as they really deserve it:
> Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> Marcia Martiana Marcella
> Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
>
> And I shall mention Quintus Cassius Calvus too, which is also

doing

> an outstanding job!
> I hope I didn't forget anybody! :-)
>
> Please, forgive me if I have been a bit pedantic, but this is the
> kind of people who work behind the scenes to improve Nova Roma

every

> day! They deserve their work to be recognized!
>
> Thank you very much!
>
> OPTIME VALETE
> Manius Constantinus Serapio
> Propraetor Italiae

I assume you mean as tribune of the plebs, what would I do? As the only 'evidence' I know about is reported by Pontifex Scaurus, I would quickly attempt to find out the other side of the story. I find it reassuring that you are solely entrusting me with the fate of a consul. What would you do in this situation?

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Salve Vipsani Agrippa;
We already had the case of the CP pronouncing me 'nefas' and
Tribune Modius Athanasius a Boni at that time vetoed my appeal to the
plebs.

If the CP, as Pontiff Scaurus wishes declared Consul Marinus 'sacer'
and he came to you as a pleb what would you do?

bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ


That the Collegium did not rise as one to pronounce Marinus sacer and
unfit to hold citizenship, much less a magistracy, for his
sacriligious threat against those entrusted with responsbility for
guiding reconstruction of the Religio

> within Nova Roma told me that Roman reconstructionism in Nova Roma

exists only at the sufferance of

> atheists and Christians, and that is intolerable."
>
> If someone came to me, I would investigate the issue for myself

before I intervened.

>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
>
>
>

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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

Salve Cordus -

On Saturday, December 11, 2004, at 02:55 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus
wrote:

>
> "Why is Cordus on these lists if he dislikes factions
> so much?"
> "Ah," says he: "know thine enemy". ;)
>

Enemy?
You were very nearly invited onto the inner Moderati List, Cordus - we
discussed it a lot, and many nice things were said about you (bet your
ears were burning!).
We decided against it primarily because we felt it was better for the
Republic for you to remain in your current neutral, objective, above
reproach position - you're like NR's very own Switzerland!
With three new groups coming into being this year, SOMEBODY has to be a
Compromise Negotiator and Referee of disputes. We consider you to be
someone that everyone can trust - too rare a thing to risk tainting by
extending a partisan invitation.

Vale bene
- Troianus
Candidate for Quaestor & Moderatus

Salve Cordus -

On Saturday, December 11, 2004, at 02:49 PM, A. Apollonius Cordus
wrote:

> would the Moderátí allow a member of the Boní to
> become a Moderátus, and so on?

The Moderati formed as a coalition of like-minded people who oppose the
goals and views expressed by a number of Boni members. If the Boni are
likewise a group of like-minded friends then the answer would be "No",
due to mutually exclusive philosophical differences.

However, there is no firm "Boni Agenda" that has been admitted to, so
presumably there could be a Bonus who in fact disagrees with the others
but is merely there as a friend - in which case it may be possible that
such a person may actually be compatible with the Moderati.

Now, there are a number of ex-Boni, who did in fact leave largely on
matters of principle. It is much more likely that such an individual
would be Moderati material.

So it isn't absolutely impossible for a Bonus to become a Moderatus,
just very unlikely. Far more likely for an ex-Bonus.

Vale
- S E M Troianus, Moderatus
Candidate for Quaestor

The height of hypocrisy. See Back Alley message 10399

CATO: yes, Scaurus, I do indeed consider the religio romana to be an affront to the One True God.

CATO: There you are particularly incorrect. I see the rites and rituals of the religio romana as POLITICAL acts, caeremonial acts required for the benefit of the State (like not letting the US flag touch the ground and folding it in that peculiar triangle shape), NOT
as religious acts.

CATO: I would never, EVER, repeat publicly what I have said here regarsding the religio, and I would expect that it will remain here.

With friends like these...

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Candidate for Tribune

gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

So. As a non-practitioner, I have a duty to watch out for my fellow-citizens who *are* practitioners


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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

G. Equitius Cato G. Vipsanio Agrippo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Vipsanius Agrippa et salvete omnes.

Well. Apparently Vipsanius Aggrippa is incapable of either reading
the letter I sent out several days ago, in which I acknowledged my
short-sightedness regarding the religio and its practitioners, or is
simply incapable of understanding it.

I would prefer to believe the former, because the latter would point
to an inability to discern a person's ability to develop new
understandings of new ideas, and publicly ask forgiveness for having
made uninformed judgements.

I ask you publicly, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, if you have ever, in
your life, said anything which could be found contradictory to a
view you currently hold?

Have you ever grown by coming in contact with those who thought
differently than yourself yet did not stoop to vitriol and personal
attack, but were willing (and patient) enough to exlain their views?

I have. My apology to the practitioners of the religio was the
result. See to your own dignity.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Salvete omnes,

Lately there has been a questions and discussion that I feel I need to
answer. My apologies that I was not able to answer in more quickly, but
I was waiting for clarification from Cordus in private mail. And
yesterday I was on the different city.

First of all, there is a direct need to change the voting procedures in
Comitia Plebis Tributa to match the procedures of other comitias. That
need of change has been also recognised by many who voted against the
Faustus' proposal in last month on the technicality that it was not
brought vote in the way they felt was right. So if the law will not be
voted again before my possible tribuneship (be that in whatever year) I
would try to bring it on vote again. The support for it was evident
from the discussion before voting and from the vote results. If it
still would seem that it would recieve more support by putting it to
vote in different way than what Faustus did it I would be inclined to
use that way. There would be little point to repeat the actions of
Faustus, in the way vote was arranged, as they were unsuccesful, in
this matter.

Secondly, I'm member of the Libra Alliance, as I have clearly stated in
my campaign website and when the Libra Alliance was announced. The
Libra Alliance is not a political party, that should be clear to
everyone at this point. Even if Libra Alliance would try to form a
policy or line, which it doesn't do and doesn't plan to do, I would not
feel obliged to follow it. Libra Alliance exists as a discussion place,
and one could compare it as a friends gathering for supper. The reason
why it has been publically announced is that the people in it have no
wish for secrecy and also we think that NR needs more historical
character and in the same time more active role in the real world
activities, as are also clearly stated on the Libra website and
declarations.

