--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gregory.rose@g...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus G. Equitio Catoni salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Cato.
>
> My apologies. It appears that the clause in which I called on you as
> a magistrate to lift your voice in protest, which should have appeared
> between your name and that of Maca Hortensia Arminana Fabiana in the
> text was deleted by accident. That's what I get for writing periodic
> sentences. I know you are not a tribune, but I also know that you
> have several times indicated that you would use your magistracy to
> defend the Religio.
>
> Vale.
>
> Scaurus

>
> M.Hortensia Maior Ti. Galerio Paulino spd;
>
> Salve Pauline;
> I now have noted that 2 plebs - you and Gaius Modius have called
> for a veto.
> I have checked both my mailboxes and have not received one letter.
> As I said before all the Quirites elected both Consules.
> M. Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
>
> >
> > I don't know if you saw it but I also asked that this be vetoed.
> >
> > MHM "I'm not going to veto the actions of elected representatives"
> >
> > So much for checks and balances.
> >
> > I told you this would happen if you elected one FACTION to power!
> >
> > Vale
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

>
> M. Hortensia Maiot D. Constantino Fusco spd;
>
> where do these actions infringe on the historical power of the plebs
> Fusce?
> Please pick up a Roman Law book.
> M. Hortensia Maior TRP

> ready to stand up and address for one citizen who was facing loss

> his office and possible banishment. The magistrates in power were
> also put in by the majority but that did not phase him going to bat
> for the fellow.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Maior Q.Lanio Paulino spd;
>
> As the only card-carrying member of the Relgio among the
> ttribunes, I do not see that our Religio is being disestablished.
If
> it were I would sue for treason and my fellow tribunes can vouch
for
> that.
>
> As far as I can tell, Metellus is upset as he's not a pontiff,
> Scaurus has threatened me as a Tribune for not obeying him as a
> pontiff.
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus as tribune tried after the fact to
veto
> an agreement that ex-Senator Drusus voluntarily made. So far as I
> know Drusus still is among us as a pontiff, after taking a
religious
> oath.
>
> Now tell me again why I should veto the adelection of these five
> Senators. Give me specific reasons.
> M. Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
>
>
> A past tribune for example was
> > ready to stand up and address for one citizen who was facing loss
> of
> > his office and possible banishment. The magistrates in power were
> > also put in by the majority but that did not phase him going to
bat
> > for the fellow.

> First, after having done some research, I find that the five

> 2 1/2 years.

> That's right, 2 1/2 YEARS.

> I have absolutely nothing against Antonius in any way shape or form,
> and actually hope that he is adlected, as he has served the res
> publica admirably on many fronts; but to claim partisanship now,
> when one of his closest allies equally neglected to act, sounds a
> little...peevish.

> Why focus on party politics when we should by all accounts
> be working TOGETHER to build the res publica?

> I find this especially
> disturbing coming from at least one citizen who created an entire
> List for the express purpose of working together "Peace"-fully.

> Secondly, let's look seriously at this idea that
> adlections should be evenly balanced between different
> political camps. Where has that idea come from? From
> Roman history or political practice? Don't you believe
> it! A Roman would have laughed at the idea. >
> Not only is the idea of even-handed adlections
> historically unfounded, it is also nonsensical to
> anyone with a basic understanding of Roman
> constitutional mechanics.

> I find this especially
> disturbing coming from at least one citizen who created an entire
> List for the express purpose of working together "Peace"-fully.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:34:20AM -0500, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
>
> We, the citizens of Nova Roma, have been cheated. We have been cheated
> because politics and political agendas have won.

Let's be clear on this: what you mean because people of politics and
political agendas *other than yours* have won. As for me, I hope that
politics and political agendas will _always_ win in issues involving the
people; the success of *private* agendas in a political arena would be
an unqualified evil.

I would also like to note a trend on this list, for the consideration of
the quirites. It seems that "political" has lately been used as some
sort of an insult here, assumed by default to be dirty and wrong and
evil. I shall point out, with some restraint, that those who hold this
view are smearing not only themselves but also all the citizens of the
res publica - the word *politics* comes from "polloi", the people.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Caelum, non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.
The sky, and not his soul, changes the one who runs across the sea.
-- Horace, "Epistulae"

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:58:51AM -0500, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
>
> 2.5 years is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"What sort of person," said Salzella patiently, "sits down and writes a maniacal laugh?
And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his
underpants on his head."
-- Terry Pratchett, "Maskerade"


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
We arrive at the truth being sceptical.
-- Pierre Ab�lard, "Sic et non?"

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:51:18AM -0500, Gregory Rose wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus Marcae Hortensiae Maiori salutem dicit.
>
> Salve, Marca Hortensia.
>
> Thank you for your pompt reply and for confirming that I was a
> complete damned fool

I agree, totally. And despite the passage of time, nothing seems to have
changed in the least.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera, aequum licet statuerit.
One who passes sentence on something without having heard the other part isn't
just, even if the sentence is just.
-- Seneca Philosophus, Medea. Cf. "audietur et altera pars."

>
> As a Plebeian, a Pontifex, a Flamen, and an Augur I say we should

> what you call nonsense!
>
> It is clear to me Maior that you simply don't want to bite the hand

> feeds you.
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 1/30/2005 11:36:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rory12001@y... writes:
>
> M. Hortensia Maior Quiritibus spd;
>
> Many thanks to Aulus Apollonius Cordus for again supplying us with
> the proprer historical perspective. I think we should drop this

> nonsense right now.
>
> As to you Iulius Scaurus you are indeed "a complete damned fool"

> a bullying one who probably hates the idea that 4 women,

> have been adelected to the Senate. Now sue my sacrosanct self for
> blasphemy;-
> M. Hortensia Maior TRP
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I stand by my statement that these are the first ADLECTIONS in 2 1/2
> years.