Valete,

On 12.12.2004, at 18:00, Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:50:22 -0000
> From: "Maior" <rory12001@...>
> Subject: Re: Question for candidates for tribúnus plébis
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> A. Apollonius Cordus asks every tribune candidate :
>>
>> « It seems that the reforms contained in the late lex
>> Arminia will not now be put in place before the end of
>> this year. If elected, would you bring forth
>> legislation to put these reforms in place during your
>> term of office? »
>>
> M. Arminia Maior Fabiana A. Apollonio Cordo spd;
>
> yes, if elected as Tribuna I would repropose the Lex. It would make
> the rogaters job a lot easier. The vote was quite close due to the
> underlying issue of the Constitution and the power of the Quirites to
> pass laws and this is a very worthy subject for discussion.
>
> The Quirites would benefit by having Tribunes who can explain clearly
> and plainly for all, the issues involved.
> A Tribune's first duty is to the people, which is why the
> Tribunian veto is something that should hardly ever be used.
> Remember the people can reject or approve a proposal; it is for the
> Quirites to decide! Not me.
>
> bene vale in pace deorum
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
>


Caius Curius Saturninus

Quaestor
Legatus Regionis Finnicae
Procurator Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova
Praeses et Triumvir Academia Thules ad Studia Romana Antiqua et Nova

e-mail: c.curius@...
www.insulaumbra.com/regiofinnica
www.academiathules.org
gsm: +358-50-3315279
fax: +358-9-8754751

Salve Marca Arminia Maior,

Hmmm, I thought it was simple enough; G. Equitus Cato who is quite
the orator in my opinion caught on to my train of thought right away
a few postings after this one. My point on magistrates being in the
religio but laws regarding religious issues and decrees being
decided by the senate is correct. There is a "fact". The gun issue
is an "analogy" to show that people are quite happy to jump on the
bandwagon and latch on to a law that fits their agenda but when the
same logic in another situation is thrown back in their face to work
against them they fall apart and don't want to hear about it.

Well like the old Sherriff said in the movie to Cool Hand Luke, boy,
we'ze got us a communication problem. If I see some more postings
that say they do not understand my point at all I will strive to
improve my communication skills a little better; if not perhaps you
would consider working on your end of it as well.


Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> Salve Quinte Lani;
> frankly I don't know what to make of your post...it contains
> neither facts nor sense.
> I advocate that Nova Roma should adhere to the goal of Romanitas
> and have our institutions conform to those of the Republic. This
does
> not mean a return to the mos of 1,000 years ago. Romans believed
in
> change as well and there is a nice quote from Livy that discusses
> this.
>
> Women partipate in NR government and did in religion in NR. I've
> made the historical point with ample quotes from Livy that the
> women's situation is similar to that of the Plebians who were
denied
> entry to all the major priestly colleges by the Patricians.
>
> After a protracted fight around 300 B.C the Lex Ogulnia was passed
> creating more priesthoods for the Plebians, who were admitted to
all
> the priestly colleges.
>
> A. Apollonius Cordus made the point that we could do the same
thing
> for women along the lines of the Lex Ogulnia and create a
pontifical
> college for women.
>
> All this discussion is done, with reason, fact and analogy. I
suggest
> when you wish to make a point you do the same.
> vale
> Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> candidate for Tribune of the Plebs
>
> Finally this is not a topic for amusement; to practice the
Religio
> in an atmosphere of tolerance and freedom I've joined the ADF, a
> druidic group where one of the ex-female pontiffs Julia Ovidia
Lupa
> is a leader. They have 800 members and actually meet and do
rituals
> in the flesh. That is the Religio I wish to promote and be part of.

Salve Gai Equiti Cato,

Thank you very much for your reply and understanding of my previous
post. I sure do not wish to get a squabble going on here either. I
just believe that we must be very careful in making the changes from
Ancient Republican to a more modern Rome that we do not politically
and religiously shoot ourselves in the foot in the process which is
going to be a very easy thing to do.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

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

>
> G. Equitius Cato Q. Lanio Paulino quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> Salve Lanius Paulinus et salvete omnes.
>
> Lanius Paulinus, you bring up a very interesting point. What I am
> about to say is not intended to start a flame war, but simply an
> observation which I have made repeatedly, and with it the two most
> common replies I have received.
>
> My observation:
>
> The foundation of Nova Roma, the very bedrock upon which the res
> publica currently stands, contain within itself articles which are
> entirely inconsistent with the practices of ancient Rome. Since

this

> is true, since much of the legal, political, and religious

foundation

> is already unhistorical (including the very document which creates
> them), I believe it is not such an horrific idea that we also look
> reasonably at other adaptations in the evolution of mankind over

the

> past 1700 years in deciding how to best build a living, vibrant

res

> publica, while trying to keep as close as possible to the

ancients.

> When we can, we adopt the practice of the ancients directly. If a
> particular practice seems unreasonable in the light of

contemporary

> understanding, then we approach it using the concepts of

aequitatis

> or utilitatis which Apollonius Cordus outlined some time ago: what

is

> useful and reasonable --- for *us*, not the ancients. We approach

it

> with reason and transparency, not hyperbole or misdirection. When

a

> final decision is to be made, it is made in the proper Roman way,

by

> vote of the People. Vox populi vox dei.
>
> With this observation, and my insistence that we can indeed claim

at

> least the seedling of our own mos, it comes as no great leap in

logic

> to understand why I believe that women pontifices are not a sign

of

> the destruction of Nova Roma. We have had them before (seedling

of

> our own mos) and it is consistent with both utilitas and

aequitatis

> (it follows from a logical process the ancients themselves might

use)

> in an adaptation to a contemporary understanding.
>
>
> Now, the two answers I've received:
>
> 1. Making the ancients' way of life adjust to the modern world is
> sometimes required by our articles of incorporation, to remain a

not-

> for-profit organization which adheres to guidelines set down by

both

> the State of Maine and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. In

other

> words: if we didn't adapt, we'd be breaking the law. The
> macronational law. The law that gets you arrested and fined and
> thrown in jail. We must allow for these instances because it is
> legally impossible to do otherwise. This does not mean we accept
> these changes willingly or happily.
>
> 2. There is a huge difference in making changes based on
> macronational law with regards to our political/legal organization
> and with making changes which would affect the faith or the
> orthopraxy of the practitioners of the religio romana in Nova

Roma.