> of these senators honor the Gods of Ancient Rome?  One of them?

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:45:31AM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
>
> A quick glance at our archives and a counting of the membership of the Senate
> over time revels this.
>
>
> In 1998 the Senate held 6 members
> In 1999 the Senate held 13 members
> In 2000 the Senate held 22 members
> In 2001 the Senate held 22 members
> In 2002 the Senate held 22 members
> In 2003 the Senate held 24 members
> In 2004 the Senate held 24 members
> In 2005 the Senate held 26 Members
>
> The stability of the Senate, except at the beginning of the Republic , is
> self-evident and this stability in terms of numbers was maintained even when
> individual members (13) would resign an a new person was added.
>
> I hope this puts the sudden addition of five new Senators into better
> perspective for you.

I note, Pauline, that you did not bother to show the _population_ of
Nova Roma at those times. Would you care to make any bets as to the
ratio of senators to the number of citizens overall? I would say,
without even looking at those numbers, that we have a much lower ratio
now than we did in 1998. What makes this evil and that wonderful?


Quirites, the _only_ item of importance here is how well the adlected
Senators will serve the res publica. All the yelling because they are
*not* Boni is - just noise. Worse yet, it's noise motivated by _private_
agendas, intended to overrule by its volume (a favorite Boni tactic of
the past) the will of the people who elected our present Censors with
full knowledge of the powers granted to them.

I'm sorry to see that Marcus Octavius Germanicus has joined his voice to
theirs because his favorite Lacus Magni candidate was not adlected. I
don't know the reasons behind this, despite being an Evil Libra (it sort
of ruins my image of hiding in a dank cavern with other Evil Librae,
cackling in the light of a guttering candle as we plan to destroy Nova
Roma and the Religio, but - sic transit gloria mundi...), but I, for
one, trust the honor of the men I voted for. I would not have voted for
them if I didn't. Now come the Boni, beating their breasts and their
drums, screaming and gouging themselves in public - except they're not,
other than Scaurifying/sacrificing young Metellus on the altar of their
frustrated ambitions - to tell us that our trust in those we elected is
wrong, evil, and misplaced because it doesn't serve *their* political
aims.

Does anyone see anything wrong in this scenario? Or is it simply
yawn-worthy, as yet another flood of Boni mail to swamp our mailboxes?
Quirites, you decide.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
We arrive at the truth being sceptical.
-- Pierre Ab�lard, "Sic et non?"

> Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus; salvete, omnes.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:45:31AM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher

> >
> > A quick glance at our archives and a counting of the membership

> > over time revels this.
> >
> >
> > In 1998 the Senate held 6 members
> > In 1999 the Senate held 13 members
> > In 2000 the Senate held 22 members
> > In 2001 the Senate held 22 members
> > In 2002 the Senate held 22 members
> > In 2003 the Senate held 24 members
> > In 2004 the Senate held 24 members
> > In 2005 the Senate held 26 Members
> >
> > The stability of the Senate, except at the beginning of the

> > self-evident and this stability in terms of numbers was

> > individual members (13) would resign an a new person was added.
> >
> > I hope this puts the sudden addition of five new Senators into

> > perspective for you.
>
> I note, Pauline, that you did not bother to show the _population_

> Nova Roma at those times. Would you care to make any bets as to the
> ratio of senators to the number of citizens overall? I would say,
> without even looking at those numbers, that we have a much lower

> now than we did in 1998. What makes this evil and that wonderful?
>
>
> Quirites, the _only_ item of importance here is how well the

> Senators will serve the res publica. All the yelling because they

> *not* Boni is - just noise. Worse yet, it's noise motivated by

> agendas, intended to overrule by its volume (a favorite Boni

> the past) the will of the people who elected our present Censors

> full knowledge of the powers granted to them.
>
> I'm sorry to see that Marcus Octavius Germanicus has joined his

> theirs because his favorite Lacus Magni candidate was not

> don't know the reasons behind this, despite being an Evil Libra

> of ruins my image of hiding in a dank cavern with other Evil

> cackling in the light of a guttering candle as we plan to destroy

> Roma and the Religio, but - sic transit gloria mundi...), but I,

> one, trust the honor of the men I voted for. I would not have

> them if I didn't. Now come the Boni, beating their breasts and

> drums, screaming and gouging themselves in public - except they're

> other than Scaurifying/sacrificing young Metellus on the altar of

> frustrated ambitions - to tell us that our trust in those we

> wrong, evil, and misplaced because it doesn't serve *their*

> aims.
>
> Does anyone see anything wrong in this scenario? Or is it simply
> yawn-worthy, as yet another flood of Boni mail to swamp our

> Quirites, you decide.
>
>
> Valete,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
> We arrive at the truth being sceptical.
> -- Pierre Abélard, "Sic et non?"