> This faith, passed down to the practitioners by the ancients,
> requires strict adherence or else the Gods will abandon the res
> publica. Absolute obedience in orthopraxy is required, or else

the

> religio cannot be correctly observed, and is therefore not only
> useless but offensive to the Dii Immortales. It must be strictly
> reconstructed at every level, or we will once more (or continue

to)

> offend the Dii Immortales. This threat, the threat of continuing

to

> offend and corrupt and thereby make impossible a revivification of
> the pax deorum, is so great that any deviation cannot be tolerated.
>
>
> The inconsistency I find, Lanius Paulinus, is in the insistence

that

> absolutely nothing can be changed when the fact is many things

have

> *already* been changed and those changes have been supported by

some

> who cry "foul!" now. By even Gaius Scaurus' own admission, a vast
> percentage of the actual orthopraxy of the ancients has simply
> disappeared, lost forever in time. So the College of Pontiffs is
> actually making things us as they go along, albeit in absolute
> earnest and to their very best effort to be in line with what

little

> does survive. I do not doubt their sincerity, or their motives,

in

> desiring to recreate for practitioners a functioning and energized
> religio romana. But they are not reconstructing the exact

orthopraxy

> of the ancients, because it simply no longer exists to copy.
>
> It is not difficult, either, to understand the precarious position
> that the Pater Patriae believed the religio to be in when the res
> publica was founded; this precipitated the investiture of the

College

> of Pontiffs with the current, completely unhistorical powers which

it

> now possesses. There must come a point, however, if true
> reconstruction is to take place on any kind of meaningful level,

that

> these powers be relinquished in the trust that there is no wolf at
> the door, save that which suckled the Divine Twins; there is no

vast

> anti-religio conspiracy which will leap out at a moment's notice

to

> devour the practitioners mercilessly; there is no intent to

deprive

> the practitioners of that home which they sought and

unquestionably

> deserve in Nova Roma --- their faith is one of the great pillars
> which supports the res publica, which helps give it it's true form

in

> a world which has lost so much of the spirit of the ancients.
>
> So. As a non-practitioner, I have a duty to watch out for my

fellow-

> citizens who *are* practitioners. As a citizen concerned with the
> law and government, I have a duty to watch out for *all*

citizens.

> As an amateur historian, who loves Roma Antiqua and what she gave

to

> the world, I have a duty to watch out for what can be directly
> copied from the ancients and try to discern what may need to be
> adapted into a more fitting expression of their Virtues in the
> current age. We can find a way of speaking to each other, of
> bridging these two ideals, without demonizing our loyal opponents.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato

Salvete omnes,

A few questions regarding this authentic Roman name:

1) When is this name reform change going to be inacted?

2) If a gens formed several years ago has an innacurate Latin name,
will they have to make changes or does this just apply to newbies
coming in to NR?

3) In my particular case Lania can be a modern agressive tiny
hunting bird with this species name or something to do with a
butcher. Latin it is but apparently it may not have been an actual
family name according to some of our more expert people here. How
does this fall into the plan?

Certainly I appreciate all your efforts and acknowledge the fact the
historical accuracy is important.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

3)

> > AVETE OMNES
> >
> > I think we really should say thank you to Censor Caeso Fabius
> > Quintilianus and his Cohors.
> > Myself being a member of their mailing list, I can see the work
> they
> > are doing to provide Nova Roma with a strong and definitely
> > historical system of Roman names.
> >
> > In the past we saw citizens with very bizarre names which

sounded

> > like Latin, but weren't Latin at all! It was very easy to simply
> > accept every application without checking the historical
> > authenticity of the names applicants chose.
> >
> > Many people knew that, but nobody had the courage to start such

a

> > radical and titanic reform of the name system. Quintilianus saw
> the
> > problem and understood it was unavoidable for Nova Roma to face

it

> > sooner or later, so decided to take it on his shoulders (and on
> the
> > ones of his Scribae!!!) and started the job.
> > And believe me, it's a huge job! They did historical researches

to

> > find out which names are historical and acceptable, and which
> names
> > can't be accepted, which names are related to specific Gentes,

and

> > which names can be accepted only if the applicant has certain
> > characteristics, etc.
> >
> > Those marvellous Scribae contact every single applicant whose

name

> > is not attested in Rome, and patiently explain which is the
> problem
> > and how can be solved, until they find a historically accurate
> name
> > the applicant likes.
> >
> > Maybe you don't directly perceive such a great goal, because you
> > already have your own name, but now you know that every new
> citizen
> > of Nova Roma has a proper Latin name, and that's a huge

advantage

> > for our Republic, a very important step toward historicity.
> > I think we can say it was one of our big problems, and now it's
> > getting finally solved.
> >
> > I am one of Censor Quintilianus' Scribae, but I'm employed in a
> > different field, so I can dare to strongly congratulate on their
> > great dedication and their results!
> > Let me remind their names, as they really deserve it:
> > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
> > Marcia Martiana Marcella
> > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
> > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
> > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
> > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
> > Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
> >
> > And I shall mention Quintus Cassius Calvus too, which is also
> doing
> > an outstanding job!
> > I hope I didn't forget anybody! :-)
> >
> > Please, forgive me if I have been a bit pedantic, but this is

the

> > kind of people who work behind the scenes to improve Nova Roma
> every
> > day! They deserve their work to be recognized!
> >
> > Thank you very much!
> >
> > OPTIME VALETE
> > Manius Constantinus Serapio
> > Propraetor Italiae

Salve Lani Pauline,

Please allow to shed some light on your queries...

In an email dated Tue, 14 12 2004 7:46:36 am GMT, "Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly)" <mjk@...> writes:

>
>
>Salvete omnes,
>
>A few questions regarding this authentic Roman name:
>
>1) When is this name reform change going to be inacted?
>

A new edictum has been published some weeks ago. So far it only deals with new applicants and allows them to choose only from a list of attested praenomina and cognomina. With regards to nomina, each case is dealt with individually: although we still accept applications to active gentes that are not historical we try to explain the situation to the new cives and respectfully attempt to point them in the right direction.

>2) If a gens formed several years ago has an innacurate Latin name,
>will they have to make changes or does this just apply to newbies
>coming in to NR?
>

See above. Existing gentes will be contacted at some point next year and we will try to work on a compromise on an individual basis. We are not in the business to set up an inquisition and the censorial cohors will listen to all arguments before proposing a change, if such change is necessary.