>
> Salve M. Hortensia Maior,
>
> The sad state of affairs is what is being "precieved" by these
> gentlemen. Perhaps you are entirely correct in your assessment but
> they see things a different way in this appointment. As an analogy I
> may go to a party and some younger pretty girl may come up and flirt
> with me. My wife sees it and others may go up whisper in her ear and
> escalate the situation where everyone including my wife thinks theirs
> are real affair going on or at least brewing. In my opinion, I think
> the elationship between practitoners and non practitoners has been on
> rather thin ice for the last 2 years.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:22:04PM -0000, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
>
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
>
> I am not now and never had been a member of the Boni or any other
> faction in Nova Roma.

Which, by your expressed definition of factions, makes you a faction of
one - meaning that nobody agrees with your position. I was kind enough
not to point this out when you stood for election, but... I do wonder,
if your viewpoint is so narrow that no one else agrees with you, what
benefit you could possibly bring to Nova Roma?

I invite you to consider the term "a man of the people", and perhaps
consider your own position as a lone ranger. Nova Roma needs people who
consider the desires of the majority as magistrates - not people who
hold up, as a proud accomplishment, their ignorance of those desires.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola<mailto:ben@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: the membership of the Senate over time


Salve, Tiberius Galerius Paulinus -

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:22:04PM -0000, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
>
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
>
> I am not now and never had been a member of the Boni or any other
> faction in Nova Roma.

Which, by your expressed definition of factions, makes you a faction of
one - meaning that nobody agrees with your position. I was kind enough
not to point this out when you stood for election, but... I do wonder,
if your viewpoint is so narrow that no one else agrees with you, what
benefit you could possibly bring to Nova Roma?

I invite you to consider the term "a man of the people", and perhaps
consider your own position as a lone ranger. Nova Roma needs people who
consider the desires of the majority as magistrates - not people who
hold up, as a proud accomplishment, their ignorance of those desires.


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


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

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

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

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



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

> And I agree strongly - noting that this shameful state of affairs

> been *solely* due to specific practitioner's attitudes.
>

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:50:13PM -0500, Timothy P. Gallagher wrote:
> Salve Caius Minucius Scaevola
>
> "I do wonder, if your viewpoint is so narrow that no one else agrees with you,
> what
> benefit you could possibly bring to Nova Roma?"
>
> Yee gads I hadn't thought about that way. You are right.

[bows] Glad to have been of service, sir.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Honores mutant mores.
The honours change the customs. (Power corrupts.)
-- N/A

>
> "I suggest you pick up a book and learn something,

>
> Maior, first what happened to your olive branch?

>
> "The Pompeian party in the Senate strongly resisted

>
> The tribunes fled to Caesar at Ravenna after the

>
>

>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam

> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been

>

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:10:38AM -0800, Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus wrote:
>
> "I suggest you pick up a book and learn something, your ignorance and Scaurus's
> misogyny is a real embarassment to the Religio."
>
> Maior, first what happened to your olive branch? "Misogyny" is exactly an
> "olive branch".

When the olive branch is used as a club to beat the person extending it
about the head and shoulders, even a saint's patience would come to an
end. [dryly] Not, as I believe Marca Hortensia Maior would agree, that
anyone would rush to propose her for sainthood on the basis of her
patience, but the point remains valid.

"Misogyny" may not be a term of approbation, as you note, but it *is*
the precise term for a large part of the reaction we're witnessing. Not
all of it, surely; there _is_ some factional feeling involved - but, in
short, the Boni are terrified of contracting girl cooties. They may lose
all restraint and go shopping for cool shoes and look for sales at
Nordstrom's as a result of rubbing shoulders with those icky females,
and *then* where would we be? I ask you.

[ The End of Nova Roma predicted!!! Film at http://11.0.0.0 !!! ]


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vare, legiones redde!
Varus, give me back my legions!
-- Augustus, upon hearing that governor Quintilius Varus and three
legions had been killed in an ambush in the Teutoburger Forest.

> As far as I can tell, Metellus is upset as he's not a pontiff,
> Scaurus has threatened me as a Tribune for not obeying him as a
> pontiff.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:21:17AM -0800, raymond fuentes wrote:
> Anybody watching Pompeii, the last day on the History
> Channel tonite?

Sorry, we're all busy watching "Nova Roma, The Last Day" right here.
Me, I'm busy taking bets (what do you mean, "it's not part of a
Diribitor's job"?)

Tip: go _way_ short on the Boni. Good advice for any time, but
especially now.


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Graeca sunt, non leguntur.
It is Greek, you don't read that.
-- N/A

> Me, I'm busy taking bets (what do you mean, "it's not part of a
> Diribitor's job"?)
>
> Tip: go _way_ short on the Boni. Good advice for any time, but
> especially now.
>
>
> Valete,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> Graeca sunt, non leguntur.
> It is Greek, you don't read that.
> -- N/A

> Luckily I am tough as old boots

> I told you my putting on a toga in New York would announce the End
> Times:) Next stop the Rapture!

> Nah, tacky. Bother, think any of the Chosen drive Bentley's?

> > I told you my putting on a toga in New York would announce the

> > Times:) Next stop the Rapture!
>
> I'm planning on picking up some really nice cars then, since all of

> Chosen won't need 'em anymore. Want a Cadillac SUV?
>
> -- M

> Salve, Marcvs Flavivs Fides; salvete, omnes.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:21:17AM -0800, raymond fuentes wrote:
> > Anybody watching Pompeii, the last day on the History
> > Channel tonite?
>
> Sorry, we're all busy watching "Nova Roma, The Last Day" right

> Me, I'm busy taking bets (what do you mean, "it's not part of a
> Diribitor's job"?)