>3) In my particular case Lania can be a modern agressive tiny
>hunting bird with this species name or something to do with a
>butcher. Latin it is but apparently it may not have been an actual
>family name according to some of our more expert people here. How
>does this fall into the plan?
>

This will be looked into in due time. As a guidance point we will probably require two things: A nomen should end in -ius as was normal practice (save a tiny few exceptions) and a nomen, if not historical, should bear a latin meaning. Your nomen, in this instance, fits the preliminary bill so you should be able to request a special dispensation to keep it. Of course the final decisions rests with the censor.

>Certainly I appreciate all your efforts and acknowledge the fact the
>historical accuracy is important.
>

Thank you. We are doing the best we can ;-)

Vale

C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
Scriba Ductus, Cohors CFQ

>Regards,
>
>Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
>3)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> > AVETE OMNES
>> >
>> > I think we really should say thank you to Censor Caeso Fabius
>> > Quintilianus and his Cohors.
>> > Myself being a member of their mailing list, I can see the work
>> they
>> > are doing to provide Nova Roma with a strong and definitely
>> > historical system of Roman names.
>> >
>> > In the past we saw citizens with very bizarre names which
>sounded
>> > like Latin, but weren't Latin at all! It was very easy to simply
>> > accept every application without checking the historical
>> > authenticity of the names applicants chose.
>> >
>> > Many people knew that, but nobody had the courage to start such
>a
>> > radical and titanic reform of the name system. Quintilianus saw
>> the
>> > problem and understood it was unavoidable for Nova Roma to face
>it
>> > sooner or later, so decided to take it on his shoulders (and on
>> the
>> > ones of his Scribae!!!) and started the job.
>> > And believe me, it's a huge job! They did historical researches
>to
>> > find out which names are historical and acceptable, and which
>> names
>> > can't be accepted, which names are related to specific Gentes,
>and
>> > which names can be accepted only if the applicant has certain
>> > characteristics, etc.
>> >
>> > Those marvellous Scribae contact every single applicant whose
>name
>> > is not attested in Rome, and patiently explain which is the
>> problem
>> > and how can be solved, until they find a historically accurate
>> name
>> > the applicant likes.
>> >
>> > Maybe you don't directly perceive such a great goal, because you
>> > already have your own name, but now you know that every new
>> citizen
>> > of Nova Roma has a proper Latin name, and that's a huge
>advantage
>> > for our Republic, a very important step toward historicity.
>> > I think we can say it was one of our big problems, and now it's
>> > getting finally solved.
>> >
>> > I am one of Censor Quintilianus' Scribae, but I'm employed in a
>> > different field, so I can dare to strongly congratulate on their
>> > great dedication and their results!
>> > Let me remind their names, as they really deserve it:
>> > Gaius Moravius Laureatus Armoricus
>> > Marcia Martiana Marcella
>> > Gaia Flavia Aureliana
>> > Annia Octavia Indagatrix
>> > Marcus Flavius Philippus Conservatus
>> > Vibia Ulpia Aestiva
>> > Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
>> >
>> > And I shall mention Quintus Cassius Calvus too, which is also
>> doing
>> > an outstanding job!
>> > I hope I didn't forget anybody! :-)
>> >
>> > Please, forgive me if I have been a bit pedantic, but this is
>the
>> > kind of people who work behind the scenes to improve Nova Roma
>> every
>> > day! They deserve their work to be recognized!
>> >
>> > Thank you very much!
>> >
>> > OPTIME VALETE
>> > Manius Constantinus Serapio
>> > Propraetor Italiae
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

>

Salve Paulinus, et salvete cives.

I'll try to address a few of your questions, as I am one of the
scribae who will be writing the draft for the new edictum. I am,
however, exhausted; nonetheless, I shall do my best to give clear
answers. I'm sure CFQ or (more particularly) Laureatus would better
be able to answer your questions though.

> A few questions regarding this authentic Roman name:
>
> 1) When is this name reform change going to be inacted?

KAELUS: Whenever we can get the appropriate draft written for
submission to CFQ, and he approves it, I'm guessing. At least, that
was the impression I received, though Caeso had indicated that he
might not be issuing any new edicts until there is some more
indication of what effect the recents edicts have in the course of
due time. This is wise, but I'm not sure as to this particular edict.
There has been some delay, due to a few factors; one being that the
orginal proposed deadline simply cannot be met due to some
macronational time constraints from one of the scribae, and that I
think some more clarification is needed in order to better clarify
some points outlined and close some obvious loopholes.

> 2) If a gens formed several years ago has an innacurate Latin name,
> will they have to make changes or does this just apply to newbies
> coming in to NR?

KAELUS: To the best of my knowledge, the reformed nomenclature does
not strongly effect the historical basis of gens nomina. If the nomen
is latin, and can be proven as a latin word, it is valid. By
extension, if the word is a legitimately latinised word,
grammatically speaking, then it MIGHT be considered acceptable also.
Thus, nomen such as "Nemo" would not meet the required standards.

From what I have seen in the Cohors, there is no particular movement
to make any corrections to pre-established gens nomina at this time.
The proposed law would have much more of an effect on cognomina and
praenomina (which, I assume is in part because they are more
personally identifiable). This is the crux of the current state of
nomenclature within Nova Roma; new applicants have already been
subject to these standards before approval of their citizenship, but
many non-latin names and ahistorical names in general have slipped
through the cracks prior to the reforms made by CFQ in his term as
Censor. This is something that I think everyone sees the need to
address, and this official reform shall make amends to that.

> 3) In my particular case Lania can be a modern agressive tiny
> hunting bird with this species name or something to do with a
> butcher. Latin it is but apparently it may not have been an actual
> family name according to some of our more expert people here. How
> does this fall into the plan?

KAELUS: I think that the particular context of this question is
covered by proxy above.

> Certainly I appreciate all your efforts and acknowledge the fact

the

> historical accuracy is important.

KAELUS: They've done an excellent job so far. I'm glad that people
are acknowledging the fine work done by the Censor and his staff at
long last.

I hope I have not spoken too hastily, but I wanted to provide you
with some initial answers to your questions in a timely fashion.
Someone more senior than I in the Leading Office can probably address
any particulars better than myself, though, as I have said...
Especially as we're still formulating the details contained in the
articles of the edictum itself.