> > Luckily I am tough as old boots
>
> That may be lucky for you, but all it really means is that you're

> dirty, and need to be thrown away.
>
> Metellus

> We began this adlection process with a list of 25 fully
> qualified candidates, and selected from that list sufficient
> to bring us to 30 Senators, with several additional candidates
> on a short list to be added once we're sure all or our
> incorporating documents filed with the state of Maine will permit
> us going over the limit of 30.

----- Original Message -----
From: Caius Minucius Scaevola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Get a grip, folks


Salve, Cornelianus; salvete, omnes.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:10:38AM -0800, Gn. Julius Caesar Cornelianus wrote:
>
> "I suggest you pick up a book and learn something, your ignorance and Scaurus's
> misogyny is a real embarassment to the Religio."
>
> Maior, first what happened to your olive branch? "Misogyny" is exactly an
> "olive branch".

When the olive branch is used as a club to beat the person extending it
about the head and shoulders, even a saint's patience would come to an
end. [dryly] Not, as I believe Marca Hortensia Maior would agree, that
anyone would rush to propose her for sainthood on the basis of her
patience, but the point remains valid.

"Misogyny" may not be a term of approbation, as you note, but it *is*
the precise term for a large part of the reaction we're witnessing. Not
all of it, surely; there _is_ some factional feeling involved - but, in
short, the Boni are terrified of contracting girl cooties. They may lose
all restraint and go shopping for cool shoes and look for sales at
Nordstrom's as a result of rubbing shoulders with those icky females,
and *then* where would we be? I ask you.

[ The End of Nova Roma predicted!!! Film at http://11.0.0.0 !!! ]


Valete,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vare, legiones redde!
Varus, give me back my legions!
-- Augustus, upon hearing that governor Quintilius Varus and three
legions had been killed in an ambush in the Teutoburger Forest.


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

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

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

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



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

> Are you saying that there is potentially a limit of thirty Senatores?

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 07:16:16PM -0000, Quintus Cassius Calvus wrote:
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Caius Minucius Scaevola <ben@c...>
> wrote:
> > Salve, Marcvs Flavivs Fides; salvete, omnes.
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:21:17AM -0800, raymond fuentes wrote:
> > > Anybody watching Pompeii, the last day on the History
> > > Channel tonite?
> >
> > Sorry, we're all busy watching "Nova Roma, The Last Day" right
> here.
> > Me, I'm busy taking bets (what do you mean, "it's not part of a
> > Diribitor's job"?)
>
> What's the over/under?

Now, now. It's too early for side scoring yet; I'm still trying to
figure how to rate the "it's already happened" for the Boni and the
"infinity minus epsilon to one" for everybody else.

Tell y'all what - you just send me all the money you want to put on
this, and I'll, uh, let you know what happens eventually, right?
Hopefully, some Brazilian ISP will have a wireless access point at the
beach...

> --Calvus
> Carpe Iugulum

[snicker] I have almost the entire pTerry collection aboard. But... yes,
wonderfully apropos.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Claris maiorum exemplis.
After the forefathers' brilliant example.
-- Part of the inscription on the House of Nobility, Riddarhuset, in Stockholm.

> > Luckily I am tough as old boots
>
> That may be lucky for you, but all it really means

> dirty, and need to be thrown away.
>
> Metellus
>

>
> Salvete,
> I should probably leave this alone but, I can't. [..]
> Secondly, the women who were praised or held in high esteem are the
> women that played the hand the men dealt them, played it well, and
> then won. Those women would not stand up and shout for women's rights.

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, raymond fuentes
> <praefectus2324@y...> wrote:
> > Whats next? A Proscription list tacked to the

>
> Followed by heads....
>
> -- Calvus
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
>
> -
> > Nah, tacky. Bother, think any of the Chosen drive Bentley's?
> Marca Hortensia
>
> > > I told you my putting on a toga in New York would announce the
> End
> > > Times:) Next stop the Rapture!
> >
> > I'm planning on picking up some really nice cars then, since all of
> the
> > Chosen won't need 'em anymore. Want a Cadillac SUV?
> >
> > -- M

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Bill Gawne <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Gn. Equitius Marinus Gn. Iulius Caesar SPD:
>
> Salve Gnae Iuli,
>
> Your filia familia, Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana, addressed us:
>
> immaculo@b... wrote:
> >
> > Salvete,
> > I should probably leave this alone but, I can't. [..]
> > Secondly, the women who were praised or held in high esteem are
the
> > women that played the hand the men dealt them, played it well,
and
> > then won. Those women would not stand up and shout for women's
rights.
>
> Would you be good enough, Gnae Iuli, as to instruct your filia
familia
> in the proper conduct befitting her place in society? If she
wishes to
> engage in discourse with anyone outside your familia, we shall
require
> your permission to address her directly on each specific occassion.
>
> Vale,
>
> --
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

>
> Salvete,
> I should probably leave this alone but, I can't. [..]
> Secondly, the women who were praised or held in high esteem are the
> women that played the hand the men dealt them, played it well, and
> then won. Those women would not stand up and shout for women's rights.

>

>
> uhhhh....I don't drive. Will there be any cabbies Left Behind?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:
> >
> > -
> > > Nah, tacky. Bother, think any of the Chosen drive Bentley's?
> > Marca Hortensia
> >
> > > > I told you my putting on a toga in New York would announce

> > End
> > > > Times:) Next stop the Rapture!
> > >
> > > I'm planning on picking up some really nice cars then, since

> > the
> > > Chosen won't need 'em anymore. Want a Cadillac SUV?
> > >
> > > -- M

> I am very disappointed that Consul Marinus was the first person to act in
> the way he did below. So very disappointed.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:45:22PM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Salve Marine
>
> I am content for those members of my familia who wish to engage in
> discussions on any forum or topic to do so. Anyone may feel free to
> reply directly to those who do so, or not as the case may be.

The highly amusing point in Marinus' reply - which may, perhaps, have
been a bit subtle (and thus, to me, all the more amusing) - was that, if
your filia truly does believe in the things that she stated, her voice
should never have been heard in regard to this topic or on this list.
According to her, women should know their place - and that place was
decreed by the Mos Maiorum, and should remain so (an opinion I do not
share, to say the least.) Very well, then... this has been a discussion
among men about politics. The Mos is fairly explicit about the women's
place in the sphere of politics - i.e., they do not belong in it or
anywhere near it.

Respecting her opinion (another non-Mos-inspired action, but then I'm
one of those awful Libra people of whom that may be expected), it seems
to me, calls for either your silencing her as she has indicated she
would desire, or explaining to her the logical confusion of her
statement. I, in a shocking departure from the Mos, favor the latter
option... but that is, of course - by law and custom - up to you.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Acta est fabula, plaudite!
The play is over, applaud!
-- Suetonius, "Vitae Caesarum". Said to have been emperor Augustus' last words.

> Salve, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar; salvete, omnes.
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:45:22PM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

> >
> > Salve Marine
> >
> > I am content for those members of my familia who wish to engage

> > discussions on any forum or topic to do so. Anyone may feel free

> > reply directly to those who do so, or not as the case may be.
>
> The highly amusing point in Marinus' reply - which may, perhaps,

> been a bit subtle (and thus, to me, all the more amusing) - was

> your filia truly does believe in the things that she stated, her

> should never have been heard in regard to this topic or on this

> According to her, women should know their place - and that place

> decreed by the Mos Maiorum, and should remain so (an opinion I do

> share, to say the least.) Very well, then... this has been a

> among men about politics. The Mos is fairly explicit about the

> place in the sphere of politics - i.e., they do not belong in it or
> anywhere near it.
>
> Respecting her opinion (another non-Mos-inspired action, but then

> one of those awful Libra people of whom that may be expected), it

> to me, calls for either your silencing her as she has indicated she
> would desire, or explaining to her the logical confusion of her
> statement. I, in a shocking departure from the Mos, favor the

> option... but that is, of course - by law and custom - up to you.
>
>
> Vale,
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> Acta est fabula, plaudite!
> The play is over, applaud!
> -- Suetonius, "Vitae Caesarum". Said to have been emperor

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 03:51:32PM -0500, AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.
>
> NO ONE in Gens Modia emancipated themselves. They supported me as their
> Pater Familias, and for that I am very honored. However, I KNEW it would
> cause
> them problems.
>
> I emancipated everyone in Gens Modia, without their knowledge. Why because
> I knew that if I did not do so, then it would be used against them -- just as
> it was used against Servia Iulia Caesaris Metelliana. I did not want them
> insulted or demeaned because they were simply loyal to the Gens, and because
> they valued my friendship.
>
> I am very disappointed that Consul Marinus was the first person to act in
> the way he did below. So very disappointed.

Disappointed... that he acted according to ancient practice and custom,
as well as the law as voted by the cives of Nova Roma *and* affirmed by
the actions of the unemancipated person under discussion? Gai Modi, I
cannot imagine the basis of your disappointment. All of the actions that
led to this point were voluntary ones by the person involved; she has
even *said* that she believes in the subservient station of women as
their proper position in her last post to this forum.

Whence, to put it plainly, your gripe? In the fact that Marinus obeyed
all law and custom? I fail to see your point.


Vale,
Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Epistula non erubescit.
A letter doesn't blush.
-- Cicero, "Epistulae ad familiares"

> What Marinus said was that the Religio played no role in the
> adlections.

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:20:33PM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
>
> Salve.
>
> I have no idea who you are and what your position in society is.

That you have no idea of many things, including that, comes as no
suprise whatsoever.

> When I have established that you are sui iuris, and in the remote
> event that you ever have something noteworthy to say in this forum,
> I may expend the energy in replying to you.

Don't bother, since you have said nothing of any possible value so far;
this is, again, unsurprising. Based on previous history, you lack the
capability.


Caius Minucius Scaevola
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
We arrive at the truth being sceptical.
-- Pierre Ab�lard, "Sic et non?"

> When I have established that you are sui iuris, [...]

> Ye Gods! I cant stop laughing!
> --- postumianus@g... <postumianus@g...> wrote:
> > > Luckily I am tough as old boots
> >
> > That may be lucky for you, but all it really means
> is that you're old,
> > dirty, and need to be thrown away.
> >
> > Metellus
> >
>
>
> =====
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

> Salve,
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 09:20:33PM -0000, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > I have no idea who you are and what your position in society is.
>
> That you have no idea of many things, including that, comes as no
> suprise whatsoever.
>
> > When I have established that you are sui iuris, and in the remote
> > event that you ever have something noteworthy to say in this

> > I may expend the energy in replying to you.
>
> Don't bother, since you have said nothing of any possible value so

> this is, again, unsurprising. Based on previous history, you lack

> capability.
>
>
> Caius Minucius Scaevola
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> Dubitando ad veritatem venimus.
> We arrive at the truth being sceptical.
> -- Pierre Abélard, "Sic et non?"