Vale et valete,
Lucius Modius Kaelus

Meditations on NR legal system


By Ceres and Diana, patronesses of the sacred Tribunate, and by the Capitoline Triad, and by Clio, muse of History, Salus Publica and Concordia Publica. Without their endless blessings, these meditations wouldn´t be possible.

I have - by Hercules - on these years as magistrate of Nova Roma endless seek in Ancient History the sources of inspiration for the reforms NR needs.

Only drinking from the sources of the Ancient we can have an answer to our destiny... the objectives of this Republic.

I believe the ultimate goal of this Micronation/Republic/Non-Profit Organization - whatever NR is - is to spread Romanitas.

By ´Romanitas´ I understand the ancient virtues and values which the modern world needs.

With this goal clear entablished, the magistrates have a goal to pursuit. Anything in NR is worthy if it approuches us of this objective. Spreading Romanitas on a double pattern... spreading in the world, spreading in ourselves.

The Romans hadn´t a Constituion.

The romans had lots of laws.

Laws one over the other.

Laws that came from religious tradition, as long as the fist indo-european tribes that came to Europe.

Laws passed from father to child, a tradition without writting, on the religio of the lar, inside the gentes adn the curias.

Laws compilated by priests, laws about religio cerimonies. Cerimonies that ruled the private and public life. Since everything was ruled by the gods, and the ultimate authority was of the gods, the gods had their laws. How those laws were born nobody that time knew, they only knew the gods accepted well these ruling like their ancestor prayers and rituals.

The law that times was MOS, the tradition. Sacred laws, like sacred hymns, because the text of the law was undertood by the gods, and couldn´t be changed, even if the language had changed itself. Remember that the romans didnt undertand the meaning of the words ´Triumph´ and ´Himeneus´ - only they are the saying of the chorus on the sacred songs of victory and marriage they received from the ancestors.

But new situation gives necessity to new laws, outside the traditions.
The society was evoluting. The man of ancient stil recognized the gods were the ultimate authority, but knew the deities transfered the practical making of the laws to their representatives, the king - as the highest priest of the state - the priests/pontifices, the magistrates that exercised the royal power (Imperium), the meeting of all the people (Comitia), the meeting of the fathers (Senate).

All of these measures had the auspices, the approval of the magistrate/Comitia to act. The gods, throught the omens, declared favourable or not to the election of the magistrates with would worship them to the state and act in their name to the state. The gods showed their approval to the decisions that would be taken in the gathering of the people of Comitia.
The law turned itself into LEX. The lex was written, acessible to all. Since the ancient gentilic religio was based on the gens and the lar, only the patricians had laws, since they were the only men with known ancestores and had a domestic valid ritual. As the new men of the Republic, the plebeians, needed to take part of the legal system to its needs, they need to be attached to a patrician.

Surely the religious feeling was common to all men, the plebeians started their rituals and lares. And wanted their laws and magistrates. The written law was the same for all men on the Republic. And the lex was based on public support and utility. The gods still gave their approval, but to the gathering of the people. The ruling of the law was from the people.


The Twelve Tables were inspired on the laws of Solon on Athens. We know who did the twelve tables, men like you and me, the decemviri, we have their names (Livius IV). And most important than all, the Twelve Tables were approved by the Comitia, under the favourable auspices.

Athens had Dracon, Clistenes and after Solon. Sparta had Licurgus and after Cleomenes. And Rome? Not only Romulus, neither Aeneas. And I say neither Brutus, neither Publicola, neither Canuleius, neither Camilus, neither Sextius, neither Scipio, neither Marius, neither Sulla, neither Caesar, neither Augustus. Cicero (De Res Publica) states the roman government reaches almost the perfection because it had no legislator, but the collective wiseness of all people improving it throught the ages. Polybios the historian (History) says almost the same.

So we reach a point.

I hear too much about ´Constitutionality´. My point will be very brief, even harsh, at light of the Ancient sources.

Indeed, the magistrates must obey the laws. We are citizens and do this. Also, the magistrate must make the law ´happen´, we are elected to do this. But the written law was a ´small´ problem. We are not the immortals on our language (Plato) so we cannot express our ideas clear enough, that is why Plato didn´t liked Homer by putting the gods´ words on direct discourse, no mortal could express the perfection of the talk of the deity.

Then it wasn´t right saying ´Him then the goddess, bright-eyed Athene, answered: I have come from heaven to stay your anger...´ but ´Him then the goddess, bright-eyed Athene answered him that she has come from heaven to stay his anger...´ [From the Iliad at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Hom.+Il.+1.206]


So, the King, the highest priest, was the interpreter of the religio tradition. But the king power (Imperium and Potestas) passed to the magistrates, and the sacred oral tradition turned into written law. So it is the duty of the magistrates to interpret the written law. The human language has lots of tricks, and its meaning changes from listener to listener. I talk about cold, you understand heat. I try to be clear, you understand nothing. I try to be nice, you think I´m arrogant.


Indeed it is a great power to the magistrate, but it is given by a even highest power, the people that elected him under the auspices. Alas, a power so great, but within a short time.


So, I get too much angry when people accuse a magistrate of ´Unconstitutionality´. And why ´Constituion´ if the laws passed throught the Comitia if violated is as bad as? And who was power to decide what is written in the law if not the men elected to the people to decide? Otherwise, our laws would change the meaning as the partisans cries more or less. If someone have something against a law, go to the Comitia that approved it and propose revoking it! We do this many times here, why change and making claims to not obey the law, or calling it ´unconstitutional´, a lie even offensive to the gods?

But another point I have abandoned below. Since Roman Laws changed with the time, obeying the circunstances and time, why we should have a so closed document like the Constituion. Specially with so many mistakes like ours? And I have the courage to say to you, there is many things to correct. I have already talked about them many times before. And I proposed as tribune to correct on the measure of my forces. I did a bit, specially on aedileship.
So, it is the duty of the magistrates to interpret the COnstitution at light of the true historical meaning, that lead us to the romanitas. It is the duty of the legislative ordinarii magistrates, consules, praetores and tribunes, to always propose its correction.

I have said on the top the spreading of Romanitas is the ultimate goal. The Historical veracity is also a meaning of Romanitas.