>
> Salve.
>
> You appear to think I should have noticed you? I see to reason to
> form that opinion.

> I shall indeed not notice you any further. You need not have
> requested it though, that much was a given.

----- Original Message -----
From: Maior
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Get a grip, folks



First of all women in Ancient Rome were in a completely different
sphere than the men. Everyone must admit that. Secondly, the women
who were praised or held in high esteem are the women that played the
hand the men dealt them, played it well, and then won. Those women
would not stand up and shout for women's rights. The thought would
not have occurred to them. They were happily ruling in their own
sphere.

M. Hortensia Maior S. Iuiae Caearis Metellianae;
Salve;

Well I don't admit that at all, in fact I don't know who told you
this but your assumptions are entirely incorrect.

Please do read M. Porcius Cato's speech about the Roman women running
around in the streets lobbying the tribunes to end the Oppidian Law.
here is the url for your and everyone's enjoyment and edification:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy
Livy "The History of Rome" Book 34.
This had Cato in a tizzy saying:
"What they really want is unrestricted freedom," 34.2 "From the
moment they become your fellows they will become your masters." 34.3

And a nice discussion of women from "Pandora's Daughter's" by Eve
Cantarella;
"The literature presents figures of women quite different from the
ancient matronae: women who show off their education by speaking
Greek in public (Juv. 1.185.91), who go to public baths (6.419 ff)
who train to fight (1.23) or hunt (1.247), who drink wine (Mart.
7.67)... who divorce as often as they wish...Despite the prohibition
on women postulare pro aliis -to plead on other's behalf - we have
mention of a a woman lawyer, a certain Afrania, wife of the Senator
Licinius Buccio. Another woman, Hortensia, daughter of the famous
orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus, in 42 B.C. delivered an oration before
the triumvirs." p. 141

Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, Fannia, Arria, Fulvia were not
unpolitical women by any means.

They also ran about getting abortions provided by the temple to Bon
Dea and doing goodness knows what in the lucus of Stimulae during the
scandal of the Bacchanalia in 331 B.C

I think you are confusing Christian, really Pauline mores with Pagan
ones, but please do join us at the yahoogroup conventusmatronarum
to find out more about Roman women, it's an excellent group!

optime vale
M. Hortensia Maior TRP






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

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

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

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



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

----- Original Message -----
From: gaiusequitiuscato
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Get a grip, folks



G. Equitius Cato S. Iuliae Caesari Metellianae S.P.D.

Salve Iuliua Metelliana.

You wrote:

"First of all women in Ancient Rome were in a completely different
sphere than the men. Everyone must admit that. Secondly, the women
who were praised or held in high esteem are the women that played the
hand the men dealt them, played it well, and then won. Those women
would not stand up and shout for women's rights. The thought would
not have occurred to them. They were happily ruling in their own
sphere."

BUT the ancients wrote:

"The triumvirs addressed the people on this subject and published an
edict requiring 1400 of the richest women to make a valuation of their
property, and to furnish for the service of the war such portion as
triumvirs should require from each. It was provided further that if
any should conceal their property or make a false valuation they
should be fined, and that rewards should be given to informers,
whether free persons or slaves. The women resolved to beseech the
women-folk of the triumvirs. With the sister of Octavian and the
mother of Antony they did not fail, but they were repulsed from the
doors of Fulvia, the wife of Antony, whose rudeness they could scarce
endure. They then forced their way to the tribunal of the triumvirs in
the forum, the people and the guards dividing to let them pass. There,
through the mouth of Hortensia, whom they had selected to speak, they
spoke as follows: "As befitted women of our rank addressing a petition
to you, we had recourse to the ladies of your households; but having
been treated as did not befit us, at the hands of Fulvia, we have been
driven by her to the forum. You have already deprived us of our
fathers, our sons, our husbands, and our brothers, whom you accused of
having wronged you; if you take away our property also, you reduce us
to a condition unbecoming our birth, our manners, our sex. If we have
done you wrong, as you say our husbands have, proscribe us as you do
them. But if we women have not voted any of you public enemies, have
not torn down your houses, destroyed your army, or led another one
against you; if we have not hindered you in obtaining offices and
honours,- why do we share the penalty when we did not share the
guilt?

As was proper for women of our rank petitioning you for something, we
addressed your women. But Fulvia's rudeness has driven us here. As
relatives of those whom you proscribed, we have already lost our
menfolk. If you also strip us of our property you will diminish our
status. If we have wronged you, proscribe us. But if we have not voted
you public enemies nor destroyed your houses, nor led an enemy against
you, nor prevented you from gaining offices or honors, why should we
share the penalty when we have no part in the honors? Why should we
pay taxes when we have no part in the honors, the commands, the policy
making? 'Because there's a war on', you say. But when have there not
been wars and when have women ever been taxed? Our mothers contributed
when you faced the loss of the Empire in the Second Punic War, but
they funded their contributions from their jewelry and on a voluntary
basis, not from their property or dowries. We will gladly contribute
to war with the Gauls or Parthians, but NOT to civil war. We did not
contribute to either Caesar or Pompey, nor did Marius or Cinna tax us,
or even Sulla!" - Appian, The Civil Wars IV.32, 33

"The matrons whom neither counsel nor shame nor their husbands' orders
could keep at home, blockaded every street in the city and every
entrance to the Forum. As the men came down to the Forum, the matrons
besought them to let them, too, have back the luxuries they had
enjoyed before, giving as their reason that the republic was thriving
and that everyone's private wealth was increasing with every day. This
crowd of women was growing daily, for now they were even gathering
from the towns and villages. Before long they dared go up and solicit
consuls, praetors, and other magistrates...When the speeches for and
against the law had been made, a considerably larger crowd of women
poured forth in public the next day; as a single body they besieged
the doors of the tribunes, who were vetoing their colleagues' motion,
and they did not stop until the tribunes took back their veto. After
that there was no doubt that all the tribes would repeal the law." -
Livy, History of Rome 34.1-8 [ed.]

This is not the scene you paint of women being quietly submissive.
This is EXACTLY the scene of women standing up and shouting in the
public Forum when they felt they were being abused --- in this case by
the Oppian Law. A specific instance at a specific time and place,
yes, but also a very clear indication that women were not always
simply "happy...in their own sphere". Should we Nova Romans expect
anything less from our women? I hope not.

Vale bene,

Cato





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

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

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

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



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

> You'll have to excuse my taking so long to address
> this topic, but I've been visiting my mother (who has
> no computer) so I'm just catching up.
>
> I returned this evening to find myself a senator, and
> in the midst of some controversy. Well, it just
> wouldn't be Nova Roma if one could go away for a week
> and come back to find no major changes and no-one
> crying 'crisis'... life goes on regardless!
>
> As to the question of why certain citizens have been
> adlected and others not, I obviously have no answer,
> as I am not one of the censors: they can (and
> doubtless will) speak for themselves. So I'm only
> going to talk about the things which relate to me
> directly, and that means not talking about why certain
> people *haven't* been adlected.
>
> My age - and those of the other new senators - has
> been mentioned, and I can't deny being quite young.
> For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know: I'm 22
> years old. As I didn't choose when to be born, it
> really isn't my fault, but I'm sorry if it's
> troublesome. I'd like to suggest that anyone who
> wants to make an issue of it considers very carefully
> why a number is that important, and if it's rather the
> case that certain things (like maturity) are generally
> associated with age, consider the possibility that
> there may be exceptions.
>
> More worrying to me is the fact that the new senators,
> myself included, have been collectively described as
> "party functionaries", "lackeys", and similarly
> insulting things. This bothers me because I am, have
> always been, and will always be independent. Heck, if
> I thought the censors adlected me because they thought
> I'd toe the party line of a party I'm not even a
> member of, I'd think they'd lost their minds (which
> would, of course, be unfortunate!). Certainly I count
> them both among my friends, but then I have friends
> from pretty much every side of the political spectrum,
> and none of them gets to tell me how to vote.
>
> I could go on and on about the little things that
> people have said, but I think that covers the main
> points, so I'll leave it for now. If anyone still has
> serious concerns that I will be a 'bad' senator, I'd
> invite you to contact me, and we can talk about it :)
>
> Livia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

> From now on, I shall be officially known as Gnaeus Salvius Astur.

> Heck, if I thought the censors adlected me because they thought
> I'd toe the party line of a party I'm not even a
> member of, I'd think they'd lost their minds (which
> would, of course, be unfortunate!).