There was a city that havent changed of laws, Spartha. No matter what happened in the world, Spartha never ever abandoned the legislation of Licurgus that made the city so sucessfull to dominate Laconia and Arcadia, garanting its survival. But when the persians come, everything changed. And besides the Spartans were pretty good to slower the persians at Thermopilas Canyons, the flexibility of the democratic and fluid Athens allowed the city to change itself to have a navy to the ultimate victory of Salamina, even with the own Athens and its most sacred temples burned to the ground. And to free the greeks on the other side of the sea.

After, Spartha and its allies faces the threats of the power of the fluid Athenians. Spartha indeed won, after many defeats, half by their own might, half perhaps by the own Athens problems, like the plague, the Siracusian expedition and Alcibiades´ defection.

The Licurgus´ constitution was pretty good to rule Laconia and Arcadia, but when the Spartans gained the world, they ruined themselves. Under Pelopidas and Epaminondas, Thebes and its sacred band defeated the spartans to the ultimate defeat. Spartha itself faced its doom. Soon, the most terrible and bloodly of the revolutions overthrowed the spartan government, and king Cleomenes overruled once for all the Licurgus. Sparthan power raised again under a different way to Cleomenian Wars. After, even a popular Tyranny of Nabis was able to stop the might of roman army... but there already wasnt the ancient Spartha of Licurgus since long time. It is interesting to notice that from the greek cities, Athens havent suffered bloody revolutions that time (Coulanges, the Ancient City) perhaps because its democratic patterns had a more flexibility to change with time. These revolutions felt on all Ancient World, Corcira was the first, according to Tucidides.

Rome was different. Its government had the might of the sparthans, but the flexibility of Athens. Roman aristocracy shared with the people their power to a biggest goal. Even the people accepted sharing the ruling with the aristocracy. Rome wasnt so closed as Spartha, Roma wasnt so voluble like Athens, but aristocratic as Spartha and democratic as Athens (Polybios). And the changing Rome suffered lead to its glory.

Romulus accomplished many things, from the zero point created a city. King Numa reformed the religio. King Hostilius desctructed mother city of Alba. King Servius changed the Comitia Curiata rule to the Centuriata. On a Revolution, Rome had only consules to be in the place of the kings. The consules lost their terrible total power of the kings and the appelation was created (Lex Valeria). After created the pontifex maximus to share some of the religious power of the king. After the plebeian aediles were recognized to keep the city. After the Tribunes were created to defend the most weak of the citizens. After the romans overruled all their ancient laws by the twelve tables approved by the Comitia Centuriata. After the praetorship shared the legal burden of the consules. After the censorship took the accounting of the citizens. The Curule Aedileship were created to share the burden of the plebeian aediles. The orders were closed, after they were allowed to marry themselves (Lex
Canuleia). The magistratures passed from patrician citizens to plebeians (Lex Licinia). After the consules and praetores were prorrogated on their Imperium of the army (proconsules and propraetores). I can say also about the institution of dictatorship, a latin institution on its roots. Even the army changed, from traditional greek hoplites fashion to the deadly legions of Camilus, to the manipular flexibility that Scipio defeated Hannibal, to the coohors of Marius, to the defensive politics of Augustus. And the Roman Republic changed on the Principate, on the ´Roman Empire´ we knows, on the Tetrarchy, on two Empires, and on the medieval kingdons that generated most of current the modern states with generated other states on the other side of Atlantic Ocean... the roman seed (perhaps a lost trojan/latin/etruscan mixed seed) like a seed itself changed from small plant to big world tree, gave fruits like the mother perhaps dry and dead, and the seeds makes others trees and other
seeds, so goes on... until us.

The Ancient institutions changed and changed, even on the time that Cicero Rome was changing again under his own eyes.

Have these changing leading to perfection? Under the eyes of the current leaders that time... yes. I would say the changing lead to a more adaptable structure to its time, ´perfection´ must be the concept we all have to always better improve the republic, but cannot be take as an absolute. A bit Aristotelian Politics. Like the Athenians said to the Melians (Tucidides, Peloponesian War) the conditions of the times changes also the rules appliable for each time (that is why the law must be intrepreted by the magistrate, since the all the possible conditions cannot be overseen by the written law, but the magistrate HAVE TO DO this by the law)
. And what is the definition of the Pragmatic Science of Politics for the Ancient man, ´the seek of the good/welfare throught the colective of the State´.

Nowadays we have Chemistry, Biology, Math, Antropology, many sciences I cannot say all the names... but perhaps we could take back the Politics as the Science we should really dedicate ourselves to study nowadays. A contribution of the Ancient for us moderns at 2757 ad urbe condita

We lost focus. The laws must be obeyed, but we must not fight for LAWS, for written pieces. We muts fight FOR ROMANITAS, and the laws are a WAY to organize ourselves to THE GOAL: ROMANITAS. So, all laws - including our Constituion - that goes against this ideal must be reformed and corrected. Oh no, I dare to say, no magistrate swear upon Constitutions, Laws, Decretum, Edicta or SenatusConsultum... oh no... the magistrate swear upon the ROMANITAS that should be implied in each of these acting...

I would make also a great speech about the Tribunitian Veto, but it falls on the same definition. The Tribunitian Veto must be used with all responsability to defend the romanitas on the back of the laws.

Again, Romanitas is a goal, written laws are just a way. As magistrate, I promise to you to reform on all my capabilities our legal system to reach its goals, always submited to the will of the Comitia that elected me, like the Ancient entablished.

And praetor, which I humble ask your vote, this will be my flag, like was on this Tribunate.

So, Vote on Libra and Moderati candidates for all magistratures.

Vote Pompeia Minucia Tiberia Strabo and Franciscus Apulus Caesar for consul.

Vote Lucius Arminius Faustus and Marcus Iulius Perusianus for praetor.

Valete bene in pacem deorum,
L. Arminius Faustus TRP






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger 6.0 - jogos, emoticons sonoros e muita diversão. Instale agora!

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

P. Minius Albucius C. Moravio Laureato Armorico, Qu. Lanio Paulino
ac Quiritibus s.d.

S.V.G.E.R.

1. I am sincerely joining to the congratulations.

2. On latin names, Honorable C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus wrote,
specially answering Hon. Qu. Lanius Paulinus : (..)

>As a guidance point we will probably require two things:
>A nomen should end in -ius as was normal practice (save a tiny few
>exceptions)

Let us have in mind two points:
- our ancient Rome, as we have delimited it, has extended on a
thousand years. Every language changes a lot in 1,000 years. Roman
language at the beginning was quite different with Republican "latin"
and IVe sec. A.D. latin, so mixed ;
- let us do not forget exceptions ending in -er -a -or -o -ops -is,
etc.. For some of them, they are the mirror of the culture of the
nations defeated by Rome or in relation with it. This range has
widered from IIIe sec. BC.

3. >and a nomen, if not historical,

We all need keeping in mind that what we now see as "historical" is
things we have proofs on. These proofs come from writings on
different media. Names, specially plebeian ones, could have existed
even if we have lost their tracks. They have vanished as every name
naturally can through the ages ; and if no great man or woman wore
them, their memories are now lost. History keeps, in fact, the most
famous - whatever the reason - names, not all.

4. >should bear a latin meaning.

Some names have been introduced in latin from defeated people, to
say it shortly. Used patronyms like Callius or Curtius sound very
latin but come from a Celtic/Gallic name put in "latin form". This
living languages assimilating power is one of their wonderful
abilities. So we can have a latin sound name which has not a
latin "meaning". Let us remember this possibility.


5. (..)Of course the final decisions rests with the censor.(..)

Yes. What is important is that our Censors keep in that field a
margin to let the citizen or mater/paterfamilias argue, what they
allow at this time.

Valete,

Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. XIX Kal. Dec. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.

Publius Minius Albucius
Candidate for Tribune
http://geocities.com/publiusalbucius/great_outdoors.html

Salvete C. Moravi Laureati Armorice, Luci Modi Kaele, Publi Mini
Albuci,

I want to thank all you gentlemen for your clear, fast replies. Now
I have a good idea of what will be happening in the near future with
regards to family names and that no changes will be implemented
lightly without a great deal of thought and consideration. I do not
have any further questions for now.

Respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salve (et bonjour en France ;-)),

Thank you for your comments with which I agree wholeheartidely. Let me offer a brief anser on a couple of points.

In an email dated Tue, 14 12 2004 11:22:49 am GMT, "Publius Minius Albucius" <albucius_aoe@...> writes:

>
>
>
>P. Minius Albucius C. Moravio Laureato Armorico, Qu. Lanio Paulino
>ac Quiritibus s.d.
>
>S.V.G.E.R.
>
>1.  I am sincerely joining to the congratulations.
>
>2.  On latin names, Honorable C. Moravius Laureatus Armoricus wrote,
>specially answering Hon. Qu. Lanius Paulinus : (..)
>
>>As a guidance point we will probably require two things:
>>A nomen should end in -ius as was normal practice (save a tiny few
>>exceptions)
>
> Let us have in mind two points:
>- our ancient Rome, as we have delimited it, has extended on a
>thousand years. Every language changes a lot in 1,000 years. Roman
>language at the beginning was quite different with Republican "latin"
>and IVe sec. A.D. latin, so mixed ;
>- let us do not forget exceptions ending in -er -a -or -o -ops -is,
>etc.. For some of them, they are the mirror of the culture of the
>nations defeated by Rome or in relation with it. This range has
>widered from IIIe sec. BC.
>

Yes. But NR and its institutionss cover the particular period of the Republic. As such our research has been done with this time frame in mind.

. >and a nomen, if not historical,

>
>We all need keeping in mind that what we now see as "historical" is
>things we have proofs on. These proofs come from writings on
>different media. Names, specially plebeian ones, could have existed
>even if we have lost their tracks. They have vanished as every name
>naturally can through the ages ; and if no great man or woman wore
>them, their memories are now lost. History keeps, in fact, the most
>famous - whatever the reason - names, not all.
>

I agree with you. We will have however to start with what we know and then start a process of consultation on an individual basis. All options will be considered and compromises will be reached: The censor will not impose, he will propose.

>4. >should bear a latin meaning.
>
>Some names have been introduced in latin from defeated people, to
>say it shortly. Used patronyms like Callius or Curtius sound very
>latin but come from a Celtic/Gallic name put in "latin form". This
>living languages assimilating power is one of their wonderful
>abilities. So we can have a latin sound name which has not a
>latin "meaning". Let us remember this possibility.
>
>

These names have a latin "meaning" since they indicate to a latin speaker where a person with that particular name comes from. As such these names should be accepted.

>5. (..)Of course the final decisions rests with the censor.(..)
>
>Yes. What is important is that our Censors keep in that field a
>margin to let the citizen or mater/paterfamilias argue, what they
>allow at this time.
>

I trust Censor Quintilianus will use his discretion in the wisest possible way.

Optime vale

C Moravius L A

>Valete,
>
>Scr. Cadomago, Gallia, a.d. XIX Kal. Dec. MMDCCLVII a.u.c.
>
>Publius Minius Albucius
>Candidate for Tribune
>http://geocities.com/publiusalbucius/great_outdoors.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A. Apollónius Cordus rogátor omnibus sal.

We will soon be voting in the comitia centuriata to
elect a new cénsor, new cónsulés, and new praetórés
for next year. The voting will happen in several
phases, and I ask every citizen to read this message
carefully so he or she can vote correctly. Keep a copy
of this message to help you when you come to vote.

The first thing you must do is check which century you
are in. Please note: even if you knew what century you
were in before, PLEASE CHECK AGAIN, because the
centuries have been re-assigned. To do this, go to
this page:

http://www.novaroma.org/bin/view/gentes

You will see a long list of all the gentes. Find your
gens, and click on the link which says "3 cives" or
"10 cives" or whatever it is.

You will now see a list of names, some of which may
have photographs. Find your name, and click on it.

You will see your personal profile. It contains a
table of information, such as "Citizen ID#" and
"Gens". Near the bottom of this table it says
"Century", and gives a number, and then another number
in brackets, e.g.:

Century: 43 (20 pts)

The first number (43 in the example) is your century
number. Please remember this number.