>Salve omnes
>
>First of all, before coming to the actual point of the Intercessio, let me
>state my own point of view about the Tribunes' job. It is my absolute
>belief that Tribunes in Nova Roma have to act within the nova roma
>framework when this framework is provided, even if it is not historical,
>and only when missing directions they should act, if possible and
>reasonable, following history and, in dubious situations, following thir
>own judgment of what is right and what is not.
>
>It is also a strong belief of mine that when a citizen, be it patrician or
>plebeian, address a tribunus about a matter that the legal framework has
>placed tribunes to attend, it is a precise duty to look into the matter.
>That is because we may be called tribunes of the Plebs, but the truth is
>that the Constitution places us in a position of general guarantee, both
>for paticians and plebeians, while the laws of Nova Roma basically prevent
>us from the historical role Tribunes had, which was basically to
>straighten acts that were unjust even if legal by (mostly) patrician
>magistrates (and of course legal they were, as they were the ones making
>the laws and having most of the power anyway), but binding us to use our
>power of intercessio only in case of illegal or unconstitutional (which
>are truly the same things, considering the leges take their force from the
>Constitutio) acts.
>
>So, it proceeds from what stated above that I think to be a precise duty
>of the Tribunes to look into a given matter with th ebest of their
>abilities when someone request them to act, whatever their personal
>opinion on the given matter and regardless the fact they would had not
>acted on their own otherwise, and eventually present their conclusions.
>Now, since I announced I was looking into the adlection matter a few hours
>ago (a thing that, actually, I thought obvious, but anyway...) I got to
>read lots of mails, both on the mailing list and in my private mailbox.
>Most of those were basically mails telling me what I should have done,
>some actually added why I should have done it, but almost all of them
>(some were actually replies to requests of mine) were basically attempts
>at influencing a decision that each Tribunus should had been left facing
>on its own, as a judge should decide on a case without any interference. I
>have to say I haven't felt "edificated" by most of those post, quite the
>contrary, but I guess that the noise raised to press the magistrates into
>taking a given decision were probably common back then in real Rome as
>part of the political "game" and one can, at most, be displeased that
>thousands of years and a general higher level of education of the
>population don't seem to have changed much in that regard.
>
>That said, I now owe the ones who requested the Tribunes intervention the
>personal evaluation of this tribunus (leaving the others to follow their
>own way to reach a conclusion, if they'll decide to address the matter.
>One already had and decided to bail out on the line that she will never
>veto an act taken by an elected rapresentative.. oh well..) on the matter
>and the reason why this tribunus does not see a ground for intercessio in
>this case. I hope everyone involved and having an interest in the matter
>(actually, considering we are dealing about the Senate's composition, one
>would hope everyone is interestd) will realize I've looked into the matter
>as fairly and with all the good faith and capacities I have.
>
>First of all, I do consider Censor Marinus' words on Religio's belief
>being or being not a criterion for adlection irrelevant. Leaving aside the
>matter if words said on non official venues being admissible for producing
>any given effect in Nova Roma, it is a matter of fact that Public respect
>of the Religio Romana cannot be a criterion for adlection at the senate
>and therefore should be ignored. I understand the bitterness my statement
>must create in the religio practitioners, but I'm forced to abide to the
>letter of the Constitution and by what can, by logic, be derived by that.
>Now, the Consitutio places public Religio-wise standards of behaviour on
>Senators and magistrates ("All magistrates and Senators, as officers of
>the State, shall be required to publicly show respect for the Religio
>Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great."), but at the
>moment a judgment for adlectio passes over a possible candidate, he is not
>yet a Senator and can't possibly be asked to comply to duties that are
>imposed on Senators, because until adlection, they are like private
>citizens, to whom is simply required not to intentionally defame or
>blaspheme the Gods. It would be illogic to ask the Censores to consider
>any kind of Religio record about publicly honouring the Gods for a
>candidate for the Senate, given that only to the ones who are ALREADY
>Senators the Constitutio requires to publicly show respect for the
>Religio. In short, you can't ask, and therefore can't consider, to someone
>to have held a given behaviour in order to achieve a position when that
>behaviour is requested only to people after having achieved that position.
>You coulnd't say to a candidate "I'm sorry, I've considered your records
>and you can't be adlected because you didn't publicly show respect for the
>Religio" for the simple reason the candidate was not required to follow
>that behaviour. I hope I made the point clear enough, as english is not,
>as you know, my native language and I do realize it's a complicated
>reasoning (actually, it's more complicated to explain than it actually is,
>but...)
>
>Similarly, the age of the candidates is irrelevant. It might sound as
>illogic and probably it is, but while there are age limits for some
>magistracies, there is not, or I couldn't find and no one was able to
>point me at, a minimum age requirement for Senate adlectio within Nova
>Roman legislation. Even if one would like to go on the historical way (my
>second criterion of judgment, lacking express nova roman legislation), one
>would have to conclude that anyone who is able to be elected as Questor
>is, agewise, able to be adlected at the Senate, given that back then being
>elected as such automatically gave you a seat at the Senate. I think every
>single ones of teh new senators are of age for being Quaestores.
>
>Just the same, the fact the new adlected ones, or rather most of them,
>bring forward the banner of a given side of the Nova Roman political
>spectrum is maybe a matter of reflection on the state of the political
>debate within Nova Roma, but legally irrelevant as it is not prescribed,
>required, not even hinted anywhere that the Senate must be "politically
>balanced". Surely it is not in the Costitutio of Nova Roma, nor it is in
>the Lex Vedia Senatoria, not anyone was able to point me to a relevant
>piece of Nova Roman legislation. At the same time, definitely, I couldn't
>look at the historical Senate as an example of political balance either,
>because if it true tht theee were some social customs that, at least until
>the II century BC, avoided a given "party" to permanently prevail on the
>others, it is a fact that in some given period a given group of families
>prevailed on others and it as perfectly normal to be so.
>
>It was raised the point (privately) that only a sitting Propraetor could
>be adlected in the Senate and after having served six months of their term
>and that would make invalid, at least, Pompeia Strabo's Adlection. Now,
>the Lex Vedia Senatoria says "Any individual elected to the office of
>curule aedile or appointed to the office of provincial governor may, at
>the discretion of the censors, be included in the album Senatorum six
>months after assuming office (assuming that the individual was not already
>a member of the Senate)." and leaves the door opens to several
>interpretations:
>
>a) only a sitting provincial governor can be adlected any time after 6
>months
>b) only sitting provincial governors can be adlected exactly after 6
>months, not a day before nor a day after
>c) any provincial governor, sitting or past, can be adlected after having
>"ruled" for at least 6 months
>d) various others depending how wide is the reader's imagination.
>
>Here, I have to take make a judgment call and I have to say that I think
>that the correct reading of the law is that anyone who has served for at
>least 6 months as Curule Aedile or Provincial Governor can be adlected at
>any time. That is, again, *my own* reading, which means any other Tribunus
>thinking that the governor must be sitting to be adlected could, in my
>opinion, issue a lgitimate veto against the adlection of Pompeia Strabo
>basing on the fact she is not a sitting Propaetor right now. I'd have to
>counter-veto him or her, tho, basing my decision on the previosly reported
>interpretation that I feel like embracing.
>
>With that, I think I've addressed every concern that was raised. If I've
>overlooked any, please call my attention over them and I will address
>those as well, as I think any citizen is owed an answer when he ask for
>the tribunes to act on a given matter, wheter they will act or not. We are
>here for the people, in the end, all the people.
>
>valete
>
>Domitius Constantinus Fuscus
>Founder of Gens Constantinia
>Tribunus Plebis
>Aedilis Urbis
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>