First phase:

On Wednesday the 15th of December (a. d. XVII Kal.
Jan.), members of century number 5 will vote. They may
vote from 00:01 (one minute past midnight) Roman time.
That will be:

Anchorage: 14:01 on Thursday
Athens: 01:01 on Friday
Berlin: 00:01 on Friday
Boston: 18:01 on Thursday
Brazilia: 19:01 on Thursday
Canberra: 08:01 on Friday
Cape Town: 00:01 on Friday
Denver: 16:01 on Thursday
Dublin: 23:01 on Thursday
Guatemala: 16:01 on Thursday
London: 23:01 on Thursday
Madrid: 00:01 on Friday
Mexico City: 17:01 on Thursday
Montreal: 18:01 on Thursday
New Orleans: 17:01 on Thursday
New York: 18:01 on Thursday
Paris: 00:01 on Friday
Perth: 06:01 on Friday
San Francisco: 15:01 on Thursday
Sao Paulo: 19:01 on Thursday

You can check the current time in Rome on the main
page of the Nova Roma website.

Remember, only members of century number 5 may vote
during the first phase. No other votes will be
counted. If you vote too early, I or my colleagues
will send a message to this list asking you to vote
again at the correct time. You will be identified by
your vote tracking number, which you will be given
after you cast your vote.


Second phase:

On Friday the 17th of December (a. d. XV Kal. Jan.),
members of centuries 1 to 14 may vote. They may vote
from 00:01 (one minute past midnight) Roman time.

Members of century 5 may still vote during this time.
Others who are not members of centuries 1 to 14 may
not vote, and their votes will not be counted.


Third phase:

On Sunday the 20th of December (a. d. XII Kal. Jan.),
everyone may vote. They may vote from 00:01 (one
minute past midnight) Roman time.

Members of centuries 1 to 14, including 5, may still
vote during this time.


All voting will end at the end of Wednesday the 23rd
of December (a. d. IX Kal. Jan.), or, to be precise,
at 00:01 Roman time on the morning of Thursday the
24th of December (a. d. VIII Kal. Jan.). No votes
received after that time will be counted.


If you are uncertain whether you have voted too early,
or think you may have made a mistake, vote again. It
may help, and it won't do any harm.

Note also that there will also be voting going on in
the comitia populi tributa during some of this time.
In the comitia populi tributa, everyone can vote all
at the same time. The phases described above are only
relevant to the comitia centuriata, i.e., the
elections for cénsor, cónsul, and praetor.


My colleagues and I will post further notices during
the run-up to the voting period and during the voting
period itself. Please read all these notices carefully.





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

Salve Minucius Scaevola et Salvete Omnes:

It is truly unfortunate that you have had to contend with actions that are both reprehensible and criminal in nature. I can't imagine that you would allude to such an incident on the ML if it was unsubstantiated. I do not know all the circumstances, and I don't need to, but there is a public account of one other citizen who had difficulties along these lines, although by no means as severe, resulting from launching a petitio actio. I don't know how much time you have spent reading the ML these past months. At any rate, you are not alone.

For what it's worth, amice, a proposed Senate Code of Conduct was placed on their agenda for a vote this past August, and it was defeated. It was hoped by some that the Senate could demand some accountability of conduct from its own membership.

Here are the results of the vote, and you can see which of the Senators chose to defeat the proposal and their respective rationale for doing so.

http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/senate/2004-08-31-results.html

Valete,
Pompeia


pompeia_minucia_tiberia <pompeia_minucia_tiberia@...> wrote:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola
wrote:
Salve, Diana Octavia; salvete, omnes.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:31:47AM -0800, Joanne Amodea wrote:
>
> Just like I did not have to join the Boni with a secret handshake
and a
> password, I also don't have to 'leave' them by making a public
announcement
> like Modius did. Am I still friends with Q Fabius? Very much so.
If ever any of
> you would let your 'anti-Boni' guard down, and got a chance to get
to know him,
> you'd find out how kind hearted he is.

Ah. This would be the kindhearted Q. Fabius - to make absolutely
certain
that we're discussing the same person, the Quintus Fabius Maximus,
a.k.a. Steven Phenow - who threatened to blow up the boat I live on
in
an email to NR officials, and whom I had to report to macronational
authorities? Perhaps your definition of kind-heartedness, or your
knowledge of Q. Fabius, could stand a bit of updating.


Vale et valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Canis timidus vehementius latrat quam mordet.
A timid dog barks more violently than it bites.
-- Curtius Rufus
--- End forwarded message ---






__________________________________________________
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]

---if not perhaps you

> would consider working on your end of it as well.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quintus Lanius Paulinus
>
> Salve Quinte Lani;

if I have been too impassioned excuse me. It is quite a personal
subject for a women member of NR to be disenfranchised without even a
vote.....

But as I said before; I would never veto a lex the plebs passed
and If elected would always act in concert with my fellow tribunes.
It's just as wrong to push my personal opinions on the cives as
others.

I think this is the point of the Libra Alliance and the Moderati.

We are all different and have differing opinions, but because I know
and trust people like Caius Curius Saturninus, Domitius Constantinus
Fuscus, and have corresponded with Publius Minius Albucius. I realize
they may be far wiser than I;-) and follow the consensus.


I hope this has cleared up some issues.
bene vale
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana
candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

Propraetrix Hiberniae
caput Officina Iuriis
et Investigatio CFQ

Salve Equitius Cato

I am sure that I have of course changed my opinions over time. What I question about your change of heart is the timing of it. In less than six months since that message was posted, you have had such a drastic change of opinion? Forgive my cynicism, but would this have anything to do with the elections?

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Candidate for Tribune of the Plebs

gaiusequitiuscato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

G. Equitius Cato G. Vipsanio Agrippo quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Vipsanius Agrippa et salvete omnes.

Well. Apparently Vipsanius Aggrippa is incapable of either reading
the letter I sent out several days ago, in which I acknowledged my
short-sightedness regarding the religio and its practitioners, or is
simply incapable of understanding it.

I would prefer to believe the former, because the latter would point
to an inability to discern a person's ability to develop new
understandings of new ideas, and publicly ask forgiveness for having
made uninformed judgements.

I ask you publicly, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa, if you have ever, in
your life, said anything which could be found contradictory to a
view you currently hold?

Have you ever grown by coming in contact with those who thought
differently than yourself yet did not stoop to vitriol and personal
attack, but were willing (and patient) enough to exlain their views?

I have. My apology to the practitioners of the religio was the
result. See to your own dignity.

Vale et valete,

Cato






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.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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